SATURDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2023
Mike Johnson on marrying pets: We'll grant you, it was a long time ago. But way back when, the new speaker of the House was concerned with a troubling possibility.
He was afraid that a certain slippery slope might allow us the people to start marrying our pets! CNN reports the story in this new KFile offering:
KACZYNSKI AND GORDON (10/27/23): In the mid-2000s, Johnson’s anti-gay rhetoric was harsh. In September 2004, Johnson wrote in support of a Louisiana amendment banning same-sex marriage saying [same-sex marriage] could lead to people marrying their pets.
“Homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and, the studies clearly show, are ultimately harmful and costly for everyone,” he wrote. “Society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle. If we change marriage for this tiny, modern minority, we will have to do it for every deviant group. Polygamists, polyamorists, pedophiles, and others will be next in line to claim equal protection. They already are. There will be no legal basis to deny a bisexual the right to marry a partner of each sex, or a person to marry his pet.”
There would be no legal basis to deny a person the right to marry his pet!
We know—you think that report can't be accurate! Anticipating objections from Doubting Thomases, CNN provides this link to the opinion column in which Johnson gave voice to this point of concern.
"If everyone does what is right in his own eyes, chaos and sexual anarchy will ensue." As you can see at that link, that's what Johnson wrote in support of his fear that we the people might start to marry our pets.
In fairness, let's be fair. We know of no reason to think that Johnson invented this point of concern.
During that era, no less a figure than Bill O'Reilly routinely gave voice to this same concern on his highly rated Fox News Channel program. At one point, Media Matters recorded his ruminations:
WALZER (5/12/09): During the May 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly returned to his theory that the legalization of gay marriage could lead to the eventual legalization of interspecies marriages, this time stating to Fox News analyst Margaret Hoover, who argued against O'Reilly's theories, "You would let everybody get married who want to get married. You want to marry a turtle, you can."
O'Reilly has previously suggested that gay marriage could ultimately allow for a person to marry "a goat," "a duck," and "a dolphin."
Andrew Walzer included a transcript and tape of this discussion. During the segment, Hoover battled back against the argument she described as a "slippery slope."
In fairness, there was always the possible sense that Mr. O was perhaps just jesting when he made these repeated remarks. There is no sign in Johnson's column that he wasn't completely serious in his stated concern about people being allowed to marry their pets.
We offer several thoughts:
Anthropologically: Anthropologically, we humans say the darndest things! There is no limit to the sorts of things which can seem to make sense to us the humans in some particular context.
Logically: Logically, the slippery slope is perhaps the dumbest of all pseudo-logical structures. Once the slippery slope gets started, there can be no legal proscriptions at all.
If we let them set a speed limit of 65 miles per hour, what's to stop them from setting the limit at 1?
That's the way the slippery slope works. The answer to that question is simple:
Human judgment will stop us from doing that! Thanks to basic human discernment, we can outlaw one bit of behavior without outlawing everything else.
We're never forced to hurtle down some slippery slope. At least in theory, we humans can discern harm in one type of behavior which we don't discern in others.
At any rate, we humans say the darndest things! Mike Johnson's old column helps establish that basic point.
We'll close today with a word of warning. This undeniable form of imperfection isn't found just in their tribe!
Full disclosure: Back in the day, we ourselves made six (6) appearances on The O'Reilly Factor. Full disclosure:
Among all major cable news figures, Mr. O was the fairest to Candidate Gore back in October 2000.
Chris Matthews labored for Gore's defeat. So did his colleagues on NBC cable.
You've never heard a word about that—but Mr. O played it straight!
ReplyDeleteAre you saying people are not marrying their pets yet, Bob?
I've read about women marrying themselves, so that's, apparently, a thing. If people still aren't marrying their pets, I find it surprising.
Here, from the Guardian:
Delete"Wilhelmina Morgan Callaghan, from Northern Ireland, got hitched to her yorkshire terrier, Henry, in 2009, because “dogs are better than men” and “I know I’m with Henry for life”. Lilly Smartelli, 55, of Phoenix, Arizona, told the New York Times earlier this year of her plans to wed Bernie, her poodle-cross, to know the joy of being married to her best friend before she died. Her only misgiving? The expense. “He’s always there for me. He listens, and he loves me no matter what. What more could a woman want?”"
Yes, Lilly Smartelli, 55, of Phoenix, Arizona, told the New York Times, Bob. You read the New York Times, Bob. You must've seen this. So, how come you're criticizing Mike Johnson and Bill O'Reilly who accurately predicted this development?
My guess is that it was a civil ceremony.
DeleteI’m sure the right wing will treat this deadly seriously.
DeleteI bet the vet was the best man.
DeletePets can’t give consent, that’s the actual issue.
DeleteOf all the nutty things Mike Johnson has said, the one about marrying pets is the mildest, yet, notably, that is the one Somerby chose.
Speaker’s Wife Compares Being Gay To Bestiality
DeleteOctober 28, 2023 at 11:34 am EDT By Taegan Goddard
“The wife of newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) runs a counseling business that advocates the belief that homosexuality is comparable to bestiality and incest,” the HuffPost reports.
When pets don’t consent they bite.
DeleteWhat about gerbils?
DeleteWhat does Mitch McConnell have to do with this?
DeleteOnce you listen to "the Others", you'll quickly realize their bigotry has no limits.
ReplyDeleteIf Somerby is claiming this nonsense is found on both sides, Somerby needs to supply some proof. What Dem House speaker has said anything comparable, what cable news host?
ReplyDeleteBut at least we now know why Somerby always gave Bill O’Reilly a bye (by his own admission). Somerby is easily bought.
Another drive-by smear, a casual accusation of Somerby corruption. The possibility that O’Reilly really was more fair to Gore than the other major players of the day is not even entertained.
DeleteHe was nice to Somerby too.
DeleteThat young woman was nice to Somerby too, only he mistook her being nice for flirting (remember all those posts trying to normalize May/December pairings) and suggested they go out - if only she had not then mildly mocked him…
DeleteEat your bagels, Somerby, but stop being a creep.
O’Reilly is one of the most repugnant people to have ever existed, Somerby’s claim is not only unsubstantiated and untrue, it’s like saying “Hitler made the trains run on time, gotta at least give him that”.
WTF are you talking about? If you’re going to accuse Somerby of creeping out young women, bring the receipts. Or go crawl into your hole.
Delete@5:21 is describing a story Somerby himself told.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:21pm, if you’re going to accuse men of liking women, we’re going to create an award in your honor. The Duh Award.
DeleteIs that your special term for "creeping on" women? Liking them? From long years of reading Somerby's essays, I suspect that he "likes" young girls of a certain age. Did you overlook @5:21's reference to May/December relationships? So does Trump.
Delete7:02 - So you think he’s a creepazoid, yet spend long years reading him. Hmmm.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnonymouse 7:02pm, most men like women in general, and young women in particular.
DeleteYou shouldn’t be doing this.
A man is creeping on a woman when his attentions are unwanted and obviously inappropriate. It has nothing to do with liking women, just as sexual harassment is not a compliment to a woman’s attractiveness either.
DeleteIt is creepy when a 75+ year old man gushes over the beauty of the cover picture of 14 year old Anne Frank, as Somerby did recently. That isn’t an isolated incident. She is a child, not a sex object to be “liked” as Cecelia puts it.
Delete8:08 - Is this the cite (9/24/22)?:
Delete“We well remember the first time we learned about Anne Frank. We were maybe 9 or 10. We read about her in a full-length spread in Look or Life or one of those mid-50’s magazine monoliths.
“. . .
“Our view? It’s beautiful cover, a tribute to life, pays the price of admission alone.”
Maybe, 8:08, you’re projecting.
DeleteSo that’s what l have to look forward to when I’m 75 years old? I’m not going to be enthralled and gushing over beauty? The beauty of my daughter and her friends? The beauty of handsome men of any age?
DeleteIn the supply store, I can’t roll my eyes over the peals of girlish laughter that I hear as my husband regales the young ladies at the counter, as I try to schlep 30 lb bags of dog food into a cart?
I now have to think that he’s a creep?
I’m pretty sure that you reserve this mandate for particular people.
You’re just awful.
Creepy. Gushing over a child who died in a concentration camp. A 14 year old is not beautiful and her death is not a tribute to life. She died! Talking about the “price of admission” is crass. His romanticizing of such a death is beyond inappropriate. Somerby’s use of that child for his own purposes, as he did, is offensive. Beautiful, he says!
DeleteYou’re just malevolent and awful.
DeleteNo, Somerby is awful.
DeleteMouse - You have a filthy mind, that’s all there is to say. I wish you had a nym so I could avoid you.
DeleteAn old man flirting with service workers represents a situation where the workers must laugh or risk being fired. It is coercive. But they are likely of age, not children. It is demeaning to put girls in that situation.
DeleteThere are so many things Somerby could have said about Anne Frank without sexualizing her and saying her face was worth the cost of the book. Her looks have nothing to do with what happened to her, she is a child who did not exist for Somerby’s viewing pleasure.
DeleteYou’re bad if you think marriage is predicated upon the protection of women and babies, but female “service workers” must be protected from older men, rather than being utterly able to handle such matters as readily as men can do.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:25pm, it’s you who has sexualized her. Admiring beauty is an ageless reaction to beauty.
DeleteYou do this on behalf of politics. You’re a creep.
Men creeping on young girls is ageless too.
DeleteA worker who says “leave me alone” to a male customer will be fired.
Anonymouse 9:50pm, sure. We all know that Starbucks is Pacific Northwest version of Denny’s.
DeleteIt seems to me that if you’re going to slime Somerby by saying he told a story in which he creeps on some young woman that you would give the date of the post so we could check it ourselves. We really can’t take the word of an anonymous accuser, can we?
DeleteA short while ago, after McCarthy was ousted as speaker, i asked why the dems joined with the extreme Maga Gaetz crowd in bringing about that result. The reason why Gaetz et al wanted McCarthy ousted was that he allowed the dems to vote on keeping the government open, preventing, at least temporarily a default. Now we see the result - a new speaker who is as "other" as one can get. He might be worse than McCarthy. We'll see. Keep your fingers crossed about the 2024 election.
ReplyDeleteYes, Gaetz and MAGA are all the Dem’s fault.
DeleteTypical right wing response: avoid taking personal responsibility and blame the victim.
DeleteDems had nothing to do with McCarthy losing his position, they even tried to make very reasonable deals with him, and he refused.
anon - TDH often points out nonsense on the 'blue" side. That's why he's attracted a motley crew of obsessive, non-rational detractors. Examples of "blues" going off the rails - Trump won because he colluded with the Russians to get elected; gender and sex are entirely distinct statuses; the U.S. is a white supremacist country, among other things. "blue" pundits and politicians constantly putting their thumbs on the scale. (In spite of that I'm still a dem, will vote for Biden, because the "reds" are worse.)
ReplyDeleteThe supposed nonsense on the left is never like this ridiculousness.
DeleteThings that are held to be true by the leftare ridiculous to Somerby yet he claims to be liberal? He can’t have it both ways.
Delete"He can’t have it both ways."
DeleteWhy not?
If you feel liberals don't have freedom of expression and can't challenge prevailing beliefs then you're the fucking right winger.
DeleteNo, Anonymouse 3:40 pm, she’s a militant leftist. Conservatives have challenged each other to the point of the party being in chaos. And the Cheneys, Bushes, McConnells, Romneys, who are good friends with the Obamas, Clintons, and Bidens (there’s nothing wrong with that) )were the f’in right-wingers to you then.
Delete3:40 pm seems to have disappeared appeared.
DeleteOops, I was addressing anonymouse 3:30pm and added 10 minutes to her post.
DeleteLiberals are free to express the latest directive of the liberal politburo.
DeleteThose people are still right wing conservatives. No one thinks they've become Democrats, Cecelia. They are just slightly more sane than Trump followers.
DeleteThose claims are supported by evidence, unless you offer a coherent counterpoint, you are just spewing hate.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:06 pm, no one suggested otherwise.
DeleteCC 4:13 - I don’t know that I would agree that Repubs have challenged each other. Liz Cheney, on the insurrection, yes, but you see what happens when Repubs make any serious challenge to party orthodoxy. Don’t confuse mere power struggles with ideological challenges.
DeleteThat was me - I forgot to put in my nym.
DeleteAll-time best/ worst (?) example of "dems going off the rails" is when hey say Trump is the worst President ever! As is Ronald Reagan was never the President of the United States of America.
DeleteHow do you take that seriously?
As Bob points out, the slippery slope is perhaps the dumbest of all pseudo-logical structures......except that it sometimes works out. When people started tearing down statues of Southern Civil War heroes, some conservative (Trump?) predicted that it would lead to tearing down statues of other historic figures, like George Washington. That sounded crazy. George Washington is the most important figure in American History. He's called the Father of our Country. Yet, there is indeed a move remove statues of Washington because he owned slaves.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to speculate on how the slippery slope might extend gay marriage. Bear in mind that nobody can know the future. Regardless of what side you're on, we are all speculating. Here are a couple of my speculations
ReplyDelete-- Marriage between close relatives who are beyond child-bearing age. Why shouldn't siblings marry if they're not going to have children? Or, parent and child?
-- Group marriage. A marriage consisting of any number of people of varying genders. Sex between any pair of them, or groups sex between any subset of them, would be OK. Several of Robert Heinlein's late science fiction novels portray such a structure. He makes it sound appealing.
BTW I don't see this speculation as an argument against gay marriage. These two possibilities might work OK.
Put white-collar criminals in regular prisons, and enjoy the slippery slope of prison reform.
DeleteIt is common for elderly siblings to share a home without anyone thinking they are married.
DeleteCommunes are legal, again without marriage. Why would people in these situations, which currently exist, feel the need to change marriage laws? You left out polygamists who also exist while govt turns a blind eye, since it is illegal in the US.
Father/son, mother/daughter, sister/sister, etc. There’s no biological reason to proscribe marriages between these family members. Eventually, science may solve any genetic issues between opposite sex coupling with relatives.
DeleteWhen marriage is divorced from the grassroots…potential of procreation… between a man and a woman, there is no foundational reason to limit it.
In a society where men in drag are the only people allowed to define womanhood, it is far and away more likely that you’ll be limited as to what you can say about sex, rather than in the act of having it.
I see Cecelia is a supporter of the new speaker of the house. Please don’t tell a right winger to try to be understanding and empathetic to a liberal. It only works the other way here at the Howler.
DeleteAnonymouse 3:06pm, so which of your family member/s do you wish to marry?
DeleteOtherwise, it’s not a question of empathy.
IMO the speaker's views on gay marriage are irrelevant, because he will not be involved in setting marriage standards. The only reason to bring up this issue is to smear him.
DeleteTelling the truth is not smearing.
DeleteMike Johnson has many screwball opinions that make him an extremist, beyond normal Republican views. This one about marrying pets is getting attention because it is funny, but Johnson's views on abortion and not funny, nor are his beliefs about Christian Nationalism.
DeleteFor the vast majority of human existence (we have been around for ~100-300k years), marriage was not a thing. It’s an infantilizing custom, with roots in patriarchy, that is increasingly seen as outdated and irrelevant.
DeleteLaws about marrying close relatives or multiple people are there to protect individuals in those circumstances, the associated potential for psychological trauma, they are not there to protect some arbitrary notions about a man and a woman.
Leading psychologists explain that right wingers are stuck in survival mode which makes them feel constantly under threat and inhibits their ability to be rational.
Anonymouse 5:47pm, actually, it’s only been in the last ten years that marriage laws weren’t there to affirm “arbitrary notions about a man and a woman.”
DeleteSo you’re saying the entire country, including a slew of Democrats, was a nuthouse full of traumatized right- wingers until 2015, and you’re striking out at the arbitrary laws of Mother Nature.
We don’t know if there was or there was not marriage in the pre-agricultural past.
DeleteCecelia, read something about the history of marriage. Until very recently (and only in some cultures) marriages were contractual agreements between families intended to acquire property and cement political alliances between allies or adversaries, for financial gain and to ensure inheritance, even among lower classes. Children supplied labor and cared for elderly parents. Only progeny had anything to do with “a man and a woman”. Older men often married much younger women to care for previous children after first and second wives died in child birth or of disease. Nothing romantic involved in such transactions.
DeleteMarriage is about social status and property. It seems unlikely it would exist in communal societies without land ownership.
DeleteAnonymices, when did I argue that marriage was strictly a romantic arrangement, rather than a pragmatic one based upon biological realities?
DeletePragmatic realities that you now liken to some form of mass delusion, or better yet, emotional trauma from right wing bustles.
What do you mean by biological realities when marriage is a social and legal contract?
Deletebustles?
Delete“It’s an infantilizing custom, with roots in patriarchy, that is increasingly seen as outdated and irrelevant.”
DeleteBustles.
Mike Johnson is a bigot, hiding behind the Bible. Ask him about 1 Timothy 6:10, and why he isn't wearing rags.
Delete@1:23 It is no coincidence that you are smearing Timothy Johnson. You are being manipulated by the Democrats.
DeleteDemocrats make Speaker Mike Johnson their new 2024 boogeyman
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4279889-mike-johnson-2024-democrats-election-denier-abortion/?email=1dc0f604d6ab88d20efffbbd1b38eeb916a04d1a&emaila=07a4186ac5d26fad1c6581612060e28d&emailb=c57d4264faeaea1b09f344077a5d8ffc074db54db7d7d9333b9ecf34b53b61f2&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=10.29.23%20RNS-Johnson
11:47,
DeleteIt's no coincidence that Mike Johnson takes the Bible literally, but doesn't believe money is the root of all evil, since that quote doesn't excuse his bigotry. Which is the real role of the Bible in Mike Johnson's life.
See “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them” by Al Franken. Just because O’Reilly and Gore/Somerby had a non-aggression pact doesn’t mean it was right for Somerby to give O’Reilly a bye (in Somerby’s own words). Somerby clearly puts political considerations over truth, which makes him unreliable.
ReplyDeleteAnonymouse 2:41pm, no, Somerby clearly put his own experience with Bill O’Reilly over any partisan political considerations.
DeleteIt seems pretty clear that Somerby was supporting Gore out of friendship and loyalty, not principle, and that he eased up on O'Reilly because O'Reilly invited Somerby on his show multiple times (which involves payment) and because O'Reilly went easy on Gore. That is a right wing connection, not a principled political position.
DeleteI guess “It seems pretty clear” means “I just made this shit up.”
DeleteDogface, read Somerby's essay down to the end. He admits what I just said about him. But also read Franken's book, which talks about O'Reilly and explains why no liberal would cosy up to him as Somerby did.
Delete"THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2015
O’Reilly gets a pass: Here at THE HOWLER, we have a bit of a cultural soft spot for Bill O’Reilly.
(Full disclosure. Years ago, we chatted with Bill on the phone. He called us, of course.)"
Friday, April 29, 2016, we see Somerby giving O'Reilly a pass, when he says:
"Bill O'Reilly can be crazy too, but he doesn't rise to the level of Hannity, or to the level of the Matthews who did so much harm by running errands for his corporate owner, Jack Welch. "
He does this while trashing Rachel Maddow at length.
And, of course, he does it today explicitly, explaining that O'Reilly is OK with him because he appeared on his show and because he went easy on Gore when other Republican cable hosts were doing their job of smearing the Democratic candidate at every opportunity.
But isn't this the kind of cosy relationship that Somerby has deplored -- where personaliies take precedence over news? How does one trust O'Reilly or Somerby after hearing that they play favorites based on personal friendship and favors (Somerby did some kind of favor to O'Reilly by appearing as a supposedly liberal standup on Fox News).
This may be the time period when O'Reilly called in his favor, since this is also when Somerby began noticeably shilling for the right wing in his daily columns. Did O'Reilly perhaps suggest Somerby's name to some deep money donor or PAC? Or does Somerby have other friends who also didn't trash Gore? Maybe Trump himself was always friendly to Gore?
DeleteDid Gore and Somerby have a Thoreau-Emerson type relationship in college and does that account for Somerby's inability to be objective about his college friend?
Rachel Maddow has been a left wing MVP since she started on MSNBC. Somerby's repeated attempts to take her down could be considered part of his effort to help Trump get elected, not just personal animosity toward Maddow or general misogyny, although his attacks on her are pretty sexist.
DeleteFor example, Somerby has always complained about Maddow's high salary, but at her peak she was making $20 million per hear while Tucker Carlson was being paid $27 million. And Somerby keeps saying there is no gender pay gap!
per year
Delete5:25 - So Somerby gives O’Reilly a “pass” by explicitly calling O’Reilly “crazy.” I think you might deserve the same pass.
DeleteHe called him "not as crazy as..."
DeleteSomerby never directly says anything. That gives him and you whatever leeway you need to deny everything. Another way to approach this is to count how many times Somerby trashes O'Reilly. Hint: none.
Anonymouse 5:02pm, how is supporting a friend that you strongly admire not a principled position? Why do assume that Somerby doesn’t really think that Gore was the best candidate for the job, when Somerby has never ever hinted at that?
DeleteBob went where he was invited. He defended Gore.He appreciates the fair handed treatment from O’Reilly.Bob voiced that sentiment despite his politics or the politics of anyone else.
That is what twists the innards of a complete apparatchik like yourself.
Anonymouse 6;08pm, when you're very hungry and your sister serves you cold oatmeal, you’re mad as hell.
DeleteWhen a stranger does the same, you’re grateful.
???
DeleteIt is strange that a supposed liberal would call all of the presidential candidates in 2019 “horrible”. But it makes sense if Somerby’s main source of liberal cred is support for his college friend, not an ideological commitment to liberal views. O’Reilly is a political operative like Hannity and Tucker and others at Fox. As Franken describes, O’Reilly is no better than the others. Somerby rewards O’Reilly for going easy on Gore, by going easy on O’Reilly. That is not a principled stand but tit for tat, a transactional agreement. Trump is the same way, rejectimg Emer because Emer didn’t support him, not because of his views or voting record.
DeleteSomerby behaved similarly with Roseanne Barr, defending her because she was nice to him in the past.
Anonymouse 7:40pm, then how was it in O’Reilly’s interest to be fair-minded with Gore, rather than to say all the things that anonymices have said about Gore today AND hype Bush?
DeleteYou have an agenda here that is as vivid as fireworks and makes you dull as dirt.
Somerby went on O’Reilly’s show 5 times. Then, oddly, in 2015 Somerby began promoting right wing talking points here and he is still doing it. Liberals don’t go on Fox, because they aren’t treated well and tend to be cannon fodder in the culture war.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:14pm, and cannon fodder is what Somerby describes Gore as being.
DeleteBob says Gore was cannon fodder, except at O’Reilly’s, but a nod to that one guy makes Somerby a lapsed liberal, rather than Gore’s treatment at the hands of the rest of the media, making Bob a cynic of the whole industry.
A mensch you are not.
No, Somerby did not say that and it is far from true.
DeleteSomerby is no liberal.
You really shouldn’t keep borrowing Yiddish if you are not Jewish. I find it offensive when you don’t smear people in your own language.
Anonymouse 9:01pm, I’ll stop offending you by using Yiddish when you stop being offensive by nature.
DeleteYou don’t belong here. You are here harassing liberals, aka trolling.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:16pm, have you been banned from here?
DeleteMe neither,
I was banned. That’s why I don’t comment under my old nym anymore.
Delete“Mensch” is a German word. Gentiles are allowed to use it.
DeleteAnonymouse 11:16pm, so who is the troll?
DeleteYou and David are trolls.
DeleteAnonymouse 6:49am, the anonymouse 11:16am claims to have been banned, but is posting here anyway.
DeleteIf Bob bans me I’m not coming back under any name or under no name.
Banning means that the person who owns the blog wants you gone. To come back anyway is the essence of trolling.
Mike Spence has “suspended” his campaign. I am Corby.
ReplyDeleteCorby would spell Pence's name right.
DeleteYou caught me. I’m not really Corby. Anyhow, Mike Pence has “suspended” — really ended — his campaign.
DeleteDavid and Cecelia, will you marry me? I want you both. And I’ll make both of you happy. I am not Corby.
ReplyDeleteAnonymouse 4:21pm, with the right engagement ring.
DeleteAll right, Dave. Will you make it three?
DeleteAnonymouse 4:42pm, he’s currently doing the benefit vs risk analysis.
DeleteDavid is free to marry Lizzie Skurnick because she is not his cousin, even though he tried to lie about it.
DeleteSince Cecelia pretends to be a woman, unless David is ok with gay marriage, it’s not going to work.
Anonymouse 5:53pm, no we’re not going to let you in on this gig.
DeleteHow exactly can you stop anyone here from saying whatever they want?
DeleteAnonymouse 6:00pm, I meant the three-way. sheesh…
DeleteWhy does kinky sex seem to fascinate conservatives like this?
DeleteI anonymouse 7:57pm, why are so many anonymices utterly tone deaf to jokes.
DeleteYour idea of what is funny may not be shared by others hrre, including David who has ignored you.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:19pm, no your militancy has left you deaf, not merely disapproving. Deaf and “dumb”.
DeleteYou aren’t cute or funny in what you write here.
DeleteHow would you know? You’re clueless.
DeleteCecelia is very cute. I impersonate Corby.
DeleteLet's face it. This whole "three-way marriage' talk is way too much consent for a real Right-winger.
DeleteGive yourself 1000 points for realizing Cecelia isn't a real Right-winger. And roll again.
Subtract 20 IQ points from anyone who lets anonymouse 1:29am define what’s “real”.
DeleteOne of my favorite things about Cecelia is how upset she gets when reminded that a bunch of Right-wing snowflakes threw a public temper tantrum at the U.S. Capitol, just because black people's votes counted in the 2020 Presidential election.
DeleteOne of my favorite things about other TDH posters is they constantly remind Cecelia that a bunch of Right-wing snowflakes threw a public temper tantrum at the U.S. Capitol, just because black people's votes counted in the 2020 Presidential election.
Anonymouse flying monkey 2:04pm, this is all for you.
DeleteOh, my God! !!! Nooooooo!!!!!! Not 1/6!!!!
Cigarette?
Somerby is never quite honest about why Al Gore lost to Bush. He pretends it is because the press mocked him, but Gore contributed to his own defeat in major ways. I disliked him myself until he produced An Inconvenient Truth. If he had talked about that during his campaign, I would have been more enthusiastic about voting for him (I did vote for him but holding my nose).
ReplyDeleteWorst for me was Gore's sanctimonious religiosity that led to his attack on song lyrics in rock music. I disliked Tipper intensely and Gore gave her free rein to carry on her religion-based campaign. Joe Lieberman was the wrong VP choice. Gore ran away from Clinton's successful terms and he had his own fundraising scandals. No one cared about his suit buttons (as Somerby pretends) but Somerby never talked about Gore's other liabilities. In contrast, Bush was an effective politician who lied about his political positions to present himself as a centrist when he was not. That made it appear that there was little difference between Bush and Gore when Bush was way more conservative and had an agenda over what he considered to be an unfinished war in Iraq. Gore never held him accountable for his various campaign lies.
Jesus loveth you, Corby. You are forgiven, for you know not what you do.
Delete5:15 spot on.
DeleteGore’s fundraising scandals were baloney.
DeleteIMO the media were balanced between Gore and Bush. But, that was a blow to Gore, because the media normally was biased against Republicans.
DeleteYup, Dave. The corporations, who own the media, secretly hate the tax breaks they get from Republicans.
DeleteNow ask me to pull your other finger.
@1:33 You make the mistake of relying on theory rather than actual results. You make a case that media ought to favor Republicans. But, to see actual results, compare the enormous media coverage of the supposed Trump-Russia collusion, which was completely fake vs. the non-coverage of Hunter Biden's laptop, which was completely true.
DeleteThis same error is typical of liberals. They pass laws that in theory help blacks, even though the actual result is a continuation of black poverty and ghettos.
I'll remind you, yet again, that the mainstream, corporate-owned media had to make-up Russiagate to cover-up the fact that Trump won the 2016 Presidential election due to Republican voters being jacked-up over his bigotry.
DeleteI am Corby. Really. I’m not lying.
ReplyDeleteYou are obviously lying.
DeleteCorby would have written four paragraphs defining “lie” and “liar” by using Bob as an example. Three more paragraphs on how all of it means that the left is incapable of lying. And three more on how her bridge partners suck.
I don’t recall the bridge playing commenter ever saying anything mean about partners. Or saying he or she was Corby.
DeleteAnonymouse 7:56pm, one of the mythical people who leads the bridge club is a mythical conservative who says things that indicate their conservatity psychology.
DeleteIt’s like Aesop’s Fables for anonymices.
Everything on the internet except cites to external sources is mythical.
DeleteAnecdotal is the better word in this case.
DeleteAnecdotes can be true. Myths are not.
DeleteI wasn’t lying, I was joking. Epistemically, I’m not Corby. Mythically, I am Corby.
DeleteAnonymous 10:12pm, me too with the joking.
DeleteJohnson already believes homosexuality is deviant. His rhetoric about marrying pets is not really a slippery slope argument. He believes that the two are equally deviant. He is equating marrying pets with gay marriage, thereby ridiculing gay marriage. Got it, Bob?
ReplyDeleteWhat do we do to people who believe homosexuality is deviant? Asking for Christianity and Islam.
DeleteLook up the word deviant. The law of the land is not deviant by definition. Those who attack homosexuals are the deviants. No one is being forced to engage in homosexual sex against their will, so Christianity and Islam are safe.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:09pm, so the law of the land wasn’t deviant when it made same sex sex a crime? But it was deviant when it specifically defined marriage in a way that protected women and children.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt was wrong, unjust, but deviant is the wrong word.
DeleteI’m a bit more concerned about what extremist religions do to homosexuals, Cecelia. Your question is nonsense, because nothing is “done” here in the US to anti-gay people. They are merely asked to allow homosexuals to have certain rights in the public sphere.
DeleteExamples from Islam:
SAUDI ARABIA
The Wahabbi interpretation of Sharia law in Saudi Arabia maintains that acts of homosexuality should be disciplined in the same way as adultery - with death by stoning.
IRAN
Homosexuality is illegal in Iran and carries severe punishment under the country's Islamic penal code. Consensual same-sex sexual activity is considered a crime, and those convicted can face imprisonment, flogging, and even the death penalty.
YEMEN
In Yemen, homosexuality is illegal and is punishable by imprisonment for up to three years.
Etc…
Your new speaker of the house wanted to criminalize homosexuality, or should I say recriminalize.
So GFY.
mh, you’re confusing the traditional definition of marriage as being the criminalization of homosexuality, rather than an institution based upon biological imperatives.
DeleteGood will in the public sphere would be the right to defend that concept without being likened to haters for anything less complete capitulation to your “request”.
Johnson is deviant.
DeleteAre you unaware that certain sex acts were illegal regardless of who performed them?
DeleteAnonymous 10:14pm, it has all hinged around procreation.
DeleteThat’s silly and shows no understanding of what people are like. 70 year olds can’t marry because they can’t procreate, similarly people who don’t want kids or can’t have them? Marriage is for those who want to share their lives with legal protections.
Deletemh - I don't agree with your logic. You seem to be criticizing some version of Christianity by providing examples of bad laws in Islamic countries. Your labeling of all of them as "extreme" doesn't mean that bad Islamic law proves that some Christian law is also bad. IMO many liberals have extreme views on key items, but of course that doesn't mean that any liberals haves wrong views on dealing with gay people.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:54pm, you should add that you’re speaking only for yourself. Men in their 70s have procreated.
DeleteThe potentially of procreation and the aftermath is the thing that has been protected.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLet me get this straight, Cecelia. Your main concern is that you don’t want to be called a “hater”. First of all, note that I never accused you or Johnson of being a hater. So, it’s interesting that that springs unprompted to your mind.
DeleteNow, you do not say whether you would approve of Johnson’s expressed desire to criminalize homosexual acts. I assume you disapprove of Obergefell and want to see it overturned. In the case of Johnson, he wants to prohibit gay people from expressing their gayness by having gay sex. I would call that anti-gay, because you can’t say “I’m not anti-gay” if you prohibit an important avenue for expressing gayness. In what way is Johnson not a homophobe?
I think gay marriage should be legal and I don’t give a crap whether you approve or not, or whether your feelings get hurt if someone calls you a homophobe.
David, homosexuality was punished by hard labor in the Christian country of England, and was only decriminalized in 1967:
Delete“Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 made ‘gross indecency’ between men a crime for the first time with a punishment of imprisonment of at least two years with or without hard labour.
Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing were amongst the many convicted under Section 11.”
I was giving examples from Islam because Cecelia mentioned both Christianity and Islam in the same sentence, and asked for some sympathy for practicants of those religions who find gay sex and/or homosexuality to be deviant. I can find no sympathy for religious beliefs that impose harsh sentences for homosexuality.
You can do your own research into the history of anti-gay laws here and abroad.
Cecelia,
DeleteWhat do we do abut Speakers of the House, who believe money is the root of all evil? Let them ignore that part of the Bible, and just focus on the parts that excuse their bigotry?
mh, since when is my main concern being called a hater? That is the general designation of anyone who doesn’t think precisely as liberals do. No one on the planet looses sleep over that.
DeleteI don’t think homosexuality should be criminalized. I mentioned religious people because you seem dismiss whole segments of people who don’t think like you.
I think religious organizations should have the right to not accept gays into their fellowships. The same goes with straights who shack up, and other behavior, sexual and otherwise, that is against their tenets. If you have a problem with that, lobby against the tax structure for religious institutions, etc.
I think marriage sprang out of procreation. Yes, there were other sorts of factors involved and not all families are/were nuclear., but the potentiality of children is the core of the institution. If you separate marriage from that core, then you have no framework, other than the ability to consent. Then marriage is not just straight or gay couples, it becomes any group of people who wish to be married. That is not a slippery slope argument. THAT will happen. I don’t believe such arrangements are in the interest of kids. I don’t care if your mileage varies.
I think society has the right to reject such arrangements, as we have polygamy and bigamy. People should always be held accountable as to parentage, they can certainly enter into any sort of contracts, financial or otherwise. Other than that, there should be nothing formal in arrangements that are not between a man and a woman.
Anonymouse 1:36am, you don’t have to ignore anything or anybody. You do have to live under elected leaders that you do not support.
DeleteAt least, you should know that. I know that I have to live under them.
Someone who "thinks differently" shouldn't have the right to dictate personal behavior to other people based on a book of myths called the Bible (or their own whimsy). If they make a law that you can't drink alcohol in your own home, will you care then?
DeleteMarriage didn't spring out of procreation. Early people didn't know where babies came from. Why would they connect a sex act 9 months earlier with a birth?
DeleteAnonymouse 10:15am, no one is dictating your personal behavior.
DeleteNot a rodent, good one!
DeleteYou have a point, MH. However, there's quite a difference between Christians' harsh anti-gay laws of 60 years ago vs. Moslems' anti-gay laws today and tomorrow.
DeleteWhen remote tribes were first contacted, they already knew that sex causes pregnancy. This may have been known even before the emergence of Homo sapiens.
Delete@10:14 - Drink!
DeleteCertain sex acts are illegal in all jurisdictions. I will not name those sex acts.
ReplyDeleteAnonymouse 10:30, if it doesn’t involve pasta, I’m not interested anyway,
Deleteha ha ha, the restrictions other people suffer under don't matter to you at all because YOU aren't gay (supposedly) -- not interested in the problems of others is a perfect description of lack of empathy
Deletemeanwhile are you interested in the half million people in Acapulco who have no food or water or disaster relief at all? you should be, since they may be coming here where there are rumors that water is freely available in devices called water fountains!
Actually, I m marginally concerned about you. You’re sounding more unhinged by the day.
Deletetoo late to pretend even marginal empathy
DeleteAnonymouse 11:55am, who claimed empathy for you. I’m concerned because you’re increasingly unhinged.
DeleteThe president's approval ratings have seen another notable decline. In recent data, Biden's endorsement among Democrats fell by 11 points in a month, marking a low point in his presidency. Currently, his overall approval stands at 37%. It's clear the political landscape is shifting.
ReplyDeleteThat 4.9% jump in GDP is putting more money in the hands of the citizenry. Corporations, who are people too, my friend, are not going to sit idly by and let labor win.
Delete(continued)
Deleteexpect a big jump in the prime rate, to throttle the economy, and reduce leverage workers have over capital.
Most Americans are poorer than they were when Biden took office. Earnings have not kept up with inflation, especially when you include food and energy. (The announced inflation figure generally excludes food and energy.) That's one reason he's unpopular.
DeleteA second reason is that Biden is not a good orator. FDR had a far worse economic situation, but his talks united the country behind his efforts. History shows that FDR's constant meddling was counter-productive, but his radio addresses made him super-popular at the time.
David in Cal,
DeleteA 4.9% GDP increase, and a tumbling inflation rate will not help Biden gain one Republican voter. If Biden wants to pull Republican voters, he's going to have to step-up his bigotry against marginalized people. (i.e. give those voters a reason to vote for him).
12:57,
DeletePerhaps now is the time to combat inflation through virtue-signaling (i.e. thoughts and prayers).
Data to support that wages have not kept up with inflation are forthcoming, I am sure, since the opposite has been reported.
DeleteHere you go, @4:21
DeleteInflation: Most Workers Say Wages Haven’t Kept Pace
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/inflation_most_workers_say_wages_haven_t_kept_pace
ReplyDelete@mh,
so, Mr McCarthy, the speaker without any discernible attitude towards buggery, is removed with a unanimous vote from your buggery-loving party. Consequently, Mr Johnson, with unequivocally negative attitude towards buggery, is installed as the speaker.
You anger is understandable, but why wouldn't you direct your outrage where it belongs?
Outraged? Not me. Quit assuming things. I am merely pointing out, with sadness, the inevitable and highly predictable descent of the Republican Party into depravity.
DeleteAs to assigning blame for the Republican mess, you might not be aware that a single Republican house member (Gaetz in this case) was able, by virtue of an agreement that dumb-as-dirt McCarthy reached with the MAGA group, to force a vote on the speaker. The Republicans had enough votes numerically to keep McCarthy in office, but 8 of them chose to vote against him. If you believe that, had the Democrats voted with the other Republicans to keep McCarthy, Gaetz would not have forced another speaker vote the very next day, then you are deluded.
Hmm. It's not that I don't trust your judgement necessarily, but why didn't they try to vote for McCarthy, and see what happens?
DeleteThat would be interesting.
If I may suggest an alternative version of events: they simply wanted to create more infighting on the other side. Perhaps it's somewhat similar to Clinton's ratfuckers helping Trump in 2016. And perhaps your swamp creatures are getting exactly what they deserve.
Well, people, this is what you get when you give Republicans a majority in the House.
ReplyDeleteI am Corby.
ReplyDeleteYou are adorable.
DeleteAdore:
Deletehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5LQCz7y5Ht0&pp=ygUSYWRvcmUgY2hyaXMgdG9tbGlu
Let's vote Corby off the island.
ReplyDeletePlease accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, Corby. I beg you...
ReplyDeleteFor those interested in how Mike Johnson will actually lead, here are the seven principles he says he will follow:
ReplyDeleteIndividual freedom,
Limited government
The rule of law
Peace through strength
Fiscal Responsibility
Free Markets
Human dignity
maga Johnson's first act was to unilaterally decide to decouple aid for Ukraine and move a stand-alone Israeli funding bill. Why do you guys want to help Putin so much? Does that come under the heading of individual freedom?
DeleteWith individual freedom, can I withhold my money from Israel?
DeleteOne assumes, given this thread, David in Ca considers Gay Marriage an affront to human dignity.
Delete@6:04 Where did you get that idea from? I don't think I ever wrote that.
DeleteWe would have to go back and take a deep dive,
ReplyDeleteDogface, but a few things should be remembered. If O”Reilly was more fair to Gore
than Matthews, it’s in part because Hardball was
virtually W Campaign Headquarters in that period, which is to say, it wasn’t difficult.
Also, O”Reilly demanded an investigation of Gore because he made a campaign related phone call from the White House and implied Janet Reno was corrupt for not doing so. Hard to believe the Republicans, who made a huge deal about this, would one day hold their fucking Convention at the White House( with zero push back from anyone including Bob) , but quite true.
The sex with animals/gay marriage thing was pretty standard Republican fare and was pushed by supposedly respectable right wingers like George Will.
Isn’t it curious that while we have let the people who say abortion is murder win the day we fear not the a woman who has had an abortion might be sent to death row. This seems quite the slippery slope…
ReplyDelete