Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 581 To 590 Of 657 Comments
@Thomas Jackson:
Not sure I follow you -- how is he blackmailing politicians? If he got evidence, then contacted the politician and demanded certain things (votes, monies, etc.) or else he'd release the information, that would be blackmail. Trying to discredit politicians he does not agree with isn't blackmail, since he's not asking for anything. If you're gay, and if you're a politician, and if he doesn't like your voting record, he tries to out you. Thats punishing politicians he doesn't agree with, not blackmail.
And if I'm understanding the tenor of the Rightie comments, apparently you all are shocked someone would smear a politician they don't agree with. Understandable, as the wingnutters certainly don't make rude, disparaging or embarrasing comments about Liberal Pinko Commie Hippie politicians.p.s. -- that last bit was sarcasm
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 6.09.2007 @ 23:53
@ Chip:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 6.09.2007 @ 22:38
True, the subtle difference between intellectual disapproval of homosexuals and the paranoid hatred of fags gets lost on some of us on the Left side of the isle. I can only speak for myself, but I miss the distinction because I don't see a whole lot of the former. Gays are ruining America, destroying the sancitity of marriage, weakening the military, threatening our children, etc. . . . that all comes across as virulent hatred, not as disapproval. The only thing I don't see Rightie wingnuts blaming gays for is green-lighting the lastest Rush Hour movie. Fortunately, now that the wingnuts have an even more deplorable source of evil to target (illegal immigrants), it just doesn't come up so much.
Must be all of that interweb conditioning, 'cuz I sure couldn't have come to that conclusion on my own, by listening to politicians and pundits on the Right.
@retire05:
"Gays can, and do, accomplish what everyone else can with a will."
Somehow, when you're dying in the hospital, I don't think a will is going to get your same-sex partner into your room once its "family only".
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.09.2007 @ 22:53
@ tHePeOPle:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.09.2007 @ 13:00
Those must be the legitimate dirty scummy politics. Y'know, nothing distasteful.
Its dirty, scummy politics . . .
"But that’s politics boys and girls, get used to it or get out."
So the Conservative dirty underhanded tricks are okay? They are the legitimate, accepted dirty politics?
I said before . . . I'm not defending him. I agree with you that there could be a closeted elephant who opposes "gay rights" on some legitimate basis, not simply because bashing the homos scores points with the wingnut base. BUT if an Elephant is preaching the sancity of family values and the traditional family, then goes and pays hookers to screw him while he wears a diaper, then he's a hypocrite (and comes from Louisiana, which I probably misspelled), and exposing them as such would be a good thing, yes?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.09.2007 @ 00:42
He's a fanatic, no doubt, and the hallmark of fanatics is unreasonableness. But the goal he is so poorly attempting to achieve (exposing hypocrites in government) isn't a bad goal. He's just blinded to being a human being while he does it.
How does this guy represent the Democratic establishment? As far as I know, he's an independent blogger. Thats as silly as blaming Democrats for Larry Flynt's obsessive goal of doing the exact same thing -- exposing hypocrites in government.
I'm stunned.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 4.09.2007 @ 21:18
In this conservative, Republican blog, where just a few posts ago the comments mostly bore the flavor of "the Repubs are the party of the True Morality, stick to your beliefs, if you believe its right follow it thru to the end or you surrender your ideals" am I now reading "how dare he try to dictate what other people should believe"? I beleive the term "hypocritical bastards" applies here.
I'm not defending him outing anybody, but the shocked outrage in the post and in the comments is deplorable, considering the sources.
A MILLION SPAMBOTS DEAD, DEAD, DEAD
Kill them, Mr. Moran. Kill them all.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 29.08.2007 @ 21:59
JESUS, LORD! ARE THEY ALL HYPOCRITICAL BASTARDS?
What a minute . . .
You mean you sought out information in order to make an informed decision as to your beliefs?
They are soooo gonna kick you out of the Wingnut club. :)
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 2.09.2007 @ 17:18
@ manning:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 2.09.2007 @ 00:26
quite possibly, one of the best explanations for "life-at-conception" I've ever heard. Its a shame the party leaders don't put half as much effort into explaining their views.
@manning:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 31.08.2007 @ 20:02
I think this gets to the heart of the non-Republican oppisition to the language used by the party -- absolutism, as I said earlier.
You have your beliefs, and bless you for them. But to assume that anybody who does not agree with your beliefs is a "bad Christian" presumes that you have the True Word of God, and they all do not.
I assume that you are a devout Christian of some demonination. As far as I know, the Bible does not state life begins at conception (if you are fimiliar with a passage that asserts such I would honestly like to know it, because I haven't been able to find it). So it appears to me that the denominatios that hold life begins at conception arrived at that position through their interpretation of the text.
I was raised Episcopalian, and my pastor told us we each have to look into our heart, pray and meditate on the issue, and come to our own understanding with God as to what was right. Doing so would make me a "good Christian", not a bad one.
I could just as easily claim Republicans are "bad Christians" for invading Iraq -- Jesus said "turn the other cheek", not "invade, occupy, and execute Saddam". Regardless, the rhetoric of the Right for the invasion seems to hold that God wants us to go to war; a most un-Christian ideal.
For the record, I don't support abortion, not because I think life begins at conception, but because I don't know whether or not it does, and I don't gamble with the lives of others. It would be inappropriate of me, though, to call you a "bad Christian" simply because I don't believe exactly as you do, because your faith does not match mine. There are hundreds of different Christian denominations, all of which believe differently, interpret the Bible differenty, worship differently. All are as sincere as the others, and all have the same claim to being right.
Think back to the outcry when JFK was nominated. People feared that, as a Roman Catholic, he would govern not based on what was best for the country but based on what the precepts of his Church held. Non-Catholics were terrified that the Pope would be de facto in charge, that our country would become a Theocracy -- the same system of government we demonize Iran for following.
Certainly, follow your faith and believe. But allow that others are just as sincere in following different denominations or faiths; to me, that is what America stands for.
