Economics

Rise of the Bitter Clingers

Understanding the Tea Party's appeal

|

Many of my more enlightened friends like to ask me: How could someone as intellectually gifted, delightfully urbane, profoundly moral, and breathlessly handsome as you not want to spit at these stupid Tea Party candidates, with their stupid positions and their stupid stupidity? (That's slightly embellished; obviously, I'm not that handsome.)

Do I wish there were more articulate and intellectual free market candidates? Sure I do. But alas, Americans are in no mood for know-it-alls who think sailing is a sport.

Do I wish that science-challenged believers would resist the urge to raise their hands when asked whether they believe the world is 5,000 years old? God, yes. But an election offers limited choices. Take Delaware, where voters can pick a candidate who had a youthful flirtation with witchcraft or one who dabbled in collectivist economic theory.

Only one of those faiths has gained traction in Washington the past few years. And as far as I can tell, there is no pagan lobby.

Do I wish that Colorado senatorial candidate Ken Buck hadn't declared that being gay is a choice (as if there were something wrong with choosing to be gay)? Yes. Do I wish he hadn't followed up by comparing a gay genetic predisposition to alcoholism? I do. If you were brainy enough to watch Meet the Press instead of wasting time in church last Sunday, no doubt you cringed at that primitive lunacy.

After all, what's more consequential than a faux pas about nature and/or nurture? Who cares that Democrat Michael Bennet was busy moralizing about the cosmic benefits of dubious economic theory and science fiction environmentalism—ideas that have already cost us trillions with nothing to show for it?

Just as long as we stay focused on what's important, right? We're so easily distracted.

Those who believe being gay is a choice are Neanderthals. The enlightened trust science. That's why the president appointed a science czar, people. A science czar who co-authored a textbook arguing for a mass sterilization of Americans to prevent an imagined population bomb. You know, "science."

God has no place in this faith. That's not to say that Yahweh has anything on our president, who once claimed future generations will see his election—Goliath government—as the point in history when we finally started "healing the sick" and "the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Now, that's the kind of faith-inflected lingo we slack-jawed yokels can comprehend. Otherwise, the left's plans are just too darn complex for us to appreciate.

"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now," Obama recently explained, "and facts and science and argument (do) not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared." (Wait. If we're hard-wired to be confused and we're confused, isn't science winning the day? It's all so perplexing.)

Science can explain all, including how bitter, frightened, clingy voters aren't grateful enough.

Or—and I realize this is probably crazy talk—voters aren't scared; they have just been paying attention and are turning to candidates who, though far less than perfect and not always sophisticated, better reflect their sensibilities.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his website at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Meet the New U.N. Security Council

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. O’Donnell in her Beltane pose?

    1. Using and reusing that photo is MSNBC-worthy.

    2. “Oh look! Her mouth looks ready for oral sex! Politics is so cool!”

      – David “The Tool” Harsanyi

      1. Oral sex? You don’t see awesome smiley in that picture?

        1. nope. definitely oral sex.

          1. Caption contest:

            “I’m against masturbation, because beejs are so much better.”

            1. I’ll bite. How about:

              “If more cocks went in here, less shit would come out.”

              1. Gonna party like it’s 1773, I can’t believe Sarah Palin said that, she doesn’t know anything. 1773 my god this woman is stupid!

                1. You mean the 1773 when the original Boston Tea Party happened? And she was saying this at a Tea Party rally? The group that took their name from said event? You know the now symbolic, first famous expression of dissent against a tyrannical government? No.. of course you don’t.

                  Pat, face it, you’re the retard demonstrating irrational hate. I bet you also thought that big D around your neck stood for ‘democrat’ when it really just means ‘dummy’.

    3. You ever notice that stupid looking pictures of Republicans seem to multiply while the same for Democrats are hidden at all expense?

      1. You ever notice how conservatives are aggrieved about every little thing they can possibly find to be aggrieved about?

        Goddamn Limbaugh has you sad fucks in a tizzy.

        1. Go back to your daily Obama picture thread at Kos. I think theres some of him smiling at the stupidity of his supporters that you missed.

          1. Hey I read The Drudge Report so don’t tell me about how Dems get soft-focus treatment all the time.

            1. Took only 5 minutes for a D, Tony in this case to wet his panties and fire back his “nuh-un, you are” retort. I think Woodrow hit a tiny, little nerve with someone experiencing classic lowercase d syndrome.

              Clearly having read Drudge Report once has armed him for a lifetime of political insight.

              I ask Woodrow, ever notice that Democrats seem to immediately squeak with even the slightest perceived slight? Is it classic sexual disfunction or junior high trauma over sexual disfunction? So ‘hard’ to tell from here. haha

        2. Shit, Tony, your side does at least as much handwringing, fretting, wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments as the “aggrieved conservatives” you were just bleating about.

          I know, because I force myself to watch a few minutes of CNN and MSNBC (but NOT during T.F.* Olbermann; I absolutely refuse to watch that) at least once a week. Just now, I listened to Parker/Spitzer blab about what should be cut, and why we have to raise taxes on teh evul rich.

          It’s all bullshit, of course.

          But the best part is… I don’t listen to Limbaugh. I don’t have to. Shit’s fucked up enough without his input.

  2. She can ride her broom naked around the Senate for all I care, as long as she botes to cut spending.

    Althought the broom thing would be kinda hot…

    1. I don’t care about her riding a broomstick around the Senate. I care about her not understanding that there exists an establishment clause.

      1. Don’t worry, she understands it quite correctly.

        http://minx.cc/?post=307106

        Are you as worried about Coons believing the phrase “Separation of Church and State” is in the constitution which was her actual point until Tony’s darling media lied about what she had actually said.

  3. Caption:

    Oprah: “And YOU get a car!”

  4. But alas, Americans are in no mood for know-it-alls who think sailing is a sport.

    I’m pretty sure Ted Turner is not a libertarian.

    1. I’m pretty sure that was a William F. Buckley reference. At least, that was the way I took it. And I was just about to come here and compliment Harsanyi for making it…

      1. It smacks of John Kerry to me. I was about to compliment him as well.

        Could we get some clarification from the editor here?

        1. Let’s make it a contest. Does “Winner gets a free year of the print version” sound fair?

    2. He used to give out copies of Atlas Shrugged to colleagues.

  5. Why are all the pictures of her so bad? She’s not a bad looking woman.

    1. she could use a little primal blueprint but other than that…..

    2. You are asking the wrong question.

      Why are all the pictures of her that we have seen in the press so bad?

      And then you’ll have your answer.

      1. You got it.

  6. I’m pretty sure they are a bit scared as well – the nativist, conspiracy and populist tendencies of the TP folks I think demonstrate a wee bit of the old blind fear…

  7. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Libertarian thought is unpopular. I’m talking actual libertarianism, not I-hate-taxes-ism or the like. The proof is the .3% that you typical Libertarian candidate gets in most elections, or Ron Paul’s horrible showing in the 2008 presidential primaries.

    Tea Partiers are not libertarians-they are simply Republicans with a different name, with the full scale of Republican thought. I can not think of a single issue where a generic Tea Partier would have a different position than a typical Republican, although they might want to cut taxes more, for instance. But there are plenty of issues where they would differ from a typical Libertarian. (The war in Iraq, the role of religion in government, drug legalization, etc.) There’s also a truther/racism aspect buried deep there. The author of this article is clearly more a Republican than a libertarian, or he wouldn’t have made fun of science so much.

    The fact that there is something called “The Tea Party” is mostly irrevalent to electoral outcomes. It’s good branding, nothing more.

    As for the electoral outcome, the president’s party always loses seats in the first midterm after a party switch in the presidency. Add in the lousy economy, and you get a “throw the bums out” type election, resulting in significant Dem losses. But crediting the Tea Party for this, or an extreme change in the thinking of the electorate, is false.

    1. Apparently you were out of the country during the primaries.

    2. the president’s party always loses seats in the first midterm, bla, blah, blah

      I’m guessing about 70 seats, lulz

      1. If they actually lose the Senate, too, the nonsense about Obama not being the nominee in 2012 may actually stop being nonsense. That would be a turnaround of biblical proportions–cats and dogs living together.

        1. There is zero chance of a serious Obama primary entry no matter how bad this election is for him. The black vote staying home would make New York City competitive for Republicans.

          1. It’s very unlikely, I agree, but if he begins to look like poison to his own party, anything could happen.

          2. Woodrow, I believe you grossly underestimate the Clinton machine.

            1. It’s frightening that this possibility actually makes me feel better.

            2. The Clinton machine was looking pretty creaky 2 years ago. She got the old white anti-Republican ladies who didn’t want a black beating a woman to the White House and a few Friends of Bill and thats about it.

              1. Thart might be good enough to get her the nomination this year if the system isn’t set up the same as last year. How would super tuesday have looked if they had counter her delegates from FL and MI? Also, Obama packed some early caucuses and conventions to boost his early counts to where he was close to Hillary when the big day came. I doubt the Clinton’s will let that happen again.

                1. this year=this cycle
                  last year=last cycle

      2. Nate Silver is currently predicting 48 seats lost in the House, which is not even remotely typical. He is also saying it could be as high as 70 (or as low as 30, but I dont think he has much confidence in that as much as hope).

        1. We’ll see if Silver is as accurate this time as he was in 2008.

        2. There are two factors combined here: The recession and the first-midterm-after-a-presidential-party-switch. If the economy was good, the number of seats lost by the Democrats would be much less.

          1. Elephant party picked up seats in 2002.

            1. Post 9/11 and before Iraq.

          2. true,

            but the democrats have also spent the last two years telling the electorate to fuck off. That has an effect too.

            Saying the dems soon to be spanking is only a function of the bad economy is like saying the only reason why the dems won in 2008 was because of the economy and not the dislike of Bush’s policies.

            1. but the democrats have also spent the last two years telling the electorate to fuck off. That has an effect too.

              Saying the dems soon to be spanking is only a function of the bad economy is like saying the only reason why the dems won in 2008 was because of the economy and not the dislike of Bush’s policies.

              Normally, midterm pickups are the result of the party base becoming complacent.

              But there is definitely more to this election than mere complacency from the party base.

    3. Ron Paul’s horrible showing in the 2008 presidential primaries.

      You mean completely destroying pundits expectations?

      1. The guy got as high as 25% in some of the later primaries with a hardcore extreme version of libertarianism: Recall ALL troops. End ALL taxes. Legalize ALL drugs.

        That’s pretty amazing. If someone comes along with half his platform and can get double the vote that’s major progress.

        1. Yes, I think one reason Libertarians do so badly in elections is that the candidates tend to be ideological purists, which scares most people (and rightly so, IMHO). If Libertarian candidates advocated moving carefully in a libertarian direction, throwing some carefully-chosen bones to the opposition as compromise, they’d do much better.

        2. The guy got as high as 25% in some of the later primaries with a hardcore extreme version of libertarianism: Recall ALL troops. End ALL taxes. Legalize ALL drugs.

          It should have been 75%.

        3. I don’t think Ron Paul wanted to end all taxes. He’s not an anarchist, he’s a libertarian. A government needs revenue to function, and taxation is the worldwide accepted means to collect revenue. Ron Paul wants to end the INCOME tax.

    4. The “typical” republican has raised spending dramatically. There is your positional difference right there.

      Also, the “tea party” is made up of lots of disparate groups, so there isnt a generic tea partier. The tea party started out of the Ron Paul movement (although its expanded well beyond that) so your thoughts are completely incoherent on this.

    5. The author of this article is clearly more a Republican than a libertarian, or he wouldn’t have made fun of science so much.

      Don’t make fun of SCIENCE so much!

      1. Republicans are antiscience? Really? It’s not like the party has Creationism in its platform or anything. There may be some science they have moral issues with, like stem cell research, but that’s hardly the same as being pro-caveman.

        Of course, both parties suck on science because they politicize it and because the best thing for science in general would be less government involvement.

        1. Yes, they are anti-science. Anyone who hates the Center for Science in the Public Interest is clearly anti-science.

          1. Bwahahahahahaha!

            I needed that.

          2. Anyone who hates General Motors is clearly anti-automobile.

            1. Let’s keep playing.
              Anyone who hates Obama’s policies is clearly a racist.

              1. Anyone who hates the Department of Education is an anti-intellectual knuckledragging troglodyte.

                1. Anybody who hates the war on terror hates the troops.

                  1. Anybody who hates the War on Drugs hates the children.

                    1. Anybody who hates full body scans at airports is automatically a member of Al-Qaeda.

                    2. Anybody who hates fair lending laws is a racist.

                    3. +1

            2. Anyone who hates the Dept of Energy wants to live in the Dark Ages.

              1. Anyone who espouses hateful rhetoric..er, is…well, a HATER!!!

                1. Governor Quinn of Illinois espouses in a hateful way that anyone who doesn’t like big government and taxes is a hater.

                  Maureen Dowd in a mean way espouses that conservative women are all meanies.

                  Truly bizarre!

                  1. If you hate Maureen Dowd then you are a sexist.

        2. Here is a quote from the Texas Republican Party platform:

          Scientific Theories ? The Party supports the objective teaching and equal treatment of scientific strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories, including Intelligent Design ? as Texas law now requires but has yet to enforce. The Party believes theories of life origins and environmental theories should be taught only as theories not fact; that social studies and other curriculum should not be based on any one theory.

          http://www.yuricareport.com/GO…..rm2004.pdf

          Of course, “Intelligent Design” is merely Creationism with a new name, and is not a scientific theory at all. This passage also confuses the concepts of scientific theories and the common useage of the word “theory”.

          1. I meant the national platform, of course, but yes, there are some crazies in the GOP. Still, as a rule, I don’t think they are any more pro or anti-science than the Democrats.

            This is one area where libertarians are pretty much agreed–we’re crazy pro-science and technology.

            1. Some crazies? Its the fucking main party platform in one of the largest states.

              Republicans are anti-science.

              1. That’s a ridiculous statement, considering how many tens of millions of people are Republicans. Some are engineers, physicists, biologists, etc.

                As much as we hear about Young Earth nuts, how many people are really willing to throw out evolution, geology, astronomy, physics, and everything else that has to be completely wrong for that to be true?

                1. Belief in God and science aren’t mutually exclusive, you know. Ask these guys.

                  1. All pre-Enlightenment thinkers.

                    Nowadays I don’t think there’s any excuse for such a poor understanding of what the word “theory” means, and how science develops theories to explain observations. Let’s admit that this is a problem area in the thinking of many American conservatives and move on.

                    1. “All pre-Enlightenment thinkers.”

                      Scroll down the page, noob.

          2. If Liberals were pro-science, they’d denounce the AGW hoax.

            1. Yeah, but that’s different. That science was settled before it was debunked.

    6. Where were you in late 2008/early 2009 when MSNBC was declaring a Thousand Year Obamareich?

    7. Libertarian thought is unpopular. I’m talking actual libertarianism, not I-hate-taxes-ism or the like. The proof is the .3% that you typical Libertarian candidate gets in most elections, or Ron Paul’s horrible showing in the 2008 presidential primaries.

      I wouldn’t take voting that is driven almost entirely by tribal identification as any indication of underlying intellectual or policy preferences by voters.

    8. As for the electoral outcome, the president’s party always loses seats in the first midterm after a party switch in the presidency

      Funny, I seem to recall that in 2002, after a very contentious election and near universal liberal hatred, Bush made gains in the Senate and the House. So I guess ‘always’ isn’t the word you mean to use?

    9. So, the left has people who freak out over things like GMOs, high fructose corn syrup, nuclear power, antibiotics given to farm animals, hormones given to milk cows, pesticides, inorganic fertilizer, cell phone radiation, and so on. They reject the scientific consensus on all those things.

      And those people have had a lot more sucess getting their fears enacted in regulatory restrictions than the Christians have in forcing creaitonism into the schools.

      1. Good point, Hazel. (I still like you despite your hatred of Apple.)

        1. Contempt for Apple is an asset, not a liability.

      2. True this!

        Many libertarians, Gillespie for example, are more afraid of imaginary boogeymen under their bed than actual burglars stealing their possessions at gun point so they can’t pull the lever for someone like Angle etc…

  8. Note to editors. Could you stop using that photograph. It reminds me of pea soup and peas are disgustingly pungent little fuckers.

    1. Pea soup’s good bro! Get some hambone in there, cook up some sausage and throw that in too. Disgusting look but delicious taste

  9. I kind of like that photo; it makes her look, you know, human in a way Nancy Pelosi never could.

    1. Well, that would require, at least, a 50% complement of human DNA.

    2. The only time Pelosi opens her mouth that wide is when Satan is taking the mask off, Mission: Impossible-style.

      1. Seriously. If Pelosi had that much facial mobility she might actually look human.

        1. Her and Jerry Jones could have quite the stare-off.

          1. I always imagine her eyes would feel leathery. Of course, she probably has some sycophant that runs by every few seconds to irrigate them.

            1. The horrifying thought is that when you are looking at Pelosi, you are seeing her sex face.

                1. not digging that O face.

                2. Thanks Sugar, I am now going to go adjust my water heater so I can get scalding hot water, dig through my closet to find my wire brush, and see if I have any lye.

                  1. Hot water and lye just won’t do it, dude. Full frontal lobotomy is the only way to erase those memories, believe me, I have tried. I find that the horror is slightly diminished when I reach a blood alcohol level of around .4.

  10. I hate to break it to you guys, naked broom rider fantasies and all, but Christine isn’t going to be elected. Karl Rove was right (of course). It angers my wife when I say this as well (and point out that Christine is a bit of a moron), but it’s the cold truth.

    Get used to saying it: “Senator Coons.”

    (I just threw up in my mouth a little.)

    1. RACIST!

    2. With Roland Burris leaving, this will be the racist left’s only chance to keep saying it.

    3. Naked broom riding? Like in “The Master and Margarita”?

    4. That’s not really such a terrible outcome. It just tells the GOP the following two things: 1) Vote for TARP and we’ll run you out of office. 2) Oppose masturbation and the separation of church and state and we won’t vote for you either.

  11. Nice article. I used to get a chub from the tea party in the early days, then it got co-opted by a bunch of opportunists and twisted into the “far right” to include all the religious BS. Harsanyi hit it on the head, if a libertarian is waiting around for the perfect candidate in this system, the day will never come. Prioritize what you want and pick who scores higher.

    1. Except for those who dont vote (and maybe even them) I think that is how most of us prioritize. And then get yelled at for “wasting” our votes on guys getting 0.3%.

  12. “”Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now,” President Barack Obama recently explained, “is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared.””

    Project much Mr. President?

    1. We turn to guns and religion when we’re scared!

    2. not always thinking clearly when we’re scared is a great survival mechanism. imagine trying to take the time to think clearly everytime the federal government enacts a 2000 page opus to health insurance.

    3. I’m tired of the left diminishing my dislike of there policies as fear or as ignorance I’m neither ignorant or scared I simply don’t like what they are doing and I believe many other people feel the same way.

    4. He’s speaking from experience, Obama is smart enough to know how and why he won.

  13. From NBC/WSJ poll via Alan Abramowitz:

    “Eighty percent of Tea Party supporters were Republican identifiers or independents who leaned toward the Republican Party and 54 percent were strong Republican identifiers. And Tea Party supporters definitely were not political newcomers?93 percent reported voting in the 2008 presidential election and 96 percent of these Tea Party voters cast their ballots for John McCain.”

    As Geotpf said above, it’s nothing but a rebranding of the Republican party base.

    1. I wonder how the poll was phrased. Doubtless they only had the standard two options to identify with.

      When the polls offer a broader range for people to self-identify, I will take them more seriously.

      1. “I used two questions from the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll to measure support for the Tea Party movement: one asking respondents to rate the Tea Party movement on a five-point scale with responses ranging from very favorable to very unfavorable and the other asking them to express their feelings about voting for a Tea Party candidate on a five-point scale with responses ranging from enthusiastic to very uncomfortable. Responses to the two questions were strongly related so I combined them to form a Tea Party support scale with scores ranging from 1 (least supportive) to 9 (most supportive). Overall, 18 percent of the survey respondents were classified as supporters of the Tea Party movement based on scores of 8-9 on the scale.”

        1. What were the “identifier questions, Tony? Because if he “identified” people as Republican or leaning Republican from those two questions, he may as well have been playing pin the tail on the donkey.

    2. Yes I think we were clearly aware that most of the Tea Party voted for McCain, albeit most of them holding their nose. It would be more helpful to break down which Republican they voted for in the primaries. I doubt McCain gets a plurality.

  14. Then bitter cling THIS!

    1. I see you still aren’t over the 2000 election, Boremeister!

      1. high my name is al gore and I used to be the next president of the united states
        *hhahahahahahahha*
        that wasn’t a joke
        (reenactment of al gore’s commencement speech 2008)

  15. [b]Those who believe being gay is a choice are Neanderthals[/b]

    This is were I think the author of this article is full of BS and his sophisticated idiocy is the one that should be treated.

    Having stuff shoved up one’s ass is a choice a personal choice, so all this BS talk about ”Gay people rights” only iritates me … do we need ”blonde loving peoples rights” also ?

    Being gay is a sexual preference, but I hope mister perfect can propose us a cause of homosexuality not caused by people like the pleasure of having stuff shoved up their ass ? Genetic predisposition ?

    Why can’t those self righteous loving bunnies hugging gay lovers can’t understand that people might not like what they do … Leave the our freedom of speech alone.

    1. Well Hello Shit Facktory!

      If you weren’t so obsesively focused on anal penetration, you might do a little research and learn that among gay men, anal sex is practiced by a minority. And among gay women, rarely.

      1. i heard barney frank likes ………

      2. The obsession that putatively straight men have with homosexual anal penetration is quite telling. An effervescent mixture of projection, envy, and wistfulness that never fails to entertain.

        1. It’s because too many straight men are like me. We are fixated on the physical act of lovemaking in homosexual relationships because we are fixated on the physical act of lovemaking in our own heterosexual relationships. Being as shallow as I am when it comes to emotional intimacy (except toward my children and my parents), it is understandable that I equate a relationship with it’s consummating physical act.

          I personally find the thought of anal penetration rather distasteful and would certainly not want to engage in it from a receiving end. Where I have an issue with dipshits like Sams is in their need to articulate their disgust because I personally am not disgusted by gay people in the least. Rather I try to keep in mind that love to me almost always equals a gratifying sexual relationship. Fortunately, I am smart enough to realize there are those out there who have more fulfilling relationships, whether gay or straight and am able to differentiate a physical act from an emotional bond.

          1. Dude, I’m going to go ahead and stop you right there… I’m married.

        2. And even the excuse that women won’t give up the ass seems to be fading fast. Now even the feminists are down with “butt town”, as they so charmingly put it. So I can only assume that it is a male-ass-specific obsession.

          1. I really, really wish that link hadn’t worked.

            1. I…couldn’t…stop…reading… the horror!!!

            2. “We’ll play a little game called ‘Just the Tip’ . . . “

        3. make whatever argument you have to, only PLEASE drop the disease metaphor.

          You aren’t qualified to diagnose people you don’t know, so STOP pretending that every time someone cops a position you don’t like, it’s because they’re anxious, repressed, retentive, phobic, et cetera.

          Grow up.

          Some people have different boundaries when it comes to what is acceptable practice. You don’t have to demonize them. (If you do have the need to demonize people whose needs offend you, could you at least find some issue other than “tolerance” to do it under?)

      3. +69. I see what you did there.

      4. “anal sex is practiced by a minority. And among gay women, rarely”.

        So my wife is gay since she does not (well, not with me)? Wait a minute, do you mean rarely in how I liked my steak cooked. If so, then I have another inane post.

    2. “Leave the our freedom of speech alone.” No one is trying to arrest you for being an ignorant bigot, we are exercising our freedom of speech in pointing out that you and people like you are wrong. Grow a thicker skin.

    3. do we need “blonde loving peoples rights” also ?

      If people were kicked out of the military for loving blonds or if people were banned from marrying blonds, then we probably would.

      1. This ^^^ is my nominee for response of the year.

        1. Yeah, but what about the fucking Gingers?

          1. Fuck those soulless assholes.

      2. I wish I had argued this before Sams, because it’s hard following someone as eloquent as him.

        But I too do agree that homosexuality is a choice. The alternative to me seems far less appealing than calling homosexuality a choice.

        What? Homosexuality is a genetic defect? A chemical imbalance? In other words, something that makes you “not normal?” Why would people want to say that about themselves?

        Homosexuality is a choice, just like heterosexuality is a choice. I for one, only consider someone to be gay or straight based on whom they do, not whom they go out with, how they talk, or how they dress. (Although I will make an exception for people wearing green and yellow from Green Bay, Wisconson. Totally gay)

        You know what it’s called when you don’t have sex with anyone? Celibacy. And that’s a choice too.

        1. For the record, because I now see I didn’t mention this above; choice or not, what anyone does with anyone else (barring physical harm) is their own business and perfectly within their rights. You wanna be gay? I could give two shits. Just own up to the fact that you are choosing your partner.

        2. “Homosexuality is a genetic defect?”

          Unless it prevents you from being capable of reproduction, it would not be a defect.

          Just ask the numerous species of primates who get it on with either sex and still manage copulation that leads to fertilization.

        3. You seem to be confusing a lifestyle choice with a sexual preference; which isn’t a choice. I’m trying to recall the day I “chose” to get a boner from Phoebe Cates in Fast Times at Ridgemont High… Nope, there was no choice.

          (I was gonna provide a link to the scene in question but I wasn’t sure how you’d “choose” to react.)

        4. Nobody chooses their sexual desires. Not gays – not sadists – not pedophiles – not people who practice incest.

          The problem I have with the argument is the follow-on: that since being gay is not a choice, therefore they get to skip political debate, and automatically get whatever rights they want just because they say they need something to feel equal, and if you don’t agree you’re ___________.

          I could be cool with gays having a legal union. Why does it have to be the same as marriage? Marriage is procreative. You can say it’s not always procreative, but it’s a lie to say it’s NOT procreative. I want to hear one good reason why a gay guy has the right to share his baby-making benefits with someone other than the one he makes the baby with. I don’t get why asking that makes me a bigot.

          So there’s some things that are choices (like whether you desire someone) and some things that aren’t (like, if you want an infertile relationship, maybe you are CHOOSING to not have the same thing as a marriage relationship, maybe you should just get over wanting to be what you’re not, instead of claiming a “right” to be what you’re not…

    4. Men’s butts make me get a boner. Help!

      1. +1 As a chronic sufferer of TL;DR syndrome, thanks for the Readers Digest version.

    5. I believe being gay is a choice to some degree, but it should be your choice to make.

      Call me a Neanderthal…

      1. Beliefs aren’t necessary where there are facts.

        1. Hello pot, what colour black would you like to wear today.

    6. Those who believe being gay is a choice are Neanderthals

      There was a time, you know, not long ago, when believing that being gay is a choice was the received wisdom of the bien-pensants.

    7. @Sams

      I find your gay porn to be very exciting and would like to subscribe to your gay newsletter.

    8. Sams, you are an idiot.

      Please refrain from visiting reason if you actively reject the use of reason in your arguments.

  16. By the way, O’Donnell was 100% right – “separation of church and state” is nowhere in the Constitution, not even implied. It only forbids Congress from establishing a state religion or from limiting the free exercise of religion. It certainly does NOT forbid States from establishing a religion nor does it limit the exercise of religion in public places, that’s more of a modern (i.e. anti-religion) interpretation.

    Disclosure: I am not a believer, so don’t even bother.

    1. I thought her bewilderment was to the presence of the Establishment clause. She never, as far as I saw, made the argument that the Establishment clause =/= Separation of Church and State, rather she seemed ignorant of the Establishment Clause existing at all, granted I only heard a ten second sound byte.

      1. O’Donnell knew the five rights in the first amendment, Coons didn’t have a clue and demanded that only the moderator ask questions.

        1. O’Donnell knew had the five rights in the first amendment written down in her notes, Coons didn’t have a clue and demanded that only the moderator ask questions.

          FTFY

          1. No you didn’t. You are a lefty, you can’t fix anything. Stop embarrassing yourself, and admit the obvious. Leftist have no manual dexterity with typeface, or face sitting. Useless gits. You don’t demand government services because you have compassion for the poor, but because you yourself are helpless and fear the world around you given you have no natural ability to utilize it. Your pride wont allow you to ask for help politely. You know you would be at the mercy of freedom loving talented folk, and the thought of that makes you seethe with envious anger. So instead, you form a political lobby very costly to everyone else in a pathetic attempt to bring us down to your level. Unfortunately, you are fighting evolution and not only that you are going about it the wrong way. Your way only quickens the day that the genetically predisposed leftist part of the species dies out. Perhaps it is for the best that leftist are as obnoxious as they are helpless and useless. We would be more willing to help you survive a few generations longer than you other wise could on your own if you weren’t such bastards.

    2. The 14th is what forbids states from establishing religions through incorporation.

      And how is “separation of church and state” not implied by the establishment clause? It’s the standard implication every schoolchild learns, and to harp on about it is just to regurgitate theocrat talking points.

      1. That may be the case where you went to school, Tony. And apparently it’s the case at the law school that is miseducating those poor lemmings. No real constitutional law professor would say establishment means separation.

      2. Re: Tony,

        The 14th is what forbids states from establishing religions through incorporation.

        *Bullshit!* Sorry, I coughed.

        No, it does not. What the “incorporation” clause states is that the states cannot strip people from their rights without due process. That does not mean people cannot suddenly celebrate Christmas in their schools.

        And how is “separation of church and state” not implied by the establishment clause?

        Because “implied” does not mean “I wish it to be there,” asshole. Saying “Congress shall make NO law…” means THAT, not that people are suddenly forbiden from celebrating Christmas in their schools.

        It’s the standard implication every schoolchild learns[…]

        No shit – however, that’s an indictment on the pervasive nature of compulsory education, not an argument.

        1. OM, does that mean that states can strip 2nd Amendment rights from their citizens because the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government and passing a law is “due process”? Does it mean that states and local governments can engage in censorship because the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law..”? Let’s be consistent here. I believe the 14th means that states can’t violate all of the Bill of Rights, whether it’s the 1st, 2nd or whatever.

          1. Supremacy clause covers that. Since the Constitution directly addresses gun rights, the state cannot codify a gun ban.

          2. What in the text of the 14th amendment causes you to believe that?

          3. Re: Mo,

            OM, does that mean that states can strip 2nd Amendment rights from their citizens because the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government and passing a law is “due process”?

            The 2nd Amendment says “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE [that means everybody] to bear arms shall not be abridged.”

            THAT text applies to all states. This means the States cannot abridge the right of citizens to bear arms. The States ratified the Constitution with full acceptance of this limit to THEIR power, as well as others (like establishing treaties with foreign states and coining money that is not gold or silver, for instance.)

            Does it mean that states and local governments can engage in censorship because the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law..”?

            Yes, it means that, and to be consistent, the 1st Amendment clearly establishes that particular limit to Congress, not to the States. The States could perfectly ban periodicals and books if their legislatures so wished. This changed with the 14th Amendment but only as far as establishing immunity and privileges to individuals; it does NOT implicitly or explicitly forbid states from establishing a state religion.

            I believe the 14th means that states can’t violate all of the Bill of Rights, whether it’s the 1st, 2nd or whatever.

            No, that’s not what the 14th Amendment says. It clearly establishes that people’s rights shall not be abridged, but does not offer a prohibition upon states to establish a religion:

            “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            There’s no mention anywhere of forbidding the State from establishing a religion.

            1. The state not being able to establish a religion is “immunity of a citizen.” A freedom of religion implies a freedom from religion. But only in the matters of the state. As long as I am free to walk away from any expression of religion I wish, then it should be allowed.

              1. Re: Sugarfree,

                The state not being able to establish a religion is “immunity of a citizen.”

                Use your head for once. See below.

                A freedom of religion implies a freedom from religion. But only in the matters of the state.

                First, there’s no such thing as freedom from religion, as religion is entirely a personal act. What you mean is being free from persecution or prosecution if you do not follow a certain religion, but that is not necessarily the case when a State establishes a religion.

                As long as I am free to walk away from any expression of religion I wish, then it should be allowed.

                Well, who would stop you?

                1. What you mean is being free from persecution or prosecution if you do not follow a certain religion, but that is not necessarily the case when a State establishes a religion.

                  Why else would a group seek to have a state establish a religion? Banning establishment to prevent persecution is exactly what the framers had in mind. A religion-neutral government is what respects rights.

                  Well, who would stop you?

                  Go back time and talk to 8-year-old SugarFree as he had to stand through morning prayers over the intercom in 1978 if walking out of homeroom was a consequence free act.

              2. Allowing kids to pray at school or mention God in a speech before a football game is not “establishment of religion” by the state but merely allowing the free exercise of. Recognition of religion is not banned in the Constitution.

                1. Allowing kids to do it is fine. However, when the administration and faculty, representatives of the state, do it, it is establishment of religion. If the only kids that are allowed to lead prayers over the intercom are the Christian kids, then it is establishment of religion.

                  1. Even if the faculty did, it would be recognition of a religion at best.

    3. The 14th Amendment extends the BoRs to the states. Which is why the states can’t limit your freedom of speech as well. Funny how people who claim that they believe in original intent ignore that Madison and Jefferson said the 1st Amendment means there is a “wall of separation of church and state”.

