Rand Paul

Nick Gillespie Talking Rand Paul on NPR: "He's reaching out to minority and different audiences than the typical Republican."

|

I spoke with Scott Simon of NPR's Weekend Edition about the prospects for Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) as the presidential sweepstakes start gearing up. Paul, I said, is "libertarianish" and speaks to voters who are skeptical of state power and want more control over decisions affecting their lives and well-being.

Snippets:

He needs to expound on his governing philosophy and why does restraint in foreign policy also mean restraint in domestic affairs and why are those both good things….

Simon: Do you see traces of libertarian success?

Oh, yes. There's much more skepticism toward military intervention and I think there's much more skepticism toward the defense budget. On the domestic front, I think there are many types of libertarian successess…[such as] marriage equality and pot legalization. You can also throw in [criticism of] the militarization of police, which is something where Rand Paul was definitely out front. He was the first national politician to weigh in on the events in Ferguson and denounce the over-reaction of local police to peaceful protestors. He's reaching out to minority audiences and different audiences than the typical Republican candidate.

It remains to be seen if that pays off for him but I think it's very good for the country to see somebody who's not just saying, "I want to limit the government in the areas where it's bugging me but I want to expand it if I can make you live the way that I want you to."

Click below to listen (about 4 minutes).

Go here for full Weekend Edition page.

Advertisement

NEXT: VID: Sledding Bans Have Spread to Capitol Hill

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. Full Weekend Edition? Nice, Reason!!!! Oh, NPR.

  2. There’s much more skepticism toward military intervention and I think there’s much more skepticism toward the defense budget.

    I don’t think that as much to do with libertarians as it does with the results of the wars.

    1. A couple more beheadings or torchings and you’ll see that skepticism float away.

  3. Yeah, but his dad thinks we should audit the Fed! And a campaign guy said something racist once! And he has not fully prostrated himself before Sheldon Adelson! And something about abortion!

    Team Red and Team Blue will do everything in their power to sink him.

    1. I have not once heard Rand Paul refer to the genius of Lou Reed OR Bob Dylan.

      1. Or acknowledge the death of Bob Dylan. Or was it Lou Reed? I can’t remember.

    2. Team Red and Team Blue will do everything in their power to sink him.

      They will. Fortunately, they don’t control the voters. Granted, it’s a lot to overcome, but it isn’t impossible.

      1. The establishments of the parties have a monopolistic amount of control over the primary process, despite the facade of “people’s choice”. True “insurgents” never have a chance; the central committees can just manipulate the rules to make an insurgent’s support irrelevant.

        We have already been seeing Paul court the establishment (his endorsement of McConnell was only the most obvious play). He cannot win the Republican presidential primary without substantial establishment support going into the first few primaries.

        1. McConnell was worried about losing a primary.

          He brought Paul’s guy onto his staff to stop any reasonable challenges.

          That one was a two-way street.

  4. I like Rand Paul. If it wasn’t for the fact that I already live in a red state and my vote would be meaningless, I would probably vote for Paul if he got the nomination.

    All I wonder about is who would he choose for a VP running mate? I’d like to see a strong, well-rounded ticket that balances some of Paul’s weaknesses.

    1. How about Ben Carson?

      1. Ben Carson is a little bit crazy on certain scientific points. His comments about evolution come to mind.

        Not that it has any bearing on Rand’s ability to govern, but it would stick out like a sore thumb, particularly if Rand focuses on his career as a physician during his campaign.

        1. Yeah! That stupid Ben Carson doesn’t believe in evolution! That proves he doesn’t know anything about science! Politicians who don’t believe in evolution are really bad! And stuff!

          1. All I’m saying is that it would be an unnecessary hurdle when he could pick another running mate with greater electability.

            1. Perhaps, but since Dr. Carson was the first surgeon to successfully separate Siamese twins joined at the head, I think criticisms of his scientific knowlege are going to be hard to make.

              1. ” the first surgeon to successfully separate Siamese twins joined at the head”

                I’m not sure sawing mutant chinese babies in half means you’re necessarily cool with Darwin

                1. I can’t believe I laughed at this.

                  1. I can’t believe I laughed at this.

                    Gilmore, that is. Stupid threading.

          2. Is there any level of scientific ignorance that you think could be a factor in ones choice for President? Would a flat earther give you any pause?

            1. Skepticism is not scientific ignorance–except to a scientistic idiot.

            2. I just have to add more to Bo’s insane comment.

              A doctor is every bit as much a scientist as any academic researcher who toes the Darwinian line. There’s one big difference between the two that is very important. The doctor’s scientific expertise greatly affects his/her patients, while the academic–not so much. I have much more scientific respect for Dr. Ben Carson than I do for Richard Dawkins PhD.

          3. Politicians who don’t believe in evolution are really bad! And stuff!

            I likely wouldn’t vote for one.

        2. One nice thing about Ben Carson is how much he’s against Obamacare, probably because of his medical background.

      2. He said Obamacare was the worst thing since slavery. Obamacare is a complete piece of shit, but that is about as retarded as it gets.

        1. Personally, I’d take the wrong way of phrasing something over the wrong way of thinking.

          1. and btw, I’d prefer Paul or Walker as the candidate, but I’d definitely vote for Carson over, say, Clinton.

            1. I would vote for my labrador retriever over Clinton.

              1. Fido 2016

                He’s a good boy.

                1. The first Canine-American president!

                  Top that, Dems!

                  1. Top that, Dems!

                    First female, black lab.- Dem

          2. I typed out about 3 *really horribly* phrased things to prove you wrong, then decided that maybe that wasn’t the best idea.

        2. What is the worst thing since slavery?

          1. “What is the worst thing since slavery?”

            “Duh! having freed them. Do you know how much more profitable Koch Industries would be with a more-flexible labor force?”

            /prog-libertarian-cartoon

          2. I guess we have to limit it to known federal policies, so… Japanese-American internment?

            1. You got me there.

          3. How did an entire chain of comments responding to this happen without anyone mentioning Jim Crow and segregation? Really? Obamacare is worse than that?

            Also, Bo, saying something is “the worst thing since X” doesn’t mean you think it was as bad as X. Although I agree the comment was still stupid given things like Jim Crow, Japanese internment, the last couple decades of the Indian Wars, World War 1 (over 100,000 Americans needlessly dying), World War 2 (regardless of being justified, over 400,000 Americans died, so it was still a pretty bad thing even if the ultimate outcome was good), Vietnam, etc.

        3. I am gonna have to agree with Carson on that. When you consider the precedent it sets ( congress may command you to engage in commerce with the entity of their choosing ) and how far it facilitates the govt. reaching into your personal life, it aint so crazy. It means you can be guilty of a crime just by sitting still and doing nothing. It is the biggest power grab in our history.

          The day Obumblecare became law the federal government grew in stature exponentially and you got very, very small.

          1. It is the biggest power grab in our history.

            This is a big fucking deal.

          2. “I am gonna have to agree with Carson on that. ”

            Suthenboy, just stop. Really, stop.

            1. There are worse things qualitatively, like Korematsu, but they did not affect as many people. The idea that the government can universally fuck all of us is quite new, even if more or less all of us were already being fucked due to one “narrow” decision or another.

              1. Actually, come to think of it, I would say the income tax precedes the ACA as being “the worst” on the basis I outlined. Although the ACA has set a new precedent by virtue of skipping the “amending the Constitution” part.

                1. Again, worse than ACTUAL SLAVERY?

                  I can’t believe I have to even type that.

                  1. I don’t think you grasp the full meaning of it, the intrusiveness of it, how much power it grants. Also, the precedent it sets.

                    Mark my words, the broccoli mandate is coming.

                    1. “I don’t think you grasp the full meaning of it, the intrusiveness of it, how much power it grants. Also, the precedent it sets.”

