ZOMFG!! We’re all gonna die
Gay cooties are coming to your town.
16 Responses to “ZOMFG!! We’re all gonna die”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
November 21st, 2008 at 9:09 am
What are they going to do? A little musical theater? Maybe open a hair salon next to the trailer park? Put a fern on the counter at Bubba’s Diner?
November 21st, 2008 at 10:56 am
They use Eureka Springs as their example, and it is kind of a funny place. The biggest attractions in town are a “Passion Play,” and a giant Christ of the Ozarks statue, and yet the town itself is indeed a haven for the GLBT community. My wife and I went on vacation there a few years ago, and I describe it like this: It’s gay- and lesbian-friendly, dog-friendly, biker-friendly, and minority-friendly. In other words, it’s me friendly! (I’m none of those things, but I tend to like places that are welcoming to them.)
All that said, I could totally see how Eureka Springs would make conservative “family values” Christians wig the fuck out. Which, in my book, is another reason to love the place. đŸ™‚
November 21st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I’ve gone to look at the linked DVD-thingy a half-dozen times this morning, just for yuks.
I lived in Midtown Atlanta for many years and never once saw anybody turn into a pillar of salt, even at the local hole-in-the-wall gay bar, of which I was a loyal patron because A) They had Whitbread Ale on draft for $1.25, B) It was within walking distance of my apartment, C) The pool tables were only a quarter, and D) Did I mention they had Whitbread Ale on draft for $1.25?
Really, it’s the GOP’s pandering to the Gay Cooties-fearing Relicons that is going to cost them as the generations that gave a crap about that stuff gradually die off…
November 21st, 2008 at 1:38 pm
all of you “enlightened ones” are dead wrong. rejection of absurd religious dogmatism and wretched televangelism is carried to a ridiculous and dangerous extreme with the “snark”, and the giddy and joyous rejection and belittlement of the values and decency that is the true core of Christianity…and that is my greatest disappointment in otherwise intelligent people who share with me my appreciation and vociferous support of individual rights.
i too support the right of individuals to live their lives however they choose and to be free to do as they please…unless and until the exercise of those rights infringes on mine; do you believe the people who have executed a ninja takeover of that small town government are any different than the dogmatic freaks who operate the “church” of brother ron h. or the child rapists who cover their activities with the cloak of twisted and regressive mormonism?
they are doing what they do not to live their own lives and exercise their own freedoms, but to usurp yours through serruptitious takeover and control, to further their own agenda to the exclusion of what is right and desireable for the populace at large.
these are as a rule and by definition some of the most radically liberal citizens in this country…do you doubt for one second that your cherished Constitutional rights will be discarded as soon and as thoroughly as can be allowed? do you really not know that the infringement of those rights will occur not by openly national pronouncement but by incremental local erosion and control?
the next time you decide to make a hilarious derogatory comment about someone who has shown concern of this gradual defilement of “values”, and blindly offer up your support of non-traditional “rights”, just keep in mind whose values and rights are being substituted and sacrificed for them, and maybe ask a few of those whose rights you so reflexively speak up for just where they stand on values and rights that you hold to be self-evident and sancrosanct; then go ahead and apply for a permit to hold a gun show in that arkansas town and see what level of support for your rights is exchanged in quid pro quo for your support of theirs.
jtc
November 21st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
JTC,
Tell it to the Pink Pistols.
Or, better yet, maybe you could copy and paste this comment and leave it here or here. I’m sure they would appreciate it.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Oh, and…
So, if they deny civil rights, I should deny civil rights? Because two wrongs make a right?
November 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pm
tam, as usual, the exception proves the rule…
and i really don’t give a rats ass who or what self-interested group or individual objects to my opinion.
‘cuz they’re like assholes, you know, everybody has one…and time will tell whose are borne out.
jtc
November 21st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
i haven’t and won’t deny anyone’s rights and freedom; having my own usurped and denied is where i draw the line, and it’s how those are defined that become the crux of the issue; the only true arbiter as far as i’m concerned is the U.S. Constitution; unfortunately the judges whose job it is to interpret are humans subject to partisan pressure and their own notions; as i said earlier in other words, “change” unlike economics, is trickle-up, not trickle-down.
so do you believe that the town fathers or mothers of that town will welcome a gun show and gun rights advocates and that gay rights activists in general are similar in mindset to the pink pistols?
jtc
November 21st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
JTC,
Who cares?
Do you think a majority of women, or African-Americans, or people of the Jewish faith, or New York City residents, if taken as a whole, would vote to allow gun shows?
Does that mean they should be denied their essential civil rights?
November 21st, 2008 at 4:02 pm
What I am trying to say, bud, is when your rights are under siege, it doesn’t pay to go looking for more people to alienate and piss off. My momma taught me that you catch a whole lot more flies with honey than with vinegar.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:28 pm
If the gays want to protest and fight for extra rights, fine. But let us stop this farce that a person copulating with somebody of the same sex is akin to a minority.
And sorry, bending over and taking it alongside the liberals are not going to save the GOP. Notice that even California rejected gay marriage. As soon as the GOP stops taking its cues from the liberal direction, then it can get back on track.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:52 pm
sorry for the delayed response, tam…out on business for a few hours…
first and foremost, refer me to where i advocated denying anyone their “essential civil rights”…if you read what i wrote you will find quite the contrary.
second, who cares that a consortium of single-issue individuals would take over the administration of a government entity and then proceed to deny my rights and freedoms? i care, and so had you better if you want to maintain them, and i don’t care if those partisans are male, female or in between, black, white blue or green, jew, protestant or nothing at all; that has not a damn thing to do with it.
third, what i’m trying to say, girl, is that regardless of what your sweet momma taught you out of the goodness of her heart in trying to raise you with manners and civility, kow-towing to a group-any group-that clearly is contemptuos of your rights and interests, expecting to receive their kind and gracious consideration in return is gross error…france and poland are full of graves and veterans that can testify to that very harsh lesson.
jtc
November 21st, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Dan,
Well, I’m fairly certain that people attracted to the same sex are not a majority, so what word would you have us use?
(Oh, and I wasn’t comparing homosexuals to minorities; I believe I used women in that list and I’m fairly certain we’re actually a majority.)
November 21st, 2008 at 8:57 pm
And by that definition, I suppose people that wear shriner hats are a minority too, since they are not a minority, right? Or people with hello kitty ar-15s? Come on tam-my, we all know that is what we are talking aboot here, a minority in the sense of race/ethnic background/religion.
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:42 am
I would love to see that sentence diagrammed…
Ooh! Ow! I am cut to the quick!
Well, I know what I was talking about here, before you jumped into the middle of the discussion and got spittle all over the inside of my monitor screen.
Seriously, dude, simmer down. I didn’t use the term “minority” until you did; I merely made a list of various demographic groups that have traditionally seen a majority of their members vote against Second Amendment rights. It was you who then started nattering about “minorities”. Did you want to rephrase your post to say “don’t equate gays with ethnic groups”? ‘Cause if that’s what you meant, I’d whole heartedly agree. But saying they’re not a “minority” is taking the chainsaw of PC-speak to the English language, for they most certainly are.
Follow? It’s as ludicrous as saying a business owned by a woman is a “minority-owned business” when anyone who can count can see that we are not a minority.
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:49 am
Yeah, that is pretty much :b:what:/b: I meant aboot ethnic groups and what not. Lost the train of thought for a moment there.