Your daily dose of Crazy from the right...

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 19:57
VIEWED: 3662
PAGE 3 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

PIRATENEWS

Saturday, May 4, 2013 10:00 PM

It's not 'rebellion' to enforce The Law.

In Firefly the Alliance merged the US flag with the flag of Communist China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_(Firefly)

NIKI2

Sunday, May 5, 2013 1:28 PM

Well, it's Sunday, the Christian day of worship. So let's have some Christian insanity--it's not just bad to MARRY someone of the same sex, it's heretical to ATTEND such a ceremony:

Quote:
Attending Same-Sex Weddings Will ‘Harm Relationship With God’ Says Bishop

Not entirely unexpected but disgusting all the same. Rhode Island Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin has written a pastoral letter underlining his church’s backwards views on marriage equality. Rhode Island became the tenth U.S. state to legalize marriage equality last week, the culmination of 16 years of battle in the heavily Catholic state.

But, as with any struggle for justice, the outworn ways of thinking are slow to die. Bishop Tobin is one of those dinosaurs who believes that homosexuality is a sin and that gays are lesser beings without the rights afforded to the rest of us. He proved that with his May 2 pastoral letter:
Quote:
At this moment of cultural change, it is important to affirm the teaching of the Church, based on God’s word, that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2357) and always sinful. And because “same-sex marriages” are clearly contrary to God’s plan for the human family, and therefore objectively sinful, Catholics should examine their consciences very carefully before deciding whether or not to endorse same-sex relationships or attend same-sex ceremonies, realizing that to do so might harm their relationship with God and cause significant scandal to others.

(There's) the word "objective". The way he uses it, “… therefore objectively sinful…” is directly opposite of the word’s actual meaning. An objective principle is one that is uncolored by an opinion. Facts are objective. While Bishop Tobin might like to think that his archaic laws are objective, that is just not true.

As to “… harm(ing) their relationship with God” goes, who is Bishop Tobin to say that? Yes, I realize that the Catholic church sees men like Tobin as intercessors between God and the members of their church but Martin Luther had a thing or two to say about that several hundred years ago. As far as the theory of intercession goes, I’m with him. Every person’s relationship with God (however they see Him/Her/It) is personal, everyone has their own relationship with the Divine. Every person should be able to decide what weddings they want to attend and base that on their own understanding of God. Perhaps people who do decide to attend same-sex weddings will be thinking of Jesus’ command to love one another instead of trying to find ways to hate others. More at http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/05/attending-same-sex-weddings-wi
ll-harm-relationship-with-god-says-bishop/

It's not really insanity, it's fear mongering, pure and simple, meant to intimidate "Christians" who've bought into that Angry God concept. And it's disgusting.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Sunday, May 5, 2013 4:14 PM

The number one principal of the Roman Catholic Church is: "Support and strengthen the power and authority of the Roman Catholic Church."

All else is secondary to that.

NIKI2

Sunday, May 5, 2013 5:44 PM

Amen. ;o)

Applies to abortion, women's rights, homosexuality, and any number of other things, as anyone who's studied the history of religion knows. The Church (almost any Church) is a master of intimidation, and never afraid to use it.

NIKI2

Sunday, May 5, 2013 7:00 PM

Most recent:

Quote:
Harvard’s Niall Ferguson Suggests Keynes’ Economic Theories Were Flawed… Because He Was Gay

Conservative Harvard professor Niall Ferguson reportedly told a large group of financial advisers and investors in California this week that the problem with John Maynard Keynes‘ economic philosophy was that he didn’t care about future generations. Ferguson came to this conclusion because Keynes was gay and had no children.

Financial Advisor magazine’s Tom Kostigen was the first to report the statements by Ferguson, writing:
Quote:
Ferguson responded to a question about Keynes’ famous philosophy of self-interest versus the economic philosophy of Edmund Burke, who believed there was a social contract among the living, as well as the dead. Ferguson asked the audience how many children Keynes had. He explained that Keynes had none because he was a homosexual and was married to a ballerina, with whom he likely talked of “poetry” rather than procreated. The audience went quiet at the remark. Some attendees later said they found the remarks offensive…

[Ferguson said] it’s only logical that Keynes would take this selfish worldview because he was an “effete” member of society. Apparently, in Ferguson’s world, if you are gay or childless, you cannot care about future generations nor society.