      1. Re: Mo,

        Funny how people who claim that they believe in original intent ignore that Madison and Jefferson said the 1st Amendment means there is a “wall of separation of church and state”.

        The original intent was to assure the ratifying states that Congress would not impose a state religion upon all. Also, there is NO statement in the Constitution that says “separation of church and state.”

        What Jefferson meant was that the 1st Amendment guarranteed the people that the State would not impose a state church a la the Church of England. But that cannot be construed to mean that he believed people would not be able to freely exercise their religion everywhere or anywhere, nor does it confer a right not to be offended by someone else’s religious activities.

        1. You’re not really saying anything OM. Yes of course there are debates at the margins about what constitutes establishment. But to be pedantic about the phrase “separation of church and state” as if it’s not a founding principle of this country is to talk like a theocrat who doesn’t really want there to BE a separation.

          1. Now that you’ve cleared that up, Tony, perhaps you could explain where the Constitution says the federal government can force people to engage in business with private entities.

            1. Why should I do that? When has the federal government done this?

                1. Technically no. You’re not gonna be thrown in jail for being uninsured. You’ll just have a different tax structure than those who are insured.

                  Of course I’m for single-payer so we could git rid of the ambiguity altogether.

                  1. No fractional slavery for Tony, just outright redistributional theft.

                  2. So, we don’t go to jail, we just give up equal protection under the law?

                  3. Tony opts for the “Alice in Wonderland” defense.

                    1. Damn, Tony’s a good dancer. That was some fancy fuckin’ footwork, yo.

                  4. What happens if you don’t pay that extra tax? You go to jail.

          2. Re: Tony,

            But to be pedantic about the phrase “separation of church and state” as if it’s not a founding principle of this country is to talk like a theocrat who doesn’t really want there to BE a separation.

            Who’s being pedantic? Nowhere is the principle of “separation of church and state” present as a basis for founding the United States, that’s nuts! Where did you get this idea from?

            This “separation of chuch and state” idea came much later after the ratification of the Constitution, and none of the States would have accepted ratification if suddenly THEIR right to establish a religion was abridged (and just so you know, Conneticut and Massachusetts had State religions until much later after the ratification of the Constitution.)

            The 1st Amendment was written expressively to refrain Congress from thwarting the States from having their State-sanctioned religions, whichever these would be. There was NO underlying principle of separation between the church and the state as the States STILL ENJOYED their freedom to establish a religion. It would have made NO SENSE to reference this principle as the Constitution was being ratified.

            1. Since the words “separation of church and state” were uttered by Jefferson himself, I’m pretty sure it is an underlying principle. Then the 14th came along and applied most of the BoR to the states. Do you have some problem with the idea of separation?

              1. Re: Tony,

                Since the words “separation of church and state” were uttered by Jefferson himself, I’m pretty sure it is an underlying principle.

                No, that’s an argument from authority. It cannot be “the principle” only because TJ uttered the words after the fact. The underlying principle is Freedom of Religion, which is clearly stated in the Amendment, and that does not mean a separation of church and state.

                Then the 14th came along and applied most of the BoR to the states.

                Indeed but so far as citizen’s rights were concerned (not that this stops the Fed Gov from infringing even those). However the amendment does not impose any explicit (or even implicit) prohibition upon the various states to establish an official religion. The 1st Amendment still refrain (and refrains) Congress from establishing one, but that’s it.

                Do you have some problem with the idea of separation?

                No, absolutely none. Like you, I do not subscribe to the notion of government setting up a religion as official, but I also hold as true the principle that people are free to exercise AND express their religion, as long as it does not call to act against the freedoms of others. I for one am against prohibiting people from wearing burqas or a crucifix or a scapulary in schools.

              2. “Since the words “separation of church and state” were uttered by Jefferson himself, I’m pretty sure it is an underlying principle.”

                Since Jefferson had no direct input in writing the Constitution (he was out of the country during most of the Convention), and the letter he wrote mentioning “separation of church and state” was in no sense of the word a critical legal analysis of the 1st Amendment religious clauses, the case for it being a generally understood underlying principle is dubious.

          3. It was? Have you checked the text of the speeches and writings of the founders while they were governing this country? They’re replete with references to religion. That isn’t a wall of separation.

        2. See my response below to Draco.

          Nowhere did I say that people don’t have a right to not be offended by a person’s religious activities. However, allowing government run schools to teach creationism and the young earth theory in a science class, as a scientifically valid theory of human origins is akin to establishment of religion.

          1. Re: Mo,

            However, allowing government run schools to teach creationism and the young earth theory in a science class, as a scientifically valid theory of human origins is akin to establishment of religion.

            So would be the teaching of ANY dubious theory under the same argument, to wit: Keynesianism, Progressive-centered history, Afro-centrism, you name it.

            The problem with such arguments is that they beg the question, as it is assumed the validity of government run education to then conclude the teaching of something that does not look like “government-established” religion. The above is an indictment on compulsory education, not the freedom of people AND the different states to freely exercise religion or religious activities.

            1. I didn’t realize Keynesianism, Progressive-centered history or Afro-centrism came from a religion? Saying that Newtonian physics applies at all scales, even the subatomic is incorrect, not religious doctrine. Saying that God created the earth 5,000 years ago is both wrong and religious doctrine.

              Once again, please answer: if the 14th Amendment doesn’t mean states are prohibited from establishing religion, then does it also mean that states are allowed to engage in censorship and gun bans? You can’t pick and choose which rights get incorporated and which ones don’t. Either incorporation means that states can’t engage in those behaviors or that they can.

              1. Re: Mo,

                I didn’t realize Keynesianism, Progressive-centered history or Afro-centrism came from a religion?

                Mo, don’t rely on double-speak. This is what YOU wrote:

                “However, allowing government run schools to teach creationism and the young earth theory in a science class, as a scientifically valid theory of human origins is akin to establishment of religion.”

                You clearly posited the argument that IF a scientifically dubious theory is teached, it is AKIN to establishing a religion. You did NOT say that creationism IS a religion, you explicitly indicated that TEACHING IT as SCIENCE *is* the same as *establishing* a religion.

                Once again, if that’s the case, then ANY teaching of scientifically or even factually dubious theories would be tantamount to teaching religion (not that I don’t agree with that, given the religious undertones of Keynesianism and Afro-centrism…)

              2. Check the wording of the first amendment versus the second. If you note, the language of the one reads “Congress shall make no law”, the other, “shall not be infringed”. The second applies to every level of government, including the states, under the supremacy doctrine. The first applies to the federal government, because it specifically states that it governs the actions of Congress. And yes, the states are allowed to engage in censorship if they choose as far as a United States Constitutional basis, though their state constitutions prohibit it, so they’d have to overcome that hurdle.

                1. Wrong. State law must conform to the United States Constitution. That’s why state supreme courts can be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

      2. Let me help you out here Mo. Here’s what I take “wall of separation” to mean:

        1) the government can’t establish an official religion

        2) the government can’t prohibit the free exercise of religion

        Now, I’m fine with the words TJ used to describe the religion part of the 1st amendment. As long as it is taken to mean what the 1st amendment says… and not what you think “wall of separation” means. If you think it means a kid can’t take his bible to school and read a psalm on “my favorite book day,” (one well publicized example of many), then you and I (and TJ) don’t agree on what “wall of separation” means.

        Disclosure: Like Old Mexican, I am not a theist.

        1. If you think it means a kid can’t take his bible to school and read a psalm on “my favorite book day,”

          I don’t. I’m also fine with an English class teaching the Bible from a literary POV because of the massive influence it had on Western literature. However, I also believe it means that schools shouldn’t be teaching one religion’s myths as scientific fact. I don’t think the young earth theory deserves to be taken seriously in a geology class anymore than the idea of a dung beetle pushing the sun across the sky deserves to be taken seriously in an astronomy class. The context of O’Donnell’s comments were that she believes that public schools should be able to teach creationism in a school. That is akin to establishment of religion.

          1. Re: Mo,

            However, I also believe it means that schools shouldn’t be teaching one religion’s myths as scientific fact.

            I would agree NOT to have my taxes used to teach natural seletion to kids whose parents do NOT want their kids taught natural selection. To me, that is just as anathema to my principles than having a conservative Christian’s taxes pay for my kids’ science education.

            1. I’m all for freedom of expression, even if it is by religion, but letting a parent who is ignorant in a subject matter turn their kid into a complete buffoon by mandating a certain educational perspective for said kid is a major stretch of overall educational responsibility.

              Just because you don’t like the material in a science class doesn’t mean you should be able to change its subject matter merely because you pay mandatory taxes. Science doesn’t work that way; you don’t get to buy a different result to an experiment because the original result failed to support your hypothesis.

    4. The phrase “separation of church and state” comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802.

      At the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, several of the states did have official state religions and continued to do so up until some time in the 1820’s.

      They were not deemed to be unconstititonal.

      1. The words “the Church shall be separated from the state” appear in the old Soviet constitution and that’s how progressives want it enforced and taught today.

        Coincidence?

    5. True, the term “separation of church and state” is not found in the Constitution, it is found in Thomas Jefferson’s “Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.”

      Unfortunately, you clearly have not read any of the Supreme Court “incorporation” cases which applied the U.S. Constitution’s standards to all the states.

      Nor have you read much precedent regarding Establishment Clause cases.

      Do your homework. O’Donnell is an idiot.

  17. Why can’t those self righteous loving bunnies hugging gay lovers can’t understand that people might not like what they do … Leave the our freedom of speech alone.

    Dear Stupid-

    People do a lot of things I don’t like, but I don’t feel the need to keep them from doing those things.

    1. There is a fucking difference between having a negative opinions of something AND wanting to be the bully to use State force to have people comply with your views.

      Nobody is going to use government to impose anything on anyone … so please could we stop the post-modern bashing of Christian views of Homosexuality ? THERE IS NO DAMN THEOCRACY IN THE HORIZON

      1. Can we bash them for being stupid, and for supporting non-state cultural power structures which make society worse?

      2. THERE IS NO DAMN FAGOCRACY IN THE HORIZON EITHER, DIPSHIT.

        1. I dunno, I was kind of looking forward to the new “fagocracy”. I mean, let’s give that a chance for a while. It couldn’t possibly be any worse than what we have now.

          1. They already have Glee. That’s far more than enough for now.

            1. It needed to be said eventually. Thank you, sir.

              1. All the trawling of radical feminists sites, all the familiarity and love I feel for gay people in my circle of family and friends, all the teen-oriented TV I watched… none of it gave me the strength to make it through more than 3 minutes of the utter and twittering effeteness of that huge bowl of creamed lizard shit.

                1. Glee is too gay even for some actual gays that I know. But not for me, I am proud to say.

            2. Dammit, Sug… you beat me to it. Honestly, I can only think of two reasons to be anti-gay: the existence of show tunes and the fact that they make me look like even more of a slob than I really am.

              1. Hello? Media? Are you listening? Listen closely now…

                STOP TELLING ME LEA MICHELE IS ATTRACTIVE! SHE LOOKS LIKE A 12-YEAR-OLD PUERTO RICAN BOY IN A HALLOWEEN STORE WIG! I’M PRETTY SURE SHE WAS THE TRANNY FROM RENT.

                (Yes, I’m sure some of you think she’s attractive… which is fine, taste is very subjective.)

                1. STOP TELLING ME LEA MICHELE IS ATTRACTIVE! SHE LOOKS LIKE A 12-YEAR-OLD PUERTO RICAN BOY IN A HALLOWEEN STORE WIG!

                  If that is who you were waiting for with that tweenty dollar bill, Lou Reed, I say high fives all the way around. All Lea Michelle needs to look like a half decent trany is a closer shave on that jaw line. Hawt.

                  1. tweenty dollar bill

                    Even though she is a honky in all but name, my PR girl still says it just like that.

                2. “You have to admit, she does look rather mannish.”

                  1. “Damn it, man. That’s my mother.”

            3. They already have Glee. That’s far more than enough for now.

              Just think… all Man Shops Globe, all the time.

          2. I too was longing to wecome our faggot toplords.

            1. Welcome them…into your ass, right?

              1. That is what we bottomlords desire.

            2. Top. Men.

          3. Well, musical theater would come back in a big way, and everyone would be better dressed. Guess that’s a pro and a con depending on your POV.

      3. Someone needs to take a shit.

      4. The backstory, no pun intended, on Sams.

        1. I tell you, when a homosexual is sucking your cock, a lot of strange thoughts go through your head: How the hell did this happen? Where did this fairy ever get the idea that I was gay? And where did he get those fantastic boots?

  18. I don’t know about a pagan lobby, but I seem to remember Bob Barr getting his ass kicked by the wiccan lobby.

    1. Was it consensual???

  19. FOR YOU DEFENDERS OF THE AUTHOR OF THIS STUPID ARTICLE : IF HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A MATTER OF PERSONAL CHOICE OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE ?

    THE CLUELESS AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE THINKS SO … SO WHAT IT IS THEORY ? STUPID GENETIC PRE-DISPOSAL ?

    1. The bells! THE BELLS!

    2. There you are!

    3. Actually research suggests that intense same sex attraction has a root in development in the uterus, not genetics. I don’t actually care if it’s a biological disposition or a choice, that is irrelevant. Let’s say it is a choice, for the sake of argument, there is still nothing wrong with it.

      1. Then all the stupid gay rights, because they are just like blacks victims of racism, is plainly stupid … you don’t choose your skin colour, but you choice your sexual preferences. I might not like pothead the same way that I don’t like same-sex couples.

        But the whole thing just illustrate how the current ”Libertarians”, including the author of this stupid article, forget that has Mises said ”In a free society we must tolerate opinions and people that we dissaprove”

        But looks like ”standard/stupid” libertarian though only accept true believers are debauched libertine dope smoking Randroid worshippers who make 50 abortions per year.

        1. You aren’t capable of presenting your ideas in written form, are you? What “stupid gay rights” are you against? Hey wait a minute, you’re a troll aren’t you, and I got sucked in, dammit!!!

          1. I just realized we all did.

            1. But looks like ”standard/stupid” libertarian though only accept true believers are debauched libertine dope smoking Randroid worshippers who make 50 abortions per year.

              Troll or not, this is the best line I’ve read all year. It’s like Chony went on a vacation to the right.

              1. When did abortions become a unit of currency?

        2. Standard English, man! Standard English!!!

        3. “Then all the stupid gay rights, because they are just like blacks victims of racism, is plainly stupid.”

          Lots of pent-up frustration there that you need to address. Take a drive tonight, clear your head. Some guys might call it cruising; but really you’ll just be looking for a friend….

    4. Turn off your caps lock key, idiot!

      1. IT’S CRUISE CONTROL FOR CONDESCENSION

    5. People who think homosexuality is a choice make me think that they are homosexuals who chose to pretend not to be.

      1. ^^THIS^^

        I love you Tony!

        (no homo)

      2. So if it is not a choice it is what ?

        Genetic predisposition …. just like those genes that make black people idiots m8 ?

        I sit and wait for the stupid explanation

        1. There is a lot of interesting science happening on this topic, I recommend you go find some and read it. It’s probably genetic, and almost certainly determined at birth, so it’s definitely not a choice. But you could have figured that out by asking a gay person if they chose it.

        2. Just re-read your post.

      3. Re: Tony,

        People who think homosexuality is a choice make me think that they are homosexuals who chose to pretend not to be.

        That explains Anna Heche…

        1. …who had bad taste in women…taste…women…I think I just made a funny!

        2. That’s only true if you believe that sexual preferences are black-white.

          1. Re: Mo,

            Sexual preferences are more like blue and aqua…

            1. What I want to know is…..do gay men have to beg for sex like I do from the wife? If not, I just might switch as I would save 80 hours a week to do other more productive things;like use spell check.

              1. It’s because you’re a gay man that I make you beg.

      4. It’s not “pretending” like Tony thinks – Sams assumes that everybody is as naturally aroused by homosexual sex as he is, but believes he’s “straight” because he chooses not to act on his arousal. The idea that some of us are only attracted to the opposite sex, and that we never chose this orientation, just isn’t part of his worldview.

        It’s okay that you’re not heterosexual, Sams; that’s not a moral failing. Leaving the Caps Lock on, on the other hand…

        1. SO PEOPLE JUST WAKE AND SAY : FUCK I AM GAY … WHO WANT TO KISS ME ?

          AGAIN PLEASE ANY EXPLANATION YOU LIBERTARIANS GENIUSES ?

          1. Assuming you are straight, think back to when you first were curious about the opposite sex. Gay people are exactly the same, except with the same sex. For me it was around 3rd grade.

            1. Speaking for myself, I’m still curious about the opposite sex. I mean, like, what’s up with women?

              1. There are things mankind was never meant to know, Paul.

            2. Dudes having hommosexual relations is a matter of personnal choices, I have friend who had sex one upon another on one occasion but they didn’t went all pinky gay pride people, they just wished to have some fun and did it … it was for them just like masturbating or doggystyly on a black chick … so don’t come with the genetic stuff

              1. Who you have sex with or how you do it is certainly a choice. What sex you are attracted to is not. Did you choose to be attracted to women?

                Some straight men experiment. It’s called college. That doesn’t mean all gay men are straight men experimenting all their lives. They are attracted to other men in exactly the same way you are attracted to other women.

                1. Some straight men experiment. It’s called college.

                  Yeah, I might call it “elementary” school, but personally, I don’t buy into the fact that college aged kids are ‘experimenting’. If you’re attracted enough to another man to have sex with him by college age, you’re attracted to him.

                  Other than that Tony, I’m 100% with you on the choice theory.

                  1. If you’re attracted enough to another man to have sex with him by college age, you’re attracted to him.

                    If they make a habit of it, I agree with you, but I can’t deny my personal experience. Not all those straight guys who enjoyed a BJ from someone who knew what he was doing (while drunk) are gay. And I experimented with heterosexuality in college.

                    1. “And I experimented with heterosexuality in college”.

                      Now there is an “in-your-end-doh” if I ever saw one. How come spell check cound not find the word I was looking for?

              2. What that means is your friends are gay or bi. The fact that they’re struggling in denial has nothing to do with ‘personal choice’.

                1. like masturbating or doggystyly on a black chick …

                  And like, what. the. fuck. is that supposed to mean? I totally missed this the first time I read your shit..

                2. The bi thing, I just don’t get. Pick a hole and stick with it… quit being greedy.

                  Hat tip to Dennis Miller.

                  1. You have not thought ii out all the way through. If you are bi, you have the option of wanting to screw everyone you meet. Kind of like being a politician.

              3. Dude, the trolling was pretty sweet, but you blew it with this post.

                Actually, the physical act of gay lovemaking is by choice and so is the heterosexual version. The emotional bond is a different story altogether, but I don’t see that mystery being unraveled until we can determine what causes love in the first place.

                That said, I don’t care what causes people to be attracted to each other as groups. I only care what makes certain women attractive to me and vice versa. The big picture really doesn’t affect how I live my life and I’m not gonna try to interfere with how others want to live theirs.

                Too bad people like Sams can’t understand that he does things than many people find repulsive and he should thank God every day that they aren’t trying to take his rights to live freely away. And he should learn to respect the right for others to enjoy what he takes for granted. (Or he should die in a fire.)

                1. That said, I don’t care what causes people to be attracted to each other as groups.

                  I’ve still yet to hear a coherent argument about how two guys deciding to tie the knot “undermines traditional marriage”.

                  1. I’ve still yet to hear a coherent argument about how two guys deciding to tie the knot “undermines traditional marriage”.

                    Straight men really, really, really want to get married and settle down and build a home with someone else. If they can do it with a guy instead of being forced to choose a woman, they will jump at the chance. All straight men are secretly gay; only their love of stifling commitment make them choose to spend their lives with women.

                    1. Straight men really, really, really want to get married and settle down and build a home with someone else. If they can do it with a guy instead of being forced to choose a woman, they will jump at the chance.

                      Ok, shut my mouth… coherent argument. I guess I finally understand where people like Sams are coming from.

                    2. like masturbating or doggystyly on a black chick …

                      …or like toast-fucking.

                    3. Thanks. That needed to be said.

                  2. I’ve still yet to hear a coherent argument about how two guys deciding to tie the knot “undermines traditional marriage”.

                    Presumably in the same manner that bigamy and polygamy destroys the purity of the marriage relation, disturb the peace of families, degrade women and debase men.

                  3. It depends on your definition of what marriage is.

                    If you view marriage as being just a celebration of love, then there’s no problem. But then there’s also no justification for most of the actual benefits, rights, privileges, obligations, and institutions of marriage, either.

                    Starting with the right to be presumed the father of your wife’s child, which was really all that marriage was about until the mid 19th century, when suddenly all this crap about “love” started coming into play.

                    Marriage enables a man to signal his intention to breed with a woman. This protects the man from all sorts of game-playing (entrapment, false alarms, paternity suits, hostile women breeding illegitimate offspring to infiltrate family resources, etc).

                    Of course marriage also protects women from being taken while they’re young and useful – and then dumped out on the street once they’re used up.

                    In other words, this is the contract view of marriage.

                    A view that suggests marriage exists to explicitly protect weak family members from being used by strong, dominant ones.

                    It is linked to a number of beliefs: that rights need to be balanced against responsibilities, that kin is the preferred way to allocate roles and obligations fairly – that biological descent is valuable and should be preserved – and so on.

                    If it becomes illegal discrimination to differentiate between real kin relationships (as superior) vs. non-kin relationships, then it becomes impossible for family to mean what it did – and it becomes impossible for the family structure to retain the rules that ensure its stability: the idea that kinship roles are linked to biological roles becomes replaced with “choice” – that is, choice for those strong enough to win the power struggle (exploitation for those who are to be the objects of other peoples’ choice – how many babies would choose to have two daddies or two mommies, over having a relationship with a real mother and father, if no emotional coercion were involved?)

              4. Sams|10.20.10 @ 1:35PM|#

                Dudes having hommosexual relations is a matter of personnal choices, I have friend who had sex one upon another on one occasion but they didn’t went all pinky gay pride people, they just wished to have some fun and did it … it was for them just like masturbating or doggystyly on a black chick … so don’t come with the genetic stuff

                Dude. I was like seventeen at the time. Can you get off my back about it.

              5. Dudes having homosexual relations is a matter of personal choices, I have friend who had sex one upon another on one occasion but they didn’t went all pinky gay pride people, they just wished to have some fun and did it … it was for them just like masturbating or doggystyly on a black chick … so don’t come with the genetic stuff

                God this Sams troll is an idiot

              6. Your spelling and grammar deteriorate as you become more aroused, Sams. Have you noticed?

            3. Tony’s grand unified theory of sexual attraction.

              Women need love too…from dogs (SFW)

              Why do you discriminate against the love between a woman and her four-legged critter?

            4. Gay is nature’s way of saying some men shouldn’t procreate?

              Obviously abortion being the feminist way of saying it.

    6. Sam, the bible is not a science textbook. Its not the government’s busniess how Ted Haggart gets off.

      1. Nobody is talking about the government here, the church and christian have a right to their opinion and freedom of association.

        It is those who want to sue the church to have gays admitted to the boy scouts against our will that fucking irritates me

        1. Who said they didn’t have a right to their opinion and their freedom of association? No one here questions that. We do think that homophobia is stupid, irrational, and immoral. Be a bigot all you want, but don’t expect us not to look upon you as a troglodyte.

          1. Morality is in the eyes of the beholders, so I do see your has a debaucher immoral person.

            1. Type in English, please. Ignorance is so much more entertaining when eloquently expressed.

              1. He’s an LOLhomophobe. I can has sanctity of marrij.

              2. Belastungspläne!
                Your comment does not appear to be written in an English script. Please comment in English.

                1. Sams are being have troubles speeching Englishes. Stays off hims back. Hes not have enough epostrophes for to make proper, puncutuation, also.

    7. I chose this morning to take a piss. I’m glad I made that choice.

      1. Lucky you…I had no choice!

      2. Three old guys are sitting on a park bench, lamenting their old age.

        The first one says, “Every morning I wake up right at 6, and I stand at the toilet for 15 minutes before I get even a single drop.”

        The second guy says, “I wake up every morning at 7 on the dot, and I sit on the toilet for half an hour before there’s even a single plop.”

        The third guy says, “Every morning at 6, I piss like a racehorse; at 6:30 I shit like a pig.” He then bursts into uncontrollable sobs.

        “You’ve got it made! What’s wrong with that?!” the first two ask.

        The third guy replies, “I don’t wake up until 7!”

    8. Dude, shouting is reserved for rapist sasquatch around here. People might confuse you with him.

      1. Would they be wrong?

        1. Yes they would as Steve Smith has class.

          1. I was driving through Springdale, Arkansas last weekend and saw a car dealership called Steve Smith Country. I took it as a warning and acted with great care until I was well away from the area.

    9. I personally believe that sexual preferences of all kinds (redheads, buttsex, you name it) are imprinted. They aren’t really voluntary, but, believe it or not, they can be changed by reimprinting on something else.

      1. What kind of imprinting is it going to take to get you to go down a guy? I’m asking for a… a friend.

      2. I personally believe that sexual preferences of all kinds (redheads, buttsex, you name it) are imprinted.

        This.

        1. I have always found women peeing to be erotic. I trace it back to when I was four and for the first time saw a woman’s genitalia. She was four also and she just pulled her pants down, spread her legs and started peeing. Been hooked ever since.

          True story.

          Oh, and I think that also explains why I am so into 4-year-olds 😉

          1. Have a great day, guys. I’m out.

          2. thanks for sharing

      3. I don’t know. Imprinting is one of those things that has to happen at a certain point of mental development, or else it ranges from hard to impossible to change.

  20. I was elected to lead, not to read.

  21. just waiting for the O’Donnell sex tape to surface.

    1. Just a cell phone clip of her masturbating would be entertaining enough.

      1. Quick! Someone get Brett Favre her number!

    2. with a cameo by Nurse Palin.

      1. I’ll be in my bunk.

  22. If one subscribes to the meme “All homosexuals are rich” I’m not sure a fagocracy isn’t exactly what this country needs.

    1. They aren’t. Not any richer than any other sector of adults without kids.

    2. They aren’t. Not any richer than any other sector of adults without kids.

      1. Wat? Damn you squirrels. Eat my nuts.

  23. a cell phone clip of her masturbating

    light

    dark

    light

    dark

    light

    dark

    light

    dark…

    1. What? I don’t…oh. Oh! Ohhhhhh.

  24. Say, was O’Donnell a good witch or a bad witch? I’m surprised the media seems uninterested in this question.

    1. Everybody knows bad witches are homely hags, whereas good witches are bright and beautiful – unless they happen to be a succubus.

      http://www.alexross.com/cj024a.jpg

      1. Calypso was pretty hot, at least Odysseus thought so.

        1. Yes, but she was a good witch… She had to be, she shagged Odysseus blissfully, and what’s wrong with that???

          1. Well played

    2. They should ask her to wrinkle her nose.

    3. Pro, wouldn’t the MSM just assume bad since she is a Republican???

      1. Probably, but I’m less interested in their biases than in her actual witch category. She is reasonably attractive and appears to have been much more so when she was younger, so that’s a vote for the good witch label. Unless she was using her dark powers of deceit.

        This question needs to be answered before Election Day!

        1. What kind of witch can regrow her hymen? That will give you the answer.

        2. Pro, I am more than willing to find out…as long as she doesn’t expect me to be a virgin!

    4. I know a few wiccans, and none of them are pleased to have their religious beliefs slapped around by Democrats over this O’Donnell thing.

      Oh, and none of them would vote for O’Donnell, for the record. They’re just not down with the anti-witchcraft bullshit.

  25. The Coons campaign must be shaking their heads in astonishment that they managed to make the utter irrelevancy of one of O’Donnell’s old boyfriends a central issue of the campaign.

  26. Back in the 1980s homosexuality was considered a “lifestyle choice”. Anyone who claimed it was in anyway genetic or in any way not a product of free choice was branded a neanderthal homophobe who considered homosexuals to be genetically inferior.

    Now thinking it is a free choice is the neanderthal way of thinking? Progressive enlightenment is certainly a moving target.

    1. Thanks for the fact that there is almost ONE person with sanity in the fucking room.

      Anyone who say otherwise, including the author of this article is full of BS.

      Making homosexuality inevitable has being beyond personal choice is just pathetic like the left attempt of keeping black downs because they are … blacks and they can’t choose to be born white.

      1. I don’t think one consciously chooses what makes their peepee tingle. Now, the act itself is a conscious choice (one could choose to be celibate if forced to), but the attraction is not.

        1. one could choose to be celibate if forced to

          If I’m forced, I’m not really choosing, now am I?

        2. So what? I find the idea of robbing a bank to be very attractive. Seriously. The free money. The excitement. It makes for a very appealing fantasy. Am I genetically predisposed to rob banks?

          1. Well you are a lawyer John.

            Lawyering is to bank robbery as methedone is to heroin.

    2. I fail to see its relevance. In fact, while I think it is best to know the truth about things, playing up the biological determination aspect seems to invite the idea that it is a disorder or illness. Gay rights advocates should steer the narrative away from nature/nurture and instead focus on the truth, that loving and fucking, so long as they are consensual are GOOD things, and that opposing consensual loving and fucking based on the fact that it is icky or the bible says its wrong is stupid.

      1. “playing up the biological determination aspect seems to invite the idea that it is a disorder or illness. ”

        No, it most certainly does not imply a disorder, no more than eye color, skin color, length of nose, or any number of things implies “illness”.

        1. I’m not arguing that it invites that interpretation for sane people, but it sure would for a good portion of the American polity.

      2. “I fail to see its relevance. In fact, while I think it is best to know the truth about things, playing up the biological determination aspect seems to invite the idea that it is a disorder or illness.”

        You mean like having two X chromosomes?

    3. Aren’t they both right, anyway? Same-sex attraction is not a choice (though whether it’s nature or nurture or some of both is an open question). On the other hand, acting on that attraction is most certainly a choice.

      1. I am very skeptical of biological explanations of human behavior. And evolutionary biology is about two steps above phrenology. Maybe it will get better in the future. But it is a very young science and has a long ways to go.

        As Dennis points out, when you start calling it “genetic” rather than a choice, you run the risk of it being considered some kind of a defect. That is playing with fire.

        I think it is better to say it is a choice and argue for everyone’s right to sleep with whomever they choose.

        1. Homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder. It was in the DSM for quite a long time.

        2. “I am very skeptical of biological explanations of human behavior.”

          But attraction isn’t really a behavior, per se, it’s just a psychological/emotional reaction. People don’t choose to have feelings, they just have them.

          1. We don’t chose to have any of our “feelings”. That kind of makes the issue moot doesn’t it? And further, lots of otherwise straight people when put in extreme circumstances such as aboard ships or in prison have engaged in homosexual sex. Did their genes change when they suddenly found the people around them sexually attractive? What about people who have an isolated same sex affair or sexual experience? How does the genetic explanation explain that?

            It seems to me that genes are far too all or nothing to explain such a complex behavior. People are not just “gay” or “not gay” like they are blue or brown eyed. There is a ton of gray area in between.

            1. There is a ton of gray area in between.

              Is that what preacher told you?

              You seem to be deliberately obtuse here. You can’t see the difference between a gay man and a man who fucks another man in prison because there isn’t a lot of choice? Do you actually live in a cave?

              1. There is a ton of gray area in between.

                I’ll tell you what there’s not a ton of gray area between. Tony’s fucking ears.

              2. You are an idiot Tony. Just a certifiable moron. Worse still, you are so steeped in identity politics you have bought into the idea of predestination and rejected free will. In your eyes once a person is “gay” whatever that means they are trapped forever as that. They have no choice over their lives. You are a real sick fuck. I feel sorry for you most days.

                1. Excuse me? As Mr. Harsanyi said, to believe that being gay is a choice is to be a dumbfuck beyond hope, or something to that effect.

                  I don’t believe in predestination over free will, I’m simply saying that science is uncovering FACTS about how much of existence is deterministic. I realize that in your worldview facts are things to be accepted or dismissed at will.

                  That’s not saying we shouldn’t live as if we had free will, although few of us have enough free will to change our sexual orientation. Do you?

          2. Maybe feelings are feelings because we can’t control them.

          3. People don’t choose to have feelings, they just have them

            Wait, I’ve been told for years nobody can make me feel inferior without my consent. Are you saying all those sanctimonious happy thinking pricks were wrong?

        3. It’s my right to sleep with Anne Hathaway and Scarlett Johansson.

      2. Same-sex attraction is not a choice (though whether it’s nature or nurture or some of both is an open question). On the other hand, acting on that attraction is most certainly a choice.

        That would make it similar to polyamorous attraction.

  27. Dude when there is no more laws banning homosexual loving and fucking or preventing consensual association … then might the gay rights stuff die down or become just like annoying FemiNazis ?

    You have a right to think that I waste time at church and I have a right to consider homosexual sex wrong … is it fucking fair !

    Mail the author of this stupid article and ask him to reconsider his : ”Those who believe being gay is a choice are Neanderthals”

    1. Once again, no one argued you didn’t have a right to consider homosexual sex wrong. You also have the right to think that Jews are evil, that blacks aren’t fully human, that little people are evidence of God’s wrath and that Finns secrete green ooze from their nipples, but believing any of these things, like believing that gay sex is immoral, indicates a silly worldview.

      1. Wait, what’s this about the Finns again?

        1. I’m more confused about the little people are evidence of God’s wrath part, personally.

          1. Really? They are pretty creepy. Try shaking one’s hand the next time you meet one. Just thinking about it makes me shudder.

  28. Imprinting is one of those things that has to happen at a certain point of mental development,

    Basically true, which is completely consistent with sex preference being imprinted.

    or else it ranges from hard to impossible to change.

    Not impossible. Not easy, either.

    1. If it can be changed it isn’t much of an “imprint” is it? If an otherwise straight guy has gay fantasies has he been imprinted? Or maybe he just likes such things?

      The whole thing strikes me as hokum of the worst sort. I don’t understand why anyone buys into it.

      1. Genetic minorities are how rights are argued for now. If the focus had always been on individual over collective rights, this would be a moot point.

        1. True. And you are walking a dangerous path when you start classifying people and granting rights based on genes. Suppose the science came out and said that pedophiles were genetically programed to do such things? If you really believe genes determine behavior, the logical response is to lock everyone with the “pedophile gene” up before they can harm anyone. That is where this kind of stuff is heading.

          1. Ain’t it funny how those who scream about equality spend so much time focusing on what makes us different?

          2. I believe that scientific fact has no moral slant. We are discovering the biological bases for homosexuality AND certain behaviors and nothing’s gonna stop it.

            But this is a very interesting realm of thought. I am inclined to think that science is going to describe human behavior more and more deterministically. That will have implications on our moral worldviews and our policies. I don’t think that child rape will ever be considered acceptable no matter how intrinsic the urge may prove to be in some people.

            1. Fuck off, Tony.

            2. Why is it that if scientific research is funded by a corporation intent on making profits you view it as suspect, but when it is funded by a government intent on making laws you will defend it to your dying breath?

              Oh yeah, because you’re a moron.

              1. I defend science if it’s good science. Often research paid for by for-profit outfits is meant to help increase those profits more than get to truth, though surely truth is often expedient.

                I don’t know of much government research that is bad. Of course the tangible evidence of good research is technology, and government labs are responsible for way more of the technology in your life than you probably realize. Like compact fluorescent light bulbs–meanwhile for-profit electric companies spend less than 1% of R&D and would have been quite content making us use 19th century bulbs forever.

                1. CFL’s contain mercury dipshit. How’s disposing them fuckers going to be good for the environment.

                  These fucking liberal morons are going to kill us all before its said and done. I think that’s their goal.

                2. “and would have been quite content making us use 19th century bulbs forever.”

                  But making us use CFLs is okay… right?

  29. Wait for it….wait for it….not yet…wait…..OK, altogether now:

    SCIENCE!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o

  30. I would hope that libertarians whould find O’Donnell ridiculous and NOT vote for her for the sake of free markets and free minds. I doubt she brings neither.

    1. Anything is better than a Marxist.

      A wicca priestess?

      Yup.

      An asylum escapee?

      Yup.

      A Yeti rapist?

      Yup.

      Homicidal scatophile Nazi who wacked off under a glass table while a hot blond took a dump?

      The corpses are still fewer, so, yup.

      Tamerlane?

      Yup.

      1. Good thing there are no Marxists running for federal office in this country, certainly not in Delaware.

        1. Re: Tony,

          Good thing there are no Marxists running for federal office in this country, certainly not in Delaware.

          Only a bearded Marxist is running. But any plain Marxists? Nah, those aren’t. You are right on THAT one.

          1. Tony isn’t counting the Marxist sympathizers who already hold office. But that’s not surprising.

        2. Where did I leave that shaving cream and razor?

        3. Good thing there are no Marxists running for federal office in this country, certainly not in Delaware.

          Stand in the corner over there, and don’t talk to me, sock puppet.

          1. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, Republicunt.

            1. All Republicunts, please take a step forward…

              1. All Republicunts, please take a step forward…

                Compadre,
                I know you and the sock puppet are on speaking terms so if you could thank him for the additional street cred he gives me with that curse on my behalf, I’d appreciate it. Also, ask him if he could call me the worst motherfucker of all libertarians on this blog, it would do wonders for my rep.

      2. What’s with the fucking table?

        1. Hard to see it squirting out of her pucker when it is already in your face.

  31. this thread is so gay

    1. waffles, you are so much like a pancake, it isn’t even funny.

      1. I’m sick of all the faggot-talk queering the shit out of the debate at reason. I may be a carb-laden, syrup drenched breakfast food who has learned rudimentary computer skills. But damnit I’m tired of whiny homosexuals telling me I can’t use gay, faggot, queer, and buttfucked to describe things that don’t appeal to me.

        1. *To the tune of Tom Sawyer*

          neeenerneenerneenerneeenerneenerneener

  32. If it can be changed it isn’t much of an “imprint” is it? If an otherwise straight guy has gay fantasies has he been imprinted? Or maybe he just likes such things?

    I don’t think you understand what imprinting is. Anything can be imprinted; there isn’t some kind of limited menu. An “otherwise straight guy etc.” just has the imprint to be mostly straight, but not repulsed by gay sex. Absent a re-imprinting, that won’t change.

    And yes, imprinting can be changed. It generally takes a trauma, or possibly powerful psychoactives. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t an imprint.

    1. I understand perfectly what “imprinting is. And your description of it is just fantasy. Where is the evidence of this “imprint”? You are just telling me a fairy tail of how some people like gay sex and others don’t. Where is the physical evidence of this? Is the drag queen’s brain or genes any different than the guy who occasionally jerks off to the thought of Brad Pitt? You say their two behaviors are the result of “imprinting”. A fundamentalist Christian will tell you it is God and Satan fighting it out over their soul. Neither explanation is compelling.

      R.C. that is just superstition dressed up as science.

  33. And you are walking a dangerous path when you start classifying people and granting rights based on genes. Suppose the science came out and said that pedophiles were genetically programed to do such things?

    Excellent point. If, as our betters now tell us to advance their agenda, sexual preferences are genetically determined, then why would this apply only to homosexuals and not pedophiles?

    If your genetically determined sexual preference entitles you to oppressed minority status, why wouldn’t pedophiles have the same claim on that status as homosexuals?

    Note that I am not saying gays are pedophiles, or that we shouldn’t treat them differently. I’m just asking about the logical consequences of the genetic determinism now being touted as the basis for gay rights.

    1. It wouldn’t work that way. For gays it would grant them rights. For pedophiles, it would get them a ticket to the slammer even though they hadn’t actually done anything. And it wouldn’t stop with pedophiles. You could imagine all sorts of activities (racism, or aggressive behavior or homophobia or intolerance to name a few) that pliant psychologists would describe as “genetically caused deviancy” and then be used to classify people as being insane and used to enforce a political correct uniformity. The communists made a crude art of this. Don’t think for a moment such a thing wouldn’t happen again.

    2. The consensual nature of the interaction.

      Being attracted to little kids isn’t a crime, but fucking them is. A gay guy raping a gay guy should also be illegal.

      1. “Being attracted to little kids isn’t a crime”

        Not quite, but it is close. And if people claimed to know via genetic testing who did and did not possess such an attraction, don’t think for a moment they wouldn’t start locking people up.

        1. And that would be wrong. Science is value-neutral. Knowing that there is a “pedophile gene” is no bearing on the misapplication of that knowledge in law. Just because a way to oppress people is created doesn’t condone or imply its use. It’s the same logic flaw that leads to “AGW is real” automatically meaning that all kooky green ideas to “solve” it are valid and economically risk-free.

          1. “Just because a way to oppress people is created doesn’t condone or imply its use.”

            It does from the point of view of those in power who take pleasure in oppressing people.

            The SCOTUS approved the sterilization of tens of thousands of inmates in mental institutions back before some guy in Germany took the idea of positive eugenics a bit too far.

            Yes it would be wrong, but since when has right and wrong mattered when it comes to government force?

            1. “Potential harm” is the cry of the nanny, not the free man.

              Assholes are assholes, it has nothing to do with the tools at their disposal.

      2. I beg to differ…never seen Chris Hanson on To Catch a Predator?

        When he pops out and says “Why don’t you have a seat here?”, it happens before the kid gets touched/fondled/raped.

        1. that was in response to Sugarfree’s “Beiing attracted to little kids isn’t a crime…”

          1. It is still the acting on the impulses that is the crime. There’s a difference between “I want ice cream” and driving to the store, choosing some, waiting in line, paying, driving back home and sitting down with the tub and a spoon.

            Whether the Hanson stuff should be a crime is a different matter, but it is not arresting people for mere “attraction.”

            1. Yeah. They end up charging them with actual crimes…like soliciting to have sex with a 47-year old cop with a computer who gives them the address, and buying condoms, and purchasing alcohol, and entering a house after being invited in by someone over 18.

              That’s not to say these sickos don’t deserve some form of justice, but the Hanson shit is entrapment pure and simple.

    3. Isn’t this the argument NAMBLA and other pederast groups have been making for quite some time? Perhaps Gobbler could enlighten us based on his predilection for 4 year olds.

      1. While they do pursue the genetic angle, they also seek to undermine the concept of there being an age under which a person cannot consent to physical intimacy.

        1. We’re against this here, right? I mean, individual freedom and all is fine, but you gotta establish an age of consent, don’t you?

          (This is actually a serious question for the posters here)

          1. I’m for an age of consent. I’d carve out exceptions for near age consent (a 15-year-old sleeping with her 18-year-old boyfriend is not the same as a 50-year-old rimming a 9 year-old in the changing room at a public pool.)

            I’d put the age of majority at 16: drink, drive, smoke, and fuck anyone you want. Maybe not all at once.

            I am more hazy on what the sliding scale of self-ownership rights from 0-15.364 would be though.

            1. I’d like the drinking and drug age to be 18. 16 for smoking, driving, fucking and texting. No, texting should be 18 as well.

              As far as self-ownership rights, they should start at 16 unless one can become emancipated at an earlier age. And I like your ideas on near-age consent, but you wouldn’t want to have a 14 year old rimming the 9 year old either, would you? They gotta end somewhere. I’d say 15 is an appropriate age with a 10 year range for near-age consent.

              1. What’s so special about drinking? It will ruin your life less than having a kid at 17?

                1. No. I just think all those responsibilities thrust on a 16 year-old would be a little overwhelming and since the age of adulthood is 18, I think the drinking and drug use should be legal then.

                  So, I guess my answer is that I’m being arbitrary without any concrete reasoning. Unh, at least I can admit it.

      2. Gobbler said that he likes 4 year old girls, not boys like those homos at nambla.

        1. Oops, my bad. But seriously, you’re breaking bones going into either one at that age, so I’m gonna stand by my earlier statement.

          1. Thanks for the visual, asshole.

      3. FTR, I don’t have a predilection for 4 year olds. That part of the post was a joke.

        But the first part, the part about why it is that I find women peeing to be erotic was sincere. I wondered why I did until something jogged my memory about the little girl peeing. It made me think ah ha! That could be why.

        1. We all know it was a joke. Otherwise the party van would have already been in your driveway.

    4. Why doesn’t science distinguish between homosexual pedophiles and hetero pedophiles?

      Children don’t have a gender is what political correctness seems to be telling us even though pedophiles most always have a preference.

  34. R.C. that is just superstition dressed up as science.

    I’m not a credentialed behavioral psychologist, but I understood that the imprinting mechanism itself was pretty widely accepted. Not only the classic imprinting on parental figures, but also various kinds of sexual imprinting as well.

    Still, if you want to link me to something that says there is no such thing as imprinting, go right ahead.

    1. “but also various kinds of sexual imprinting as well.”

      And I would be inclined to agree.

  35. Where is the evidence of this “imprint”?

    Their behavior.

    You are just telling me a fairy tail of how some people like gay sex and others don’t. Where is the physical evidence of this?

    Their behavior.

    Is the drag queen’s brain or genes any different than the guy who occasionally jerks off to the thought of Brad Pitt?

    No, but the imprinting makes them act differently. Just like your imprint on your parents makes you act differently to them as opposed to any other random pair of adults.

    1. cheep cheep cheep

    2. “Where is the evidence of this “imprint”?

      Their behavior.”

      That is just a tautology. You say they are behaving like this because they are behaving like this. Using that logic, a dedicated exorcist could say that a person’s behavior is evidence of possession.

      And yes, I am aware that most psychologists believe in “imprinting”. I just think they are full of shit.

      1. Anything that is learned can be unlearned.

        “Imprinting” is just a way to say “see, it’s not my fault!”

        It’s an excuse for pussies unwilling to change their own behavior.

        1. Right. Get back to me when you unlearn all the languages you know.

  36. As a karate expert I personally know a guy is gay when we meet and I feel the need to check my fly.

    I checked my fly because Sams is Too Damn Gay!

    1. that one was a stretch

      1. I feel the need to check my fly.

        Oh shit, waffles, you are gay.

        I am so disappoint!

        1. my only fetish is too be covered with syrup, sometimes whipped cream, powdered sugar, and/or strawberries then eaten. if that’s wrong I don’t want to be right.

          1. How about a side of sausage with that order?

          2. Have you been peeking in my window?

        2. and furthermore, you’re projecting

          1. I’m a karate expert, I don’t project.

  37. Re: Mo,

    Once again, please answer: if the 14th Amendment doesn’t mean states are prohibited from establishing religion

    And it doesn’t.

    then does it also mean that states are allowed to engage in censorship and gun bans?

    I already established that the States cannot ban guns even without the 14th amendment, so that part of your argument is moot. As for censorship, freedom of expression is already implied as being one of our right as a person, as the 14th Amendment indicates people are protected on their person, their liberty and property.

    You can’t pick and choose which rights get incorporated and which ones don’t.

    There’s NO RIGHT that can be incorporated to have the State not establish a religion. You cannot incorporate something that is not there.

    Either incorporation means that states can’t engage in those behaviors or that they can.

    You’re equivocating. The 14th Amendment incorporates personal rights; the non-establishment of a religion by the states is NOT a personal right. This is why the 1st Amendment is CLEAR in its indication that Congress cannot make ANY LAW that establishes religion, not that people are free from religion.

  38. Re: Tony,

    Good thing there are no Marxists running for federal office in this country, certainly not in Delaware.

    Only a bearded Marxist is running. But any plain Marxists? Nah, those aren’t. You are right on THAT one.

    1. “Good thing there are no Marxists running for federal office in this country, certainly not in Delaware.”

      Except for Coons.

      And anyone who isn’t a Marxist, witch or otherwise, is better than everyone on earth who is one.

      1. Tony won’t buy it, but the plain fact is, between Coons and O’Donnell… there IS no choice between those two. Period.
        Fucked either way.

  39. What do you mean we’re not scared?
    Having a president who thinks you can stimulate the economy by printing money is fucking scarier than anything Sarah Palin or O’Donnell have said.

    1. Bailout a better investment than treasury bonds.

      1. The banks paid off the bailout money because the Fed printed some money and funneled it to them through alternate channels – such as by paying them interest on reserves, by buying up troubled assets, and by bailing out AIG (which paid the banks face value on their MBSes).

      2. There’s a whole lot of shady accounting in those numbers.

      3. Bite me|10.20.10 @ 4:19PM|#

        Bailout a better investment than treasury bonds.

        Entirely irrelevant, and mighty strange how you and your ilk measure success.

        The failed assumption there is the mendacious idea that bailed out firms being given a competitive advantage over their rivals translates to a positive for the economy as a whole.

        Last I looked (this morning), except for the parts propped up with funny money, the economy is still in the shitter. Perhaps, one thing has something to do with the other? Yeah, it kind of does, asshole.

        Peculiar how it leaves out some important offsetting facts as well. Is the debt to the initial $309 billion still being serviced? What, you are not counting the T-notes? And report their valuation as as if they are magically unconnected? Lol. Amateur.

        1. Those look like words, but all I see is “blahblahblahblah how do I weasel out of being wrong?!?!”

          1. Before weaseling out of being wrong, I would need to be wrong first, and since that doesn’t happen, your maladroit rhetoric falls flat. Shame, you badly misinterpret that singular data point you bring to the discussion, but now it has been pointed out to you, you are looking pretty stupid there trying to back it up.

  40. Is that her “O” face?

    God get another unflattering picture, that one is more retarded than unflattering.

  41. So if people don’t agree with you they lack sophistication? Sam old crap from elitists like you. You have all of the answers and therefore can cast judgement but all others lack the required sophistication. Enjoy your your fantasy world!

    1. Yep, that’s our Tony alright.

  42. From a Drudge headline:

    Axelrod Suggests Dem Upset: ‘Stay Up For The Full Night’…

    As close to an admission of ballot box stuffing as I have ever seen. You guys are really treading on thin ice Axelrod if you think you’ll get away with that. The peasants really will bring pitchforks this time.

    1. Conservatives on 2000 election:

      Get over it, he won!

      Conservatives on 2008 election:

      ACORN!! Dead people! Black panthers!

      Epistemic closure at its finest.

      1. Couldn’t you have just shortened your whole comment to
        “RACIST!”

      2. Do I really need to bother inverting this comment?

        1. That darned Tony! He’s such a card, being okay with fraudulent votes and Black Panther goons giving voters a good fun-time scare. What a knee-slapper!

          1. Were not aware of the recent voter intimidation by teabaggers? Let’s see if this gets 1/100th the coverage on FOX News as the single black panther thing did.

            I’m not okay with voting fraud and voter intimidation. That’s why I want Republicans to stop engaging in them.

            1. Terry O’Rourke, the first assistant in the Harris County Attorney’s office, told TPMMuckraker that there have been allegations of poll watchers talking to voters, which they are not allowed to do, as well as hovering over voters as they are waiting to vote. He said the complaints came from Kashmere Gardens, Moody Park, Sunnyside and other predominantly minority neighborhoods of the county.

              What was Michelle doing in Houston is what I would like to know.

              Meanwhile, the Texas Democratic Party is accusing the Tea Party group of working alongside the GOP on their anti-voter fraud effort. The Texas Democratic Party expanded a lawsuit alleging collusion between the GOP and the Green Party to include the King Street Patriot Tea Party group, the Austin Chronicle reports. The GOP’s website features a page promoting poll watching initiatives.

              We Democrats got our backs to the wall. They are ALL out to get us!

            2. No, Tony, I don’t excuse your example. But if you’re going to insinuate that only Team Red engages in this kind of behavior, then there truly is no hope for you.

              1. Did I say that?

                It is true though that evidence of Democrats engaging in voter intimidation or fraud is extremely scant–yet the idea is heavily trumpeted in the right-wing media.

                On the other hand conservatives have a very long tradition of not being too enamored with democracy, especially as it extends to non-white people.

                1. Maybe because it’s wrong when BOTH SIDES do it? Mabye THAT is why it gets “trumpeted” at all?

                  Wrong is wrong. But I’d bet you $3.50 that more dead people are on Democrat voter rolls.

  43. I enjoy reading your blog and thanks for the useful information.
    coastside services / coastside spas

  44. Re: Tony,

    Since the words “separation of church and state” were uttered by Jefferson himself, I’m pretty sure it is an underlying principle.

    No, that’s an argument from authority. It cannot be “the principle” only because TJ uttered the words after the fact. The underlying principle is Freedom of Religion, which is clearly stated in the Amendment, and that does not mean a separation of church and state.

    Then the 14th came along and applied most of the BoR to the states.

    Indeed but so far as citizen’s rights were concerned (not that this stops the Fed Gov from infringing even those). However the amendment does not impose any explicit (or even implicit) prohibition upon the various states to establish an official religion. The 1st Amendment still refrain (and refrains) Congress from establishing one, but that’s it.

    Do you have some problem with the idea of separation?

    No, absolutely none. Like you, I do not subscribe to the notion of government setting up a religion as official, but I also hold as true the principle that people are free to exercise AND express their religion, as long as it does not call to act against the freedoms of others. I for one am against prohibiting people from wearing burqas or a crucifix or a scapulary in schools.

    1. I think we agree… but a state setting up an official religion would be an infringement upon individuals’ right to freedom of religion, would it not?

    2. Jesus, what’s the problem with separation of church and state? Is it a Constitutional pedantry thing, like people obsessively need correct misuses of “effect/affect”, or are there some deep seated issues here?

      State = coercion. Religious belief/praxis should not be coerced. End of story.

      “Separation of church and state” is close enough to accurate relative to all the other Orwellian subversions of Constitutional meaning that I can’t help but believe that anyone complaining about it is a culture warrior at heart.

    3. The underlying principle is Freedom of Religion, which is clearly stated in the Amendment, and that does not mean a separation of church and state.

      Please explain how you think freedom of religion can exist without such a separation.

      However the amendment does not impose any explicit (or even implicit) prohibition upon the various states to establish an official religion. The 1st Amendment still refrain (and refrains) Congress from establishing one, but that’s it.

      You have to be willfully ignorant to believe that the Supremacy Clause does not apply to freedom of religion. Though doing so is quite popular.

  45. I think you people would defend just about anyone that’s a Tea-bagger

    1. You people?

      What do you mean “you people”?

      1. What do you mean, “what do you mean, ‘you people’?”

      2. If I remember correctly, use of that phrase is proof of racism or something.

  46. Or?and I realize this is probably crazy talk?voters aren’t scared; they have just been paying attention and are turning to candidates who, though far less than perfect and not always sophisticated, better reflect their sensibilities.

    Yes, that is crazy talk. Anyone who believes this has never met an average voter.

    Once they get into office, and they have to choose what legislative path do go down, which one do you think will get tossed out right after the oath of office, the insane religious crap or the empty platitudes toward fiscal responsibility?

  47. I wish Harsnayi would move to Israel and write his drivel in Hebrew.

  48. David must hate young-earth Neanderthals like me who believe homosexuality to be a choice and concurrently believe that nobody has any right to deny anyone their choice…

  49. I used to think that the Tea Party was about fiscal conservatism (and at one time it was). Really, it’s the right’s equivalent of Obama–the same wine in a new bottle.
    Maybe there is hope once some tea partiers get elected, but it seems like half the TP candidates are rushing for the nearest cliff.

  50. the ugg cardy are well in pretect you from the cold. It is necessities for you in the winter.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.