Ahmadinejad? Great Idea! ... Rick Warren? Over The Top!

A few new links on the Warren/Obama controversy via Instapundit. Apparently Obama isn't backing down.

If politics was once said to stop at the waters edge, according to today's liberals, tolerance and reaching out to the opposition sure does. Unfortunately, as usual, I think they have it back asswards.

A Gay imprisoning, if not executing, Ahmadinejad who wants to destroy Israel is worth talking to. A conservative American minister, ... pure evil that.

Though Ahmadinejad and the Left do both seem to hate America as it is and as it sometimes votes and acts. I guess that's enough to try and find more common ground.

Comments

[ET]

Talk about fringe...2% or so of the population is gay...maybe 5% of the gay population supports this angry, combative response to the passage of Proposition 8 in California.

That is a tiny, little, insignificant tail wagging a great big dog. Twice now California voters have spoken. We grant gay couples ALL of the same legal rights as married couples through a Civil Union. Why is that not enough?

Apparently it is not about the "marriage" and the rights that accompany that status. It must be about the wedding. Gay guys don't get to live that common childhood dream of picking out a frilly white dress and walking down the isle in a shower of flower petals. And that's just not fair.

Get over your gay self. Most of your gay brothers and sisters already have. We accept you, we respect your rights. Now STFU and respect ours.

[Scott]

Ahmadinejad. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Are you joking? You edited a newspaper? That must have gone well. Much as I agree with your premise, people who write professionally without knowing how to spell important things irritate me.

[jharp]

"Twice now California voters have spoken."

Did you not take Civics class in the 7th grade or did you miss class when they taught that a majority vote on depriving equal rights is not what is spelled out clearly in our Constitution. Have you ever heard of the Judicial branch of our government?

"We grant gay couples ALL of the same legal rights as married couples through a Civil Union. Why is that not enough?"

You are an idiot. Do you really not see the difference? If you can honestly say you don't please let me know and I'll explain it to you.

"Apparently it is not about the "marriage" and the rights that accompany that status. It must be about the wedding."

More stupidity from ET. Are you even aware of common law marriages? You are a complete fool.

"We accept you, we respect your rights. Now STFU and respect ours."

And you go on to display even more stupidity. No, you don't respect equal rights for gay Americans.

And might I ask what rights of yours are not being respected? Your right to be an uniformed bigot and fool who doesn't even understand what the issue is about?

You, sir, have no clue.

Posted by: ET | Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 11:57 PM

[Dan]

Well, Scott, you'd be surprised what gets into a professional newspaper let alone a blog, not that that's a good defense. The fact is if you check RWV for the name you'll find I've spelled it correctly here over 100 times. But no, it wasn't coming earlier, got a bad cold and am on a couple meds. So I Googled it to make sure and still flubbed it - TWICE. LOL Pathetic, I know, but that's how I feel.I just wanted it up so I could crawl back into bed. As for what irritates you. Well, that's really not my concern, or my problem. From your tone, it sounds like maybe it's your wife. Most people don't run around so irritable all the time except in cases like that. But who knows ...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=Ahmadinejad&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=www.riehlworldview.com&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off

[Paul Atreides]

If one takes notice of what comes out of both sides of the mouths of liberals one will notice that they get frothing-at-the-mouth mad at President Bush for labeling terrorists as evil; yet, they will not hesitate to label conservative Christians as evil for having a difference of opinion.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- If politics was once said to stop at the waters edge, according to today's liberals, tolerance and reaching out to the opposition sure does. Unfortunately, as usual, I think they have it back asswards. --"

I am so very, very confused. Until last week I was under the impression that Barack Obama was the most liberally liberal to ever liberalize the United Liberal States of Liberal America's Super Liberal Fringe Leftist Liberal Senate liberal liberal.

Now, after Hyper-Leftist commie radical liberal ex-Senator President-liberal-elect Barack Obama invites non-liberal pastor Rick Warren to deliver a speech at the inaugu-libearl-ation, I'm being told that liberals (presumably as embodied by their cult figurehead ultra-liberal Obama-liberal-saiah) are not, in fact, as inclusive as they so claimed.

So a liberal President invites a non-liberal pastor at the objection of some liberal bloggers and all liberals are labeled as non-inclusive?

Am I following this right? Please, add some clarity.

[Scott]

Ok, dare to point out your mistakes and I'll have to endure personal attacks about my wife? Nice.

I have the same Martian Death Flu everyone else has, and yet it hasn't taken away my ability to spell.

If I had the time or the inclination to check RWV for anything ever again, it wouldn't be to see how many words you've spelled correctly. That's got to be the most chicken$#!t passive agressive excuse I've ever heard.

As someone who used to read your blog, what irritates me should have concerned you enough to stick with the first half of your reply. It doesn't look like you have all that many readers to spare. But that's not my concern, or my problem. Goodbye hack, I won't be back. Unless I see another illiterate headline from you and have to pop bye to flame you about it.

[Scott]

Did you get it? It's a joke, because "bye" isn't right. It should have been "by." And it's also a joke because under no circumstances will I ever read this blog again, no matter how badly you spell. So by-by, Mr. Reel.

[Anon]

Am I following this right? Please, add some clarity.
_____________________________________________________

The problem with many liberals is that they claim to be tolerant, but they are only tolerant of beliefs that they agree with, and they claim anyone who disagrees with their beliefs is intolerant. They refuse to recognize the right of other people to hold diametrically opposite views and so they demonize their opponents, ALWAYS, in terms of being evil, oppressors, racists, bigots, and so forth. This to me makes liberals MUCH more hypocritical than conservatives, who don't claim to be all-tolerant and all inclusive and then turn around and show intolerance to what they don't agree with.

Conservatives will tell you straight out that they don't approve of gay marriage and they will give you numerous reasons why they feel that way. I agree with some of them and I disagree with some of them, but the liberal answer to this is ALWAYS "OMG you are hateful abusers of the rights of others".

The same goes for free speech, liberals are all about free speech when it comes to criticizing the government, burning Bush in effigy, but god forbid, someone say that the crime rate in the black community is 3 times that of any other group, and they brand you a racist.

I used to be a liberal, in fact, I hold a number of very liberal views on quite a few issues, but I can no longer consider myself a liberal because I have seen time and again the same sick hypocrisy and hysteria displayed any time someone opposes a closely held liberal belief--the right of their opponent to hold a view they disagree with doens't count, because they're right, you're wrong, and on top of that you're unAmerican, backwards and a hateful oppressor. Not very productive.

Now, its true that conservatives have this same tendency on a couple of issues, namely abortion, and its true that Bush took the tactic of demonizing anyone that didn't agree w/the Iraq War and turned them into a traitor, but in GENERAL, conservatives are more tolerant of other views in that they don't seek legal remedies to stop their opponents from expressing their views.

[ET]

Had a few pops watching the game, eh harpo? You latest post was more incoherent than ever. Make a point for once. Geesh.

[Fred Beloit]

Harpo writes "...that a majority vote on depriving equal rights is not what is spelled out clearly in our Constitution." Harpo is very confused even though others have shown him that we all have equal rights. Every single man has a right to marry a single woman. Every single woman has a right to marry a single man. But Harpo claims the gay marriage issue (note the necessity of the adjective gay before the word marriage, because marriage means a man and a woman) is about unequal rights. What a mokes!

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Now, its true that conservatives have this same tendency on a couple of issues, namely abortion, and its true that Bush took the tactic of demonizing anyone that didn't agree w/the Iraq War and turned them into a traitor, but in GENERAL, conservatives are more tolerant of other views in that they don't seek legal remedies to stop their opponents from expressing their views. --"

First off, there is some serious hyper-generalization going around with all this talk of "conservatives are like this" and "liberals are like that". My post above was seeking to point out that Obama - a liberal - was being criticized for his inclusiveness by other liberals and that Dan came to the conclusion that liberals in the aggregate are non-inclusive. This, in the face of previous claims that Obama was a cult-like figure leading about an army of liberal yes-men, seemed particularly strange.

If Obama is both liberal AND intolerant, it seems strange that he would be including Warren in his inauguration. If Obama is some exception to the rule on traditional liberal intolerant stances, he departs somewhat dramatically from the stereotype liberal Dan has constructed. This puts Obama at odds with all the caricatures so routinely batted around on this and other right wing sites.

Secondly, you make "liberals" and "conservatives" sound like monolithic entities adhering to these unbreakable molds. Yet I can show you a number of liberal style bloggers - John Cole at Balloon Juice, various Kos diarists, Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Greenwald - that put forward compelling arguments in defense of inclusiveness, of Rick Warren specifically and in general. I can also list a number of conservatives - Debbie Schlussel, the Politico's Ben Smith, and various pro-life groups: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/504326.aspx - who would like to uninclude Rick Warren from their social circles for reasons on the other side of the political spectrum (his friendly motions towards Syria and pro-choice Democrats).

There hasn't been much talk of the right wingers who have felt betrayed by Rick Warren's embrace of the new President. But they are out there.

So drop the "liberal" vs "conservative" schtick. This runs on a different level, pitting the inclusive crowd against the partisan hold-outs. If you think these two groups fall neatly into party blocks, I have to call bull.

[Fred Beloit]

With all that going on in the world, Scott picks spelling as his hot button issue. Dan, you must be ill. Normally I think you would have just told Scott to shove it up his uniquely tight a--.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Every single man has a right to marry a single woman. Every single woman has a right to marry a single man. But Harpo claims the gay marriage issue (note the necessity of the adjective gay before the word marriage, because marriage means a man and a woman) is about unequal rights. What a mokes! --"

Imagine a country in which it was illegal to will private property to your best friend, if your best friend was the same gender as you. Or a country in which you couldn't form a business partnership with someone of the same gender. Perhaps one in which you couldn't sue or purchase property or receive power of attorney. What a ridiculous system, eh?

Marriage - as far as the state is concern - is a complex legal contract between two people. Under the various anti-gay marriage amendments and provisions, two people of the same gender can't sign a marriage contract and no real compelling reason is given as to why.

These laws don't prohibit co-habitation. They don't prohibit gay sex. They don't infringe on a church's right to bless a gay couple with the sacrament of marriage. The laws just prohibit the couple from making the legal contract.

And the reasoning given is that if two men sign a marriage contract than a man and a woman will have the legally binding contract that they signed in some way threatened. Which, from a legal point of view, makes absolutely zero sense.

[Anon]

Liberals are inclusive only of those groups who they believe are oppressed or have been historically oppressed--blacks, 'workers', illegal immigrants, 'the poor', gays, women.

Obama is showing what a good politician he is, he continues to play both sides, though I can't understand why gays and lesbians are upset since Obama himself has said that he views marriage as between a man and a woman, so his willingness to embrace an important evangelical..that is fairly moderate as evangelicals go..is a smart move and shouldn't surprise anyone.

Me, I have NO IDEA what Obama believes about anything since he so adroitly speaks out of both sides of his mouth on almost every issue.

[IslamoLlama]

"--Me, I have NO IDEA what Obama believes about anything since he so adroitly speaks out of both sides of his mouth on almost every issue. --"

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=14818

Go down the list and find me even one instance in which Obama has "flip-flopped". The closest you'll get is his support of Civil Unions but opposition to Gay Marriage.

Likewise, show me an instance in which he flipped on his position on Iraq, tax cuts, or the environment. If you don't know where he stands, you haven't been listening. Personal ignorance says way more about you than it does about Obama.

[Anon]

I didn't accuse him of flip flopping I accused him of talking out of both sides of his mouth so that people hear what they want to hear. But, as far as flip flops, FISA, gun control and offshore drilling, big flips.

You THINK you know where he stands but his policy statements are so overbroad they can mean ANYTHING he wants them to mean. He gives you the "what" but is totally vague on the "how".

And, just for future reference, if you want a reasonable, fact based discussion, calling me ignorant because I don't agree that Obama is clear about his policies isn't very productive.

[Fred Beloit]

Moe writes: "The laws just prohibit the couple from making the legal contract."
Moe's arguments are muddles based upon falsities. Any two people can make a contract. Anyone can make a will leaving assets to anybody. These laws prevent the use of the term "marriage" between people of the same sex, as has been the case for thousands of years.