Ferguson evidently realized his comments were controversial and potentially offensive, as he published an “unqualified apology” on his website today:
Quote:
I should not have suggested – in an off-the-cuff response that was not part of my presentation – that Keynes was indifferent to the long run because he had no children, nor that he had no children because he was gay. This was doubly stupid. First, it is obvious that people who do not have children also care about future generations. Second, I had forgotten that Keynes’s wife Lydia miscarried.

My disagreements with Keynes’s economic philosophy have never had anything to do with his sexual orientation. It is simply false to suggest, as I did, that his approach to economic policy was inspired by any aspect of his personal life. As those who know me and my work are well aware, I detest all prejudice, sexual or otherwise.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/harvards-niall-ferguson-suggests-keynes
-economic-theories-were-flawed-because-he-was-gay/

That's a very strange apology. If everyone knows he "detests all prejudice, sexual or otherwise", why would he say the things he did? There's a myriad of prejudicial statements in there, from anti-homosexual to misogynistic to the trashing of an entire segment of society...

So I'll call it Crazy From the Right; an attempt to say "I'm not a bad guy" after making NUMEROUS remarks only a "bad guy" would make!

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, May 6, 2013 4:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Amen. ;o)

Applies to abortion, women's rights, homosexuality, and any number of other things, as anyone who's studied the history of religion knows. The Church (almost any Church) is a master of intimidation, and never afraid to use it.

So sayeth the first Commandment of the Church of Niki!

STORYMARK

Monday, May 6, 2013 3:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I don't think you realize Mark, that I hated GWB just as much as you hate me.

Son, you're too pathetic to hate.

As per usual, the rest of what your wrote is just bitter, stupid, nonsense.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NIKI2

Monday, May 6, 2013 4:08 PM

Mmm, thanx Mark. "bitter, stupid, nonsense", it fits him to a T. But you forgot "self-centered"; unless he's changed, all I USED to read of what he put up was bitching and moaning about his life, how he used to be so much better off, stuff about women I've gratefully managed to forget, etc., etc. I never saw him put up anything valid or any actual Real World Event, but maybe that's changed.

Six, Master of the Self-Centered, Bitter, Stupid Nonsense. He's a riot...

NIKI2

Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:11 PM

As I explained in another thread; we ARE in the middle, almost all of us on the side of SOME gun control. Those on the other side hate us, revile us, constantly claim we want to take away EVERYONE's guns, do away with the Second Amendment, and on and on. That's why "debate" here on the subject has become impossible, and why I post my disclaimer, because anyone in favor of ANY kind of curb on guns, in any form, is considered a flat-out liar who wants to confiscate ALL guns. Where does that allow civil debate?

If you wanted to take the time to look back, you could see where the "discussion" used to be attempted, repeatedly; now I just post material to bring it to people's attention; I know what the response will be, and I think the other moderates like me have given up trying too.

To me it is one issue among many, but being called a liar, vilified and lied ABOUT, by someone here I once considered a friend taught me how impossible this is to discuss, even moreso than politics or religion, so now I just offer news and comment.

Reminder: I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE AWAY ANYONE'S GUNS, remember? I argue for SOME logical restrictions to the number of guns out there and who is allowed to have them. And I certainly argue against children having guns of ANY kind!

GEEZER

Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
There's
Quote:
New Poll Shows Armed Rebellion Supported By 44% Of Republicans

(Poll at http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/guncontrol/) This goes to show that the sensationalistic endorsement of fringe conspiracy theories that are driven forward in the name of freedom and small government by the conservative right are starting to take hold. The history of politics has shown us time and time again that the words that win vocabulary dominance can end up influencing or deciding which way public support goes — and the Republican side of things has proven itself to be quite effective of making use of fear as a motivator, especially through their propaganda wing, Fox News.

Looking at the cite, 29% of all surveyed think armed revolution to protect liberties might be necessary in the next few years (pretty close to 1/3, eh, Wulf?), with 5% unsure. 44% of Republicans, 27% of Independents, and 18% of Democrats think revolution might be needed.

So apparently there's quite a few "crazy" Independents and Democrats out there too.

I might also note that there's a bit of semantic difference between "... think armed revolution to protect liberties might be necessary" as described in the poll, and "Armed Rebellion Supported By..." in the title.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE