American Family Association's Bryan Fischer: Impeach Obama Over DOMA

American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer: Impeach Obama Over DOMA

The President is derelict in his duty to hate gays

WingnutsFebruary 2011 • Views: 41,749

Raving religious right caveman Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association is apoplectic over the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending the anti-gay and unconstitutional “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). To Fischer, insufficient hatred is grounds for impeachment.

Obama is violating his oath of office by refusing to defend DOMA. The Constitution he took a solemn and sacred oath to “preserve, protect and defend” requires him in Article II, Section 3 to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This refusal to do his sworn duty makes him derelict in his duty, and is both inexcusable and even impeachable.

Jump to bottom

151 comments

Political Atheist Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:31:54pm

With a stretch like that I could reach out and tap this guys shoulder from my office.

SpaceJesus Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:33:24pm

“I don’t know how the Department of Justice works”

-Bryan Fisher, conservatives everywhere

jamesfirecat Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:33:41pm

So anyone here want to talk about signing statements?

HappyWarrior Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:33:51pm

So when gay marriage is legalized throughout the land, Bryan will call for hte impeachment of any president who tries to reverse that, right?

Simply Sarah Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:34:33pm

Obama is violating his oath of office by refusing to defend DOMA. The Constitution he took a solemn and sacred oath to “preserve, protect and defend” requires him in Article II, Section 3 to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This refusal to do his sworn duty makes him derelict in his duty, and is both inexcusable and even impeachable.

I suppose Obama might have a problem, then, if he starts telling government agencies to ignore DOMA. In the meantime, Fischer may wish to work on his reading comprehension.

albusteve Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:35:01pm

if people were more prone to mind their own goddamned business, petty shit like this would not even make a headline…ultra self-righteous assholes that don’t have any respect for peoples privacy

theheat Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:36:40pm

Tell Bryan it’ll save money not to fight it, since the side he’s on is all about fiscal conservatism.

Four More Tears Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:38:10pm

re: #7 theheat

Tell Bryan it’ll save money not to fight it, since the side he’s on is all about fiscal conservatism.

If he ever got elected he would be “Bryan Fischer (R-Under Your Bed).”

albusteve Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:39:38pm

I’d like to see some real smart person take Fischer to the mat, tear open his private life and expose his own weaknesses and hypocricy…who the fuck does he think he is, telling me what to do with my life?….I despise these people

thecommodore Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:41:25pm

This video may provide a catharsis for those needing exorcism from Bryan Fischer loonery.

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:42:55pm

re: #9 albusteve

I’d like to see some real smart person take Fischer to the mat, tear open his private life and expose his own weaknesses and hypocricy…who the fuck does he think he is, telling me what to do with my life?…I despise these people

people like him are one of the key reasons I could never associate with the conservative/republican side of the spectrum. They claim to be for less government but then want to expand it to snoop into peoples private lives

HappyWarrior Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:43:26pm

re: #7 theheat

Tell Bryan it’ll save money not to fight it, since the side he’s on is all about fiscal conservatism.

Well remember in the immortal words of Jim DeMint “You can’t be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative.”

Simply Sarah Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:44:20pm

re: #9 albusteve

I’d like to see some real smart person take Fischer to the mat, tear open his private life and expose his own weaknesses and hypocricy…who the fuck does he think he is, telling me what to do with my life?…I despise these people

While part of me would enjoy seeing people like this need to deal with their own medicine, I’d like to think that I’m good enough not to have to sink down to their level.

HappyWarrior Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:45:17pm

re: #11 Dreggas

people like him are one of the key reasons I could never associate with the conservative/republican side of the spectrum. They claim to be for less government but then want to expand it to snoop into peoples private lives

Exactly, to me there’s no greater disconnect than talking about how you’re for individual liberties then making the frigging focal point of your campaign the supposed gay agenda. I understand not wanting to force churches to marry gay couples but the notion that gay marriage ruins families is so ridiculous especially when our divorce rate is at its highest in history and I got news for Fischer, it’s not because of gays.

albusteve Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:45:52pm

re: #11 Dreggas

people like him are one of the key reasons I could never associate with the conservative/republican side of the spectrum. They claim to be for less government but then want to expand it to snoop into peoples private lives

and call themselves conservatives in the same breath…I’m getting real pissy about this war on gays/women….nothing angers me more than bullying people just trying to live their lives

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:47:28pm

re: #15 albusteve

and call themselves conservatives in the same breath…I’m getting real pissy about this war on gays/women…nothing angers me more than bullying people just trying to live their lives

The tighter they grip, the more social issues slip through their fingers!

;)

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:47:54pm

AFA is about irrelevant as irrelevant gets.

I suspect it exists only as a job program for people who couldn’t find a job anywhere else.

albusteve Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:48:45pm

re: #14 HappyWarrior

Exactly, to me there’s no greater disconnect than talking about how you’re for individual liberties then making the frigging focal point of your campaign the supposed gay agenda. I understand not wanting to force churches to marry gay couples but the notion that gay marriage ruins families is so ridiculous especially when our divorce rate is at its highest in history and I got news for Fischer, it’s not because of gays.

he’s a small minded pious fuck…the worst sort of person who earns nothing but contempt from me

Lidane Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:49:13pm

re: #12 HappyWarrior

Well remember in the immortal words of Jim DeMint “You can’t be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative.”

Which makes no fucking sense. They’re two contradictory ideas.

A social conservative wants to expand government to outlaw things they don’t like, such as abortion, homosexuality, birth control, no-fault divorce, women working outside the home, etc. Fiscal conservatives don’t give a shit about that. They want to minimize government as much as possible because they don’t want to pay taxes and they want government to leave them alone so they can exploit their workers however they see fit.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:49:56pm

Yup.

Apples and oranges.

garhighway Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:50:58pm

re: #9 albusteve

I’d like to see some real smart person take Fischer to the mat, tear open his private life and expose his own weaknesses and hypocricy…who the fuck does he think he is, telling me what to do with my life?…I despise these people

Give it time: these guys always implode sooner or later.

albusteve Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:51:48pm

there are so many stupid fuckers in govt, that they attract their stupid fringe fucker buddies like flies on shit…these people sicken me….this isn’t governing, it’s a personal sideshow for these egomaniacs

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:52:08pm

re: #15 albusteve

and call themselves conservatives in the same breath…I’m getting real pissy about this war on gays/women…nothing angers me more than bullying people just trying to live their lives

it’s like someone said the other day, fiscal conservatism is a mask for social conservatism. The right only looks out for the anti-gay/anti-choice/pro-business side. They’re all for screwing over you and me and any and all minorities.

Lidane Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:52:16pm

re: #21 garhighway

Give it time: these guys always implode sooner or later.

I’m waiting for him to go hiking on the Appalachian trail, or to be discovered with a rent boy who carries his luggage. It’s only a matter of time.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:52:51pm

re: #17 researchok

AFA is about irrelevant as irrelevant gets.

re: #39 researchok

It’s got 200 radio stations.

Tim Pawlenty, prospective presidential candidate for the GOP, was on Fischer’s show.

[Link: www.afa.net…]

Wish they were irrelevant. They’re not.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:53:17pm

Whoops, sorry for the errant tag there. Anyway.

S'latch Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:54:04pm

It surprised me to be reminded that the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

Simply Sarah Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:54:07pm

re: #23 Dreggas

it’s like someone said the other day, fiscal conservatism is a mask for social conservatism. The right only looks out for the anti-gay/anti-choice/pro-business side. They’re all for screwing over you and me and any and all minorities.

They need to link them together, because if they actually tried to stand on their own individual merits, they’d quickly be revealed for the relatively flimsy planks that they are.

darthstar Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:55:25pm

Impeach, shoot, castigate…will these self-righteous, jesus-freak, motherfuckers make up their minds already?

celticdragon Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:57:25pm

re: #11 Dreggas

people like him are one of the key reasons I could never associate with the conservative/republican side of the spectrum. They claim to be for less government but then want to expand it to snoop into peoples private lives

They want a government small enough to drown in the bathtub but big enough to sniff the panties in your lingerie drawer.

By the by, am I the only one who thinks that picture of Fischer would improved if he were in a a black Waffen SS uniform with a flag of the crossed hammers from Pink Floyd’s The Wall behind him?

sizzleRI Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:57:48pm

re: #27 Lawrence Schmerel

It surprised me to be reminded that the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

Eh, no surprise there. Right leaning moderate politician who could triangulate better than anyone. I cannot believe how much has changed in just the 15 years since DOMA was signed.

S'latch Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:57:51pm

And, obviously, refusing to send attorneys to defend DOMA in court is not the same thing as refusing to enforce the law.

kirkspencer Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:58:04pm

re: #20 researchok

Yup.

Apples and oranges.

Not even that. Apples and broccoli, maybe. Possibly even apples and granite.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:58:04pm

re: #25 Obdicut

re: #39 researchok

It’s got 200 radio stations.

Tim Pawlenty, prospective presidential candidate for the GOP, was on Fischer’s show.

[Link: www.afa.net…]

Wish they were irrelevant. They’re not.

Exposure doesn’t make one relevant to0 serious people

Beck is not relevant to anyone with half a brain.

Hannity isn’t relevant either.

Rush has found a cash cow with ‘dittoheads’.

Neither were Olbermnann or Randi Rhoades.

There are more serious people here, IMO.

Porn is big business, too. That doesn’t make it relevant to serious people.

wrenchwench Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:59:31pm

re: #34 researchok

Exposure doesn’t make one relevant to0 serious people

Beck is not relevant to anyone with half a brain.

Hannity isn’t relevant either.

Rush has found a cash cow with ‘dittoheads’.

Neither were Olbermnann or Randi Rhoades.

There are more serious people here, IMO.

Porn is big business, too. That doesn’t make it relevant to serious people.

Are you comparing the subject matter of LGF to porn?

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:01:18pm

re: #34 researchok

Exposure doesn’t make one relevant to serious people

It does make one relevant to the voting public, however, which is how we elect people.

And I also disagree: Beck, Hannity, Rush, etc. are all relevant to ‘serious people’ because we have to deal with the effects of their propaganda.

Talking Point Detective Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:01:25pm

re: #27 Lawrence Schmerel

It surprised me to be reminded that the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation.

How full of shit is that statement?

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:01:40pm

re: #35 wrenchwench

Are you comparing the subject matter of LGF to porn?

No- where would get that idea?

I was responding to Obdi’s remarks that AFA was a ‘serious’ organization. I noted earlier that I thought that was absurd, that AFA was irrelevant to serious people.

Lidane Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:01:52pm

re: #34 researchok

Beck is not relevant to anyone with half a brain.

Hannity isn’t relevant either.

Rush has found a cash cow with ‘dittoheads’.

You may not consider them relevant, but they are. They command large audiences. They sell books. They have convinced people that they’re right. Hell, around here in Austin there’s a massive audience for Alex Jones. You might think he’s a loon, but he’s a loon that has people taking him and his ideas seriously.

You’re dismissing Beck, Hannity, Rush, and the rest at your peril.

Porn is big business, too. That doesn’t make it relevant to serious people.

Even serious people need to get off sometimes. Porn is relevant to everyone, whether they want it to be or not.

Simply Sarah Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:02:09pm

And, of course, the main part of DOMA being talked about here is the one that infringes on states’ rights to define marriage in a way that allows it between couples other than those made up of one male and one female. Section 3 is all about taking that away from the states, since the federal government won’t recognize the marriages that the a state says are legit.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:02:32pm

re: #38 researchok

No- where would get that idea?

I was responding to Obdi’s remarks that AFA was a ‘serious’ organization.

Can you quit saying that I said things that I didn’t, please? It’s getting really annoying.

Talking Point Detective Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:02:57pm

re: #34 researchok

Exposure doesn’t make one relevant to0 serious people

Beck is not relevant to anyone with half a brain.

Hannity isn’t relevant either.

Rush has found a cash cow with ‘dittoheads’.

Neither were Olbermnann or Randi Rhoades.

There are more serious people here, IMO.

Porn is big business, too. That doesn’t make it relevant to serious people.

Beck is consistently listed by Tea Partiers as the most influential figure they can name. OK - you might think that there are no Tea Partiers with half a brain, but that makes him relevant in a political sense.

albusteve Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:03:11pm

re: #41 Obdicut

Can you quit saying that I said things that I didn’t, please? It’s getting really annoying.

LOL
that’s rich

celticdragon Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:03:31pm

re: #34 researchok

I disagree about Olbermann.

Before him, there was nobody broadcasting on TV from the left who was willing to actually get angry about progressive issues and show it in a visceral way. He galvanized progressives in a way that moderate and center left talking heads utterly failed to do.

Olbermann did have an effect on getting attention to left of center issues and health care in particular. You may not like him or agree with him, but it is inaccurate to say he was not relevant.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:03:40pm

re: #36 Obdicut

It does make one relevant to the voting public, however, which is how we elect people.

And I also disagree: Beck, Hannity, Rush, etc. are all relevant to ‘serious people’ because we have to deal with the effects of their propaganda.

Pat Buchanan is on MSNBC. Are you saying we ought to give that lunatic credibility because he appears on a cable network?

