Climate change “skeptics” in the creationist role »« Thoughts on the SCA’s new Executive Director

Comments

  1. Andrew R says

    I don’t understand – when did he say he was declaring war on marriage? Isn’t a news source suppOsed to report the facts and let the viewers decide? In this case they should report what his position is, and if viewers interpret that position as an attack on marriage then so be it.

  2. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    A new source, yes. The republican propaganda machine that would make Goebbels jealous, no.

  3. says

    Damn, I wish blog comments had edit functions sometimes.

    Misogynistic “jokes” are bad. Quite bad. Fauxgressives who tell them are generally not my allies in matters of equality. But they pale in comparison to the control conservatives are trying to exert over women.

  4. Crocoduck Hunter says

    As much as I dislike Fox News, that’s not what it says. It’s just “Obama Flip-flops on Gay Marriage.” I’m not sure whether it said that before, or if you or somebody else changed it (thus the talk of photoshop).

  5. says

    I kind of do, so there’s one thing I have in common with Fox…?
    Oh thanks Tabby, now I’m relieved.

  6. says

    And I bet they still insist there’s no “war on women” too.

    Beat me to it. Not only that, but it’s treason to use all these “war on..”

  7. 'Tis Himself says

    Fox is the organization which won a lawsuit about their right to lie whenever they want.

  8. I'm_not says

    I don’t know how well known this tip is but if you want to edit a webpage for comedy effect go to the page as usual and then type

    javascript:document.body.contentEditable=’true';%20document.designMode=’on';%20void%200

    in the address bar and hit enter. Make sure the browser hasn’t stripped out the “javascript:” bit at the beginning before you do though.

    All the text on the page is now editable. Take a screeshot, there you go, you’re The Onion!

  9. sk says

    Why did i visit that fox page why? I end up getting sucked into the comment section where logic is a rare commodity.

  10. jacobfromlost says

    And I just responded to the dude in the open thread who said the hosts shouldn’t talk about homosexuality on the show unless they connect it directly to religion in that specific episode.

    I disagreed, cited polls, made connections, etc, but I’m not sure my point was communicated.

    And my point was basically this: Maybe the caller wasn’t religiously motivated to be homophobic, but dismantling bad nonreligious reasons to be homophobic has the added benefit of dismantling many of the ad hoc religious reasons to be homophobic–so your killing two birds with one stone.

    (It’s similar to if someone called in to claim they had completely nonreligious reasons for believing the earth is 6000 years old. They can give those reasons, and whether they are similar or not to the reasons religious folks give, it doesn’t mean the religious claim of a 6000 year old earth and a nonreligious claim of a 6000 year old earth are completely unrelated. There both asserting the same thing for bad reasons, and dismantling those bad reasons, whatever they are, serves the same purpose.)

    Gallup poll 2010:
    Those people who said religion was very important were 70% against gay marriage, 27% in favor.

    Those people who said religion was not very important were 27% against, and 71% for.

    I don’t think the flipping of those numbers based on religion alone means that opposing gay rights has nothing to do with religion, even if the hosts or the callers don’t explicitly draw the connection in a specific episode.

  11. Crocoduck Hunter says

    Okay. Wow. My mistake. That just seemed a little retarded, even for Fox, so I had trouble taking it in.

  12. Nathan Godwin says

    I find the use of the term “war” to describe ANY degree of mundane political maneuvering (that doesn’t involve an actual declaration of war) to be sickening. As long as there are still people who live out each day (if they’re lucky) sifting through a Martianesque (waste)landscape for IEDs and dodging turds wearing suicide vests, no amount of ideological bickering comes remotely close. It cheapens the word.

    This is a friggin’ “war” on marriage the same way building an airliner with a larger First Class area is a war on first class passengers. The tickets will still be $1,750, Thurston, and Del Griffith still won’t be able to afford to sit next to you, don’t worry.

  13. terrycollins says

    And just like that, the next U.S. election will be proxy referendum on gay rights. Obama has science and reason on his side, and Romney may have a strong Christian base, depending on how they feel about his Mormonism. (If I was still Catholic, I think I’d rather have a possible closet atheist for a president because he isn’t motivated by religious values different than my own.)

    And someone complained that the last show spent too much time discussing homosexuality! Perhaps we should be talking more about such issues, just so we can finally put it to bed (no pun intended). I’d like to see a person’s stated sexuality be as mundane as someone’s choice of soap.

  14. davidct says

    As far as FOX is concerned it is a no lose situation for the president. Their policy is that whatever Obama does is wrong so as far as a response from FOX, he is free to do the right thing. The right wing folks who think that marriage is something other than a legal contract will not vote for him anyway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>