Thursday, May 13, 2010

Elena Kagan....GAY? Do you care?

Some are rumoring that Ms Kagan, nominee and probably the next justice on the Supreme Court of these United States, is gay. Her friends are insisting she is not.
Do any of you care if she is or not, and why? I'd like to know. Please let's keep this conversation above board and gay bashing, that's just silly. Do you think homosexuality could affect a Justice's decisions and how?


beamish said...

Her homosexuality (or weakly alleged lack thereof) is of importance only in its relation to how she would decide cases in which the question of whether it is constitutional to discriminate against people who possess the behavioral disorder / birth defect of homosexuality.

Of greater importance to me than Kagan's documented support for normalizing abnormality is her considerations that Congress has a power to abridge free speech despite the Constitution of the United States quite plainly forbidding them to do so.

Tom said...

Right, I was just reading of her support for stronger hate speech laws - G*d help us (oops, I've just insulted any/all atheists - in trouble now). Apart from yelling Fire in a Theater, why is any speech or writing offensive to any one? It's not - but a great way to silence dissent in the land of sheeple. What do you think of those suspended students in CA, for wearing American flag shirts etc on Cinco de Mayo? Cheers.

JINGOIST said...

My guess is that she's a total lesbo and you'll be hard pressed to keep her and Janet Napolitano apart! Just keep them away from leather, roller skates, and softball bats and everything should end up all right. LOL!

Do I care? Not at all.

It bothers me that she wrote in defense of "government rationing of free speech." The woman has a problem with the 1st Amendment.

Z said...

Oh, my...I'm just hearing about this hate speech thing now from Beamish and Tom and Morgan! NOT GOOD! I hope the Republicans make something over that.

Tom, I thought what I suppose you thought at the suspended students! it's utterly ridiculous and it's astonishing that Americans aren't rising up by now and demanding these things stop.
But, they aren' wouldn't look OPEN MINDED!?
How about the boy who took down a Mexican flag at his school that was higher than the American flag? He threw it away because it made him so mad and he's suspended for a week!

Everybody but Americans and Christians can get OUTRAGED at the slightest perceived slur to them (Mexicans, Muslims, etc) but let Americans and Christians get slammed and WHO CARES?
Other than us! :-)

Linda said...

First off, who of us, when we applied for a job was asked what we do in our bedrooms? Not me! However, I think if she is 'gay' she might not be able to separate her lifestyle from decisions she makes from the bench.

I agree with the rest of you about her 'free speech' thoughts.

Sorry I haven't been around lately. We took a road trip! Good to be home!!!!

Chuck said...

I don't care much one way or the other.

As far as her derisions, it's likely that any straight lib would make decisions just as idiotic as a gay one. It's liberalism that is the mental disorder.

I do have to say though that I think that if she is gay it is important to Obama and the left. When I first heard the rumor it was easy to assume she was and this is why Obama nominated her. It would give the left another "first", this appears to be real important to them.

Z said...

Linda, I hope you had a wonderful trip! Glad to have you back...
I don't see the big woop about her sex life, either...

It could color her decisions and that's wrong, but this WH doesn't seem to care about doing the wrong thing, it's bent on doing what THEY WANT, apparently.

Chuck, I had to laugh at how your typo (derisions) makes sense, too! :-)
Yes, it's very important to the left, I guess...but if she isn't gay or just has enough dignity to keep her sexuality to herself, they can't play on it.

Chuck said...

Nice. It does make sense though doesn't it?

Always On Watch said...

About Kagan and Free Speech

Just how is "harm" identified? Is being offended by the words of others a harm?

As for her likely lesbianism, that particular trait is one reason BHO nominated her, IMO. A sop to the gay voting block.

Anonymous said...

Isn't this broadening the borders of what is touted as "don't ask, don't tell" which entered the cultural debate focusing on the military? Once the military has succumbed to the PC notion, it only makes sense to attempt to broaden the argument since PC will call forth all their ideological allies to finger point at those with the temerity to question the ladies sexuality — even if it means having one of their own on the Supreme Court.

Not that this should be surprising since the state is expanding its powers encroaching on every aspect of private life. Perhaps the vision of John Maynard Keynes is being realized in the broader culture — make everyone question their sexuality and ultimately everyone will see aspects of homosexuality in their own self. Odd too, that his sexuality and moral depravity has reached new heights in popular culture just as his economic theories, which conquered the thinking in every country on the planet, are crashing to earth in utter failure.


Anonymous said...

Here's an interesting quotation and link relevant to the above post:

"Keynes and his conspirators projected homosexuality and drug addiction as an intrinsic part of their collectivist society of the future. His male sweetheart, Lytton Strachey, wrote privately that they would corrupt the whole population, “subtly, through literature, into the bloodstream of the people, and in such a way that they accepted it all naturally, if need be without at first realizing what it was to which they were agreeing.” He boasted that he intended “to seduce his readers to tolerance through laughter and sheer entertainment.” He pointed out that the object was “to write in a way that would contribute to an eventual change in our ethical and sexual mores—a change that couldn’t be done in a minute, but would unobtrusively permeate the more flexible minds of young people.” J.M. Keynes put it in the terms of Marxist economics:

When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many pseudo-moral principles which have hagridden us for two hundred years. . . .

Keynes and Strachey used their malignant writings to help contaminate the entire English-speaking world. In the United States they both found expression in the New Republic, the New York Times, and the Saturday Review Of Literature.


Name: Soapboxgod said...

Don't care one iota. What I care about is which lady of justice statue she'd prefer in her office; the one with the blindfold or the one without.

All indications lean towards the latter.

Elmers Brother said...

"Keynes and his conspirators projected homosexuality and drug addiction as an intrinsic part of their collectivist society of the future.

Cultural Marxism

Anonymous said...

Heaven only knows how many homosexuals and bisexuals have already served on the high court, the senate the house and throughout the federal state and local judiciaries. I imagine we'd all be surprised if the full truth could ever be known.

However, no one could ever know for sure other than the people who have had intimate relations with them -- and they're all dead -- OR in the pay of politically motivated "opposition researchers." };-)>

From the first picture published of EK at Drudge I thought EK was a One-Woman HOROR SHOW. Then I saw her in animation (on FOX News) and got a completely different impression.

The quality and direction of her THINKING is all that should legitimately concern us. That she appears on all fronts to be a committed radical liberal worries me, because she's young and will have permanent incumbency till death if she wants it.

The sexual orientation of women like Eleanor Roosevelt, Janet Reno, Donna Shalala, Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, et al. should not concern us for two reasons: First, it's none of our business. Second, it's a moot point, because no one in his right mind would want to have sex with any of them anyway.

There have ALWAYS been "Career Girls" -- in years past they were the unattractive old maids who taught, nursed and took dictation. If they'd been pretty, they would have married, etc. Nowadays they run for office and get appointed to judgeships.

One way or another LIFE WILL GO ON.

I'd oppose Kagan just as I oppose Obama and all the other D'Rats.

It's the AGENDA not the SEX that matters.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Would Cultural Marxism plague us as it has donee without the septic influences of Antonio Gramsci and The Frankfurt School?

Somehow I doubt it.

Can anyone connect Keynes to the Gramsci and the Frankfurt School?

It's possible that these leftist concepts were just ideas who's time had come, but I doubt many would have accepted them without the seminal machinations of the scheming intellectuals cited above.

It would be very helpful when quoting opinion if the sources could be given -- IF we're to have a serious discussion and not just a festival of bilious rhetoric. ;-)

~ FreeThinke

Name: Soapboxgod said...

What's more, that Kagan would replace a liberal on the bench (though their exists an argument to be made that perhaps she is much more liberal than her predecessor) concerns me little as such an appointment does not yet change the balance of the 9 member court. Regardless, a 5-4 bench does not inspire me when it comes to upholding individual rights. And be it known it is this slim majority and the Heller decision that prompted me to begin exercising my 2nd Amendment rights.

Anonymous said...

"Can anyone connect Keynes to the Gramsci and the Frankfurt School?"


Not sure if it's important to have physical evidence of a "connection" between Gramsci, the Frankfurt School and John Maynard Keynes. In the most important war of all, the war of ideas, they had much in common including their embrace of socialist or communist tyranny, the promotion of socialism as a means of "progress" to the future and as always found in any true socialist the destruction of the enemy — Capitalism.

Why wouldn't Fabian Socialists like Keynes or George Bernard Shaw be enamored by the likes of Gramsci and the Frankfurt School since they embraced the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini?

"It would be very helpful when quoting opinion if the sources could be given -- IF we're to have a serious discussion and not just a festival of bilious rhetoric"


Link provided just for YOU!


Z said...

FT, you said "Heaven only knows how many homosexuals and bisexuals have already served on the high court," which, I think, would be precisely the point IF this wasn't a time when everybody had to SHARE! :-)

People used to just lead their lives and get on with it...whatever their sexuality. I suppose one could make the case that some people want to live OUT and celebrate their relationships by outward signs of affection and that doesn't go over too well in any society quite, most dignified gays led (or lead) lives celebrating their sexuality in private.
If this is Kagan's choice, why should she be outed and made a display of by the WH IF, in fact, she is gay. I haven't heard anything to point to that, her friends say she definitely is not....she says nothing. It's HER BUSINESS.

It's a testy subject and I wish I had more time today to get back and respond to everyone's comments so far, but I WILL when I get back this afternoon.

Chuck, yes, DERISION was perfect :-)

I'll see y'all later...xx

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Keynes never did it for me. Rothbard and Von Hayek and Von Mises were my kind of economists.

Anonymous said...

If Clarence Thomas' hetero life was such an important aspect ( remember the public lynching of him? ) of his nomination...then I would say all is fair with her "orientation" too! They dragged Alito and Roberts through the dirt so musch,,,,wasn't it Robert's wife who was in tears? Screw her....she's not immune to scrutiny.

If she is...then she already thinks shes an oppressed minority and might just stick gay marriage down our throats...errrr...scuze the visual.


Misfit410 said...

My only beef with it is I feel it was the basis in which she was chosen on.

Ducky's here said...

All I care about is whether or not Kagan reads Gramsci.

I doubt it. She seems pretty far removed from any radical sensibility.

Beamish, you seem particularly enlightened today.

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

She's another advocate for the Constitution being a "living document" to be interpreted in any fashion at any time. The issue I have with her being a lesbian is her inability -- and the inability of most Leftists and Demorats -- to OWN their nature. If you're a "Progressive," SAY it. If you're a lesbian, SAY it. If you're a Socialist, SAY it. US "journalists" constantly refuse to OWN what and whom they are known to be: Leftists hiding under the guise of "balanced."


FrogBurger said...

I really don't care as long as she is competent.

Ducky's here said...

People used to just lead their lives and get on with it...whatever their sexuality.


Yeah, but then people got tired of all your conservative crap and decided they were going to live out in the open just like you.

Now the far right walks around with all those scary Muslims and homos and leftists and they just wish they could get back to the day when they did whatever they pleased.

Suck it up, z, those days are gone and as a far right evangelical you are in a distinct MINORITY.

Anonymous said...

What concerns me is the pattern I perceive being used by progressives over the years. Using a red flag that exposes a controversial, but pc supportable issue while masking outrageously insupportable behavior. 'Abridging free speach'? Isn't that like the free download of a computer program that you must pay for before you can use it?

I never thought Clinton's sexual escapades were anything more than embarassing and detrimental to the dignity of my country. His criminal and treasonous actions were totally ignored by the state media.

~ Will

FrogBurger said...

Wow Ducky you must have had a bad dinner last night because your writing sounds like a lot of vomit to me.
Far right here, far right there, blah blah blah. You remind me the Fuhrer sometimes the way you're telling us "those days are over."

tha malcontent said...

Elena Kagan appears to be just another poorly educated Harvard University “minority” student. She seems intellectually shallow and poorly read. Kagan and Obama have that in common along with their leftism. And frankly I don't care about her sexuality at all. But I do care about her judicial temperament and experience , and I'm having a very hard time figuring out what it is. And why is she any more qualified than Harriet Miers?

Ducky's here said...

to OWN their nature. If you're a "Progressive," SAY it. If you're a lesbian, SAY it. If you're a Socialist, SAY it.


Who won't say it? z, just told us she gets the vapors being around all these out homos.

You think I hide the fact that I'm a leftist? The thing that surprises me is that some right winger would think I'm not proud of it.

Man, you folks sure live a sheltered existence.

Ducky's here said...

She seems intellectually shallow and poorly read.


Stunning. You folks live in a bubble.

FrogBurger said...

If you're an intellectually dishonest JERK a la Ducky, say it.

Anonymous said...

All I care about is whether or not Kagan reads Gramsci.


Fair enough, Ducky. IMO, if she keeps a copy of her Gramsci reader near her toilet she can prove that she's "progressive" enough for me if she puts each page to good use and FLUSHES after using it properly.


You think I hide the fact that I'm a leftist? The thing that surprises me is that some right winger would think I'm not proud of it.


Sounds like you've spent the night putting a proper spit and polish shine on your jackboots, comrade!


Misfit410 said...

Ducky the people in this nation who stand up to those "scary muslims" are the only thing preventing those muslims from stoning every gay they see on the spot.

FrogBurger said...

Great point Misfit. History has shown the left always does the most horrific things. National socialism sending gays to camps. Pierre Laval sending jewish kids to the camps. Etc...

And yet people like ducky want to tell us we live in a bubble i.e. we're close minded.

Anonymous said...

"... the people in this nation who stand up to those "scary Muslims" are the only thing preventing those Muslims from stoning every gay they see on the spot."

This is an excellent point, although I doubt if "every" gay would be "stoned to death on the spot" by Muslims. From many reports -- the purported escapades of Lawrence of Arabia, and certain episodes recorded in the novels of André Gide and Evelyn Waugh among them -- homosexual behavior among males is extremely common among the Semitic Tribes of Araby -- and always for SALE -- to European and American tourists and adventurers.

A chasm always exists between theory and practice, law and behavior, dogma and individual thought -- thank GOD.

The last thing we should want is a nation of automata marching in lock step - even to our OWN cherished notions of equity and moral rectitude.

And again I would quote Oliver Wendell Holmes:

"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those that agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate."

I would extend that to personal behavior as well -- except for the classic sins against humanity Murder, Mayhem, Rape, Robbery, Vandalism, Extortion, Harassment, Rioting, etc.

I HATE "Hate Speech" laws, because they are by their very nature a clear VIOLATION of the First Amendment. It's ALL RIGHT to DISLIKE people for WHATEVER reason. It might be NICER if we could all love and accept each other, but it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

Trying to COERCE everyone to do it "MY" way or "YOUR" way or "THEIR" way, by CRIMINALIZING dissent and opposition is TYRANNY in and of itself. All that does is lead to Anger, Resentment and ultimate Rebellion -- i.e. VIOLENCE. You can keep a lid on a pressure cooker JUST so long before it EXPLODES.

If I want to "hate" you, that's FINE. If you want to "hate" me, that's FINE too. However, NEITHER of us has the right to deprive the other of life, liberty or the pursuit of self-fulfillment just because of the way we FEEL.

And that is EXACTLY what "Liberals" (I prefer to call them Marxicrats or Tyrannists these days) want to do -- ELIMINATE ALL OPPOSITION.

The BIG SIN behind this, however, is NOT "liberalism," it is SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS or BIGOTRY (they are the one and the same), and ALL of us are prey to that high a level of judgmentalism no matter WHAT our religion or ideology.

The love of POWER -- not "money" -- is the root of all evil.

Elena Kagan seems "amiable" in animation. She MUST be intelligent, because intelligence -- like FIRE -- is a neutral thing. It can be used for good or ill. IQ has no particular conscience or morality.

But most of us here, except the gadflies, would agree that EK's perspective on our Constitution is WRONG, and THAT should be the reason we oppose her.

And I mostly agree with Z. There's something fundamentally DISGUSTING and UNSEEMLY about "IN YOUR FACE" behavior of ANY kind -- including PROSELYTIZING on the streets for your faith or ANY genuinely worthy cause.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

I'm glad you chose THAT picture of Elena Kagan, Z. There are others out there that make her look like a gargoyle.

Your choice shows you to be eminently fair-minded.

I remember very well how the media ALWAYS chose THE most unflattering picture they could find of NIXON -- and everyone else they hoped to drive from office.

There are loads of candid shots of ME I would not want published. It makes me SO glad I am not in public life. ;-)

~ FT

cube said...

I don't care if she is gay, heterosexual, or asexual. I want to know how liberal (read activist) are her proclivities are regarding the Constitution. That's what I care about.

Elmers Brother said...

"Keynes and his conspirators projected homosexuality and drug addiction as an intrinsic part of their collectivist society of the future.

Lukacs’s first acts was to introduce sex education into Hungary’s public schools. He knew that if he could destroy the West’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying Western culture itself.

I was connecting the acceptance of homosexuality and the use of illicit drugs to cultural marxism because both of them destroy the West's views of morality.

Elmers Brother said...

Keynes was also a proud proponent of eugenics.

^ Keynes, John Maynard (1946). "Opening remarks: The Galton Lecture". Eugenics Review 38 (1): 39–40.

Elmers Brother said...

He was also a member of the Bloomsbury Group which advocated polyfidelity. Today it goes by another name.

.....controversy continues to accompany Bloomsbury wherever it goes. Much work on Bloomsbury continues to focus on the group’s class origins and alleged elitism, their satire, their atheism, their oppositional politics and liberal economics, their non-abstract art, their modernist fiction, their art and literary criticism, and their non-nuclear family and sexual arrangements.

if not in theory then in practice

Anonymous said...

What Cube said ... and it doesn't look as if she has much regard for our constitution.

Semper Fi

Leticia said...

It is important if she is going to be in favor of diverse groups and assist them in anyway she can.

beamish said...


Beamish, you seem particularly enlightened today.

You know what they say. Those that can't do, teach. Kagan is a law professor.

beamish said...

Yeah, but then people got tired of all your conservative crap and decided they were going to live out in the open just like you.

I keep seeing nothing in the lawn outside city hall, and that sign of government support for atheism just burns me.

::rolls eyes::

Did you overdose on stupid juice today, Ducky?

Z said...

"Suck it up, z, those days are gone and as a far right evangelical you are in a distinct MINORITY."

Sorry...don't fit that bill, but it did give me huge laugh again! Thanks

By the way, I'd be HUMILIATED to be a leftist and see what harm my bunch is doing to our country, OH, yes...humiliated!! utterly
Let's face it, it's you guys who voted for a blatant liar..and don't give me the BS that "All politicians lie" Most don't say they don't know somebody or never heard a sermon when it's so easy to disprove !! MY GOD, and you're not embarrassed? REALLY? Nor do most people vote for others with no pedigree..who did pay for Harvard? How'd he apply for schools as a foreigner and get financial aid !! OOops, breaks your bubble of security, doesn't it, duckster.

And, by the way, I NEVER use the term HOMOS, it's sickening and demeaning...and i have had many gay friends, some who were 'out'...Do I prefer my public servants more dignified and quiet in their sexuality, whether it's straight or gay? You bet.

Will, excellent's all smoke screen for her lack of papertrail and other things that go against her SCOTUS nomination.

FT....Do you know I intentionally picked a more flattering picture of her? Thanks for noticing and commenting on that. I hate the demeaning crap we get these days. I even hate the "republicans are beautiful women" v "dems are ugly pig women" emails we all get...they show the beautiful Republicans all dolled up and the Dems with grimaces and no makeup...
of course, the Reps ARE more naturally beautiful (!), let's face it, but the comparison isn't fair and it's just plain silly, anyway!

Cube, I'm with you, too.

Leticia, I like to think straight OR gay people can work for everyone, don't you? xx

Z said...




Anonymous said...

Well, if truth be told Arlen Specter never HAD any integrity. He's been an opportunist and a fence-sitter all his political life. When it suited the purposes of Arlen Specter he ran as a Republican. When he thought it didn't, he became a turncoat -- like Jumpin' Jim Jeffords of verminous Vermont ;-) -- the only state I know that ever elected an openly avowed SOCIALIST.

How Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys must be spinning in their graves! New England might have been the Cradle of Liberty once, but now it's more oppressive than Merrie Olde Englande EVER was, except maybe in the time of Cromwell, (:-x

John McCain strikes me as the same type of person -- possibly worse. He's a CHAMELEON. you never know what "color "he's apt to be on any given issue.

Fie on all these hyypocrites and liars.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

What matters is Kagan's view of the constitution. If it's true she supports stronger hate speech laws, I have to assume the First Amendment as it is written, is not her cup of tea.

If she's a lesbian, and an activist for gay issues, one could assume she may be one who wishes to silence Christian teaching of homosexuality being a sin.

Hate speech laws could be used to silence the clergy. We know this is a big issue with homosexuals. They have exhibited it enough.

So, if a homosexual serves on the Supreme Court and is true to the Constitution, and swears to uphold it, and does, it's ok with me.

If, on the other hand she believes it's a "living document" to be tweaked to suit an agenda, then I'ts not OK.

Peronally, I don't care about what consenting adults do behind closed doors. It's none of my business.

However, if anyone, gay or straight, has a political agenda, the Court is not the place for that person. Politics is.

To me, one must approach the constitution as an originalist. Nothing less is acceptable.

I don't expect anyone Obama chooses, to be an originalist, and since Obama himself is unacceptable, I expect we will continue to be betrayed as Americans. I haven't forgot that Obama himself said, the "constitution is flawed".


Anonymous said...

Hi, Z,

Here's what I think about the possibility of gays, lesbians, women, blacks, hispanics, Jews, cripples, the blind, the deaf, the retarded, and all other "minorities" working for ALL people:

It's not only POSSIBLE it has already happened countless times, but it's ONLY possible when various kinds of people drop their "Outraged Disaffected Minority" status, stop screaming about their precious selves and get into the swim with everyone else as far as they are able.

As long as some "activist" gays loudly demand their "right" to work on a construction site or play football in a pink satin gown wearing lipstick and earrings, or if people who can't sing DEMAND their "right" to appear at the Metropolitan Opera in leading role -- or whatever -- there will be no joy -- or peace -- in "Mudville."

It's time to DROP the notion of SINGULARITY and SPECIALNESS, and realize we are ALL just PEOPLE. But that goes for EVERYONE.

Tough, I know.

~ FreeThinke

Z said...

FT, SO WELL SAID, know that's how I've felt for you've read enough of my comments re gays to know my feelings on it over the years!.
How many times have I said "gay men are ill advised to be marching with fishnet stockings and false eyelashes on!" It's ludicrous and turns people OFF.

it's hurtful to themselves and they don't see that? It's sickening and degrading to dignified people of all sexual persuasions.

Mr. Z used to cringe and say "Let's go have a STRAIGHT PARADE and see how fast WE are ARRESTED!" he was right, of course. The gay parades make kooks laugh and cavort and feel FREEEEE!! they make dignified people who are straight or gay wonder what the heck that proves!?

Tom said...

If I were a member of any minority, and supposedly oppressed group - but educated too ... how embarassing it would be to have the type of people at the megaphone shouting out my rights. There must be a slew of them who abhor the 'activitst' that 'represent' their 'cause'(s). With the jokes they make of it all, nobody wins ... or does some? Food for thought ....

James said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ducky's here said...

Pris, where are you teaching it? The public schools? That's a no-no and you really need to home school the little dear.

Karen Howes said...

What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is of no concern to me.

It's when they drag it out of the bedroom, onto our TV and movie screens, into our textbooks, and into our LAWS that I vehemently object.

Ducky's here said...

Let's face it, it's you guys who voted for a blatant liar...

But z, the alternative was "Knuckles" McCain and the pole dancer. Couldn't have that.

Isn't often you get a choice in these United States but at least we've stepped back a bit from the ledge. Not that the hole that's been dug since that ignorant fool, St. Ronnie Raygun, took office isn't damn near insurmountable.

Now Obama is just Clinton redux, a right of center corporatist so I have no idea what you think he's doing to ruin the country other than not breaking with rethug policy. Let me know, I really would like a substantive answer instead of some rabies radio boiler plate like "He's attacking our freedom and doesn't respect the Constitution". Specifics.

Remember, you're in a minority.

Z said...

Ducky, why are you so ugly with the insults? And, by the way, don't look now, but I am NOT in the minority...the polls came out something like 56% Republican, 32% Dems today...of course, I can't Google and find it :-) THEY don't like that!!

"But z, the alternative was "Knuckles" McCain and the pole dancer. Couldn't have that."

Right, especially if you're a socialist like yourself. Don't hide behind that nonsense about the choices (tho I admit now I can't stomach McCain's duplicity..but, at least he loves this country) voted for OBAMA because you had to have known his ties, his connections, his stance on killing babies, etc etc etc.........don't give me that CHOICE thing, Ducky..

You're kidding about the Constitution, right? Where's it say anything about buying companies, regulating Wall Street, setting salaries, killing babies born in botched abortions, taking over American health care, in the Constitution?

Anonymous said...

I think I know you pretty well, Z, and I understand what you're driving at.

I agree with you too, Tom. Thanks.

By acting like "freaks" and lunatics some people with an "activist" mindset think their obnoxious antics are the only way to get attention and make a POINT. (Code Pink is a good example!)

MAYBE. But I have ALWAYS thought it generated more antagonism and retarded whatever "healing process" needs to take place.

But then we must remember what happened to The Bonus Army. They demonstrated at the mall in Washington, D.C. and were BRUTALLY DRIVEN OFF by the U.S. MILITARY.

I can't remember the details, but I'll look it up later if anyone's interested. It was a shameful chapter in our history, because those men had a perfectly JUST claim, they weren't just howling about their lowly position in life, and demanding "rights," they had been CHEATED out of money they had properly EARNED.

My point is that all the stuff we find distasteful, and disrespectful of human dignity today had its ROOTS in something that was really unjust and horrible.

At the rate things are going SHORT people are going to start whining that they have a "right" to be TALL, and that ALL people should be the SAME height. It's ridiculous.

God made each of us for a reason that only HE knows. It's up to us to make the best of WHATEVER comes our way. That may sound "insensitive," but what other real CHOICE do we have?

You and I know there are thousands and thousands of wonderful things in this world that most people could enjoy if they stopped thinking about everything that's wrong, and start enjoying whatever good that's available to them.

The more I think about it the more I like Dennis Prager's advice that we have a DUTY to one another to be CHEERFUL, and NOT to parade our woes and demand that we be coddled.

Being kind and pleasant is generally infectious, and vice versa. We ALL have painful burdens, anxiety and injustices we have to bear. I don't think anyone escapes that in this life, and from all the evidence no one SHOULD.

Practicing "Critical Theory" makes everyone miserable, so what GOOD does it do?

The Irascible Old Purveyor of Good Cheer,

~ FreeThinke ;-)

Elmers Brother said...

apparently there is a move in Europe to make a vacation a civil right including having the government pay for it.


on your last thought:

it's why life is about balance

Principle without love is oppression, love without principled is sentimentality.

FrogBurger said...

Ducky is in the abyss of the intellect today.I also love how he seems now so disappointed with Obama. He's clearly leaving the camp because, as a good lefty, he has no courage and no balls. He doesn't want to be associated with the mess.

What a little man he is. I'm glad it's not that type of man that came to Europe to save us from the nazis.

But that makes sense. His kind was too busy praising how the Reich and Mussolini were good for a new society.

Ducky's here said...

But most of us here, except the gadflies, would agree that EK's perspective on our Constitution is WRONG, and THAT should be the reason we oppose her.


And just what is her perspective? 25 words or less will do fine and I absolutely guarantee it comes down to your not agreeing with it rather than any experience you have with Constitutional jurisprudence.

Or let's cut to the chase. She may not agree with you on the 10th and that makes her wrong because you are a recognized authority.

Ducky's here said...

When was I ever a big fan of Obama, Frog. He's a centrist and a corporate ass kisser.

FairWitness said...

You know Z, I do care if Elena Kagan is gay. What if she sees everything in her public and private lives through the prism of gay rights? If she intends to be a gay activist from the SCOTUS bench, then she won't be interpreting Constitutionality of the cases before the court on the merits, but rather from a biased, narrow viewpoint. We need Supreme Court Justices who have no axes to grind. I hope she's asked about this during her confirmation hearings.

Z said...

FairWitness...I care ONLY if it does affect her job...if it doesn't, and I believe there ARE gays who can judge very fairly, then that's fine with me.

I don't trust this woman because I believe her stance on the recruiters is unAmerican AND unconstitutional...and I worry that O's picked someone with an amazingly small paper trail on purpose; HE knows how liberal she apparently is..and that's fine with him if she can hide her opinions having not exposed them in writing.

FrogBurger said...

Sorry there's no Communist Party to vote for Ducky.
I would recommend you to leave the US and go to Greece. They need more wacked out brains like you to screw it up even more.

But you're right on Obama. He is a corporatist too. Lefty thinking + corporatism defines a fascistic tendency. We have a president that, if we didn't have a Constitution, would be Chavez-like.

I just wonder what YOU Ducky suggests then. Because you criticize a lot but you're not offering solutions 95% of the time.

Anonymous said...

"We need Supreme Court Justices who have no axes to grind. "

Good luck with that, FW! Perhaps we should dig them up from the cemetery? Only the dead have no axes to grind, I fear, and I'm not 100% sure even of that. ;-)

"I worry that O's picked someone with an amazingly small paper trail on purpose..."

Yes. Good point again, Z. Obama, himself, has allowed us to know as little as possible about his background. We have no birth certificate, we have no transcripts, we have no articles from the Harvard Law Review, which he is said to have EDITED, he lied about Wright, he lied about Ayres, he has a half brother living in Kenya on $26,00 a year or something ridiculous like that, an aunt who is here ILLEGALLY and lives on Welfare in Boston. He does NOTHING to acknowledge or aid his poor relatives, yet he doesn't deny their existence either.

Kagan too has a "flashy" record, being Dean of Harvard Law School is no slouch, but a very thin portfolio of writings, and no experience as a judge -- just as BO had little experience as a legislator, but lots a Community Agitator (the correct term for his occupation).



What happened to Sunshine Laws and The Public's Right to Know?

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Ms. Z:
"How many times have I said "gay men are ill advised to be marching with fishnet stockings and false eyelashes on!" It's ludicrous and turns people OFF.

it's hurtful to themselves and they don't see that? It's sickening and degrading to dignified people of all sexual persuasions.

Bravo...How sane and true. Yet we have this:

"Yeah, but then people got tired of all your conservative crap and decided they were going to live out in the open just like you."

As ususal ducky misses the point that America doesn't want to see this crap...from anybody. Straight or Pervert!
But...I suppose the duk is breathless when he sees all those open leather chaps and all that hair!

He's so...enlightened.


Anonymous said...

The Top 10 Dumbest Defenses of Elena Kagan
by Jason Mattera

What to do when your nominee to the Supreme Court has no experience on the bench, filed an amicus brief that got blown out of the water, worked a skimpy two years in the private sector, treated members of the military as second-class citizens, and penned only a limited number of “scholarly” articles?

Naturally, you talk about all the free tampons she distributed while at Harvard. If only I were kidding. It turns out that Kagan’s résumé is so threadbare that Team Obama is floating a myriad of pathetic talking points to pad its candidate’s “qualifications.”

See for yourself.

1. The baller. Not only are we told that she’s “ambitious, restless, [and] intellectually acute,” but, as Politico noted, she “even shares the president’s love of a good, grinding pick-up basketball game.” Say what? She enjoys a “grinding pick-up basketball game”? Well now, that settles it then. Bust out the basketball trunks, throw on a jersey, and move yourself straight to the front of the line for a lifetime position on the most powerful court in the world! What could go wrong? As an aside, can you even imagine Kagan “grinding” on the court?

2. She’s one of us. From the mouth of Barack, a Kagan confirmation would be “more reflective of us as a people than ever before.” And if by “reflective,” the president means that most Americans go from Princeton to Oxford to Harvard to the University of Chicago… then back to Harvard, well yes, Kagan’s mug should replace Lincoln’s on the $5 bill because she’s so “reflective” of America.

3. Feminine products. At Harvard, Kagan gained popularity by offering “free coffee outside classrooms and free tampons in the women’s restrooms.” Surely, these were exactly the type of qualities Thomas Jefferson sought when picking a justice.

4. The tokens. Kagan herself tells us that she strove to “bring people together,” specifically by hiring conservative professors. Obama touts this as “openness to a broad array of viewpoints.” Um, so let’s get this one straight. As the dean of one of the nation’s most prominent law schools, she took steps to introduce her students to different opinions and thus fulfill the mission of a university? The left is asking us to pat her on the back for doing her job? Okay, fine. Let’s buy her a meat-lovers pizza and call it even. Besides, out of the 43 hires she authorized, only 3 were conservative. Big deal.

5. Born in the U.S.A. “Elena is the granddaughter of immigrants,” Obama boasted of his pick, which is to say that Kagan’s parents’ parents immigrated to this country. And that makes her special again how?

Anonymous said...

Kagan Part 2:

6. Triple Axel. Kagan, we’re told, improved “student life” at Harvard with a “revamped student center, an upgraded gym and an ice-skating rink” that also “doubled as a volleyball court.” Did I miss the memo, or is the Supreme Court now the new training grounds for the 2012 Olympics?

7. Justice Pavarotti. Pete Williams of NBC News recently affirmed Kagan as an “accomplished poker player [and] opera lover,” which, as we know, are grounds for a swift confirmation, no?

8. Toilet preference. Obama describes Kagan as a "trailblazing leader" for being the first female solicitor general and the first female dean of Harvard’s law school, as if we're supposed to judge her fidelity to the Constitution because she happens to sit and not stand while urinating.

9. Good news: Kagan ain’t deaf. Television legal analyst Lis Wiehl gushed that the Supreme Court nominee ran Harvard Law with “grace” and is an “avid listener.”

10. Kagan actually “welcomed the military to campus.” So says White House shill Valerie Jarrett, even though Kagan authored a memo bragging that she “reinstated” the school's ban on the military in the Spring of 2005, but reluctantly lifted the ban in the Fall of that same year, after the Department of Defense threatened to “withhold all possible funds if the Law School continued to bar the military” from Harvard.

Now that we have those gems out of the way, enjoy the rest of your day thinking about Elena Kagan in her booty basketball shorts, "grinding" on the court ;).

What statements have you spotted that are also miserable attempts by this administration to beef up Kagan's already suspect "qualifications?"

FairWitness said...

There's a purely political strategy at play with this nomination. And we are powerless to block it at this time. Imp's top 10 list is very revealing; it shows that this woman is the most unqualified person to ever be elevated to the Supreme Court. What is it with Democrats? They have dozens of qualified, Democrat-appointed federal judges to pick from. Why do they insist on penalizing their best and brightest in favor of someone undeserving??? What the hell?

Z, I have nothing against Kagan homosexuality. I just don't want her on the bench if she is a one-dimensional person who sees everything as anti-gay. I know many in the gay movement through family members. They are consumed with gaining power and status and they couldn't care less about "justice for all." If Elena Kagan is one of these individuals, she is wrong for the SCOTUS.

Z said...

Imp...amazing that any president would pick a nominee for SCOTUS when the information you posted is about all anybody knows about her.

ODD that this piece doesn't mention Lis Wiehl is from FOX and gushed over her. Another (idiotic) sign that FOX is far, far more balanced than CNN or MSNBC, of course. You'll never heard any negative word toward Kagan at either.

FairWitness, that's what I'd said and I agree...IF she can be gay and not let that taint her decisions, I'm okay with her. I just don't think she can, not with Barack says "\She's one of us" which scares the hell out of me now.

Deborah on the Bayside said...

I'm more concerned about her cloistered life among the New York/Mass liberal elite that have little interchange with the constitution or the rest of the country west of the Hudson. "Hate speech" ideas much worse. Her willingness to join the clamor to ban ROTC from Harvard (unanimously overruled by SCOTUS) is also a much bigger red flag, especially for the one-track mind it exposed.

But, then Harry Reid assures us she "has fresh ideas. She’s been out in the real world recently." Really? Where's HE been?

Anonymous said...

That's very funny, Imp -- but NOT so funny when you stop to think what it implies.

Thanks for the info -- and the gallows humor.

Sadly, this one's a "shoo-in." There is no strength in Republican opposition. Michael Steele is a TOTAL LOSS, but he can't be fired, because he's a MINORITY.

Kagan can't NOT be hired, because she is a DOUBLE -- probably a TRIPLE -- MINORITY. (You'll have to guess what that means - I wouldn't dare say)

Welcome to TOPSY-TURVEYLAND -- The HOME of MINORITY RULE -- formerly known as The United States of America.

And wouldn't it be loverly if someone near-but-not-so-dear to us were to TAKE a TRAIN to UKRAINE?

Heh! Heh! Heh! Heh! Heh! };-)>

I do so wish the advocates of SUICIDISM would practice what they preach before they kill all the rest of us.

~ FreeThinke

I.H.S. said...

Whatever her preferrence is her business, as long as it doesn't affect the way she decides; which is almost next to impossible, because truth is we all make the majority of our decisions based on our backgrounds, upbringing, etc. whether right or wrong it's who we are.

Ducky you said:"Suck it up, z, those days are gone and as a far right evangelical you are in a distinct MINORITY..."

You are aware I'm sure that the Lord's disciples were a distinct Minority as well, and look what they were able to do.


Z said...

IMH...wonderful, thanks for that!
and welcome back home to geeeeeZ! xxx

Anonymous said...

"It takes all kinds of people to make a world," so obviously God made them. I think all types should be represented, don't you? So in that case, why not expand the number of judges on the Supreme Court?

We should have a butcher, a baker, a candlestick maker, a sybarite, a parasite. a neophyte, a troglodyte -- and all the rest of it.

We'd need one HUNDRED Justices at the very least in order to be "fair."

All OTHER branches of government expand constantly, so why not the Supreme Court?

And don't forget the Voodooists, and the Satanists, they're people too, right?


~ FreeThinke

Elmers Brother said...

what's funny about duhkkky's comment is he's the outlier not Z

Mark said...

I think the first priority of any gay person is to promote special rights for gays, and to indoctrinate society with pro-homosexuality propaganda.

With that in mind, I believe Kagan's number 1 short term goal (after being confirmed, of course) is to promote special rights for gays under the more innocuous sounding term, "equal rights", and to nationally legalize the oxymoronic "same sex marriage".

I've personally known dozens, if not hundreds, of homosexuals in my lifetime and I can categorically state that I have never met a one who did not put their perversion first above everything else in their lives.

Kagan will be no different. After she pushes all the homosexual agendas through that she can, she will have no other use for her office, and will likely retire to live out the rest of life with her housemate(s).

But that's just my opinion, you understand.

Anonymous said...

"I think the first priority of any gay person is to promote special rights for gays, and to indoctrinate society with pro-homosexuality propaganda."

That shows how very little you know, and how paralyzingly narrow your views are.

Statements like yours provide a lot of fodder for leftist cannons. If any group is to cause the complete destruction of personal liberty guaranteed by the US Constitution it is likely to be the Christian Right, which is neither.

Elena Kagan is a terrible danger to this country, but not for the silly concerns you express.

Your type of rhetoric will only help shoo her in, because it turns the vast majority off and pushes them into the arms of the Communists.

The Count of Anticristo

Mark said...

Very well, Count. Prove me wrong.

Anonymous said...