Why the U.S. religious right wing LOVES Putin

Look at the praise given to a corrupt, repressive country like Russia.





http://bigstory.ap.org/article/some-us-conservatives-laud-russias-anti-gay-bill

I think many on the "religious right" wouldn't agree with the clamp downs on free speech, though they certainly would agree with efforts to not follow "America’s reckless and decadent promotion of gender confusion, sexual perversion, and anti-biblical ideologies to youth."

What's ironic is you have no problem with government involvement in instituting gay marriage here in the U.S., whether it be by a gay judge in California, a governor or President who refuse to do their job and defend certain laws against gay marriage, etc., but you do have a problem with the government going against it in Russia.

Look there should be no national law that institutes gay marriage it should be left up to the states. However, there should not be laws "in the defense of marriage" or hindering and excluding gays. What Russia is doing is extremely disturbing to me not only because it's prejudiced but it's a sign that the country is being oppressed even more by that thug Vladimir Putin who masquerades as a politician and President. Fucking scumbag

Apart from what we think about gay marriage - what happens in Russia is a completely different thing. The new law against gay propaganda is (like so often in Russia) a rubber law. You can easily lock up people for allegedly propagating homosexuality. It may be enough if two men hold hands in public.
How would they have dealt with the kiss of Carter and Brezhnev? And how do they deal with special forces "Omon" who turn their backs to a mirror?

I doubt that many conservatives are in love with Putin after his giving asylum to that scumbag Snowden. The Rosenthals were executed for much less than what this kid did (that the Rosenberg were most likely innocent and persecuted out of mere anti-Semitism is actually beside the point) .

You mean letting the world know how much the NSA is spying the communication on each and every-one of us?

I hate to hijack Ronnie's thread because I like him. But yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Freedom isn't free, pal. If you didn't learn that from your Nazi forebearers, then you'll never get it. But I'd expect nothing less from the peanut gallery that makes up the European Left. After all, and I hate to beat a dead horse here, you're the same guy who admonished us Americans for cheering when that piece of shit bin-Laden caught one in the eye. Your contempt for this great country isn't even thinly veiled anymore, and everyone here knows it (why do you think your thread on the pressure cooker was such a flop?)

So here's hoping that Bradley Manning gets twenty to life, and that scumbag Snowden gets to stay in Russia for the rest of his life at the expense of never being able to see his family again. Unless he man's up, comes home, and faces the music. Then I'll actually have a modicum of respect for the guy. But in the interim, I hope he chokes to death on a bowl of borscht.

How could you not love Putin?

Amen. I'd like to see both Manning and Snowden drawn and qaurtered.

I'd like to see anyone be as cool as this -

Putin on horse -

Or Putin with bowtie -

Sorry Ronnie for the continuing hijacking of the thread.
Never say something like that again, please. You don't know what my family went through.

I don't know why you're taking the discussion down to a personal level.
Look, I don't feel any contempt for your country. (Why would I hang around in these boards?, Why would I visit your country time and again?) Please, don't confuse criticism towards a government with contempt towards a country. In fact, there's been more criticism from you against the current US administration than from me. My opinions may sound radical to you. But so do yours to me and very likely to most Europeans, not only the lefties in the "peanut gallery".

Anyway, I'm just curious about certain things. To paraphrase Vincent Vega: "It's the little differences", I'm curious about.
I do understand certain conservative positions, like the disapproval of legalizing abortions, capital punishment, etc.

But the Snowden controversy I really don't understand. Even from a conservative perspective: Why does everybody seems to be happy to let the NSA break the fourth amendment rights? "Freedom isn't free", yes, I know. But according to what we've heard so far, the NSA doesn't just restrict the 4th amendment, but acts as if it doesn't exist. (sorry if I don't use the legal terms here correctly.)
If we assume that the intentions of secret services or other governmental branches are always good, why do you need the 4th amendment at all?

Did you ever hear of their co defenden, Sobell, confessing in 2008? He said they were in on it, he had done 19 years in Alcatrez for his role in the case.

Then you should know better. Drastic times call for drastic measures.


Bullshit.


That you think I'm a conservative speaks volumes because only a European Lefty would think that. My politics are clearly middle of the road. If anything, as a New York City born grandson of immigrants, I've always identified with most Democratic social policies.

And I don't know why you're saying we when it comes to the 4th amendment. If Germany had a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, you wouldn't have given the world Hitler. America's great shame is slavery, yours is Hitler and the Nazis. And if you won't back off your criticism of my country, then I'll just keep throwing that right back in your face.

But we're done here. We're both guilty of derailing Ronnie's thread, so let's give it a rest.

Who the hell are the Rosenthals?

Jeez, Klyd. Thanks for pointing that out. It must have been a Freudian slip or something on my part. I obviously meant the Rosenbergs .

Ther were Julius and Ethel Rosenberg's heretofore unknown cousins who also gave away nuclear secrets. Until PB spilled this, only the NSA knew.

But marriage, by Defintion, is between a man and a woman.

Never, before now, in the World's history, has man been "married" to a man. Or a woman married to a woman.

Redefining the basic menaing of marriage ... how Orwellian..

Nowhere in our Judeo-Christian tradition, is there an allowence for "gay" marriage.

I believe the ultimate goal in having gay marriage, is to delude and to destroy traditional marriage. That's how I see it.

So what are we going to become.... France, or Greece.

Just because someone wants to jump off the cliff, doesn't mean I will hold their hand, on the way over...

-------------------------------------------

As for the NSA Data Collection..... The 3rd Reich would be extremely envious of our store of information we are able to exact on ANYONE, with just a keystroke !

Like they said in The Field of Dreams ....

"Build It and THEY Will Come."

We're building this All-Knowing Capable Data Base --- and They (The Tyrants) WILL Come. And that, will not be a Field of Dreams, but of a Nightmares, when that happens....Whatever "Party" that comes under.... National Socialists, or otherwise.

You are wrong. There was same sex marriage until about the third century. And why are you dragging France into this? They have a ban on Gay marriage.

And how does the fact that two guys or two women are married interfere with a straight person's marriage.

Why don't you stop with your right wing talking points and THINK.

If anything, it's a sign that he's a populist. You may argue that Russia is 'undemocratic', but on this specific issue, I'm sure that Putin has the support of majority of Russians. You have to understand that Eastern Europe (ex-'communist' states) has a bit different mentality from the rest of the West when it comes to social issues such as this LGBT 'rights movement'/ideology. People here are more cynical about political correctness and all kinds of 'rights' movements. Even the leftists are often hostile to some of these trends becuase many of them are nostalgic about the former socialist authoritarian systems which were to some extent socially conservative on some issues, at least compared to today's (marxist) left. Those 'old school' commie regimes would never allow any manifestation of pro-LGBT movements back in those days. Anyone participating in such subversive political activities would be beaten by the police.

Anyway, in Eastern Europe, whenever the public is given the power to decide about issues such as gay marriage and adoption, the majority is against it. You had a referendum about it last year in Slovenia about the new family law which wanted to extend rights for gay community but it was rejected - and Slovenia is one of the most leftist EE countries. This year in Croatia, more than 700,000 people signed petition for anti-gay marriage referendum (the country has a total population of around 5 million) and 2 years ago the gay pride parade in Split was aborted because of violent protests. In Belgrade, they never even had such parade and in the last few years they more or less stopped trying becuase it would cause an outrage. In Montenegro you had riots just few weeks ago. In Budapest too (few years ago). And let's not even start about Poland, they're like the most Catholic country in Europe. Just to give you some examples. Russia is no exception and that's just how people feel about these issues. This law was actually a democratic move from Putin in the true meaning of the word. Putin's rule is democratic in some bonapartist sense.

I support Putin on this issue. It's not gays who are the problem, the 'gay-rights propagandizers' are as it was explained by Putin.

Russia’s contentious law was signed by President Vladimir Putin in late June, imposing fines on individuals accused of spreading “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors, and even proposing penalties for those who express these views online or in the news media. Gay pride rallies also are banned.

This law is a reaction to agressive propaganda of LGBT ideology (to give it a name) by gay activists or whatever you want to call them. As I said, the majority of people in EE are against it or at least indefferent to such propaganda - the so-called 'progressive' ideas from the West have not managed to permeate the society in such a way as in Western Europe, although they're of course present to some extent. Well, it's not only EE, I would dare to say that also a significant part of southern Europe has been equally reluctant to accept these ideas. I know this is not the case in Germany and northern Europe.

Anyway, LGBT rights activists, feminist groups and all kinds of NGOs working in such environments are becomming more and more bitter and agressive because they're beginning to understand that no matter how much they try, there's still going to be a huge part of population that is either against them or doesn't give a f???. They're extremely self-righteous and simply don't accept other views on this issue, so they often resort to mocking the opposition and primitive provocations which creates this athmosphere of "kulturkampf" and even further alienates them from more conservative part of the population.

The worst thing about them is that they're full of hypocrisy. These activists pretend to be some sort of 'oppressed revolutionaries', but in reality they're unconditionally supported by the 'elites'. They have the backing of the media which is parroting almost anything they say and which accuses any alleged "homophobe" of being against 'human rights' and stuff like that - that's what they always do, resort to hysteria and emotions. How is one supposed to defend himself when publicly accused of being against human rights or being a homophobe? If you don't have means to write an essay-long answer and publish it somewhere where it will actually be read and heard, you can't really do anything.

It's no secret that gay rights activists and propagandists are financed and protected by the political 'elites' of particular countries (with exceptions like Belarus and Russia of course), the EU and also by organizations like NED ("National Endowment for Democracy"). Take those FEMEN activists for example, it's nothing but a deliberate provocation. All kinds of institutions from the West finance and support such groups and observe how the local populations react to such provocations, in other words, they're basically experimenting with people and their emotions. Provocateurs vandalize churches and monuments (FEMEN activists demolished a cross which was dedicated to the victims of holodomor in Ukraine, for example, a despicable and disgusting act) and call it 'political activism' and when the state (rightfully so) takes measures against it, bunch of hysterical westerners protest with some empty rhetoric about human rights.

It's loathsome how such people resort to 'petite-bourgeoisie' hyper-moralizing and hysteria about homophobia on one side, only to change into complete ultra-militant fanatics when the discussion is about the Catholic Church (or Orthodox Churches) or anything that derives from traditional patriarchal society. I hate such double standards.

Another problem with LGBT ideology is that it always comes together with a particular form of eurocentrism and some form of 'racism'. When the adherents of this ideology cite examples which supposedly confirm that their 'values' are completely normal, they always mention some western/northern European countries (they often do this here in countries that are 'not so progressive' by their standards). "They have this law in Sweden, that law in Holland etc." The vast majority of the world doesn't have such laws and doesn't know about any 'gay rights', but for them this isn't important because this tiny part of the world somehow knows better as if (northern) Europeans were some sort of "herrenvolk". Of course, they'll never say anything like this, but this would be the only circumstance in which their argument would make sense so they're in a way implicitly saying just that. They have this patronizing attitude to islamic countries and more conservative parts of Europe, as if we were still living in the 19th century and have to be 'civilized' by the 21st century progressivists.

The truth is rather the opposite, for centuries now Europe has been a sick continent and all the sick ideologies which created so much evil originate from western Europe - jacobinism, (scientific) racism, eugenics, euthanasia, social darwinism, marxism, nazism etc. - needless to say, all of them were hailed as progressive when introduced, so having a 'progressive' ideology is not a good thing per se. This LGBT obsession and hysteria is just the latest fashion but it is from the same source. So it's only natural that people are sceptical about it. I mean, those gay rights groups hand out propaganda flyers to children in schools where they can read that "gender doesn't exist" and similar sick nonsense. I don't see this as something normal, sorry.

So it's not about the gays as such but about this agressive ideology which viciously attacks what the majority of the population respects. Many people practice gay lifestyle but don't want to have anything to do with this LGTB parade circus.

What? Where?

Hardly anywhere. But dontomasso thinks if there was the odd "gay marriage" here or there down through the millenia, he can argue that there's always been gay marriage. Generally speaking, it's virtually unheard of. But libs LOVE to rewrite history to suit their agenda.

Well we certainly know what schools Ivy League did not attend. I cant give you people a detailed history here, but it was permitted in Messopotamia, Assyria, Ancient Greece, Rome (until it was outlawed in 342 AD by Constantine) and Fujian China until the Ming Dynasty, to name a few. It was sanctioned but not formalized elsewhere in the ancient world.

Instead of the tired olf "libs do this and that" why dont you ppeople turn off Fox and do some reading?

Why? What's wrong with what they did (and don't tell me anything like "if you don't understand it by yourself, it's useless to explain it to you")?
I like what they did. I hope somebody in Russia exposes Putin's system in the same way they exposed the American one. I hate politicians, the military and especially the secret services, they deserve to be shitted on.

You hate the very military that protects you? Yeah, that's really mature .

It's one thing to hate war. That's fine; so do I. But if you actually mean what you just posted, then you're no better than the ungrateful scumbags who spit on the U.S. troops when they came home from Vietnam.

We both know what the military of any country does in the countries they invade. To me, a child shot dead by a sadistic soldier is an argument that outweighs everything that you or anybody else can say in their defense. To make my opinion clearer, I don't care about which country is the attacker and which country is under attack, if it's communism against capitalism, Islam vs Christianity etc. KILLING INNOCENTS IS BAD. PERIOD.

How old are you and what country are you from?

Just answer me and don't tell me that it has nothing to do with anything. Because you sound like a naive child.

I am 26, I am Russian, but have been living in Italy for 13 years. If you don't believe me, that's your choice.

Until we will continue saying that "war is bad, but the military is good", wars will continue.

You're naive if you believe that all war will just end without a military.

And why wouldn't I believe you? You sound like you're in your mid 20's with a psyche formed in a scumbag totalitarian country. It's not your fault. If your parents cared anything about you they would have tried to get you out sooner. I actually pity you. But I'm glad you ended up in Italy.

Have you ever heard about the concept of "arrogance" and "fanaticism"? That's what you are made of, as it seems from your posts in this particular thread. In the others you make sense, but here you seem to come from a country far more totalitarian than mine, as you justify murder of innocent people by soldiers, and I don't.
Calling a "naive child" everybody who doesn't agree with you is a clear sign of arrogance and fanaticism (which is the same as "patriotism").
Anyway, I would prefer to be a naive child than somebody who justifies murder for the good of the country.

Everybody can vomit arrogance and insults, what about EXPLAINING your point of view?

That you think I'm a fanatic tells me everything I need to know about you. Only someone from your part of the world would think that. Because here in the civilized world I'm considered pretty liberal about most things.

And I don't justify murder for the good of the country. But I do advocate killing to protect it. There's a big difference.

Civilized world? Oh, well... I at least don't use stereotypes to judge whole countries. By the way, what "part of the world" are you referring to: Italy or Russia?
By the way, you still haven't told me what was wrong about what Snowden and Manning did.
And what do you think about what those guys did to the Bolivian president who was suspected to have Snowden on board? Decades ago doing such a thing to a foreign president would be equal to declaring war.

Well, if you must know, I meant Russia. I'm Italian American myself. I've been there over a dozen times and own property in Lauropoli, Cosenza. But that's neither here nor there.

Snowden and Manning both put their nation's security at risk, and they should be punished for it. But we're never going to see eye to eye on this, so I'll agree to disagree with you.

Yeah, because if we declared war on Bolivia we'd be there longer than the weekend .

I agree with this. But anyway, I don't think it's correct on your part to judge Russia so harshly just because some bloodthirsty corrupt animals are in charge. Most people of any country are decent (at least I think so), it's not their fault the worst scumbags are always in charge.
By the way, Russia isn't like the USSR now anymore. Now it's more like the USA in the XIX century.

I understand that. Thank God for progress.

You have to understand, I'm 54 years old. I grew up at the height of the Cold War, so it pleases me a great deal that a lot of the old communist regimes have fallen or have been weakened in that part of the world.

And by the way, by communism I don't mean the concept of communism itself. I mean the totalitarian attitude that the guy who ends up in charge usually ends up with.

Seems like you have got it down to a mathematical precision what is right and what is wrong. So let me ask you this, when when an enemy is willing to run a couple of commercial airliners into a building and kill thousands of innocent people because the people in the country dont believe in Allah, are they worse than the country who has a soldier who kills one innocent child? Or are they equally bad?

Its good that you think that killing children is bad, so do i. It just so happens that the people we are fighting against happen to use children as shields and then point the finger at us. But you got it down to a science what is good and what is bad. You should be running a country. Its just so simple aint it.

Your such a "deep" thinker. Your like every philosophy major that I met in college. Everybody is else is closed minded but you right?
LOL.

Well, I am really sorry if you think I believe I am ALWAYS right. I never had such an opinion about myself.
But, as for comparing those terrorists to soldiers who kill one innocent, then yes, I think they are equally bad, because I think a soldier capable of such a thing would be also capable to imitate those terrorists if HIS government ordered it.

Also, wasn't Bin Laden initially a friend of the USA? I mean, they almost "created" him and now seem to have forgotten about it.

But anyway, I don't want to argue about politics etc. I just didn't initially get it why so much hostility towards Snowden and Manning. If somebody did the same thing to Putin, I would only be happy.

Your right that the CIA did help to tain, finance, and arm the mujaihadeen in afghanistan, but that was for the greater good to fight the communist but the US didnt create bin laden he was very rich being what family he comes from and he was already a big figure in the jihadist movement when we got there. And regarding your comments about manning and snowden, if they had just done something to embaress obama no one would give a shit, but they disclosed state secrets that put lives in danger and in my opinion they should both be executed or at least lofe in prison.

Oh Gosh. YOu gotta be kidding me. One of you guys. Dwalin, I call guys like you Captain Hindsights. You got all the answers in hindsight. The king of telling us what caused the problem to begin with. But when it comes to a solution? Nah, not much to say that could be viably employed. Just stupid comments acting like you have some grasp of history.
A guy watches a few michael moorer docs and all of a sudden hes got all hte answers.

Well, if having the last word in makes you feel like "the winner", suit yourself. I have regretted of having posted in this thread even before the first replies were posted, because I should have known some users like you only want to argue for the sake of it.
I don't like killing of innocents, for whatever reason, so what?

But what do you think about the things made public by Snowden, is it right to spy on everybody, in every moment of your life? What's the difference between this and the USSR?

I don't get it. Is he stating that all sides are now equally bad, all religions equally violent, war equally wrong in all situations, that there is never a valid cause of war?

Because that really is the kind of retarded utopian thinking that behind exacerbating conflict in the first place.

I think you meant Michael Moore, i hate that guy. Michael Moorer was awesome though

Moorer was a solid heavyweight. But the holyfield he beat was having heart problems that night. But Moorer was good. The second time he fought holy he got ko'd in 8.

As far as the hindsight thing, I know too many people who like to talk about what happened in the 80's with Bin Laden as if we were responsible for the towers coming down. It couldent just be that the guy was a rich fanatic who wants to kill non believers and supporters of the Jewish state?

He was one of the greatest Light Heavyweights imo. He was still one of the top Heavyweights of his era, no doubt he was no match for Holyfield though. God knows how i've turned this into a boxing thread . No more derailing from me.

I hope ur not talking about me vinny because i specifically said that we didnt create bin laden. I totally agree with u about hindsight. Those commi bastards were are biggest threat diring that time(and for good reason), and the jihadist were the best tool availible to push them outta the country. Lol at the southpark episode.

I don't like communists, but I don't see what's to be so proud of if you use one evil to push the other evil away. I really don't want to take political sides (I hate politics), but even during the cold war, do you really think the USA were so innocent and angelic in the methods they used? I don't mean to force my opinion on anybody, but to me both sides in the cold war were like beasts biting at each others' throats. What's the point of idealizing one of them? Yeah, sure, the USA politicians were selfless saints who wanted only the greater good for everybody.

Where in my posts do i idolize politicans? I generally dont like them, i think their shady hypocrates, but there r a few that i like. U say r not trying to force ur opinions on people but i honestly cant tell what ur opinion is, Besides that there should b no war and no one should ever die and we all just love each other and ladadada. Hate to break it to ya but thats not the world we live in and never will be, get real.

Well, I don't deny it.

But still, somebody among the users from the USA, tell me, what do you think about those "spying on everybody" thing made public by Snowden?

I honestly could care less about them spying on us. It really wasnt that big of a surprise to me. It would really take a naive person to think the govt wasnt actively monitoring such things. And honestly if it can help uncover potential terrorist plots im all for it, its raw data and intelligence collecting such as the nsa was doing that can really make a difference in the war on terror. As pizzaboy said freedom isnt free.

In ancient Rome the marriage between two males was never legally allowed, only in odd obscure cases like what Nero did, but he was an emperor and was above the law. I guess there were some people who lived in same sex unions but it was never formally a marriage. Theodosian's Codex was against it, but it was never allowed in the first place. The Roman Empire was a patriarchal society and a gay male Roman citizen would lose all respect. Same sex marriages were never legally allowed in Greece either. Homosexuality of course did exist in both cases, but it was never fully socially acceptable, at least not in the form of marriages. I mean, those two societies more or less had similar views on homosexuality as Tony Soprano lol, at least the Romans. I'm not really familiar about other examples you mentioned, so I won't comment.

It's fascinating how this LGBT rights thing has in the period of the last few decades become so important in political discussions. Before it was never even mentioned in any political context but now it has become some sort of obsession for some people on the left, 'liberals' whatever (and as a reaction it has consequently also become an obsession for the right wing). The important thing to understand is that 'gay community' as imagined by the LBGT propagandists has never existed in history. You had some people practicing homosexuality here and there but they never were part of any clearly defined community asking for their 'rights'. So why the hell would anyone give "them" a right to marry between each other? Same-sex marriage as something legally accepted and formally equal as a marriage between a man and a woman exists today in some countries because the LGBT rights movements has promoted it and provided an ideological background which makes such marriage acceptable for people who adhere to that ideology/'liberal' values (a large part of society in those countries). It can't be compared to anything in history really.

Needless to say, there have been a lot of attempts of historical revisionism on this issue, to suit the current social-ideological trends and somehow legitimize them (even though LGBT rights activists present themselves as progressive, they still look for some affirmation for their ideology in Western history, particularly in the pre-Christian era). There is also a trend to declare certain historical persons as homosexual even though there isn't much proof. Frederick II comes to my mind.

Here's my opinion on this issue regarding PB and Dwalin's argument. You appreciate and honor the troops that fight and die to protect your country. I love sixties music, and I agree with much of that culture except one thing: the fact that Vietnam vets TO THIS DAY don't get the respect they deserve and back then it was worse. I respect every branch of the military that defends the United States.

That being said when a soldier goes on a psychotic rampage and commits atrocities you try them and prosecute them just like any other war criminal. But no one sit here and say the military and organizations like the FBI and the CIA deserve to be shit on. They keep us safe, plain and simple. I think there's a line, and the NSA may have crossed it, but Snowden and Manning should be locked up and have the key thrown away. They revealed things that should not have been revealed. In the end, I hate Obama, I hate left pinkos, I hate right wing nut jobs, I dislike our current partisan attitude in Congress and the fact that all these fucking politicians are in it for themselves. But keep in mind that there are people in this world that want all of us dead with the power to do so. I won't shit on our military and secret organizations who do their job in protecting us from these enemies

Well said. And you made a point that I've touched on before, i.e. how in recent times it's become standard for this group or that group to claim certain "rights." They want these so-called "rights" and if you disagree with them you are denying them these "rights." Which automatically makes you the bad guy.

you keep good company, Ivy.



http://www.towleroad.com/2013/08/russian...o.html#comments

Where has Ivy or anyone else for that matter said or agreed with the sort of comment that you've bolded? The only person posting hate columns is you. Is that how it works, could i post an article from a nazi website and say Ronnie agrees with this .

It's what libs like ronnierocket (and certain others posters on this forum) do. They feel if they can paint you as a hate-monger, they've won the argument. Never mind whether it's true or not. It's the typical laziness and dishonesty of the left and their agenda. It's what Prop 8 in California was relabeled as "Prop Hate" or "Prop H8" by the same kind of people.

This is the article Ronnie read -

Deputy General Director of the Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, Ivy League recently dehumanized gays on a popular, government-run television program broadcast by the state-owned network Rossiya 1.

His translated comments state, "I think that just imposing fines on gays for homosexual propaganda among teenagers is not enough. They should be banned from donating blood, sperm. And their hearts, in case of the automobile accident, should be buried in the ground or burned as unsuitable for the continuation of life."

The audience applauded after League's comments

Yeah seriously Ronnie. What the Russians are doing is fucked up, but the fact that you're trying to lump ivy in the same category as them is low. Get a life dude

The two most overused words in the liberal encyclopedia are "hate" and "homophobic."

Now that's not to say that there aren't some hateful homophobes out there, because there certainly are. But not everyone who opposes gay marriage is guilty of those labels. Especially if you oppose gay marriage for truly religious reasons.

It's funny how the Left screams about religious freedoms and tolerance where radical Islam is concerned, but if you oppose gay marriage because you're a God fearing Christian or an observant Orthodox Jew they don't want to hear about it.

And this is one of the many reasons why I loathe both extremes, and I'll NEVER, EVER vote for a party again.

both very strong choices, but they are still runner-ups to "racist", the de facto way out of debates for liberals who are either too lazy, stupid or ignorant(often a combination of all 3) to actually explain their position.

So, so true.



And they know this but it's just easier to label them a hate-filled homophobe.



Glad somebody else noticed this.

Religion is only an excuse. I don't buy it. I'm no fan of religion, but it also tells people to be peaceful and loving toward one another, yet some choose to follow some other part. Heck, even Pope says he is not the one to judge a homosexual, but then some here judge them. I think they should own it and stop hiding behind their religion.

Give me a break. It's not like people wake up one day and think, "I'll claim religion in order to justify my bias." Doctrine against homosexual acts is found in millenia-old scripture. And, while we are commanded to loving towards all, that doesn't mean tolerance trumps all else. It's still a sin and only the spiritually immature throw out obedience and then use love as an excuse. You'd just prefer people throw religion out the window altogether.

Just own it.

They can't explain their position because it's based on knee-jerk emotionalism. If you don't have arguments then you use ad hominem attacks. It's what the left-wing does. If you criticize Obama, then you're a racist. If you agree with the Zimmerman trial ruling, then you're a racist. If you don't agree with same-sex marriage, then you're a homophobe.

You can NOT seriously be comparing the plight of the American homosexual to that of the German Jew under Hitler and the Nazis. That's an insult to every Jew both on and off this site (I'm Italian American Catholic and I'm outraged).

I like you, Ronnie. We've been political advocates on many things over the years. But this is the kind of shit that gives all liberals a bad name. It's just as bad as the far right comparing Obama to the anti-Christ. But you're educated, so this may even be more ignorant.

This really shouldn't surprise you, PB. The libs have already been trying to make a comparison between blacks and civil rights of the past and gays today. So this is hardly a shock, especially from somebody like ronnierocket.

PB. No disrespect, but maybe you haven't been to college in a while. "Education" today consists of liberal propaganda. Almost every school in the country is filled with professors spewing left wing garbage and indoctrinating the next generation of ignorant left wings zealots. So no, it should not be surprising that he is both educated and ignorant. I went to college in Indiana, and it was still one big liberal think tank.
Thats why I chose Accountancy, to get away from the pervasive zealotry that is Undergraduate America.

Those damn kids today, with the hair and the clothes....

Not to mention that noise they call music, their lax morals and their commie educations.

I am assuming that somewhere within those "jokes" was an argument, or what passes for one on the left. My freshman year I had a professor (wont say her name) who said that the innocent Israelis who are victims of acts of terrorism by Hezbollah and similar groups deserved it because of the "occupation". Believe it or not, she was moreso middle of the road compared to other professors I had.

None taken, Vin. In a way you're spot-on. I went to Fordham from '77-'81. Now Fordham is Jesuit run and the Jesuits are pretty liberal, as far as Catholic Orders go. But it was nothing like Columbia or Berkeley. Places like that won't let you graduate today unless you have contempt for your country .

But I'm not completely detached from today's college scene. My older daughter graduated from the University of Miami a few years ago; my younger daughter will graduate from Penn State after the fall semester; and my son begins SUNY Stony Brook in a couple of weeks. But my daughters made it through without taking up with the Taliban, so I'm pretty hopeful for my son .

PB. Congrats on your kids! You must be proud. Moreover, you must be a good father, which is the most important thing.
Kids going into college are impressionable, which is why college is a breading ground for brain washing. Alot of these youngsters weren't instilled with the morals necessary to have a solid grounding in their value system. I thank God my father instilled in me a strong moral and value system that could not be rocked by a left wing zealot professor. Even though I lost him when I was 19, his lessons never left my mind and allowed me to stay strong in who I was, and not be easily manipulated.
The funniest thing about these professors is that the vast majority have never done anything with their lives besides teach, so its not suprising they are how they are.
Maybe if they left campus and got real jobs, they would have been cut down to size. Most people who live and work in the real world (not on a college campus) realize that many far left ideas are non applicable and even dangerous.
And oh, mabye some economics woulden't hurt them either.

That made me laugh PB, but sadly is probably true.


Ouch, thats a lot of tuition money, i hope you planned ahead of time. I know guys that put saving for their kids college off to the last possible second and had to scramble for cash at the last minute. One guys daughter was at NYU in the city, he used to cry about what the tuition was costing him. Everytime i would run into him thats all i heard about. lol.

Well, there's a cynical old saying that goes something like "those who can't do, teach," or something like that.

Now I'm not ready to throw all teachers under the bus like that, but unfortunately there are quite a few in that world who have no idea what life is like outside of academia. When I was younger we referred to them as "professional students," but that expression is probably a bit dated today.

But you know the guys I mean. Corduroy pants, tweed jacket with elbow patches, a cheesy mustache and an unlit pipe (at like twenty eight years old). I'm almost 54 and I still want to smack them when I see them .

I'm only two years removed from college and I tell you what considering I'm in Massachusetts I had some VERY liberal professors some of which I disagreed on almost every issue. However I also had some very good ones, some of which I'm still in contact with today. It's a mixed bag. My encouragement to younger kids these days, is to think for yourself and draw your own conclusions rather than form it on your Professor's. A good teacher would want students to think outside the box, not limit themselves

Sometimes a joke is just a joke, and a cigar is just a cigar.

I have to agree with this and the other Pizzaboy comments. Don't see how anyone in their right mind could think conservatives love Putin or any other KGB officer