Gay congressman Barney Frank continues his war against liberal tolerance of evangelicals and their weird view of marriage.
According to Hillblog:
"Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) thinks that President-elect Obama picked same-sex marriage opponent Rick Warren to give the inauguration invocation because Obama "overestimates" his ability to unify people."
Maybe it's gay left that overestimates its ability to bully and intimidate people into accepting its political and social agenda for America.
UPDATE: Of course, academic, journalistic and other liberal elites are perfectly willing to be bullied into submission. Normal, everyday people, not so much.
UPDATE II: That said, Obama does probably overestitmate his abilities to unify people. Once he starts having to decisions, which is what governing is, he will start offending people and their special interest groups. By this time next year, espect his popularity rating to be down significantly.
Maybe it's gay left that overestimates its ability to bully and intimidate people into accepting its political and social agenda for America.
ReplyDeleteGreat line.
Yeah, that Lib intolerance is some ugly stuff.
I think Santas bringing Randal pom poms and a megaphone this year.
ReplyDeleteGil - Since we're on the subject of intolerance, is there a reason why my recent posts haven't been published? Are we switching to an all conservative format?
ReplyDeleteLiberal intolerance is so against what they stand for. They shout down anyone who has an opinion different from their own. Intolerance is sad.
ReplyDeleteC. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com
I dont understand why Warren would be having anything to do with Obama, considering his stance on abortion.
ReplyDeleteSo, it's only ok to unify people as long as the "unified" are those of the same political belief structure?
ReplyDeleteIm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt on this one. He knows what he's doing. Theres an old saying. You get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. It will take time, but people will come around. What will this look like twenty years from now? Will Macavich and Father Shields be successful in converting masses of gays to Christianity and the straight life, or will gay become a more acceptable alternative? If I were a betting man, I know where I'd put my money.
ReplyDeleteBob,
ReplyDeleteYou wanted to know why your Lewis Black links weren't being posted.
Salty language.
Gil - Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't want to offend anybody.
ReplyDeleteI am offended by Bob.
ReplyDeleteSo, it's only ok to unify people as long as the "unified" are those of the same political belief structure?
ReplyDeleteYou better believe it. Obama's calls for unity are a load of crap. He's already shown that his version of "unity" is 'go along with what I say' and all dissenters will be labeled as "dividers" ...or "racists".
Randal said "I am offended by Bob."
ReplyDeleteThats quite an admission from someone who claims that I don't get to him. Guess I'm doing something right.
LOL. This is a hoot. Randal worried about being labeled a racist, and Father Shields concerned with intolerance. Time to reopen Havrford State.
ReplyDeleteBob:
ReplyDeleteYou should remove your rose colored glasses. Rick Warren can talk to anyone, even someone who is homosexual or pro abortion (murder). Most conservatives can, including me. Your side, on the other hand seeks to destroy anyone that does not share your worldview.
Be tolerant of my "radical" views on protecting life from the moment of conception, protecting free speech, protecting gun rights, promoting the natural law that proves that only 2 people of the opposite sex can reproduce, and that marriage is a union between one man and one women.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com
Scott - Stop assuming. I am pro life, but I believe that in the case of rape, or when a mothers life is in question, abortion is an acceptable option. Are you tolerant of that opinion, or do you make no exceptions? Protecting free speach? Im all for it. Gun rights? I would oppose any attempt at removing ones right to own firearms, but regulations and limits are necessary. Do we agree on that? Only two people of the opposite sex can reproduce? No shit. Since when is that a political or moral issue?
ReplyDeleteLegal unions between two people of the same sex? I'm not gay, but I'll tolerate that. Will you?
Scott - Oh, and by the way, "our side" invited Warren to the inauguration. Pretty tolerant of "our side" to do that. Wasn't it?
ReplyDeleteBob:
ReplyDeleteAlthough Obama invited him as a show of unity, it is Obama's intolerant followers who have been the most outspoken opponents of him giving the invocation. Do you classify Barney Frank as tolerant? What about all of the tolerance shown by your side to CA Proposition 8? Must be nice living in your world. Hope things go good for you under an Obama Administration. Just remember one thing that I always tell my children: watch what you wish for -you might just get it.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com
Scott - Do you also tell your children that if they are victims of rape, they cant have an abortion? Do you tell them that if they are pregnant, and their lives are at risk, that you would prefer them to take a chance? Do you tell your daughters that regardless of what they feel inside, they are not allowed to be gay? Is this your definition of tolerance? Sounds more like pretzel logic to me.
ReplyDeleteBob:
ReplyDeleteI teach my children to respect life and to stand up for what they believe in. I especially instill in them values that are consistent with my worldview, and I teach them to respect all life, beginning at conception. As for homosexuality, if that happens I have a way to deal with it and it is through love and giving proper direction.
Funny thing though, Bob, I don't shout down people that are homosexual or that promote unlimited abortions, I try to engage them in an intellectual discussion without name calling. Your side, on the other hand, has no problem shouting me down or calling me names merely because I do not agree with your worldview.
Lastly, my point is that it is ok for you and the Diano's of the world to have your opinion, while at the same time you rabidly seek to suppress any opinion that does not coincide with your own.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com
Scott - I have no interest in silencing you. I don't know how you came up with that. I thrive on diversity. This would be a boring world if we all thought alike. But how fair is it for you to consider your side of an argument to be intellectual, and my side to be an attempt to "shout you down"? I don't shout down homosexuals or people who support unlimited abortions, either. So we have something in common. I also don't shout down Christians who come knocking on my door in an attempt to save me. Matter of fact, I'm pretty nice to them. Kind of a Bill Maher approach. And I dont protest at gun shows either. I just avoid them. On the other hand, I know for a fact that you support people like McCavich, who intentionaly show up at gatherings of Gays and try to impose their beliefs on them. They also call them names. Like sinners. Some people would object to that. And that, my friend, crosses the line of intellectual discussion.
ReplyDeleteI also recall your constant reference of Obama as "Hussein". I know you said you did it simply because that was really his middle name, but it was obviously for other reasons. It was a form of name calling for political purposes. Rabidly seek to supress your opinion? Hardly. I celebrate the exercise of free speech in our society. So if I call you a hypocrite, am I name calling?
Is it just me or has Boring Bob morphed into Dishonest Dave with a similar level of intellectual dishonesty evident in his every post anymore? He has completely abandoned any display of objectivity in favor of his apparnet fierce dishonest Libism partisanship.
ReplyDeleteFunny how folks who let their feminine and childish emotions drive their every politic are so, so... malleable. These are the very same folks who fell for the silly and vague "Change" mantra in the past election.
You sure have 'found your voice' here, BB. Lol...
Scott - I have no interest in silencing you. I don't know how you came up with that. I thrive on diversity. This would be a boring world if we all thought alike. But how fair is it for you to consider your side of an argument to be intellectual, and my side to be an attempt to "shout you down"? I don't shout down homosexuals or people who support unlimited abortions, either. So we have something in common. I also don't shout down Christians who come knocking on my door in an attempt to save me. Matter of fact, I'm pretty nice and tolerant of them. And I dont protest at gun shows either. I just avoid them. On the other hand, I know for a fact that you support people like McCavich, who intentionaly show up at gatherings of Gays and try to impose their beliefs on them, and call them sinners. Some would find that offensive. That crosses the line of intellectual discussion.
ReplyDeleteI also recall your constant reference of Obama as "Hussein". I know you said you did it simply because that was really his middle name, but it was obviously for other reasons. It was a form of name calling for political purposes. So if I call you a hypocrite, am I name calling?
I recall back during the election season anyone who called Balack Obama by his middle name was immediately shouted down as a “racist” by his defenders here and across the apologist Lib Media. But now that he’s safely won the office he’s planning to use his full name in the inauguration. Talk about hypocrisy…
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that Obama’s defenders at this point with excuse ANYTHING he says or does.
Such mindless groupthink blind partisanship is as dangerous as it is dumb. But this is what we get when we “include everyone in the election process”.
Um... It's his middle name. He never made an issue out of it. Why shouldn't he use it? Maybe now, small minded thinkers like Randal and Shields will realize how rediculous it was to try to make a mans middle name a campaign issue....but probably not.
ReplyDeleteBob:
ReplyDeleteThe political correct police said that you couldn't use his middle name - there was some type of negative political meaning if you used his real middle name. I used it because it was ridiculous for Juan McCain to apologize for its use. Now Hussein is using his middle name for his inauguration. What a world! Sadly for you Bob, you find whatever reason you need to advance the agenda to criticize me for using his middle name. Remember what I told you: watch what you wish for, you might just get it.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com
Scott- somewhat off issue, but thought you might know the answer to this. Serious question. How does the law handle people who have had a sex change, and wish to marry? Is it legal? Are their laws regarding hermaphrodites?
ReplyDeleteI'll take this one, Mr. S.
ReplyDeletePeople who have had sex changes are mentally ill and our laws should treat them as such, and would, if not for the rediculous Libbifying of our society that says we should respect and even embrace such things as being perfectly normal.
Scott - I wasn't born yesterday. Who did you think you are kidding? You and Randal used Obamas middle name in the hopes that you could convince certain people, like that dumb ass old lady in red, that Obama was an Arab or Muslim. Some people bought into it. It was a dishonest attempt on your part to decieve the easily influenced, and to distract them from the real issues.
ReplyDelete