                      Slow down there Dershowitz…

                      …you sound like you expect our resident ‘law student’ to not simply latch onto the superficial rhetorical/semantic point, and start morally grandstanding “BUT BUT BUT *SLAVERY*?!”….

                      and instead, contrary to all prior experience, actually rationally consider the legal implications of federally mandated/compelled behavior?

                      lol, good luck w/ that.

                  2. Again, worse than ACTUAL SLAVERY?

                    I can’t believe I have to even type that.

                    You mealymouthed cunt, Carson said it was the worst thing since slavery. He didn’t say it was worse than slavery.

                    Lying child.

                  3. Bo, speaking as one pedantic asshole to another, in order to be a successful pedantic asshole you have to be meticulously accurate.

                    And saying that something is the worst thing since slavery is not saying that it is worse than actual slavery.

                    Its that kind of misrepresentation and goalpost shifting that irritates people.

                    Your welcome.

                    1. When you say something is the worst thing since x you’re clearly implying the something is equivalently bad at least.

                    2. When you say something is the worst thing since x you’re clearly implying the something is equivalently bad at least.

                      Bo fails Logic 101 yet again.

                    3. That pizza was the worst thing since the Holocaust

                    4. Tony Gwynn had the highest batting average sine Ted Williams (or was it Brett?). Clearly then,fusing Board logic, he hit over .400.

                    5. This is why you don’t respond to it. The hand inside the sock knows it but says it anyway to get a response. We all know what the otherb hand is doing.

                    6. When you say something is the worst thing since x you’re clearly implying the something is equivalently bad at least.

                      “Hiphop is the worst musical genre since disco.”

                      Does that mean that hiphop is as bad as disco? Because nothing is worse than disco.

                    7. When you say something is the worst thing since x you’re clearly implying the something is equivalently bad at least.

                      At most, fuckwit.

                    8. You guys try to coordinate so desperately and still fail!

                    9. Why do you argue if you’re always right, Bo? You know nobody truly understands your brilliance, so why bother? Just sit at home, snug in your smug, and you won’t have to deal with the icky possibility that you’re not the smartest person in the room.

                    10. The projection again

                    11. Yep, you’re right. You got me. You won the Internet, now go masturbate to your greatness.

                    12. Kbolino, be serious. Just what was that comment if your expected to elicit from me? I imagine it was more for the gaggle here than me anyway.

                    13. Uh….no, no you aren’t. Not at all.

                      For instance:

                      “Having the flu is the worst thing that has happened to him since he was diagnosed with cancer.”

                      “A broken windshield is the worst thing that has happened to my car since the engine blew up.”

                      See?

                      When you are clearly wrong you just look foolish by continuing to make arguments for that position.

                  4. I can’t believe I have to even type that.

                    I can’t believe you can’t read, either, but here we are.

                  5. Bo-

                    He said “The worst thing since slavery”.

                    Botardesque as always…

                    1. They’re not even in the same league, that’s the point.

                    2. Like hell they aren’t. They are exactly in the same league, one just being more extreme than the other. Both are egregious property claims on you, denials of self ownership.

          3. “It means you can be guilty of a crime just by sitting still and doing nothing.”

            I mean, you do get that actual slaves were punished for ‘sitting around and doing nothing.’

            This is going to be up there with ‘why are blacks so opposed to liberty and into freeloading’ which you widely backed away from.

            You’re right the ACA is a terrible law and precedent but it isn’t close to institutional chattel slavery of a huge chunk of the population.

            1. Children with Asperger’s syndrome may:

              Be unable to recognize subtle differences in speech tone, pitch, and accent that alter the meaning of others’ speech. So your child may not understand a joke or may take a sarcastic comment literally. And his or her speech may be flat and hard to understand because it lacks tone, pitch, and accent.

              1. Please, Fancisco. Stop, Just Stop. Really.

              2. Suthenboy’s comments weren’t sarcastic, so as usual Francis you undercut your own point yourself, it’s you that can’t seem to detect sarcasm well.

                1. Do you really think he meant the worst thing since slavery, pedant? Do you think Carson even really meant that? Or do you think he was sarcastically overplaying it to bring attention to the comment?

                  Do you also believe people here really think Nikki is the worst? Worse than you? Really?

                  Get treatment, aspie.

                  1. “Do you really think he meant the worst thing since slavery, pedant?”

                    Francis, I don’t if it’s your senility or your rage at me that makes you argue this poorly, but he elaborated on the point. Yes he meant it.

            2. I think the comment was ‘worst since slavery’. Not ‘worse than slavery’.

              As for backing away from the other comment, I never said blacks are opposed to liberty, I said I didn’t understand why they don’t embrace it more. Different things.

              I didn’t back away from the sentiment, only the wording. You seem to have reading comprehension problems this morning. Go back to bed.

              1. “I think the comment was ‘worst since slavery’. Not ‘worse than slavery’.”

                So *now* you’re just suggesting that Obama is worse than the Holocaust.
                /Bo

              2. “I didn’t back away from the sentiment, only the wording.”

                And I’M the pedant. Sheesh

  5. You don’t understand! To have liberty, you must force the people who use force to stop using force, which is force! Liberty is force! Liberty is tyranny! Libertarians are tyrants!

    /Tony

    1. So many of his comments make sense now.

  6. You need either a better picture of him or some alt text.

    1. Alt-Text: “Dur-hur-hur-hur-hur!”

  7. Does Rand look a little like Ed Norton in that picture?

    1. First rule of the Rebulican Primary: Do NOT talk about the Republican Primary.

      I would so totally watch the debates if they just beat the hell out of each other.

      Or did you mean that Ed Norton?

  8. I like a Walker/Paul ticket, myself, for the Repubs. Hell, I might even vote for it.

    And I think it would fare better with Walker at the top of the ticket.

    1. I would prefer it the other way about, but I think you are right, with Walker at the top of the ticket they would be more electable.

      I wonder how much difference it makes anymore. The fedgov has grown into such a powerful behemoth it has taken on a life of its own. It will be interesting to see how much things change if they win.

      1. Government is a one-way ratchet. The best we could hope for is gridlock. But nothing will be repealed. That’s just not how government works.

        1. If an article V convention ever were to happen, could we resurrect Heinlein to write the new constitution?

          1. There are plenty of people around I would be comfortable with. Sadly I would not be the one choosing the authors.

          2. I’m sure that whatever came out of a Constitutional Convention would look more like the Soviet Constitution than anything resembling limited government.
            Things like health care, a living wage, and freedom from being offended would be enshrined into the supreme law of the land.

          3. You do know that he’d just ‘write’ the text of the original constitution, right?

            That was the gimmick at the Luna CC.

    2. Walker/Paul?

      How could we possibly elect two college DROP-OUTS?!!??

      /derp

      1. Paul has an MD from Duke.

        1. Try to keep up, Bo.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ge-degree/

          There are these things called jokes. Familiarize yourself.

          1. Paul attended Baylor University between 1981 and 1984 but never graduated. Yet he was able to attend Duke University Medical School and received a degree there in 1988.

            1. Oh shit! Another unqualified Republican. Bo’s three inch diamond cutter is now fully erect.

            2. An MD is a graduate degree, those who say his situation is similar to Walkers are crazy or ignorant about college degrees

              1. Uh, yeah. No shit.

                Again – it’s a joke, Bo, that’s why it has /derp at the end.

                1. Fair enough

          2. There are these things called jokes. Familiarize yourself.

            Children with Asperger’s syndrome may:

            Be unable to recognize subtle differences in speech tone, pitch, and accent that alter the meaning of others’ speech. So your child may not understand a joke or may take a sarcastic comment literally. And his or her speech may be flat and hard to understand because it lacks tone, pitch, and accent.

            1. I get what you’re doing here with Bo, Francisco, but as the parent of a kid with actual diagnosed Aspergers, it’s a bit old now. Let it go.

                1. Sorry LB.

                  🙂 Accepted.

              1. My apologies to LB, since I was also a participant.

                Chances are, I’d actually want to hang out with her son.

                1. Thanks, Playa. No problem.

                2. Me three. Although something is clearly off with our Bo. I generally like Aspie kids, though, too. They’re good at trivia.

                  1. They’re good at trivia.

                    And Call of Duty, and GTA, and WoW, and Mount and Blade War Band………

                    And programming in something called C++(although I don’t really know what that is).

                    He’s a great kid but not unreasonably argumentative (Iooking at Bo here).

                    1. How old is he? You can have him send me an email if he has any C++ questions. Assuming that he doesn’t already know more than me.

                    2. That’s sweet, thanks. He’s 16 but is taking a class in it at our community college for “fun”. If he get’s stuck, I’ll post and possibly you and some others can give him a hand.

                    3. Aspergers manifests in different ways. I have tried to urge people to be more sympathetic and encourage Bo to seek treatment and counseling. While I understand that it’s very trying to have to deal with it in an otherwise-rational discussion, and that it may be unfair to people who don’t have a personal connection with him, it’s just seems to be the moral thing for all of us to encourage him to understand the problem and try to do something about it.

              2. He can’t help it LB!

                Oh the projection, lol!

            2. This repetitive behavior of yours is the most autistic thing on this thread, Francis.

            3. I suppose I should correct that formatting before some pedant calls me out as being disingenuous (as opposed to taking the message to heart).

              There are these things called jokes. Familiarize yourself.

              Children with Asperger’s syndrome may:

              Be unable to recognize subtle differences in speech tone, pitch, and accent that alter the meaning of others’ speech. So your child may not understand a joke or may take a sarcastic comment literally. And his or her speech may be flat and hard to understand because it lacks tone, pitch, and accent.

              1. Francisco, I really think you’re onto something. I dug up the old exchange where I called him a virgin, and, man, he interpreted it even more weirdly than I thought. I don’t see how anyone without a personality disorder does this bad of a job of reading conversation.

                1. So it bothered you that much, huh. Wow.

                2. An aspie fuckboy, Charlie Sheen himself would be amazed at the winning in that combo.

    3. Why would it fare better with Walker than Paul? I realize Walkers the current conservative heartthrob but he’s not a very strong candidate. He’s kind of known for being a rather average speaker, he’s not going to have the spending advantage he’s enjoyed in his recent wins and he can’t keep punting on tough questions until Election Day.

      1. AND HE DIDN’T FINISH COLLEGE!

        1. If he’s nominated he’ll just drop out after completing 90% of the campaign.

      2. He is not a strong candidate? He won against some of the nastiest opposition in my memory and then beat a recall election.

        Opposition from all over the country was raised against him. Jesus, Bo, go back to bed. You are hung over.

        I can only think of two reasons for your dislike of Walker and neither of them are good.

        1. He outspent those opponents. Unions are hardly the biggest guns in the Democrats arsenal these days.

          1. Outspending them means he ran a great campaign.

        2. He’s not hung over. That would imply that he has friends to go out drinking with on a Friday night.

          THIS IS JUST HOW HE IS.

          Low self esteem, so he comes to start arguments to feel smart.

          I can honestly say that I’ve learned something from almost every commenter here. Expect Bo. He says so much without actually saying anything at all.

          1. “he has friends to go out drinking with on a Friday night.”

            Haha, the projection is great.

          2. Watch yourself. You’re about to get a heaping helping of NUH UH YOU ARE.

            1. Sort of. I don’t think he knows what “projection” means.

              1. I also don’t think he realizes that both of us are married with kids.

                1. Well that would explain Warty’s bizarre view on college sex life, it’s the solace for his envy of such a life.

          3. Shit, I was too late.

            1. Funny, your girlfriend says you’re usually early.

              1. 1. You watch them fuck? Granny porn not good enough for you?

                2. Are you a virgin? WoW girlfriends don’t count.

    4. At least Walker was a governor and won three times against the union bosses. 🙂

      He also hasn’t granted a single pardon, saying this would interfere with the criminal justice system. 🙁

      http://www.pardonpower.com/201…..-dumb.html

      1. I suppose the course about the proper use of executive clemency must have been in the last semester of his senior year.

        1. His pardon position is terrible, but sadly I doubt that would hurt him politically.

      2. A Governor’s pardon power is a pretty important part of the CJ system and it is there for a very good reason.

        Perhaps someone should explain that to him and urge him to rethink his position on that.

    5. Mike Lee would be a great choice for veep for Paul

    6. Walker is a skilled partisan warrior who’s as boring as a bale of hay to a farmer.

      1. His cheerleaders here don’t know that, their infatuation with him came from and after reports of that Iowa outlier speech and his subsequent push by the right wing pundits.

        1. Ok, so clearly Bo is a sockpuppet. The “Bo Cara Esq.” handle has been in use long enough that, were it run by a real person, that person would know Walker was talked about on these boards long before his lack of a degree became an “issue”, before he gave some speech, or before the “marching orders” were given by the pundit cabal.

          1. I think it’s more that Walker has accomplished a lot without a degree, which is a direct threat to a credentialist moron like Bo.

            1. Oh sure, but this ignorant lashing out reflects either sockpuppetry or a childish intellect. I suppose I was being too charitable.

            2. Actually, I’ve said over and over regarding this that many people without degrees are competent and many without are not. If I had my druthers I would have read for the law.

              My only point with Walker is that it is very unusual for governors to be college drop outs, and that is because it’s a criteria that has some weight in our society with many. That’s just true, but in the need to see Walker as a white knight you guys are essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and running around going ‘lalala’

          2. The uptick about Walker here as Presidential choice has certainly increased since he gave that speech and started to figure more in the right wing media that most here follow.

            1. Ignore the point, deflect and dissemble, hurl unsubstantiated insults, then walk away victorious.

              How many times are you going to masturbate today? At least have the common decency to keep it to yourself.

  9. You may have heard about the Equation Group by now, the NSA group dubbed so by Kaspersky, the progenitors of Flame and Stuxnet, with their malware infecting hard drive firmware for persistence, used to bridge air gaps between machines by further infecting USB drives. Researchers have called it the most sophisticated operations by far. One of the initial vectors were CDs handed out at conferences, events, trade shows. And interestingly, an Oracle database installation CD is one of those.

    Anyways, there’s an old document from Snowden’s cache, prior to this discovery of Equation, describing the list of projects to work dealing with persistance: http://www.spiegel.de/media/media-35661.pdf

    I have to say, I’m impressed. If you know C, x86 and ARM assembler for drive firmware, BIOS/EFI, ATA/SCSI/storage device & kernel & hypervisor & driver & filesystems programming for Windows, Linux, Mac, Solaris, you might qualify for the job as an Intern

    1. The other interesting thing is that one of the projects, persistence using EFI on pg 8, mentions a project MOUSETRAP by “Sandia” which I assume to be Sandia Labs.

  10. “On the domestic front, I think there are many types of libertarian successess…[such as] marriage equality”

    Ah, you poor, simple country mouse!

    The libertarians are quickly joining the Bad Guys in the prog/SJW/gay-rights narrative. You support the right of private businesses to discriminate against gays….how do you think your putative “allies” in the gay-rights movement are going to take that?

    Google the phrase “religious right right to discriminate business hate” and you’ll get a glimpse of the reaction you’re going to get as you defend freedom for private business. You’ll discover that you’re allied with the Religious Right to impose theocracy on America. You’ll find out that you’re promoting “homophobia.” You’ll realize that you support gays starving to death in the desert because the only gas station for miles won’t serve them.

    I’m going to have a serious temptation to experience schadenfreude as you get bombarded with the same accusations you’ve loaded onto the SoCons.

    You’re the Girondins of the gay-rights movement, starting out as enthusiastic revolutionaries and denouncing your opponents as reactionaries and enemies of progress…until one day you find the Jacobins using the same rhetoric against you, accusing you of counterrevolutionary sympathies. And when you’re riding to the guilloting in the same tumbril as Rick Santorum, you will to the very end protest that “wait, I’m not like him! I support gay rights and same-sex marriage! Why don’t you listen?”

    1. Time will make this issue largely blow away, as it always has. Nobody will be 100% happy and there won’t exist ideological purity but that’s life.

      1. The trend right now is victory for the SSM side, and this includes conscripting bakers, wedding chapels, etc. into performing same-sex ceremonies.

        And the idea that the SSM forces will settle for less than their maximum demands is silly. Look what happened when “moderates” suggested giving same-sex couples all the benefits they demanded except the name of marriage. Were the SSMers content with this 90% victory? No – they said it was the equivalent of Jim Crow.

        Whenever someone offers a bill (like in Arizona) specifying that for-profit businesses and defendants in “civil rights” actions are entitled to religious freedom (without mentioning gays), there is OUTRAGE at this ANTI-GAY BILL!

        Likewise when anyone offers an amendment to an SSM bill allowing profit-making businesses to enjoy their religious freedom – “ANTI-GAY! HATE! THEOCRACY!”

        No, at least as one side is concerned, if they aren’t 100% happy, the outrage and activism will continue.

        1. the outrage and activism will continue.

          Yes, but it will gradually become less noticeable as society adjusts – same as happened after the civil rights movement. I suspect the number of, yes, anti-gay businesses will decrease as they realize what it’s doing to their bottom line.

          1. Let’s see…the civil rights movement produced laws against racial discrimination by private businesses (except the smallest ones).

            And how did society adjust? It rejected white supremacy, driving it into dark corners of society and Internet fora. So far, so good. But you may have noticed that societal adjustment includes riots in Missouri (criticism of which, I have reason to know, can be dismissed as racist), even the promotion of racist stereotypes in the name of eradicating racism – eg, charging companies with racism for screening out job applicants with criminal records – good way to fight stereotypes, saying an anti-criminal policy is anti-black! And affirmative action, because apparently “minority” people can’t make it on their own?

            etc.

            So even with the arguably more righteous and holy cause of racial justice, victory itself was not enough for the triumphant movement.

            Do you imagine that the gay-rights movement will come to some sort of equilibrium? Like allowing business freedom in exchange for SSM? Or ditching the weird “trans” movement?

            You’re more optimistic than I am.

            1. Do you imagine that the gay-rights movement will come to some sort of equilibrium? Like allowing business freedom in exchange for SSM? Or ditching the weird “trans” movement?

              No, of course not. And why should they? Your argument seems to be, “Look, we tolerate you enough already now STFU.” That is not how human nature works.

              1. “Your argument seems to be, “Look, we tolerate you enough already now STFU.””

                No, my argument is that you are wrong about the issue blowing away without victory for either side.

          2. No, at least as one side is concerned, if they aren’t 100% happy, the outrage and activism will continue.

            42 years after Roe v. Wade Republicans are still trying to pass restrictions on abortions.* I’m assuming that you aren’t 100% happy with Roe v. Wade. Would you say that your outrage and activism have continued on that issue? Or are you ok with something you see as an injustice being the settled law of the land?

            While I don’t believe abortion and gay marriage are conceptually related, I think you’re being disingenuous by acting like THOSE people are engaged in endless activism when you seem quite prone to endless activism for issues you feel are important.

            1. Actually, I’m not criticizing people for acting according to their beliefs, I was responding to Rhywyn, who *was* claming that it would all settle down short of a final victory for SSM.

              1. I think the guy you ought to criticize is the one saying the issue will “blow[] away” without either side getting everything it wants. I see no evidence of that, any more than I see evidence of abortion blowing away.

                1. I think the issue will legitimately become less and less prominent, but I’m sure there’ll be contention around the edges forever. Some of the true believers in the gay rights movement will keep pushing, but as people see success on the issues that they care about funding to aggressively pursue the less important “victories” will dry up or at least be reduced to a trickle. There are plenty of gays and lesbians who are already sick of HRC funding drives when they feel the organization has very few realistic goals left to achieve.

                  Also gay marriage, like gays become more normal in the public eye just by being visible. Abortion is a much harder sell when it comes to cultural normalization.

                  1. I agree abortion is a class by itself. Far less likely than any other issue to go away on its own – fundamental differences of viewpoint here.

                    “There are plenty of gays and lesbians who are already sick of HRC funding drives when they feel the organization has very few realistic goals left to achieve.”

                    I think they’re among the Girondins of my metaphor.

                    1. I’m not sure how. Gay rights is quickly becoming a back burner issue compared to say campus rape or fracking and even trans issues. The issue is already losing steam and gay rights orgs are shifting gears for the trans issue, or becoming generalized new-left-alliance funding orgs, or in a few joy-making cases declaring victory and demobilizing.

                      We’re not on the precipice of homofascism, we’re looking at the twilight of gay rights as “the civil rights struggle of our time”.

                    2. “We’re not on the precipice of homofascism”

                      Aw?

                      But I read the book and everything.

                    3. But I read the book and everything.

                      I saw the text and I hoped SO MUCH it would be The Pink Swastika by noted prolapsed rectum, Scott Lively. Thank you, GILMORE, day made.

                    4. If that’s so, it’s because SSM is carrying all before it, so that if things go as they are there will be no new battles to fight (of course, I see the trans-right thing as a continuation of the same sort of trend as SSM, but moving on…)

                      Yes, if you want to compare the SSM movement to, say, the woman’s suffrage movement, most of the suffrage organizations either folded up or shifted gears *after they won.*

                      Rhywyn, however, seemed to suggest the SSM movement would settle for something short of victory. If I were them, I wouldn’t stop until I’d completely won. And I don’t think they will stop until then.

                    5. Rhywyn, however, seemed to suggest the SSM movement would settle for something short of victory. If I were them, I wouldn’t stop until I’d completely won. And I don’t think they will stop until then.

                      Total victory meaning nation-wide legal recognition of gay marriages performed in any state with full marriage reciprocity? Or that all Christians are driven into the sea while homofascists lap up the lamentations of good Christian women?

                      We should probably clarify before we continue on because I’m guessing Rhywun and I will probably hold very different definitions of gay victory than you do.

                    6. “Or that all Christians are driven into the sea while homofascists lap up the lamentations of good Christian women?”

                      Good one – more like “dissenters from SSM are free to discuss their views in a low voice in their churches, synagogues, mosques, Gurdwaras or whatever during the one day a week they do whatever weird religion-y stuff they do, but during the rest of the week, they’ll have to lay aside their superstitions in the name of gay rights and serve whatever gay customers the government tells them to…or else go out of business!”

                    7. Then yes, I believe that SSM advocates will settle for something less than what you consider “victory”.

                      See, that was quite easy.

                    8. “Then yes, I believe that SSM advocates will settle for something less than what you consider “victory”.”

                      So the ACLU and other leading gay groups *don’t* want to force businesses to “serve whatever gay customers the government tells them to…or else go out of business”?

                    9. It doesn’t really matter, does it? All in the group should be punished because you don’t like that some people in the group are being litigious.

                      “Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?”

                      If there was one person or couple filing lawsuits you’d dig your teeth into it like a pitbull.

                    10. but during the rest of the week, they’ll have to lay aside their superstitions in the name of gay rights and serve whatever gay customers the government tells them to…or else go out of business!”

                      a. Yes, you need to lay aside your superstition in the m=name of liberty. This is not a theocracy and even groups you disapprove of have equal protection under the law.

                      b. No, you do not need to sell to customers you don’t wish to.

                      For the 69th time your premise is false.

                      SSM does not equal protected class. Stop saying it does. It is a lie.

                    11. You know what else is a lie? Saying that I equate the two.

                    12. You keep clear of my wife’s lamentation.

                      *brandishes shotgun*

              2. I said it will *largely* blow away, as in, the issue will be settled to the satisfaction of *most* people.

                1. The thing is, if this issue had gone the way “most people” wanted, it would *already* have gone away, maybe with “civil unions,” or full-fledged SSM, recognized in some of the advanced states, while the other states denied recognition.

                  The issue is being kept up, not by “most people,” but by what you might call “the extremists on both sides,” with the momentum belonging, for the moment, to the SSM guys.

