No, this isn’t about Kyle Williams’ latest column. Instead, let’s take a look around blogtopia (yes, skippy coined that term!) and see what the really cool kids are writing about:
World O’Crap turns her attention to Kyle Williams, who appears to have been skipping school lately if his reading skills are any indication.
uggabugga compares the amount of time Bush spent on vacation pre-September 11 with the amount of time he will spend with the commission investigating September 11. Hint: One of those numbers is much larger than the other.
Brad DeLong posts excerpts from briefing memos Paul O’Neill gave Ron Suskind for The Price of Loyalty. The issues are complicated, but fortunately (?) the memos are nice and short.
Steve at No More Mister Nice Blog writes about the state of scientific research in the great state of Oklahoma. Or lack of we guess.
As for the message, you can love your enemy [anyone not George W. Bush or gay --Sadly, No!] and see the need to kill him at the same time.
Come back tomorrow, when Adam explains what the problem with homosexuality is:
Like a foot fetishist, willing to place themselves in extreme danger to satisfy their bizarre desires, the homosexual is a sunshine patriot, placing their “right” to use the state to legitimacy their so-called “lifestyle” above the infinitely more important issue of the defense of the American Republic.
James Joseph Minder seemed the perfect chairman for Smith & Wesson – a respected member of the business community in Phoenix who had previously set up and run his own company to help disadvantaged youths.
Alas, there was one problem. Mr Minder, 74, had spent more than a decade in prison for a string of armed robberies.
Disclaimer: There is no evidence, and we have no reason to believe, that Mr. Minder actually killed anyone. Post title done for the sole purpose of scoring cheap comedy points to be redeemed at the TownHall store.
Thanks to Blair for the link. [Article was previously incorrectly identified as being from Reuters.]
Sure, Norbizness and World O’Crap have been doing it longer (and funnier) than us. Has that kind of thing stopped us before? [insert overused line here]
And hence we offer… a TownHall Shorter Extravaganza!
Gays may pretend they have a right to destroy our society, but Hayek reminds us that they’re free to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like my brother did.
Liberals think they’re so clever when they use the old line Let them eat cake but it turns out Marie Antoinette never said it. So liberals have no valid arguments left! Ha! Also, all liberals are driven around in limousines.
Bush never wanted to ban gay marriage forever but when he said states should be free to choose he meant that they had to choose not letting gays marry.
In my parallel universe, liberals were surprised when President Bush called for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. And by the way, I agree that Rosie O’Donnell is a professional lesbian. [By the way, What the fuck kind of person writes "Rosie O'Donnell, who is involved in a homosexual relationship" about someone??? --Sadly, No!]
This week, Andrew Sullivan somehow managed to pat himself on the back following Bush’s announcement that he does too support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage:
I knew this was coming, but the way in which it has been delivered and the actual fact of its occurrence is so deeply depressing it is still hard to absorb.
The way in which it has been delivered is shocking? WTF? Being shocked about the delivery is about on par with someone sitting in the hospital after his spouse tried to kill him and answering the question why did you stay with her with: Well, I knew this was coming but I thought she would use a knife instead of a gun. If you knew this was coming dipshit, you should have gotten the fuck out of there.
Sullywatch offers the best collection of comments on Sullivan’s epiphany. Though we show up a couple of days late to this party, we wondered if evidence could be found that Sully knew this was coming. The answer? Sadly, No!
On Bush’s apparent incoherence:
Those people who believe this president cannot speak in coherent sentences don’t realize how clever his alleged incoherence is. … All in all: a carefully tailored piece of obfuscation. It seems to me that, from this statement, we neither have an unconditional endorsement of the FMA nor an uncategorical defense of states’ rights with regard to marriage. December 2003.
The result is that the issue of same-sex marriage – most specifically the issue of a Constitutional Amendment to ban it – is now dividing Republicans while uniting Democrats. That’s one good reason the president hasn’t endorsed it so far. And if he’s sensible about maintaining his own electoral coalition, he won’t. December 2003.
Others, such as vice-president Dick Cheney, have said they believe that marriage should remain a state matter, as it always has been. December 2003.
“Amending the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman would be unwise for two reasons.” This is the Cheney position. November 2003.
THE 9/11 GENERATION: More pro-Bush, more pro-gay marriage, more pro privatizing social security – according to Gallup. Party affiliation? 45 percent Independent; 30 percent Republican; 24 percent Democrat. November 2003.
The president and vice-president have equally not engaged in the demonization of gay people that is becoming the core principle of far right groups like the Family Research Council. November 2003.
I’m also an optimist on this issue, because I’m a believer in the promise of America and the good will of the citizens of this country. November 2003.
And our favorite, when Andrew went to great lengths not to understand what the President was saying:
Yesterday, the president mercifully didn’t commit explicitly to that. The official statement read: [...]
I’m not sure what this can mean. Is the president saying he or others in Congress have a right to intervene in the internal affairs of a state’s judiciary or legislature? Surely not. Is he saying that a president has the obligation to determine whether some civil laws are now “sacred” and therefore unavailable to those outside the precincts of some religious beliefs? Are atheists going to be denied the right to civil marriage next? Again, surely not. Or is he threatening to support a Constitutional Amendment to permanently write the disenfranchisement of a minority into the very founding document of the United States? Let’s hope not. Massachusetts needs time to thrash this issue out. If this president wants to stake his re-election on writing a minority of citizens out of the federal Constitution, then the stakes will be as unnecessarily high as one can imagine, and the already deep cultural divide in this country will widen still further. This president doesn’t need that. It’s not what many of his centrist and moderate supporters want. And he has far more important things to do. In those vital things, most specifically the war on terror, the last thing he needs is to polarize this country even more. Please, Mr. President. Don’t. November 2003.
There may, in the next year, be a bitter cultural fight over a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage or any marriage-like benefits to gay couples in the U.S. – a fight that could polarize the country still further and push Bush into the arms of his religious right base. October 2003.
We now know where Santorum stands. But what about his party? April 2003.
PS: Did we see it coming? Like everyone else on the planet, yes, we did.
A February 23rd article in the Wall Street Journal (subscription only link) offers the inside scoop on the Alliance for Marriage’s Matt Daniels, one of the leading supporters of the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage:
In July 2001, Mr. Daniels held a press conference announcing the two-sentence text of the proposed amendment: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman,” it says, adding that neither the Constitution nor any state or federal law “shall be construed that marital status … be conferred upon unmarried couples.”
“The minute we did that, boom. I don’t know if anybody remembers what we did in our first year and a half,” says Mr. Daniels. Donations to the Alliance surged to $380,153 in 2001 and then to $1.3 million in 2002, according to tax returns. The new funds made it possible to pay six full-time staffers, including Mr. Daniels’ $96,000 salary.
On this morning’s Fox and Friends, Brian Kilmeade offered the following comment to close a segment on Rosie O’Donnell’s announcement that she and her partner would be going to San Francisco to get married:
Essentially today she’s a professional lesbian, I don’t know what else she does.
I will not sacrifice the Enterprise, I have made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. But not again, the line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they’ve done!
This whole judicial review crap has gone on far enough! I will not sacrifice the sanctity of marriage, we have made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our armed forces, and we fall back. They get their own TV shows, and we fall back. But not again, the line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they’ve done!
[This post basically entirely rewritten from a shorter, a concept inspired by busy, busy, busy from an idea by D-Squared.]
A new book by New York Times best-selling author Richard Poe profiles, for the first time, the true story of how a group of “renegade journalists” ? including, prominently, WND’s Joseph Farah ? fought to expose America’s darkest scandals through the Internet, and how the most powerful woman in the world tried to stop them.
Sure, it wasn’t all that great when Hillary killed that nice man Vince Foster. Or when she had Buddy eliminated because he was going to spill the beans to Matt Drudge. Sadly, that is but a small part of what she did:
Hillary Clinton commanded a secret police operation dedicated to silencing dissent, muzzling media critics, intimidating political foes, whitewashing Clinton scandals, and obstructing justice
A secret police operation eh? Just how deep does this operation go?
Hillary’s operatives infiltrated every level of the news media, federal law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and the federal court system, the book chronicles.
Oh my, that doesn’t sound good. Not at all. Well, at least we now know why all that intelligence on Iraq was bogus, why the mainstream media completely ignored all those Clinton scandals (Monica who?,) and why the New York Times keeps giving her all that great coverage, like when they said she was “more complicated than her feminazi image.” It’s because Hillary and her minions control them all!
…the courageous new journalists of the Internet underground defied the odds and exposed the shocking truth about history?s most corrupt presidency. This is their story.
The Internet underground… The Net starring Joseph Farah as Sandra Bullock. Exciting!
Written with all the drama and tension of a gripping novel, this carefully researched book gives the inside story of how these modern-day patriots endured Hillary’s attacks, and emerged from the battlefield to become a sprawling, innovative news source reaching tens of millions each day. “Hillary?s Secret War” presents a tale of dogged courage and sacrifice, one of the greatest untold stories in the annals of journalism.
We hear that Mel Gibson has bought the movie rights.
We found ourselves wondering if someone wasn’t pulling our leg in this Wall Street Journal editorial, authored by a Harvard law professor:
President Bush’s endorsement of a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage should be welcomed by all Americans who are concerned about equality and preserving democratic decision-making.
President Bush’s endorsement of a plan to write discrimination into the Constitution should be welcomed by all Americans who are concerned about equality, and don’t want homosexuals to get any. And if you don’t welcome it, then you’re probably a Commie.
On Tuesday, the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, said that critics of the detentions at Guant?namo were ill-informed. Mr. Gonzales, in a speech to a meeting of the American Bar Association, said that the critics failed to understand that the detentions should not be viewed as a civilian law-enforcement situation in which people are entitled to be charged and tried or released. Under the laws of war, he said, they can be detained “and they need not be guilty of anything.”
Dear friends, do you suppose the good PAC people are thinking about what William Safire is thinking?
It is very likely that Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to run for President of the United States in 2004.
Inside the Washington, DC Beltway, the “professional Republicans” do not believe she will run; instead, the conventional wisdom is that she will wait until 2008 to run.
Guess what? These are the very same people who, back in 1992, never thought then-President George H.W. Bush could possibly lose to a draft-dodging, pot-smoking newcomer named Bill Clinton. So they took Clinton lightly and never even attacked his atrocious record in Arkansas! [Emphasis added]
Oh no, not this again. The PAC’s web site is full of interesting and amusing features, such as a Hillary Translator. What it does is take a series of fairly innocent remarks by Hillary and tell you what she really means. Want some examples? Here you go:
I will never rest until we have true European socialism in our government. The thing is, the media and the public are so darned easy to manipulate. I am going for cradle-to-the-grave coverage. If i call it the ‘American enterprise,’ I can do anything I want. Just sound patriotic while instituting a truly radical agenda!” [Emphasis in original]
Aren’t you glad you now know what Hillary really meant?
There are many more, so please do stop by and help. It looks like they could really use the help:
STOP-HILLARY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
C00364257 I Pennsylvania
