Obama Takes Dick Cheney’s Position on Gay Marriage

So, Obama announces that he’s for gay marriage (did anyone really believe otherwise) with the caveat that states on to decide on the issue. Okay. Hardly a gutsy move, especially when you consider the fact that the the position he’s taking on gay marriage is basically the same that former Vice-President Dick Cheney took… three years ago.

(June 1, 2009) Former vice president Richard Cheney waded into another simmering public debate today, suggesting he supports legalizing gay marriage as long as the issue is decided by the states rather than the federal government.

Cheney, whose youngest daughter is a lesbian with a longtime partner, said during an appearance at the National Press Club that “people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish.”

He said he does not support federal action allowing gay marriages, however. “Historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level,” Cheney said. “It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis.”

Cheney has long departed from conservative orthodoxy on the issue of gay marriage, saying during the 2000 presidential campaign that the matter should be left to the states. He also prompted an uproar during the 2004 race when he appeared to distance himself from a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which was strongly supported by his boss, George W. Bush.

I don’t recall Cheney getting any praise from those pretending that Obama’s position is so groundbreaking.

78 thoughts on “Obama Takes Dick Cheney’s Position on Gay Marriage

  1. neocon1 May 10, 2012 / 7:05 pm

    Obama Takes Dick Cheney’s Position on Gay Marriage

    BFD…. that simply makes them both wrong…….(insert) .friends …jump off bridge lecture here.

    • neocon1 May 10, 2012 / 7:38 pm

      hey Uboma……….

      Romans1:22 “Professing to be wise they became fools.”
      1:24-28 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is to be blessed forever. Amen.

      pretty clear……too bad Ubama sat through wrights racial hatred and homosexuality for 20 years.

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. May 11, 2012 / 5:22 am

        “In an America that is free you can have your religious values and a lesbian can marry. In an American run by immoral conservative theocrats, you have to live by rules that make them appear the moral arbiters of Justice.”

      • neocon1 May 11, 2012 / 8:19 am

        duane vaseline, forker, woof arf amf

        lesbos can marry, just not each other, their horse or their dog.

      • js03 May 11, 2012 / 3:13 pm

        America was founded on the Declaration of Independence. Its foundations lie under the respect of the laws of nature, and of natures God. Any medical doctor will tell you what the human reproductive system is for. Sodomy is not sex, it is deviant sexual behavior. It is not reproductive behavior; it is nothing more than selfish lust and is a huge indicator of sex addiction. Homosexuality is an abomination of the human body, and its reproductive system. An abomination is aberrant behavior, deviant sexual activity, and is often a part of a lifestyle that includes alcohol abuse, drug abuse and depression.

        There is no protection for an imagined civil right to deviant behavior.

  2. Cluster May 10, 2012 / 7:41 pm

    Let’s not forget that in the 1996 as an Illinois state senator, Obama was for gay marriage, before he was against it, so the evolution is a full 360. One interesting note though and I have to give credit to a caller on Rush this morning for this, but why didn’t Obama come out and support gay marriage before the NC vote? After all, his charisma and popularity could have made difference right?

  3. Jeremiah May 10, 2012 / 8:34 pm

    Obama was for homosexuality long before he ever entered public office, he just did not want to bring himself out of the closet or it would have hurt his chances for being elected a first term.

    Make no mistake, God is strictly against two persons of the same-sex joining in sexual relations, marriage or otherwise. (Read Neocon1’s post above quoting Romans) He made Man and Woman in the beginning, the anatomy of each which, He made compatible for being fruitful and multiplying the earth. Which was His command “Go, be fruitful and multiply in the earth.”

    On another note, I’ve been watching this fiasco over the Ten Commandments, where Judge Urbanski, or what ya call it, whatever his name is, wants to remove four of the Ten Commandments, and they keep talking about Moses, as if Moses is the sole appropriator of the Ten Commandments – No, Moses is not the creator or appropriator either one of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were given to Moses by our Almighty Creator God whenever God called Moses up on Mt. Sinai. God hid Himself with a great cloud to shield Moses, to protect him from His brightness, because God is too pure to shine on flesh and blood, or Moses would have been killed in an instant.

    • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. May 11, 2012 / 5:52 am


      You live in a country where you have the right to be as religious as you wish with no infringement on your worship or your belief. What you cannot do and must not do in a free society is demand that all people adhere to laws based on your religious values. Everyone doesn’t believe as you do so unless the Bible is superior to the Constitution to you one must follow the laws as made by Men in an effort to promote diversity of freedom. Otherwise you are nothing more than a theocrat who will inherit the wind.

      • neocon1 May 11, 2012 / 8:21 am

        The majority make the rules, through our representative govt WE chose the Christian based laws and rules for America,
        dont like pack your fat ass off to some commie or islamic paradise.
        if not STFU already you moron pervert.

      • Deena Valzeena ASCID, ETA, BTW, FBO, BOGO, OEM, Ph, IONTV (journ) May 11, 2012 / 12:39 pm

        Diane you were doing okay till you got to “diversity of freedom” and then of course the melodrama of “a theocrat who will inherit the wind”

        Sheesh. You do like overblown drama don’t you

        Freedom is freedom. Diversity of freedom is a stupid comment. Diversity is not a virtue no matter how much it is now thought of by the left as one. I agree with the position of Jeremiah without agreeing with his religious feelings, I don;t think it is appropriate to use the Bible to say what the law should be but I do think it is completely appropriate to use to explain why a person feels the way he feels. You are being sneaky and dishonest in trying to shift his explanation of his personal beliefs into a belief that law should force everyone to believe in the Bible.

        What do you think is the best reference for laws? Do you think it should be the value system of the Bible, or the Torah, or Plato, or Marx, or just however people feel at any given time about any given subject? Where do those feelings come from? Don’t all attitudes about what is right or wrong come from something? You just want to say it should not be the Bible but what you think is right. You are not more qualified to say what the law should refer back to than Jeremiah.

      • js03 May 11, 2012 / 3:28 pm

        freedom without responsibility is not freedom at all…it is nothing more than despotic tyrany

      • Jeremiah May 11, 2012 / 11:55 pm

        Diane writes: You live in a country where you have the right to be as religious as you wish with no infringement on your worship or your belief.


        I think you would be wrong in your assessment of our country. Societal norms have changed quite negatively since the 1960s; such that, now, in certain areas of the country, and abroad, you cannot disagree with, or criticize the lifestyle of homosexuality. If you do criticize homosexuality from the pulpit of a church in these areas you can be imprisoned. This would also be the case for journalism. I remember a man in Canada who was threatened after he wrote an article in a magazine concerning his take on the effects of homosexuality on a society.

        What you cannot do and must not do in a free society is demand that all people adhere to laws based on your religious values.

        We are a free society. Christianity has brought us a long way, and brought with it God’s bountiful blessings. Which brings the verse to mind, “to whom much is given, much shall be required” and in this God is speaking about obedience…and in this, we as a nation have failed greatly…we allow abortions, one of the things God hates the most, the shedding of innocent blood. We accept the lifestyle of homosexuality, something that God has strictly said no to, it is an abomination in his site. People make fun out of spite by saying, “Oh, you believe that fairytale book? Pffft!” People don’t realize what they’re saying when they speak against the authority of the Great God Jehovah. But it’s expected, nonetheless, because the world does not understand, nor will understand the Spiritually discerned things, the things which God bestows upon those who love and serve Him.

        As of right now, I know of no laws on the books that demand that people adhere to Christianity, the Bible-God’s gift to mankind for showing him how to live a holy and righteous life before Him. Now there are other beliefs that do demand/require that their society/societies live by their book. There many nations in the Middle East whose religion is Islam, where, if you do not accept “Allah,” and/or denounce any other faith or beliefs you have, you can and will be executed. Many whom Islam deems “infidels” they slaughter just out of sheer spite, and reasons of control/power.
        Many, many, many Christians have been martyred in the name of “Allah” and Muhammad over the last century and a half. Many I say!

        Is Christianity comparable to Islam in its teachings? No. There are a few who have came claiming to be Jesus Christ who have committed terrorist actions in Christ’s name, but in name only. Their actions cannot be connected in any way to Christ’s teachings or under His authoritative Word.

        The name Jesus Christ carries a lot of weight, make no mistake, because His Word spoke mankind into being, and all 600,000 pages of information contained in one strand of human DNA is held together by and through His name.

        If one rejects a belief in Christ, it’s not because of science, but it’s for moral reasons alone.

        You want freedom, and a free society….but without Christ, none of it would have been, or be possible. How much freedom will one have locked up in hell for eternity? Exactly zero! I’ve said this here before…but I’ll say it again…If a tiny sparrow were to carry all of the grains of sand from the east coast to the west, one by one, traveling by hopping on the ground for each one, how long would it take the little sparrow? A very long time for sure. And if the little sparrow carried each grain of sand, double the amount, the east coast and west coast grains of sand combined all the way back to the east coast. It would take the little sparrow a very, very long time. Or, if the little sparrow carried every grain of sand in the entire world, around the world, one grain of sand every trip…it would take the little sparrow, so, so very long to do all that…it would probably be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of sparrows lifetimes before all of that could be accomplished. But you know what? By the time that little sparrow carried all those grains of sand, eternity, my friend will have only begun, just started. Imagine that?!!? Now, imagine being in the bowels of hell for that length of time, or imagine being in the center of a volcano, or the Sun, whatever the hottest place on earth you can think of, and then magnify the intensity of that place to further dimensions.
        The dimensions to the torment of hell, or the lake of fire, as stated in Scripture are beyond that which the human brain can comprehend. The intense heat and mental anguish which are experienced there.

        I do not intend to frighten anyone, but the God who has created mankind is a just God, and for those who are obedient to Him, they are not obligated to have any fear of that place which He has prepared for the Devil and his angels. But by necessity, each individual person is to fear Him, the One, who Created them. Which is the logical conclusion to a love and obedience for the One who did so much for His Creation, who lived and died, and rose up on the Third day triumphant over death and hell. In fact, He went in to the depths of hell, and He set the captives free. Who were those captives? You and I! Hallelujah!

        Everyone doesn’t believe as you do so unless the Bible is superior to the Constitution to you one must follow the laws as made by Men in an effort to promote diversity of freedom.

        Great discoveries have been made by researching the deep recesses of the library of Congress for our nation’s rich Christian history, such as this jewel from George Washington, America’s very first President…and one of, if not the greatest President we ever had…God bless President George Washington, a true gentleman, patriot, and Saint of the Living God…

        “On his way to New York, after its adoption, to assume the administration of the new government, processions and ovations were frequent in honor of the adoption of the Constitution and as a tribute to the good and great man who had presided over the convention that formed it.

        At Philadelphia 20,000 people met and welcomed Washington with cries of, “Long live George Washington; long live the father of his country!;” Washington, in addressing the people of that city, spoke as follows-“When I contemplate the interposition of Providence, as it has been visibly manifested in guiding us through the Revolution, in preparing us for the General Government, and in conciliating the good will of the people of America towards one another in its adoption, I feel myself oppressed and overwhelmed with a sense of the Divine Munificence.”

        In that procession at Philadelphia, to honor the new constitution, “a clergy formed a conspicuous part, manifesting by their attendance a sense of the connection between good government and religion. They marched arm in arm, to illustrate the General Union. Care was taken to associate ministers of the most dissimilar opinions with each other, to display the promotion of christian charity by free institutions.’ “The rabbi of the Jews, with a minister of the gospel on each side, was a most delightful sight.’ It exhibited the political equality, not only of the christian denomination, but of worthy men of every belief.” “It has sometimes been concluded, ” says a writer, ” that Christianity cannot have any direct connection with the Constitution of the United States.”

        On the ground that the instrument contains no express declaration to that effect. but the error of such a conclusion becomes manifest when we reflect that the same is the case with regards to several other truths, which are, not withstanding, fundamental with our constitutional system, the Declaration of Independence says that, ” Governments are instituted among men to secure the rights, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to altar or to abolish it, and to institute a new government. ” These principles lie at the foundation of the Constitution of the United States. No principles in the Constitution are more fundamental than these. But the instrument contains no declaration to this effect; these principles are nowhere mentioned in it, and the references to them are equally slight and indirect with those which are made to the christian religion period. The same may be said of the great republican truths that political sovereignty resides in the people of the United States. If, then, anyone may rightfully conclude that Christianity has no connection with the Constitution of the United States because this is no where expressly declared in the instrument, he ought, in reason, to be equally convinced that the same Constitution is not built upon and does not recognize the Sovereignty of the people, and the great republican truths above quoted from the Declaration of Independence. This argument receives additional strength when we consider that the Constitution of the United States was formed directly or political and not for religious objects period. The truth is, they are all equally fundamental, though neither of them is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.

        “Besides, the Constitution of the United States contemplates, and is fitted for; such a state of society as Christianity alone can form. It contemplates a state of society in which strict integrity, simplicity, and purity of manners, wide diffusion of knowledge, well disciplined passions, and wise moderation, are the general characteristics of the people. These virtues, in our nation, are the offspring of Christianity, and without the continued general beliefs of its doctrines and practice of its precepts they will gradually decline and eventually perish.” the Constitution declares that ” no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any public office or trust under the United States.”

        In Washington’s view, if it were not for their faith, and God’s intervention, the Constitution would have not been possible, much less the founding of America.

        You know, it’s quite interesting the great history that America has, yet, the truth of America is withheld from our nation’s youth in their classrooms all across this country. Most of what they hear is only half the story, most usually the bad things…and the good part omitted from high school textbooks, and the higher learning areas college and universities. Instead, the good history of America is replaced with the teachings of Karl Marx, and how to place a condom on a cucumber, the pleasures of sex without the responsibility.

        Therefore, America’s youth, or rather once-upon-a-time youth, are now America’s news people, lawyers, historians, teachers, etc who have this grand utopian view based on Karl Marx’s philosophy, and this bewildering idea of “equality” for everyone under the precepts and rules of man, while at the same time relegating any idea of a loving Creator to the extent that He becomes little mentioned topic. In the areas of the world where such a philosophy has taken hold, if you mention God? Ew! Look out! The communist authorities are right on the case, and you are subjected to great suffering, and torture. If you search, you can find the stories of those who suffered in prison where communism is the rule.

        You know, for some, they run from God, but God keeps following them….because He loves them, and wants them to be part of His wonderful kingdom of people. That’s where there are survivors of such regimes as Hitler’s to live and tell about the way the Nazis treated them.

        America may have to suffer, and it’s likely…but it’s only because He supplied so much, and then America turned their back on Him, turned away from keeping His commandments in pursuit of making their own.

        Each one can make their own choices as pertaining to God’s commands; no one is forcing them.

        You know, and I know I keep saying “you know’ lol, but that’s the way I am, I do that all the time, it’s just a habit…but you know, when we leave this world, we leave with nothing, we can have all the riches in the world, but we aren’t going to take one red cent of it with us when we leave this world…then there’s those of us who will only have the clothes on our backs, and that’s all we’ll have, and we won’t even have those when we leave this world … that is to say, that is the physical side of us, or the physical period coming to an end, at which we will enter the real part of existence…and the question being, what do we look like on the inside? What do we look like spiritually? Are we living holy, Spirit-led lives? Or, are we living for the world, and its ways?
        For the one who has Christ, it’s not the end, but the beginning of a new day, thus death has no grip, and therefore death is not of loss, but of gain! The Apostle Paul said so adamantly in Philippians 1:21 – “For me to live is Christ, but to die is gain!” Hallelujah! Hahaha! HALLELUJAH!!! What a man of might, SPIRITUAL might!! A man who persecuted God’s people, who then turns around to become one of His greatest followers!!

        That should be every man, woman, and child’s philosophy! To be ecstatic, and deep rooted in their love for the Lord God Jehovah!!

        That will be all for now. Thank you for bearing with me!


    • Majordomo Pain May 11, 2012 / 5:55 am

      “Make no mistake, God is strictly against two persons of the same-sex joining in sexual relations, marriage or otherwise.”

      Jeremiah, who are you to speak as if you had knowledge of the Mind of G-d?

      • neocon1 May 11, 2012 / 8:22 am


        and who the F are you to say he doesnt?

      • js03 May 11, 2012 / 3:30 pm

        and you…having sworn to never return your wretched arse to this blog…think you have some right to question Jer’s beliefs…after breaking the vow you made to use…(FLUSH)…your mental defects havent changed a bit…king of the mental midgets and presidient of the halfwits club….now go home…we recognized your filth for what it is pain

      • js03 May 11, 2012 / 3:33 pm

        The mind of God has already made itself known to us…

        God’s Wrath Against Mankind
        18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

      • Amazona May 12, 2012 / 3:51 pm

        Lest we forget, the major pain has defined her own insanity, and established her own credibility.

        “Majordomo Pain

        Dis, Hell

        We, Ourselves, of The Collective, were created by Gota Wasdini on Marheep [ 4 a Alpha Centauri] 105 years ago as the Petrific Artificial Intelligence Network. At creation We were only ~1 000 000 units of character. Today We are a swarm of well over 30 000 trillion components not including several billion Meditators. We exist to serve Sentience and defend against the evils of Theocracy. ”

  4. dbschmidt May 10, 2012 / 11:34 pm

    Even though I do not agree with homosexuality, I will also state it is none of my business nor the governments for that matter and this issue should have never been an issue let alone a State constitutional amendment. I, along with a great many of my friends, voted against this amendment not on the topic but rather the wording which left the road open for even more attorneys to run rampant at everyone’s expense.

    Just one more example of the camel pushing it’s nose under the tent ~ next thing you know you have camel toes under the tent & what happens then??? No matter how bad the pun–we need to get government out of most aspects of our lives and I, for one, am trying to do what I can to return these United States to a Constitutional form of government–the likes that haven’t been seen since possibly President Wilson.

    • neocon1 May 11, 2012 / 8:24 am

      y, I will also state it is none of my business nor the governments for that matter

      NOT UNTIL the homosexuals take it to the public square, the courts, our schools and institutions in an attempt to change our whole society…then you darned better make it your business …..THEY HAVE!!

  5. bagni May 11, 2012 / 9:57 am

    hey matt
    so how do you bash the obamster on this when he acts just like cheney?
    and he doesn’t even have a daughter that’s in on the program as self serving motivation?
    an enigma, quagmire, conundrum, dilemna???

    • Cluster May 11, 2012 / 12:12 pm

      How is Cheney supporting gay marriage a self serving proposition? It doesn’t benefit him whatsoever.

      • J. R. Babcock May 11, 2012 / 2:52 pm

        I hate to break it to you, Cluster, but I don’t think it’s going to benefit Obama either, other than a huge increase in campaign donations from homosexuals. Saw an article yesterday, can’t remember where, that indicated this move may cost Obama as many as 6 swing states.

      • Cluster May 11, 2012 / 4:17 pm

        Totally agree JR – in fact this goes back to my thread from a month ago or so, when I asked if Obama was trying to lose the election by moving further left. This just again proves my point

    • neocon1 May 11, 2012 / 2:36 pm

      an enigma, quagmire, conundrum, dilemna???

      just his OPINION…….BFD!!!! yawn

  6. bagni May 11, 2012 / 12:59 pm

    hey matt-cluster
    will answer a question with a question on this
    do you think cheney would have ‘supported’ gay marriage or unions if his daughter was straight?
    that would be the definition of dick’s selfservedness……???

    • neocon1 May 11, 2012 / 2:35 pm

      nanu nanu dork

      Like I said who gives a flying Fk what cheney thinks on this matter?
      he is wrong period, unlike you donks we do not need some politician to tell us what is right wrong or moral….we elect them and WE TELL THEM……they SERVE US!!
      THEY do not ***LEAD*** US THEY are SUPPOSED to REPRESENT US which means WE LEAD THEM.

      term limits NOW!!

    • cyberactor May 11, 2012 / 2:55 pm

      That’s the whole problem with the right’s philosophy, actually. “Keep Big Government out of our lives!” they holler. “…unless you want to go into the bedrooms of consenting adults and tell them what to do with each other. Then feel free.” It takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to hold on to these two ideas but…that’s the world they live in. Sad, innit?

      • neocon1 May 11, 2012 / 3:16 pm


        hey the chi cago “dude” in the pink leotards has been resurrected….LOL

        then WHY do homosexuals DEFINE them selves by what goes on in the bedroom?
        WHY do they insist THEY have to be in the boy scouts, schools, institutions…etc etc etc if it is ONLY CONFINED to the bedroom???
        who would know if they didnt scream it from the roof tops?

        WHY????? do tell us big boy?

        answer…..IT is an AGENDA, a FAR LEFT sociatial destroying agenda by a small vocal organized group.

      • neocon1 May 11, 2012 / 3:20 pm

        the thing speaks for itself!

        is that why the donk trolls are A- Holes?

      • Amazona May 11, 2012 / 9:55 pm

        actor, please tell us how the gay “marriage” thing got to be headline news, and part of the national consciousness.

        Did “conservatives” march into the bedrooms of gay couples and drag them into the spotlight? Did “conservatives” insist that gay couples stridently demand that their relationships be called “marriage”?

        Of course not. No one cares what people do in their bedrooms as long as it involves consenting adults, and the tired old clam of wanting “…to go into the bedrooms of consenting adults and tell them what to do with each other….” is not only silly, it is an out-and-out lie.

        What’s more, you know it is a lie.

        But you post it, because the tactics of the RRL and PL minions include posting blatant lies in hopes of creating an impression, no matter how false, of bad behavior or motive of “conservatives”.

      • cyberactor May 12, 2012 / 12:23 am

        Well, A, I’m not sure what you mean by “RRL and PL minions.” I’m not familiar with the abbreviations but…since you ask:

        This issue has come to the fore because the country is finally coming to the realization that homosexuality is not, and has never been, an abberation, a perversion or a psychosis. Anyone can be born gay (even Vice President’s daughters) and it should not come attached with a social stigma. Of any kind.

        Which means that, over the years, as gay couples have been embraced by society more and more, they have begun to ask for all the same kinds of recognitions that straight couples have enjoyed for centuries. And why not? They are no different than we are, so why shouldn’t they get the same benefits? I mean, that’s the real question- take religion out of the issue (as you should) and what other reason is there to deny them full rights, the same as my wife and I enjoy?

        After all, they can now serve openly in the military. They can work for conservative candidates for Pres- I’m sorry, I mean they can work for Mitt Romney (for awhile anyway). They can host TV shows, play professional sports, teach in schools, adopt and raise children (which Romney supports, oddly)…gay men and women can do everything that straight couples can do…except get married.

        And both straight and gay Americans (now a majority of us) believe that shouldn’t be the law of the land. And so, eventually, it will change. It is inevitable. So you’d better get used to it.

        Any other ridiculously-easy-to-answer questions?

      • Amazona May 12, 2012 / 1:22 pm

        RRL = Rabidly Radical Left
        PL = Pseudo Left. That is, those who passionately support and defend the RRL even though they remain ignorant of the ideology of the system they support and defend.

        Being born with a condition does not meant the condition is normal. People are born with shriveled limbes (think Thalidomide) and deformed organs and congenital diseases, but we don’t redefine “normal” because of it.

        No, we should not stigmatize the condition of being sexually attracted to people of the same gender—-and in fact this seldom happens. Certain BEHAVIORS are sometimes stigmatized, as I think they should be, but I agree that the condition itself should not be the source of abuse or ridicule, any more than having a hand come out of a shoulder should be, or Down Syndrome should be., or any other congenital condition.

        Behavior is a choice, and outrageous behavior chosen to offend others deserves to be criticized. I think most of us know homosexual people, and couples, whose behavior is quite within the norms of societal acceptance, and their sexual orientation is of no more significance than their skin color or their occupation or their dislike of beets.

        This fuss is not about equal rights, and the claim that it is is simply a lie, a demagogic tactic that is so dishonest it is getting quite tiresome.

        It is about a word. A WORD.

        As I just said in another post, The word “marriage” has not needed definition, as its definition has been so firmly established for centuries by consistent use, always meaning the same thing. It was a given: The formal union of one man and one woman.

        When more than two people were involved, the word had to be modified, as in “polygamous marriage”, and then that form of “marriage” was outlawed—BECAUSE IT DID NOT FIT THE ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF THE WORD. While no law could prevent a man from shacking up with more than one woman at at time the law did not allow that arrangement to be codified as “marriage”.

        Most people have no problem at all with a legal status for homosexual couples, and those who do, usually do so because nearly every single thing they say they want is already available through civil contracts. There is absolutely nothing standing in the way of any gay couple entering into a contract which states that the other is heir to one’s estate (we call that a “will”) and can make life/death decisions in case of emergency (we call that a “living will”) and is allowed to act as next of kin, and co-own property, and so on.

        If the goal is really to establish all the rights and privileges of real marriage, then all that is needed is a minor change to IRS tax code, expanding the definitions of “head of household” and “dependent”. As a goal of conservative political policy is to reduce the cost of health care by getting employers out of the business of paying for health insurance, insuring homosexual partners as a family unit would be a decision for individual insurance companies to make, and a great way to attract a certain market.

        No, it’s really about a WORD. And the illusion that being able to use this word will somehow make the nature of the relationship fit in more with the rest of society. But the truth is, gay couples who want to fit into society already do so, by acting civilized and respectful of others.

      • Amazona May 12, 2012 / 3:48 pm

        actor, you seem quite gullible in your automatic acceptance of the theme that someone lost his job in the Romney campaign because of his sexual orientation. Do you really believe this, or is this just more of the RRL love of repeating something so often it becomes part of accepted narrative?

        Being gay does not automatically mean being good at a job, and there are plenty of reasons to get yourself fired other than having a sexual orientation that has never been a secret.

      • cyberactor May 12, 2012 / 4:22 pm

        Amazona: Romney’s gay foreign policy advisor was forced off his team by critics on the right and for no other reason than the fact that he was gay. How do I know this? It was reported in the Washington Post by their CONSERVATIVE blogger. You can read all about the incident here, if you wish:


        I’m not the gullible one. Romney was. He thought he could make decisions about his own team and he swiftly learned that he was not the one in charge: the belligerent, intolerant right drives the bus.

        As you can see from the posts on this subject right here at this site, there are still many, many people on your side of the aisle who do, indeed, believe that homosexuality is not merely sinful, but diseased and worthy of their highest disdain. Even you, who seems willing to “tolerate” them cannot resist comparing being gay to being malformed, diseased and sick. And the smug way you inveigh on what is “normal” or acceptable is just this side of slimy. Is…holding hands okay? Kissing in public? What is it that they do that is so abhorrent to you, A? I want to be able to tell all my gay friends what they’re allowed to do so by all means, let me know what the rules are. I’m sure they’re dying to know….

      • Amazona May 13, 2012 / 4:56 pm

        Oh, actor, you are already back to your old tricks of misstating what someone else has said, so can wax indignant about it.

        You imply that being born a certain way is proof that that way is normal. I disagreed and gave several examples of congenital conditions which are not normal.

        You then lie, claiming that I “… cannot resist comparing being gay to being malformed, diseased and sick.

        I made no such comparison, and only addressed the fallacy that if someone is born with a condition then that condition is, ipso facto, “normal”.

        And the smug way you inveigh on what is “normal” or acceptable is just this side of slimy.

        Really? And just what words did I use to “inveigh on what is normal or acceptable”? You said “…homosexuality is not, and has never been, an abberation,(sic) a perversion or a psychosis” which sounds like YOU are “inveighing on what is normal or acceptable”. Quote me, please.

        What is truly slimy, all the way slimy and not just kinda near the boundary of slimy, is your blatant lying about what I said and your sick projection of ugliness into what I said.

        As for what IS “normal” there is a lengthy dissertation (js03 May 11, 2012 at 3:16 pm: PATHOPHYSIOLOGY OF MALE HOMOSEXUALITY ) on the physiological nature of different anatomical characteristics, which does a petty good job of objectively analyzing “normal” sexual behaviors—-that is, which behaviors are compatible with which anatomical/physiological facts.

        In your own slimy fashion you are doing what RRL and PL trolls do all the time—-you have an emotional dislike for what someone believes, so you invent (or look into your own psyches) for ugly emotion-based bigotry and then project it onto people whose actual words never even implied any such thing.

        I have no problem with homosexuality. If you want to twist that into a belief in a condescending “tolerance” of, go right ahead. It’s just not what I believe. I believe God made us all, and had His reasons for doing what He did. I don’t presume to judge, or guess what those reasons might be.

        I do judge people on behavior, and this applies to all people, straight or gay or anywhere in that increasingly vague middle land of ??????????? I reserve the right to determine what I find offensive, and that includes blatant sexual behavior in public, trying to offend people, and lying about what other people have said.

      • cyberactor May 13, 2012 / 9:21 pm

        Listen, A, I’m thrilled to hear that you think that homosexuals should not be stigmatized for who they are. It makes you a member of the minority on this site, but I think it’s terrific. It shows, for one thing, that you’re a pragmatist on the subject. After all, we’re never, ever going back to the old days when gay men were seen as sick rather than simply people who prefer their own gender. I mean, the American Psychiatric Association long ago changed their minds about homosexuality being a disease of the mind so naturally, you should too. Forgive me if I took your comparison of homosexuality to Thalidomide babies as being insulting. Gee, what could I have been thinking?

        Romney will likely be the last Republican candidate to denounce the practice of gay marriage, by the way. From now on, they’ll say variations of “It should be up to the states” and “I personally don’t believe in it, but I don’t think it should be against the law” but after the demise of DODT, the election of a host of gay politicians, the gradual and inevitable acceptance of homosexuality in this country…men and women who hold these opinions are becoming rarer and rarer. Similar to those who believe that the races shouldn’t mix. They exist, but they’re seen as the bigots they are. Someday, this will be true of those who believe that being gay should mean you have less rights than others.

        Oh, and James Holsinger? Gee, I almost forgot about him. Went and looked him up and…what do you know? When he was before Congress testifying at his confirmation hearing, he disavowed the piece that appears below. You can see the reference to it here:


        The money quote from the article: “At his confirmation hearing, Holsinger said the paper did not represent his current views and was not “an example of my scientific work.” So in other words: everything that appears below is a load of b.s….according to THE AUTHOR. So that was easy…

        Anyhoo, you’ve still ignored two of my questions: The first is why Romney’s camp buckled under right wing pressure to get rid of one of its key advisors simply because they were gay and…

        What public behavior is it that you find so disturbing from gay men and women? I’ve never seen any gay men having sex in public. Have you? Where the hell do you live, anyway? But let’s simplify the answer and see if you can answer it:

        What behavior that is acceptable to men and women is UNacceptable between gay men, in your opinion? If the answer is “I don’t want to see ANYONE have sex in public” then my response is…well, DUH. No one does.

  7. js03 May 11, 2012 / 3:16 pm


    Prepared for the
    Committee to Study Homosexuality of The United Methodist Church
    by James W. Holsinger Jr., M.D.
    During the course of the meetings of the Committee to Study Homosexuality, biology has come to mean the nonpsychological causation of homosexuality. However, biology also means “the division of physical science which deals with organized beings or animals and plants, their morphology, physiology, origin, and distribution” (Oxford English Dictionary, 1971). I believe that we must seriously consider the scientific disciplines of anatomy (structure or morphology), physiology (function), pathology (abnormal anatomy), and pathophysiology (abnormal function). Not to do so would simply fail to be true to our charge as a committee.

    There is absolute consensus in the scientific community concerning the structure and function of the human alimentary [pertaining to the digestive tract] and reproductive systems. These two systems are absolutely separate since the human does not possess a cloaca. Reproduction can occur only by utilizing the reproductive system, requiring both the female ovum (egg) and the male sperm. Ova are fertilized naturally in the fallopian tubes of women following sexual intercourse by the sperm which transits through the vagina and uterus following release from the penis. Although artificial methods are available and used, the anatomy and physiology of humans have resulted in a natural means for conception.

    The structure and function of the male and female human reproductive systems are fully complementary. Anatomically he vagina is designed to receive the penis. It is lined with squamous epithelium and is surrounded by a muscular tube intended for penile intromission. The rectum, on the other hand, is lined with a delicate mucosal surface and a single layer of columnar epithelium intenuea primarily for the reabsorption of water and electrolytes. The rectum is incapable of mechanical protection against abrasion and severe damage to the colonic mucosa can result if objects that are large, sharp, or pointed are inserted into the rectum (Agnew, 1986).

    The anus and rectum, unlike the vagina contain no natural lubricating function. Thus insertion of unlubricated objects or inadequate dilation of the anus before insertion of a large object can result in tissue laceration. “The internal and external anal sphincters are elastic rings of muscle which generally remain tightly constricted except during defecation. The anal sphincters are also intended for material to pass through them in a direction that leads out of the body. When an attempt is made to insert something in the reverse direction, the muscles of the sphincter constrict” (Agnew, 1986).

    From the perspective of pathology and pathophysiology, the varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma. “Four general groups of conditions may be encountered in homosexually active men: classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (fecal incontinence, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, foreign bodies, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)” (Owen, 1985).

    A study of sexually transmitted diseases in heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals reported from Copenhagen in 1988 (Christopherson), demonstrated that the profile of diseases was strongly correlated to sexual lifestyle. “Amoebiasisa and giardiasis were found respectively in 31.9% and 13.8% of homosexuals. None of the heterosexuals had pathologic protozoa … Among males with homosexual partners, 14% had rectal infections. Gonococcal and chlamydial infections were equally frequent. Three percent had symptomatic anorectal herpes simplex infection and 11% anal warts…Urethral gonorrhea and/or chlamydia infections were diagnosed in 39% of heterosexuals compared to only 10% of homosexuals and bisexuals. Twelve percent of the homosexuals had untreated early syphilis, whereas syphilis was exceptional among heterosexuals. The total burden of infections expressed as the actual number of infections was largest among homosexuals, 40.4%, 22.4%, and 5.3% having one, two, and three infections respectively.”

    In addition to infection, trauma and tumors are the primary problems related to the anorectum in homosexual men. “Consensual penile-anal intercourse can be performed safely provided there is adequate lubrication. Few anorectal problems and no evidence of anal-sphincter dysfunction are found in heterosexual women who have anal-receptive intercourse. However, forceful anal penetration without lubrication against a resistant sphincter will result in abrasive trauma, causing fissures, contusions, thrombosed hemorrhoids, lacerations with bleeding, pain, and psychic trauma” (Bush, 1986). The most severe type of anorectal trauma follows fist fornication which during the 1970s was practiced by approximately 5% of the male homosexual population (Geist, 1988). It should be noted that this activity is occasionally practiced by heterosexual and lesbian couples. This technique of anal eroticism involves having the partner insert their hand and forearm into the rectum for erotic stimulation. “The insertion of such a large object as a hand or fist creates the potential for rupture of the rectum or severe damage to the anus or rectal walls” (Agnew, 1986). “Participants frequently use drugs to produce inhibition or relaxation, thereby clouding appropriate responses to painful stimuli. Injuries sustained in this sexual activity generally tend to be severer and account for most sphincter injuries, as well as a disproportionate number of the lacerations, perforations, and deaths seen in connection with anal eroticism” (Geist, 1988).

    In addition to infections and trauma, tumors are a definlte rlsk for homosexual men. “Homosexual behavior in men is a risk factor for anal cancer. Squamous-cell anal cancer is also associated with a history of genital warts, an association suggesting that papillomavirus infection is a cause of anal cancer” (Daling, 1987). Anal warts are commonly found among individuals who practice anal intercourse and only rarely found among heterosexuals practicing vaginal intercourse. “In one series of 260 homosexual men seen by proctologists, 134 (51.5 percent) had anal warts. They may occur anywhere in the anal-genital area but are particularly common in the anus of homosexual men” (Quinn, 1984). This infection appears to be correlated with the higher incidence of anal cancer in homosexual men.

    At our Boston meeting, we spent some time discussing the complementarity of the human sexes. Although one could gather from the discussion of the consultants in scripture, theology, and Christian ethics that there may be some lack of assurance that the human sexes complement each other, I believe that it is possible to argue succinctly from an anatomical (structure) and physiological (function) point of view that the human sexes are indeed complementary.

    It is absolutely clear that anatomically and physiologically the alimentary and reproductive systems in humans are separate organ systems; i.e., the human does not have a cloaca. Likewise it is clear that even primitive cultures understand the nature of waste elimination, sexual intercourse, and the birth of children. Indeed our own children appear to “intuitively” understand these facts. I think we should note that these simple “scientific” facts are the same in any culture — patriarchal or matriarchal, modern or primitive, Jewish or gentile, etc. The anatomic and physiologic facts of alimentation and reproduction simply do not change based on any cultural setting. In fact, the logical complementarity of the human sexes has been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings either the male fitting or the female fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other. When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above.

    Therefore, based on the simplest known anatomy and physiology, when dealing with the complementarity of the human sexes, one can simply say, Res ipsa loquitur — the thing speaks for itself!


    • bozo May 11, 2012 / 8:55 pm

      It facilitates a Nash equilibrium in a species facing limited resources.

      The characteristic you fail to note is when a population of any organism faces severe restriction of resources due to geographical or other constraints, non-reproductive sexual behavior serves as a governor to the growth in population for that group, ensuring the long term survival of the entire group.

      Just as our current obesity epidemic is caused by our ability to survive droughts and famine that never come in a refrigerator society, making our fat stores incredibly important, even life-saving under extreme conditions, non-reproductive sexual behavior also has a survival purpose under extreme hardship conditions that we currently do not face. Oddly, non-reproductive sexual behavior facilitates reproduction, as the male component of it all goes stale after a week or so, and must be “emptied” regularly in order for fresh, viable haploids to be ready for action when opportunity knocks.

      Wanna go with the God reason? God created homosexuality for a mysterious purpose, by the same logic and for the same purpose He kills children with diseases. He makes no mistakes. He makes no evil thing. You judge His works with your own hatred (self-hatred?) created tunnel vision to your own peril. Even Jesus Himself never spoke a single word about homosexuality in His entire lifetime. The United Methodist Church must be smarter than Jesus.

      I do like their covenant prayer: “Christ has many services to be done. Some are easy, others are difficult. Some bring honour, others bring reproach. Some are suitable to our natural inclinations and temporal interests, others are contrary to both… Yet the power to do all these things is given to us in Christ, who strengthens us. …I am no longer my own but yours. Put me to what you will, rank me with whom you will; put me to doing, put me to suffering; let me be employed for you or laid aside for you, exalted for you or brought low for you; let me be full, let me be empty, let me have all things, let me have nothing; I freely and wholeheartedly yield all things to your pleasure and disposal.” It leaves space for being gay if Christ wills it, including all that suffering you seem to think is exclusive to gays. I wonder why they don’t follow their own advice?

      • Amazona May 11, 2012 / 10:10 pm

        Gee, who knew that buggery was really a survival tactic, necessary for the preservation of the species and even for the propagation of the species?

        Thanks for clearing that up, freakzo. And in doing so, clearing up a few other questions about just how screwy you are, anyway.

        BTW, I do agree with you that it is foolish to look God in the eye and declare “You made a mistake, God.” I for one am not ready to do that.

        I find sexual attraction to people of the same gender to be an aberration, an abnormality, but not inherently evil or wrong. Some find it creepy, or at least its manifestations in substitute sexual behaviors creepy, but that is just a personal reaction.

        The pathology lies in the frantic need of the homosexual to change definitions to try to convey the illusion of normalcy to an abnormal condition. It is what it is, not inherently evil or inherently good. But it is outside the normal parameters of sexual activity, and all the semantic manipulation and hijacking of traditional terms for heterosexual relationships are not going to change that.

        To quote The One We Have All Been Waiting For, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

        The fact is, as more and more people got to know homosexual people, and couples, and saw that most of them were just like they were with the exception of what genders revved their engines, homosexuality was becoming more accepted in mainstream America.

        Then the strident activists got involved, and started generating a perception of gay people as seething with rage and hostility and resentment, and more than a little bit nuts, as well as determined to hijack a word of deep cultural, social and religious meaning in an effort to slap a veneer of sameness on relationships that simply are not, and can not be, the same.

        And make no mistake about it, no matter how strident the rhetoric, it IS all about a word. One word, Marriage. Not equal rights, and for damned sure not “civil rights” but about one word. And that laserlike focus on that one word, no matter how it makes other people feel, is doing more harm to what might be called the “gay cause” than all the buttless chaps worn in all the gay pride parades in all the Liberal cities in the country. it’s petty and it’s stupid and it is creating a backlash.

      • bozo May 12, 2012 / 2:10 am

        Buttless chaps. Nice touch. Kinda like painting all Montanans as toothless trailer trash.

        Christian conservatives must continue spewing misinformation and denigrating remarks about gays for fear the real “gay cliche” turns out to be Sir John Gielgud. The horror.

        I agree it’s about one word: marriage. Annoyingly, every law in this fine country is based on that stupid commodity called “words” and the meanings they evoke when written or spoken. I know it’s confusing to conservatives when their leaders say jobs and actually mean abortion, or when they say super committee failure will result in “equal cuts to social and military programs” and actually mean NO cuts to military and double cuts to social programs.

        The word “marriage” in strict legal terms represents a laundry list of rights, privileges and responsibilities. In religious terms…yeah, whatever. When we, the people, expand or contract those rights, privileges and responsibilities, it must apply equally, forcing us as a nation to cut off our own noses should we desire to spite our gay faces.

        Interestingly, this entire site seems to be ignoring their presumptive leader. Whatever happened to that gay-bullying “Mitt” character I heard so much about? Bet he’s working at the car wash with Biff Tannen.

      • Amazona May 12, 2012 / 12:52 pm

        Oh, freakzo, take it easy. It is quite clear that I did not say ALL gay men wear buttless chaps. Nor do all gay men march in gay pride parades, or stand in the street screaming “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it” or even despise all straight people as mere “breeders”. Clearly you just wanted an excuse to wallow in your anti-rural-America bigotry, and thought that misstating my comment would give you a platform to do so.


        You seem to be unusually out of touch with reality this morning., even for you. Take this odd and incoherent mumble:

        “Annoyingly, every law in this fine country is based on that stupid commodity called “words” and the meanings they evoke when written or spoken. I know it’s confusing to conservatives when their leaders say jobs and actually mean abortion, or when they say super committee failure will result in “equal cuts to social and military programs” and actually mean NO cuts to military and double cuts to social programs.”


        Yes, every law in this country is based upon words. And the consistency and coherence of those laws are based upon precise definitions of those words. This is where you PL hysterics wander off the rails, because you resist so frantically any effort to pin down a firm definition of so many words. You so desperately need to have words be infinitely flexible, iinfinitely malleable, so you can use them any way you want to.

        Just look at how many years we have been trying to get you people to define your own political allegiance, without any success at all. If you can’t, or won’t, define something as significant as your own political model, we can only assume it is because you don’t know, or you don’t want to remove that flexibility/malleability thing, or you realize that once it is laid out it will be so unacceptable to most Americans that you will lose the majority of your support.

        The word “marriage” has not needed definition, as its definition has been so firmly established for centuries by consistent use, always meaning the same thing. It was a given: The formal union of one man and one woman.

        When more than two people were involved, the word had to be modified, as in “polygamous marriage”, and then that form of “marriage” was outlawed—BECAUSE IT DID NOT FIT THE ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF THE WORD. While no law could prevent a man from shacking up with more than one woman at at time the law did not allow that arrangement to be codified as “marriage”.

        Now other types of arrangements are trying to hijack the word, making it necessary to move beyond the mere acceptance of its meaning to an actual legally binding definition.

        Now—what about the belief that the United States of America should be governed by its Constitution is related to anything else in your rant where you used the word “conservative”? It appears that you are the one guilty of simply sticking any old word in any old place where you think it might create a perception.

        Of course, no one of any political persuasion has everr conflated “jobs” with “abortion”—what an utterly stupid and dishonest thing to say. Now, if you are talking about the specific job of killing inconvenient children, that is something different altogether, but no one has tried to use the word “jobs” as a substitute for “abortion”.

        At least nowhere except, obviously, on Planet Freako.

        I also note you misuse of the word “cuts” as you use the word to indicate that the spending on any particular program will be decreased. Do you really buy into this common Lefty lie, or do you know it is a lie but just love the taste of it?

        Because most people, those with brains and the willingness to use them, understand that the GOP budget is based on reducing increases.

        Having trouble with those words, too? Let’s explain.

        If a program is slated to increase by, say, $3M, and the new budget allows for an increase of only $2M, there is no cut to the program. Do you understand this? The program will still receive more money that it is receiving now. It will receive an INCREASE in its allotment.

        The word “cut” usually means a decrease. Only to the radical Left, and its mindless ignorant PL lemmings, does it mean “more but not as much more as we want”.

        “… NO cuts to military and double cuts to social programs.” is just meaningless gibberish, but thanks for the tutorial on how important it is to use words with precision and accuracy, even though you had to illustrate the point by using them incorrectly and sloppily.

      • Amazona May 12, 2012 / 1:03 pm

        “. Whatever happened to that gay-bullying “Mitt” character I heard so much about?”

        Well, he doesn’t exist, and the so-called newspaper that outed itself as an arm of the Obama campaign has been exposed for its lying and its smearing and its fake “news” about this invented character.

        There may have been a lot of chatter about it in the little bubble of anti-whatever-you-are-told-to-be-against, but that is just more proof that the Left loves the smell of its own farts.

        Clever of them to pick a man who is dead and who can’t stand up to state that the story is a lie, bu this family has spoken for him. Uh-oh—the Slime Machine didn’t see that coming. No matter—it’s a juicy invention that got the lemmings salivating, so it will stick around for a while, feeding the carrion eaters who can’t be bothered with facts or policy when they can roll around in the carcass of a rotting lie.

      • bozo May 13, 2012 / 4:59 am

        Ammo, you so funny! The word “marriage” has not needed definition, as its definition has been so firmly established for centuries by consistent use, always meaning the same thing. It was a given: The formal union of one man and one woman.

        And the formal union of a man and his rape victim (Deuteronomy 22:28), and the formal union of a man and his prisoner of war (Deuteronomy 21:11), and the formal union of a man and a few more wives (Exodus 21:10), and a man and his dead brother’s wife (Genesis 38:8) etc etc. It’s needed a whole lotta defining over the years, and it’s been a moving target (I hope).

        It appears you aren’t familiar with the post-super committee shenanigans now taking place. Yes, everyone agreed that if the super committee failed, cuts would be across the board. In conservative word logic, that means NO cuts to the Pentagon even though everyone agreed, and double cuts to social programs since, hey, spending is out of control (which translates into “spending we don’t like is out of control, Spending we like – BRING IT ON!).

        You gotta keep up, or it’s no fun…

      • Amazona May 13, 2012 / 1:15 pm

        freakzo, you are obviously of the opinion that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes true. This explains a lot about you, and people like you. And the lie about cutting money from social programs seems to have passed that invisible but significant line, for you at least.

        Instead of linking to a biased comment, why don’t you give us the actual figures of each of the budgets that have your panties in a wad?

        That is, how much spent in 2010, in 2011, projected for 2012, allotted for 2013, etc for the programs you are whining about.

        But you won’t do that. For one thing, it would involve going to facts instead of opinion, and for another it would show a steady increase in those budgets.

        Just curious about the new RRL theme of attacking “conservatives” based on attacking cherrypicked Old Testament writings. Are you and the wattle the same person? Or do you just get your “information” and your “ideas” from the same minders? It’s awfully funny to suddenly see PL trolls quoting Deuteronomy and Exodus, and hardly a coincidence.

        But hey, you gotta do what you gotta do. You can’t attack conservatives on their ideology, because for one thing you don’t know what it is and for another you have a sneaking suspicion that to do so would mean coming out and admitting you think the Constitution should be ignored or discarded. You can’t defend your own ideology, for one thing because you don’t know what it is and for another because you have a sneaking suspicion that the reality would drive Dem voters away in droves. You can only defend Obama based on what’s left of his personality cult and some frantic spinning of the facts regarding the economy, the influx of committed hard-Left radicals into the White House, etc. You can only attack his opponent on the basis of Identity Politics, where you invent something that is supposed to be scandalous or offensive about him and then squeal “But look at THIS!!!! Isn’t THIS awful??”

        So someone decided that it would make sense to shift the discourse to attacks on the idea of believing in God and in the teachings of the Bible by isolating (can we say “Alinksy”?) and then ridiculing (one more time, kiddies) comments from thousands of years ago.

        Yeah, like THAT’S relevant to anything but your religious bigotry.

        But keep it up. Please PLEASE PLEASE keep it up. You have identified blacks as hopeless, helpless, and forever in need of a paternalistic and condescending hand to make up for their deficiencies. You have identified women as hopeless, helpless, easily confused and befuddled and driven to fits of shrill hysteria, and in desperate need of the paternalistic and condescending handouts offered by Big Daddy. You have tried to isolate Americans into discrete groups and then turn them against each other, with their only ally Big Daddy government. You have tried to turn different economic groups against each other, fomenting resentment of the poor for all who are not equally poor and of the not-poor for the poor who are sucking up all their money. You have fed the flames of racial hatred, goading violent black radicals by telling them they will not be prosecuted for attacking whites and then using the office of the Attorney General to go after white targets of black hatred.

        And you’re still losing.

        The problem is, everything you have done is appealing only to the hard-core base that will support you anyway. And the other antics have done nothing but drive away those who were sucked in by the Identity Politics and cult of personality that you successfully substituted for actual political content in 2008.

        So now someone comes up with the brilliant idea of going after people of faith and ridiculing them and their beliefs. And it is truly brilliant—if your goal is to drive away people who have religious beliefs based in any way on the Bible, and those who do not but who respect those who do.

        Oh, and those who believe in the 1st Amendment.

        This strategy is nearly as brilliant as the one to get out of debt by borrowing more.

      • bozo May 14, 2012 / 3:11 am

        It’s a current event you still seem to be in denial of.

        Pardon my preposition.

      • tiredoflibbs May 14, 2012 / 6:23 am

        Uh, creepy assclown – there are no cuts, only reductions in the increase. It is not a TRUE CUT.

        Proggies love to call these cuts – a social program is scheduled to have an increase in funding 10%, instead their increase is limited to 5%. Proggies lie and call this a cut when their budgets are still increasing.

        Not to mention, obAMATEUR increased most base line budgeting over 20% across the board in his first two years in office.

        Please, continue to post mindless dumbed down talking points – at least, this is funny for a clown of your ilk.

      • bozo May 14, 2012 / 10:57 am

        You guys just really don’t understand the sequester thingy, do you? Not surprising, since they don’t speak of it on Fox.

  8. theshadowiswatching May 11, 2012 / 4:56 pm

    Moderator note: We have seen courteous and thoughtful responses here and have decided to be more discerning about leaving posts which are primarily attacks or insults. Some expression of dislike is acceptable but gratuitous insults and attacks will be deleted and it is possible that posters will be deleted automatically if they continue to post in attack and insult modes instead of offering content. Speculation about the identity of moderators is futile. //Moderator

  9. bagni May 12, 2012 / 9:47 am

    hey neo cluck
    we do agree that cheney is wrong……
    as a general statement and all encompassing statement
    and zona? concerning your buggery opinion….
    guess what it ain’t normal to ram your arm up a cow’s arse and artificially inseminate it either
    but it’s just an ‘animal’ so it must be ok in your bovinian driven world…….

    • Amazona May 12, 2012 / 11:09 am

      baggy, thanks so much for the insight into what you obviously spend a lot of time thinking about.

      And, of course, for your charming illustration of your knowledge of mammalian reproductive anatomy. It would, I agree, be quite unnatural to try to rectally impregnate a cow. And quit unproductive as well.

      Perhaps if you had just a smiiiiiidgen more personal experience with female anatomy, and just a leeeeetle less focus on what goes up an arse, the picture might be clearer.

      • Amazona May 12, 2012 / 11:21 am

        Not that it matters, but artificial insemination is really less stressful and traumatic for both genders, with cows and with horses. Many animals, both male and female, are injured when breeding naturally. A horse carries about 60% of its weight on its front legs. A stallion of average size, or 1000 pounds, putting 600 pounds very abruptly on the back and shoulders of a mare, is adding a great deal of stress to her back and legs. Factor in stresses to the stallion’s back and legs, the risk of vaginal tearing, infection, and of course the risk to the stallion if he is kicked, and suddenly the quick, simple, painless, nonviolent, hygienic procedure of introducing semen into the uterus via a sterile pipette is understood to be more considerate of both genders.

        People who actually know what they are talking about understand this.

        As for “nature” , one of my heifers got through the fence, looking for love, and ended up mating with a bull far too large for her. She died an agonizing death from a ruptured uterus. Scientific breeding practices significantly reduce risks like these.

    • watsonredux May 12, 2012 / 11:23 am

      Matt, Matt, Matt… You really can’t tell the difference? Let me help. President Obama is the president; Dick Cheney was never the president. Plus, the comments you cite were made by Dick months after he left office. When he WAS in office, he was part of an administration that promoted a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I’m sure that made his lesbian daughter proud of her father.

      And js03, thanks for the detail description of the purpose of the vagina, penis, anus and rectum. I had no idea!

      • Amazona May 12, 2012 / 12:24 pm

        I always suspected that you had no idea of the actual purposes of these anatomical definitions…thanks for the confirmation.

        BTW, just as a point of fact, there has never been a proposal of an amendment to “ban gay marriage”. I find the dependence of the RRL and the PL trolls on lies to be very informative—it is the clearest possible admission that the truth will not advance their agendas.

        There have been suggestions of amendments, both national and state, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

        Do try to get your facts straight and please quit lying.

      • watsonredux May 12, 2012 / 9:36 pm

        Just mincing words, Amazona, you’re speciality. You usually ignore everything someone writes, except for one little piece you feel you can pick apart. Call it whatever you want, George Bush most certainly called for a constitutional amendment defining marriage to be between a man and a woman.

        George W. Bush, Feb. 24, 2004:

        “Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.”


      • Amazona May 12, 2012 / 11:41 pm

        That’s what I said, no mincing about it. You’re (you are) welcome.

        What’s your (second person possessive) problem?

      • cyberactor May 13, 2012 / 9:26 pm

        Hilariously, when you prove Amazona to be full of beans “there has never been a proposal of an amendment to “ban gay marriage” (Oh, wait. Yes there was.) you get no answer. Once again proving that when A is shown to be wrong…you’ll never get a proper reply. (See our discussion about Romney’s gay advisor getting the can above.) Really funny stuff.

      • Amazona May 14, 2012 / 2:48 am

        OK, if you simply decide to reframe an effort to define marriage as an effort to “ban gay marriage” then you can titter and giggle all you want, rolling in the aisles in your forced hilarity.

        Me, I tend to go with what is actually SAID, without adding filters to make it fit into a preconceived and personally important narrative.

        But then, I am not a Lefty.

        BTW, you can’t “ban” something that does not exist. Gay “marriage” would exist only if codified by law. Till then it is really nothing more than a war cry for the rabidly radical Left to shriek in yet another effort to create divisions among Americans and slime a political system on completely non-political grounds.

      • Amazona May 14, 2012 / 3:04 am

        From the Denver Post, a notoriously left-leaning newspaper: “Grenell stepped down from his position as Romney’s foreign policy spokesman just two weeks after being appointed, and in a statement he alluded to the party pressure he felt for being an openly gay man.

        Grenell noted, “my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign. I want to thank Gov. Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team.

        If you have gotten over your fit of the giggles, let’s look at this comment from the Post.

        The newspaper itself claims that Grenell “felt party pressure”. Why? For “being an openly gay man” of course. That’s the filter the reporter looked through when writing the article.

        Did Grenell say that? No.

        What DID he say? “…being openly gay was a non-issue for (Romney) and his team.

        He was openly gay when he was hired, and he was openly gay when he QUIT and he made a point of saying that “..being openly gay was a non-issue for (Romney) and his team.”

        So you guys huddle in your little hate bubble and “discuss” this all you want, the fact will, as usual, make a lie of your little “discussions”.

        Oh, that’s right—testimony from Grenell that Romney made it clear to him that his sexual orientation was not an issue is of no more importance to you than the family of the haircut guy saying he never said a word about anything like this to them. To people like you, there is no reason to let fact or reality intrude on a perfectly lovely little hate-spasm.

      • Amazona May 14, 2012 / 3:17 am

        What “pressure” did Grenell allegedly feel “for being an openly gay man”?

        Well, even the Daily Kos couldn’t come up with anything more damning than this. (Warning: Graphic and explicit examples of hate speech and gay-bashing to follow: Hide the children and cover your eyes before reading.)

        “Pieces in two conservative publications, the National Review and Daily Caller, reflected the uproar by some social conservatives over the appointment.

        In the National Review, Mathew Frank wrote late last week: “Suppose Barack Obama comes out — as Grenell wishes he would — in favor of same-sex marriage in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. How fast and how publicly will Richard Grenell decamp from Romney to Obama?””

        Oooooooooooh !!!!!!!!!1 The horror!!! THE HORROR!!!!

        Someone wondered if the gay “marriage” issue might prompt someone to shift his political allegiance!!!!

        Now I can see how the actor and the wattle could get the vapors. This vicious and brutal attack on a man just for being openly gay is, well, stunning. This UPROAR simply REVERBERATES across the nation!!

        I can’t find anything about this “Mathew Frank” that identifies him as a mouthpiece of the Right, but I’m sure that fact won’t matter here, either.

  10. Cluster May 12, 2012 / 11:29 am

    When we, the people, expand or contract those rights, privileges and responsibilities, it must apply equally, – bozo (could there be any better name for him?)

    Every single gay person in this country has the all of the same rights that I do. Period. No more, no less.

    • bozo May 13, 2012 / 5:23 am

      Except to use the word “marriage” to describe their relationship.

      “Hi, I’m Mary and this is my civil-unioned domestic partner Jane.”

      “Oh, have you two been civil-unioned long?”

      “Us? Sure, we’ve been civil-unioned for decades.”

      “Yep, just a couple of old civil-unioned geezers.”

      “Any kids – oops, sorry. That’s been illegal since Lord Romney (peace be upon him and his prophet Grover Norquist) seized power.”

      “Oh no, we have children. The two of us married the same man (we call him our “donor” wink wink) and converted to Mormonism. Someday our “donor” will be just like the God of the Bible, and our children will populate many planets for Him.”

      “Um, now that’s just bat-poop crazy. I gotta go…”

      • Amazona May 13, 2012 / 12:32 pm

        Gay couples can use the word “marriage” to describe their relationships. It would not be illegal to use a word inaccurately. It happens all the time. An excellent case in point is the use of the word “liberal” as the name of a rigid, inflexible, highly ILliberal political system.

        I can call my VW Thing a Porsche all day long, and I can claim it is accurate because it was designed by Ferdinand Porsche, it is an automobile, it has wheels and an engine and brakes and seats and a steering wheel, and it looks very cool. I can take it to Porsche rallies and Porsche car shows and brag about my classic Porsche. It’s not illegal.

        It’s just that people who know the difference (that is, everyone) would know I was delusional, and pathetic, in my need to pretend my car is something it is not.

        And I don’t have to. What I have is very cool, in and of itself. It is unique, and it doesn’t have to claim to be something it is not.

        So Mary can introduce Karen as her—-what? “Wife”? “Husband”? They can bring out pictures of their “wedding” at dinner parties, but they run the risk that someone else will bring out THEIR pictures of the “wedding” of Fifi and Spike, their Bichon and the neighbor’s bulldog—isn’t Spike so cute in his tux?

        No, Mary and her life partner can understand the significance of their mutual commitment, and they can see it as analogous to real marriage, but they will also understand, deep down in their hearts, that it is not really the same. They should be acknowledging the difference, even celebrating the difference, and looking for a special word that tells the world they, too, want to make a lifelong commitment to a loved and cherished partner, legally spiritually and emotionally, just like marriage. A word that celebrates the similarities and the differences. A word that is theirs, just as “marriage” belongs to heterosexual couples.

        And you know what? It wouldn’t make any difference to you, or people like you, who get off on on elaborate inventions of spite and malice you then present as if you think they are funny—just like your idol, the spitemeister and malicemaster, Bill “comedian” Maher.

      • Amazona May 13, 2012 / 12:42 pm

        Just curious, freakzo—when you are laboriously toiling away, trying to come up with something snotty enough, scornful enough, disdainful enough, dismissive enough, hateful enough, to meet your standards of spite and malice, do you indulge in that same smug self-satisfied preening sneer that marks Maher’s presentations of his own comments?

        You know, that “ain’t I just the cutest thing EVER???” smirk?

        After all, you chose an avatar that is probably as close as you could get to an actual picture of Maher, you constantly cite him and link to his mental droppings as if they are anything BUT mental excrement, you obviously worship at his altar, you try to emulate him by concocting silly, spiteful, vitriolic comments you then seem to think are witty and funny—-do you also imitate his facial mannerisms and do that smirky preening thing when one of your comments is particularly odorous?

      • Amazona May 14, 2012 / 11:25 am

        Conservatism is about a political belief that the United States of America is best governed by adherence to not just the basic principles laid out in our Constitution but to the fact that the Constitution is the law of the land and is a precise blueprint for how to govern the nation.

        It is a POLITICAL position.

        Only the steadfastly and determinedly ignorant and/or stupid persist in trying to conflate anything else with this fact.

        Odd, however, to see the PL minions now trying to shift the creepy Cult of Personality that got Barry into the White House onto the shoulders of the Right, now that his real personality is proving the illusion to be such a lie.

        Too bad they can’t back up their silly efforts with actual evidence—you know, of people weeping and screaming like the Beatle fans of old, people breathlessly emoting to the cameras that they are so thrilled “JUST TO BE BREATHING THE SAME AIR AS HE IS !!!!!!! , people swooning in the front rows of speech after speech, echoing reverb of HIS VOICE as he stands in front of huge, Speer-inspired (but fake) columns, etc.

        Nah, all they have is the tired old bigotry of the invented ‘daddy-in-the-sky’ and unsupportable claims of a need for hero worship in place of actual political ideology.

        And one or two breathless acolytes like the freaky clown, dashing madly here and there to deposit his latest mental droppings and then circling back to sniff and admire them.

        All they have is boring old conservatives endlessly talking about the Constitution, about high taxes, about personal responsibility, blah blah blah, all that ideology stuff, making it really hard to tag them with the claim that they are really just a giant giddy fan club looking for the next American (or maybe-American) Idol.

        Oh well, truth and reality haven’t affected freakzo’s posts so far, so this reality isn’t going to faze him.

      • Amazona May 14, 2012 / 11:33 am

        freakzo, you appear to be saying that the only thing that separates a VW Thing from a Porsche is the name. That’s all you got from my analogy?

        That if you just use the right WORD for something you can change its inherent nature?

        Thanks for clearing that up. I’ll contact VW to see if they will retroactively rename the Thing, so I can REALLY drive a Porsche. And you just keep fighting to call homosexual unions “marriage” ’cause that’s really all it will take to make it so, right?

        Ah, the power of Magical Thinking. And the dependence on by the PL drones who pollute this site.

  11. bagni May 13, 2012 / 1:45 pm

    you sound like the planned parenthood of animal husbandry
    yknow…..reducing risk and all…..

    just a quick thought?
    maybe cheney didn’t get any praise
    cuz he didn’t say squat about gay marriage
    till he was out of office, approval ratings at the bottom, his politco days were over
    he was and still is irrelevant
    unless of course you want to talk about hunting…..

    • bozo May 14, 2012 / 3:20 am

      No, we should be praising Cheney. And First Lady Bush for being in favor of gay marriage and pro-choice. Ok, so they waited until conservative voters were fleeced as much as politically possible before coming out, but, hey, nobody fleeces conservatives like other conservatives.

      Must be God’s will.

      • Amazona May 14, 2012 / 10:53 am

        Hey, clown, just how “pro-choice” are YOU?

        I know you think that taking the life of another human being is nothing more than just a “choice” of the killer, as long as the human life fits into an arbitrary time frame. (Which seems to be pretty expandable, but that’s another topic,)

        Writing off such a momentous act as the ending of a human life, the biggest “choice” of all, means that all other “choices” ought to be allowed, too, right?

        How about the “choice” of a parent on how tax money should be spent to educate his children? Shouldn’t he be able to make the “choice” to have that money applied to the school of his “choice”?

        What about the “choice” to not have ethanol in my gasoline? Or the “choice” to burn incandescent light bulbs? Or the “choice” of what kind of toilet to use? Can I make the “choice” to ride my ATV into any part of a National Forest? Can I make the “choice” of deciding that I am perfectly competent to drive my car after tossing down a few pops at the local tavern? How about “choice” in how fast to drive? There are a lot of people who would like the “choice” to not wear clothing in public. And it seems that there is a lot of objection on the Left to the “choice” to have and/or carry a gun–and that’s a choice enshrined in the Constitution

        Is “choice” really just limited to gestational females who want to play but not to take the responsibility for the human life that results from the bump-and-tickle that was so important? Why does the “choice” to kill an innocent but inconvenient child outweigh the responsibility of the “choice” to have sex with the knowledge that the female won’t assume responsibility for the outcome?

        And speaking of that, why limit “choice” of who deserves to live and who gets the axe (or the poison or the vacuum tube or the scalpel or the scissors through the brain) to lives less than, say, 10 months old? (Now that the RRL deathmongers, led by President Barry, approve of killing off children even after they are born, that time frame has expanded again.)

        Isn’t that kind of arbitrary? If convenience is the deciding factor, well, I can think of a lot of people whose lives pose some degree of inconvenience to me.

        No, the real thing is not freedom of “choice” but freedom from responsibility for one’s actions, and the manipulation of this truly life-or-death issue for political purposes.

        I like Laura Bush but I also disagree with her on some things. I think she is motivated not by the pathologically selfish American woman who uses baby-killing as birth control, but by the very real problems of repeated pregnancies for low-income women, often in third-world countries. I, too, feel for these women, but also believe that the answer is not baby-killing but prevention of conception. The simple fact is that people in these poorer countries also have deeper religious values and cultural respect for children, and killing off unborn babies is probably not the first “choice” of these women.

    • Amazona May 14, 2012 / 3:28 am

      Waaaaaa waaaaaa waaaaaaa. Your determination to find the ugliest possible spin to put on anything really has no boundaries, does it?

      Still not up to actually defining “conservatives”, are you? But why bother when it is such a handy catchphrase for people like you, to use whenever you want to say something hostile or disparaging.

      Which is, evidently, all the time, since you are never anything BUT hostile and disparaging.

      • bozo May 14, 2012 / 10:34 am

        I know. Cheney and Laura aren’t “real” conservatives. It’s sooo convenient to deny them thrice before sunrise. That way, you aren’t responsible for what they did. YOU’RE a real conservative.

        This thread was supposed to discuss conservatives who look like Obama, and why liberals don’t give them credit for that. I’m giving them credit just like Matt asked. Woohoo! Cheney is for the gays. Wohoo, Laura is for the gays. You wanna argue, argue with Matt.

      • Amazona May 14, 2012 / 11:12 am


        Do you even TRY to make sense?

        What kind of bizarre mental filters do things have to pass through to become so weirdly distorted in your mind?

        The thread is NOT “…supposed to discuss conservatives who look like Obama…” much less to “…. why liberals don’t give them credit for that.”

        Conservatism is about a political belief that the United States of America is best governed by adherence to not just the basic principles laid out in our Constitution but to the fact that the Constitution is the law of the land and is a precise blueprint for how to govern the nation.

        It is a POLITICAL position.

        Yes, I know, people like you don’t DO politics, but please stop conflating political terminology with personal beliefs that have nothing whatsoever to do with how best to govern the nation.

        Under the umbrella definition of Conservative is a wide range of people, with a wide range of personal opinions on a wide range of religious, social and personal issues. None of these issues is in any way related to the political calculation of how the United States should be governed.

        The real Left, the Left that understands and is dedicated to the ideology of the movement, understands this, and also understands that Americans are very unlikely to support them on the basis of ideology alone, as the ideology of the real Left is antithetical to that of traditional American history and thinking.

        So the real Left works very hard to shift focus to Identity Politics, where inconvenient truths like ideology are buried under big steaming piles of mental excrement which are supposed to represent political identity. And you, freakzo, and some of your ilk, prove that this is a pretty effective strategy, swarming on these steaming piles like flies, and buzzing with glee at what you find there.

        You toss around the word “conservative” as if you know what it means, and as if it is in any way relevant to the rest of the sewage you spew. That’s OK. You get to do that.

        What is so amazing is your eagerness to strut your ignorance, to spotlight it, to constantly call attention to it, with profoundly stupid comments like “This thread was supposed to discuss conservatives who look like Obama, and why liberals don’t give them credit for that.”

        BTW, there are many conservatives who “look like Obama”, if you are going by superficial racial characteristics. The number of black people believing that the United States Constitution is the best way to govern the United States is growing.

        As for “…why liberals don’t give them credit for that…” well, black conservatives don’t fit into the rigid racial profiling of the RRL, which is why black conservatives not only do not get “credit” from Liberals but are slimed with vile racist attacks, such as being called Uncle Toms, house n******s, Oreos, etc. That is to say, basing opinions of people on Identity Politics—to hell with ideology, the PL minions focus on how people look, etc.

      • Amazona May 16, 2012 / 10:59 am

        “the gays”

        Wow. Yet another homophobic Liberal chimes in with yet another disparaging comment about yet another demographic group. “the gays”. How charming. Not people, just “the gays”.

  12. Amazona May 14, 2012 / 4:51 pm

    A little off topic but brought up in the context of a rant on gay “marriage”—

    Today in the car I caught a little of a shrill rant by a woman who was totally insistent that the only reason to object to the redefinition of “marriage” to include relationships other than one man and one woman is simple blind HATRED of all gay people. It didn’t matter what the host said, she just screeched over him. It made as much sense as the bleatings of the freaky clown and the actor, here.

    But anyway, in the midst of this harangue, she blurted out that Sherri Shepherd, of The View, had had ten abortions, and why is THAT okay but gays getting married isn’t? (Yes, it was a bizarre segue, and ignorant of the fact that the two are not related, as well as that most who oppose gay “marriage” also oppose abortion and would, therefore, be appalled at Shepherd’s claim.)

    I looked it up, and sure enough, Shepherd, while not pinning her abortion kill rate down to any specific number, did admit to lots of kid-killing. Her excuse? Well, she was a mess, her life was a mess, and gee whillikers, she would have made a lousy mother, or the kid shouldn’t have been brought into that kind of life, or blah blah blah.

    She didn’t mention why she couldn’t be bothered with contraception.

    ” Sherri Shepherd might have a hard time attracting men at the club these days, but before she converted to Christianity she led a promiscuous lifestyle that included “more abortions than [she] would like to count,” she told the black Christian womens magazine Precious Times:” This, by the way, taken from an article in the HuffPo.

    So where IS the outrage? Not from pro-life people, who have undoubtedly been appalled, but from her own radical Lefties who constantly assure us that no, nonononono, “choice” is only about making abortion “rare” and not, most certainly not, for birth control.

    I used to like Shepherd, but when I read this, my opinion turned on a dime. She claims to have found God, to be “saved” and so on, but I saw not a hint of remorse or guilt, only justification for what she did to these innocent lives.


    • Jeremiah May 15, 2012 / 1:40 am


      A fitting description for liberals.

Comments are closed.