As to having to dealo with the effects of propaganda, that I can agree with.

It’s bad, crazy stuff and getting worse- and in this incarnation the pace is being set by the right.

engineer cat Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:04:12pm

i have introduced the Defense of Hamburgers Act, which declares that “a hamburger is the union of ground beef, a bun, and kechup”

sinful californians who are degenerate enough to introduce mustard and (splutter!) mayonnaise into hamburgers without even a prior warning - beware! we know who you are!

Interesting Times Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:04:12pm

re: #34 researchok

You seem to be conflating the word “relevant” with “correct” or “valid”. They don’t mean the same thing, at all. In the context of this conversation, “relevant” means influential on the modern conservative movement, the GOP and its followers.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:04:16pm

re: #41 Obdicut

Can you quit saying that I said things that I didn’t, please? It’s getting really annoying.

Yes, I know what you mean. From personal experience.

Four More Tears Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:04:46pm

re: #44 celticdragon

I disagree about Olbermann.

Before him, there was nobody broadcasting on TV from the left who was willing to actually get angry about progressive issues and show it in a visceral way. He galvanized progressives in a way that moderate and center left talking heads utterly failed to do.

Olbermann did have an effect on getting attention to left of center issues and health care in particular. You may not like him or agree with him, but it is inaccurate to say he was not relevant.

Without Olbermann there would be no Maddow.

HappyWarrior Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:04:58pm

re: #19 Lidane

Which makes no fucking sense. They’re two contradictory ideas.

A social conservative wants to expand government to outlaw things they don’t like, such as abortion, homosexuality, birth control, no-fault divorce, women working outside the home, etc. Fiscal conservatives don’t give a shit about that. They want to minimize government as much as possible because they don’t want to pay taxes and they want government to leave them alone so they can exploit their workers however they see fit.

Well now you know why I respect some libertarians. Not the right wingers who call themselves libertarians because they’re embarassed to admit what they really are but true people who really do believe in limtied government.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:05:09pm

re: #45 researchok

Pat Buchanan is on MSNBC. Are you saying we ought to give that lunatic credibility because he appears on a cable network?
.

What are you talking about?

Whether or not someone is ‘relevant’ has zero to do with whether or not they have credibility.

Lysenko had zero credibility. For anyone working on biology in the Soviet Union, Lysenko had a lot of relevance.

Lidane Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:05:53pm

re: #46 engineer dog

i have introduced the Defense of Hamburgers Act, which declares that “a hamburger is the union of ground beef, a bun, and kechup”
!

Mustard on a burger is mandatory here in Texas. Ketchup along is just weird, and mayo on a burger should be outlawed.

goddamnedfrank Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:06:22pm

But not only did the Department of Justice not defend the federal
statutes — it urged the Court to declare them unconstitutional. Acting
Solicitor General Roberts, appearing on behalf of the United States as
amicus curiae, argued that insofar as the federal statutes required the FCC
to continue its preference policies, they were unconstitutional. The Acting
SG’s amicus brief went further still: It urged the court to reject the
deference to Congress suggested in Fullilove, and to apply strict scrutiny
to federal affirmative action programs (a position that would, of course,
restrict Congress’s future legislative prerogatives — i.e., that would
substantially limit federal power).
Acting SG Roberts took this position attacking the federal enactments even
though (i) there were more-than-reasonable grounds for defending them; (ii)
they did not implicate the President’s constitutional powers; and (iii) the
President had not (publicly) indicated any constitutional objection to the
provisions. (Not only had President Bush signed one of the laws — he had
also appointed three new FCC commissioners who each had expressly supported
the diversity preferences in their confirmation hearings.) Moreover, the
Post story today reports that the FCC urged DOJ to defend the laws, but,
according to a memo in the files of Associate White House Counsel Fred
Nelson, Roberts was “[r]eluctant to defend [the] commission’s position.”

The Supreme Court rejected the Acting SG’s arguments by a 5-4 vote, although
it would later hold in Adarand that strict scrutiny does apply even to
federal affirmative action programs.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:06:36pm

re: #47 publicityStunted

You seem to be conflating the word “relevant” with “correct” or “valid”. They don’t mean the same thing, at all. In the context of this conversation, “relevant” means influential on the modern conservative movement, the GOP and its followers.

Yes, you are right to note it’s influence. That can’t be denied.

Nevertheless, the party may exploit the blow hards but in the end, that’s all that it is- exploitation.

My issue with the right is that have gone off the rails without the blow hards. Bad stuff.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:07:49pm

re: #52 Lidane

Mustard on a burger is mandatory here in Texas. Ketchup along is just weird, and mayo on a burger should be outlawed.

I miss Double-Doubles, animal style.

Lidane Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:08:39pm

Completely OT, but I just got an e-mail telling me that Sen. Al Franken (or whoever runs his official Twitter feed) is now following me on Twitter.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:08:46pm

re: #44 celticdragon

I disagree about Olbermann.

Before him, there was nobody broadcasting on TV from the left who was willing to actually get angry about progressive issues and show it in a visceral way. He galvanized progressives in a way that moderate and center left talking heads utterly failed to do.

Olbermann did have an effect on getting attention to left of center issues and health care in particular. You may not like him or agree with him, but it is inaccurate to say he was not relevant.

Fair point (though I think he was a bit over the top). How about Matthews?

Do you find him a credible voice?

Also, who on the right do you find credible?

Talking Point Detective Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:09:28pm

re: #52 Lidane

Mustard on a burger is mandatory here in Texas. Ketchup along is just weird, and mayo on a burger should be outlawed.

Mayo on a roast beef sandwich is sacrilegious. Ketchup on a burger is proper, but mustard (brown mustard) is acceptable.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:10:44pm

re: #51 Obdicut

What are you talking about?

Whether or not someone is ‘relevant’ has zero to do with whether or not they have credibility.

Lysenko had zero credibility. For anyone working on biology in the Soviet Union, Lysenko had a lot of relevance.

We aren’t in the Soviet Union.

engineer cat Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:10:56pm

re: #52 Lidane

Mustard on a burger is mandatory here in Texas. Ketchup along is just weird, and mayo on a burger should be outlawed.

you realize, of course, that mustard on a hamburger is declared an abomination in Wendy 23:13

Ericus58 Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:11:05pm

re: #27 Lawrence Schmerel

It surprised me to be reminded that the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

NPR incorrectly stated yesterday that it was signed into law under G.W. This morning they corrected that to reflect it being under Clinton.

S'latch Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:11:17pm

It is also seems ironic that conservatives, who usually come down on the side of reserving powers to the states, want Section 3 of DOMA to control the definition of “marriage” and “spouse” in all states.

iossarian Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:11:33pm

re: #57 researchok

Also, who on the right do you find credible?

You’ve got to warn us before you do that. I nearly choked on my coffee here.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:11:50pm

Arrrghh- Another call.

I’d have the perfect job if it weren’t for clients

Jadespring Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:12:59pm

re: #52 Lidane

Mustard on a burger is mandatory here in Texas. Ketchup along is just weird, and mayo on a burger should be outlawed.

I guess I wouldn’t fit in. I love mayo on burgers as well as ketchup and mustard. If I had to choose only one it would be mayo.

But then again I’m a mayo with fries eater too.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:13:01pm

re: #59 researchok

We aren’t in the Soviet Union.

That is not at all the point, dude. You seem to be intentionally missing the point.

Beck, Limbaugh, Fischer, Hannity, etc. are all highly relevant to US politics. I wish they weren’t. They are. They have enormous effect on the GOP, on politics in general, on narratives in the media, etc. etc.

The AFA does not just exist as a job program for people who couldn’t get work elsewhere. It exists in order to promote an extremist religious perspective on politics, and that extremist view has penetrated many places in the US, such as the states passing immensely restrictive abortion laws.

Lidane Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:13:06pm

re: #60 engineer dog

you realize, of course, that mustard on a hamburger is declared an abomination in Wendy 23:13

Bah. I go by Whataburger 1:1, which declares that there was mustard, and it was good.

Four More Tears Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:14:40pm

re: #67 Lidane

Bah. I go by Whataburger 1:1, which declares that there was mustard, and it was good.

You Texans can’t get anything right.

Jadespring Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:14:54pm

Now I want a burger… damn.

HappyWarrior Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:15:47pm

Mustard on a burger sounds weird to me. Speaking of fries, I really like vinegar on mine but I can just as happily go with Heinz Ketchup.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:16:11pm

re: #2 SpaceJesus

“I don’t know how the Department of Justice works”

-Bryan Fisher, conservatives everywhere

I know, it’s like they think the federal government is just ringwraiths and Karl Marx and I don’t know, a flaming eyeball or something that casts spells

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:16:29pm

re: #70 HappyWarrior

Mustard on a burger sounds weird to me. Speaking of fries, I really like vinegar on mine but I can just as happily go with Heinz Ketchup.

Go to an In-and-Out, get a burger animal style, and be converted.

sizzleRI Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:17:11pm

re: #70 HappyWarrior

Mustard on a burger sounds weird to me. Speaking of fries, I really like vinegar on mine but I can just as happily go with Heinz Ketchup.

Yes, vinegar on fries is a necessity! And really I would put anything on a hamburger.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:19:22pm

re: #34 researchok

Exposure doesn’t make one relevant to0 serious people

Beck is not relevant to anyone with half a brain.

Hannity isn’t relevant either.

Rush has found a cash cow with ‘dittoheads’.

Neither were Olbermnann or Randi Rhoades.

There are more serious people here, IMO.

Porn is big business, too. That doesn’t make it relevant to serious people.

Serious people don’t elect politicians, idiots do. idiots outnumber serious people by a factor of a hundred to one AND THEY VOTE

wrenchwench Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:19:45pm

In New Mexico you can get green chile on your hamburger at McDonald’s. At home I use ketchup, mayo, green chile (or a bit of jalapeno if I don’t have green chile) and sometimes pickle relish.

engineer cat Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:20:49pm

re: #74 WindUpBird

Serious people don’t elect politicians, idiots do. idiots outnumber serious people by a factor of a hundred to one AND THEY VOTE

“governor stevenson, you have the vote of all thinking people”

“but i need a majority!”

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:21:23pm

re: #57 researchok

Fair point (though I think he was a bit over the top). How about Matthews?

Do you find him a credible voice?

Also, who on the right do you find credible?

Matthews is a fanboy for presidents, he’s not credible but he’s also not a psycho or a bald-faced liar, he’s just a starry eyed dork who shouts a lot, he’s theater, he contributes to the climate of making politics a game

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:21:52pm

re: #74 WindUpBird

Serious people don’t elect politicians, idiots do. idiots outnumber serious people by a factor of a hundred to one AND THEY VOTE

I don’t think they’re idiots. I just think we’ve got way too much propaganda slamming around, and our culture has a gigantic anti-intellectual, anti-science streak which exacerbates the problems of propaganda.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:23:38pm

re: #78 Obdicut

I don’t think they’re idiots. I just think we’ve got way too much propaganda slamming around, and our culture has a gigantic anti-intellectual, anti-science streak which exacerbates the problems of propaganda.

That’s the frikken truth.

It’s all about the propaganda nowadays.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:24:41pm

re: #63 iossarian

You’ve got to warn us before you do that. I nearly choked on my coffee here.

Right. There are no credible or thoughtful conservatives. Anywhere

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:25:02pm

re: #79 researchok

That’s the frikken truth.

It’s all about the propaganda nowadays.

Which is why the makers of propaganda, like the AFA, are incredibly relevant, sad as that is.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:25:03pm

re: #78 Obdicut

I don’t think they’re idiots. I just think we’ve got way too much propaganda slamming around, and our culture has a gigantic anti-intellectual, anti-science streak which exacerbates the problems of propaganda.

I guess we need to create a definition of idiot :D Mine doesn’t necessarily mean low IQ, I’m thinking of people easily swayed by simple propaganda, who are not intellectually curious

certainly they’re capable of doing their jobs, raising their families, but then they believe the most incredible and bizarre things about the government because a radio guy told them to, and then I just throw up my hands

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:25:27pm

re: #77 WindUpBird

Matthews is a fanboy for presidents, he’s not credible but he’s also not a psycho or a bald-faced liar, he’s just a starry eyed dork who shouts a lot, he’s theater, he contributes to the climate of making politics a game

Fair enough.

Beck is in a world and category by himself.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:25:48pm

re: #80 researchok

Right. There are no credible or thoughtful conservatives. Anywhere

I like ours in Oregon! I’ve voted for a few!

But they wouldn’t get elected to the water board in most states, because they don’t play the so-con game

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:26:08pm

re: #83 researchok

Fair enough.

Beck is in a world and category by himself.

Yeah, Beck is like something from a 70’s dystopian epic

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:28:34pm

re: #83 researchok

Fair enough.

Beck is in a world and category by himself.

I blame Matthews at least in part for this idea that talking heads shouting talking points at each other is a good way to learn about anything

I agree with his bafflement about the lies hurtling around re: health care reform, and his horror at the birthers, but his show is just goofy, I stopped watching it after I quit my job, I can’t go back and watch it anymore

iossarian Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:28:39pm

re: #80 researchok

Right. There are no credible or thoughtful conservatives. Anywhere

The thing is, as soon as one comes along, they basically get rejected by the rest of the right as a RINO.

Let’s have some names in the discussion. I cannot, off the top of my head, think of a sane commentator who current Republican voters listen to and believe.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:29:50pm

re: #85 WindUpBird

Yeah, Beck is like something from a 70’s dystopian epic

Why are you being so nice?
/

The guy has had sanity in the rear view mirror for decades.

It takes a long time to become a whack job like Beck.

Multiple pathologies. Seriously.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:30:37pm

re: #87 iossarian

The thing is, as soon as one comes along, they basically get rejected by the rest of the right as a RINO.

Let’s have some names in the discussion. I cannot, off the top of my head, think of a sane commentator who current Republican voters listen to and believe.

Krauthammer.

You may not like him but he’s one sharp guy.

There are others.

iossarian Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:31:26pm

re: #88 researchok

Why are you being so nice?
/

The guy has had sanity in the rear view mirror for decades.

It takes a long time to become a whack job like Beck.

Multiple pathologies. Seriously.

I like this train of thought, but I disagree on Beck. I think he is a very smart manipulator of not-very-smart people.

He doesn’t believe the nonsense he puts out there - he’s just figured out an easy way to get very rich.

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:31:30pm

re: #65 Jadespring

I guess I wouldn’t fit in. I love mayo on burgers as well as ketchup and mustard. If I had to choose only one it would be mayo.

But then again I’m a mayo with fries eater too.

I’ve become addicted to putting bread & butter jalapeno peppers on cheeseburgers. No ketchup, and mustard is for hot dogs (along with spicy relish and/or onions.)

I’m at the point I don’t keep ketchup in the house. For any application calling for its use I have a substitute condiment to use instead.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:31:46pm

re: #87 iossarian

The thing is, as soon as one comes along, they basically get rejected by the rest of the right as a RINO.

Let’s have some names in the discussion. I cannot, off the top of my head, think of a sane commentator who current Republican voters listen to and believe.

I mean, there’s small hosts in small markets, there’s the occassional voice of reason on Fox News, outnumbered by Heritage Foundation guy, a pretty anchor lady with nothing to say, and then somebody trying to sell a book called “UNBELIEVABLE: HOW THE LIBERALS HAVE INFECTED CHRISTIAN AMERICA LIKE A PLAGUE”

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:32:08pm

re: #90 iossarian

I like this train of thought, but I disagree on Beck. I think he is a very smart manipulator of not-very-smart people.

He doesn’t believe the nonsense he puts out there - he’s just figured out an easy way to get very rich.

Agreed completely

mr.fusion Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:32:46pm

Fischer isn’t the only one

According to the headline on Drudge, Gingrich gives Obama impeachment warning, and OMFG it’s siren and red headline time!!1!!111

“I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job,” said Gingrich. “His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent.”

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:33:09pm

re: #86 WindUpBird

I blame Matthews at least in part for this idea that talking heads shouting talking points at each other is a good way to learn about anything

I agree with his bafflement about the lies hurtling around re: health care reform, and his horror at the birthers, but his show is just goofy, I stopped watching it after I quit my job, I can’t go back and watch it anymore

I think he feels he has to compete with Beck on some level.
I don’t think he understands stream of conciousnes is not the same as crazy.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:33:42pm

re: #88 researchok

Why are you being so nice?
/

The guy has had sanity in the rear view mirror for decades.

It takes a long time to become a whack job like Beck.

Multiple pathologies. Seriously.

I don’t think he’s crazy at all! I think he’s Pt Barnum. he’s the Pied Piper. he’s a smart guy punking his viewers.

One day that guy will retire and he might just put it all on the table about how he never believed this shit, that it was all designed to manipulate gullible people

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:34:46pm

re: #95 researchok

I think he feels he has to compete with Beck on some level.
I don’t think he understands stream of conciousnes is not the same as crazy.

or his producers think that, or whatever

either way, it’s a stupid show. Matthews does do a sunday show that isn’t stupid, but it’s outnumbered by the stupid *_*

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:34:51pm

re: #90 iossarian

I like this train of thought, but I disagree on Beck. I think he is a very smart manipulator of not-very-smart people.

He doesn’t believe the nonsense he puts out there - he’s just figured out an easy way to get very rich.

I disagree. Beck is out and out crazy.

He likes the money to be sure, but the guy actally believes what he says.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:35:30pm

re: #97 WindUpBird

or his producers think that, or whatever

either way, it’s a stupid show. Matthews does do a sunday show that isn’t stupid, but it’s outnumbered by the stupid *_*

Yeah- Mattews screwed himself.

He used to be a stand up guy.

100

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:35:49pm

re: #94 mr.fusion

Fischer isn’t the only one

According to the headline on Drudge, Gingrich gives Obama impeachment warning, and OMFG it’s siren and red headline time!!1!!111

“I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job,” said Gingrich. “His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent.”

hahaha Gingrich talking about impeachment! Comedy!

101

Simply Sarah Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:37:17pm

re: #94 mr.fusion

Fischer isn’t the only one

According to the headline on Drudge, Gingrich gives Obama impeachment warning, and OMFG it’s siren and red headline time!!1!!111

“I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job,” said Gingrich. “His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent.”

Newt, you are the absolute last person to be commenting on anything with with the words “Defense of Marriage” in it, unless you’re volunteering as a an example of how not to do it.

102

garhighway Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:37:22pm

re: #38 researchok

No- where would get that idea?

I was responding to Obdi’s remarks that AFA was a ‘serious’ organization. I noted earlier that I thought that was absurd, that AFA was irrelevant to serious people.

No true Scotsman…

103

Stanley Sea Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:38:10pm

re: #94 mr.fusion

Fischer isn’t the only one

According to the headline on Drudge, Gingrich gives Obama impeachment warning, and OMFG it’s siren and red headline time!!1!!111

“I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job,” said Gingrich. “His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent.”

This is actually pretty classic, did Obama et al plan this? If the GOP takes this up as a big issue, it will be another example of them taking their eyes off the ball (jobs)

104

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:38:15pm

re: #96 WindUpBird

I don’t think he’s crazy at all! I think he’s Pt Barnum. he’s the Pied Piper. he’s a smart guy punking his viewers.

One day that guy will retire and he might just put it all on the table about how he never believed this shit, that it was all designed to manipulate gullible people

If he is sane, it’sw an academy award performance.

Really.

105

iossarian Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:38:56pm

re: #89 researchok

Krauthammer.

I knew it.

Krauthammer may be smart but he’s also an ideologue. He’s not interested in serious, intellectual examination of the issues, as illustrated by his piece today on Wisconsin, which makes the absurd claim that Republicans in DC are somehow more serious on the budget/deficit issue than the Democrats, throws in the tired red herring of life expectancy (infant mortality, Charles?) and finally makes the frankly bizarre suggestion that unions negotiate for benefits rather than salary because they’re somehow easier to hide.

You can be both smart and a loon.

106

Interesting Times Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:39:22pm

re: #98 researchok

I disagree. Beck is out and out crazy.

He likes the money to be sure, but the guy actally believes what he says.

On what evidence do you base this claim? I base mine (i.e. same as WUB’s) on the fact that, in interviews with more mainstream sources, he’s able to weasel-word and tone down his schtick (e.g. when he appeared on the Tonight Show to pimp his Christmas book). He didn’t come across as crazy at all in those interviews, just sleazy and disingenuous.

107

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:39:46pm

re: #90 iossarian

I like this train of thought, but I disagree on Beck. I think he is a very smart manipulator of not-very-smart people.

He doesn’t believe the nonsense he puts out there - he’s just figured out an easy way to get very rich.

If that’s true, we need the guy as Sec of the Treasury.
/

108

Simply Sarah Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:40:02pm

re: #104 researchok

If he is sane, it’sw an academy award performance.

Really.

Honestly, it doesn’t really matter if it’s real or faked. People watch and listen and agree with him. People take what he says and somehow try to fit it into reality. What he says matters to a sizable number of people. That’s destructive regardless of why he says it.

109

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:42:19pm

re: #98 researchok

I disagree. Beck is out and out crazy.

He likes the money to be sure, but the guy actally believes what he says.

How exactly can you tell?

I was done believing what he said when I saw the shots of him backstage applying the Vicks Vaporub to his cheeks to artifically make himself cry. And then PEOPLE ON LGF were using the fact that he cried as evidence he was totally intense and believed everything! It worked on commenters here, just sort of obliquely.

it’s all theater. it’s television. it’s all deception, just like reality shows, just like game shows, just like boxing, just like most TV, it’s nonsense to sell advertising.

I don’t believe a single thing Beck says on his show is sincere. I’ve known about the guy for 12 years. First time I heard Glenn Beck was 1999. His radio show was too clever and too selfaware for him to be suddenly “crazy”.

He had the same vocal cadence on his show I heard in 1999, when he was filling in for Lionel. and he was too expert at lifting other hosts’ entire shows, doing their schtick almost line for line (like Phil Hendrie, whose show Beck would come in to the studio and watch constantly)

Everything about Beck’s career says to me that the guy is a smart careerist and that’s it, just a cynic helping to ruin the country for a payday

Isn’t that how a lot of people are? They just want their payday, that’s it, consequences who cares

110

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:42:35pm

re: #101 Simply Sarah

Newt, you are the absolute last person to be commenting on anything with with the words “Defense of Marriage” in it, unless you’re volunteering as a an example of how not to do it.

Newt is running for President as performance art :D

111

Lidane Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:43:31pm

re: #100 WindUpBird

hahaha Gingrich talking about impeachment! Comedy!

You’d think Newt would have learned something from the last impeachment. Clinton’s numbers went UP after he was impeached, not down.

Then again, Newt’s dumb enough to think that another government shutdown is a good idea, because it worked out so well for the GOP the last time.

112

iossarian Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:43:39pm

Newt’s marriage failed because it wasn’t suitably defended. I think we need a 24-hour armed guard around the Gingrich compound to beat back the hordes of negligee-clad nymphets flinging themselves at the Newtster.

113

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:43:56pm

re: #106 publicityStunted

On what evidence do you base this claim? I base mine (i.e. same as WUB’s) on the fact that, in interviews with more mainstream sources, he’s able to weasel-word and tone down his schtick (e.g. when he appeared on the Tonight Show to pimp his Christmas book). He didn’t come across as crazy at all in those interviews, just sleazy and disingenuous.

Well, by trade I’m a behaviorist.

That said, I’ve never sat down with the guy for a one on one as they say.

However, by observation only, he appears to be manic for one thing. Further, a huge amount of his ‘personal’ anecdotes are replete with some kind of projection (‘See me, I’m a hero (read: Messiah)’) and displacement.

Lots of stuff

As I said, just observation

114

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:45:07pm

Sure thing, Mr. Fischer. We’ll impeach the President, right after we finish killing all the grizzly bears in accordance with the Lord’s will, and only giving out the MoH to people who’ve killed a certain number of folks.

We promise.

115

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:46:03pm

re: #105 iossarian

I knew it.

Krauthammer may be smart but he’s also an ideologue. He’s not interested in serious, intellectual examination of the issues, as illustrated by his piece today on Wisconsin, which makes the absurd claim that Republicans in DC are somehow more serious on the budget/deficit issue than the Democrats, throws in the tired red herring of life expectancy (infant mortality, Charles?) and finally makes the frankly bizarre suggestion that unions negotiate for benefits rather than salary because they’re somehow easier to hide.

You can be both smart and a loon.

yeha, krauthammer repeats softpedaled talking points and think tank mumbo jumbo, and because he sounds “nice” and isn’t a Beck or an O”Reilly, he looks brilliant by comparison

Not crazy, but no calories either

116

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:46:17pm

re: #8 JasonA

If he ever got elected he would be “Bryan Fischer (R-Under Your Bed).”

I knew there was a reason I put the boxspring flat on the floor.

117

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:46:21pm

re: #109 WindUpBird

How exactly can you tell?

I was done believing what he said when I saw the shots of him backstage applying the Vicks Vaporub to his cheeks to artifically make himself cry. And then PEOPLE ON LGF were using the fact that he cried as evidence he was totally intense and believed everything! It worked on commenters here, just sort of obliquely.

it’s all theater. it’s television. it’s all deception, just like reality shows, just like game shows, just like boxing, just like most TV, it’s nonsense to sell advertising.

I don’t believe a single thing Beck says on his show is sincere. I’ve known about the guy for 12 years. First time I heard Glenn Beck was 1999. His radio show was too clever and too selfaware for him to be suddenly “crazy”.

He had the same vocal cadence on his show I heard in 1999, when he was filling in for Lionel. and he was too expert at lifting other hosts’ entire shows, doing their schtick almost line for line (like Phil Hendrie, whose show Beck would come in to the studio and watch constantly)

Everything about Beck’s career says to me that the guy is a smart careerist and that’s it, just a cynic helping to ruin the country for a payday

Isn’t that how a lot of people are? They just want their payday, that’s it, consequences who cares

I agree, but not in the way you do,.

