annoyinglittletwerp on May 12, 2012 at 9:21 PM
So it’s now your place to tell black folks what to call themselves. Typical right wing con. Always thinking they know what is best for others.

Uppereastside on May 12, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Actually, they call themselves n—-r, but that’s beside the point this Dutch-English-Swedish-Prussian-American is making.

Not so fast, says the Rev. Susan Russell, an Episcopal priest at All Saints Church in Pasadena, Calif. She takes her cues from Jesus.
“Jesus never said a single word about anything even remotely connected to homosexuality,” she says.

Hey Susan, try reading Matthew 19:4-6.

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

“‘People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to incestuous couples; incestuous couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that brothers and sisters in love with each other should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.’”

Nutstuyu on May 14, 2012 at 12:53 PM

“‘People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to incestuous couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that brothers and sisters in love with each other should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.’”

FIFY

Bmore on May 13, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Thank you!

Somebody left the irony on.

Cindy Munford on May 13, 2012 at 1:03 PM

; )

If your goal was to not be taken seriously, well, you succeeded – admirably.

You have yourself to blame, because I and others kept telling you to quit boosting Romney when he gave a bad answer, etc.

Bradky on May 13, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Somebody left the irony on.

Bradky on May 13, 2012 at 9:42 AM

I love Bradky, but he’s dead wrong…

bluegill on May 13, 2012 at 10:18 AM

*gasp* Bill Maher’s Mini-Me wanders off the reservation!!!

LOL – Practically every post you make has some reference or allusion to her. It is your signature. You brought her up first, I commented and then you say I am the obsessed one….

Get therapy to help you find some meaning beyond your meaningless defense of people you will never meet on anonymous comment forums.

Bradky on May 13, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Oh, I dunno, Bradky. You or anyone else can look back at my past 20, 50, 100 posts and see how often I mentioned her. More often than not it’s been you Palinophobes who’ve compulsively mentioned her. Like I said, when you address Bill Maher Jr the topic of Palin just pops into your head. You’ve made such a mini-career over the past few years of camping out in Palion threads and snarking at the purty woman, it’s now inescapable.

and if you dare dispute his Bill Maherish views on Palin, he’ll expel you from the approved “herd” quicker than you can say “squish”.

ddrintn on May 13, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Ddrintn, the disgruntled Palin superfan-turned-Obama supporter, is at it again, bringing up Palin’s victimization when it isn’t even relevant to the conversation. I guess those other Palin fans knew what they were doing when they distanced themselves from ddrintn after he wouldn’t stop campaigning against our presumptive Republican nominee and insisted on continuing to, whenever he could, trollishly and gleefully predict an Obama victory.

Bradky on May 13, 2012 at 9:42 AM

I love Bradky, but he’s dead wrong when saying that Burrata’s comments were racist. The “herd” term was unfortunate and unnecessary, if only because it allowed for possibly undeserved characterizations of his comments, but Burrata’s points are quite powerful and well-taken. Something is very wrong when people identify first by the color of their skin and want to know what a politician is going to do specially for people of a particular skin color.

As for saying that Whites are just as much a “herd” as blacks when it comes to voting in lockstep, that’s just ridiculous. White voters are MUCH more evenly split between the parties than are Blacks. This herd mentality, or whatever you want to call it, definitely seems to be particular problem among Blacks.

Funny how you ignore that numerically there are far more whites living off the dole than blacks or hyphenated Americans you despise so.

Bradky on May 13, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Funny how you seem to be ignorant of the fact that raw numbers in themselves aren’t quite as clear a picture as proportions of a whole…and that there are plenty of cool and groovy blacks who aren’t afraid of pointing that out as well.

Got on. And I can utter many, many sentences without mentioning Palin. It’s just that when you’re addressing HA’s own miniature, cheap version of Bill Maher, the topic of Palin IS going to come up.

ddrintn on May 13, 2012 at 10:03 AM

LOL – Practically every post you make has some reference or allusion to her. It is your signature. You brought her up first, I commented and then you say I am the obsessed one….

Get therapy to help you find some meaning beyond your meaningless defense of people you will never meet on anonymous comment forums.

“Not so fast, says the Rev. Susan Russell, an Episcopal priest at All Saints Church in Pasadena, Calif. She takes her cues from Jesus.
“Jesus never said a single word about anything even remotely connected to homosexuality,” she says.”

How does she know? And, more importantly, would He not support our Father?
I guess the polytheistic Greeks had a better idea, eh? /sarc
Lame, lame, lame.

“It has not helped that for years, conservative politicians have explained their opposition to gay rights by simply stating, “I’m a Christian,” as if that automatically requires one to abhor the idea of same-sex marriage.” – Amy Sullivan, WaPo

Ya … So?
It quite clearly delineates the decline of religion as a moral compass.
Structural change comes slowly and from within. The homosexers should have begun with “civil unions” (i.e., contracts) which are honored by our legal system. By taking this all-or-nothing approach, homosexers only further marginalize themselves. Baby steps … baby steps lead to walking, running, and being HUMAN.
Besides, Episcopalians are Lite-Catholic-Lite and few take them seriously. They might as well identify with the Unitarians – anything goes as long as it feels good. Good luck with that.
IF the “party” weren’t so vile and obscene, in every civilized society on the planet, the American public would view, and be repulsed by, the behavior of those who think that the Freemont Street Fair in San Fransisco is a sign of “empowerment”.
If you’ve never seen the images of the paraphiliacs run wild in America’s version of Sodom & Gomorrah, see them just once and then tell me that’s “normal”.
(have a vomit bag at the ready)
~(Ä)~

You are simply a bigot. Blacks used to vote heavily republican until Johnson delivered the Civil Rights Act. No surprise a certain loyalty moved them to the Democrat column just as Lincoln had influenced them to the Republican cause many years.

Sorry, goofy White Soul Brother, but I think they probably jumped the ol’ GOP ship during the FDR years. But your protective paternalism toward them is moving in the extreme, it has to be said. Deeply moving. You keep sniffing for those bigots now, y’heah?

ddrintn on May 13, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Is there any sentence that you utter that doesn’t have the name Palin in it? It is like people who end their statements with “praise” God or “amen” or “you know”.
For DDRINTN it is “Palin my rock”….

Get a life my obsessed friend.

Bradky on May 13, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Got on. And I can utter many, many sentences without mentioning Palin. It’s just that when you’re addressing HA’s own miniature, cheap version of Bill Maher, the topic of Palin IS going to come up.

Sorry to burst your bubble but is whitey wasn’t around, there wouldn’ be anyone working and the hyphenated americans would starve to death…..on second thought, maybe you’re right.

Long haired country boy on May 13, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Funny how you ignore that numerically there are far more whites living off the dole than blacks or hyphenated Americans you despise so.

burrata on May 13, 2012 at 8:59 AM

You are simply a bigot. Blacks used to vote heavily republican until Johnson delivered the Civil Rights Act. No surprise a certain loyalty moved them to the Democrat column just as Lincoln had influenced them to the Republican cause many years.

In normal elections the black citizens tend to vote for white candidates at about 80%. Only Obama pulled a 95% vote — we’ll see what 2012 looks like. But it is a person’s right to vote as they see fit irregardless.

Your mewly whining about herds and tribes is simply a call to have this demographic follow a different herd… namely the one you support.

ddrintn on May 13, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Is there any sentence that you utter that doesn’t have the name Palin in it? It is like people who end their statements with “praise” God or “amen” or “you know”.
For DDRINTN it is “Palin my rock”….

Get a life my obsessed friend.

If “whitey” wasn’t around it would be Nirvana – UES

RickB on May 12, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Sorry to burst your bubble but is whitey wasn’t around, there wouldn’ be anyone working and the hyphenated americans would starve to death…..on second thought, maybe you’re right.

That’s not what he’s saying, at all. He’s saying that conservativism isn’t tailored to any group for a bunch of votes. That’s true. American conservativism is about fidelity to our Constitutional structure and the American creed, not offering goodies to some group for temporary votes. It’s about a concept of the nation. You cannot “bring” anyone to that view. They have to come of their own volition.

As to his herd comments. That is an apt and accurate description for those who move and act in collectives – say voting 90% the same way. Some say “herd”, some say “tribalism”. Both are accurate and without any derogatory connotation, beyond the political stupidity of such actions.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 13, 2012 at 7:14 AM

Come on, give Bradky some credit here. His concern about lumping Dem constituencies into “herds” is so…sweet, isn’t it? I mean it has that “some of my best friends are black” feel to it and everything, like some middle-aged white goofball trying to show how cool he is. Of course, Bradky does demand that we inbred moron anti-Mormon drooling bigots down in the South get in that pro-Romney herd immediately, and if you dare dispute his Bill Maherish views on Palin, he’ll expel you from the approved “herd” quicker than you can say “squish”.

Nice try at sounding so well …. wise about the herds. Problem with your logic is that the majority of whites go for the GOP. You just like to use the term herd as a replacement word for other things you would like to say.

Is voting for GOP illegal ?
Is being white illegal ?
What is about the Dems that makes the black voting block behave like a herd?
What do you think is the replacement word for herd, which I don’t want to say but you know?

Your implication that the black citizens are mindless drones controlled by the Democratic party is as childish and much more revealing of what you really seem to think about black citizens.

Bradky on May 13, 2012 at 5:53 AM

Implication ?
It’s not an implication, I ‘m stating it as a fact.
We know about it,
and Dems count on it .
This voting block never fails to act exactly the way it is trained to act.
Prove otherwise.