                  1. Yes Eddie, those people who believe in equal protection under the law are “extremists”.

                  2. I don’t think the freedom to get married in some states but not others is an “extremist” position.

                    1. Gah, that should have read something like “I don’t think that agitating for more than the freedom to get married in some states….”

                  3. The thing is, if this issue had gone the way “most people” wanted, it would *already* have gone away, maybe with “civil unions,” or full-fledged SSM, recognized in some of the advanced states, while the other states denied recognition.

                    While that may be a satisfactory outcome from an ideological perspective it’s a tough sell on pragmatism. A patchwork of different marriage/civil union/domestic partnership laws becomes a nightmare for people who live in one state and work for a corporation HQ’d in one state, move, buy life insurance across state lines or have to go to the hospital to die while on vacation in Florida.

                    1. Just to be clear, once again, I’m not *endorsing* such a setup (you know where I stand), but commenting on what the “muddled middle” would probably have done if they were the ones driving the process.

                  4. “We’re not on the precipice of homofascism”

                    Again, I didn’t say we were.

                    What we *are* doing is sliding down the slippery slope of the Sexual Revolution.

                    Each “reform” advocated by the revolutionaries – no-fault divorce, welfare for never-married mothers, all the way up to SSM and “trans rights” today – is part of a pattern – overturning traditional norms about the family (a “norm” doesn’t mean something everyone complies with, it refers to the expectations even the violators are at least publicly expected to respect).

                    SSM isn’t a unique “homofascist” movement, it’s part of a continuum of, with all due respect, bad policies.

                    1. What we *are* doing is sliding down the slippery slope of the Sexual Revolution.

                      I continue to find the domestication of gays a weird example of The Sexual Revolution. Sexual revolutionaries are pissed the pendulum swinging back toward a more traditional family-centric model.

                    2. I totally get what you’re saying.

                      If Patty the Lesbian settles down with Marcie,* avoiding a promiscuous lifestyle, there’s something to be said for that set-up. I actually know some Parries and Marcies.

                      However, I don’t think that’s enough to say that the government should recognize the purely erotic aspects of their relationships, as if there should be a preference for people in a sexual relationship over people who are friends in a non-erotic manner.

                      *Heh, heh, see what I did there?

                    3. Also, though I don’t know if this is accurate, a nice lesbian lady once told me about Lesbian Bed Death – allegedly a phenomenon where the lesbian partners stop having sex and are content to remain simply friends and housemates.

                      If the lady was right, I see nothing essentially wrong with two Sapphists living together and looking out for each other.

                    4. Lesbian Bed Death

                      Ahahaha. That’s certainly a thing in some relationships, although I think if you talk to married straight couples it’s hardly confined to lesbians.

                    5. However, I don’t think that’s enough to say that the government should recognize the purely erotic aspects of their relationships, as if there should be a preference for people in a sexual relationship over people who are friends in a non-erotic manner.

                      Ah, and there’s the disconnect. You see gay marriage as a recognition of my “sexual lifestyle” while I see it as, ya know, my life. This seems to be a common disconnect that somehow when straight people hold hands in public it’s normal but if gay people do it it’s PUSHING YOUR SEX LIFE IN M FACE.”

                      The procreative argument is lame because civil marriage isn’t structured purely to promote procreation and the child rearing of purely biological children. Even if civil marriage were purely for child-rearing why shouldn’t gay parents have access to an institution meant to improve family stability.

                    6. You’re going to roll your eyes at this, but the reason the government acknowledges marriage has to do with the biology of sex and reproduction. Yes, I know there are sterile opposite-sex couples, but these are outliers, as opposed to (sorry) same-sex relationships which are by their nature sterile.

                      Now, if the government could give recognition to unmarried people, not as sex partners but as, say, sharers of a household, whether there’s sex involved or not, then that would be quite OK. If two housemates mingle their assets and get special tax treatment, or get the chance to fill out simple forms to designate each other as beneficiaries etc. etc., I see no objection.

                      I would object when the government takes notice of someone’s *nonprocreative* or *nonmarital* sexual activity for the purpose of extending benefits not available to, say, friends who aren’t in an erotic relationship.

                    7. So biological children are more important than adopted children?

                      As an adopted child whose biological father was adopted himself I’m dismayed that you think the familial framework of a biological family is somehow more deserving of status. I suppose we could penalize adoptive and foster families, but we might have to gear up Planned Parenthood since biological parents might feel that there are fewer quality homes available to take in the kids they’re planning to abandon.

                    8. I totally support adoption laws, and if there are no married couples ready to adopt (or if the married couples are disqualified for criminality, drug abuse, insanity, etc.), then I would let non-marital people do the adopting, in preference to the horrors of foster care.

                      It’s a shades of gray situation, not like the novel but like in terms of sometimes we can’t have the ideal situation so we do the best we can.

                    9. So if a straight unmarried couple wanted to adopt a kid they could get married and get bumped to the top of the list, but a gay couple HAS to wait until you run out of not-criminally-insane straight people before they can take children into their home and at that point the legal structure will be in some ways subtly and other ways heavily stacked against them.

                      Elegant social engineering there, Eddie.

                    10. “but a gay couple HAS to wait until you run out of not-criminally-insane straight people before they can take children into their home”

                      Put it that, way, yes.

                      Some of my views can’t be sugar-coated, even if I wince at the thought of offending nice people by saying these things.

                    11. Exception: Of course, the gay couple could take in the children of relatives, or other kids who aren’t in the adoption pipeline. I’m referring to people who are in the government’s adoption pipeline.

                    12. Of course, the gay couple could take in the children of relatives, or other kids who aren’t in the adoption pipeline.

                      Your magnanimity knows no bounds, Eddie. It’s truly a shame that bigot is so freighted with lefty petulance because you fit the traditional meaning in a really stellar way. I’m certainly glad that Papaltopia is even further out of reach than Libertopia.

                    13. Ah, well, this is why, out in meatspace, I try to avoid certain topics with my SJW buddies.

                      One of them pressed me to say who I voted for in the election – a subject which I normally avoid – but when he pressed me, I admitted having voted for the Republican. Another SJW who was listening gasped audibly, as if I’d just admitted killing the Lindbergh baby.

                      Likewise, when I made some critical remarks about the Ferguson rioters and even called them “looters,” this SJW went into an extended rant about how not only was I a racist, but he (the SJW) had a moral duty to “call me out,” because if he failed to do so he would be complicit in my bigotry.

                      So I suppose, with all due respect, I’ve grown a bit desensitized to these sorts of insults.

                      And I admit I kind of look forward to seeing the SJWs turn on *you* and go after you because of your support for business freedom, turning against you the kind of invective you enjoy using against me.

                      “OMG, what kind of heartless theocrat are you? You would let these bigots put their religious fanaticism and lust for profit over the human rights of gay people? What’s wrong with you? Have you no compassion? What if some gay people starve to death in the middle of the desert because the only gas station and restaurant in the area are run by homophobes? Where is your sense of decency, sir, at long last?” ad infinitum

                    14. And I admit I kind of look forward to seeing the SJWs turn on *you* and go after you because of your support for business freedom, turning against you the kind of invective you enjoy using against me.

                      You poor outsider. I’m openly libertarian with a range of friends and family from statist conservative to statist liberal. I’ve had plenty of “invective” leveled against me that would make “bigot” look tame by comparison.

                      As to your assumption that I “enjoy” calling you a bigot I’d point out that I dislike the word because it’s tossed around too lightly, but believe you fit the bill quite spectacularly:

                      a) A person considered to adhere unreasonably or obstinately to a particular religious belief, practice, etc.

                      b) In extended use: a fanatical adherent or believer; a person characterized by obstinate, intolerant, or strongly partisan beliefs.

                      I am sorry if that “offends” you, but I know enough gay couples that are amazing parents raising wonderful children that saying gay people raising kids is barely better than them being raised by the insane can only be construed as bigoted.

                    15. I’m not clear – are you saying you *don’t* adhere obstinately to your beliefs, or that you aren’t fanatical, intolerant, or strongly partisan?

                      “saying gay people raising kids is barely better than them being raised by the insane”

                      would be an interesting claim requiring proof, so by all means point me to someone who holds such a view.

                      I think it says something for a cause that the supporters of that cause continually engage in distortion and straw-manning in defense of their position.

                    16. Let me mention that I *do* have libertarian and Republican friends, but they’re not the ones I’m complaining about – they’re not what I’d call the most polite or diplomatic people, nor am I, but they don’t go on extended rants about how the term “looter” is racist or similar foolishness.

                    17. “but a gay couple HAS to wait until you run out of not-criminally-insane straight people before they can take children into their home”

                      Put it that, way, yes.

                      This isn’t a distortion or strawman and I find your claim that it is very weird.

                      I’m not clear – are you saying you *don’t* adhere obstinately to your beliefs, or that you aren’t fanatical, intolerant, or strongly partisan?

                      Not really, no. I have a hierarchy of preferences with legally everyone gets civil unions and marriage is left to be defined by faith communities, the dissolution of relationship recognition by the state and then legal recognition of same sex marriage. You would use the machinery of the state to force a particularly Catholic morality onto the law.

                      And if you think I’m fanatically intolerant of you then you have been huffing too much martyrdom complex. I generally respect that you have strong opinions influenced by your faith and are free to pursue those as you see fit, but I bristle that you think it’s just to handicap good families because you don’t like them.

                    18. Let me go back to:

                      “I’ve had plenty of “invective” leveled against me that would make “bigot” look tame by comparison.”

                      Are you referring to people who make anti-gay remarks, or people who criticize you for your views on business freedom?

                    19. “You would use the machinery of the state to force a particularly Catholic morality onto the law.”

                      No, as a matter of fact, I would not, and I’ve explained before several times that in one key sense I *don’t* want a secular state like like the U.S. to recognize Catholic marriage doctrine. Specifically, the so-called Pauline Privilege allows divorce and remarriage on religious grounds in certain rare circumstances:

                      http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/20…..privilege/

                      …but I don’t believe a secular state, which practices neutrality among religions, should recognize the Pauline Privilege. Anyone wishing to use this privilege should move to a Catholic country, not stay in the U.S.

                      In short, I would have American law be *stricter* against divorce than Catholic law is.

                    20. And that’s why you’re an evil person.

                      I don’t give a fuck where you go on Sunday or what costume you wear.

                      You. Are. Evil.

                    21. So, I would be less evil if I allowed Christians special divorce privileges under American law, simply because they’re Christians?

                      Why do you hate Jews, Buddhists, and atheists, Playa?

                    22. You’re not even good at arguing.

                      Just accept that you’re evil, and stop trying to hide it with sophistry.

                      You obviously already know your beliefs are fucked up, otherwise you wouldn’t go to such great lengths to conceal them.

                    23. Conceal my views? If I wanted to conceal my views, I’d say something like, “wow, Pl?ya Manhattan is really smart and insightful!”

                    24. I’m sorry for what happened to you, and what led you to the church. But, you made a bad choice. It’s time to find something more productive to do with your life.

                      You still have a chance to be happy. Take stock in your life, and make the changes that need to be made.

                      Your sexless life, and trying to project that onto others? It’s a waste of everyone’s time. Just knock it off.

                      Go find a woman. Make her happy, have kids.

                    25. I would probably have to find an *evil* woman, just so we’d be compatible. (me being evil and all)

                      But suppose I’m Lawful Evil and she’s Chaotic Evil? How do we raise the kids? I suppose we could compromise and raise them as neutral evil.

                      Or we could put the kids up for adoption. Of course, I would much rather the kids be raised by a same-sex couple than by some idiot on the Internet.

                    26. I think that if you found a woman, you wouldn’t be evil anymore.

                      Glibness aside, you do realize that what you’re saying is out of hate, right?

                      Why do you give a shit about what other people do with their genitals? The problem comes from within….

                    27. “Why do you give a shit about what other people do with their genitals?”

                      As a general rule, I don’t care at all. Any more than I care, as a general rule, whether someone abstains from, or partakes of, from marijuana or large-size sodas, or untaxed cigarettes.

                      But when someone’s smoking or eating preferences, or lack thereof, become a matter of public policy, to the extent of arresting, fining or choking people with the wrong dietary or smoking choices, then yes I become very interested. I end up thinking a lot more about cigarettes and soda than under ordinary circumstances.

                      Likewise when people want to use the force of law to force their sexual preferences on others.

                      You cannot say at one and the same time (a) “OMG what I do in the bedroom is none of your business” and (b) “OMG you better agree with what I do in the bedroom or I’ll bankrupt you/drive you out of your job/etc, and (c) “incidentally, could you pass some laws to normalize my sexual preference.”

                      You’re at best naive about what’s going on. But I suggest, keep getting out and open about protecting business freedom, and then you’ll find out all sorts of things about yourself – you’ll find that you’re evil, theocratic, etc.

                    28. “I think that if you found a woman, you wouldn’t be evil anymore.”

                      Henry VIII found *six* women (at least). Maybe I should be a nice guy like him!

                    29. Man, that 500 year old straw is really flammable!

                    30. I don’t know if they still do this, but the U.S. used to promote American cigarettes abroad. I bet the tobacco lobbyists would have loved to dismiss the critics of this policy with, “why do you care so much what people put into their mouths?”

                      But of course the involvement of the government, etc. etc.

                      But I think you’re aware of these distinctions, you’re simply in the middle of a two-minute hate, stimulating yourself to a climax in your anger against the latest Goldstein.

                      Your rage certainly isn’t healthy.

                    31. Blah Blah Blah you hate fags.

                      Just say it. Stop dancing around.

                    32. Well, *this* is productive. Even I can see it’s not going anywhere.

                      Good night.

                    33. Likewise when people want to use the force of law to force their sexual preferences on others.

                      That’s EXACTLY what you admit to want to do to gays.

                      SSM should not be recognized by the government, actual marriage should be.

                      Ya know what Eddie? I just realized, you aren’t smart enough to participate in a rational argument.

                      I am done with you. You disgust me. Enjoy your miserable life, bigot.

                    34. “I’m sorry for what happened to you, and what led you to the church.”

                      May I ask what you’re alluding to?

                    35. I wouldn’t violate your trust, even though I find your views repulsive.

                      But I am alluding to a loss in the family.

                    36. My brother’s suicide (which I’ve mentioned on H&R) didn’t lead me into the Church.

                    37. So you keep stroking yourself to a climax at the thought of your superior compassion, while trying to exploit another person’s tragedy, a tragedy which you believed (fortunately incorrectly) that you learned about in confidence.

                      You don’t have any sense of dissonance?

                    38. I might be more understanding if it did.

                      How did you let this happen to yourself?

                    39. How did I get into an argument with someone who insults me and taunts me about my brother’s suicide?

                      You know, I’m not sure how I let this happen to myself, but I’m out.

                    40. God damn you’re manipulative. Or at least you try to be. Fortunately, you’re not very good at it.

                      Victim points: 0

                    41. “How did you let this happen to yourself?”

                      This is In re: a middle aged man suddenly converting to Ukranian Catholism

                      I went with the most compassionate conclusion, which was that you were going through some tough personal times.

                      If you just saw a sign on the sidewalk and walked into the church, well, that’s on you, and I don’t feel any compassion for your situation. You’re a smart guy, and if you were in a sound state of mind, you should have known better.

                      So here we are. You hate fags, and pretty much anyone who enjoys sex outside of a first marriage. I don’t know how you arrived here, and I don’t much care. But the victim shit is soooo lame. 0/10.

                    42. I’m no victim.

                      Good night.

                    43. As a side note, you continue to argument by comparison terribly.

                      I was criticized for voting Republican

                      and

                      I just told a gay guy that the legal presumption in adoption should be that gay couples are always worse than straight couples, even those who are barely above the line of the dregs of society and he called me a bigot in the formal and technically correct sense

                      are not comparable things.

                    44. No, I compared your rants to the guy who said the term “looter” was racist.

                    45. Anyway, I’m glad you don’t adhere strongly to your beliefs, because if you did, you’d be a bigot, and would lack the standing to accuse me of same!

                    46. Now you’re being a weasel.

                      One of them pressed me to say who I voted for in the election – a subject which I normally avoid – but when he pressed me, I admitted having voted for the Republican. Another SJW who was listening gasped audibly, as if I’d just admitted killing the Lindbergh baby.

                      Likewise, when I made some critical remarks about the Ferguson rioters and even called them “looters,”

                      You’ve structured these things as all of apiece. Please don’t go back and claim that one was meant to be included in the comparison and one was not.

                    47. OK, I’m saying *now* that your rants are equivalent of saying that the term “looter” is racist.

                    48. Still that’s a false equivalence. You’ve explicitly said that you think that legally gays should be presumed to be unfit parents compared to straights. In your comparison the SJW took a word you used and inferred a great deal.

                      I think it says something for a cause that the supporters of that cause continually engage in distortion and straw-manning in defense of their position.

                      That cracks me up as you’ve been caught out multiple times in this thread misrepresenting, making false equivalences and retconning your own statements.

                      Anyway, this has long since stopped being substantive and I have errands I need to do. I hope you have a good rest of your evening.

                    49. “You’ve explicitly said that you think that legally gays should be presumed to be unfit parents compared to straights.”

                      Again, I categorically deny having made any such statement, unless you’re using “unfit parents” in some sense I am unfamiliar with.

                      If two otherwise equally-fit couples – one married (man/woman), and the other same sex – want to adopt the same child, then the preference should go to the married couple.

                      “Unfit parents,” gay or straight, should not even be *considered* as adoptive parents.

                      I sincerely believe that your shock and horror at my stance affects your perception of reality and leads you to vastly overstate (to put it mildly) what I actually said.

                    50. And I would still be interested to see the part where I said that “gay people raising kids is barely better than them being raised by the insane” – since the passage supposedly proving I said that doesn’t say anything about gays being “barely better” than insane people.

                    51. And I would still be interested to see the part where I said that “gay people raising kids is barely better than them being raised by the insane”

                      “but a gay couple HAS to wait until you run out of not-criminally-insane straight people before they can take children into their home”

                      Put it that, way, yes.

                      Some of my views can’t be sugar-coated, even if I wince at the thought of offending nice people by saying these things.

                      It’s too easy. You are so fucked up all one needs to do is quote you back to yourself.

                      English. Do you speak it?

                    52. Yes, if you squint hard enough, and use enough drugs, you can see the part where I said “gay people raising kids is *barely* better than them being raised by the insane.” [emphasis added]

                    53. Why do you engage him? He let the mask slip the other day. He’s an enemy of liberty, period.

                    54. You see gay marriage as a recognition of my “sexual lifestyle” while I see it as, ya know, my life.

                      I often see it boil down to this, and… that’s when I leave the argument.

                    55. I often see it boil down to this, and… that’s when I leave the argument.

                      You are apparently much wiser than I am.

                    56. You are apparently much wiser than I am.

                      Well, I know when to stop wasting my time – FWIW.

            2. (blargh, threading fail)

        2. The trend right now is victory for the SSM side, and this includes conscripting bakers, wedding chapels, etc. into performing same-sex ceremonies.

          derp

          1. OK, what *would* victory look like?

            1. Short term victory

              1. Gay marriage, exactly the same as hetero.
              2. No protected class status for gays.

              Long term victory

              1. No protected class status for anyone.
              2. Government COMPLETELY out of marriage.

              1. Ah, but that’s victory for *your* side what I referred to was “victory for the SSM side.”

                The side which will soon be casting you out as a reactionary Girondin.

                1. Seriously – and I’m actually asking for information – what reaction to you good folks get when you explain you’re for business being “allowed to discriminate against gays”?

                  1. what reaction to you good folks get when you explain you’re for business being “allowed to discriminate against gays”?

                    I don’t really care about what reaction liberty elicits. No one may tell me who to associate with.

                    I don’t ask to be “allowed to discriminate against gays”. I demand to run my business as I choose and with whom I choose.

                    1. That’s why I put the phrase “allowed to discriminate against gays” in quotes, because I know the word “allowed” would rub libertarians the wrong way.

                2. The only “side” I’m interested in is the “liberty for all” side.

                  And your premise that everyone supporting SSM also supports a new protected class is, quite simply, false.

                  1. This has to be the third or fourth time in this subthread that I have to deny some straw-man position someone else imputed to me.

                    Of course, you don’t support a new protected class. You are simply cheering on a movement which is seeking that objective. I’m sure you’ll protest their attempts to establish new protected classes (at least so far as private businesses are concerned).

                    Again, this is what I meant by my Girondin analogy.

                    Or maybe I should use a different analogy – Dr. Frankenstein didn’t *support* turning a monster loose on the community, that’s simply what he ended up doing.

                    1. What straw man position are you denying, exactly?

                      I am not cheering on anyone in favor of a new protected class. That is, quite simply, a lie.

                    2. Let me run through it again:

                      You’re cheering on the movement to have the government recognize SSM.

                      You are shocked and appalled that measures for govt.-recognized SSM should be held up, or held hostage, or whatever term you would use, by amendments to protect business freedom. Because these are Two Separate Issues (and we can’t wait Even One More Day before recognizing SSM, even though were were able to wait several thousand years).

                      Is this a correct statement of your position?

                      Because if so, then what that amounts to is cheering on a process which will, on the plane of reality, end with the protected-class situation which you oppose philosophically.

                    3. “What straw man position are you denying, exactly?”

                      I’m afraid I’ve lost count. IIRC, you and others have said that I want the SSM people to compromise (no, if the *truly* believe in their principles they should fight to the end), that you support a new protected class for purposes of “discrimination” laws, and I forget what all.

                      Am I just a bad communicator? Because when I discuss other issues on H&R, there aren’t nearly as many “misunderstandings” of my position. Which leads me to conclude that there’s something about this particular issue which clouds people’s minds, making them see things in my comments which aren’t actually there.

                    4. “Am I just a bad communicator? “

                      Hold on, i’m still looking up what a ‘Tumbril’ is.

                    5. It’s like an 18th century limo, except instead of taking you to the prom, it takes you to the guillotine.

                    6. Who tips the driver?

                      as for the ‘debate’… i think you just have your own inflexible assumption and seem frustrated other people don’t see a similar need for it.

                      assuming SSM leads to ‘protected class’ status is sort of reminiscent of those who say any kind of ‘reform’ of the retarded clusterfuck of useless illegality for Mexican immigrants we currently have in place will necessarily result in the Reconquista, and nothing less.

                      There’s not much wiggle room in that POV, and consequently not much to debate.

                    7. Uh, I could see a scenario where libertarian legislators put forth SSM bills with exemptions for private business. In such a case, I’d acknowledge the situation, and would confine my objections to the redefinition of marriage, while acknowledging the respect for business freedom.

                      The reason I conflate the issues is that the SSM partisans do so. Whenever there’s an SSM bill and someone proposes to exempt for-profit businesses, all heck breaks loose and the exemption is defeated, because OMG LEGALIZING HATE.

                      So if the two issues could be separated politically the way they can supposedly be separated philosophically, I’d be happy to acknowledge the changing situation on the ground.

                    8. The ONLY thing I’m shocked and appalled by is that anyone would deny another peaceful group of individuals the same rights they enjoy because they don’t approve of their lifestyle.

                      Now, listen closely, and I’ll type slowly so you’ll understand it. Giving my support to SSM does not mean I support protected classes NOR DOES, and here is the important part, it follow that if SSM is achieved that making gays a protected class must follow. The only place that’s a logical chain of events, is between your ears. There may be a certain number of individuals that push for such an outcome, but it is not a given.

                      SSM is an equal protection under the law issue. NOT allowing it violates the Constitution and is therefore well within the province of the courts. For gays to be made a protected class, requires an act of Congress. The SCOTUS has the power to force government to act within the confines of the Constitution. It does not, however, have the authority to force Congress to pass legislation.

                    9. “deny another peaceful group of individuals the same rights they enjoy because they don’t approve of their lifestyle”

                      You may have missed the earlier thread where I was mocked for being unmarried. Apparently that disqualified me from commenting on SSM (and let’s try not to notice that the anti-single-people stereotypes bear a suspicious relationship to the anti-gay stereotypes, since hateful stereotypes are OK in the name of Social Justice).

                      And now it seems that being married (to an opposite-sex partner) would have *also* disqualified me from opposing SSM, since I would be merely seeking unfair privileges for my own relationship.

                      So basically, the pro-SSM argument is unfalsifiable, in that nobody has the moral standing to oppose it. So not only do you hold the One True Doctrine, you win by default without the need to prove the correctness of your position!

                      I acknowledged that you don’t want your position to lead to protected classes, just as Dr. Frankenstein didn’t want to release a monster into the community. The fact that it will happen despite your preferences is just dumb luck.

                    10. “The fact that it will happen”

                      La Recongaysta

                      in your mind

                    11. The creation of a protected class won’t happen?

                    12. “The creation of a protected class won’t happen?”

                      I have no idea. I think if the issue spreads beyond wedding-cake-baking that we can probably worry about it more then.

                      I don’t see any justifiable reason to apply this kind of bizarre precautionary principle to how other people engage in mutually voluntary private contracts like ‘marriage’.

                      I’ve heard some different, somewhat more rational cases made that the principle behind any state-involvement in marriage has to do with the necessity of procreation and blah blah blah social fabric blah blah blah… i suppose what you’d call a more ‘sociological’ argument…. i don’t buy that either, but at least it makes sense on its own terms.

                    13. What? Is there an argument in that word salad anywhere?

                      You OUTRIGHT STATE that you want your favored “type” of marriage to be recognized and others to not be.

                      You say EXACTLY THAT right here:

                      SSM should not be recognized by the government, actual marriage should be. Because marriage and the family precede the government and the government has no business either redefining marriage *or denying it recognition.*

                      You said you do not want equal protection under the law. Your marital status has nothing to do with it. You want the law to favor one group over another. You are a bigot who wants to use the law to discriminate against peaceful individuals and you freely admit to it. You have no argument whatsoever, other than Jebus sayz.

                      And even there you are wrong. You’re not even a good fucking Christian. Your discrimination against gays violates a half dozen christian principles.

                      – Do unto others
                      – Let he who is without sin
                      – Judge not lest ye be judged
                      – Love thy neighbor
                      – Turn the other cheek
                      – Judgment is mine, sayeth the Lord

                      And probably another dozen I can’t quote off the top of my head.

                      You are a sad little man Eddie. I pity you.

                    14. I agree, F d’A, the Eddie in your head, who conceals his *true* views but wants to force everyone to follow Jesus, but who is in fact a heretic who denies Jesus’ doctrines – that fellow in your head is a fairly pitiable person.

                      You know who else is pitiable? Someone who can build up an idea in his head and then conflate this fantasy being with an actual person.

                    15. For fuck sake Eddie. You’ve admitted it. How many times do I need to quote you?

                      SSM should not be recognized by the government, actual marriage should be.

                      You are an immoral pig by your own admission, why would I need to make shit up in my head? I’ve got your own words to fall back on.

                    16. You know, F d’A, you insinuate that I’m trying to conceal my views, so let me be blunt:

                      You are full of shit.

                    17. Dr. Frankenstein didn’t want to release a monster into the community.

                      The “monster” that was better than normal people but unattractive and was only made terrible by constant rejection?

                      Or are we talking about the Karloff version?

                    18. You seem a bit literal-minded about my analogies.

                      The “Frankenstein’s monster as a symbol of someone’s creation getting out of control” trope is common enough that this time, I certainly won’t apologize for using it.

                3. Ah.

                  You mean victory for the activists

                  Short term victory

                  1. Gay marriage, exactly the same as hetero.
                  2. Protected class status for gays.

                  Long term victory

                  1. Protected class status for everyone except heterosexual white male, with a well known ranking structure that shows everyone their proper place and status in society.
                  2. Government
                  COMPLETELY in control of all aspects of human life.

  11. The power is in your hands, you retards. He only gets spun up when you talk to him.

    1. This would be helpful at the top of the page. Do we really need to….

      1. Some sort of board guidelines would be nice. “We only ban for egregious misbehavior, but the following commenters are known to be worthless. Speak to them at your peril.” That kind of thing. Maybe I’ll ask Alissi.

        1. He really seems to lash out at you when you suggest that people not engage him. It’s almost like he has a pathological need to argue to compensate for…. whatever.

          He really doesn’t like the idea of not being able to do it anymore.

          1. How many message boards do you suppose he’s been banned from? The commitment to not banning here has the unfortunate side effect of attracting some gigantic losers who have nowhere else to go.

            1. It’s a problem. He’s gotten used to the fix he gets by coming here.

              I wonder if we can get him appointed as an R.A. or Hall Monitor. That should keep him busy…

            2. Is there a peak projection?

          2. It’s almost like he has a pathological need to argue to compensate for….

            Never having sex with another person?

    2. Thirteen.

      Old.

      Girl.

      Try less work on your delts, more on your fragile ego there young lady.

  12. It’s a new record. It looks like Bo has simultaneous arguments going with 10 people at the same time.

    JUST SAY NO TO BO.

    EVERYONE DO THEIR PART.

    1. “Look for the no-Bo label…”

    2. I’m a sucker for trolls. I need to find a new hobby…

    3. Again, you guys are the only people I know other than tween girls who spend so much time and effort over who people talk to.

      1. Have you ever tried to have a conversation with a tween boy?

  13. Rudy Guiliani says ungenerous-but-mostly-true things about Obama =
    Liberal Hack Media Reacts With Glee = Someone to Attack Now! Rather than Be Forced to Defend Dumb Shit Obama Says

    “”I don’t (see) this President as being particularly a product of African-American society or something like that. He isn’t,” the former mayor added. “Logically, think about his background…

    …he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools…

    …The ideas that are troubling me and are leading to this come from communists with whom he associated when he was 9 years old” through family connections.”

    “He was educated by people who were critics of the US. And he has not been able to overcome those influences.”

    On Rudy = Before 9/11 he wasn’t half-terrible from the POV of a city that was normally run by combinations of weasels and crooks. Since 9/11 he’s been a tiresome and useless one-trick pony.

    That said = i can’t find anything he said that hasn’t been said a million times by people all over the place.

    You’d never have guessed that from the frenzy in the media. Its like someone dropped a hamburger in the pirhana tank.

    1. The outrage isn’t that contagious this time.

      I haven’t seen it in my Facebook feed a single time today. I probably saw Hobby Lobby 2 dozen times in the hour after the SC decision came down.

      1. Apparently the froth has spread far enough for the media to start investigating =

        Do Likely GOP Candidates Agree that Obama Does Not Love America!?

        Somewhat before my time… but completely apropos
        Love = American Style

        I’d probably say, “Obama loves america dearly… who else would pay him to lounge around and play with his ‘selfie stick’?”

  14. Sockpuppet Saturday!

    Don’t waste yo’ time.

  15. Too bad I’ll never hear this, ’cause it’s on NPR.

  16. That dude jsut looks corrupt as the day is long.

    http://www.FullAnon.tk

  17. ??????? Yahoo CEO Marissa Meyer has gone so far as to
    I’m going to show you how I make a living online! Here is a company that will pay you $100 if you don’t make money in 24 hours. Take a look this company has an A+ Business Bureau Rating
    Get Paid Up To $23.75 Per hour …..

    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.