He sees himself as a Messiah and as such, the3 rules that apply to you and I don’t apply to him.

118

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:47:03pm

re: #111 Lidane

You’d think Newt would have learned something from the last impeachment. Clinton’s numbers went UP after he was impeached, not down.

Then again, Newt’s dumb enough to think that another government shutdown is a good idea, because it worked out so well for the GOP the last time.

for all we know Newt is calculating for his personal fortunes, the guy must know he’s less likely than Ralph Nader to be president, it’s statistically impossible :D

119

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:47:09pm

re: #14 HappyWarrior

Exactly, to me there’s no greater disconnect than talking about how you’re for individual liberties then making the frigging focal point of your campaign the supposed gay agenda. I understand not wanting to force churches to marry gay couples but the notion that gay marriage ruins families is so ridiculous especially when our divorce rate is at its highest in history and I got news for Fischer, it’s not because of gays.

No churches will have to marry any gay couples. Total red herring.

120

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:47:49pm

re: #17 researchok

AFA is about irrelevant as irrelevant gets.

I suspect it exists only as a job program for people who couldn’t find a job anywhere else.

I thought that was Conservapedia, but I guess that’s only for Andy Schlafly.

121

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:48:36pm

re: #120 SanFranciscoZionist

I thought that was Conservapedia, but I guess that’s only for Andy Schlafly.

That was very snarky.

That’s why I like you.

122

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:49:15pm

re: #120 SanFranciscoZionist

I thought that was Conservapedia, but I guess that’s only for Andy Schlafly.

Andy rejects your reality and documents his own.

123

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:49:25pm

re: #117 researchok

I agree, but not in the way you do,.

He sees himself as a Messiah and as such, the3 rules that apply to you and I don’t apply to him.

I think he sees himself as a guy who’s going to retire early, laughing his balls off at the thing he pulled off

124

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:49:48pm

re: #27 Lawrence Schmerel

It surprised me to be reminded that the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

So was DADT. I hold some grudges against Bill.

125

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:51:47pm

re: #40 Simply Sarah

And, of course, the main part of DOMA being talked about here is the one that infringes on states’ rights to define marriage in a way that allows it between couples other than those made up of one male and one female. Section 3 is all about taking that away from the states, since the federal government won’t recognize the marriages that the a state says are legit.

When states rights are on your side, talk states rights.

When federal control is on your side, talk federal control.

When neither states rights nor federal control is on your side, scream about the destruction of American society.

126

mr.fusion Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:53:41pm

re: #118 WindUpBird

for all we know Newt is calculating for his personal fortunes, the guy must know he’s less likely than Ralph Nader to be president, it’s statistically impossible :D

No….I think they’re looking at this DOMA thing as a “legitimate” reason to impeach Obama. I think this is the beginning of this talk, not the end.

Gingrich calling for it, Limbaugh spoke about it today, and Drudge has the siren and red font going right now…….we’re just seeing the beginning of the impeachment talk for DOMA. Big mistake for the ‘pubs if you ask me…….but I think they’re going to go full bore

127

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:54:15pm

re: #77 WindUpBird

Matthews is a fanboy for presidents, he’s not credible but he’s also not a psycho or a bald-faced liar, he’s just a starry eyed dork who shouts a lot, he’s theater, he contributes to the climate of making politics a game

Power turns him on, I think.

128

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:54:59pm

re: #109 WindUpBird

How exactly can you tell?

I was done believing what he said when I saw the shots of him backstage applying the Vicks Vaporub to his cheeks to artifically make himself cry. And then PEOPLE ON LGF were using the fact that he cried as evidence he was totally intense and believed everything! It worked on commenters here, just sort of obliquely.

it’s all theater. it’s television. it’s all deception, just like reality shows, just like game shows, just like boxing, just like most TV, it’s nonsense to sell advertising.

I don’t believe a single thing Beck says on his show is sincere. I’ve known about the guy for 12 years. First time I heard Glenn Beck was 1999. His radio show was too clever and too selfaware for him to be suddenly “crazy”.

He had the same vocal cadence on his show I heard in 1999, when he was filling in for Lionel. and he was too expert at lifting other hosts’ entire shows, doing their schtick almost line for line (like Phil Hendrie, whose show Beck would come in to the studio and watch constantly)

Everything about Beck’s career says to me that the guy is a smart careerist and that’s it, just a cynic helping to ruin the country for a payday

Isn’t that how a lot of people are? They just want their payday, that’s it, consequences who cares

One more thing.

Beck is a manipulative SOB.

For example, everything he says about Francis Pivens is true- all the quotes are accurate

What you don’t get is context. Beck will tell you, ‘Look up anarchy for yourselves’. Well there are as many articles on anarchy as there are on libertarianism.

Human nature being what it is, we will actually only read the articles that coincide with our predetermined ideas (as sold by Beck)

Ask any teacher of young children to reduce what it is they actually do.

They will tell you it is their job to bring order from chaos. That is how kids learn- the proverbial ‘OH! I get it now! The better the teacher, the more ‘OH! I get it now’ moments there are.

Beck presents his version of order from the chaos and tsunami of competeing voices,

129

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:56:17pm

re: #123 WindUpBird

I think he sees himself as a guy who’s going to retire early, laughing his balls off at the thing he pulled off

LOL- I don’t know about that, but if that’s so, he’s going to have a great second career as an actor.

130

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:56:40pm

re: #101 Simply Sarah

Newt, you are the absolute last person to be commenting on anything with with the words “Defense of Marriage” in it, unless you’re volunteering as a an example of how not to do it.

It does amaze me that as these guys stump across America, bitching and moaning about the collapse of the traditional family, they so seldom point to the ridiculous divorce rate amongst straight folks.

You gotta wonder about a church where they only talk about the sins other people commit.

131

Simply Sarah Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:57:32pm

re: #130 SanFranciscoZionist

It does amaze me that as these guys stump across America, bitching and moaning about the collapse of the traditional family, they so seldom point to the ridiculous divorce rate amongst straight folks.

You gotta wonder about a church where they only talk about the sins other people commit.

Well hey, it’s no fun to actually admit and face your own sins.

132

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:58:31pm

re: #122 oaktree

Andy rejects your reality and documents his own.

The Invisible Hand of Marriage!!!

133

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:59:51pm

re: #126 mr.fusion

No…I think they’re looking at this DOMA thing as a “legitimate” reason to impeach Obama. I think this is the beginning of this talk, not the end.

Gingrich calling for it, Limbaugh spoke about it today, and Drudge has the siren and red font going right now…we’re just seeing the beginning of the impeachment talk for DOMA. Big mistake for the ‘pubs if you ask me…but I think they’re going to go full bore

The GOP will lose their shirts if they try that.

The polls all show Americans are not hostile to gay marriage in the way they were. Middle America has learned that gays are not what the AFA says they are- they are not all marching in SF gay pride parade, or are all cross dressers.

They have learned gays are their neighbors, cousins and friends. They won’t take well to anyone who goes after their friends and family.

134

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Feb 25, 2011 2:00:39pm

re: #130 SanFranciscoZionist

It does amaze me that as these guys stump across America, bitching and moaning about the collapse of the traditional family, they so seldom point to the ridiculous divorce rate amongst straight folks.

You gotta wonder about a church where they only talk about the sins other people commit.

Perhaps that is because the goal isn’t to look inward at your own failings, but to tear down others about their failings. You can fix things once everyone is either part of your group, or clearly under control of your group.

135

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 2:01:22pm

re: #124 SanFranciscoZionist

So was DADT. I hold some grudges against Bill.

You are consistent.

Run, already.

I can be your token righty.

136

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Fri, Feb 25, 2011 2:01:46pm

re: #128 researchok

We can’t get into Beck’s head, of course. But I’ve yet to see serious evidence that he doesn’t believe what he says. If it is just a shtick, it’s a bit too elaborate to be just for money. Vaporub or whatever he says in interviews doesn’t really debunk this.

137

Simply Sarah Fri, Feb 25, 2011 2:02:04pm

re: #133 researchok

The GOP will lose their shirts if they try that.

The polls all show Americans are not hostile to gay marriage in the way they were. Middle America has learned that gays are not what the AFA says they are- they are not all marching in SF gay pride parade, or are all cross dressers.

They have learned gays are their neighbors, cousins and friends. They won’t take well to anyone who goes after their friends and family.

I’d also hope that a lot of them wouldn’t have a problem with gays even if they were matching in a SF gay pride parade or were cross dressers. Sadly, I’m not sure how realistic that view is.

138

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 2:02:51pm

re: #130 SanFranciscoZionist

It does amaze me that as these guys stump across America, bitching and moaning about the collapse of the traditional family, they so seldom point to the ridiculous divorce rate amongst straight folks.

You gotta wonder about a church where they only talk about the sins other people commit.

You hit a hot button.

Divorce is by far a bigger problem than gay marriage.

Way bigger.

139

Simply Sarah Fri, Feb 25, 2011 2:04:34pm

re: #138 researchok

You hit a hot button.

Divorce is by far a bigger problem than gay marriage.

Way bigger.

Which is, clearly, why gay marriage is such a threat. Once you have that, you open things up for gay divorce and then it’s all over for society.
/

140

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 2:05:25pm

re: #137 Simply Sarah

I’d also hope that a lot of them wouldn’t have a problem with gays even if they were matching in a SF gay pride parade or were cross dressers. Sadly, I’m not sure how realistic that view is.

Never underestimate the lowest common denominator.

The reason military people in the field have no issue with gays is because they serve with them. They are not the caricature of gays the hard right presents.

They know better.

141

iossarian Fri, Feb 25, 2011 2:06:27pm

OK, I’m out of here. Great weekends all round!

142

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 2:06:48pm

re: #136 Sergey Romanov

We can’t get into Beck’s head, of course. But I’ve yet to see serious evidence that he doesn’t believe what he says. If it is just a shtick, it’s a bit too elaborate to be just for money. Vaporub or whatever he says in interviews doesn’t really debunk this.

I couldn’t agree more.

From where I sit and what I observe, the guy is firmly planted in the orchard of nuts.

143

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 2:10:14pm

BBIAB

144

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Feb 25, 2011 2:10:22pm

re: #138 researchok

You hit a hot button.

Divorce is by far a bigger problem than gay marriage.

Way bigger.

Well, if our current traditional method of bringing couples together to form nuclear families in the current culture is apparently a failure*, then what outher traditional cultural mores would that potentially bring into question?

* - I say apparently a failure since a lot of the cracks might actually be long-standing issues, but were simply not reported, not acted on, and papered over in the past. So it might actually be a long-standing failure, or a system that never worked well ever.

145

Simply Sarah Fri, Feb 25, 2011 2:10:22pm

re: #140 researchok

Never underestimate the lowest common denominator.

The reason military people in the field have no issue with gays is because they serve with them. They are not the caricature of gays the hard right presents.

They know better.

Indeed. It’s the reason that support for gay rights has seen such a huge jump in the last couple of decades. People are finally coming out (Or, at least, people are catching on more) and everyone else can see that the only difference is who people are attracted to. This is even more true with younger people growing up around openly gay friends, family, and acquaintances. I don’t know why I’m saying is because I’m pretty sure everyone here already knows it. >.>

146

moderatelyradicalliberal Fri, Feb 25, 2011 2:17:57pm

re: #112 iossarian

Newt’s marriage failed because it wasn’t suitably defended. I think we need a 24-hour armed guard around the Gingrich compound to beat back the hordes of negligee-clad nymphets flinging themselves at the Newtster.

LOL! I pray that the GOP will be dumb enough to nominate this horrible, awful douchebag for president if he runs.

147

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Feb 25, 2011 2:23:37pm

re: #130 SanFranciscoZionist

[snip]
You gotta wonder about a church where they only talk about the sins other people commit.

First Church of Christ, Projector.

/
(shades of First Church of Christ, Computer Programmer ;)
Obey the Computer)

148

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 5:12:50pm

re: #132 SanFranciscoZionist

The Invisible Hand of Marriage!!!

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

149

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Feb 25, 2011 5:14:01pm

re: #146 moderatelyradicalliberal

LOL! I pray that the GOP will be dumb enough to nominate this horrible, awful douchebag for president if he runs.

it would be a Mondale-esque reaming

Seriously, Newt as a candidate? That would be a collective emasculating of the GOP, the failure would be so epic

150

William of Orange Sat, Feb 26, 2011 5:16:53am

Why is marriage so sacred to the religious right? According to statistics, in the US of A almost half of all marriages end up in a divorce. See statistics.

151

Lidane Sat, Feb 26, 2011 5:45:18am

re: #150 William of Orange

Why is marriage so sacred to the religious right?

It’s not. They revere an idealized myth of marriage. For the religious nutjobs, life was perfect before things like divorce, women working outside the home, birth control, etc. If we’d all go back to that mystical time, all our problems would magically be solved.

Gays wanting to get married? That just gives them the vapors. Gays don’t fit in their perfect world, so the idea of gays being equal under the law is anathema.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer: Impeach Obama Over DOMA

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud