Republican Idiocy, Continued
Yesterday pandora posted about the preliminary release of the R2K/dKos poll of Republicans. Today the full poll was released (full results). There are some disturbing results:
GAYS
Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?
Yes 26
No 55
Not Sure 19Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?
Yes 7
No 77
Not Sure 16Should gay couples receive any state or federal benefits?
Yes 11
No 68
Not Sure 21Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?
Yes 8
No 73
Not Sure 19SCHOOLS
Should sex education be taught in the public schools?
Yes 42
No 51
Not Sure 7Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?
Yes 77
No 15
Not Sure 8WOMEN
Are marriages equal partnerships, or are men the leaders of their households?
Men 13
Equal 76
Not Sure 11Should women work outside the home?
Yes 86
No 4
Not Sure 10Should contraceptive use be outlawed?
Yes 31
No 56
Not Sure 13Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?
Yes 34
No 48
Not Sure 18Do you consider abortion to be murder?
Yes 76
No 8
Not Sure 16Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?
Christ 67
Other 15
Not Sure 18
There’s a lot here to chew on but 31% think contraception should be outlawed? 77% think the Bible should be taught as science. That’s nuts. I’m sorry, but where am I going to find common ground?
Tags: Republican Crazy
Ok so wait, there’s some good news in this:
Republicans hate unions more than they hate gay people!
You can look locally. The Caesar Rodney Institute wants to arm people in public housing. Some blockbuster reporting there.
shouldnt law abiding citizens that live in public assistant housing have the same constitutional rights as someone that lives in a million dollar mansion? i certainly think so.
Mike Castle does not think so. Of course he also is kind of down on due process.
BTW, Republicans are livid about these poll results. They’ve spent a lot of the day dissing the poll. Research 2000 even got 2 death threats by phone. I guess they don’t like being exposed.
You may hear them dissing the poll, but you will be hard pressed to find a Republican office holder going on the record against the Bible being used in science class.
as usual the best way to piss those people off is to hold a mirror up to them.
Who would dis the poll? I would be hard pressed to disagree with any of the majority conclusions except the gay teacher and benefits that you published. There is nothing that I don’t say everyday. This poll confirms what I often claimed that there is no controversy over so called same sex marriage within the party and hardly any on DADT or ENDA.
I almost wonder about why anyone would disagree with the common sense expressed in the poll. Then I see people who can’t even laugh about a joke told to break the ice with teens and can’t admit that they are a bunch of Fabian Socialists.
David, it wasn’t a “joke told to break the ice with teens” It was a lengthy discussion.
David you should ask the Republicans who are refuting the poll why they are embarrassed by their own base.
If they are ashamed then they need to move out of the way and let people who believe lead. There is nothing to refute. Every other poll that I have seen says about same thing.
If they are ashamed then they need to move out of the way and let people who believe lead.
You’re nominating Joan Of Arc?
david, do YOU believe obama is an illegal who should be impeached? and for what exactly?
“There is nothing to refute.” A rare bit of clarity there. The Republicans have always been the party of lunatic Davids who think the Earth is 10,000 years old and the framers of the Constitution were born again. Until very recently, however, they kept the craziest stuff under wraps. The mass media being 100% in the hands of the far right wing, combined with Democratic pusillanimousness has emboldened them. The once embarrassingly crazy are now the party’s spokespeople.
The majority does not believe that he is an illegal. Impeachment is a none issue. I can wait for an election. He is in obvious violation of the Constitution, but so was Bush, and Clinton, and Bush. I can’t think of a President since FDR who hasn’t been in violation. The problem is with the standards of the voters not the people elected. If Dems would stay home, we could fix this country.
See, that’s the statement that embodies the disconnect in Republican thinking.
“The problem is with the standards of the voters not the people elected. If Dems would stay home, we could fix this country.”
On the one hand, here’s perfect elitism. “If it weren’t for the unwashed masses, we could get something DONE around here.”
On the other hand there’s the libertarian and free markets branch, that says, “People are natively good. The government should trust the citizens to take care of problems through their churches and private charities. The social service safety net gets in the way of that.”
The Republican Party suffers from the schizophrenia of these, really, opposing views of human nature and the electorate. And get caught at it, from time to time. š
Polled at my house š
“Should openly republican men and women be allowed to marry each other?
Yes-1%
No–99%
Should two straight men or women be allowed to get married ?
Should two straight men or women be allowed to get married ?
Yes
I don’t see why marriage should be treated any differently based on gender. Couples get married for all sorts of reasons and we don’t ask them why when they sign a marriage certificate. Why should it be any different when the two partners are of the same sex?
I’m with you, UI. But I love the path conservatives are traveling with this line of thinking. Next they’ll be suggesting some sort of test to prove you should be allowed to marry… just like those good ol’ Medieval days.
Exactly pandora. Conservatives often operate in a self-reinforcing bubble. I’m sure in their minds this proves something to them but the rest of us are shrugging our shoulders in confusion as to what they’re trying to prove.
Also, I’m not really sure why a marriage that was forced because of pregnancy is more sacred than one of one’s own free will. Rushed marriages are certainly more likely to divorce and the younger the bride the higher the likelihood of divorce.
I am a straight guy married to a straight woman by a gay priest. Does my marriage count?
So UI your suggesting that if i’m straight. I should be able to get married to lets say my best mate at work. You know for laughs and a tax break.
COYW
I don’t really care what motives/reasons you have for marrying anyone, FBH. You really are heading down a slippery slope here… so, given your example, should a man and a woman be allowed to get married for laughs and a tax break?
Yes. What stops opposite sex partners from getting married to people they aren’t attracted to for tax breaks and laughs? Are you suggesting lie detector tests for marriage licenses? Perhaps sobriety tests for marriages in Vegas?
If you’re worried about the “sanctity” of marriage, you need to look at opposite sex marriages. There’s a push in California to ban divorce. Perhaps you can sign on with that.
anon,
You need to talk to FBH. He/she is the marriage police.
You need to talk to FBH. He/she is the marriage police.
I only trust Dr. Liberal.
FBH: You don’t SEEM like a moron. So why is it you can’t see that your hypothetical is just plain stupid? Gay people have been entering sham marriages for centuries; if two straight people want to enter one, so what?
By the way, before getting married for “laughs,” you should remember it’s a legally binding contract. You should also forbid yourself from ever referencing the “sanctity” of marriage ever again.
I would add to Geezer’s point that opposite sex, straight couples have entered sham marriages for centuries as well.
“So UI your suggesting that if iām straight. I should be able to get married to lets say my best mate at work. You know for laughs and a tax break.
COYW”
Lots of people do this all the time. Why is it worse for two straight men to do this than a straight man and a straight woman? Or a gay man and a straight woman, Will & Grace style? Consistency anyone?
Personally i really could give a flying you know what if gay people get married,but as far as society goes i have my reservations.
To be fair the amount of change homosexual marriage will have on society is grossly disproportionate to the population of homosexuals in society. Simple math fair and equitable .
This type of reasoning doesn’t apply to all situations,but i do believe it does in this case.
COYW
What enormous change would be caused by letting people visit their loved ones in the hospital?
FBH, what the hell does that even mean? What change will same sex marriage have on society?
I’m sorry, FBH, but I have no idea what your point is.
society will eventually see homosexual marriage as the norm.
You don’t see that as a change in society ?
I don’t think society will see homosexual marriage as ‘the norm’. But what’s the downside to society if everyone who wants to make a sincere commitment to another adult has the option?
If the norm became “Marry the person you want to spend the rest of your life with” I should think people in favor of marriage would see that as a win.
“society will eventually see homosexual marriage as the norm.”
I think what you mean is “society will stop judging homosexuality as ‘abnormal.'” For homosexual marriage to become the norm, heterosexual marriage would have to fall by the wayside. Does that really seem a likely outcome to you?
By “norm” i mean widely excepted in all aspects of its existence .
FTBH simply means we all have to get divorced and rmarried to dudes. I think that is fairly obvious.
So you think that homosexuality is not currently accepted (I’m guessing) because gay people can’t get married?
I’m calling dibs on Russell Crowe or Daniel Craig (but I’d probably get stuck with Jason š )
FBH is afraid that if gay people are allowed to marry, he might have to go gay…. or worse hid children might be gay.
Your statements reek of homophobia… and not the Matthew Sheppard killers homophobia. (oh wait that was a hoax according to the Right)..but the more cowardly kind where you claim to not hate gay people. You just hate everything they do, stand for, want, and represent.
Much like the racism masked as “fiscal conservatism” aimed at the President.
The Right Wing is getting better at hiding… or denying their hate. This is what makes some terrorists more honorable than the TeaBggers. at least they are up front with their beliefs
FBH also must think that if we legalize pot, more people will smoke it.
Actually, 40 years ago, there was the same stigma attached to interracial marriages. There were white people saying that society would be irreversibly harmed if we allowed the races to intermarry. Last night I watched LOST, which features an older interracial couple. 40 years ago, it would have caused advertisers to pull out of a show. But here’s the deal, they aren’t even novel anymore. They are just an older couple.
If this is the kind of change in society that FBH is talking about, I say bring it on.
gettin nasty are we ? a price
FBH has already lost the fight and doesn’t even know it. Acceptance of gays is very high among younger people (especially under-30s). There is a huge generation gap.
UI you’re putting words in my mouth. i never said anything about not excepting gays. i just said i had reservations about gay marriage.
Accepting (not excepting) gays means treating them the same as everyone else FBH, ie. letting them get married.
love,
A blue hen fighting for equality
Please FBH, I’m goin’ light…. you havent seen me nasty.
Your “concern it might be the norm” is very offensive. I dont see any possible negative social impact of allowing gay marriage other than ruffling the feathers of homophobes who base their entire day around one (probably mistranslated) sentence in the old testament. That is pretty much what this whole debate revolves around. There are SO many other one liners in Sky Dad’s Guild to Living that conservatives not only ignore, but contradict… mostly having to do with helping the needy. so shut up with your “concerns”.
Man up and admit that the though of 2 dudes goin’ at it JUST GROSSES YOU OUT.
a price when did i say i have concerns it may become the norm ? i think you may have have somebody else in mind or maybe you are referring to the example of change i was asked to give.
a.price got it from:
You saying this; expressing what I (at least) interpreted as concern for “changes”
“as far as society goes i have my reservations.
To be fair the amount of change homosexual marriage will have on society is grossly disproportionate to the population of homosexuals in society. Simple math fair and equitable .”
and then as to “norm” (which you also refer to as a change) you said
“society will eventually see homosexual marriage as the norm.
You donāt see that as a change in society ? ”
Therefore: Concern it would become the norm
V he has in quotations something i didnt say. Is there some kind of different standard here in this banterdome I should be aware of.
dude, I don’t have the time to make up quotes. I copy/pasted. The one about “norm” is from 1:39 and the one where you said you have “reservations” is from 1:00. Feel free to scroll up. Unless there’s another FBH who is also posting. If that’s the case I apologize.
is this a joke ?
maybe sarah palin hijacked FBH’s name and posted that to malign him… but i think it is the typical teabag tactic of denying you said something especially when your words are repeated back to you… you morons arent getting away with that anymore. you will be taken to task for your words.
” as far as society goes i have my reservations.”
“society will eventually see homosexual marriage as the norm.
You donāt see that as a change in society ?”
DO YOU DENY WRITING THAT?
Here are the comments FBH:
http://delawareliberal.net//2010/02/02/republican-idiocy-continued/#comment-172410
http://delawareliberal.net//2010/02/02/republican-idiocy-continued/#comment-172421
there are less Jews is society than homosexuals…… should we be striped of our rights to marry because we are a small percentage of society?
i still don’t see where i said i was “concerned it would become the norm” as for the “society will eventually see homosexual marriage as the norm.you dont see that as change?” In this quote i was responding to a specific request by giving an example of “change”.
you made the case that since homosexuals make up a small portion of society, that some how should preclude them from the right to marry. so i ask you again, should jew’s right to marry be repealed because there are so few of us?
V didn’t say you said “concerned.” V said: “You saying this; expressing what I (at least) interpreted as concern for āchangesā
This strikes me as V interpreting your comments and drawing a conclusion. If V misunderstood, or misrepresented, your comments I’m certain he/she would be willing for you to explain what you meant.
i’m sorry pandora but i was referring to a.price who actually quoted me saying that which i did not say. V was just rationalizing his misquote.
i made that same connection. especially given FBH’s “percentage of society” comment… which makes it seem like FBH thinks people get rights based on how many of them there are.
fine.
“society will eventually see homosexual marriage as the norm.”
what is wrong with that?
That’s not the case i made a.price. Go back and read it again.
i have re-read you comments multiple times all afternoon. i’d be willing to retract everyting ive said and apologize if you could explain or clarify, but that is the message i, and apparently a few other commenters, got from what you said. I am responding in kind.
‘society will eventually see homosexual marriage as the norm” i didnt say there was anything wrong with it i just stated it as an example to a request. please go back and read.
Same sex marriage will be yet another stupid fad that people will wonder about. It will go on the ash heap of perversion.
letting gays marry means that society will see it as a norm….. so you had NO opinion on that, no feelings one way or another… you’re saying this whole back and forth is because of a dumb observation?
I only stated that i had reservations about homosexual marriage,and i gave a reason.I didnt say or imply anything else.
for clarification, what exactly is the reason for your reservations?
so will your perversion of Christianity, david. it will go on the trash heap of Cults.
FBH I am sorry that through my (and apparently a.price’s) reading comprehension skills we misunderstood you. Let me try again.
You have reservations about gay marriage and its effect on society because the changes involved would positively effect a very small portion of the population (the LGBTs) and then also effect (negatively? inconvenience? or just something different?) a larger part of the population (us heteros) and you are unsure if its worth the effort. Is that closer?
also I wasn’t necessarily backing a.price (I’m sorry a but you are totally the Kanye West of this place). I just figured I’d show you where he (and I) got that impression.
V, because we are friends.. i am gonna take that as a compliment. If what V is saying is what you meant, i apologize? I still dont understand your “reservations” This is a pretty clearly defined issue and in my experience, the people who claim to have “reservations” are actually homophobes who are against equal rights for all. I flatly disagree that size of the population should have ANYTHING to do with rights assigned to various groups. Allowing gay marriage only negatively effects those who have moral objections to homosexuality in general. to declare reservations, especially in this forum, without defining what those reservations are usually means one thing. THATS what i was reacting to. I blame society š
but please, what are your reservations?
A, imma let you finish but UNSTABLE ISOTOPE HAD THE GREATEST DELAWARE LIBERAL POST OF ALL TIME!!!
Liberal Geek doesn’t care about wingnut people
a.price if you look at my original statement i conveyed that i have reservations about gay marriage and society.Here is an example of one of the conundrums I have.
Every little kid in our society in a post gay marriage era will grow up with the belief that same sex marriage is the norm not saying its bad not saying its good. Can we agree that this is a true statement.So that being said is it fair and equitable that such a small portion of society can exact that enormous amount of change on the institution of marriage and society as a whole? Are we so enlightened now that we can all of a sudden change the millenniums old tradition of marriage.Please tell me what makes our time in history so special.
I would say that how every little kid growing up in our society thinks having a black president is the norm. i also happen to think that is awesome…. and not in the surfer dude jersey shore sense of the word awesome….. actually awe inspiring that in my life time i saw a major shift in what is considered “normal”.
I am also a progressive.
I dont think little kids spend much time contemplating what is or isn’t normal in regard to marriage. they do contemplate relationships and the ones that are gay should be able to understand they can have a life just the same as their heterosexual classmates. for not gay children, i don’t think knowing that gay people can get married will have any effect on them. now, if you believe homosexuality is a choice, or somehow influenced by outside sources,
first of all you are wrong, but it would also explain why you would see some sort of effect on “our children”
I would also say, why not make our time in history special? what is so bad about being a part of a transformative time in history?
For the record, I do care (albeit very little) for wingnuts.
FBH, I am trying to help you out. Seriously. There were people in the mid 60’s saying that kids were going to think that inter-racial marriage is the norm. Nothing is the norm. Italians marry Irish, Catholics marry Protestants, Jews marry gentiles.
The truth is that kids will grow up thinking that same sex marriage is not gross and disgusting. David will end up on the dung heap of history on this one. David (of all people) knows that love conquers all. You can fight it, you can scream, you can even kill, but it isn’t going away. Gay marriage will happen. They will live on your street. They will kiss each other in public.
And the revulsion that you feel is EXACTLY the revulsion felt by segregationists and racists in the 60’s. It is unfounded, but it is what they felt. This battle won’t be won in the courtroom or the ballot box. It will be won as people see the relationships for what they are, valid expressions of love between two people.
And David will be the anti-gay version of the Klan.
A black president, so what there has been many black leaders.
I,m talking five thousand years of traditional man woman marriages.Now all of a sudden we are so smart so enlightened.I say we are in the age of false enlightenment man. Yeah “The Age Of False Enlightenment”sounds like a good title for a book.
How about five thousand years of not marrying outside of one’s class, or race, or ethnicity? These were just as real in the past 100 years.
Why do people keep putting words in my mouth.I don,t feel any revulsion towards gay people.
See you guys in the morning. I,m hitting it
you just arent making very good points. again, why are you afraid of being a transformative time in history?
I didn’t put any words in your mouth. I am offering analogues to same-sex marriage.
Okay, I can help on this one. There’s nothing like a 5000 year history of monogamous heterosexual marriage as the norm. It wasn’t until 1904, for example, that mainstream Mormons in the US renounced a religious support of polygamy, as the preferred family unit of the saved. In many parts of the world, and in many cultures, plural marriage is still the dominant format. It wasn’t until the 1990’s that all US states recognized that married women could be raped by their husbands… and in most places that included ex-husbands. It just wasn’t a crime. That, of course, is still true in other countries. And a number of cultures have provision for same sex partnerships, of some kind.
This has been an interesting thread. FBH will say something, everyone will respond, and then spend several comments backing away from what he/she just wrote.
Opponents of same sex marriage always seem to talk about the history of marriage without really understanding how much marriage has changed through history or that marriage is different in different cultures.
Sure marriage has changed over the years,and polygamy is common,but it’s always been about opposite sexes.
liberal geek.you said “and the revulsion you feel” i don,t feel any revulsion. Thats why i said people keep putting words in my mouth.
Actually there have been times in Greek and Roman history where same sex marriages certainly were sanctioned.
But really, FBH, having the vapors over this thing is really pretty pointless. It isn’t as though Mark H has dibs on all of the good ones — just pick your man and go to town.
“actually there have been times in greek and roman history where same sex marriages certainly were sanctioned”
cassandra that’s a sexy name. I have never heard of this.I know homosexuality was widespread and tolerated,but i never knew homosexual marriage was legal. i,ll have to check that out.
Here’s an interesting article on same-sex marriages.
OK pandora i’ll give as long as the woman have to receive “a hundred humiliations” if they break the “oath”.
Now you want to change the subject to marital customs? Sure you wanna go down that path?
you’re playin with fire FBH. I may be kanye west, but pandora is Maya Angelou
Basically, all of FBH’s arguments have been demolished, so FBH is looking to test out some new ones.
I’m your huckleberry.
dingleberry
Oh pandora the”a hundred humiliations” was a joke concerning the article you provided a link for. Sorry i figured you read it.
a.price you’re so funny i forgot to laugh.
Comment rescue from dKos on the idiocy poll:
“The dog whistles have suddenly come into audible range.”
I did read it, FBH. And I was responding to your stated ignorance concerning same-sex marriage. These are your words, are they not?
I simply assisted you in checking that out, since you admitted you “never knew” homosexual marriage was legal.
If you’d now like to change the subject to “abuses in marriages” that’s fine with me, but I’m not seeing heterosexual marriage faring so well. But I’m sure that wouldn’t surprise someone who gets his digs with lines like… “cassandra thatās a sexy name.”
And I’m having trouble seeing someone who writes that (along with “OK pandora iāll give as long as the woman have to receive āa hundred humiliationsā if they break the āoathā) having any problem with humiliating women.
pandora Yes you provided the link and i made a light hearted joke about the “humiliations”, and then you accused me of changing the subject and now you chide me for just saying the joke.
OK on to the “cassandra thats a sexy name’ this was in response to a little gay joke cassandra poked at me. you people are something else. I’m not sure i can play with you guys anymore if you keep cheating.
Dear FBH,
http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/political-pictures-barack-obama-argument-invalid.jpg
Love,
V
Perhaps, FBH, your “joke” would have carried more weight had it been funny, or at least clever. Alas, it was neither. Perhaps you should consider using emoticons, since conveying your meaning through the written word is obviously not your forte.
Cheating is the same as lying is the same as stealing.
everytime we try to counter your argument (with your own words or otherwise) you accuse us of making the quote up, not understanding you, or “cheating” whatever the hell that means.
so what’s the point? you say you don’t dislike gays, but don’t want them to get married, because of changes. which i think you think are bad, but honestly i’m not even sure. you dont seem to say these changes are bad, or immoral, just that they’re different. so i still dont’ get it.
either lay out your agument in plain english, seriously write it out in dick and jane style sentences since none of us can figure out what the hell your issue acutally is. or let’s just abandon this mess.
also i’m kind of embarrassed we root for the same football team.
Thank you, FBH, for once again proving that the written word is not your strong suit… because I have no idea what Cheating is the same as lying is the same as stealing means in relation to this discussion – other than you apparently feel victimized and, yet again, so misunderstood.
If you don’t like the game of “moving the goal posts” then, perhaps, you should stop moving the goal posts.
V, where did FBH ever say what football team it roots for? STOP PUTTING FOOTBALL TEAMS IN FBH’S MOUTH!!!!
I’m sorry, FBH. A is right. That was presumptuous of me.
You figured that one out. Good on a.price
maybe English isn’t its first language. parle vous teabagg, FBH? .. …aww now im just bein’ a bully.
In other news, (the kind related to this thread) the Rs are all hissy over this pole. they are distancing themselves from their own base left… well not so much left.. but DEFINITELY right.
I actually stole this name from a guy who posts on my favorite football clubs message board.I guess that makes me a cheat too.
Aren’t we just a fine den of cheats and thieves in here.
not me. i pretty much say exactly what im thinking all the time.
PURPLE MONKEY DISHWASHER!
what the fuck all is that PURPLE MONKEY DISHWASHER. is that your turrets kicking in m8 ?
it is what i was thinking at the time. It is also an iconic Simpsons reference… further proving your detachment from reality. By the way…. do you mean football? or soccer…. (the real name of the sport) I just ask because you revealed a little British dialect there, boss.
isn’t that also a surf reference A?
not quite sure what you’re talking about, V.
I thought there was a section of…. some music thing…..that we… MAY… have both been in…. that was referred to as PMD
but i’m old now so my mind may be cloudy. anyway back to your regularly scheduled programming.
there may have been…. but i wouldn’t sully the reputation of that proud music related organization by affiliating myself and my comments and my positions with it on a public forum such as this.
true. they aren’t kanye fans.