July 26th, 2012

Some liberals…

are on the right (in both senses of the word) side of the Chick-fil-A issue.

And Menino backs off.

16 Responses to “Some liberals…”

  1. Curtis Says:

    Excerpt from the linked article:

    “As always, the solution to noxious ideas like the ones from this chicken CEO are to rebut them, not use state power to suppress them. The virtue of gay equality has become increasingly recognized in the U.S. because people have been persuaded of its merits, not because state officials, acting like Inquisitors, forced people to accept it by punishing them for their refusal.”

    (4) Therefore, we, with the counsel and advice of prelates, great noblemen of our kingdoms, and other persons of learning and wisdom of our Council, having taken deliberation about this matter, resolve to order the said Jews and Jewesses of our kingdoms to depart and never to return or come back to them or to any of them. -Alhambra decree of 1492

    The narrative that gay marriage is receiving more popular support is questionable. Like abortion, as illiberals estrange themselves and time disproves pseudo-science claims, gay marriage support will slowly ebb away.

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/08/11603182-half-of-americans-support-gay-marriage-in-new-gallup-poll?lite

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/08/11584860-backers-of-north-carolina-gay-marriage-ban-state-no-longer-vulnerable?

  2. George Pal Says:

    Update VIII

    The execrable Mr. Emanuel then petitioned the equally execrable Louis Farakhan’s (opposed to same sex marriage) henchmen to help police black and Latino ghettos, which, representing Mr. Emanuel’s Chicago values, run up the body counts on any one weekend enough to make the Colorado theater shooting like a quiet summer weekend in Martha’s Vineyard.

  3. Curtis Says:

    http://jezebel.com/5929304/awesome-fifth-grader-whose-school-banned-his-same+sex-marriage-speech-gets-a-much-wider-audience?popular=true

    The above story pretty much illustrates why gay marriage, like Islam, resists a libertarian solution. Live and let live isn’t going to work here because a gay sharia is immanent.

    Compare the above story with the one below where the author concludes that because it was at a school, free expression was wrong. I wonder if the same author would also silence the fifth grader who, likewise, was at school.

    http://alencon13.blogspot.com/2009/07/shouting-fire-stories-from-edge-of-free_8534.html

  4. Jim Sullivan Says:

    I, for one, was somewhat heartened by the article and many of the liberal comments.

    I work surrounded by many liberals who would gladly use government power to gag anyone one they decide is morally incorrect and damn the first amendment. It was nice to see that some aren’t hopelessly lost.

  5. Shouting Thomas Says:

    I don’t have any hostility toward gays, and I don’t buy the myth of gay persecution.

    A very strange thing has happened in the decades after the AIDS epidemic. The media has somehow made it seem as if gay men died by the tens of thousands at the hands of marauding hordes of homophobes.

    This, of course, did not happen. Tens of thousands of gay men died as a result of their own sexual behavior.

    In some bizarre way, the blame for the carnage of the AIDS epidemic has been blamed on straight men.

    This may seem crazy, but watch the movie “And the Band Played On,” which sets forth the crazy notion that President Reagan somehow ignited the AIDS epidemic. Some years later, “Brokeback Mountain” elaborated on the same theme, suggesting that what gay men really had to fear was violence from straight men.

    Repeat. Gay men died by the tens of thousands as a result of their own sexual behavior. I was in the middle of this in SF and NYC. You can’t fool my lying eyes.

    There is something inherently fascist in the gay political movement. It is built on a phony edifice of scapegoating straight men. The endgame isn’t going to be pretty.

  6. Capn Rusty Says:

    The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the speech we don’t want to hear.

  7. holmes Says:

    As a libertarian Christian, I don’t get too exercised about the gay marriage debate…until the Left begins to use their usual scorched earth policy to get their way, then I reflexively want to take the other side.

  8. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Planning a driviing trip shortly. Gonna make a detour to eat at a Chick-Fil-A.

  9. Susanamantha Says:

    Check out this video of a gay guy who gets it. It’s Antoine Dodson.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUmoTOujJ7Q&feature=relmfu

  10. BravoRomeoDelta Says:

    Exactly

  11. Artfldgr Says:

    What your all missing while watching the hand of the magicians, is this:

    Executive Order — White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/26/executive-order-white-house-initiative-educational-excellence-african-am

    The Volk get to go to school
    the scapegoats, don’t

    as it was in Germany, is now and will forever be

  12. Artfldgr Says:

    Boston Mayor Says “No” To Chick-Fil-A, But Gave Tax Dollars To Mosque Teaching “Death To Gays”

    Radical imam OK but not Chick-fil-A
    http://bh.heraldinteractive.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1061148809

    The volk are ok no matter what they do
    the scapegoats, not so

    Shoa II…

  13. Artfldgr Says:

    Pravda: Will political reform occur in the United States only after a catastrophe?

    The United States is now facing its greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. As Abraham Lincoln asked, will a nation conceived in liberty and a government of the people, by the people and for the people perish?

    The 2012 election is the most important in U.S. history, but not for the reasons either the Republican or Democrat Parties would have you believe because there is little difference between them.

    They seek to win elections, not to uphold the Constitution, not to show respect for the rule of law and not to serve the American people, but to obtain power and to use that power to accrue career and financials benefits for themselves and their major supporters.

    [While paying attention to what they focus on, you don't pay attention to the more progressed situation in their own country]

    Article I of the U.S. Constitution requires Congress to pass a federal budget. Despite the imminent threat to the financial stability of the United States and the clear priority the Constitution gives to maintaining discipline in federal spending, the last time The Democrat-controlled Senate enacted a budget was April 29, 2009.

    So far this makes Russian people better informed than American people..

    Republicans continue to be derelict in their duty and violate their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution by refusing to vet Barack Obama’s Presidential eligibility and personal history.

    [and so they figure any treaty or agreement is null and void unless beneficent to them]

    In general, our elected officials are not concerned about the financial stability of the country, its national security or upholding the rule of law.

    In 2012, American voters are being offered nothing more than a continuation of a status quo incompatible with the survival of the country.

  14. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    In every state, more than 30, where same sex marriage has been voted upon, the states voters have rejected it.

    Young people polled on the issue overwhelmingly support SSM, so in time it will be accepted.

    Many, perhaps most, advocates of SSM are unwilling however to wait for the natural progression of public opinion.

    The great danger in the Same Sex debate is the state courts followed by SCOTUS ruling that the banning of same sex marriage is unconstitutional discrimination.

    The brutal truth is that limiting marriage to the union of one man/one woman IS discriminatory. But any line defining a limitation of who may marry is discriminatory.

    Among the spectrum of discriminatory lines, only two are objective; the biological limitation that only one man and one woman can produce a child (regardless of their individual desire or ability to reproduce) and the ability to consent (children below the age of consent and animals inability to consent).

    Every other ‘line’ is arbitrarily subjective; whether limited to any two people or plural marriages or even incestuous marriages, the support for them rests upon arbitrary, subjective opinion.

    Which makes their eventual legal rejection certain once the objective line of one man/one woman is abandoned. As once the traditional definition of marriage is LEGALLY rejected, a legal slippery slope IS initiated and it legally CANNOT permanently settle until it then rests at the age of consent and the ability to consent to marriage.

    None of this applies if states voters vote to approve of SSM but once the SCOTUS rules on the basis of discrimination, Pandora’s marriage box is opened…and eventually the legal definition of marriage will state that any human being above the age of consent can enter into any semi-permanent arrangement they might wish with which others agree to ‘commit’.

    What the result of that will be for children’s healthy psychological development is uncertain at best and, as is always the case, the society that results, for good or ill, will be that bequeathed to future generations by today’s generations.

    Given the potential negative consequences for societal cohesion, social experimentation with societies most fundamental foundation should be carefully considered before permanent ‘explorations’ are commenced.

    Since gay advocates of SSM view SSM as a stepping stone to the larger and much more important goal of full societal acceptance of homosexuality, I’m not holding my breath waiting for pro-SSM advocates to acknowledged the logic of my legal position.

    It’s much easier to pretend that any objections to SSM rest solely upon religious grounds and hate.

  15. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    To those who maintain that there is little difference between the Republican and Democrat party…

    There are two kinds of criminals; those who flagrantly break the law and those who operate within the boundaries of the letter of the law.

    Those who cannot differentiate between the two, fail to appreciate the essential difference of the two parties.

    The criminal whose depredations operate within the letter of the law may be harder to ameliorate but they are generally preferable to the criminal who operates in direct violation of the law.

    Against the former, the constraints of the law restrain their depredations, against the latter only the ‘thin blue line’ protects.

    The public support necessary for Republicans to vet Pres. Obama’s eligibility and personal history is insufficient. It would thus be politically counter productive to initiate that vetting.

    Republicans would lose support among independents if they attempted to vet Obama without undeniable, independent proof of Obama’s ineligibility and evidence of personal history that proved beyond reasonable doubt his fundamental duplicity in relaying his personal history.

    Consider that Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright and voting for continued infanticide were not enough to derail his election.

    And, the brutal political truth is that it is the independents who decide Presidential elections and ALL swing state elections.

  16. Artfldgr Says:

    Board of County Commissioners vs. Umbehr (1996)

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge