Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: In case there was any doubt, we did learn that he enjoys setting kittens on fire Previous entry: Video break: Star Trek prequel trailer

Chuck Norris on gay anger over Prop 8

Photobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting
This column is so ludicrous, given that the aging action star makes a living pretending to kick ass. More importantly, Chuck Norris is a hypocrite calling for mob rule at the ballot box. I’d love to see how he’d feel if the rights of his fellow “Christians” were subject to majority rule.

[T]he tolerance-preaching activists also have taken their anger to the blogosphere, where posts have planted ideas ranging from burning churches to storming the citadels of government until our society is forced to overturn Prop. 8. You even can find donor blacklists online. The lists include everyone who financially backed Prop. 8—even those who gave as little as $46—with the obvious objective that these individuals will be bantered and boycotted for doing so.

What’s wrong with this picture? Lots.

First, there’s the obvious inability of the minority to accept the will of the majority. Californians have spoken twice, through the elections in 2000 and 2008. Nearly every county across the state (including Los Angeles County) voted to amend the state constitution in favor of traditional marriage.

Nevertheless, bitter activists simply cannot accept the outcome as being truly reflective of the general public. So they have placed the brainwashing blame upon the crusading and misleading zealotry of those religious villains: the Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and especially Mormons, who allegedly are robbing the rights of American citizens by merely executing their right to vote and standing upon their moral convictions and traditional views.

Wow. Even better, he compares protests over the act of civil rights being taken away from a group of citizens to the right’s dismay over the election of Barack Obama.

There were many of us who passionately opposed Obama, but you don’t see us protesting in the streets or crying “unfair.” Rather, we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support “our” president. Just because we don’t like the election outcome doesn’t give us the right to bully those who oppose us. In other words, if democracy doesn’t tip our direction, we don’t swing to anarchy. That would be like the Wild West, the resurrection of which seems to be happening in these postelection protests.

I agree with Prison Fellowship’s founder, Chuck Colson, who wrote: “This is an outrage. What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us! How dare they threaten and attack political opponents? We live in a democratic country, not a banana republic ruled by thugs.”

The ignorance takes your breath away - how have his rights been removed in any way by the presidential election? Perhaps someone should point him to The Blend McCain mob files, where there are a ton of incidents of good, hard-working Christians turning into anarchists as they saw victory slipping through their fingers. How soon he forgets.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 12:28 PM • (79) Comments

“How dare they threaten and attack political opponents?”

Yeah, Chuck, only you guys get to do that.

Comment #1: Bitter Scribe  on  11/19  at  12:44 PM

Does Chuck even write this stuff, or is it delegated to a personal assistant? Why didn’t the Prop 8 folks just accept the will of the people, as reflected in legislation passed by their elected representatives?

Comment #2: paul  on  11/19  at  12:45 PM

Question:  Who are these activists encouraging church burnings?  If you can’t find them, I’ll accept any evidence of it actually happening.

And, isn’t this the same Chuck Norris that was advocatting boycotts for Microsoft?

Comment #3: Antigone  on  11/19  at  12:47 PM

“So they have placed the brainwashing blame upon the crusading and misleading zealotry of those religious villains: the Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and especially Mormons, who allegedly are robbing the rights of American citizens by merely executing their right to vote and standing upon their moral convictions and traditional views.”

Well first off, Chuckster, there’s no “allegedly” about it.  There is a group of American citizens who some other Americans have determined are not worthy of having all their civil rights protected.  Some of those “unworthy” Americans live in Massachusetts where the state has decided they are Real American Citizens with all that implies. 

Some others live in California, where the California State Supreme Court decided that those citizens can no longer be denied their full set of civil rights.  However, there are bigots among us who decided they were more qualified to determine who should and should not have rights than the Supreme Court.  With the support of various religious groups, plus lying, cheating, and manipulating people’s irrational fears, these people set out to eliminate certain civil rights from certain Americans living in California.

The tides of history are against them, and in the long run this will be seen as a temporary setback in the human quest for freedom.

But in the meantime, an ignorant bigot like Chuck Norris should share his stupid opinions with the guy sitting next to him at the bar, instead of publicly proving his ignorance on a wingnut web site.

Most C-level actors know they are damn lucky to get paid for their work, and when their careers are over, quietly retire from the spotlight.  It seems Chuck Norris just can’t help but make himself a disgrace instead…

Comment #4: MikeEss  on  11/19  at  12:50 PM

It’s interesting the way that first quoted para is phrased - burning churches, assaulting citadels of government, even boycotting donors! Like the burning churches and violent revolutions bits you can understand, but boycotting donors is a step too far.

Perhaps this sheds some light on the priorities of whomever is pulling his strings.

Comment #5: Dunc  on  11/19  at  12:51 PM

Chuck, honey, “bantering” means “playful teasing conversation.” You may be thinking of badgering and battering, but those aren’t the words you used.

“It’s oppression! They’re engaging in witty banter with us! Help! HALP!”

Comment #6: Orange  on  11/19  at  12:58 PM

Well, there is some history of activists burning churches, but it’s probably not the history that Norris would want to highlight.

The wingnut projection syndrome strikes again.

Comment #7: paul  on  11/19  at  12:59 PM

hmm, reading this something keeps repeating in the back of my mind… “tyrrany of the majority”.... wasn’t that in the Federalist papers all over the place (not to mention every intellectual discussion of democracies since Plato’s Republic)? And isn’t it part of the reason that the USA was instituted as a democratic republic instead of a strict democracy? Wasn’t it seen as a BAD thing?

Is it too much to ask that people who comment on these things be made to read when and where they have been dealt with in the recent past? sigh.

Comment #8: kodiak  on  11/19  at  01:27 PM

“with the obvious objective that these individuals will be bantered and boycotted ...”

Bantered?

And, good old Nixon-crony, ex-con Chuck Colson -> how dare the tolerant not tolerate our intolerance of them!  Such outrage would be funny if so many didn’t seem to fall for it.

Comment #9: blondie  on  11/19  at  01:55 PM

Does Chuck even write this stuff, or is it delegated to a personal assistant?

Paul - I vote for delegated.  For one thing, Norris doesn’t strike me as the kind who can think in complete sentences, let alone get those subject-predicate thingies to match.

Comment #10: Molly, NYC  on  11/19  at  01:59 PM

What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us! How dare they threaten and attack political opponents? We live in a democratic country, not a banana republic ruled by thugs.”

I guess it’s the Tolerance Hypocrisy that enrages them, not the actual Threatening Behavior. I mean, doesn’t Ann Coulter “threaten…political opponents” all the time?

I also like how his “blacklist” statement seems to imply that those business will be burnt to the ground rather than, you know, not given our money.

Comment #11: Ellen  on  11/19  at  02:27 PM

Holy shit that’s stupid!

Somebody should whack him over the head with a history book.  This country got started by people who decided the rules of government were deleterious to their rights.  They advocated a change in the rules for the sake of fairness, as we are doing.  They said it was not fair that a government ruled them while they had no say in that government, and they set up the democratic process as seen in refined form* today—-but they also set up a system of constitutions (federal and state) to declare the rights of the people along with the methods of government, and the system of courts to interpret those constitutions and see to it that everybody’s rights were being upheld.  Now the argument is presented as to whether the democratic process can gut the protections and rights laid down in the constitutions—-and we are fighting the unfairness of it being so.  Except, oh, yeah, we’re doing so without starting a revolution—-or anarchy.  We’re doing so within the other rights granted by the constitution—-free speech and assembly, and petitioning the courts for a redress of grievance.

But then, the pro-H8 powers-that-be ignored the first amendment’s protections to claim that their churches would be forced to perform gay marriages in order to get more support for their ballot referendum (one wonders, how many votes did they get by lying, about that and other things?), so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that they’re willing to ignore the rest of it.

*voting rights extended to all adult citizens rather than only to white men.

Comment #12: Kyra  on  11/19  at  02:41 PM

” Protestors of Proposition 8 in California (the marriage amendment) shoved aside a 69-year-old woman who was bearing a cross. They reportedly spit on her and stomped on her cross. They then aligned themselves in a human barricade, blocking the media from getting to or interviewing the woman.

Prop. 8 supporter Jose Nunez, 37, was assaulted brutally while distributing yard signs to other supporters after church services at the St. Stanislaus Parish in Modesto.

Calvary Chapel Chino Hills was spray painted by vandals after they learned that the church served as an official collection point for Prop. 8 petitions.

Letters containing white powder (obviously mimicking anthrax) were sent to the Salt Lake City headquarters of the Mormon church and to a temple in Los Angeles. (Thankfully, the FBI said the substance was nontoxic.)

The 25-year artistic director of the California Musical Theatre, who also happens to be a Mormon, was muscled to resign because of his $1,000 donation to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California.

A pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back marched into the middle of a church service and flung fliers and condoms to the congregants. They also hung a banner from the balcony that featured two lesbians in provocative positions at the pulpit. “


So acts of violence and vandalism such as those referenced above are OK?  I guess the ends justify the means when it comes to homosexual demands.

