Random thought

I find it weird that religious leaders, who are barred from having sex or children, seem to be authorities on reproductive rights and raising children.

Advertisements

22 responses to “Random thought

  1. Only the Catholics. Just about everyone else can have children.

    And when you think about it, it’s kind of the same with gays, isn’t it…?

    • If you can find me many examples of gays telling OTHER families what they should and should not be allowed to do with their children or in their bedrooms, then maybe that comparison would apply, but… I have yet to see that happen.

      • LOL. You have a problem with “should” and “should not” while you cast vote after vote for the party of “must get health insurance,” “must pay for public school” and “must give your money to others”?

        The First Amendment protects “should.” What in the Constitution authorizes “must”?

      • Could you at least try to make some little bit of sense? That wasn’t even coherent.

      • Sure. I find it bizarre that anyone can have a problem with a completely social institution telling people what they “should” do of their own free will, while supporting a political institution that specializes in telling people what they “must” do under threat of imprisonment.

        A church leader earns his position and holds no coercive authority over his flock, while liberals eagerly hand coercive authority to whoever gets the most votes — a number they reinforce by loading buses full of near-illiterates, on election day, with the promise of either getting something for nothing, or of getting something taken from someone else who earned it. Oh yeah, that’s much more reasonable.

      • That still isn’t coherent. You are making farcical claims and then tying them together illogically.

      • Do you even know what “farcical” means, homo?

      • “…liberals eagerly hand coercive authority to whoever gets the most votes — a number they reinforce by loading buses full of near-illiterates, on election day…”

        Have you ever even looked at a picture of a Teabagger rally and some of the signs they carry?

        Yes, liberals, like to see their ideologies implemented – social safety nets, equal opportunity for everyone, etc., So do conservatives – Homeland Security spying on citizens, legislation based on Christian dogma, tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent of the population even though they have had 10 years to prove that they won’t use that money here, etc..

        So, I guess my question is, what’s your point? You don’t like the liberal agenda. We don’t like the conservative agenda. Surely you aren’t suggesting that we all have complete autonomy under Republican rule.

      • “Have you ever even looked at a picture of a Teabagger rally and some of the signs they carry?”

        You mean like “Redistribute my work ethic, not my income”? Sounds pretty radical, huh?

        When you attach politically correct terminology like “social safety net” and “equal opportunity” to cradle-to-grave welfare and reverse discrimination, you don’t change what they are. What you claim to seek and what you actually pursue are different things.

        And I have no problem giving tax breaks to the wealthy — it’s their money. If there’s something you want the government to provide, then you can pay for it with your own money. The rich already pay enough. We don’t have any problems in this country that are caused by “not enough taxes.” But if you’re concerned about where the rich invest their money, then maybe you should look at policies that make it less competitive to keep their money here instead of punishing them for taking the best deal our policies here have left them.

        What makes you think the Obama administration isn’t peforming all the same surveillance? Like he finally closed down Gitmo, huh?

        “Surely you aren’t suggesting that we all have complete autonomy under Republican rule.”

        No, but I’m saying that under a Republican government we would certainly each receive more in line with what we earn for ourselves and persuade ourselves to provide for each other voluntarily.

        Compare that to the intellectual dishonesty of liberals throwing away school vouchers for blacks in order to placate teachers’ unions that don’t teach. What do you call that sort of injustice — a social safety net, or equal opportunity?

      • Frito Baggins

        I remember seeing that sign which Galt references, only, IRC, it said “Redisturbit my wurk ethnic, not my inkum”.

  2. i find it even weirder that so many of them have sex with children.

  3. And what you call “reverse discrimination” I call a level playing field, (I was born in the ’50s and remember all of the wonderous opportunities at that time for women and minorities, starting with equal access to higher education), and the social safety net is to make up for those that can’t quite persuade themselves “to provide for each other voluntarily.” Listening to the rhetoric of the rightwing republicans, it’s hard to believe much milk of human kindness would be finding its way to anyone who actually might need it.

    I have no problem giving tax breaks to the wealthy either. However, I do resent paying a higher percentage of my gross earnings in taxes than Paris Hilton or Warren Buffett. When the top 5% are paying the same percentage of their gross income as I and the rest of the middle class are, then I’ll be a happy camper. Golly, I know – sounds really socialistic when I put it that way, doesn’t it?

    Oh, and you must have found the only correctly-spelled sign ever carried by a ‘bagger. Congrats.

    • Yes, I’ve seen the footage of Democrats blocking the schoolhouse doors. And admitting unqualified blacks disproportionately into med schools does not make more black doctors — it makes more black failures and more black quacks.

      And sorry, it isn’t up to the rich to “persuade themselves” to provide for everyone else. It is up to every individual to conduct himself in whatever way others see fit to subsidize. You libs seem to confuse an inability to work with absolution from pleasing your fellow man in exchange for his support. I’m happy to direct you to the church where I give my money, and if you can make it inside without getting struck by lightning my preacher will be happy to direct you to a path consistent with the values that make that money available to you. If you can’t provide for yourself, then you damn well will live according to my values in exchange for my money. I’m not here to subsidize your crack habit or your gambling cruise.

      And I don’t give a crap what percent Warren Buffett pays. He pays a lot more than you do, and you should be grateful. The less he pays, the better for your freedom. Government has a fixed role per the Constitution. There’s no reason it should be based on any percentage of anyone’s earnings. We all make ten times what our great grandparents made — we should be paying one tenth as much of our incomes as they did. The added ability to tax incomes has not redefined “the general welfare.”

      • Racist much? Homophobic much? Misogynistic much? Of course not, it’s just that every single person who isn’t white, straight, Christian male is unqualified for any position previously held exclusively by white, straight, Christian males. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a case in point. Obama’s another. By God, they’re only where they are because of some quota somewhere, amirite?

        You just told us all we need to know about you. The rest of what you say is inconsequential in this day and age if your mentality is still stuck in the 1940s. Have a great, pious life. I’m sure your god loves your generous spirit and kindness.

      • I realize that holding blacks to the same standards as whites may appear racist to you, but that’s only because I know blacks can live up to it. The real definition of racism is the belief that blacks can’t live up to the same standards as whites — such as that which motivates useful idiot liberals to lower the bar for blacks.

      • Yeah, that whole notion of a “free country” is a real obstacle to liberalism, isn’t it? It must be very frustrating, trying to rationalize how people can be both free and slaves for the welfare state at the same time, huh?

      • Um, what are you babbling about?

      • From Dr. Ikky’s Helpful Dictionary: Diseases Exhibited by Internet Trolling Assclowns (no I am not making this up, but have taken some literary license):

        Trolyphilis

        A fairly common infection, it results in sufferers trolling forums for people with whom to argue, chastise for getting off topic, or engage in pseudointellectual exchanges with the simple end of never admitting error or defeat; additional symptoms include compulsively responding compulsively to any and every reply or challenge, and deliberately seeking out contrarian and inflammatory posts, in order to start a neverending drama. Examples:
        Symptoms include: Trolling, arguing with QOTD posts, branching out from established circles in search of threads in which to be the minority irritant.

        Seem like anyone you’ve run into in the last few days?

      • If I was paranoid I’d say me, but the voices in my head tell me you mean someone else. 😉 I decided after that last post that I was going to quit feeding it and hope it went away.

      • Frito Baggins

        Yo tambien.

      • Um, what are you babbling about?

      • Those Arkansas and Mississippi Democrats go by other names now: Republicans, Conservative Citizens Councils, Teabaggers.

        What the hell kind of church are you attending? Sounds to goddam mean to have spent any time studying Matthew 5-7.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s