Wednesday, February 2, 2011

NOW we have the answer :-)

Did you ever wonder why earrings became so popular with men?

A man is at work one day when he notices that his co- 
worker is wearing an earring.

The man knows his co-worker to be a normally conservative 
fellow, and is curious about his sudden change in "fashion sense".

The man walks up to him and says, "I didn't know you were 
into earrings."

"Don't make such a big deal, it's only an earring," he replies 
sheepishly.

His friend falls silent for a few minutes, but then his 
curiosity prods him to ask, "So, how long have you been wearing one?"

"Ever since my wife found it in my truck."  (I always wondered how this trend got started.)


Z:  I hesitate to attach this information with this post because I don't equate men in earrings to homosexuality, but what I'd like to know is WHY DOES THE MEDIA MAKE SUCH A BIG DEAL OVER BARBARA BUSH APPROVING OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?   Since when does what she says about anything remotely interest anybody?   Do you care?
geeeeez!

78 comments:

beamish said...

I remember back in the late 20th Century I wanted to get an earring.

It was 1985. I had just moved to oversized belt buckle roper hell in Texas and I was approaching my 15th birthday. The prevailing "rock-n-roll is Satanic" goofy churchy / Tipper Gore leftist opinion at the time was that a guy with an earring in the left ear was a drug dealer and if it was in the right ear he was queer (I remember picking up a bottle of Mr. Clean and joking "fag!"). For these irrational reasons my parents refused to let me get an earring, which made the idea getting one that much "cooler."

But I never did get an earring, and nowadays with people walking around with D cell batteries and napkin holders through their earlobes and enough rings in their eyebrows to hang a shower curtain, getting a simple stud in the earlobe seems downright tame.

[At least my parents did let me have a neon orange mullet / mohawk hairdo in the summer between my sophomore and junior high school years LOL.]

I went on to have heavy metal hippy biker hair (3 foot ponytail at its longest) until my early 30s when it started receding and I took on a more bald-is-beautiful office friendly shaved look.

I just look at the prison tattoos and self-mutilation today's youth finds "cool" and smirk. There but for the grace of good parents go I. 20 years from now, today's tattooed, freakishly pierced kids are going to look like someone beat the piss out of their faces with a meat tenderizer. Me at 40 with baby face still gets carded for cigarettes.

As far as what Barbara Bush thinks of gay marriage, I can sort of see her point. Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, and Newt Gingrich all have gay kids after all. I don't agree with the idea of legalizing gay marriage. Wouldn't just doing away with the income tax for everyone be better and negate most of the arguments for it?

Always On Watch said...

I don't like earrings on men, but a simple stud earring is okay, I guess. Multiple earrings and multiple piercings are not attractive, IMO.

But take my opinion for what it's worth. I don't have pierced ears.

As for same-sex marriage, I look for many in the GOP to start advocating it. There is already a strong gay-rights movements within the Republican Party. In fact, there's quite a conflict about gay rights going on with regard to who will and will not attend CPAC last week.

soapster said...

I have bothe my ears pierced but haven't wore earings in years. As for Barbara Bush's endorsement of same sex marriage I say kudos! but really, it isn't about gay marriage at all. That's merely a talking point. Marriage in reality is a contract. Whether she understands it or not, what Barbara is advocating is that the government's proper role is to uphold contracts not set the terms of them.

FrogBurger said...

Marriage in reality is a contract.

That is why I want gov out of the marriage business. Not its job. Only churches.

People shall be able to enter in any contract they want with whomever they want. That includes people of the same sex, family members who may to enter in a contract to support each other and benefit from health insurance, etc...

I think we're too hung up on the sexuality part of marriage and we're missing the fact that at the end it's a contract.

And I am not opposite to polygamy or the opposite version of it. If people want to have multiple spouses, it's none of my business as long as I'm not paying for it or feeling the consequences. I wouldn't personally do it but it's none of my business at the end.

beamish said...

Well, I believe marriage is a type of contract, but one that has a specific, legitimate definition.

A gay person CAN marry, as long as they are marrying someone of the opposite gender.

"Same sex marriage" is an oxymoron.

soapster said...

I really can't seem to get my head around some conservatives that, while calling for the government to get out of their healthcare, and rallying about freedom and limiting government et al., seem to have absolutely no compunction with using the power and authority of the state to negate individual liberty.

beamish said...

Soapster,

Perhaps if you actually were a conservative (Ron Paul supporters need not apply) you'd "get your head around" the idea that individual liberty does not impose itself upon society, nor manage well promoting a grammatical error as a philosophical viewpoint.

FrogBurger said...

I'm with you soapster. That's where I'm having trouble with some Conservatives. My #1 goal in life is to be logical and intellectually honest. Only then can you achieve truth. So I don't want the gov to be in the marriage business or the gov to replace moral institutions like churches.

beamish said...

Frogburger,

There's nothing "libertarian" or "conservative" about expanding the definition of "music" to include skin cancer.

What is the definition of "marriage" again?

FrogBurger said...

Beamish you're missing my point. I wasn't talking about the definition of marriage. I was talking about freedom of contract.

beamish said...

marriage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

husband: a male partner in a marriage

wife: female partner in a marriage

=====

Can a male be a female's wife?

Can a female be a male's husband?

Can a male be a male's husband or wife?

Can a female be a female's husband or wife?

Even hardcore Ayn Rand cultists recognize A = A.

When you start trying to bifurcate language itself, you've left the land of logic for left-wing pastures.

beamish said...

Beamish you're missing my point. I wasn't talking about the definition of marriage. I was talking about freedom of contract.

Nothing is stopping a fag or dyke from entering a marriage contract. They're free to marry anyone of the opposite sex that agrees.

beamish said...

A fag and a dyke can even marry each other.

soapster said...

That's merely a conceptual application.

Ever spent any time in a kitchen? Ever cooked a meal? Ever heard a cook say something to the effect of "What you want to do is add a bit of this and a bit of that and sort of marry the flavors. It intensifies the sauce."?

beamish said...

So, the essence of your argument, Soapy, is a fallacy of bifurcation.

Never seen a Logic 101 classroom, eh?

soapster said...

Now if you wanted to argue my point you could state that it is not possible to marry or rather incorporate two of the same thing. And, naturally you'd be right. But while two men or two women are in fact of the same sex and of both human, one man/woman is uniquely different than is another.

beamish said...

"If everything is relative, cannibalism is merely a matter of taste." - Leo Strauss

soapster said...

Bifurcation is the splitting of a main body into two parts. That seems directly 180 degrees opposite of what we are discussing here. And really, it's more than a tad ironic coming from someong speaking on behalf of language and definition.

beamish said...

Notice that the actual definition of "marriage" has three criteria:

1. That it is between a male and a female
2. That it is mutually consensual
3. that it is recognized by government

Notice that the definition of marriage does not include religion or even love. And as I'm sure you're aware, there's lots of marriages between male and female that absolutely detest each other but "stay tagedda fer da kids" as if their children could be blissfully ignorant of the animosity and hostility involved in the facade.

The point is, when you alter ANY of the 3 criteria above, you no longer have a marriage.

FrogBurger said...

Nothing is stopping a fag or dyke from entering a marriage contract. They're free to marry anyone of the opposite sex that agrees.

Again, you're being stubborn. Please don't be like LSD. Did I say freedom of "marriage contract"? No I said "Freedom of contract."

beamish said...

Bifurcation is the splitting of a main body into two parts. That seems directly 180 degrees opposite of what we are discussing here. And really, it's more than a tad ironic coming from someong speaking on behalf of language and definition.

In logic, a fallacy of bifurcation exists when a false dilemma is presented, such as your "argument" that because garlic and paprika can "marry" in a saucepan, two men ought to be able to "marry" each other. Your "argument" presumes to insert a grammatical error and shift of contextual meaning of the word "marriage" in lieu of making a logically defensible statement.

Fallacy is all you've got. Next you'll try to tell us you want to ban crosshair graphics on websites because they "target" people.

beamish said...

Again, you're being stubborn. Please don't be like LSD. Did I say freedom of "marriage contract"? No I said "Freedom of contract."

In what way are fags not free to marry dykes?

FrogBurger said...

In what way are fags not free to marry dykes?

Ok. You have officially caught the Ducky virus.

beamish said...

Ok. You have officially caught the Ducky virus.

How so? Do you want to talk about "freedom of contract," or parade around a fallacy like a leftist?

Can a "music recording contract" be made between a turnip and a cloud?

Does not the type of "contract" definitionally stipulate both its purpose and its parties?

Or are we in Wonderland, where "glory" means "knock down drag out argument" and "Messiah" means "Obama?"

soapster said...

"Fallacy is all you've got. Next you'll try to tell us you want to ban crosshair graphics on websites because they "target" people."

Oh you really don't know me very well do you now....

Anonymous said...

If the Bush family is supposed to be the standard bearer of real conservatism — i.e. small government and individual rights and responsibility — then I think the world is in a real, identity crisis. The Bush family itself had no problems "investing" in the Third Reich.

But, even more, may be the "family tree" of dear old Barbara whose roots some have traced back to Aleister Crowley, aka, "The Evilest man in the World", as he called himself. He was also the great and good friend of Walter Duranty, the man who idolized Stalin and brought his praise of Stalin and the Bolsheviks to the front page of the New York Times winning a Pulitzer Prize for his efforts for that esteemed rag and its famous writer Walter Duranty.

Waylon

P.S. I haven't invested in any zinc rivets to advertise my "fashion" taste.

Speedy G said...

The Lamestream Media makes a big deal about the Bush daughter's views on homosexual "marriage" in order to promote their "successes" in altering conventional thought and the effectiveness of their politically correct propaganda. It (falsly) demonstrates "momentum" moving in their direction...

Sometimes you are encouraged about the future when you see something like this.

Specifically, there is an annual contest at the University of Arkansas calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.

This year's term was: "Political Correctness."

The winner wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."

FrogBurger said...

How so Beamish?

You're hung up on marriage when I said I'd like the the union of n people to be treated using freedom of contract. Hence eliminating the concept of marriage in a way. But you keep coming back with your definition of marriage, which has nothing to do with my point.

Your vision of marriage would be included in this freedom of contract actually. So if you want to talk about logic, we could say the marriage would be a subset of freedom of contract.

However you want to define marriage is not the issue in my point.

Mark said...

Q: What do pirates pay for the gold earrings they wear?

A: A buck an ear.

Gay marriage. Since Marriage is properly defined as a union between a male and a female, gay marriage is an oxymoronic term.

I don't care what the homos do. I have no dog in this hunt. Just don't expect me to finance it with my taxes.

Speedy G said...

In reporting the "conversos" the Lamestream Media hopes to influence and induce other "heretics" to convert as well, and thereby avoid the "herd representative's" (4th estate's) opprobrium.

beamish said...

Oh you really don't know me very well do you now....

I know you've in the past tried to equate Ron Paul with "libertarian" rather than "idiot," so it's rather obvious your vocabulary and syntax lacks anchors in critical inquiry.

beamish said...

Speedy G gets style points for the Inquisition reference.

beamish said...

You're hung up on marriage when I said I'd like the the union of n people to be treated using freedom of contract. Hence eliminating the concept of marriage in a way. But you keep coming back with your definition of marriage, which has nothing to do with my point.

It's not "my" definition of marriage. It is THE definition of marriage.

Now, if you want to come up with some sort of government recognized contractual arrangement where two fags hold communal property rights and obligations to each other, they already can. They can co-sign on loans and title deeds of property. They can assign power of attorney to each other. And so on.

Fags already have freedom of contract. They can do all of the above AND marry a dyke on the side, if the dyke consents.

FrogBurger said...

It's not "my" definition of marriage. It is THE definition of marriage.

Your definition is the one from Wester right? On webster.com, what should I do with the second definition then?

Now, if you want to come up with some sort of government recognized contractual arrangement where two fags hold communal property rights and obligations to each other, they already can. They can co-sign on loans and title deeds of property. They can assign power of attorney to each other. And so on.

I actually want to go further. If one person can add a spouse on a healthcare plan, that person should be able to add a person whatever the relationship is. A brother, a mother, an elderly parent, etc... I actually think that would be a very nice measure in the healthcare debate.

soapster said...

"I know you've in the past tried to equate Ron Paul with "libertarian" rather than "idiot," so it's rather obvious your vocabulary and syntax lacks anchors in critical inquiry."

An idiot you say? That must be why the jokers at FOX have him on to discuss monetary policy and the United State's disasterous foreign policy. Both of which are being exposed for the facade that they are.

beamish said...

It's not "my" definition of marriage. It is THE definition of marriage.

Your definition is the one from Wester right? On webster.com, what should I do with the second definition then?

Refer to the definitions of "husband" and "wife."

(and on a political note, see "Hitler" defined there as a "dictator" and "Stalin" defined as a "leader")

Rewriting the dictionary is not going to help your argument, nor is falling back on a false dichotomy.

If one person can add a spouse on a healthcare plan, that person should be able to add a person whatever the relationship is. A brother, a mother, an elderly parent, etc... I actually think that would be a very nice measure in the healthcare debate.

Again, this is already possible. I can even insure my dog's health or car repairs.

What you leftists and wannabe leftists are dancing around is wanting to legitimize a disease vector as a social institution. Be honest.

FrogBurger said...

What you leftists and wannabe leftists are dancing around is wanting to legitimize a disease vector as a social institution. Be honest.

Leftist me? You put a lot of people in the leftist bucket.

Bye bye blog.

beamish said...

An idiot you say?

Didn't stutter.

That must be why the jokers at FOX have him on to discuss monetary policy and the United State's disasterous foreign policy. Both of which are being exposed for the facade that they are.

This is the same FOX News that is promoting Bill O'Reilly tossing softballs at Obama as a Super Bowl halftime show, is it not?

Actually, "idiot" for "Ron Paul" becomes interchangeable BECAUSE of what he says in his media appearances, either on FOX or with his fellow left-wing neo-Nazi 9/11 conspiracy theorists on Alex Jones' ham radio show.

Let's stop arguing against the obvious. Ron Paul is an idiot, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

beamish said...

Leftist me? You put a lot of people in the leftist bucket.

You depart the right when Humpty Dumpty becomes your English teacher.

I accept your surrender, Francois.

soapster said...

@Beamish, Glug Glug Glug. OH YEAH! Just don't leave the house with that stain above your upper lip. You look quite ridiculous.

LibertyAtStake said...

Yep, I've heard about enough already from anybody with the last name Bush. Big Government nanny state (R) as a party label will be on life-support by 2013 and hopefully completely extinct by 2015 anyway.

http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"

Z said...

Wow, great conversation! (I think!?)

My point about Barbara Bush Jr was not what she thinks but who cares what she thinks?

Speedy nailed why the media promotes her thinking...or Megan McCain's, for heaven's sake! WHO CARES?

Gay marriage. Odd society's worked so very well without it for 2000 years, no matter how many homosexuals there have been since then, isn't it? Seems like sometimes traditions worked for a reason.
I have no problem what anybody does in their private life, WHO CARES?
Funny, my gay friends over the years haven't been for gay marriage. They're happy as is.

I could get more into this here but I don't really want to. You guys carry on.

I like a guy in one very small earring.... Two seems feminine to me but, again, that's my opinion.

beamish said...

Beamish, Glug Glug Glug. OH YEAH! Just don't leave the house with that stain above your upper lip. You look quite ridiculous.

Will you please stop hallucinating that the gold standard will impoverish dem pesky international banker Jooos what make your tin foil hats expensive and try to extricate your pro-fag marriage argument from your stupid saucepan bifurcation?

Or are you white flagging it too?

~Leslie said...

There are just some things men should avoid... Without questioning their sexuality, one must wonder what the motive is behind men wearing earrings, at least in western society --it ranks up there with wearing make-up, fingernail polish, and women's jeans. Some things are just plain odd.

Z said...

Leslie, good points.

I DO like the joke, tho!!!

beamish said...

Funny, my gay friends over the years haven't been for gay marriage. They're happy as is.

As they should be. Seperating their disco records, fern plants, and Anderson Cooper posters will never be as messy or litigious as a divorce.

Jen said...

I couldn't care less what Barbara Bush thinks on any issue.

It's a push by the msm to guilt those moderate republicans and "crunchy cons" into swinging to the left. Hey, if Barbara BUSH sees it this way, it's okay, right?

My opinions are mine (ideally) regardless of what the media tells me to think. I may be on the same side of the issue, or I may vehemently oppose. It's being told what to think that I find utterly offensive.

Z said...

Beamish, I just got an email from Mustang saying Anderson Cooper's saying he and some of his crew were punched several times in the head but nobody's seriously hurt...
Cheap price to pay for a Pulitzer, I guess?
Did you know PUlitzer's wife, years ago, wrote a book about her husband after their divorce? I thought the title was one of the best I've ever heard, THE PRIZE PULITZER. too good!

Jen, thanks, I couldn't agree with you more. WHO CARES what they say and, yes, absolutely...it's only touted so big by the media because they feel it's showing America that CONSERVATIVES can finally grow up and agree with the lefties....no doubt about it. as if

highboy said...

When you get past all the intellectualising, you're left with the simple fact that guys who wear earrings look totally gay.

Ticker said...

Soapster said:I really can't seem to get my head around some conservatives that, while calling for the government to get out of their healthcare, and rallying about freedom and limiting government et al.,"...seem to have absolutely no compunction with using the power and authority of the state to negate individual liberty.

Try the 10th Amendment Soapster:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


On earrings: My dad said ,"only women and pirates wore earrings and at last check I was neither."
It works for me as well.

Scotty said...

I heard that same joke some time ago, Z, the variation that time was women's underware.....

Tattoos, earrings.....as a diabetic I do my share of piercing! I can't get into having to pay someone to do it for me as decoration.

My son had a tribal tattoo on one of his legs. Yep, he was in the Army and drunk.....often happens that way.

It was many years ago, when he had it done but, even back then I was floored how much a tattoo can cost!!

Anonymous said...

Godwin's law of argumentation states that as a topic under discussion progresses that one can always count on somebody to invoke the image of Nazism or Adolph Hitler to smear an opponent and grasp the ring of victory from the jaws of logical defeat.

Not sure what one calls it when history actually backs up the allegations about certain individuals benefiting financially by investing in the Third Reich as Prescott Bush did and by extension his spawn. Personally I believe that when the curtain is finally ripped open to expose the truth about who and what is being done to whom, we'll see the partisan politics of both parties is but a sham to create a bi-polar discussion. The purpose is to permit the real lying liars carry on with their wretched game to create a government world tyranny in which ultimately every individual will have to justify every breath you take to the satisfaction of the new world power elite ... of which the Bush family and other power politicians belong.

And now Ron Paul AND Alex Jones are demonized as Nazis? Yikes, I'm hoping the men in the white lab smocks are standing by for your call, Z.

Waylon

Anonymous said...

I'm wondering how long it'll be before the disk in the lower lip becomes fashionable. It seems self mutilation has no bounds.

There's something a little too primitive about all this. It's as if all we need is a tribe, and a fire to dance around! Pretty regressive if you ask me.

Barabara Bush is in the same league as Megan McCain, who cares what either of them thinks? Not me.

Now same sex marriage. To my way of thinking marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal for raising children, and I think that is the proper position to be codified into law.

The law should reflect the ideal, and not become a tool for everyone who is outside that ideal, just so they can feel accepted.

Ultimately, when same sex marriage is accepted, harems, incestuous relationships, and God knows what else will be demanded of society.

Pandora's box will be opened, and marriage will eventually be undefined.

In other words, anything goes. What's next, men marrying minor boys? Brothers marrying sisters? The possibilities are endless.

Personally I have no problem whatsoever with gay partners living together and sharing legal contracts, which btw, is the law in California.

Marriage is more than a contract it's the accepted union by most religions as well, and as Z says, it has been thus for 2000 years.

And, let's face it, it's the natural union for procreation. Same sex is not.

Pris

Z said...

Ticker, you're making too much sense by bringing up the 10th...thanks for that :-) Might be hard to digest for some!

Scotty, I suspect you're a treasure of a guy!! And I wish you well with the diabetes xxx
I have heard a lot of drunken soldiers/sailors got tattoed then woke up with "UHOH!" :-) THank your son for his service for me, tattoo or no tattoo!

Waylon, a friend of mine's hubby used to say "every time Melinda cooks, I just put my finger on the phone ready for 911 speed dial because she cuts her hand every time!" (she was a heck of a cook, too!)
Following his lead, with Ducky around, I'd have to keep the white coats in my speed dial! Ever notice how he's usually the first commenter? I've accused him of HIS having my blog in HIS speed dial!


Pris "The law should reflect the ideal" bravo again :-)

beamish said...

Godwin's law of argumentation states that as a topic under discussion progresses that one can always count on somebody to invoke the image of Nazism or Adolph Hitler to smear an opponent and grasp the ring of victory from the jaws of logical defeat.

Actually, "Godwin's law" states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself) than others. For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.

[Do note the first mention of the the Nazis in this discussion came with Waylon's loopy implication that Barbara Bush's stance on fag marriage ought to be dismissed because her great-grandfather may have found customers for American unionized steelworkers in Nazi Germany.]

This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful.

We now return you to your regular broadcast, always in progress.

Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering genocide, propaganda, eugenics (racial superiority) or other mainstays of Nazi Germany, nor, more debatably, to discussion of other totalitarian regimes, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.

Pointing out Ron Paul's actual (and enthusiastically welcomed) financial support from neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations is no violation of "Godwin's Law" as understood by anyone who knows what they are talking about and other kinds of non-leftists.

However, Godwin's law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.

So make sure your men in white lab smocks are licensed by the government to drug you into compliance, Waylon.

beamish said...

And as far as Alex Jones, Rod Serling was more enterrtaining.

Anonymous said...

Sounds a lot like Bleaker Bluestein logic from the fringes of freaky border guards, Beamish. You in blog partnership or what?

Waylon

beamish said...

Beamish, I just got an email from Mustang saying Anderson Cooper's saying he and some of his crew were punched several times in the head but nobody's seriously hurt...

I don't know about that. I was watching AC earlier post-ass whoopin' and he said the problem in Egypt is their government is too large, employing some 1.8 million people.

Sounds to me like someone knocked some sense into his leftist ass.

;)

beamish said...

Waylon,

You're bleeding.

beamish said...

Labor vs. Management

Production vs. Sales

Proletarians vs. Marketeers

Steelers vs. Packers

...we all know how this ends.

Z said...

Beamish.."I don't know about that. I was watching AC earlier post-ass whoopin' and he said the problem in Egypt is their government is too large, employing some 1.8 million people.

Sounds to me like someone knocked some sense into his leftist ass."

good one

beamish said...

Z,

I keep noticing that this sea of violence rolling between mobs of people wearing shoes keeps producing bodies of dead rioters that don't have any shoes on by the time the cameras get to them.

Maybe this could all be ended if the world donated surplus stinky used shoes to the Egyptian people. ;)

RedWood said...

"There are just some things women should avoid... Without questioning their sexuality...."


Aircraft carriers, submarines, police work, fire fighting, the Marines, Navy Seals and combat. OH...and carrier landings in F18's at night.

MK said...

"Ever since my wife found it in my truck."

Good one. I don't get the ear ring thing though, seems pointless and i ain't into jewelery. Apparently there is a gay ear. So straight men angling for an ear ring ought to keep that in mind.

Anonymous said...

Great joke.

Depressing commentary.

eesse

Anonymous said...

Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.

Ron Paul

beamish said...

Q: Who loves Ron Paul?

A: Anti-Semites, racists, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, neo Nazis, and other kinds of leftists

But no conservatives and no libertarians.

Give it up, FeebThinky. Trolling for Ron Paul is soooo 1998.

Anonymous said...

Personal liberty is the purpose of government, to protect liberty - not to run your personal life, not to run the economy, and not to pretend that we can tell the world how they ought to live.

Ron Paul

beamish said...

Millions for defense, not one penny for tribute.

- some Founding Father that didn't believe in Ron Paul's appease the Muzzies "blowback" theory.

Anonymous said...

Beamish, if you would be good enough to provide an authenticated quote or two to support your assertions about Ron Paul, it would lend credibility to your position, and help elevate the discussion.

Other than his general anti-War stance, I've not seen anything that gives credence to your accusations.

Do you think we should just take your word for it, and let it go at that?

I've based my opinion on his performance at the Republican primary debates prior to the 2008 election, and numerous articles written by and about him from several different sources.

You obviously feel a great deal of passion on the subject. I'd be interested to know how you arrived at some of your conclusions. No need to go to war over it, just share some background, please.

I initially thought Ron Paul came off as a whiny old maid in pants. I don't care much for his voice or his manner, but the debates moved me in a different direction. He is certainly a much more credible candidate than McCain, who was the worst possible choice, because of his waffling, weasely, whiny approach. Despite his war experience, McCain comes off as a self-serving sellout interested only in preserving and advancing his own rather pitiful career. but that's just my reaction to his personality and to his performance in congress observed over many years.

And who DO you like by the way. Who WOULD be the best candidate to beat Obama? I can't answer that question for myself -- yet. Just to reassure you, it wouldn't be Ron Paul. I have sense enough to realize he couldn't possibly win. Besides he's too darned old.

~ FreeThinke

highboy said...

Ron Paul may not have a realistic chance of winning because he's still rather unknown, but personally I don't care. He's still the best choice to be our president. He may have a whiny voice, may not have the greatest demeanor, but we just elected the most charming and charismatic man since JFK and he's hands down the worst president I can think of. I want someone with respect for human life, respect for the Constitution, respect for economic responsibility, and someone who will lead without having to pander to a crowd. I'll take less flash and more substance.

beamish said...

FreeThinke,

The very primary debate you are refering to is where Ron Paul's "blowback" theory of foreign policy comes from.

The "Republican" carbon copy of Dennis Kucinich honestly believes the 9/11 attacks were justified because of American foriegn policy.

From there he elaborates on his Osama-Bin-Laden-should-decide-American-foreign-policy "blowback" theory where?

Mostly on the conspiracy theory fringes of the Alex Jones Holocaust denial radio show and mendacious white supremacist websites. We're talking about the Noam Chomsky vanity book club circuit now.

My first encounter with Ron Paul came in 1987. I was a volunteer working to get the petition signatures required to earn the Libertarian Party a permanent slot on ballotrs in Missouri. As a subscriber to Ron Paul's newsletters, I encountered "his" anti-Semitic, racist views right in my mailbox. Views he later claimed were written by "staffers" in his name. Staffers like Lew Rockwell.

So, we're faced with the prospect of a racist idiot knowing what's going out of his office "in his name" to the rest of the world over the course of 20+ years and not taking responsibility or ownership of it or we're faced with the prospect of a racist idiot wanting to run foreign policy when he can't even run his own office.

Can't pry the idiot label off of that.

I voted for Bush over Dukakis in the 1988 election. Ron Paul was certainly not who I wanted in office to follow Reagan.

beamish said...

In the last Presidential election, Duncan Hunter was my candidate in the 2008 GOP Primaries.

The transition to McCain wasn't rought for me, as I supported him in the 2000 primaries against Bush.

Mark said...

I made my mind up about Ron Paul when he made that asinine assertion in the pre-convention debates about 9/11.

I also supported Duncan Hunter in 2008. I wish he or his son would run in 2012. I'd support either of them above any candidate yet suggested.

Anonymous said...

PART ONE

Thanks for the polite explanation, Beamish. I have to admit I've been more focused on the dismal effect government has had on the economy, and the way its socialistic policies tend to devalue our currency, reduce purchasing power, deflate the value of housing, etc. while inflating the cost of goods and services than I have been about foreign policy.

Ron Paul's radically different approach to entitlements, welfare, unnecessary, futile, vastly expensive warfare, and his desire to end the Fed certainly appealed to me as do his thoughts on re-establishing a stable, dependable currency with genuine intrinsic value. He seemed to be the only candidate willing to talk about these issues head on, while the others waltzed around and weaseled out when push came to shove.

I realize we can't get away with pursuing an isolationist policy, but in my heart I wish we could. George Washington did vise it, as did the Monroe Doctrine. Jefferson's bold, brave and successful counterattack on the Barbary Pirates was the right thing to do. We were attacked, robbed, taken captive and enslaved by the God-damned Muslims of that era. Not to defend ourselves -- and our economic interests abroad -- would have been pusillanimous.

The way we're handing Muslim aggression today is wasteful, stupid, hypocritical and self-defeating.

Anonymous said...

PART TWO

I certainly believe in maintaining a strong defense, but do not support the largely neocon view that there is some kind of moral imperative that obliges us to make it our business to right all the wrongs in other countries and clean up messes all over the globe -- regardless of what it might cost us in blood and treasure.

I'm anything but a peacenik, believe me. My wish frankly is that if we're going to put our people at risk, and spend billions of dollars of taxpayer's money every week on war materiel and logistical operations overseas, the very least we should do is play to win decisive victories, and make sure we profit AS A NATION, and not just make suppliers of weapons munitions, etc. filthy rich while we pussyfoot around prosecuting "sensitive" wars with self-defeating rules of engagement that show more concern for the welfare of our enemies than our own fighting forces.

I've seen many items from many sources about Ron Paul, and have read many selected quotations from his writings and speeches, and have not seen evidence of the racist policies you mention, but I don't really know the man well at all. I will have to do more research and explore the charges of racism and anti-Semitism.

As for Dennis Kucinich, it would be hard to find anyone in our degenerate congress that I like less other than Charles Schumer, Pat Leahy, Dick Durbin, Anthony Weiner, Rosa di Lauro, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Lee, Major Owens and all the miserable fence-sitting, double-dealing, treacherous, traitorous game-playing RINOS, who sell us out time and time again in the interests of "preserving civility" and promoting "collegiality" among their colleagues, while they line their pockets with riches gained from lobbyists and us poor exploited taxpayers.

If you care to give an explanation of why you supported McCain, I'd be glad to look at it it. I voted for him, but with a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. I felt he was just another Bob Dole -- a bona fide war hero with lots of legislative experience -- but a throwaway candidate, nevertheless, deliberately chosen to lose.

It seems obvious to me that the two parties don't really oppose one another all that much, instead they put on a Punch & Judy Show for the cameras and then take turns in opposing OUR best interests all the while maintaining their deathgrip on power.

"The only prize much cared for by the powerful is power. The prize of the General is not a bigger tent, but command."

~ Oliver W. Holmes (1841-1935)

Regards,

~ FreeThinke

PS: I liked Tancredo too, but could see early in that he just didn't have enough "charisma" to make it in our media-driven political culture. - FT

beamish said...

Believe me, it was easier for me to support McCain back in 2000 than it was in 2008. He took the nomination of Bush over him pretty hard, and began his eight-year move towards the left during the Bush years voting with the Dems that made his Senate record hard to defend.

Still, in 2008 we had McCain with a B+ lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union and an F- lifetime rating from the Americans for Democratic Action. Someone hated that much by the left can't be that bad, even if his leftward swing knocked his conservative rating down.

Compare that to Obama's F- rating from the ACU and A+ rating from the ADA.

A good conservative detested by the left vs. a far leftist. It was a no-brainer to vote for McCain.

For me, it wasn't even a contest of finding the proverbial "lesser than two evils."

Check out Duncan Hunter. If the Tea Party had existed in 2007, he'd have been our President (and the first to break the curse that keeps members of the House of Representatives from ever winning the White House)

I used to joke about a Hunter-Thompson ticket, just because the bumper sticker would be funny.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Beamish. I did vote for McCain. It never occurred to me to support a character like Obama, whose background ought to have scared the pee out of every American with an ounce of sense or historical awareness.

It's easy to say and hard to do, but we need to find a slough of brilliant, fearless, right-thinking, brand new candidates who carry the least amount possible of degrading political baggage -- people who could defeat the enemedia with eloquence and candor.

The kindest thing I can say about the presidency of both the Bushes is that their tenure in the White house was unfortunate. W was a huge disappointment, but we were given no real choice. Gore and Kerry were impossible alternatives. Too bad the post-Reagan years paved the way for Obama to take over the White House.

Hope we conservatives can get our sh-t together, stop squabbling among ourselves, stop demanding absolute ideological purity, stop quibbling over pet single issues like abortion and gay marriage, and find someone who not only can, but also deserves to win.

A tall order.

Sure hope your sister can make it safely out of Egypt, and come back home where she belongs.

Take care,

~ FT