Comment #13: Direwolf  on  11/19  at  02:43 PM

Direwolf, provide proof those things actually happened, and then prove it was “homosexual demands” that encouraged those things.

“So acts of violence and vandalism such as those referenced above are OK?  I guess the ends justify the means when it comes to homosexual demands.”

If Palin and McCain weren’t considered responsible for the open calls for assassination, etc., against Obama, how is it that LGBTQ people are now responsible if somebody gets carried away while trying to secure their own civil rights away from the bigots?...

Comment #14: MikeEss  on  11/19  at  02:59 PM

Chuck is correct in that Conservatives are not whining and acting like little children when they lost the election. There comes a time when people must abide by the rules they have agreed to in advance.

Prop 8 passed through the lawful democratic process.

Law of the land.

Deal with it.

Comment #15: Bob Zimerman  on  11/19  at  03:13 PM

Direwolf, go read up on the Matthew Shepard case and write me a 500 word book report, comparing your examples of “violence” and actual violence. After that, STFU.

            Signed, someone who helped her gay best friend pick up his bloody teeth from the sidewalk- we were both 15.

Comment #16: Mustella  on  11/19  at  03:20 PM

direwolf: source? links or it didn’t happen. don’t quote nothing and expect it to be unquestioned.

Comment #17: chibi  on  11/19  at  03:31 PM

“Prop 8 passed through the lawful democratic process.”

...that remains to be seen…

“Law of the land.
Deal with it.”

Constitution of the land.
Deal with it…

Comment #18: MikeEss  on  11/19  at  03:34 PM

Here’s the sad, sad truth, Pammy:

California’s black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, also provided key support in favor of the state’s same-sex marriage ban. Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court’s May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for The Associated Press.  http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html

Each time she and other ‘activists’ try to tell you that the marriage issues is just like the race issue, refer them to this because even the blacks aren’t buying what she’s sellin’.

Comment #19: Bob Zimerman  on  11/19  at  03:42 PM

Catholic .org posted a simialr description of Bash Back activity as direwolf’s.  Unfortunately for the lying homobigots like him, it’s fairly easy to find that the reason the mainstream media didn’t report it, is becuase it DIDN’T HAPPEN.  Their little game of blogger Chinese telephone gets exposed:
http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/11/bash_back_lansing_bash_redefin.html

Short form: yes, there were some legal protestors outside on a public sidewalk.  Yes, the police were called.  The cops told the church the protestors were within their legal rights (they were doing the SAME thing as anti-choice protestors at abortion clinics).  There were no reports of any disturbance in side the church.

Comment #20: phylosopher  on  11/19  at  03:50 PM

Chuckles sure runs that festering maw of a mouth of his an awful lot for someone rescued from utter irrelevancy by an ironic internet meme

Comment #21: The Crapture  on  11/19  at  03:56 PM

It would be a good idea to disrupt marriage ceremonies at Mormon and other homophobic churches. Ruin the conservative bigot bride’s most special day with a marriage rights protest.

Comment #22: tpx  on  11/19  at  04:07 PM

Prop 8 passed through the lawful democratic process.

That’s right, they were able to get Prop 8 passed by telling blatant lies to the people of California.  Until the Yes on 8 people started lying, they were losing by a large margin. 

It’s not really much of a moral victory if the only way you win is by lying to people about the consequences of the proposition not passing.  But, then, you guys don’t care if you have to lie in order to win as long as you win, right?  There’s nothing more Christian than bearing false witness in order to get a constitutional amendment passed that bans something that Jesus never mentioned even once.

Comment #23: Mnemosyne  on  11/19  at  04:51 PM

Bob can fuck off. I’m sick of bigots trying to rule by initiative when they know the laws they want passed are discriminatory & therefore unconstitutional.

Comment #24: Mark  on  11/19  at  05:03 PM

”...not a banana republic ruled by thugs.”


That is exactly what the US is, at least until January 20th.

Comment #25: Kristen from MA  on  11/19  at  05:04 PM

So, do you think that everyone that voted for Prop 8 was “Christian”?

Comment #26: Bob Zimerman  on  11/19  at  05:05 PM

They reportedly spit on her . . .

Reports that include spitting on someone are kind of a signature that a story was made up.

Comment #27: Molly, NYC  on  11/19  at  05:05 PM

So, do you think that everyone that voted for Prop 8 was “Christian”?

You’re dodging the issue.  The Yes on 8 supporters told blatant lies to all of the people of California, Christian and non-Christian, to get their way, and they claimed to be doing it for Christian reasons. 

Please explain how breaking the Ninth Commandment in order to get your way on an issue that Jesus was completely silent about was the Christian thing to do.

Comment #28: Mnemosyne  on  11/19  at  05:14 PM

Chuck is correct in that Conservatives are not whining and acting like little children when they lost the election.

First of all, you’ve got to be kidding me.

Second, I expect <a href =“http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/11/11/the-dangerous-complacency-victory”>much worse</a> than mere “whining” from conservatives once it really sinks in that they’re no longer in a position to write the laws.

Prop 8 passed through the lawful democratic process.

Law of the land.

Only if the California courts rule that stripping an entire minority group of an existing legal right is a mere “amendment” to their constitution, or a “revision”, which would require 60% of the CA electorate.  Which they’ll never be able to raise. 

Deal with it.

That’s exactly what we’re doing.

Comment #29: Seraph  on  11/19  at  05:16 PM

Hmm. 

This was my second link above.

Comment #30: Seraph  on  11/19  at  05:17 PM

Each time she and other ‘activists’ try to tell you that the marriage issues is just like the race issue, refer them to this because even the blacks aren’t buying what she’s sellin’.

Some do.

Comment #31: Seraph  on  11/19  at  05:20 PM

Each time she and other ‘activists’ try to tell you that the marriage issues is just like the race issue, refer them to this because even the blacks aren’t buying what she’s sellin’.

BTW, you are aware that Pam is, herself, black, right?  If anybody can compare the two issues properly, I’d say a black lesbian is the one to do it.

Comment #32: Seraph  on  11/19  at  05:24 PM

Direwolf, all of your examples put together, even if true, don’t measure up to this.  So kindly fuck off.

Comment #33: Seraph  on  11/19  at  05:32 PM

@ Bob Z:

Per Nate Silver:

“[T]he notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters—the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes)—voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

If California’s electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin. Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8’s passage.

At the end of the day, Prop 8’s passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.”

Comment #34: ThresherK  on  11/19  at  05:36 PM

...the laws they want passed are discriminatory & therefore unconstitutional.

First of all, you haven’t sold anyone that Prop 8 was discriminitory. Homosexuals are limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. You may not like the results, but the law treats everyone the same.

*And*

Exactly where in the constitution does it say that laws that are discriminitory are the metric for deciding whether something is constitutional or not, anyway??

Comment #35: Bob Zimerman  on  11/19  at  05:47 PM

I can, and will, totally take Chuck Norris. Nunchuks at dawn, my be-hairplugged friend.

Comment #36: mir  on  11/19  at  05:56 PM

BTW, you are aware that Pam is, herself, black, right?  If anybody can compare the two issues properly, I’d say a black lesbian is the one to do it.

Pam is actually a mulatto. More likely an octaroon. But none of that gives Pam exclusive vision on this issue. 70% of blacks voted for Prop8 and 74% of black women voted for prop 8.

Don’t they, too, have license to speak on this issue?

Comment #37: Bob Zimerman  on  11/19  at  06:02 PM

It would be a good idea to disrupt marriage ceremonies at Mormon and other homophobic churches. Ruin the conservative bigot bride’s most special day with a marriage rights protest.

As someone who supports allowing gay marriages, I think that is the worst idea I’ve heard in quite some time.

It is ridiculous that a constitution can be so easily amended by a transitory majority vote.  Such a system deserves to be tested each election cycle.  From the east coast it seems that many of the opponents of Prop 8 were complacent, thinking it would be easily defeated.  I read that voter turnout in SF, presumably hostile to Prop 8, only had a 50% turnout.  The result has deservedly galvanized a lot of people and I wish them well when the issue is on the next ballot. 

At least with some of the states allowing them we will have a few test cases on the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Comment #38: MiddleageLiberal  on  11/19  at  06:06 PM

Pam is actually a mulatto. More likely an octaroon.


Oh no you did not just holy crap WTF

Comment #39: mir  on  11/19  at  06:09 PM

“Pam is actually a mulatto. More likely an octaroon.”

Well, Bob Z, I guess you really proved your bigot bona fides with that.  Only a bigot would be concerned with knowing the exact term other bigots used to describe someone else.  And it’s also quite interesting that you can just take one look and divine Pam’s genetic background.

It’s just too bad they ended apartheid in South Africa.  Otherwise you’d have a country of white bigots like yourself holding down the Black majority, which sounds like the kind of place you’d like live in…

Comment #40: MikeEss  on  11/19  at  06:13 PM

I don’t think I was harsh enough on “Bob Zimerman”.  You are one sick, disgusting individual.  How dare you come on this site and be nasty with Pam.  Pam is one cool lady, but you aren’t fit to be a door mat in front of her and her wife’s house.

Eat shit and die, you goddamned asshole…

Comment #41: MikeEss  on  11/19  at  06:22 PM

Bob, why do you keep avoiding the issue?

What was moral about telling blatant lies to get Prop 8 passed?

Do you really think that Jesus is happy with you for breaking the Ninth Commandment over and over again to get your way?

First of all, you haven’t sold anyone that Prop 8 was discriminitory. Homosexuals are limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. You may not like the results, but the law treats everyone the same.

Black children are limited to attending schools with children of their own race, just like everyone else.  You may not like the results, but the law treats everyone the same.

“Separate but equal” is no longer recognized as valid under the law.  Please present a legal argument that hasn’t been inoperative for over 50 years.

Comment #42: Mnemosyne  on  11/19  at  06:30 PM

Pam is actually a mulatto. More likely an octaroon.

Oh sh*t, yes he did. Wow.

Little did I know that Bob Z has been checking out my family tree. I hate to disappoint him but, I have actual relatives who are working on that project, f*ck you very much. I think I’ll take their research over yours.

BTW, I’m neither. I’m not biracial, as both of my parents were black. And if we’re taking “octoroon” literally (a person of one eighth African descent), that doesn’t work either.

In fact, on both sides of my family we haven’t yet found white relatives going back several generations. Clearly I probably do have white relatives somewhere along the way, but you can arrive at my skin tone without “white” intervention in the gene pool, dumbass.

But that would be too complicated for Bob Z’s pea brain.

BTW, on my mom’s side (the Atwell clan), we have relatives who decided to pass a few generations back, so we have white Atwells and black Atwells living in Brooklyn who don’t know one another.

Comment #43: Pam Spaulding  on  11/19  at  06:38 PM

“Lazy, racist, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”

Pam is actually a mulatto. More likely an octaroon.

omgw.t.f.

But none of that gives Pam exclusive vision on this issue. 70% of blacks voted for Prop8 and 74% of black women voted for prop 8.

And can you pull the statistics for black lesbians out of your boxer pocket, Not-Bob-Dylan?

Exactly where in the constitution does it say that laws that are discriminitory are the metric for deciding whether something is constitutional or not, anyway??

........dude, I’m not even going to answer that.

And what Mnem said, of course. I’ll add Loving as per usual - there’s no marriage discrimination here! Whites can marry whites and non-whites can marry non-whites!

Comment #45: Rebecca  on  11/19  at  07:18 PM

........dude, I’m not even going to answer that.

Well….that’s because you can’t. There are lots of discriminating laws in the consitution. That’s the whole idea….what people can and cannot do.

It seems this community is more interested in being shocked….SHOCKED, I SAY…...about PC language than actually tackling the issue.

It makes you feel morally superior. You aren’t

Comment #46: Bob Zimerman  on  11/19  at  08:23 PM

“Well….that’s because you can’t. There are lots of discriminating laws in the consitution. That’s the whole idea….what people can and cannot do.”

Damn you, wanna-be Dylan, you are really pushing me. I tried to resist it all the while I was reading the thread, but this is the last straw. I just have to pull a Godwin.

Soooo, here it comes:
If, as you say, “discriminatory laws” are totaly constitutional and the will of the majority (not that it actually *was* a majority in California) has to obeyed, allways… would it be a-ok then if 51% of the voters in any given state voted “Yes” on a hypothetical proposition that stripped a certain group of people of their citizenship, right to vote, barred them from certain professions and made it illegal for them to have sex with anyone outside their group? That would be a law completely in line with the US constitution, and should be obeyed at all times, with no right for this group or its supporters to protest it and fight against it judicaly?
On the other hand, don’t answer. I don’t want to lose even more of my faith in humanity.

Comment #47: Sebastian  on  11/19  at  08:38 PM

First of all, you haven’t sold anyone that Prop 8 was discriminitory.

Well that’s pretty blatantly untrue right there, considering that many, if not most, of the people on this thread are people who’ve been sold on exactly that.

Rather like marching into a large SF convention and informing them that nobody reads that shit. Umm, dude - look around you. Prop 8 very nearly went down. It would have gone down without the massive influx of money and hysteria in the last weeks.

We are aware this is the law of the land. We are dealing with it - by trying to change it, which is our legal, enshrined right as citizens of this country.

I’d call you a racist fuckwit, but that would be insulting. I take a class with a racist fuckwit, and he’s much less disingenuous and hateful than you are.

Comment #48: Tapetum  on  11/19  at  08:50 PM

You know, it’s been a long, long time since we’ve seen a bunny video around here.  Who else thinks it’s time we got a few out of mothballs?

Comment #49: Seraph  on  11/19  at  09:28 PM

It seems this community is more interested in being shocked….SHOCKED, I SAY…...about PC language than actually tackling the issue.

Speaking of not tackling the issue, Bob, what about your (implicit) claim that lying to the people of California to get them to vote the way you want is perfectly moral?  Or how about you trying to claim that separate but equal is a principle that is still recognized by the Supreme Court?

Funny how you seem to be able to respond to everyone but me, and I’m the one actually asking you questions.

Comment #50: Mnemosyne  on  11/19  at  09:31 PM

It makes you feel morally superior. You aren’t

To someone who casually tosses “mulatto” and “octaroon” around?  Yes, we are.  I’m sure you think of yourself as a renegade outlaw, defying us liberals and our silly “PC” language, but you’re really just an asshole.

Comment #51: Seraph  on  11/19  at  09:37 PM

There are lots of discriminating laws in the consitution.

Such as?

Comment #52: Rebecca  on  11/19  at  09:52 PM

Exactly where in the constitution does it say that laws that are discriminitory (<i>sic)are the metric for deciding whether something is constitutional or not, anyway??</i>

For the sake of being better than you, I’ll just actually answer that.

14th amendment, section 1. This is explicit, and not up for discussion. It’s called the Equal Protection Clause.

And you’re right. being outraged and you making unsupported claims about the high-yellow status of our host, and to laughably claim that “she isn’t black enough to be a victim of discrimination, so her expression of disgust at the discrimination she is a demonstrable victim of is obviously manufactured and without moral weight” doesn’t make us morally superior to you.

The laundry list of your moral failings (including but not limited to lack of empathy, casual bigotry, and reveling in cruel and disruptive conduct) and our reasons of superiority (including but not limited to our expressions of disgust at your conduct, and concerted efforts of sympathy in support of the targets of your sociopathy), both collective and individual are what makes us morally superior. But being morally superior to you doesn’t give us special rights, privileges, consideration, or superpowers. Everyone’s feelings count, no matter how big a racist douche they are.

You’re special, and we respect you for who you are, neighbor. But it would be nice if you extended us that same courtesy.

Comment #53: karpad  on  11/20  at  02:10 AM

Actually good ol Chuck is gay. I grew up in a LA suburb where he had his first karate dojo thing (pre-movie-action star)——complaints were made against him fiddling with the boyz and he had to cool it big time.

Comment #54: Uncle Chester  on  11/20  at  03:56 AM

chester, if true that would explain a lot about Chuckster’s position, though being a pedophile doesn’t equal gayness.  In his mind, though, gayness probably does equal pedophilia. He’s certainly not alone in that.

Comment #55: MiddleageLiberal  on  11/20  at  11:57 AM

14th amendment, section 1. This is explicit, and not up for discussion. It’s called the Equal Protection Clause.

I would agree with you if this were 1950. Since then, the Equal Protection Clause has been tossed aside for racial preferences and ‘hate crime’ laws that don’t give equal protection to everyone.

Comment #56: Bob Zimerman  on  11/20  at  12:30 PM

Bob Z., you’re a fucking bigot.  Who cares what you think about anything outside of your Klan meetings…

Comment #57: MikeEss  on  11/20  at  12:36 PM

Since then, the Equal Protection Clause has been tossed aside for racial preferences and ‘hate crime’ laws that don’t give equal protection to everyone.

Hey, Bob, you’re back.

Was it a moral victory for you when the people of California voted for Prop 8 based on blatant lies told by its supporters?

Since you’ve finally acknowledged that it’s not 1950 anymore, why do you keep claiming that “separate but equal” is still recognized by the Constitution?

I’m starting to think that you don’t have an answer for either of the above questions, which is why you keep desperately flailing around to avoid the subject.  It’s almost like you’re a political hack who doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about or something.

Comment #58: Mnemosyne  on  11/20  at  01:05 PM

I would agree with you if this were 1950. Since then, the Equal Protection Clause has been tossed aside

Um…Bob?  Even the people who thought Jim Crow laws were a good idea didn’t think they were “equal protection”.  They knew perfectly well that it was all about keeping the darkies in their place, and they approved of that.

Comment #59: Seraph  on  11/20  at  02:20 PM

Since then, the Equal Protection Clause has been tossed aside for racial preferences and ‘hate crime’ laws that don’t give equal protection to everyone.

I’m going to assume by “racial preferences” you’re referring to affirmative action. which does not grand privileges. it takes them away. Being white does not give you (as much of) a leg up with affirmative action. this is demonstrable through statistics: it doesn’t reduce productivity (meaning applicants are just as qualified) but there’s more diversity.

and hate crime laws protect everyone equally. they aren’t “a white guy victimized a black guy, so it’s a hate crime” its “the explicit motive, or the implicit motive of an otherwise motiveless crime, was bigotry of some sort.” This protects white guys just as much as everyone else, and doesn’t criminalize behavior, only qualifies the criminal behavior for enhanced punishment. You know, kind of like if a cop’s spouse shoots them for being a cheating asshole, it’s a different crime (and charged differently) than if the cop’s spouse shot them in an attempt to avoid capture for another crime.

but then, you either already know both of these facts, and what to be a prick because you LIKE special privileges to victimize and discriminate against minorities, or you’re so woefully ignorant that you don’t live in reality and talking to you is a waste of time.

or both.

Comment #60: karpad  on  11/20  at  02:37 PM

Obama’s recent victory is just one more piece of evidence that Affirmative Action is quickly becoming an outdated concept and I believe the American People will lose their patience for it.

I believe Colorado just repealed AA in this last election.

Comment #61: Bob Zimerman  on  11/20  at  02:49 PM

I believe Colorado just repealed AA in this last election.

Then you believed wrong:

Colorado voters became the first in the nation to reject a ban on state affirmative action programs, narrowly defeating a measure that California businessman Ward Connerly has helped pass in four other states.

But with so many factors in play this historic election, it’s not clear whether Colorado’s vote is a turning point for such measures or an anomaly.

“More than anything else, more than anything, it was the tendency to just vote no,” Connerly said, blaming a complicated state ballot and the groundswell of support for Barack Obama, the nation’s first black president-elect.

By 51 percent to 49 percent, Coloradans rejected a proposed constitutional ban on considering race or gender in state hiring, contracting and college admissions. The Election Night tally showed voters about evenly divided, and The Associated Press didn’t declare a winner until Friday, when more votes had been counted.

“Lazy, racist, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”

Bob, I know I didn’t put this in the form of a question before, but I’d rather you didn’t ignore it:

How does your argument - that the “equal protection” clause was better observed in 1950, before the advent of affirmative action and hate-crimes laws - square with the reality of Jim Crow laws and segregation?

Comment #63: Seraph  on  11/20  at  04:29 PM

Bob Z’s favorite triple feature:  Birth of a Nation, followed by The Green Berets, and then topped off with Red Dawn.  Dessert is any random Chuck Norris extravaganza.

When he watches his special Gold Edition DVDs of those films, he has to change his pants twice before it’s all over…

Comment #64: MikeEss  on  11/20  at  06:10 PM

MikeEss, please don’t diss Red Dawn. It’s one of the greatest comedies ever made, close in greatness to the eternal masterpiece Rambo 3.

Comment #65: Sebastian  on  11/20  at  08:19 PM

Sebastian, I’ve seen Rambo 3 once (I think I saw it on VHS back in the day), and the one scene I’ll always remember was when Rambo poured gunpowder from a rifle cartridge into a bad wound, and then ignited it to cauterize the wound.

Seeing that made me realize I was witnessing a work of cinematic genius…

Comment #66: MikeEss  on  11/20  at  08:37 PM

“First of all, you haven’t sold anyone that Prop 8 was discriminitory. Homosexuals are limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. You may not like the results, but the law treats everyone the same. “

Bob, if you are Heterosexual, being limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex is not a problem. You easily fall in love and are attracted to people of the opposite sex. So this law is no big deal for you.

But for us homosexuals, we are not attracted to members of the opposite sex and don’t fall in love with members of the opposite sex. So only being allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex is a huge problem for us.

How, how, how can you not understand this concept?

Comment #67: acoolerclimate  on  11/21  at  02:26 AM

Obama’s recent victory is just one more piece of evidence that Affirmative Action is quickly becoming an outdated concept and I believe the American People will lose their patience for it.

Interesting how Bob just keeps coming up with more comedy while ignoring the fact that several people—including myself—have asked him to answer specific questions about his claims.

Again, it’s almost as if he has no idea what he’s talking about so he just keeps avoiding the questions we’re asking him because Sean Hannity didn’t tell him the answer.  Funny, that.

Comment #68: Mnemosyne  on  11/21  at  02:58 PM

Colorado voters became the first in the nation to reject a ban on state affirmative action programs, narrowly defeating a measure that California businessman Ward Connerly has helped pass in four other states.

I stand corrected.+

But for us homosexuals, we are not attracted to members of the opposite sex and don’t fall in love with members of the opposite sex. So only being allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex is a huge problem for us.

I understand that,  acoolerclimate. It’s not a convenient amendment for you. That being said, it is not inherently discriminitory. It treats everyone the same.

Comment #69: Bob Zimerman  on  11/21  at  04:01 PM

Ya’ know, you’re gonna have to give the average person a better reason to vote for homosexualism other than screaming epithets at everyone who doesn’t agree with you.

And there are plenty of ‘em (FLA, CA, AZ).

Comment #70: Bob Zimerman  on  11/21  at  04:11 PM

I understand that, acoolerclimate. It’s not a convenient amendment for you. That being said, it is not inherently discriminitory. It treats everyone the same.

no, it doesn’t.

Because if I get married, I’m legally entitled for it to be the class of people I can feel love and attraction for.
Pam, for instance, would not share that right.

Straight people can marry their sweethearts. Gays cannot.

That is discriminatory.

Comment #71: karpad  on  11/21  at  04:24 PM

I understand that, acoolerclimate. It’s not a convenient amendment for you. That being said, it is not inherently discriminitory. It treats everyone the same.

Just like the anti-miscegenation laws treated everyone the same before Loving v. Virginia, right?  Everyone’s free to marry someone of their own race.

Perhaps a bad example - you probably think those laws were a good idea.

Incidentally, while I’m not one to make an issue of the occasional typo, the word is spelled discriminAtory.  You’re drivin’ me nuts.

Comment #72: Seraph  on  11/21  at  04:41 PM

Incidentally, you still haven’t answered my question:

How does your argument - that the “equal protection” clause was better observed in 1950, before the advent of affirmative action and hate-crimes laws - square with the reality of Jim Crow laws and segregation?

Nor have you answered Rebecca’s:

There are lots of discriminating laws in the consitution.

Such as?

Note: people who endanger others, or violate the rights of others - pedophiles, drug dealers, etc. - are no good as examples.

Comment #73: Seraph  on  11/21  at  04:47 PM

It treats everyone the same.

Like French Law?:

<blockquote>La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.

  * The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.<blockquote>

How does your argument - that the “equal protection” clause was better observed in 1950, before the advent of affirmative action and hate-crimes laws - square with the reality of Jim Crow laws and segregation?

We, as a society, decided that Jim Crow laws were not equal protection.

We, as a society, have decided that Prop 8 is, indeed, equal protection.

You see, it’s not your call. It’s the peoples’.

Comment #75: Bob Zimerman  on  11/21  at  08:25 PM

We, as a society, decided that Jim Crow laws were not equal protection.

First of all, this doesn’t answer my question.  Brown vs. Board of Education ruled that state laws establishing separate schools for black and white students denied black students an equal education, which violated the Equal Protection Clause.  That was in 1954.  The Civil Rights Act came in 1964.  Loving v. Virginia was in 1967.  So I ask again: how can you possibly argue that the Establishment Clause was better observed in 1950 than it is today?

And I note that you haven’t even tried to answer Rebecca’s question yet.

BTW, note how two of the above were Supreme Court rulings, while the third was a federal law;  there were a fair number of states that would never have decided - as societies - to allow equal protection to take place.

We, as a society, have decided that Prop 8 is, indeed, equal protection.

You see, it’s not your call. It’s the peoples’.

I am one of the People, as are the other posters on this blog, as are the homosexual citizens of California.

But that’s beside the point. 

The very reason that the Equal Protection clause - indeed, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself - exist is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the Majority.  Other minorities have been denied their rights by the majority before, in spite of the Equal Protection Clause.  That means that the Equal Protection Clause was violated, not that “society” got to redefine it to exclude whichever minority they happened to want to abuse at the time.

Comment #76: Seraph  on  11/21  at  09:21 PM

argue that the Establishment Clause

Equal Protection clause, of course.  One too many arguments about Intelligent Design in schools over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Comment #77: Seraph  on  11/21  at  11:00 PM

Prop 8 doesn’t treat everyone the same; it assumes that everyone is the same.

Just like a law that would allow any man, regardless of race, color, creed, or age (past majority) to marry any Christian woman they wanted.  Therefore, Muslims or Jews can’t complain because they’re getting equal treatment. 

Whiners.

Comment #78: Joshua  on  11/22  at  07:43 PM

You are correct.

The outcome may be seen as flawed, but the treatment is, indeed, equal.

I think you would have more luck if you tried to sell the people rather than go to the courts and have them cram it down their throats.

That didn’t work the last time. Why would you think it will work this time?

Comment #79: Bob Zimerman  on  11/24  at  08:00 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.