150 years ago today, the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. America is forever indebted. pic.twitter.com/vhIE1k20e7
— Senate Republicans (@Senate_GOPs) April 15, 2015
It takes a lot to stun me, really it does.
It takes a lot to stun me, really it does.
“She can’t even be honest about the fans on her social media sites. A study was done of her Facebook page. Again, we had to go across the ocean. We had to go to I think it was The Guardian in England to get anybody in the media to do a job. They found something odd about her followers. Seven percent of her followers were from Baghdad. That’s not really comforting or real. And on Twitter, it was revealed that 15%, about 544,000 of her Twitter followers, are bogus accounts.
If her team is willing to lie about Facebook and Twitter fans and make people up just out of whole cloth, what else are they willing to lie about?
Interesting premise, but let’s do a little investigation of our own. First off all, it wasn’t the (usually excellent) Guardian, it was the (always wretched) The Daily Fail, er, Mail that worked out that HRC has some bogus followers.
Let’s dive into the Fail:
StatusPeople.com, the oldest publicly available Twitter-auditing tool, reports that 44 per cent of the former secretary of state’s followers are ‘good'; 15 per cent are ‘fake'; and 41 per cent are ‘inactive,’ meaning that they never tweet or reply to any tweets.
…Another tool, TwitterAudit.com, sampled 320,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s followers and found that 18 per cent were fake.
Jeebus, Beck, you are slipping. That was too E-Z.
I beat Beck like a rented mule’s red-headed stepson.
If you read the article, The right finds a fresh voice on same-sex marriage, you’ll be treated to some embarrassing and lavish tongue-bathing, but also some amazingly façile arguments that anyone who has spent any time with Jesuits would understand: Marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples because the definition of marriage is open only to a man and a woman.
We used to call it the fencing-in strategy, which was essentially declaring a closed set and then not allowing any outside factors into the set. “If we all agree that God has a plan, then no matter what happens it is part of that plan.” But if we don’t agree with the basic premise, then the argument is shot to hell.
It works amazingly well at first blush, when the wunderkind says:
“Gays and lesbians undoubtedly have been discriminated against,” Anderson says. “But marriage is not part of that discrimination.”
You see, it cannot be discrimination because gay couples were never part of marriage to begin with; except that it always was discrimination, if you don’t agree with the basic premise.
The way this argument worked back in my day was usually with a little bit of a history lesson, almost always positioned as “let’s look at how we got to where we are today,” and if you agree or don’t add information into the premise, you might as well give up now. Because, when you object later, you will be told, “but we all agreed that..”
But then he does bring an new touch to the old technique:
“This is the question I will close with: If you do assume marriage equality of the same-sex couple, on what basis do you deny marriage equality for the same-sex throuple?”
Heads turn. People whisper. No one seems sure what a throuple is.
He explains, not for the first or last time that day, that a throuple is three same-sex people who might want to marry. The New York Post reported on one in Indonesia, he says. Likewise, he talks about the “wed-lease,” an idea he say was “floated” by The Washington Post. He later clarifies that it was an op-ed from a Florida lawyer who proposed, instead of “wedlock” meant to last forever, renewable five-year marriage contracts.
So after he has fenced everyone in with an argument based on defining everything by his own terms, he concludes by doing an O. Henry stunt supplying us with a surprise ending, introducing something outside the fence he so elaborately built.
It probably is good theater, but it is a cheap trick and not a good argument.
“Today, after a 30- or 40-year epidemic of leftism that has swept its sordid stain across America, we’ve become much more feminized and we are attracted to the masculine strength and brutality of Islam. This is the girl in the high school being attracted to the bad, tough guy and that’s really what’s happening. There is no other way that I know of to explain this utterly irrational — and as soon as I said to myself that it’s irrational, I said, where else do you see irrational behavior? When people are sexually attracted you see irrational behavior. On a spiritual level, the feminized American left, show business, politicians, particularly academia, all the people who love Islam, when Christianity and Judaism are exactly the reverse.”
–Y’all Qaeda’s favorite rabbi Daniel Lapin
It takes a special kind of crazy to make that leap, but I suspect (with just as much scholarly introspection) that Lapin has his own 72-virgin fantasy thing goin’ on. If I’m not projecting too much ;)
[Lincoln] Chafee spokeswoman Debbie Rich said Chafee did not declare himself as a candidate for president Thursday, despite saying “that’s why I’m running.”
“We are still in the exploratory committee phase,” she told CNN in a phone interview, adding, “We will file the proper papers to be an official candidate, but that has not happened yet.” (CNN)
Marco ‘Big Gulp’ Rubio helpfully tells us that he would go to a same-sex wedding. Does he see the rake in the chapel:
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), the newest and youngest official Republican candidate for president, has said he believes marriage should be “traditional”—between a man and a woman.
So Fusion’s Jorge Ramos asked him: If someone in his family or on his staff were gay and getting married, would he attend the wedding?
“If it’s somebody in my life that I care for, of course I would,” Rubio told Ramos in an interview on Wednesday.
“I’m not going to hurt them simply because I disagree with a choice they’ve made or because I disagree with a decision they’ve made, or whatever it may be,” he added. “Ultimately, if someone that you care for and is part of your family has decided to move in one direction or another or feels that way because of who they love, you respect that because you love them.”
A) That’s mighty big of you to attend as to not hurt their feelings (it’s all about you, Marco), and 2) Tell them that they made a choice you disagree with.
So… are you not saying that you would respect the decision of gay loved-one, but not a gay stranger?
“But again, as I said, I’m a member of the Catholic faith that teaches, for example, that divorce is wrong,” Rubio said. “But if someone gets divorced, I’m not going to stop loving them or having them a part of our lives.”
I see. So same-sex marriage is as acceptable as divorce, so when are you going to try to outlaw that, Marco?
GRANDVILLE, Mich. (WOOD) — The owner of a Grandville auto repair shop says he won’t hesitate “to refuse service to an openly gay person or persons.”
Brian Klawiter, the owner of Dieseltec on Ottawa Avenue in Grandville, posted the statement to his company’s Facebook page on Tuesday because he says the voices of those who have Christian, conservative values are often overshadowed by those who do not.
“I want to have a voice about this,” Klawiter told 24 Hour News 8 Wednesday. “I want to be heard about this… It’s challenging to decide to say I’m on the opposing side of what’s seen as the popular view.”
The post in question starts with “Enough is enough.”
…and it goes rapidly downhill from there, nuts and bolts flinging off the jalopy, literally:
“I would not hesitate to refuse service to an openly gay person or persons. Homosexuality is wrong, period,” Klawiter wrote. “If you want to argue this fact with me then I will put your vehicle together with all bolts and no nuts and you can see how that works.”
Notice how Klawiter didn’t tie it into a wedding ceremony, not even the far-fetched notion of a pizza party wedding reception, though I suppose he could say that he wouldn’t service the tin can-laden, rice-strewn, get-away car to make it more topical about how same sex marriage violates his deeply held religious beliefs.
This is just out-and-out bigotry, raw of tooth and claw as the poet said. Michigan does not have any anti-discrimination coverage for LGBTQ people, though there are some local ordinances sprinkled here and there. The city of Grandville does not have a non-discrimination ordinance, so Klawiter can proudly ride on the low road:
Asked to consider his post from the eyes of a person who is gay, Klawiter responded:
“I think it would be made pretty clear to me that I’m not welcome there, which I would almost consider that enlightening. I would know exactly where not to go.”
As I hope would also apply to the people who don’t like bigotry.
The comments on that story are fascinating, and yes, someone started a donation site which was quickley pulled down.
The Republican-controlled state House of Representatives voted 55-38 to approve the Bible as state book. A companion bill could be considered as soon as Thursday in the state Senate, where Republicans hold 28 seats to five for Democrats.
So I guess it will go on a list, next to the state flower (Passion Flower), the state bird (Mockingbird), and the state beverage (Milk), and for that they are willing to bleed the state coffers dry defending it as it winds its way to the Supremes who will strike it down.