Scarborough: Why isn’t Hillary’s comparison of pro-life Republicans to terrorists a bigger deal in the media?

Loading

Allah:

Via the Free Beacon, it’s a fair question. Even some reporters from outside conservative media ended up wondering yesterday why Clinton rhetorical stink bomb didn’t send more people running for cover.

The simplest explanation is undoubtedly the correct one: When you’re a Democrat and a woman who also happens to represent the best chance of abortion warriors to control the White House for four more years, you simply can’t be too nasty to social conservatives on matters of “choice.” She could run ads photoshopping Marco Rubio into one of those ISIS death-porn videos and the most you’d get out of the wider media is, “Some might consider that offensive.” Interestingly, though, even in conservative media, this hasn’t registered as a truly major story. Our own post on it yesterday drew far fewer comments than the average post on Trump does. Why is that? I think we may have we reached a point where this sort of reeking sleaze is so par for the course in Democratic “war on women” rhetoric that even Republicans don’t get too exercised about it. It’s just something Democrats say, like how every Republican policy, foreign and domestic, can best be understood as part of an unspoken racist plot. It’s a pretty sweet deal to be able to casually compare your opponents to ISIS and have virtually no one, many of those same opponents included, bat an eye.

If we’re going to insist on making terrorist comparisons, though, Kevin Williamson has a question: Isn’t the outfit that’s actually beheading people a better analog to ISIS?

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
106 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Why do some people ask questions they already know the answer to?

True also, like the leftist accusations of racism at every lost argument, so now is it too common to gain notice when a leftist candidate makes an offensive, stupid, unfounded statement. So much so that even the left fails to notice. Sort of like the too-often repeated joke; “ONCE it’s funny.”

I’m constantly surprised by the confusion that reigns on both sides of the isle over the first amendment right of free speech. Everyone (including Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and that Mozilla CEO) has the right to express their opinions. The public has an equal right to express its disapproval of those first-amendment-protected statements, whether by how it votes, or how it applies political pressure, or how it chooses not to spend its money.

I first suggest that there exists no statement that is universally reviled. I think that you would agree that statements supporting the extermination of gays, or Jews, or unwanted babies would find some few supporters, no matter how offensive such statements might be to the majority of citizens. Same holds true for statements supporting the rape of children, and on and on.

What matters here isn’t that offensive statements are or are not universally repugnant. What matters is that the people who object to such offensive statements are generally the people who disagree with them the most.
Hispanics generally are among the people most offended by Trump’s illegal immigration “discussion,” gays generally are among the people most offended by Biblically-based arguments against same-sex marriage, and Republicans generally are among the people most offended by HRC’s unfair characterization of right-to-life supporters – who just so happen to – more often than not – be Republican.

Conversely, people who agree with statements that are bereft of politically correct grace rarely bother to noisily protest. Why would they?

Surely this makes perfect sense.

I next suggest that those people who DO object the most to the content of such politically incorrect statements are properly exercising their right to express themselves, whether by vote, by exertion of political pressure, or by exertion of economic pressure. If you go on record supporting the goals of NAMBLA, why should the public not have a right to express its disapproval of your public statement? We are all held accountable for how we choose to exercise our First Amendment rights. That amendment gives you a right to say what you want, but it doesn’t indemnify you from the consequences of your stupidity.

HRC’s statement did exactly what it was intended to do: It distracted attention from the topic of her email server. Democrats were no doubt pleased that her tactic worked as well as it did, and they certainly wouldn’t bother to criticize her for it. Why would they? That’s the Republicans’ job.

Oh, there are those few precious moments where a surprise jab comes from an unexpected direction (Chris Matthews’ recent curve ball to Deb. Wass. Schults… and Bill O’Riley often enough calls it like he sees it) but far more frequently you will find partisan spokespersons and “news” reporters spinning freely what they believe will deliver political advantage to them.

Shall we feign surprise?
Shall we feign moral outrage?
Why?
Haven’t you figured out by now that this is how things work?

“Political correctness” is a scourge on free speech. It fundamentally threatens the First Amendment of the Constitution… and yet its very nature represents an expression of that same right. What possible logic would support someone’s right to say something while NOT supporting someone else’s right to object to the first statement?

If HRC’s statement hurts her, it won’t be because Republicans objected to it – they weren’t going to vote for her, no matter what. It’s the Democrats who matter here (oh, and they aren’t listening to Republicans for guidance on this one – sorry) and if their support fades because of it, it will be her fault and no one else’s.

But I wouldn’t get your underwear all up in a bind over this one. Spend your time figuring out which of the Republican hopefuls can beat HRC, BEFORE they kill each other off.

@George Wells: What I find most irritating is the media reaction (or lack thereof) to Hillary’s comparisons (as opposed to the umbrage shown when a Republican makes one). That lack of reaction merely proves beyond doubt (once again) how the media serves the left wing purpose; it’s what they are here for.

Dog whistles are how Dems like Hillary and Obama get their real message out.
Note how Hillary used the term ”boxcars,” as her description of how Republican candidates plan to deport all the working illegals after they ”go to their homes in the middle of the night and drag them out, rounding them up.”
More close to her dog whistle was her husband’s treatment of Elian Gonzales.

@Bill #3:

“What I find most irritating is the media reaction (or lack thereof) to Hillary’s comparisons (as opposed to the umbrage shown when a Republican makes one).”

Oh, so you are complaining about instances of liberal media bias, but don’t bother to object to conservative media bias?
Isn’t that precisely how I explained this works?
No, it doesn’t ALWAYS follow exactly the same pattern.
When the latest Hillary “statement” hit, I caught uber-liberal Mika on Joe Scarborough’s morning show all up in a froth over HRC’s politically incorrect characterization.
Neither side does it ALL OF THE TIME.
FOX news constantly trots out experts explaining how the ACA is ruining healthcare, but never bothers to feature any of the millions of Americans who have benefited from it, while MSNBC does the exact opposite.
So what?!

@George Wells: Why don’t you provide the instances of “conservative media bias” where they completely ignore news stories, radically alter recorded information, totally INVENT information, or report the same story concerning a liberal and a conservative and report them it totally opposite ways.

When Hillary compares GOP presidential candidates to terrorists, she is described as “strong” and “hitting hard”. If a conservative makes the comparison (or can be construed as such) they are vilified. Or, take the coverage (or lack of it) of what Planned Parenthood has been exposed as doing. Or, of what Gosnel did, for that matter. Or even how left wing gay-stapo tactics are used against anyone that dares not fall into lock-step for gay “marriage”. Or, coverage of when a black kills a white cop (that’s a gun’s fault, as opposed to a white cop killing a black, no matter the circumstances, being race-driven).

Come on, George; wake the f*** up. Or at least recognize that others have and stop insulting their intelligence.

@Bill #6:

What you seem to be suggesting is that Democrats are somehow significantly more flawed than Republicans, and I don’t buy that. Power corrupts, and politicians from both sides of the isle seem to be more or less equally susceptible to the allure of that evil. How can you justify remaining in a union of 50 different states full of millions of different people if you believe that roughly half of them are insane? We may believe in different things, but past the fluff, we most of us go to work and pay our taxes, we serve our country with honor and distinction, and we obey the laws of our land.

The conservative media focuses on what is important to it, and the liberal media focuses on what is important to it. What they each focus on is not the same. Are you having problems with that? The liberal media waved the rainbow flag constantly as marriage equality was being fought and won across the land, while the conservative media covered it very sparingly. It hasn’t been a winning issue for Republicans for at least 3 or 4 years, net, and they were recently getting trounced in the courts over the issue, so why dwell on it? Just because it is the most significant civil rights development in decades? LOL. And look at how fast that issue has died, now that it is essentially resolved. OK, one KY clerk is making a fool of herself and getting some liberal coverage because of it, but is the conservative media making a religious freedom case out of it? Hardly, because they know it’s a lost cause. Does that make for unbiased reporting? I doubt it. No more than the liberal media.

BTW, I’ve donated my dead body to science. After I expire, my body is just another lump of garbage. The same holds true for dead fetal tissue, as far as I’m concerned. So what Planned Parenthood was doing with that garbage doesn’t bother me in the least. You may worship your fingernail clippings – that’s your right – but don’t expect me to save mine because you have a hang-up over what becomes of discarded human by-products.

@George Wells:

What you seem to be suggesting is that Democrats are somehow significantly more flawed than Republicans, and I don’t buy that.

Is that what it seems like to you? One wonders how you drew that conclusion, but I won’t wait for the rationalization.

Power corrupts, and politicians from both sides of the isle seem to be more or less equally susceptible to the allure of that evil.

Precisely. Now, assume that only one party is subject to the oversight by the media. Which of those parties do you think would be more prone to abuses of power and corruption? Do you think Hillary would have gone the secret, unsecured server if she felt she was going to undergo the same scrutiny as, say, Trump gets? Would Obama make higher quality promises if he knew the media would hold him to account for lies instead of just ignore them?

Look at the difference in how the Confederate battle flag is treated in the media compared to the racism of Margaret Sanger and the origins of Planned Parenthood. Indeed, the liberal media covers what it wants to and how it wants to cover it. The farce of “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” could never have spread without the complicancy of the corrupt liberal media.

No, as human beings, being a Republican does not make one any better than being a Democrat. However, as you point out, power corrupts and absolute, unfettered and un-audited power in which mistakes, lies, failures and corruption are aided and abetted by a corrupt media corrupts absolutely.

BTW, I’ve donated my dead body to science. After I expire, my body is just another lump of garbage. The same holds true for dead fetal tissue, as far as I’m concerned.

So I assume then that you would have no problem with someone MAKING your body ready for donation in order to make a few quick bucks.

“Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world, but it’s a little hard to take from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States. Yet they espouse out of date, out of touch policies. They are dead wrong for 21st century America. We are going forward, we are not going back.”

Hey, you declared war on her first. Did you think the little woman wouldn’t fight back? That was probably only a ranging shot. She can also fire for effect, once a primary target has been singled out.

@Bill #8:

“Now, assume that only one party is subject to the oversight by the media.”
“So I assume then that you would have no problem with someone MAKING your body ready for donation in order to make a few quick bucks.”

You do entirely too much “assuming.”
Both parties are subject to media oversight. There are conservative television networks and there are liberal ones. Ditto for newspapers and magazines – both paper and digital – and radio. Which media do you believe excludes the conservative perspective?
And if you DO seriously believe that some facet of the media DOESN’T represent your views adequately, why haven’t you done something about it?
If the only thing that has kept Obama in office for the past eight years – and cost conservatives a boat-load of face over the Affordable Care Act,,, and same-sex-marriage – is a shortage of conservative-biased media representation, then why haven’t the rich bastards ponied up and bought enough of their own media to get their message out?
Frankly, your whining over this issue as if someone needed to GIVE you more coverage smacks of the very entitlement demands that you so ardently object to when they come from Democrats.
And GEEZ! You’ve got that useless House of Representatives sown up. Bought and paid for. So they vote what? 50 times? 60-times? to kill “ObamaCare? What more do you want. The “liberal” media shared that news with the public EVERY time the House wasted its time so voting, and where WAS the public outcry? Like the same-sex-marriage issue, you’ve got to BEGIN with the public’s support BEFORE you throw yourself under the approaching train. You didn’t have it on ObamaCare, and you didn’t have it on marriage equality.
Want to change how things are going, put your money where your mouth is.
Are conservatives too greedy to part with their hard-earned treasure? Surely you have a whole lot more than those Democrats on the public dole, wasting their subsistence allowances on video games and crack.
So how again is it that you figure it’s Democrats’ fault that they are beating you at this game of politics?
Can’t take the heat – get out of the kitchen.

And no, an unborn fetus isn’t the same as a living person. It’s more like a wart. It feels pain, but I don’t have a problem cutting it out.

@George Wells:

And no, an unborn fetus isn’t the same as a living person. It’s more like a wart. It feels pain, but I don’t have a problem cutting it out.

A wart doesn’t feel pain. The tissue around it feels pain when you cut the wart out.

Nice to know that a sodomist has such little disregard for human life.

#11:

“A wart doesn’t feel pain. The tissue around it feels pain when you cut the wart out.”

How comforting to see that you are keeping up your dissemination of misinformation.

“Plantar Warts are lesions which occur on the soles of the feet and hands. They are generally well circumscribed lesions which can occur as a single wart or a cluster. Unlike corns which tend to look quite similar, warts can be easily distinguished as they have no skin lines running through them are often more painful to squeeze than on direct pressure unlike corns. This is because warts generally contain nerves where as corns generally don’t.”

You know so incredibly little about so very many subjects that you are eager to talk about anyway. If you had ever used a razor blade to gently slice a thin sliver off the top of a wart (to examine it under a microscope) you’d know that such a dissection hurts like Hell.

But why WOULD you know anything?
You are informed by your beliefs – or more accurately, by the primitive beliefs of archaic tribesmen thousands of years DEAD – and not by science. Pity.

“Nice to know that a sodomist has such little disregard for human life.”

And there’s a well-crafted sentence. “Little disregard”? Care to try again?
Your sloppiness with facts, your sloppiness with the English language, and your perverse propensity to associate irrelevancies doesn’t exactly give reason to exalt human life. Neither does the human propensity to wantonly reproduce and over-populate, a flaw in the biological design that produces “boom-and-bust” cycles in most specie populations. Either evolution or God gave humans the capacity to be cleaver, and while we use this capacity to increase our sustainable population, we also use it to invent ways to violently reduce it. In any event, words of regard for human life coming out of a death-row-murderous Texan’s mouth are a joke.
So I’m laughing both with you AND at you.
(If you are wondering, the net effect sounds something like the hiccups.)

@George Wells:

In any event, words of regard for human life coming out of a death-row-murderous Texan’s mouth are a joke.

Well, George, unlike you, I have only used my mouth for the purposes nature intended.

@George Wells:

And no, an unborn fetus isn’t the same as a living person.

Unbelievable. And George claims to be an educated person.

Babies, before they are born, have a heart beat, have brain waves, have fingerprints, have DNA, can feel pain, etc, etc, etc. Exactly which part of the baby is not ‘living’?

@Greg:

Hey, you declared war on her first. Did you think the little woman wouldn’t fight back? That was probably only a ranging shot. She can also fire for effect, once a primary target has been singled out.

Declared “war”?!? Really? Demanding answers for lies, corruption and incompetence is “declaring war“? See, George, this is what I am talking about.

When Palin posted a map of areas where Democrat candidates were targeted for defeat, this was “uncivil” and, according to the corrupt left, led directly to Gabby Gifford being shot (by a liberal with a history of violent acts). However, declaring every discussion where a lying, corrupt woman might be the focus, this is “war”. And, of course, the corrupt media supports and promotes it.

If she wants to “fight back”, Greg, she can provide the answers which disproves the accusations (based on facts and logical, rational suspicions). She can explain why she thought having a secret, private, unsecured server on which to store highly classified intelligence data was a good idea rather than pretending that she could not figure out how to have two email accounts on her phone (file in category of “silly and weak”). She could face and answer questions instead of roping off the media for mortal fear one of them might ask an embarrassing question (notice how ALL Republicans face the hostile press). He avoidance of the media, too, is an indication of her guilt.

@George Wells:

There are conservative television networks

Name one.

And if you DO seriously believe that some facet of the media DOESN’T represent your views adequately, why haven’t you done something about it?

Don’t you get it? CAN’T you get it? The media is not in place to put forth anyone’s “views”; they are there to provide news and information. The problem, of course, is just as you say… they provide leftist “views” INSTEAD of information. The corruption has delivered to us the worst President and administration in the history of the nation and yet you leftists continue to defend it.

For the left, the ends justifies the means, regardless of what they are, and for morally corrupt people such as yourself, getting the farce of your little gay “marriage” passed through by the suppression of the stories covering the fascism of the left and its methods of threat and intimidation is well worth it, regardless of the corruption it represents.

Sound like a lot of corruption going on? There is and, for the good and health of the nation, it should be eliminated. This is how the media worked in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Those who pretend to cherish freedom should not be defending it.

@Bill #16:

“The media is not in place to put forth anyone’s “views”; they are there to provide news and information.”

Says who?
Media supports a whole range of purposes. Some of it is pure entertainment – cartoons, fictional movies, etc., etc.. Some of it is commercial advertisement – care to explain how infomercials selling “Sham-wows” and wholesale quantities of knives provides news and information? Other media presents one political opinion or another, and the dissemination of political opinion meets your criteria, even when it only presents one side of an argument.
You seem disappointed that liberals are doing a good job of making their points, but you still haven’t explained why conservatives are failing to make their counter-arguments effectively. It isn’t a liberal’s responsibility to fairly explain a conservative viewpoint any more than it is is Rush Limbaugh’s responsibility to fairly explain a liberal idea. (I doubt that he could.)

“This is how the media worked in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.”

No it isn’t. The media in those cases were controlled by totalitarian states, and the propaganda they spread served the regime’s purposes exclusively. The media in America is controlled by the free market, and it serves whatever purpose it’s paying customers happen to have.
And as money talks, I CAN’T HEAR YOU!
My previous advice stands. If you want conservative voices to be heard, you have to pay for it. That has always been the American way. There is no God who sits in judgement of the truth of media content. Ideas – good or bad – sink or swim on the strength of their advocacy just as much as on their veracity. If you think you’ve been harmed by media fraud, sue. It’s done all the time. But when you lose, for Christ’s sake, quite whining about it!

#14:

“And George claims to be an educated person.”

I never made that claim.
You don’t have to lie to make an argument, do you?

@George Wells:

No it isn’t. The media in those cases were controlled by totalitarian states, and the propaganda they spread served the regime’s purposes exclusively. The media in America is controlled by the free market, and it serves whatever purpose it’s paying customers happen to have.

OK, you are now officially ignorant and clueless. You don’t think MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN are controlled by the liberal government? You don’t think they have been working hand in hand to control the message sent out to the American people? How about the misreporting of economic factors before the 2012 election? How about the lack of coverage of the Benghazi attack and the blatant, weak, transparent lies trotted out to disguise responsibility? How about the coverage of the IRS targeting scandal? Were this any administration but this one, do you think for one second that this would not be a huge story?

Perhaps the government does not control, with strings, the media, but they drink from the same trough and sing the same tune and, when necessary, the administration suppresses stories. The fact that the government does not HAVE to control the media does not make the effect of a media that only investigates aspects of government that promotes its ideology an less than the effects of the Ministry of Propaganda of Nazi Germany.

And as money talks, I CAN’T HEAR YOU!

So, those with the deepest pockets controls what constitutes truth to you. Yeah, you and Soros see eye to eye, for sure. Perhaps someday you will get the opportunity to help round up gays to go to prison, as Soros did his fellow Jews. Remember, the ends always justifies the means; maybe you can get preferred treatment by the bakery of your choice, since that is all that matters to you.

But when you lose, for Christ’s sake, quite whining about it!

Let’s see… who just a few months ago was crying us all a river about the terrible treatment gays were getting, being denied having their unions call “marriage” so as to equate it with real, traditional marriage or being denied the cupcakes they demanded and all those imagined and exaggerated “examples” of discrimination and abuse? Whining seems to be in the eye of the beholder and, with the attitude you and other leftists have… that being that as long as it happens to someone else, any violation of rights is just okie-dokie… sometimes has the nasty habit of backfiring. To the victor goes the spoils, as it were.

@Bill #19:

“So, those with the deepest pockets controls what constitutes truth…”

Funny how someone who supports capitalism suddenly has ugly things to say about the effects of it when it doesn’t produce the desired results.
“Truth” has nothing to do with it. A well-expressed false idea is just as powerful as a well-expressed true one. You want your idea expressed, you PAY for it. That’s how capitalism works. Tell me again how you are not a socialist?

“who just a few months ago was crying us all a river about the terrible treatment gays were getting, being denied having their unions call “marriage” so as to equate it with real, traditional marriage or being denied the cupcakes they demanded and all those imagined and exaggerated “examples” of discrimination and abuse?”

Per “gay marriage,” I got what I paid for. I’m just conservative enough to believe in capitalism. I didn’t whine, I predicted the outcome, and I predicted – correctly – the reasoning and the decision’s vote.
Per the “religious freedom” issues, I’ve never supported the gay-activist position on those, and have predicted a SCOTUS decision against the gay position if and when it comes to that.
Your pathological need to misrepresent what I have said so you can feel comfortable excluding me from your conspiracy theory-infected version of conservatism is pathetic.
I’m more conservative than you are.
The difference is that I am honest enough to admit when Republicans have something wrong, and that’s something that you aren’t.

@George Wells: You have, in the past, mentioned the institution you attended. Notice: I may have been incorrect in assuming it was an ‘educational’ institution.

#21:

I’m taking you at your word, Red.
You said that I “claimed to be educated.”
I attended Northwestern University for one year, took extension courses with the University of Maryland while in the service of the U.S. Navy, and attended Old Dominion University for four years after I completed my enlistment.
I never “claimed to be educated.”
Your efforts to insult me would be more effective if you restricted yourself to disputing what I actually said.

@George Wells:

Funny how someone who supports capitalism suddenly has ugly things to say about the effects of it when it doesn’t produce the desired results.

Capitalism is an economic system, not a system of government. The media (“press” as they used to be known) was once the “third estate”. It was the intention, thanks to the 1st Amendment, that it would watch over our government and expose its corruption. Now, it aids and abets the corruption. Another element of the corruption are those who, in exchange for the bribery of a shiny bauble they covet, will look the other way or even support it. George.

Per “gay marriage,” I got what I paid for.

You “paid” for the erosion of the greatest system of government the world has known. You got nothing; you “marriage” is still just as illegitimate and phony as it ever was. Just because some idiots believe in the redefinition of a traditional term does not make it universally so. But, all that aside, I still find it despicable that persons such as yourself would happily watch the back-slide of a great nation for something so illegitimate as gay “marriage”. There is no such thing.

@Bill #23:

“The media (“press” as they used to be known) was once the “third estate”.

Curious…

“What Is the Third Estate? (French: Qu’est-ce que le tiers-état?) is a political pamphlet written in January 1789, shortly before the outbreak of the French Revolution, by the French thinker and clergyman Abbé Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès (1748–1836). The pamphlet was Sieyès’ response to finance minister Jacques Necker’s invitation for writers to state how they thought the Estates-General should be organized.
In the pamphlet, Sieyès argues that the third estate – the common people of France – constituted a complete nation in itself and had no need of the “dead weight” of the two other orders, the first and second estates of the clergy and aristocracy. Sieyès stated that the people wanted genuine representatives in the Estates-General, equal representation to the other two orders taken together, and votes taken by heads and not by orders. These ideas came to have an immense influence on the course of the French Revolution.”

“It was the intention, thanks to the 1st Amendment, that it would watch over our government and expose its corruption.”

Curious, again…

“First Amendment – Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The “intention” you refer to didn’t seem to make it into the constitution. Neither have the interpretations of the first amendment by the SCOTUS leant credibility to your assertion. Seems to me that the first amendment gives the press license to print whatever it wants to, so long as the content doesn’t break any laws. Apparently you are living in an imaginary world.

Kind of like your remarks about gay marriage. Your denial marginalizes you more effectively than any argument I could offer, and I thank you for saving me the trouble.

”shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

And yet what has Obama been hard at work doing?
Replacing our right to our free exercise of and establishment of religion with a wimpy ”freedom of worship.”

For instance, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services’ questionnaire civics test asks this:
What are two rights of everyone living in the United States?
It them list 6 ”correct” answers:

freedom of expression,
freedom of speech,
freedom of assembly,
freedom to petition the government,
freedom of worship,
the right to bear arms

http://www.lankford.senate.gov/content/senator-lankford-slams-uscis-naturalization-test-using-freedom-worship-and-not-freedom

Why?
Because freedom to exercise religion does NOT end outside the walls of your home and religious building, it extends to every aspect of life.
Look at the Little Sisters of the Poor for how Obama feels about that!
Look at cake bakers, photographers, caterers, reception building owners, etc.
Obama WANTS our religious existence to end at our doors.
Hillary is in the same bag with Obama on this.
That’s why she sees nothing wrong with calling people opposed to abortion ”terrorists.”

@Nanny G #25:

Your right to “freely exercise” your religion depends on the lawfulness of whatever “exercise” you choose to perform.
A religion that preaches the virtues of slavery may be “exercised” only so far as slavery is legal. Once slavery became illegal in the United States, the Bible’s acceptance of it didn’t matter enough to allow Christians to ignore the secular law that forbade it. The same holds true in cases where secular law provides citizens rights that are not granted by scripture, such as is the case with same-sex marriage.
The next few years will surely see cases brought before the SCOTUS that will require a balance to be found between so-called “religious freedom” and the rights of citizens who religious people want not to serve. It will be interesting to see how much discrimination in the name of religious freedom the court is willing to tolerate. I suspect that they will tolerate some, but with stipulations attached.

“That’s why she sees nothing wrong with calling people opposed to abortion ”terrorists.””

And what, Nanny, is “wrong” with calling people who oppose abortion “terrorists”?
Factually, it is an exaggeration that at least approaches inaccuracy, but doesn’t Hillary’s right to free speech allow her to make erroneous statements? That’s about as wrong as her statement was, right? Yet Republicans want to crucify her for it. I’m not seeing a proportional response there.

@George Wells: You could just admit you have nothing else to add that would support your warped view instead of cutting and pasting a bunch of tangential crap.

@George Wells: He is right, you know. There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage’. You can say you’re a Martian, but that wouldn’t make you a Martian. You can say you’re in a gay marriage, but that doesn’t make you married. Attempting to dignify an ‘undignifiable’ act by assigning an incorrect label to it doesn’t change what it is.

@Bill #27:

The “tangential crap” I supplied proved that your comment regarding the “third estate” was wrong, as the FRENCH term was coined in 1789 – two years AFTER the U.S. Constitution was written, and as it referred to the common man, NOT the press, and as it was not MENTIONED in the First Amendment of OUR Constitution. Exposing your lies and inaccuracies isn’t “tangential crap,” it’s setting the record straight.
And my explanation that “the first amendment gives the press license to print whatever it wants to, so long as the content doesn’t break any laws” isn’t “tangential crap either. It is the truth.

One other note, since you crave more informative content:
And for Nanny #25:

“The Supreme Court on Monday night denied an emergency application from a Kentucky clerk who has been refusing to issue marriage licenses because of her religious objections to same-sex marriage.”

That should give you some idea about where the Supreme Court is headed in cases of your precious “religious freedom.”

@George Wells: Hmm… but that’s what I called it so, henceforth, forevermore, that IS what it shall be.

Hey… I kind of like how that works. My mistake; should have been FOURTH estate.

Of course, people other than liberals do not get afforded the liberty of picking the laws they like and only abiding by them, ignoring the rest. This is not news. And don’t hold your breath waiting on the corrupt media to point out the hypocrisy, either. However, all “good” things must come to an end and this bastardization of law and the Constitution could be ending soon as well. I expect you, if and when that happens, to accept the change in fortunes like a man (or whatever) and NO WHINING.

@Bill #30:

“Hmm… but that’s what I called it so, henceforth, forevermore, that IS what it shall be.”

Oh, you are Soooo CUTE!
Playing on your theme that the definition of “marriage” has been changed at will. I do see some difference between when one irrelevant blogster accidently mangles a term and when a majority of Americans freely consent to a change of a word’s meaning.
But no matter – your acknowledgment that you should have said the “fourth estate,” a termed coined in Britain but which has anecdotal relevance in America – BUT CERTAINLY NOT CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (other than enjoying the same free-speech rights everyone else has) – is enough.

“this bastardization of law and the Constitution could be ending soon as well.”

Well now! Doesn’t that smack of apocalyptic doom-saying!
You have ample examples of given rights being later retracted, I take it.
I’d be interested in seeing your list of them, though, as I am unaware of significant examples of such occurring here in America.
Or perhaps you are parroting the perennial prediction of impending “end-of-times”?
Now that would prompt a full-court, jelly-roll of a laugh from me if I had a jelly roll.
But alas, all I can offer is a tired scoff, having heard it all too many times before, here at FA. Your extreme brand of Tea-Party Conservatives love the idea of taking your toys and going home if you don’t get your way all of the time. Texans wanting the secede from the Union! LOL!
Little Billy doesn’t play nice with other children. More to the point, he has a habit of trying to scare them…

@George Wells: I do see some difference between when one irrelevant blogster accidently mangles a term and when a majority of Americans freely consent to a change of a word’s meaning.

Of course you do, conditioned as you are by Ad Men over the decades:

Part of the problem is that everyone—from plumber to judge—has been conditioned by marketers for decades on the slippery nature of words. How many times can Tide detergent be “New and Improved!”? About 100 times and counting.

But exaggerated meaning also warps truth to the point of causing harm and self-deception.
You can call yourself anything, your relationship with someone else anything…..but that doesn’t make it so.
Is Dozel really black? She SAYS she is.
What about Bruce Jenner.
His DNA is 100% male yet he SAYS he is not male.
Can one magically transform from one thing to another by simply by saying a few words?
If gays say a few words, does it make them ”married” in the eyes of God?
Absolutely not.
No more than Bruce is female or Dozel is black.

@Nanny G #32:

The whole point of language is to communicate.
When one individual (animal OR human) attempts communication, there is always an intended recipient of the idea being communicated.
So long as the intended recipient understands the message being conveyed, the communication is successful.

In the case of same-sex marriage, neither you, nor Bill, nor Redteam, nor Retire05 are among the intended recipients of the message being conveyed.
Your understanding or approval is neither required nor desired.
Your personal opinion of what constitutes marriage is irrelevant to us.
What DOES matter is what my husband and I believe our marriage means, and what our family and friends believe it means, and what the government believes it means and what it does with that belief.

Our marriage accomplished what we intended it to accomplish. Our estate is now secure from legal challenge (it was not secure before) and from taxation other than what any married heterosexual survivor would owe upon a death. We celebrate our happiness with our family and friends.

Personally, I don’t give a damn that some of you think our marriage is a lie, or is unreal, or is an abuse of language, or will destroy America. You were not and are not a party to the communication that our marriage accomplished. Your opinion on the subject is irrelevant.

@George Wells: Your understanding or approval is neither required nor desired.
Your personal opinion of what constitutes marriage is irrelevant to us.

Totally untrue, George.
My approval is required IF I happen to make floral arrangements, cakes or take photos.

@Nanny G:

@George Wells: Your understanding or approval is neither required nor desired.
Your personal opinion of what constitutes marriage is irrelevant to us.

Totally untrue, George.

You don’t seem to understand, Nanny. If some special interest group determines that they want society to act a certain way, the only pertinent opinion, according to George, are the members of that special interest group. If proponents of multi-relationships (3 or more) determine that their relationship should be referred to as “marriage” you, as a member of the society in which that special interest group exists, have no say in the matter.

The whole point of language is to communicate.

A process that was achieved long before the days of “wordsmithing” which allowed for something to have a different meaning than the actual meaning of the word/phrase being used.

In the case of same-sex marriage, neither you, nor Bill, nor Redteam, nor Retire05 are among the intended recipients of the message being conveyed.

Yet the homosexual lobby has spent a great deal of time, and money, pleading their case to both the press and academia for the sole purpose of indoctrinating [their message to] the general public.

@Nanny G #34:

“@George Wells: Your understanding or approval is neither required nor desired.
Your personal opinion of what constitutes marriage is irrelevant to us.”

“Totally untrue, George.
My approval is required IF I happen to make floral arrangements, cakes or take photos.”

The “US” referred to above includes me and mine, not every person using the word “marriage”.
Not all the advocates of same-sex marriage, and not all of the folks who object to it use this word it the same way.
No matter WHICH way you prefer to use this word, your approval of MY marriage is NOT required.
I have no desire to enlist your floral-arranging talents, your cake-baking skills or your handiwork with a camera.
Not yours, not Bill’s, not Redteam’s, not Retire05’s.
I don’t support advocates of religious freedom, and I don’t support gay activists who demand special privileges or who wish to force others to provide services against their will.
I have offered the legal rationale behind such demands, and I have predicted how the courts will resolve these questions.
But I have never made such demands on my own account.
Your effort to invent such support where none exists is a waste of your own time.
You don’t have or make anything that I need or want.
I neither require nor desire your understanding or approval.
Your personal opinion of what constitutes marriage is irrelevant to me.

I would think that this revelation would relieve you, but evidently it does not, as you continue to press ahead as if I am making demands of you. I have no more right to impress my beliefs on you than you have a right to impress yours upon me. Yet you and yours keep fighting for the right to do just that.
My marriage means nothing to you. I get that. I’m fine with it. But you don’t get to nullify it. You don’t get to tell my church it can’t marry us if it wants to, and you don’t get to tell OUR government that gay people don’t get the same rights and benefits that other people get.
When you DO try to mess with other people’s rights, you risk losing your own.

@George Wells:31

You have ample examples of given rights being later retracted, I take it.
I’d be interested in seeing your list of them, though, as I am unaware of significant examples of such occurring here in America.

Let’s see: it used to be legal to own a slave in the US
it used to be legal to have separate schools in the US
it used to be legal to have separate restrooms in the US
It used to be illegal to commit sodomy in the US
It is still illegal in most places for prostitution
pedophilia is still illegal in most, or all, of the US

you need more?
There are hundreds/thousands more

But then, you actually know that.

@George Wells:33

What DOES matter is what my husband

Do you know what a ‘husband’ is? The spouse of a wife. Are you a wife? If you’re not, then he’s not a husband.

In the case of same-sex marriage, neither you, nor Bill, nor Redteam, nor Retire05 are among the intended recipients of the message being conveyed.

Is there a reason you’re not truthful about that? Then why are you here addressing our comments?

No matter WHICH way you prefer to use this word, your approval of MY marriage is NOT required.

That’s because an approval for a non event is never necessary.

Your personal opinion of what constitutes marriage is irrelevant to me.

As you repeated many times. almost as if it really is relevant, or something.

#37:

The “rights” you pointed out that were later retracted were “rights” given to some to people to oppress other people. Slavery was a “right” given to white people to deprive Blacks of their rights, something that would seem to have been in conflict with the notion that all men were created equal and that they all deserved equal treatment under the law.
OK, if you want to consider such cases as retracted “rights,” I’ll refine my premise to make the point that the progression of the law is now and has always been in the direction of extending to all lawful citizens the same equal rights that are suggested in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and its Amendments.

Our laws initially allowed for the exclusion of Blacks, women and gays from the rights enjoyed by white heterosexual male citizens, and these laws have been corrected to extend equal rights to these groups. It is these “equal” rights that, once enshrined in our laws, do not get retracted.

You may still believe that you have a “right” to oppress some minorities, as you have evidently supported such suppression in the past, but once a minority has been deemed lawful in every respect – as homosexuals essentially were by the SCOTUS’ Lawrence decision – they cannot be denied the same rights that other lawful citizens have. The Obergefell decision extended to lawful homosexuals the right to marry. It will not be overturned. The right to marry is now an EQUAL RIGHT.

None of your example are of EQUAL rights being retracted unequally.

@George Wells: Of course I don’t agree with your comments. At the time the rights were created, they were considered to be equal rights.
Using your reasoning, when will pedophilia ‘become’ equal? When will murder become an equal right?
Why should equal rights only be limited to ‘rights’ that you currently don’t feel are equal? We may only be 10% on the changing of the constitution to give ‘truly’ equal rights to people. Just because we have reached one milestone, making sodomy legal, for example, does not mean that is truly a ‘major milestone’, it may only be a first step.
If someone murders your child, would you have an ‘equal’ right to murder his child? If no, why not? Why wouldn’t it be ‘my right’ that the murderer was violating, not the right of the government. You think to be able to commit sodomy is ‘your right’, not a right of the government. Same deal.

None of your example are of EQUAL rights being retracted unequally.

certainly the rights of prostitution, sodomy and pedophilia would be examples of ‘equal’ rights.

@George Wells:

The whole point of language is to communicate.

True. So, in order to effectively communicate, what good does it do to suddenly apply new and bizarre meanings to words that have, for CENTURIES had a different meaning? Politics, power, control and ideology… that’s what.

The left continually strives to control the narrative in every discussion by controlling the language. Illegal immigrants cannot be called illegal immigrants; “thug” is racist. Marriage now means the union of any assortment of interested parties. Further, we now see a campaign to remove gender terms from speech.

In order to break society down to the level required by socialists, the things that divert attention away from concentrating all efforts towards promoting the collective must be eliminated. Religion, of course, would compete (and often contradict) government supremacy. Personal relationships come next. So, destroy traditional marriage and make gay “marriage” fully equivalent by redefining the words that describe it. Now, qualifiers are required to fully describe the relationship (male/male, female/female, female/chicken, etc) so, next, eliminate the qualifiers by banning the male/female/boy/girl terms.

Communication has nothing to do with it; ideology does. Sell your faulty product somewhere else.

#40:

“At the time the rights were created, they were considered to be equal rights.”

Why did you bother to type that. You know that the founding fathers meant white male heterosexual landowners when they said “all men are created equal,” and that they didn’t mean gays, women or Blacks, right? What value do “equal rights” have if they are relegated to just one group of people who ALREADY control all of the power? Nothing that isn’t already in place, making such noble pronouncements moot save for their eventual re-interpretation by less bigoted people far enough into the future that their minds are not poisoned by contemporary repressive dogma. Good thing that today we have a Supreme Court that has the clarity of mind to distill real civil rights from the noble rhetoric of founding fathers who didn’t have the courage to write into discrete laws the poetic ideals their introductory statements accidentally expressed.

“If someone murders your child, would you have an ‘equal’ right to murder his child?”

You continue to compare homosexuality – and the government’s interest in it – to murder and pedophelia, while there is a fundamental difference between them. Homosexuality in and of itself is victim-less – it harms nobody. Murder harms the murdered person in the extreme. Pedophilia is the love of children, but loving children is something that almost every parent does. Pedophilia isn’t against the law. Sexually abusing children is. The abused children are victims, but a pedophile who simply THINKS about loving children doesn’t victimize anyone.

“certainly the rights of prostitution, sodomy and pedophilia would be examples of ‘equal’ rights.”

NONSENSE!
You have no right to perform any act that is forbidden by law.
In locations where prostitution is forbidden, citizens cannot legally buy and sell sexual services. Equal rights have nothing to do with it.
In the United States, it is lawful for adult citizens to engage in sodomy. Equal rights have nothing to do with it.
Save for particularly young ages of consent found in a number of particularly ignorant states like Louisiana, pedophilia isn’t legal in the United States. Equal rights have nothing to do with it.

@Bill #41:

“The whole point of language is to communicate.”
“True. So, in order to effectively communicate, what good does it do to suddenly apply new and bizarre meanings to words that have, for CENTURIES had a different meaning?”

What good does it do? Well, for one thing, changing the meanings of old words can help living people actually communicate more effectively with other LIVING persons. If the meaning of “Homosexuality” included the sense that illegal behavior has involved, that sort of definition would have to be modified when sodomy was legalized. Otherwise, the definition would be in conflict with contemporary law.
The centuries-old meanings that some words HAD often don’t matter a hill of beans to people who are living today.
Ever attempt to read Old English? It’s pretty useless. Centuries from now, why would you expect today’s English to be any less confusing than Old English is to us now?

“Sell your faulty product somewhere else.”

The only reason I post here is because you post so much misinformation that I feel compelled to correct it.
Remember your “Third Estate” error just a few days ago? If I hadn’t corrected your mistake, who else would?
So you’d prefer that I just left you in error?
Is that what the truth means to you?

@George Wells: 42

Homosexuality in and of itself is victim-less – it harms nobody.

You have a vivid imagination, George. How is homosexuality victimless? I’ll use one example. How many young men go to prison that are raped, homosexually? And you don’t consider them to be a victim? How many young boys are assaulted by homosexuals that become homosexual as a result of it. I know you’re going to deny it, but that’s only your belief. There is just too much evidence to the contrary, and I’m sure you had a straight face when you said homosexuality is victimless. Not for the victims of homosexuals, it’s not.

Murder harms the murdered person in the extreme.

No more ‘extreme’ than for a non homosexual to be assaulted by a homosexual. Can be just as deadly.

Pedophilia is the love of children

Not true. Pedophilia is sexual desire of a minor (prepubescent)child. That’s probably not really ‘the love of children’.

You have no right to perform any act that is forbidden by law.

such as sodomy? pedophilia, a black person going to a white school? A man marrying a man? Any law that is illegal today may be legal tomorrow. Group marriage. Sex with animals. Just get the right libs on the courts and it’s ‘field day’.

In the United States, it is lawful for adult citizens to engage in sodomy.

But it wasn’t just a short time ago. My point exactly. Just because it’s illegal today don’t mean it won’t be legal soon. Why shouldn’t you be entitled to murder the child of someone that murders your child?

Save for particularly young ages of consent found in a number of particularly ignorant states like Louisiana, pedophilia isn’t legal in the United States.

Not sure of your intent, but surely you know that pedophilia is against the law in all states. No state has an age of consent that is prepubescent. But, get the right libs on the courts, you never know. Just because it’s illegal today says nothing about tomorrow. Just look at homosexuality.

#44:

“How is homosexuality victimless?”
“How many young men go to prison that are raped, homosexually? And you don’t consider them to be a victim? How many young boys are assaulted by homosexuals (etc., etc.)

Your explanation implies that heterosexuality isn’t victim-less either, since there are plenty of heterosexual crimes being committed as well. That doesn’t mean that heterosexuality itself should be a crime, does it? Of course not. All of the examples you supplied are examples of specific criminal behaviors that specific persons commit against specific victims, and I agree that those behaviors should be illegal. But that doesn’t mean that the entire class of homosexuals are criminals any more than it means that the entire class of heterosexuals are criminals. How is that logic escaping you?

“Pedophilia is the love of children.”
“Not true. Pedophilia is sexual desire of a minor (prepubescent)child.”

Fine, Red. I’ll use YOUR definition, as it gets to the same logical point: Sexual DESIRE of a minor isn’t a crime. Raping a minor is a crime. Trafficking in obscene photographic images of a minor is a crime. The state laws pertaining to pedophilia don’t make BEING a pedophile a crime, they make specific behaviors like “having sex with a person younger than (a specified age)” a crime. There is a difference.

“You have no right to perform any act that is forbidden by law.”
“such as sodomy?”

No. Sodomy is NOT forbidden by law. The SCOTUS’ Lawrence decision voided all anti-sodomy laws. How are you having a problem with that?

“a black person going to a white school?”

Ditto. Are you REALLY arguing that laws prohibiting school integration are constitutionally defensible?

“Just because it’s illegal today says nothing about tomorrow.”

The nations corpus of laws have been moving away from discriminatory practices for quite a long time now, and I see virtually no sign of any “pendulum” swing back in the direction of the nation supporting discrimination. Not in Women’s rights, not in Black’s rights, not in gay rights. What makes you think that this trend is going to reverse? Have some white-supremacist skin-heads been filling your head with their crap?

You seem to be arguing that laws should never change, just like you have argued that the meanings of words should never change. Both of them change with time, for the same reason. We didn’t start out by getting everything right at the onset. Just because something got written down doesn’t make it right for all times.

@George Wells:

No. Sodomy is not forbidden by law. The SCOTUS’ Lawrence decision voided all anti-sodomy laws. How are you having a problem with that?

You kinda missed the point. I know they changed the law recently, but until they did, it was illegal. My point is that anything is only a crime until the law is changed, such as group marriage, which will be legal within a couple years.
Changing laws to make criminal activities legal is not always a good thing. See what making abortions legal has led to? killing babies to sell their parts.

Ditto. Are you REALLY arguing that laws prohibiting school integration are constitutionally defensible?

Ditto again. You missed the point. Just because it was illegal don’t mean it still is, just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it will stay that way. Integration was legal recently, sodomy was illegal recently. Laws change, not always for the better.

#46:

“Laws change, not always for the better.”

No, not always. But usually.
And they almost never flip-flop back and forth, so if you are waiting for sodomy or gay marriage to become illegal again, don’t hold your breath.

@George Wells:

Homosexuality in and of itself is victim-less – it harms nobody.

True, until acceptance of the lifestyle is imposed upon everyone else, even those with deep and respectable objections to it.

If the meaning of “Homosexuality” included the sense that illegal behavior has involved, that sort of definition would have to be modified when sodomy was legalized.

Nope. Wrong. The CHARACTERISTICS of homosexuality has changed, due to wider public acceptance (as long as it doesn’t attack them, as has become the practice), not what the word designates. “Marriage”, however, never changed… it’s just that another group rose up to annex the term to describe THEIR activity. Nothing could be further from the true, traditional, accepted definition of marriage between two separate sexes than the union of same sexes. Yet, those advocating the incorporation of that term demand full equivocation (and absence of differentiation) with the traditional version.

Remember your “Third Estate” error just a few days ago? If I hadn’t corrected your mistake, who else would?
So you’d prefer that I just left you in error?
Is that what the truth means to you?

I corrected my mistake. When will you? Oh, that’s right… leftists NEVER admit to mistakes and merely scream and stomp their feet (intimidating, threatening, inciting violence) until their mistakes are merely accepted as the “new normal”.

@Bill:

Homosexuality in and of itself is victim-less – it harms nobody.

True, until acceptance of the lifestyle is imposed upon everyone else, even those with deep and respectable objections to it.

Not true. That is like saying that drug use, in and of itself, is victimless. It is not. The person using the drugs become a victim of the drugs they are using along with all the medically related problems associated with drug use. Homosexuality most certainly has had its victims, and all you have to do is look at the sex of the thousands of victims of HIV/AIDS in the early days. Not to mention the other health related issues that are more prominent in homosexual men that are extremely lower in heterosexual men.

If the meaning of “Homosexuality” included the sense that illegal behavior has involved, that sort of definition would have to be modified when sodomy was legalized.

Nope. Wrong. The CHARACTERISTICS of homosexuality has changed, due to wider public acceptance (as long as it doesn’t attack them, as has become the practice), not what the word designates.

What has changed is the meaning of the word homosexuality. Originally, it denoted the actions of a person. Due to political correctness, it has now become the meaning of the person themselves. Twenty years ago if you said “He is a homosexual” that would denote his sexual practices (an activity he engages in). The gay lobby has done a stellar p.c. job of making that word now express not his activity, but his personality or describing the person like you would if you said “He is tall.” Being tall is not a personality trait, or an activity, but a matter of description of the person himself.

In the early days of the gay movement, the goal was to “humanize” homosexuals so that any criticism of them became not a disagreement with the activities of gays (especially gay men) but a personal attack on who they were. We can criticize someone on their actions, but how politically incorrect is it to attack someone because they are tall, are Asian, have blue eyes, etc.? (i.e. “Michael Vick was an animal abuser” compared to “Michael Vick, a black football player, was an animal abuser.” The first sentence attacks his actions. The second sentence becomes an attack on his race.)

Then you have absolutely absurd statements like this one:
“Pedophilia is the love of children, but loving children is something that almost every parent does. Pedophilia isn’t against the law.”

Pedophilia, by definition, is not the love of children, it is the sexual desire of children. Love, and sexual desire, are not one and the same. But it is not surprising that someone who wants to “humanize” homosexuality would try to pass that false definition as accurate.

What is a pedophile?

A pedophile is a person who has a sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,

WebMD.com

Note the absence of the word “love.”

Proponents of sodomy, which George is one, will bastardize any word or action to justify their unnatural behavior while never admitting that normalizing homosexuality was one of the mainstays of the philosophy of the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), in order to facilitate Marxist ideals and policies.

@retire05:

Proponents of sodomy, which George is one, will bastardize any word or action to justify their unnatural behavior

I guess it’s because they have such a disgusting existence that they want to do whatever they can to make it seem better in the view of the world. They used to be queer, now they are gay. they used to want a legal union, now they want a ‘marriage’
I guess if I had to commit the acts that homosexuals do, I’d be looking for something to make me feel better about myself also. I don’t personally care if homosexuals want to commit homosexual activities as long as it is with someone that participates freely. I have not made a study of it, and don’t intend to, but I suspect that a huge percentage of homosexual activities are involuntary on the part of the younger individual.

1 2 3