Anything worth talking about, is worth blogging about

Wingnut family values

Wingnut, young–Earth creationist, Palinist, anti–masturbation crusader, tea party queen, and future Delaware senate election loser Christine O’Donnell is an opponent of LGBT rights.

Juxtapose this with the fact that apparently, her sister, Jennie, is a lesbian.

This is the exact reason why the “family values” crowd is so hollow. Why would anyone want to get their family values from the government, much less from someone who goes against the rights of her own sister?

(via)

Advertisements

Comments on: "Wingnut family values" (30)

  1. I don’t know what he thinks about LGBT people. When the US Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed, he said that same sex marriage should be left to the states. He also said that Bush determined his administration’s policies, which included the FMA (cite). Does this sound like some sort of weaselly cop out? FWIW, his position on marriage equality is better than that of the current president’s. I have pretty much no love for Cheney’s other political positions, but credit goes where credit is due.

  2. I believe the current president’s policies on marriage equality are talk about it until the cows come home but never actually do anything about it. Is that about the way of it?

  3. Pretty much. Although a bit of a cliche, the statment that “Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand” has an element of truth in this context.

  4. Well, I know you’ll probably disagree, but I don’t think changing the president can possibly make any sort of actual difference. He sure talks different than the last one, but as far as actual policy in the US, nothing substantial has changed. This is because the real people in power stay in power regardless of who’s in office. This is the real reason for congress’ bickering gridlock. The question is, who is really in power? Is it the corporations directly? Or is it someone else that they just pay to get the laws they want?

  5. In a two-party system, which first-past-the-post causes (see Duverger’s Law), since there is a large mushy centrist bloc that decides elections, in principle this causes both parties to get together. In that sense, you might have a choice between Xists and Xist supporters. You might not like that choice but its a choice nonetheless. This has broken down in the US with the GOP becoming extreme and the Democrats becoming moderate. (The center of the political spectrum is so far to the right that Obama would be a mainstream conservative in Europe). You might not like moderates but better them than extremists. (The same reasoning applies to extreme leftists, too).

    Duverger’s Law is one of the reasons why support the Single Transferable Vote and proportional representation.

  6. Personally, I’m slightly left of centre, socially, but then there are certain opinions of mine that don’t even fall on the political spectrum. I think anarchy is a political platform like atheism is a religion or bald is a hair colour.

  7. The political spectrum is useful so long as its limitations are recognized. The most obvious one is reducing everything to one axis. For example, let’s use a UK example. There, there are regionally-based seperatist parties. One such one, Plaid Cymru (Party of Wales) supports Welsh independence. It also supports left-wing economic policies; however there is no requirement for it to do so; it is entirely possible for someone to be fiscally and a Welsh nationalist. Hence, a new spectrum ranging from “Merge with England” to “Welsh independence yesterday” intersects the traditional right-left spectrum, forming a grid. You can think of new axes or examine other ones (eg the Nolan Chart).

  8. There was a two-axis political chart I once saw someone make. The X axis was the fiscal axis. Fiscal conservatives on the right. Fiscal liberals on the left. The Y axis was the social axis. I forget which direction was which, it’s been so long. He put faces on it, though, and Professor Charles Xavier was to directly under and to the right of the centre, so social liberalism must have been to the south. I remember that because, at the time I took his test, I fell right on Professor X. These days, I don’t know where I’d fall.

  9. It’s entirely possible that someone’s political views might change. Blogging can be part of an effort to change others’ views.

  10. Well, yeah, but a lot of it depends on the blog.

    I know I don’t call mine a blog. I call mine an editorial site. The reasoning is weird. I mean, by definition, a blog is comprised of editorials. However, far too many people use their blogs as a narcissistic public diary space, thus giving blogs a bad name. So, I refer to mine as editorials, or sometimes, for short, “my not blog.”

    Like I said to Ankh one time, after he asked me why we don’t refer to ourselves as anarchists, “Because it’s all about the packaging. Anarchy brings up thoughts of chaos, and it’s hard to get people to listen to you once you’ve used the word. Do opponents of gay marriage call themselves that? No. They call themselves proponents of family values.”

    So, even though you may be saying exactly the same thing, sometimes the words you use will affect whether or not people will listen to and think about what you’re saying, unfair as that is. But, I digress. Forgive me for being nervous right now. Today is a big day for me.

  11. Yes, euphemisms do influence our reactions to statements. I particularly like this essay discussing them.

  12. I like how the different sides of abortion like to say what they’re for. People who are in favour of legalised abortion are “pro-choice.” People who are against it are “pro-life.” I guess it’s better to be pro something than con something else. You know what? I’m pro-choice across the board. I’m not pro-life very much at all. However, I’m against abortion. And when I say this to people, I love to watch their reaction because they’re trained to think those two terms are related to abortion when they are semantically not.

    Just tell someone what you’re for and then tie that into why you’re against something else. In reality, I’m against government because I’m for freedom, but when you package it as being against government, you don’t get as much bait as when you package it for being for freedom.

    But, I digress again. I am so sorry for continuing to derail your comments.

  13. Historically, many movements (to call them something) are motivated solely by opposition to something. Think of the tea baggers. They are unified exclusively by their opposition to the American president. Detailed examinations of them reveal that there beliefs are more disparate than just economic issues.

  14. You are mistaken about the motives of the tea party movement. Perhaps you watch too much American media.

    The tea party movement existed before Barack Obama was president. That sort of negates your whole “exclusively in opposition to the American president” hypothesis. The American media picked up on it during the healthcare debate, but they were around a few years before that. The American media picked up on it at that time because

    A. They were picking up traction
    and B. The whole, “send a tea bag to your congressman” campaign they had at the time was a perfect set up for the innuendo that led to the nickname, “tea baggers.”

    The fact of the matter is, the tea party movement scares the government. So, they used the media in an attempt to discredit them. They also used their favourite fake dumb conservative, Sarah Palin, to infiltrate and destroy them from the inside.

    Yeah. I have seen sufficient evidence to believe Sarah Palin is an intelligent leftist. Yet she comes off as a dumb conservative, and in the process, hurts conservative movements. I don’t think that’s an accident.

    The goal of the tea party movement has always been to hold government accountable for their actions, reduce the size of it, and reduce it’s spending to keep taxes low. If you take their top ten goals and you ask people in they’re in favour of these goals, without telling them you got them from the tea party, an overwhelming majority will be in favour of at least half of them. Then you tell them you got those goals from the tea party and watch them attempt to pull their foot out of their mouth. It’s so fun. I did it with a blue dog democrat once.

    So, you see, they’re not AGAINST the president. They’re IN FAVOUR OF government accountability.

  15. If the goal of the TPM was hold government accountable, why weren’t the people protesing now holding Bush responsible for his huge deficit, expansion of executive power, and caving to socons who want a bigger government?

  16. They were when he was in charge. You didn’t hear about that because the media wasn’t covering them yet.

  17. Back up your claim.

  18. What do you want? Media evidence from something the media wasn’t covering?

  19. I want you to come up with reliable evidence to back up your claim. Generally, something like WingNutDaily or Somebody’s Rant Page aren’t reliable.

  20. Well, if it wasn’t covered by the media, before I do any actual work, I want you to tell me what WOULD constitute as reliable evidence. I’ve already had problems with someone not accepting my evidence on an unrelated matter AFTER they told me that was the evidence they wanted. So, tell me what you want, and I will present it.

  21. Then it’s like solipsism, such as Hilary Putman’s brain in a vat thought experiment. In it, reality does not exist as such but is rather merely a simulation fed to the brain by a supercomputer. (Think of The Matrix if it helps).

    Hence, if you, The Ceej are are brain in a vat, you are not reading comments at a blog but rather virtual comments at a virtual blog. No photographer took a shot of someone with a gun in front of the flag of Hawaii but rather a virtual phtographer took a virtual photo of a virtual person with a virtual gun in front of the virtual flag of a virtual archipelago. Being a BIV is 100% consistent with what you sense and experience. There is no way, even in principle, for you to disprove BIVism.

    However, it does not follow from this that BIVism is true. Since there is no way to test BIVism, what’s the point of believing it? What is the gain you get from BIVism? Being a BIVist adds nothing to your knowledge.

    Your claim (pending your research) is similar to BIVism. It’s untestable. This doesn’t mean its false, but there is no point in believing it.

  22. Not exactly. I’m going to explain something to you using an argument Ankh once used as analogy for testimonial evidence when he smelled bacon.

    “I smell bacon cooking. Ergo, I know bacon is cooking. However, I can’t expect to convince someone else that bacon is cooking based on my own senses.”

    I saw it, so I know it happened. It wasn’t being covered by the media, so I can’t expect to convince you of it. Simple as that.

  23. The fact that there is “[m]ore research later.” pretty strongly implies that there is more than your word to back up your claim.

  24. Yeah. If I can find the time to keep looking for evidence, I will. Though, considering the Tea Party movement wasn’t being covered by the media at the time, I don’t really expect to find anything.

  25. A new poll just came out revealing that while there is indeed a genuine “libertarian core” in the Tea Party, a substantial number of them are simply members of the religious right wearing new clothes (cite) I don’t doubt that some of these RR TPers protested, at least against abortion, but it seems obvious that most of them were driven by seeing it as a social issue, not an economic issue.

  26. I admit there are racist, homophobic, sexist, and otherwise unscrupulous members of the tea party. That was the whole point of the media picking up on it. To shine light on those members and say that’s what the tea party movement is about. The members yelling nigger at black congressmen or faggot at gay ones. But, you know when those members started getting really loud? When Sarah Palin infiltrated the movement. She really has a way about her, no? Riling up the extra crazy ones, and then pulling out, saying that she can’t be a member with all the crazy members there. Oh, come on, Sarah. The reason you joined was to make the crazy members extra loud.

    These members of the tea party are like the Muslim extremists who flew planes into the World Trade Centre towers. Sure they’re the easiest ones to notice because they’re the ones making all the noise, but they certainly aren’t a significant number of the whole group.

  27. Palin is batshit, to put it bluntly.

    I’m sure that the most extreme, and the most vocal members of pretty much any movement (provided it is large enough) are probably a minority of the movement as a whote.

  28. Palin is a very good manipulator. She’s not stupid and she’s not really conservative. She plays the part for God knows why.

  29. I agree, she’s good at manipulating and influencing people. And yes, she has become a faux news celibrity.

  30. You’ve read something she wrote before she acquired her fame?

    I once read this document she wrote on the environment, while she was governor of Alaska, but before she ran for vice president. When I read it, I said to myself, “Wow. She’s not a moron at all. She just plays one on TV.”

    But, that’s not all. The document had a liberal slant. She plays a conservative. THAT’S why she scares me. Because I have no idea why she’s doing this.

Feel free to leave a reply.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: