Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Christian Right: "How come nobody wikes us? All we wanna do is persecute gay famblies and force women to have wape babies. And nobody wikes us! Wah!"

Posted by on Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 11:24 AM

A delicious, page-one story in today's NYT:

Christian conservatives, for more than two decades a pivotal force in American politics, are grappling with Election Day results that repudiated their influence and suggested that the cultural tide—especially on gay issues—has shifted against them.... It is not as though they did not put up a fight; they went all out as never before: The Rev. Billy Graham dropped any pretense of nonpartisanship and all but endorsed Mitt Romney for president. Roman Catholic bishops denounced President Obama’s policies as a threat to life, religious liberty and the traditional nuclear family. Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition distributed more voter guides in churches and contacted more homes by mail and phone than ever before.

“Millions of American evangelicals are absolutely shocked by not just the presidential election, but by the entire avalanche of results that came in,” R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It’s not that our message—we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong—didn’t get out. It did get out. It’s that the entire moral landscape has changed,” he said. “An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them.”

Cue the sad trombone!

Play the tiny violin!

Get Nelson in here!

Go read the whole thing!

 

Comments (106) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
mikethehammer 1
I've been suffering a bit of troll withdrawal ever since Tuesday. They seem to be in hiding. This oughtta bring 'em out in force. Looking forward to lots of awkward ellipsis use....
Posted by mikethehammer on November 10, 2012 at 11:34 AM · Report this
Gern Blanston 2
Stop! You hurt their widdle feewings, Dan!
Posted by Gern Blanston on November 10, 2012 at 11:37 AM · Report this
this guy I know in Spokane 3
“This election signaled the last where a white Christian strategy is workable,” said Robert P. Jones, chief executive of the Public Religion Research Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and education organization based in Washington.

“Barack Obama’s coalition was less than 4 in 10 white Christian,” Dr. Jones said. “He made up for that with not only overwhelming support from the African-American and Latino community, but also with the support of the religiously unaffiliated.”


Actually I think the last election signaled the last where a white Christian strategy was workable: that time, they won stuff.

Also, the "religiously unaffiliated" population is growing.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on November 10, 2012 at 11:49 AM · Report this
4
The fact that the tiny violin has a tiiiiny little case just cracks me up
Posted by six five on November 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 5
“It’s not that our message...didn’t get out. It did get out. ...“An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them.”
This is a really big statement!

In the past, they've denied it, saying people secretly believed them but were bullied into silence, or that people will get in line with them once they know the issues.

He's admitting here that they've not only lost the battles, they've lost the whole war.

If so, could this actually be the turning point? Where the mass organized anti-gay, anti-female groups disappear and only fringe nutjobs remain? I think this could be it. This may have been the last election cycle where huge groups devoted against gays are present.

I think this is a real watershed moment.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on November 10, 2012 at 11:51 AM · Report this
MacCrocodile 6
@1 - I was wondering about them. Has anyone heard anything from our own little WorstNightmare? We're going to have to do our own trolling soon if they don't come back.
Posted by MacCrocodile http://maccrocodile.com/ on November 10, 2012 at 11:54 AM · Report this
kim in portland 7
I believe it. The vitriol, bile, and bitterness that has come my way since Tuesday has been really sad. Fascinating thing is that the loudest ones are the ones that are single moms that I helped and fed through the domestic violence group. Quick is the fall from "sainthood" to "immoral". Social justice is obviously not their cup of tea.

I hope you are wearing those lovely platinum rings too, Dan. Your happiness is good for the world.
Posted by kim in portland http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fast-paced_video_provides_a_fu.html on November 10, 2012 at 11:56 AM · Report this
rob! 8
I'm happy that we won, and especially that the tide is really turning on LGBT equality issues.

But for 30 years I've been thinking the wingnuts could not possibly get any wingnuttier, and for 30 years I've been wrong. At this point I'm kind of hoping they'll double down. There will always be an opposition, and at least we know how to counter this one.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on November 10, 2012 at 12:03 PM · Report this
Cracker Jack 9
I guess the shill-trolls found that their funds dried up before the concession speech was over, too!
Posted by Cracker Jack on November 10, 2012 at 12:04 PM · Report this
Doctor Memory 10
@6 I assume that StrangersWeakestTroll is lying curled up in a puddle of his own vomit, clutching a mostly-empty bottle of vokda in the back of his mom's closet.

But that doesn't have much to do with the election, it just means it's Saturday.
Posted by Doctor Memory http://blahg.blank.org on November 10, 2012 at 12:05 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 11
@5 I'm w/ you, this is a BIG watershed moment. It's just beginning to dawn on me.

What I'm worried about is that people, when backed into a corner, do crazy things. As rob! points out, these are the super-crazies, and they're armed.
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on November 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 12
I thought I already posted this but it didn't show up. I say this is a generation that wants more freedom in America, not less. The right represent less. Way less. It's taken my whole life to see the people finally waking up to who their oppressors are. I think it's the internet. It gives young people a new perspective. They can get to the Dans of the world.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on November 10, 2012 at 12:12 PM · Report this
originalcinner 13
I feel so sorry for them, complaining that they were outspent on gay marriage, otherwise they'd have got their way (again). Because when they do go all out to throw money at their bigoted goal, like in California last time, they win. They're upset that we won at their own game.

Put another way, it's like Romney and Rove accusing the other side of the thing that they do.
Posted by originalcinner on November 10, 2012 at 12:20 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 14
@ 1, don't count on it. They're hiding and will only start coming out when we start hearing bad news that they can wrongly blame on Obama.

@ 5, I sure hope so. I think maybe evangelical influence is finally waning, just as it did in the 20s and 30s. Of course, it's going to come around again, but not for many decades.

@ 7, nothing reveals a person's true character more than moments like this. I'm very sorry that people you helped have turned on you.
Posted by Matt from Denver on November 10, 2012 at 12:22 PM · Report this
15
The reality is that their message got out, repeatedly. And their message was hateful, judgmental, offensive, bigoted, and medically inaccurate. The rest of us understood it. What they don't seem to grasp is that getting your message out is not the same as persuading your audience of its worth.
Posted by LuisitaPhD on November 10, 2012 at 12:26 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 16
@ 13, with the next election cycle, the main thing we need to look for is an increase in small donations from the right. That's where we kicked ass this time. The mooching conservatives, in keeping with their style, just let the wealthy and corporations do all the heavy lifting this time.
Posted by Matt from Denver on November 10, 2012 at 12:26 PM · Report this
Simone 17
I don't think they deserve sad trombone or tiny violin. A Ha ha! from Nelson, Yes.
Posted by Simone on November 10, 2012 at 12:28 PM · Report this
ScrawnyKayaker 18
@10 It's not that hard to drink yourself to death. Not that I would wish that on StrangersWhitestNobody. Or the anonymous DanHating DanLover. Oh, no. That would be wrong.
Posted by ScrawnyKayaker on November 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM · Report this
kim in portland 20
@ 14,

Thank you for your kind words, Matt. No worries for me. Some of them are working three jobs and are still barely making ends meet. They're scared.

Take care.
Posted by kim in portland http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fast-paced_video_provides_a_fu.html on November 10, 2012 at 12:34 PM · Report this
22
What the Christian right doesn't understand is that many religious people voted against the Republicans also. There's a big part of religious American that thinks -- knows -- those people are dangerous. You don't have to be secular to make rational voting choices.
Posted by sarah70 on November 10, 2012 at 12:48 PM · Report this
Doctor Memory 23
So for shits and giggles I decided to look at the anons, and I gotta ask:

Does the anonobot always write in blank verse, or only when he's extremely butthurt?
Posted by Doctor Memory http://blahg.blank.org on November 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM · Report this
24
@15 Exactly. What they did was actually very effective. It showed Americans, in no uncertain terms, the right's lack of morals, empathy and complete lack of human decency. Their message came through loud and clear and the voters showed that we understood exactly where the extremists are coming from.
Posted by capricorn44 on November 10, 2012 at 1:03 PM · Report this
mkyorai 25
Now, that's more like it, @19. You got it all, stream of conscious whining, nonsensical linkages (what the hell does starving children have to do with depraved lifestyles?!), and even that old classic republican bogeyman, Murphey Brown (twice!). We thought the election might have been the end of you, but you're back again, taking precious time from your preparations for Armageddon to tell us sinners where we've gone wrong. And we do appreciate the time, but don't you think you should be busy stocking up on bibles and ammunition? Unless, of course, you don't believe a word of it yourself. But that's probably not it, right? Right?
Posted by mkyorai on November 10, 2012 at 1:09 PM · Report this
seatackled 26
Well, nothing seems to have happened to the girl group poser Supreme. That's troll enough for me.
Posted by seatackled on November 10, 2012 at 1:09 PM · Report this
Dr_Awesome 27
@Dr Memory- near as I could tell, the anonymous troll always was extremely butt-hurt.
Posted by Dr_Awesome on November 10, 2012 at 1:09 PM · Report this
28
Troll, you're never gonna convince anyone until you stop writing like gullom. Seriously, your writing style is a major turn off. You're hurting your party more than helping.
Posted by CbytheSea on November 10, 2012 at 1:29 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 29
Anon troll is welcome to be as insane and butthurt as he likes. It doesn't matter, because he has no power. I feel like Frodo facing the ruffians in the Shire: Your time is over.
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on November 10, 2012 at 1:41 PM · Report this
31
@29 you're right. I still read all the comments in Gullom's voice though. SRotU in Alex Jones'. But I feel bad for both if them, I'd hate this world if I had their worldview.
Posted by CbytheSea on November 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 34
Who the fuck is this "Gullom" you keep referring to?
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on November 10, 2012 at 2:12 PM · Report this
mkyorai 37
@32. Oh. I get it. You're deeply concerned about the welfare of children.

Can I therefore go ahead and sign you up as a supporter of comprehensive sex education, making contraception available as widely as possible, and funding for social welfare programs, including early childhood education? Given that all of these things have been shown to substantially improve the lives of children? Or are you only concerned that people other than yourself are engaging in sexual behavior? My personal guess: ever since that unfortunate incident in 10th grade when you realized the homecoming queen was more interested in hanging out with her boyfriend than coming to your bible study, you've been loudly proclaiming how all things sex-related are the devil's work. Am I close? Because its time to put that behind you. One more thing, by the way: people have been having sex outside of marriage since before the dawn of marriage. And as much as I am sure you would love to go back to the days when we could stone them to death for it, it's not happening.
Posted by mkyorai on November 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM · Report this
very bad homo 38
I just can't believe it took America this long to send them packing.
Posted by very bad homo on November 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM · Report this
Knat 39
@15: Well put. That was going to be my point, but with considerably more ranting and cursing. I commend you in your brevity.
Posted by Knat on November 10, 2012 at 2:36 PM · Report this
mkyorai 40
@33 dude, you're spending time here with us you should really be using to get your bunker ready. Again, not that we're not grateful, but those ammunition boxes and canned goods aren't going to stack themselves. Don't forget water filtration and gasoline for the generator, and lots of penicillin (I'm guessing you don't trust vaccines.)
Posted by mkyorai on November 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM · Report this
mkyorai 41
@15 yeah, that was awesome. Thanks.
Posted by mkyorai on November 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM · Report this
tdalec 42
As a Medicare card-carrying white Christian male member of the 1% who has never voted for a Republican, I am elated. (Except for the continuation of Boehner and his fellow House assholes.) The problem with Evangelical Christians and the Pope is that they have never read the Gospels. They read Leviticus and the doctored letter of Paul.
Posted by tdalec on November 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM · Report this
singing cynic 43
Oh my God. I will now read ALL anonymous comments in Gollum's voice. Thanks, guys. (But be proper nerds - spell it right!)
Posted by singing cynic on November 10, 2012 at 2:50 PM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 44
Troll, I guarantee that I pay more taxes than you. Do you even pay federal income taxes? I also give far more to charity than you. When was the last time you did anything to help anyone else? People are realizing the truth that gay people aren't a threat to them. Your fear mongering, hysteria, and doom talk doesn't work anymore.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on November 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM · Report this
COMTE 45
I'm kind of wishing the Righties WOULD all just retreat to their bunkers in anticipation of the coming Apocalypse. It would really be the best place for them.

And I for one would look forward to that glorious day four or five years from now, when their canned goods run out or they just get cabin-fever from having had nothing better to do all that time than read their Bible and re-count their unused rounds of ammo for the umpteenth time. We'll all grin knowingly at their expressions of slack-jawed incredulity when they see that not only hasn't civilization become nearly as depraved as they predicted, but that in fact, things will probably be even better, what with the rest of us having been able to move society forward a few steps without constantly stumbling over their superstitious, self-righteous contrariness.
Posted by COMTE on November 10, 2012 at 3:16 PM · Report this
mikethehammer 46
Oh yeah, that's the good stuff I was craving!
Posted by mikethehammer on November 10, 2012 at 3:50 PM · Report this
47
Thank you for commenting on my comment (15)! I had to edit it three times to get the rage out, to get the extra rage-y words out, and to figure out what I wanted to say.
Posted by LuisitaPhD on November 10, 2012 at 3:58 PM · Report this
48
I dunno, this was pretty close election. They lost, but they didn't lose big. I wouldn't be celebrating their demise just yet.
Posted by agony on November 10, 2012 at 3:58 PM · Report this
venomlash 49
Alleged, do you even lift?
Posted by venomlash on November 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM · Report this
50
Where is Gay Dude for Romneybot 2.0? Best troll ever!

Wonder what the Christian Right's strategy will be in 2016. They cannot change since from their viewpoint, the Bible never changes and their interpretation of the Bible = homophobia, sexism, racism, etc. They're stuck.

Posted by Patricia Kayden on November 10, 2012 at 4:40 PM · Report this
55
@3 It's not just the "religiously unaffiliated" population that's growing. The "religiously affiliated with loving, inclusive non-authoritarian denominations" population is growing as well. Of course, the liberal "quietist"/Hicksite branch of the Religious Society of Friends that I find myself in is so tiny that we could grow 50% a year and still be tiny for the foreseeable future. MCC is another nice place, even bigger, and growing. Many liberal Christian denominations exist, although they don't get as much press as the noisy conservatives. There's reform Judaism, and Eastern mysticism offers even more choices.

You can be spiritual, crave a community to be spiritual in, even find one, and not have to be under the thumb of some crazy, misogynist, xenophobic, sexophobic, batshit religion. Not every religion is Western, patriarchal, or relies on a charismatic leader. Atheism is a very legitimate antidote, but so are some of the congregational alternatives. There are choices, and people are starting to find them.

Patriarchy is on the wane.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on November 10, 2012 at 6:20 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 57
@48 No, they did lose big. It wasn't a close election. The popular vote was decidedly for Obama. Add to that the down-ticket wins, Warren, Grayson, plus the ballot measures of gay marriage & cannabis, that's a HUGE win, win, win.

And BTW, doesn't it feel great to be part of *one* state that voted for BOTH gay marriage & cannabis legalization? I feel proud of my fellow Washingtonians.
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on November 10, 2012 at 6:41 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 59
@54 This entire thread & Dan's post is *precisely* about how near the end really is... For you. Since you feel that you are the entire world, it's understood that you think the world will end, when really it's just your own small-minded brand of insanity & delusion.

Perhaps the Mayans were off by a month. And maybe they didn't mean "the whole world," just the folks who act like the world belongs to them & them alone. For that I say, Go Mayans!
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on November 10, 2012 at 6:59 PM · Report this
61
@59 - This has nothing to so with anything, but I just realized your avatar is from Singing in the Rain, my all time favorite movie. I generally respect your comments, but your avatar alone makes you OK in my book.

Now I'll actually read through the thread before commenting for real.It's way more interesting a topic than the homework I'm supposed to be doing.
Posted by Sheryl on November 10, 2012 at 7:03 PM · Report this
long-time reader 63
@53, you really are stuck in a time warp, then. Do you realize how long it's been since there were $50 clues on Jeopardy! ?
Posted by long-time reader on November 10, 2012 at 7:12 PM · Report this
65
I'm in seminary now, in one of those progressive, non-authoritarian, open, and accepting denominations @55 was talking about. One of my assignments this week in my Pentateuch class was about false prophets, and how Israel was told to recognize them and how we should recognize them today.

Now, the people in this class run the gamut from Catholic to Unitarian Universalist, with most of us somewhere in between (ELCA Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian). To a one, every single person in the class said that anyone who preaches a gospel of hatred (such an oxymoron) or exclusivity, or puts limits on God's love is a false prophet.

The religious right is becoming less and less relevant. And while they realize that they are, they have no idea why. That makes me sad.
Posted by Sheryl on November 10, 2012 at 7:21 PM · Report this
69
We know the trolls don't really go away. They may promise to "expire" (Gay Dude) or they may just stop posting without notice, but they always stick around as non-participating readers.

So it's charming that our first-person-plural anonymous troll with the literary pretensions has decided to keep posting. You know he just loves hanging around with us sinners. (Who could blame him?) I'm okay with feeding him just for the entertainment value he provides, although he was wittier when there was a chance Romney would win. Now he just sounds like a boring scold. But who knows? Maybe he's just having an off day.

For sure, though, the glory days of his ilk are on a long term deferral. The Republicans have lost the "family values" battle and it looks like they may have lost the anti-immigrant battle. This doesn't mean liberals have permanently vanquished the dragon, though. Remember that racism, sexism, fear, and ignorance are always present. They just reassert themselves in different form.
Posted by floater on November 10, 2012 at 8:19 PM · Report this
sirkowski 71
I wasn't sure, but I'm now convinced the Gollum anon troll is a paranoid schizophrenic or some type of schizoid personality disorder. It's the enraged word-salad.
Posted by sirkowski http://www.missdynamite.com on November 10, 2012 at 10:43 PM · Report this
scary tyler moore 72
@67: sin is an opinion, not a fact.
Posted by scary tyler moore http://pushymcshove.blogspot.com/ on November 10, 2012 at 10:48 PM · Report this
73
@ anons at 66 and 67. I can tell you that a true prophet doesn't preach hate. And I can tell you that a true prophet doesn't value the rights of one person or one group of people above all others.

@67 - Does God love sin? Of course not. But keep in mind that the definition of what is sinful changes dramatically over time and across different cultures. If we were living at the time that Deuteronomy was written, about the 6th century BCE, an engaged woman who was raped would be stoned if no one heard her call for help. An unengaged woman who was raped would be forced to marry her attacker. We'd also be talking about the proper way to treat our slaves, and anyone who didn't have a railing built around their roof would be a sinner. And if a woman kicked a man in the balls in trying to defend her husband, say goodbye to her foot (Deuteronomy says grabbed his testicles, and that her hand would be cut off, but I think they are analogous).

The fact of the matter is that the laws in the Bible were being revised even as they were being written to account for changes in society. I have to believe that God would want us to change our interpretation of the laws to fit what we now know to be scientifically, empirically true, including that evolution is a reality and that homosexuality is a natural, genetic trait.
Posted by Sheryl on November 10, 2012 at 11:06 PM · Report this
74
@68 - I don't think name calling is productive on either side, and I have called out some of my liberal friends for calling conservatives some truly awful things. If I had to express one frustration with Dan and with The Stranger in general, that would be it. The name calling is juvenile and doesn't help make a point.
Posted by Sheryl on November 10, 2012 at 11:09 PM · Report this
venomlash 75
@51: "obama has yet to pull a big boy move in four years."
Oddly enough, Osama bin Laden is sleeping with the fishes. I wonder whose idea that was?
Posted by venomlash on November 11, 2012 at 12:35 AM · Report this
sissoucat 76
Awesome post Dan. Lovely videos !

@ Kim in Portland - hopefuly, some day, single American mothers will be able to live the way single European mothers do : with one job and welfare help for their kids.

In France, every family receives governement money for their kids, no matter how rich they are - it only depends on the number of kids. Because raising kids is good for the future and should be encouraged. This small amount may be nothing for rich families, but for poor families, it makes a huge difference. Receiving family welfare is not shameful here - everybody does. And then if you're poor you receive a bit more welfare, and you pay less taxes, or you don't pay any. All in all you and your kids survive with one job.

Taxes pay for that. They are heavy for rich people and less so for middle class and poor people. That is morally sound - if you have much more money than the bare necessity, taxes make you invest in the future generations and the common good. If you're a big boss and sell stuff, you need poor people around you to be able to afford your stuff or else you won't sell anything... Greed only dries up the economy.

Two questions though : minimal wage should ensure a full-time job gets you enough money to afford a place and enough to eat ; doesn't it in America ?
And how can people work 3 jobs ? Do you mean part-time jobs - because otherwise when do they find time to eat, sleep, and raise their kids ?
Posted by sissoucat on November 11, 2012 at 1:42 AM · Report this
80
Sheryl- good luck with seminary! I am in an accepting mainline church in Seattle, with theretired pastor, who has lived with his male partner for 30 years! R-74 brought a lot of progressive churches"out of the closet" to break the stereotype that religion=anti-gay, anti-women etc. Fewer are listening to the religious bullies, thank God!
Posted by pat L on November 11, 2012 at 5:47 AM · Report this
81
@76 Regarding the minimum wage, sadly, no. At one time (i.e. before Reagan), working 40 hours a week at minimum wage would afford a person enough money to pay rent on a crappy apartment in a major city, to buy food for two adults and perhaps one child, and to go to the movies once every week or two. Since then, things have shifted remarkably. The concentration of wealth in the finance sector drove up housing costs several times more than inflation and the government, under pressure from business interests that wanted cheap labor, stopped considering the minimum wage as something that should support a family, or even a single adult. It's now just some sort of entry wage for people without responsibilities who are expected to (somehow) move up to better jobs, and too many of them just can't. It's beyond shameful. It's a disgrace.

Additionally, the growing disparity of income has created a real class separation. The cities became desirable again for college-educated annual salary earners, and their demand essentially priced hourly minimum-wage-earners out of the urban housing market. While the suburbs might be less expensive in some places, few good jobs are available there, and the added transportation cost to where the jobs are just increases the nightmare.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on November 11, 2012 at 6:18 AM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 82
52, Troll, I'm healthier than you'll ever be, my fat friend, who's fingers and keyboard are stained with the electric orange of cheese product flavored fried corn meal snack foods.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on November 11, 2012 at 7:00 AM · Report this
83
@76 France also suffers from chronically weak economic growth, high unemployment, and low workforce participation. The welfare state does a lot to alleviate the suffering of the have-nots, but the French people pay a substantial price for it in the form of lost opportunity.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on November 11, 2012 at 8:50 AM · Report this
kim in portland 84
@ sissoucat,

Brooklyn Reader is correct. Three minimum wage jobs are required. No weekends, very little sleep, and meals are often consumed while in transition or skipped all together. Lastly, being told that your rent will rise if Obama is elected or jobs will be cut if Obama is elected, et. cetera made things worse. So I can see why they believe they are betrayed. I am not sure they understand that voters like me are happy to pay taxes and have them raised. That we are happy to advocate for raising the minimum wage. Happy to pay higher premiums so that everyone can have health coverage, because initially affordable health care will cost more inorder to expand it over the uninsured. We're happy to provide safety nets. We're happy to do our civic duty.
Posted by kim in portland http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fast-paced_video_provides_a_fu.html on November 11, 2012 at 9:12 AM · Report this
venomlash 85
@77: Oh, I see. You are so privy to the inner workings of our nation's leaders that you know who did what with regard to the killing of Osama bin Laden. I guess I can't argue with those credentials.
Also, there hasn't been an attack on US soil of the sort you speak of during Obama's tenure.
Posted by venomlash on November 11, 2012 at 10:22 AM · Report this
MirrorMan 86
Poor, poor troll.e knows what he knows, so don't confuse him with the facts.
Posted by MirrorMan on November 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM · Report this
90
@87 Stupid troll. By "never," of course you mean in your extremely limited experience and inability to look things up and correlate facts.

In the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, a minimum-wage job was enough that one worker could support a small family. Very modestly, true, but no more modest than so many working class and even middle class families today who can barely survive on their own with two full-time workers and extra part-time jobs.

Have you ever heard the term "housewife?" This was a thing. There were working-class women who weren't required to work to support their families. They could stay home to care for their homes and children, have a social life with other housewives, or watch tv and wrestle with boredom, alcoholism and pills. So, it wasn't always ideal, and there wasn't as much opportunity if they wanted to work, but they didn't have to work for their families to survive. Towards the end of the 1980's, that choice was gone for a vast number of people. Someday, there will be a museum dedicated to them.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on November 11, 2012 at 12:47 PM · Report this
91
This is hilarious because of the clips at the end...otherwise it's just sad.
Posted by Calvin&Hobbes on November 11, 2012 at 12:50 PM · Report this
venomlash 92
@89: Obama's said many times that he doesn't want to raise taxes on the middle class. His budget proposals have not included raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. So...what makes you think he's going to?
I'm sensing a pattern here. Like Jon Stewart said, there seems to be a different Obama that only Republicans can see.
Posted by venomlash on November 11, 2012 at 12:53 PM · Report this
sissoucat 93
@83 Lost opportunities ? Losing the opportunity to starve is really important to me, sorry. We have less starving people than you do, and I don't find it an interesting opportunity to have to work 3 jobs in order to survive. Besides, good schools are what gives people opportunity - and although our conservatives are dead set on ruining our education system, it still holds water for now, and it's better than yours. So, what opportunities are lost ?

I don't understand "low workforce participation" : participation of whom in the workforce ? or participation of the workforce to what ? Could you find another formulation of your idea, it makes no sense to me written like that (I'm not a native speaker, obviously).

@Brooklyn Reader - do you know what happened to the minimal wage ? Was it Reagan who let it slide into nothing, or did it happen before ? Do you think there could be a momentum behind raising it substantially, to the point where it was before Reagan, or will the rich people yell that it's communism ?

@Kim in Portland - I understand what you're saying. Many people complain about taxes ; but I was proud of paying taxes when I earned more money, because I felt I was contributing to society, and this way I knew I was not among the poorest. Nowadays, huh, I don't earn that much - I can't work full time because of ill-health - and it's a bit depressing not to pay income taxes. I'm still able to house and feed myself and the kids though...

Who cares for the kids when the single mother works 3 jobs ?
Posted by sissoucat on November 11, 2012 at 2:00 PM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 94
88, Obese troll, I rode my bike 30 miles today. When is the last time you pried your fat ass off of the sofa, and got some exercise? You're unhealthy, and sad.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on November 11, 2012 at 2:16 PM · Report this
treacle 96
The "traditional" nuclear family is less than 100 years old. Traditonally, families lived in larger groups that included grandparents, children and sometimes aunts, uncles, our cousins. If you want to fight for "traditional" families, fight for that. Larger families would be a great source of social stability. Nuclear families are much more vulnerable to changing economic times and life's unexpected troubles.

If you want to fight for traditional families, fight for that. Don't impose or assume some historically arbitrary --and only very recent-- definition of family.

Nuclear families are like little atomic particles, --bounced around harder and faster than larger, more solid particles--, when conditions get hotter.
Posted by treacle on November 11, 2012 at 3:01 PM · Report this
97
@Sissoucat: Reagan basically demonized people on welfare, pretty much inventing the "welfare queen" and running on it- the welfare queen being a person who is on welfare because she's too lazy to work and gets enough money from welfare to have a better lifestyle than she deserves.

Reagan's career was basically about convincing people that our social programs actually support lazy, ungrateful freeloaders and not people who are legitimately in need. He did it with California universities, and he did it again with welfare.

The problem since, however, is that minimum wage can only be raised when Congress votes for a raise. If it automatically went up like Social Security, it might still be a problem, but not anything like what it is now. If either the House or the Senate is majority Republican, it's probably not going to get raised.

As for how people work 2-3 jobs: people work 3 sixteen hour days and 4 eight-hour ones. Maybe they do two full-time jobs, maybe they do one full-time and two part-time. As for childcare, they either have a relative they can leave the child with (like the kid's grandparents), or one of those jobs is entirely to pay for the childcare during the other one and they just leave the kid alone to sleep at night.
Posted by alguna_rubia on November 11, 2012 at 3:04 PM · Report this
98
@95: The housing prices way outpaced everything else since 1968, and on top of that, public transportation was cheaper and easier to use then.
Posted by alguna_rubia on November 11, 2012 at 3:07 PM · Report this
99
@93 It was Reagan. Under him, the annual inflation-related cost of living increases were removed from the minimum wage. (It was first frozen for several years, then later incremented some small fraction of inflation, irregularly.) That was also the period when our inflation rate ballooned. The "Conservative" philosophy was that automatic raises in the minimum wage was somehow driving inflation. It wasn't.

This was also the period when the Republicans/Conservatives started their war on labor unions. In a completely Orwellian vein, they introduced so-called "Right To Work" laws in many states. Of course, this was the "right to work" in shitty conditions for low pay without a union representative.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on November 11, 2012 at 3:07 PM · Report this
kim in portland 100
@ Sissoucat,

In addition to what Alguna Rubia (#97), the children are often "latch key". The come home to an empty house. The eldest frequently steps into the parental role for the younger ones as homework help, chef, and babysitter until old enough to start working too.

I'm grateful to read that you are able to house and feed your kids. I'm sorry that your health is ill. Very sorry.
Posted by kim in portland http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fast-paced_video_provides_a_fu.html on November 11, 2012 at 4:07 PM · Report this
sissoucat 101
@alguna_rubia, Brooklyn Reader and Kim in Portland

Wow. Reagan was not liked in France at the time (I was a child) but now I undestand why. That guy was a butcher. I hope Obama or the next democrats will some day be able to fix that issue. You'd have a whole lot less criminality if people were not starving or desperate...

In my book what you're describing is slavery. Working full-time and not being able to feed and decently house oneself and one child ? It's slavery. How can those kids go on, learn and make it better for themselves, if their parents are constantly away ? 16-hours work days in the 21st century ? And Romney called them lazy and uninterested in earning more ? What, you would have gotten a national strike in France for such verbal abuse ! But your labor unions can't organize one now, I guess... I hope it really gets better for you, because truly, what you describe is just mind-blowing. It's 3rd-world-countries poverty... and we all know how that ends : in terrorism.

As for my health, thanks for your kind concern, Kim. I've had a serious depression but it's under control now - being overworked could bring it back though. And a full-time job with 3 young kids on my own would overwork me, now - I still need more time, for everything, than I ever did before. As it is, we're poor but I'm here and healthier than I would be, working and earning twice as much. I exercised bad judgement by getting married to an abuser and now I'm poor and slow but we're free. It's all what matters, really. Don't be sorry about it. I'm not.
Posted by sissoucat on November 12, 2012 at 3:55 AM · Report this
Neur0mancer 104
Here I see a little glimmer of hope.

The nameless troll is engaging in discussions in which, while still relying heavily on juvenile taunts, he's deploying a few facts and arguments.

I disagree with you on most of the substance, sir, but I am glad you're finally at least trying to do some actual debating instead of namecalling. Sadly, I don't think it would have happened without the ass-kicking conservatives got at the ballot box.

Of course, you're only debating the economic issues. With the social policy, you are basically still driven by your gut reaction of "ewwww... sluts and gays!" You start with the premise that gay marriage is not real marriage, and so you cannot see the true conservative arguments for encouraging people - gay or straight - to form committed lifelong relationships. Based on what your writing, I don't think it's possible for you to change your mind, but that's OK. Old dogs, new tricks, and all that. Fortunately, society is moving beyond your views. In a few decades, people will wonder what the fuss was all about, and people like you will either have forgotten that they ever opposed equal rights for all, or will only exist on the lunatic fringe, like white supremacists now.
Posted by Neur0mancer on November 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM · Report this
105
@103 Actually 71% of federal income tax revenue comes from the top 10% of earners. Nearly 40% of revenue comes from the top 1% of earners. Taxing the productive middle class is a secondary source of government cash, most of the stuff the government does is paid for by taxing the rich.

If you don't believe me click on the link below:

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/to…
Posted by Ken Mehlman on November 12, 2012 at 9:59 AM · Report this
venomlash 106
@103: False dichotomy. You discount the possibility that Obama is neither stupid nor lying by assuming that taxing the rich won't raise substantial money. Got any evidence to back that up? Because it looks like you just got told hard by Ken Mehlman.
Posted by venomlash on November 12, 2012 at 10:26 AM · Report this
109
@107 Unlike some of the people on Slog I'm not anti-wealth. One of the reasons we have so many rich people in America is that we let them keep more of their money than other modern nations. However, I think we could bring back the tax rates we had in the go-go '90s w/o scaring away much of our human capital. The Bush tax-cuts were a bad idea to begin with and it's time for them to go. I think Obama's kind of a pansy ass because he only wants to raise taxes for the top 2% of the population, but at least he is talking about raising taxes on somebody. That's more than you can say for the Republics.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on November 12, 2012 at 11:31 AM · Report this
venomlash 111
@108: $80 billion over the next decade. And that's just from ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. There's plenty more to work with in that area...
Posted by venomlash on November 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM · Report this
venomlash 113
@112: Are you incapable of reading?
THAT'S JUST FROM ENDING THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY. THERE'S PLENTY MORE THERE TO WORK WITH.
Posted by venomlash on November 12, 2012 at 4:02 PM · Report this
venomlash 115
@114: He proposes raising taxes on individuals making more than $250,000 a year.
Posted by venomlash on November 12, 2012 at 6:05 PM · Report this
117
I like how the troll always posts in the form of bad poetry.
Posted by Whoop Di Doo on November 12, 2012 at 8:59 PM · Report this
venomlash 118
@116: You want specifics? You got them. Obama's tax plan will raise an additional $1.7 TRILLION over the next ten years. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics…
Any questions, beeyotch?
Posted by venomlash on November 12, 2012 at 11:33 PM · Report this
121
@120 You have an odd definition of 'middle class.' Generally people are 'middle class' if they have mid-level incomes, say $40,000-$80,000 per year. I don't think many people would classify the top 6% of earners as 'middle class.' If you make more money than 94% of your fellow citizens, your not middle class, your upper-class. That's not to say such people don't contribute to the economy in important ways, but middle class they are not.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on November 13, 2012 at 6:47 AM · Report this
venomlash 122
@119: What's that bit about 6%? "Among income groups, only the top 1 percent would see an average tax increase" Suck it.
And Obama never said he'd instantly wipe out the deficit Bush handed him. It's going to take some time to get back to the productive Clinton years. But hey, actually reducing the deficit by 17% is a good start.
And yes, there's a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Reducing the military's requirements by ending the war in Iraq will help. And ending subsidies for oil companies will free up up to $400 billion a year.
Sure beats Romney's imaginary plan, anyhow.
Posted by venomlash on November 13, 2012 at 8:50 AM · Report this
124
@123

The deficit is below what it was when Obama took the office. The CBO announced as much back in September.

I love how the people who pretend to care so much about the deficit never actually bother to pay attention to it.
Posted by GermanSausage on November 13, 2012 at 10:31 AM · Report this
venomlash 125
@123: GermanSausage just took you out behind the woodshed. But hey, it's not like you care about facts.
Posted by venomlash on November 13, 2012 at 11:00 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 126
The coward troll lets slip the basic idea behind a conservative's idea of "democracy" @120:

When people I like vote for things I like it is democracy.

When people I do not like vote for things I do not like, it is tyranny.

You have the philosophical and intellectual chops of an elementary schooler, troll.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on November 13, 2012 at 11:02 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 128
@127: Everyone is taxed. While it has been made clear by you and others that you find facts to be detrimental to your arguments, you should learn about how taxes work.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie…

A key passage:
"When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent"

So who exactly is not getting taxed? The poorest Americans are paying about 16% of their income. Meanwhile Mitt Romney paid just under 14%, due to lawyers and loopholes.

So who is it in this scenario who is unwilling to be taxed? Who is getting the most benefit from the gub'mint?
Posted by Theodore Gorath on November 13, 2012 at 12:15 PM · Report this
129
@127

I'd be happier to pay more taxes if I were in a higher tax bracket. Considering rich people used to pay a lot more taxes only a few years ago, you claims of tyranny come off as... infantile? Ludicrous? Retarded? All of the above?
Posted by GermanSausage on November 13, 2012 at 1:16 PM · Report this
venomlash 132
@131:
>2012
>comparing marriage rights to rates of taxation
ISHYGDDT
And if hypocrisy is fattening, you must be a real landwhale by now.
Posted by venomlash on November 13, 2012 at 5:06 PM · Report this
134
@133 Maybe VL agrees with America's founding father that the optimal form of government is one that is kind of a democracy and kind of not.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on November 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM · Report this
135
@134 That should be fathers, not father.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on November 13, 2012 at 5:59 PM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 136
I30, I am part of the 53% who pays federal income tax. (You've pretty much admitted that you don't pay them in other threads) I pay more taxes than you probably make in a year, and I'm happy to do it. I can afford it, where as the 47% who don't, like you, cannot.

You're welcome.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on November 13, 2012 at 6:22 PM · Report this
venomlash 137
@133: I believe in democracy. I also believe in the rule of law. Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States GUARANTEES to all persons equal protection under the law. Our legal system also allows for judicial review, which can under some circumstances overrule the decision of the legislators or the electorate.
By all means, keep bitching.
Posted by venomlash on November 13, 2012 at 6:26 PM · Report this
139
@138

You're saying the middle class needs to pay more taxes? And the rich need to pay less taxes?

I know that was Mitt Romney's plan. And one of the big reasons why he lost. But why would you support it? That's just stupid.

Also, Sandra Fluke was never asking for birth control pills for herself. She was only reporting on the high cost of birth control. A male expert could have given the same testimony. You and Rush and Romney, etc. all assumed the wrong thing, called her a slut, which is another big reason why you lost.

But we could go on at great lengths about why you're a loser. What matters is how sweet your tears taste.
Posted by GermanSausage on November 13, 2012 at 8:27 PM · Report this
140
#130, if people want to pay a lower tax rate, they're perfectly welcome to take a tax cut.

#131, the majority of Southern voters were against interracial marriage too. Scratch a homophobe, find a racist.
Posted by GermanSausage on November 13, 2012 at 8:30 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 141
@Sheryl Yes, my favorite musical as well. You can have your Fred Astaire, I'll take Gene Kelly any day.

The pic is of Lina Lamont in front of a curtain. The true speaker is behind the curtain, while a flashy beautiful face is out front. My avatar, see? Get it? Ha ha ha....
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on November 13, 2012 at 10:30 PM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 142
138, I also have money deducted from every paycheck that goes to charities. (Including Planned Parenthood) When is the last time you helped anyone?
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on November 14, 2012 at 4:18 AM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 145
143, Yet it's the right wing extremists like you who are dying out. Go figure.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on November 14, 2012 at 5:09 AM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 147
146, As we already established, I not only pay my bills, but yours too. When was the last time you cleaned up anything? Look around you. Your life is a pigsty.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on November 14, 2012 at 6:08 AM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 149
147, At least I can afford it. How are those rabbit ears working for you?
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on November 14, 2012 at 7:04 AM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 151
150, You seem upset that you can't get your fat ass laid. Maybe if you put down the donuts, and moved a little, you wouldn't be so unattractive. Your unwashed fat rolls are rather smelly too. For God's sake, take care of your personal hygiene. Put on some clean clothes.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on November 14, 2012 at 8:04 AM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 152
150, Oh, and at least I have all my teeth.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on November 14, 2012 at 8:27 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 153
You know, Rob sent us a picture of himself, I think it is only fair (if there is going to be a insult battle about looks) that the troll also send in a picture.

Unless he is scared.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on November 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM · Report this
geoz 154
I'm still surprised (and pleased) that Romney actually got 2 million fewer votes in this election, than McCain got the last time. I mean they REALLY pushed for the hate and the vote and everything, and McCain had Palin to deal with. Romney had a bigger population to draw on as well. But It just shocks me.
Posted by geoz on November 15, 2012 at 10:04 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy