I nominate Steve Deace's "The intolerant same-sex lobby" for Stupidest Column of the Year (and it's only March)
It may only be March, but conservative talk show host Steve Deace is already trying to earn himself the award for Stupidest Column of the Year with a "piece" that was published in The Washington Times yesterday, entitled, "The intolerant same-sex lobby - Leftist media shills should examine their own rigid views."
Since I found this article to be so incredibly, for lack of a better word - stupid, I'll dissect it paragraph by paragraph. Let's begin...
Deace starts his I-woke-up-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-bed-with-a-hangover-after-dreaming-about-having-intercourse-with-a-guy-on-MSNBC rant with this:
"Remember when 'liberal' meant 'tolerant' or 'open-minded'?"
Yes, those were the days... What are you driving at, Douchey? ...I mean, Deucey?
"Nowadays, the perpetually offended have decided they don't have to debate, and they're so convinced that their own intellectual flatulence doesn't stink, they don't even bother with critical thinking anymore."
"Intellectual flatulence"? Speaking of smelling funny and not bothering with critical thinking...
"Those who most sanctimoniously cry 'tolerance' in the public square appear to have a zero-tolerance policy for anything other than their own propaganda."
Yet he's spent the first three paragraphs doing nothing but showcasing a lack of tolerance for the allegedly intolerant "liberals" and spreading conservative propaganda. Fascinating...
"The inconvenient truth has been on display during the NFL's annual scouting combine, which invites top college prospects to show off their skills in front of every pro football scout on the planet."
Okay, now you're finally getting somewhere. ...or are you? At this point, I'm uncertain of what to expect. It'd be like sitting through the first 20 minutes of a movie and wondering to myself, "Is this movie going to go anywhere or should I just leave?" Yes, it's THAT gripping!
"Careers are made and broken at this event every year, and given the underwhelming performance of a certain prospect from the University of Missouri, his draft status could be in jeopardy."
Their place kicker? Punter? 3rd-string tight end? The suspense is killing me to think he could be referring to anyone but Michael Sam!
"Except this isn't just any pro prospect. This is Michael Sam. The leftist media's latest contrived attempt to distract the American people from the daily failures of the president who they cover for daily. Mr. Sam generated headlines from shills and wannabes who just couldn't get enough of the first 'openly gay football player.'"
Exactly... What happened was President Obama called Michael Sam (they go way back), and told him, "Dude, things aren't going great in Washington. Would you mind coming out of the closet for me to detract attention from this city's failures? Please? I'll tweet that I'm in full support of you. Pretty please? Really?!? Thanks a bunch! I really can't thank you enough! This is going to solve all of this country's problems!"
"Of course, these are the same people that have been trying to kill football the past two years because it's too dangerous. Now they can't wait to rally around the rainbow flag. And they wonder why their credibility is about as low as that of Congress."
Right... They're trying to decrease the number of concussions in the league and the long-term health problems many former NFL players have faced through the years. This means they can't support the first potential openly gay NFL player. It's just like it'd be wrong for these same people to simultaneously support openly gay people serving in the military and also equipping soldiers properly so there's less chance of them suffering debilitating, possibly crippling, life-altering injuries...
"Not to be outdone, a flailing president who seemingly has no time to give answers to the families of four dead Americans at Benghazi, or the millions he broke a promise to that they could keep their current health insurance if they liked it, couldn't wait to jump on Mr. Sam's bandwagon."
Congratulations, Mr. Douchey! You've just been awarded a prize from Fox News for connecting Michael Sam's coming out of the closet to Benghazi! Enjoy your lifetime supply of Nutty Bars!
"This is the same president who said if he had a son he wouldn't let him play a dangerous sport such as football. Mr. Obama cares about Mr. Sam so much he wants him to risk life and limb playing football. With friends like that, who needs fundamentalist Christians?"
It appears as if Mr. Douchey is beginning to sway further and further into crazy town. Mr. Douchey - are you a father? Do you have any sons or daughters? Are there certain professions or hobbies you kind of wish they'd stray away from? Do you have a friend or family member who may have a rather risky job or enjoy a risky hobby? Do you secretly worry about them, yet support them? If you answered 'yes' to these questions, you may be partially human after all. If not, then I don't know what to tell you.
"As the media fawned and genuflected to Mr. Sam simply because he's another star homosexual athlete, there was no time for serious questions about what this paradigm change means for the NFL or American culture at large. No time for debate. No time for difference of opinion."
"Another star homosexual athlete"? How many "star homosexual athletes" could you name in the three biggest sports in this country (football, baseball, and basketball)? Athletes that are currently playing their respective sports? Jason Collins (who was just recently signed to a second 10-day contract), Michael Sam (who has yet to play in the NFL), and... I know - the list is longer than a Buddhist monk's Christmas list...
"The left's favorite tactic when it can't win a debate is just to say the debate is over. However, if a debate is over, should there still be so many unanswered questions?"
Well, that depends on the debate. If I sit here and say 2 + 2 = 4, and you, Mr. Douchey, tell me 2 + 2 = 7, I think I'll be able to confidently state that the debate is indeed over, and walk away shaking my head and mumbling a few things...
"Questions such as: Presumably, we segregate men's and women's restrooms and shower facilities in most walks of life because it's uncomfortable doing the activities necessary in each venue with a member of the opposite sex present."
Oh, boy... Okay - go on... ::cringes::
"When someone says they are same-sex-attracted, why doesn't the same principle apply? If you don't mind your son showering after practice or a game with a same-sex-attracted male, then shouldn't it also be OK if your daughter showers afterward with males attracted to her?"
Gender isn't the same thing as sexual orientation, and there are more orientations than just homosexual and heterosexual. Do you really want to travel down this road, Mr. Douchey? Would we then need to have restrooms separating heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders, asexuals, etc.? What about private schools? Would an all-girls school only include heterosexual girls as well as homosexual guys? Perhaps this is why some liberals refuse to hear you out on all your questions, Mr. Douchey - because this question is beyond ridiculous.
"If the answer is that other players should feel comfortable with Mr. Sam because he's still naturally a man, and I agree that he is, because gender comes from the Creator or natural selection and not by the outward expression of our desires, how does that not contradict all the left's LGBTQ propaganda here?"
Psst... Gender comes from the "creators" alright - your parents doing the horizontal mambo. Unless Jesus goes door-to-door like Santa Claus every year, only he spends his time spreading his special Jesus juice to every woman, gender doesn't come from this "Creator."
"The propaganda says desire and behavior shape gender, thus someone can be 'transgendered' or suffer from a confused 'gender identity' depending on how they feel."
Say what? I'm not sure what LGBTQ propaganda he's been reading. Chances are, the material he read was a Fox News article, entitled, "Transgendered People Are Kind Of Weird, Aren't They? I Mean - Eww." LGBT enthusiasts tend to believe genetics are the strongest factor with regard to both orientation and (trans)gender. Nice try, though...
"If Mr. Sam's gender is absolute, meaning he's still a man no matter who or what he's attracted to, that undermines the entire premise of this narrative. If Mr. Sam is still just another man, why is his sexual behavior with consenting adults any more news than the out-of-wedlock conquests of so many other players?"
As a white, Christian, heterosexual man, I can understand why Mr. Douchey has some difficulty in empathizing with people like Michael Sam. However, here he just comes across as flat out ignorant. Remember how women and African-Americans fought for equal rights in this country (and continue fighting for them today)? Muslims? Other minorities? Homosexuals have been striving for equality as well. The more people that come out of the closet, the greater the acceptance, because while it may be easy to disapprove of and "hate" someone you don't know, it's extremely difficult to have such feelings regarding a person close to you. If Michael Sam plays in the NFL, he will be the first openly gay player to step on the field and play professional football - the first. As Ron Burgundy might say, "That's kind of a big deal."
"Are media personalities with a Christian worldview going to be allowed to speak about this subject with the same freedom as those that don't have one?"
The freedom? In all likelihood, yes. The acceptance? That's another story entirely. With the increasing approval of gay rights in this country (a majority), chances are there will be more criticism of media personalities whom speak out against Michael Sam and other gay athletes than there will be of those whom applaud him (them). The further we move along in this country, the more outnumbered gay critics will be. This doesn't mean they shouldn't have the freedom to believe what they so wish, but they should also know that gay supporters have the freedom to let their views be known as well...
"Is the NFL Network telling Kurt Warner what he can and cannot say? What does NBC plan on doing with Tony Dungy, who has always been a staunch supporter of traditional marriage? One sports blog dogged Mr. Dungy on Twitter last year to see if his views on this issue had evolved (translation: has he stopped being a Christian?), and was disappointed when they didn't get the answer they were hoping for. Will the left now argue the first black coach to win a Super Bowl is a bigot?"
First of all, bigotry has no specific color. Regardless of a person's skin tone, he or she can be a bigot. Secondly, both Kurt Warner and Tony Dungy get paid to analyze football. If they do an interview with a magazine or newspaper and get asked about their views on gay marriage, then we'll have to await to see people's reactions. However, when they're being televised on the NFL Network and NBC, they're not typically asked about what their thoughts are on the game that's about to be played, and respond with something like this:
"Well, with Tom Brady and Bill Belichick, the New England Patriots always have a chance of winning a lot of games. Tonight should be no different - especially since they're playing at home against the Jacksonville Jaguars. By the way - can you believe that guy, Michael Sam? What a disgrace! I can't stand guys like that! Marriage should be between a man and a woman! Period! Alright - so, what were we talking about again? Oh yeah - the Patriots should win by at least three scores."
"Doesn't the very liberal first lady of New York City prove this entire argument is a scam? The New York Daily News ran the headline 'Bill de Blasio proud of his marriage with a former lesbian' in a profile of Chirline McCray in December 2012."
A scam? Cherry-picking one case out of millions proves something is a scam? Left your critical thinking cap in the safe again, didn't you, Mr. Douchey? ...and you forgot the combo again? That's what I figured...
"How is someone a 'former lesbian?' Isn't it once gay, always gay? Mrs. de Blasio also refutes to identify herself as bisexual. If she can suppress her same-sex desires in order to have a natural family, doesn't that undermine the argument we should alter public policy and shred the First Amendment to recognize people based solely on their behaviors?"
Excuse me - "shred the First Amendment"? We're "shredding the First Amendment" because it's becoming more and more difficult for Christians to preach hate and intolerance at the expense of the LGBT community? There's quite a difference between intolerance of people and being intolerant of the intolerance of people. Also, just because one person decided to "suppress her same-sex desires in order to have a natural family," that doesn't mean homosexuals shouldn't be afforded equal rights under the law. I love how Mr. Douchey started his "piece" by saying liberals don't bother with critical thinking anymore, yet he has gone on to make most Critical Thinking professors cringe by his overuse of cherry-picking. Irony sure can be a b**ch sometimes...
"Or does the leftist media and LGBTQ activists now want to call the first lady of New York a liar and say she was never really gay?"
Let's continue on with the informal fallacy tangent, Mr. Douchey. I'm sorry, but unlike you, I actually believe in critical thinking, and with that, shades of grey (not the book). Just because one homosexual decided to marry someone of the opposite sex and have a family with him or her, does nothing to disprove that homosexuality is largely genetic.
"If you're making the case we should undo the moral foundations of Western civilization and rewrite the Constitution to make way for your beliefs, shouldn't you have to answer these sorts of questions first?"
Undoing the "moral foundations of Western civilization" and rewriting the Constitution? Say what? Let's look back at our history some, and even at the Constitution... While many people don't like change, change is inevitable. "Morality" can alter with the times as well. Not too long ago, it was deemed immoral for people of different races to be involved in a romantic relationship with one another. Was allowing this to happen "undoing the moral foundations of Western civilization"? Since when is allowing two people to love one another and be joined in marriage together "undoing the moral foundations of Western civilization"? As I'm sure you've been hearing a lot of in recent months and years, you're on the wrong side of history on this issue, Mr. Douchey. ...and what about the Constitution? Because Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a bill which would have permitted professionals in the state to refuse service to homosexuals, this was an affront to Christians' Constitutional rights? If someone refused service to you because of your skin color, gender, beliefs, or sexuality, would you have had a problem with it and felt like you were a victim of prejudice, or would you have truly respected the business and felt like they were just defending their Constitutional rights? If you answer with "the latter," I'll provide you with a BS sundae to consume. I have a hunch it definitely won't be your first, and likely won't be your last.
"Does the left have any answers to these sorts of questions other than name-calling? I assume the answer will be 'no' once they start responding in the comments section to this column."
Gee, and why would that be? People like to believe that there's no such thing as a stupid question, and maybe that's true, but there certainly are stupid people whom ask questions...
"If the answer is no, then liberty-loving Americans should just say no to the left."
Allow me to translate Mr. Douchey's final line of the article:
"If the answer is no, then liberty-loving Americans, whom don't believe in equal rights for: Women, minorities, Muslims, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders - pretty much anyone other than heterosexual white Christian males - should just say no to the left."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/3/deace-the-intolerant-same-sex-lobby/?page=all#pagebreak
Since I found this article to be so incredibly, for lack of a better word - stupid, I'll dissect it paragraph by paragraph. Let's begin...
Deace starts his I-woke-up-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-bed-with-a-hangover-after-dreaming-about-having-intercourse-with-a-guy-on-MSNBC rant with this:
"Remember when 'liberal' meant 'tolerant' or 'open-minded'?"
Yes, those were the days... What are you driving at, Douchey? ...I mean, Deucey?
"Nowadays, the perpetually offended have decided they don't have to debate, and they're so convinced that their own intellectual flatulence doesn't stink, they don't even bother with critical thinking anymore."
"Intellectual flatulence"? Speaking of smelling funny and not bothering with critical thinking...
"Those who most sanctimoniously cry 'tolerance' in the public square appear to have a zero-tolerance policy for anything other than their own propaganda."
Yet he's spent the first three paragraphs doing nothing but showcasing a lack of tolerance for the allegedly intolerant "liberals" and spreading conservative propaganda. Fascinating...
"The inconvenient truth has been on display during the NFL's annual scouting combine, which invites top college prospects to show off their skills in front of every pro football scout on the planet."
Okay, now you're finally getting somewhere. ...or are you? At this point, I'm uncertain of what to expect. It'd be like sitting through the first 20 minutes of a movie and wondering to myself, "Is this movie going to go anywhere or should I just leave?" Yes, it's THAT gripping!
"Careers are made and broken at this event every year, and given the underwhelming performance of a certain prospect from the University of Missouri, his draft status could be in jeopardy."
Their place kicker? Punter? 3rd-string tight end? The suspense is killing me to think he could be referring to anyone but Michael Sam!
"Except this isn't just any pro prospect. This is Michael Sam. The leftist media's latest contrived attempt to distract the American people from the daily failures of the president who they cover for daily. Mr. Sam generated headlines from shills and wannabes who just couldn't get enough of the first 'openly gay football player.'"
Exactly... What happened was President Obama called Michael Sam (they go way back), and told him, "Dude, things aren't going great in Washington. Would you mind coming out of the closet for me to detract attention from this city's failures? Please? I'll tweet that I'm in full support of you. Pretty please? Really?!? Thanks a bunch! I really can't thank you enough! This is going to solve all of this country's problems!"
"Of course, these are the same people that have been trying to kill football the past two years because it's too dangerous. Now they can't wait to rally around the rainbow flag. And they wonder why their credibility is about as low as that of Congress."
Right... They're trying to decrease the number of concussions in the league and the long-term health problems many former NFL players have faced through the years. This means they can't support the first potential openly gay NFL player. It's just like it'd be wrong for these same people to simultaneously support openly gay people serving in the military and also equipping soldiers properly so there's less chance of them suffering debilitating, possibly crippling, life-altering injuries...
"Not to be outdone, a flailing president who seemingly has no time to give answers to the families of four dead Americans at Benghazi, or the millions he broke a promise to that they could keep their current health insurance if they liked it, couldn't wait to jump on Mr. Sam's bandwagon."
Congratulations, Mr. Douchey! You've just been awarded a prize from Fox News for connecting Michael Sam's coming out of the closet to Benghazi! Enjoy your lifetime supply of Nutty Bars!
"This is the same president who said if he had a son he wouldn't let him play a dangerous sport such as football. Mr. Obama cares about Mr. Sam so much he wants him to risk life and limb playing football. With friends like that, who needs fundamentalist Christians?"
It appears as if Mr. Douchey is beginning to sway further and further into crazy town. Mr. Douchey - are you a father? Do you have any sons or daughters? Are there certain professions or hobbies you kind of wish they'd stray away from? Do you have a friend or family member who may have a rather risky job or enjoy a risky hobby? Do you secretly worry about them, yet support them? If you answered 'yes' to these questions, you may be partially human after all. If not, then I don't know what to tell you.
"As the media fawned and genuflected to Mr. Sam simply because he's another star homosexual athlete, there was no time for serious questions about what this paradigm change means for the NFL or American culture at large. No time for debate. No time for difference of opinion."
"Another star homosexual athlete"? How many "star homosexual athletes" could you name in the three biggest sports in this country (football, baseball, and basketball)? Athletes that are currently playing their respective sports? Jason Collins (who was just recently signed to a second 10-day contract), Michael Sam (who has yet to play in the NFL), and... I know - the list is longer than a Buddhist monk's Christmas list...
"The left's favorite tactic when it can't win a debate is just to say the debate is over. However, if a debate is over, should there still be so many unanswered questions?"
Well, that depends on the debate. If I sit here and say 2 + 2 = 4, and you, Mr. Douchey, tell me 2 + 2 = 7, I think I'll be able to confidently state that the debate is indeed over, and walk away shaking my head and mumbling a few things...
"Questions such as: Presumably, we segregate men's and women's restrooms and shower facilities in most walks of life because it's uncomfortable doing the activities necessary in each venue with a member of the opposite sex present."
Oh, boy... Okay - go on... ::cringes::
"When someone says they are same-sex-attracted, why doesn't the same principle apply? If you don't mind your son showering after practice or a game with a same-sex-attracted male, then shouldn't it also be OK if your daughter showers afterward with males attracted to her?"
Gender isn't the same thing as sexual orientation, and there are more orientations than just homosexual and heterosexual. Do you really want to travel down this road, Mr. Douchey? Would we then need to have restrooms separating heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders, asexuals, etc.? What about private schools? Would an all-girls school only include heterosexual girls as well as homosexual guys? Perhaps this is why some liberals refuse to hear you out on all your questions, Mr. Douchey - because this question is beyond ridiculous.
"If the answer is that other players should feel comfortable with Mr. Sam because he's still naturally a man, and I agree that he is, because gender comes from the Creator or natural selection and not by the outward expression of our desires, how does that not contradict all the left's LGBTQ propaganda here?"
Psst... Gender comes from the "creators" alright - your parents doing the horizontal mambo. Unless Jesus goes door-to-door like Santa Claus every year, only he spends his time spreading his special Jesus juice to every woman, gender doesn't come from this "Creator."
"The propaganda says desire and behavior shape gender, thus someone can be 'transgendered' or suffer from a confused 'gender identity' depending on how they feel."
Say what? I'm not sure what LGBTQ propaganda he's been reading. Chances are, the material he read was a Fox News article, entitled, "Transgendered People Are Kind Of Weird, Aren't They? I Mean - Eww." LGBT enthusiasts tend to believe genetics are the strongest factor with regard to both orientation and (trans)gender. Nice try, though...
"If Mr. Sam's gender is absolute, meaning he's still a man no matter who or what he's attracted to, that undermines the entire premise of this narrative. If Mr. Sam is still just another man, why is his sexual behavior with consenting adults any more news than the out-of-wedlock conquests of so many other players?"
As a white, Christian, heterosexual man, I can understand why Mr. Douchey has some difficulty in empathizing with people like Michael Sam. However, here he just comes across as flat out ignorant. Remember how women and African-Americans fought for equal rights in this country (and continue fighting for them today)? Muslims? Other minorities? Homosexuals have been striving for equality as well. The more people that come out of the closet, the greater the acceptance, because while it may be easy to disapprove of and "hate" someone you don't know, it's extremely difficult to have such feelings regarding a person close to you. If Michael Sam plays in the NFL, he will be the first openly gay player to step on the field and play professional football - the first. As Ron Burgundy might say, "That's kind of a big deal."
"Are media personalities with a Christian worldview going to be allowed to speak about this subject with the same freedom as those that don't have one?"
The freedom? In all likelihood, yes. The acceptance? That's another story entirely. With the increasing approval of gay rights in this country (a majority), chances are there will be more criticism of media personalities whom speak out against Michael Sam and other gay athletes than there will be of those whom applaud him (them). The further we move along in this country, the more outnumbered gay critics will be. This doesn't mean they shouldn't have the freedom to believe what they so wish, but they should also know that gay supporters have the freedom to let their views be known as well...
"Is the NFL Network telling Kurt Warner what he can and cannot say? What does NBC plan on doing with Tony Dungy, who has always been a staunch supporter of traditional marriage? One sports blog dogged Mr. Dungy on Twitter last year to see if his views on this issue had evolved (translation: has he stopped being a Christian?), and was disappointed when they didn't get the answer they were hoping for. Will the left now argue the first black coach to win a Super Bowl is a bigot?"
First of all, bigotry has no specific color. Regardless of a person's skin tone, he or she can be a bigot. Secondly, both Kurt Warner and Tony Dungy get paid to analyze football. If they do an interview with a magazine or newspaper and get asked about their views on gay marriage, then we'll have to await to see people's reactions. However, when they're being televised on the NFL Network and NBC, they're not typically asked about what their thoughts are on the game that's about to be played, and respond with something like this:
"Well, with Tom Brady and Bill Belichick, the New England Patriots always have a chance of winning a lot of games. Tonight should be no different - especially since they're playing at home against the Jacksonville Jaguars. By the way - can you believe that guy, Michael Sam? What a disgrace! I can't stand guys like that! Marriage should be between a man and a woman! Period! Alright - so, what were we talking about again? Oh yeah - the Patriots should win by at least three scores."
"Doesn't the very liberal first lady of New York City prove this entire argument is a scam? The New York Daily News ran the headline 'Bill de Blasio proud of his marriage with a former lesbian' in a profile of Chirline McCray in December 2012."
A scam? Cherry-picking one case out of millions proves something is a scam? Left your critical thinking cap in the safe again, didn't you, Mr. Douchey? ...and you forgot the combo again? That's what I figured...
"How is someone a 'former lesbian?' Isn't it once gay, always gay? Mrs. de Blasio also refutes to identify herself as bisexual. If she can suppress her same-sex desires in order to have a natural family, doesn't that undermine the argument we should alter public policy and shred the First Amendment to recognize people based solely on their behaviors?"
Excuse me - "shred the First Amendment"? We're "shredding the First Amendment" because it's becoming more and more difficult for Christians to preach hate and intolerance at the expense of the LGBT community? There's quite a difference between intolerance of people and being intolerant of the intolerance of people. Also, just because one person decided to "suppress her same-sex desires in order to have a natural family," that doesn't mean homosexuals shouldn't be afforded equal rights under the law. I love how Mr. Douchey started his "piece" by saying liberals don't bother with critical thinking anymore, yet he has gone on to make most Critical Thinking professors cringe by his overuse of cherry-picking. Irony sure can be a b**ch sometimes...
"Or does the leftist media and LGBTQ activists now want to call the first lady of New York a liar and say she was never really gay?"
Let's continue on with the informal fallacy tangent, Mr. Douchey. I'm sorry, but unlike you, I actually believe in critical thinking, and with that, shades of grey (not the book). Just because one homosexual decided to marry someone of the opposite sex and have a family with him or her, does nothing to disprove that homosexuality is largely genetic.
"If you're making the case we should undo the moral foundations of Western civilization and rewrite the Constitution to make way for your beliefs, shouldn't you have to answer these sorts of questions first?"
Undoing the "moral foundations of Western civilization" and rewriting the Constitution? Say what? Let's look back at our history some, and even at the Constitution... While many people don't like change, change is inevitable. "Morality" can alter with the times as well. Not too long ago, it was deemed immoral for people of different races to be involved in a romantic relationship with one another. Was allowing this to happen "undoing the moral foundations of Western civilization"? Since when is allowing two people to love one another and be joined in marriage together "undoing the moral foundations of Western civilization"? As I'm sure you've been hearing a lot of in recent months and years, you're on the wrong side of history on this issue, Mr. Douchey. ...and what about the Constitution? Because Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a bill which would have permitted professionals in the state to refuse service to homosexuals, this was an affront to Christians' Constitutional rights? If someone refused service to you because of your skin color, gender, beliefs, or sexuality, would you have had a problem with it and felt like you were a victim of prejudice, or would you have truly respected the business and felt like they were just defending their Constitutional rights? If you answer with "the latter," I'll provide you with a BS sundae to consume. I have a hunch it definitely won't be your first, and likely won't be your last.
"Does the left have any answers to these sorts of questions other than name-calling? I assume the answer will be 'no' once they start responding in the comments section to this column."
Gee, and why would that be? People like to believe that there's no such thing as a stupid question, and maybe that's true, but there certainly are stupid people whom ask questions...
"If the answer is no, then liberty-loving Americans should just say no to the left."
Allow me to translate Mr. Douchey's final line of the article:
"If the answer is no, then liberty-loving Americans, whom don't believe in equal rights for: Women, minorities, Muslims, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders - pretty much anyone other than heterosexual white Christian males - should just say no to the left."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/3/deace-the-intolerant-same-sex-lobby/?page=all#pagebreak
Comments
Post a Comment