Political Funnies & Satire

Hey, she's cute. Got a phone number? What kind of name is "Fotolia" for a lovely readhead?

The thumbs-downers are out in force on both sides of the issues, Citizen1. Not much we can do about that.

It is great to be "born again" Citizen1. Everybody should experience it.

Speaking of lies, I think it's just GREAT that Mr. Change himself, Barack Obama, has, a) brought in a bunch of retreads from the Clinton and Carter administrations to key positions outside of the Defense Department and, b) retained Bush's Secretary of Defense and most of Gates' staff in those roles.

Change we can believe in? Yeah, right.

LOL - Some folks were born-right the first time ...

and others just keep getting reborn over and over.
(sorta like Catholic confessionals?)

Ever see a Republican snow-ball fight?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2pyNnvKk7U

All he said was that he thinks same-sex marriage isn't sacred.

Is he allowed an opinion based on his faith?

-republikin

Of course he isn't allowed to have an opinion based on faith in the United States of America in the 21st century, Republikin. You didn't get the memo?

Those of faith (other than Islam, which is to be coddled in order to avoid offending its practitioners, and those who attend certain black churches whose pastors think our country is evil and every other society on earth is pure - and who are allowed to sponsor fundraisers and preach in favor of one candidate over another from the pulpit on Sundays) are supposed to keep our mouths shut and keep our RELIGIOUS beliefs out of the public square because we ALL know the United States Constitution starts and ends with the phrase "separation of church and state" and that means the government can't allow any hint of religion to slip in the public dialog.

Dang, that's the longest sentence I've ever written. I hope I didn't miss a period or throw in a comma splice somewhere. The AIM has a new editor, and I might want to apply for a job. 

I've pretty much accepted all of the above, reluctantly, but I still refuse to accept the term "homophobia" as applied to anybody who opposes same-sex marriage. I've already stated my opinion of that little peculiarity (I favor full rights for same-sex couples, but I want to see it approved legislatively, not forced upon the entire country by judges in places like California and Massachusetts.)

Just because you think something is a sin, and you see somebody engaging in that particular sin, that doesn't mean you're AFRAID of that person. "Phobia" after all comes from the Greek language and means "fear of."

I think drunkenness, gluttony and adultery are sins, too. Using the logic of those who call opponents of same-sex marriage "homophobic" because it's the word du jour, I could come up with the following terms. Maybe one of them will catch on:

Slobophobia: The fear that while you're going through the buffet line at Golden Corale and reaching for one of those chopped sirloins smothered in mushroom gravy, you'll get stabbed in the back of the hand by the fat guy in line behind you.

Barphobia (or, if you prefer, Barfphobia): Fear that a drunk will throw up on you while you're standing at the urinal in the men's room.

Heythatsmywifeaphobia: Fear that the known adulterer you were just introduced to looks very much like the plumber you saw leaving your house last week even though you were unaware you had any plumbing problems.

And, I suppose for good measure, homophobia: An overpowering fear that a couple of gay guys will overhear you telling inappropiate gay jokes, attack you, hold you down, style your hair and paint your toenails. (Hated the hairstyle, but the bright red nail polish was kinda cute I thought.)

Come on, Virginia, those aren't real phobias. Those of you who insist that religious beliefs must always be based on fear never cease to amuse me and amaze me.

So, which is worse, Virginia? My trying to suppress your beliefs, or your trying to suppress mine?

And I don't "bristle." If I develop a problem like that, a little Nair fixed it right up.

As for Rick Warren, he does sound a bit more civil than Jeremiah Wright, but I guess partisans could view both of them as extreme in many ways. But we were told repeatedly not to judge Barack Obama by the hateful words of Jeremiah Wright. Are we now to judge him on the words of Rick Warren? Do I smell a double standard here?

Nice of you to target the "South" on that school integration thing, Virginia. Yes, in the 1950s through 1966 or so, most of the violence over integration took place in places like Selma, Alabama, and Birmingham, and Little Rock. After about 1967 or 1968, though, I believe the most serious racial riots took place in places like Detroit, and Boston, and Chicago, and Los Angeles. Real "Southern" cities for sure.

Sad as it is, Virginia, the wait for integration was far longer than it should have been. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 ruled that blacks could never be naturalized citizens (Dred Scott.) Following the Civil War, though, the got the right to own property, enter into contracts and sue (13th Amendment in 1866) and the right of citizenship (14th Amendment in l1868.)

The next time the Supreme Court weighed in was in 1896 with Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the "separate but equal" doctrine. And that stood for 58 years until Brown v. Board of Education overturned it in 1954 - and it took until 1964 before the Civil Rights Act put some teeth into that ruling. By my calculation, that 107 years from "never be citizens" to full rights in American society. You're right, that's too long.

May I hastily point out to you, though, that in California, 70 percent of African-Americans voted IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 8 which defines marriage as between one man, one woman. I would contend to you that calling the same-sex marriage struggle to the civil rights struggles is an insult to those who risked life, limb and property fighting for racial equality. Why? BECAUSE RACE IS A BIRTHRIGHT. SEXUAL PREFERENCE ISN'T.

I do agree with you thate same-sex couples deserve the seame rights as those in more traditional marriages. But "marriage" IS a religious concept. The "civil" part of it comes with formal record-keeping requirements and, as always, ways for government to milk a few bucks from peddling marriage licenses.

It seems to me that, as we speak, a majority of Americvans would have no problem allowing civil unions for same-sex couples, but the majority also DOES NOT approve of same-sex marriage. If a couple can get exactly the same benefits from a civil union, why risk the horrendous backlash that's already started over what amounts to semantics?

Hmmm. Virginia, have you noticed that we're posting all this stuff under "Political Satire and Funnies?" What's up with that?