Bristol Palin Slams Obama Over Gay Marriage.
luvguins
2012/05/12 18:39:58
|
|
|||||
|
18 votes
|
|
13% | ||
|
80 votes
|
|
57% | ||
|
43 votes
|
|
30% | ||
This makes me think that Falin' Palin had her hand into this, since Bristol has frequently shown no original thought it what she says.
By Michael Hayne:
When President Obama stated that he was in favor of same-sex marriage, it delivered a clear-cut signal that, as the standard-bearer of the
Democrats, he was no longer going to allow the dignity and civil rights of tax-paying citizens be hijacked and obliterated by the rabid, right-wing. A party that takes its cues on every single issue in America from the intolerant and fundamentally backwards Vatican, a fat drug addict radio host, and slobbering morons on Rascals with tea bags affixed to their trucker hats. Essentially, in one simple but eloquent statement, the president legitimized and humanized an issue that the Republicans have transformed into a not so great schism or cultural inquisition, thus making Romney and the Republicans make defending bigotry an Olympic sport.
Bristol Palin, who by all intents and purposes, is the even more irrelevant and uninformed offspring of an increasingly irrelevant and uninformed Sarah Palin, is still under the hopelessly misguided impression that she can weigh in on otherwise serious and substantive issues with phenomenally superficial and facile opinions. Further, that somehow real human beings give a crap what the tawdry offspring of a gritfing media fabrication thinks. Indeed, the vacuous, vainglorious apple doesn’t fall far from the know-nothing tree.
Bristol recently composed an anti-gay marriage blog post directed at President Obama’s enlightened statement advocating same-sex marriage rights. It gets better. It seems Bristol thinks the president is a dumb man, a poor leader and bad father.
By Michael Hayne:
When President Obama stated that he was in favor of same-sex marriage, it delivered a clear-cut signal that, as the standard-bearer of the
Democrats, he was no longer going to allow the dignity and civil rights of tax-paying citizens be hijacked and obliterated by the rabid, right-wing. A party that takes its cues on every single issue in America from the intolerant and fundamentally backwards Vatican, a fat drug addict radio host, and slobbering morons on Rascals with tea bags affixed to their trucker hats. Essentially, in one simple but eloquent statement, the president legitimized and humanized an issue that the Republicans have transformed into a not so great schism or cultural inquisition, thus making Romney and the Republicans make defending bigotry an Olympic sport.
Bristol Palin, who by all intents and purposes, is the even more irrelevant and uninformed offspring of an increasingly irrelevant and uninformed Sarah Palin, is still under the hopelessly misguided impression that she can weigh in on otherwise serious and substantive issues with phenomenally superficial and facile opinions. Further, that somehow real human beings give a crap what the tawdry offspring of a gritfing media fabrication thinks. Indeed, the vacuous, vainglorious apple doesn’t fall far from the know-nothing tree.
Bristol recently composed an anti-gay marriage blog post directed at President Obama’s enlightened statement advocating same-sex marriage rights. It gets better. It seems Bristol thinks the president is a dumb man, a poor leader and bad father.
“I guess we can be glad that Malia and Sasha aren’t younger,” she goes on, “Or perhaps today’s press conference might have been about appointing Dora the Explorer as Attorney General because of her success in stopping Swiper the Fox.”
“Dads should lead their family in the right ways of thinking. In this case, it would’ve been nice if the President would’ve helped shape their thoughts instead of merely reflecting what many teenagers think after one too many episodes of Glee.” (Source: The Hollywood Gossip) Once again, Bristol Palin has demonstrated why she is completely and utterly without a modicum of insight and knowledge, should probably go back to dancing and watching 16 and pregnant, and leave the thinking to the thinkers and responsible adults. I believe Tina Fey put it best during one her famous impersonations of Bristol’s Mamma Grizzly, Sarah Palin, when she said “I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers.”
Read More: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/10/bristol-pa...
I know plenty of the Religious right have physically and verbally attacked me in the name of their god.
You may have been more lucky with those of the right. Then again I am not christian, mixed in race, and have never had money, so money has little meaning to me.
So if the Republicans are such good guys: Why do they constantly back the Rich and Powerful corporate owners over the Union and workers rights?
Both sides have corruption that is do to lobbyists, corporations and the innate selfishness and greed that is endorsed and accepted under the capitalist system.
I blame Congress for the majority of Failing.
You really need to read up on some of the stuff that was done under W. and see how many of these right you feel ore being trampled were all out ignored.
You should try knowing about the constitution before you try defending it.
You have to tell me, because this ought to be good.
But does the Bible really state this? The short answer is, actually, no.
This is not a claim, however, that can be discussed without some honest empirical evidence to back it up, despite the right-wing proclamation of the opposite. For the long answer, let’s take a little tour of the Bible and see what it really says.
First, it should be pointed out that the sayings and teachings of Jesus make up the core of Christian belief. Homosexuality, however, is never addressed by Jesus in any of the canonic Gospels. What Jesus does talk about over and over again is oppression. Whether it was of the poor by the rich or of the powerless by the powerful.
One of the few stories about Jesus that mentions any kind of sexual sin is found in chapter 8 in the Gospel of John. Here we find a woman who had committed adultery (forbidden by the 7th commandment), but Jesus was not concerned with her sexual indiscretion. His focus was on the townspeople who wanted to stone her to death. So even in this case of sexual sin (adultery, in this case, that was clearly forbidden by Jewish law), Jesus came to the defense of the “sinner.” When he challenged the mob by saying “whoever was without sin should t...
But does the Bible really state this? The short answer is, actually, no.
This is not a claim, however, that can be discussed without some honest empirical evidence to back it up, despite the right-wing proclamation of the opposite. For the long answer, let’s take a little tour of the Bible and see what it really says.
First, it should be pointed out that the sayings and teachings of Jesus make up the core of Christian belief. Homosexuality, however, is never addressed by Jesus in any of the canonic Gospels. What Jesus does talk about over and over again is oppression. Whether it was of the poor by the rich or of the powerless by the powerful.
One of the few stories about Jesus that mentions any kind of sexual sin is found in chapter 8 in the Gospel of John. Here we find a woman who had committed adultery (forbidden by the 7th commandment), but Jesus was not concerned with her sexual indiscretion. His focus was on the townspeople who wanted to stone her to death. So even in this case of sexual sin (adultery, in this case, that was clearly forbidden by Jewish law), Jesus came to the defense of the “sinner.” When he challenged the mob by saying “whoever was without sin should throw the first stone”, the people went away one by one. Then he told the accused woman that he did not condemn her. Jesus stood up for the persecuted.
There are only a handful of passages in the bible that actually deal with same-sex intercourse and none of them deal with it directly. It is always in a larger context of ritual purity, rape, prostitution or pedophilia; in other words, they are presented in situations where someone is being exploited or sexually abused. Same-sex intercourse is never addressed in the context of two mutually-consenting adults.