“Shut Up”, The Entire Movement Explained
By Mitch Berg
There’s nothing a tyrant hates worse than an apostate.
When the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem – a radical fascist and anti-semite who hob-nobbed with Hitler and rooted for the Final Solution – first started agitating against Jewish immigration to “Palestine” before World War 2, he turned his goons loose on…
…moderate Arabs. Not the Jews. Because like tinpot tyrants the world over, the Grand Mufti knew that while virtually none of his people were going to convert to Judaism, plenty would be perfectly happy to seek accomodation with them; radicalism had to be made safer than peace, to keep his base in line behind him.
And tyrants, petty and otherwise, the world over have repeated the pattern; Lenin killed the Socialists and Mensheviks to consolidate his power before going after the Czarists. Franco killed the moderates and accomodationists, as did his communist opponents.
I’m not going to say that the DFL and its friends at the various PACs – Alliance for a Better Minnesota and so on – are in that league. Perish the thought.
Over the past week or two, the regional and, now, national left have been in high dudgeon over Target’s donation of $150,000 to MNForward, a political action committee that seeks to send gays to re-orientation camps in Colorado.
{scrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatch}
Wait. That can’t be right. Let me look…
Whew. OK, I had that wrong. MNForward is a pro business PAC.
But you’d never know it from the left’s response to Target’s donation of $150,000 to MNForward, a Political Action Committee whose entire focus is on business, and the notion that a DFL governor would be a disaster for Minnesota businesses already suffering from a lagging economy and among the highest corporate taxes in the nation.
Of course, Target is far from the only company giving money to MNForward. Best Buy and Hubbard Broadcasting (both former employers of mine), Polaris, Davisco, Red Wing Shoes, Regis (whose founder, Myron Kunin, gave $5K to “Win Minnesota”, which is the money-laundering cutoff for “Alliance for a Better Minnesota”), Securian, Pentair, Federated Insurance, the Insurance Federation of Minnesota, and Cold Spring Granite have so far ponied up something around $900,000, which is a few bucks more than the Daytons and Alida Messinger have contributed all by themselves, and less than half than what they, their plutocrat cronies, and their union supporters have given to A4aBM and “Win Minnesota” alone, so far in this race (and sources tell me A4aBM will eventually spend ten million, mostly in Dayton and union money, this cycle). That’s less than a quarter of what Matt Entenza has spent so far, most of it attacking Emmer.
Of course, Hubbard Broadcasting is the #4 TV station in a four station market; they’re so desperate for ratings, they’ve begun experimenting with the radical notion of not appearing relentlessly left-of-center – the experiment is only partial, and the jury is still out. Polaris and RedWing pretty much serve blue-collar clienteles; you don’t find a lot of urban “progressives” on snowmobiles or wearing steel-t0ed work boots. Most people have no idea food processor Davisco exists, but they’re rural and thus off the radar for the urban progressives. And most people can get a vague idea from their titles what Securian, Federated, Cold Spring and IFM do – but none of them are linked with “progressive” ideas or, to most people, any ideas at all. (I know what Pentair does, but the odds are pretty good you don’t…)
But Target, and to a lesser extent Best Buy? In addition to immense charitable giving to a very eclectic array of community groups and schools (Target in Minnesota’s leading corporate charitable donor, and their money helps support dozens of public, charter and alternative schools), both led the way on “diversity” in the Twin Cities. They are widely regarded as “progressive’ companies, and both have long put their money where their corporate mouths were when it came to acting “progressive”. Both actively worked to support GLBT employees; I knew not a few gay managers at Best Buy, and their orientation seemed not to harm their careers in the least; I’ve never worked for Target, but friends who have tell me it’s at the very least the same. And that’s a good thing – because both companies led the way in recognizing that a person’s orientation has nothing to do with his or her productivity, talent or merit.
So what happens when a “progressive” company donates to a candidate that dissents from the economic policies of the party that has tried to seize the word “progressive?”
They’re seen as apostates – “traitors”. And Big Progressive – that combination of Big DFL, Big Labor, Big Gay, Big Open Border, Big Academia and so forth – know that they must destroy apostates.
So A4aBM and its cronies in the “Human Rights Coalition” – a Big Gay group – have spent the past week painting Target, that most progressive of companies in that most progressive of places, Minneapolis – as “anti-gay”. Because of a contribution to help Minnesota’s business climate, supporting a candidate who Big Progressive wants – needs – to paint as “anti-gay”.
(Is Emmer “anti-gay”? He’s been on record supporting traditional marriage amendments; he’s also said on the Northern Alliance that it’s really a side issue for the governor – as it in fact is. Is supporting traditional marriage “hate”? Is it “rabidly anti-gay”, as a gay co-worker of mind called it? I think it devalues the term “hate”, but as PJ O’Rourke said, I’m not a liberal, so I’m not an expert at stuff I know nothing about…)
And so Target and Best Buy, the “apostate” “progressives”, must be destroyed, while the Polarises and the Hubbards and the Securians and Pentairs get left alone; no “progressive” is ever going to start doubting the mother faith because a snowmobile manufacturer or a rural food processor or a granite company supports Tom Emmer.
But “progressive” Target and Best Buy? That’s a threat.
And so the thoughtcrime must be punished.
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:19 pm
DG
In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
How is Obama’s position different than Emmers? Be specific and cite your sources.
August 3rd, 2010 at 1:35 pm
But, isn’t that the liberat way? Open mouth before engaging brain and knee jerk reactions.
August 3rd, 2010 at 2:23 pm
That’s a change of subject, kel, but I’ll take a shy at it, even though I’m not DG: the conventional (but often unspoken) wisdom on the left is that Obama, like Paul Wellstone, really doesn’t mean it, but that Emmer does. (I’m in favor of mandatory governmental — not religious/private — recognition of all sorts of relationships adults enter into, m’self, so I think that they’re both wrong. But I digress.)
August 3rd, 2010 at 2:32 pm
I’ll take a shot at it, Kel:
The (social) right supports a traditional marriage amendment at campaign time, but does nothing to pass it.
The left supports gay marriage (and bags on the “bigotry” of its opponents) at campaign time, but does nothing to pass it.
Hope that helps.
August 3rd, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Kel, if you want to address me directly, the best way to be sure to get my attention is to email me at Penigma2@hotmail.com. I wouldn’t want you to think I was avoiding a question or rudely ignoring you when perhaps I might simply miss seeing the question.
The significant difference between Obama and Emmer are twofold. The first is that while Obama may believe that his faith as a Christian (not a muslim) directs that marriage is between a man and a woman. However as a secular leader, he does not believe in imposing his religious views, which are private, on others who believe differently. He sees government as guaranteeing that people are allowed to pretty much follow their conscience in this regard.
Emmer believes that what his religion dictates is what he would impose on others if he were elcted governor.
Further, where Obama has made strides to see the GLBT community treated with the same respect and consideration – including rights and privileges – as anyone else, treating their sexuality as a private matter which government should not intrude upon, Emmer is willing to discriminate AGAINST people on the basis of their sexuality or sexual orientation. An example would be Emmer attempting to prevent gay couples from the same access to surrogates for pregnancies that are granted to heterosexual couples. Ditto, recognizing that homosexual couples can be good parents, just as single individuals can be good parents. I understand Emmer is against same sex parents.
So, the issue is not strictly same-sex marriage, but rather whether one does not – like Obama – believe in penalizing same sex individuals; or like Emmer, does apparently believe in denying them the same rights.
Same original religious beliefs; entirely opposite means of living up to them as a matter of conscience.
Perhaps Mitch or other commenters here would be more familiar with Emmer’s position on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I would expect Emmer to be in favor of maintaining it, or in barring homosexuals and bisexuals from the military entirely That would seem to be another instance of where Obama probably differ in how they act on their religious beliefs and their consciences.
August 3rd, 2010 at 3:18 pm
DG,
Perhaps Mitch or other commenters here would be more familiar with Emmer’s position on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I would expect Emmer to be in favor of maintaining it, or in barring homosexuals and bisexuals from the military entirely
Not to speak for Emmer – I don’t work for the campaign at all, much less as a spokesperson – but he might correctly respond “the Governor of Minnesota is not, technically, the commander in chief of the US military, and has no say over DADT whatesoever”.
As to the rest of your comment, DG, there are quite a few areas where you are trafficking in pure DFL spin. More later.
August 3rd, 2010 at 3:35 pm
<i<or like Emmer, does apparently believe in denying them the same rights.
Which rights are those, DogPrescottPile? You have a quote or a statement?
August 3rd, 2010 at 4:05 pm
I am a former employee of Best Buy and feel comfortable saying this. I left the company voluntarily and signed a proprietary info agreement. None of this violates that agreement.
Best Buy is a very liberal company (but a very good company to work for…and they do good things like support active-service military personal). I won’t go into things that do not apply to Mitch’s thread, so will only touch on one subject. Best Buy has always been a very big supportor of gay rights, including funding groups like HRC, linking to them on the internal web site, holding events on the corporate campus (that is where I saw the Target logo combined with the gay rights triangle and rainbow flag), and funding gay rights groups (which always bothered me, just as if Best Buy would do cash transfers to conservative Christian groups would bother me). They also sponsor a stage at the Mpls pride fest and say they want to recruite Gay-Americans to work for them.
They are also a hard-nosed business with huge pressure to make “the street” happy every quarter.
So, recently they gave money to a pro-business group in Minnesota. Just like the NAACP-Tea Party issue, the uproard has nothing to do with race/gay marriage. The left is made because one of theirs strayed in a HUGE election year. Best Buy still gives large sums of money (I assume) to gay groups. But now, some of that money is used by those groups to attack Best Buy. From what I know, Target is a mirror company to Best Buy in this subject.
Years ago, someone from Best Buy decided to send shareholders money to gay-rights political groups on a regular basis, and now that is coming back to bite them on the ass.
August 3rd, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Oh, if anyone from Best Buy reads this, my known name at Best Buy was not “Chuck”. So if anyone remembers working with a “Chuck”, this would not be him.
August 3rd, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Oh, one more. If the left wants to attack Best Buy/Target, remember this. Can’t speak for Target, but Best Buy has a form of affirmative action. This includes, race, skin hues, birth location, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. They don’t like the word “quotas” so they refer to it as “goals”. For example, the MOA store…Best Buy said they want to limit European-Americans from working there. Go in there and you will see what I mean. I am hoping that if a qualified white-guy applies there, they send him to a different store so as not to violate civil rights laws.
Really I have no problem with this. Just making the point that these companies tow the liberal line and the left needs to remember this.
August 3rd, 2010 at 5:35 pm
For example, the MOA store…Best Buy said they want to limit European-Americans from working there.
That can’t be. According to Best buy:
Best Buy has been and will continue to be an equal oppurtunity employer.
http://www.bestbuy-jobs.com/bestbuy/pdf/?file=BBY_FY10SignedPolicy_HR-0185992_8x11
August 3rd, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Emmer believes that what his religion dictates is what he would impose on others if he were elcted governor.
Emmer has never said that he opposes gay marriage for religious reasons.
August 3rd, 2010 at 6:18 pm
FYI, I’m assuming DG is supportive of polygamy, polyandry, and human-animal marriages since they, too, are only forbidden due to the imposition of religious values & the dead hand of tradition.
August 3rd, 2010 at 6:39 pm
“that can’t be. According to Best buy:
Best Buy has been and will continue to be an equal oppurtunity employer.”
Terry, I had saved a lot of the emails that Best Buy sent, but they were internal so I did not want to violate my proprietary agreement (and not burn bridges), so deleted them before leaving, but yes, Best Buy said the Mall of America store has skin color quotas. If you are a…say Czech-American, you will most likely not be hired at their Mall of America store. Best Buy braged about not hiring light-skinned people at that store. Again, don’t take my word for it, go in there to see the evidence.
My point isn’t to bash Best Buy (or Target) for ant-Minnesotan-American racism, but instead to show that these corporations are very very liberal. That the current uproard is just a way to get them to go back on the plantataion.
August 3rd, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Chuck, the “equal oppurtunity employers” are caught it in a dilemma. They want to show that they do not practice illegal discrimination, but the skills and desire to perform a particular job are not distributed equally among state-identified groups.
Hence to achieve the appearance of equality they must actively discriminate against people on the basis of race, national origin, and sex.
Of course this is the precise opposite of what they are allowed to say that they do.
August 4th, 2010 at 12:02 am
Mitch, I didn’t suggest that the governor would have any impact on don’t ask don’t tell as it applies to the US armed forces. I don’t e know what impact he might have on the MN National Guard policies though, which do I believe tend to dovetail with those of the various services of the national armed forces.
That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t hold an opinion. I’m asking, as someone familiar with his positions – apparently – if you know or could find out what that opinion is. I’d like points here for not assuming, instead asking, since I don’t know conclusively.
Are you denying that Emmer had attempted to amend a surrogacy bill to specify mother and father, where previously the bill had been neutral on both the marital status and the gender / sexual orientation of the prospective parents?
Kel asked about how Obama’s expressed religious beliefs differed from Emmer’s position. Are you claiming that Emmer does not hold religious beliefs about marriage?
No, Terry, as I have answered before, I do not favor polyandry, polygamy, animal-human marriages. I also do not favor child marriages, forced arranged marriages, or incestuous marriages. I know of many people who share that position on those kinds of currently banned marriages, but who do not hold those positions for religious reasons.
I believe that we should not discriminate against marriage equality for same sex marriages. However, if a specific church objects, obviously they should not perform such marriages. There ARE churches, including a number of Christian churches, which do wish to be allowed to perform same-sex marriages, and I feel it is an infringement on their freedom of religion not to be allowed to do so. The local Mpls/St. Paul MN Quakers are an example; in fact they linked something I wrote on the topic to their web site.
I will say that if at some future time polygamy were to be allowed, I would favor polyandry given equal recognition. The best argument I have heard in favor was not a religious one – although it is approved by some world religions. The New York Times did a recent story about the practice of polyandry in a region of India, how it worked, how long it had been a custom, and why it was instituted. The best argument I’ve ever heard was that it made a pragmatic alternative to serial monogamy – individuals who had multiple marriages and children over time, resulting in fewer divorces and less domestic disruption/ broken homes.
Terry, do you have any proof that equal opportunity employers do not primarily hire on the basis of skill and desire to do a job? Can you show that those hired have less skill or desire to be hired? I’d be interested in your proof.
August 4th, 2010 at 12:21 am
By way of context, I actually know people who have used or provided gestational surrogacy for infertile couples. One friend who used a surrogate, and another who was a surrogate three times for an infertile couple. So, I will be particularly interested to hear if Emmer was incorrectly reported for his attempted changes to that legislation.
August 4th, 2010 at 3:59 am
Terry, do you have any proof that equal opportunity employers do not primarily hire on the basis of skill and desire to do a job?
What the heck is a “primarily equal opportunity employer”?
You could try reading Chuck’s comments in this thread. Do you think that Best Buy had these rules about hiring because they weren’t necessary?
Or use common sense — look at the distribution of males and females, caucasians, asians, hispanics and blacks with engineering degrees. Female public school teachers out number male public school teachers by a ratio of 6:1.
August 4th, 2010 at 7:04 am
proof that equal opportunity employers do not primarily hire on the basis of skill and desire to do a job
If a company does, indeed, say that they want to hire fewer, let’s say, Azerbaijani workers for a set of jobs, how is that not proof of this?
“We want the best workers we can get, who are not Azerbaijani”. If the best worker for the job happens to be a Azerbaijani, it doesn’t matter.
August 4th, 2010 at 8:42 am
Dog Gone, you condemn others for doing exactly what you would do. You are a hypocrite.
Legislation is the codifidation of the morality of the majority of the legislators present and voting. Law changes as morals change.
Initially, slavery was thought to be moral and preachers cited Scripture to prove it was the White Man’s Duty to care for Blacks. Later, slavery was deemed immoral and preachers railed against it. The practice of slavery didn’t change, the prevailing morality changed, and with it, the law.
Early Massachusetts legislators believed homosexual marriage was wrong so they banned it. Now they think it’s right and have legalized it, as you wish the Minnesota legislature would do. Same-sex relationships haven’t changed, the prevailing morality is shifting, and with it, the law.
You complain that Emmer wants to impose his vision of morality on the people of this state but you propose to do exactly the same thing. You prefer your vision of morality over his and think yours right, so you have no more qualms about imposing your morality on others than the slave owner or those who banned gay marriage.
Doesn’t matter whose vision of morality is ‘righter’ than the other – that’s a theological question that can’t be answered. You argue that my thinking I have a ‘righter’ vision of morality doesn’t give me the right to impose my morality on you, but if that line of argument is correct then it also doesn’t give you the right to impose yours on me.
But your line of argument is not correct. Law always reflects the morality of those writing the law, and laws always are written for the express purpose of imposing the legislators’ morality on everyone else. The difference is that Emmer is willing to admit what he is doing and you’re not.
Hypocrite.
.
August 4th, 2010 at 9:20 am
One of the silliest things I’ve heard a lefty say was “We don’t let people vote on civil liberties!” (talk about a chanting point!). We allow this all of the time. The Loving V Virginia case overturned legislation that had stood in VA for forty years.
The courts don’t only ratchet civil liberties forward. In Grutter V Bollinger the SC decided that a state-run law school could discriminate between applicants on the basis of race.
Their was nothing any court or any legislature could have done to end slavery. It took a civil war.
August 4th, 2010 at 9:23 am
Law always reflects the morality of those writing the law
And the highest aspiration of good law is to protect the minority from the whim of the majority.
Which does not, and can not ever, mean “put the majority’s morality completely into a bottle and shut it up forever”.
August 4th, 2010 at 9:31 am
Their was nothing any court or any legislature could have done to end slavery
Well, maybe and maybe not.
Remember – slavery had existed in most of the country at one point; New York State didn’t finally totally abolish it until the 1840’s, if I recall correctly. It was abolished partly on moral grounds – but it was also an economic move; the industrialization of the northern economy made slavery economically obsolete.
The system in the North was conducive to industrialization; the system in the south, with its feudalistic plantations and ossified, pseudo-European aristocracy, was not. It’s possible that with time the South might have outgrown slavery – but it would have taken the collapse of the Southern aristocracy for that to have happened.
August 4th, 2010 at 9:33 am
DeeGee wrote:
“So, the issue is not strictly same-sex marriage, but rather whether one does not – like Obama – believe in penalizing same sex individuals; or like Emmer, does apparently believe in denying them the same rights.”
Marriage is not a right without limitation. If it were, DG would be able to marry a member of her immediate family.
Same sex “marriages” are inherently unequal. Couples of the same sex can *never* procreate and the can *never* consummate a marriage.
Deal with it, DG. Now move on.
August 4th, 2010 at 9:41 am
but it would have taken the collapse of the Southern aristocracy for that to have happened.
Which is exactly what William T, Sherman’s push to Savannah accomplished. His doctrine of total war stripped the financiers of the war of their wealth.
August 4th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Right.
It might have happened from natural causes – and that might have taken 20 or 100 years, or it might still be going on. The war certainly sped it up.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Nachman, no one to procreate by limited biology in order to marry. Nor is marriage a requirement for procreation. Same sex marriages are no more unequal than infertile heterosexual marriages or marriages where couples choose not to have children.
Or would you deny infertile couples the right to be married? How about older individuals past child bearing age?
I never suggested marriage was a right without limitation, or did you read selectively the possible marriages to which I objected? That list included incestuous marriages.
But I do observe that there are many instances of same sex parents doing an excellent job of parenting. Their sexual or affectional orientation is not an impediment to it. I can cite recent studies that are academically well regarded. Whereas the ultra-conservative right’s view that same sex individuals should be denied parenting rights — adoption, surrogacy, even being foster parents — is not as academically supported by sound science.
Same sex pairs procreating and raising children together are being recognized in other species at a truly astounding rate, far beyond what we previously understood. The degree to which same sex attraction occurs in other species as well as our own historically is being better understood, as is the hard-wiring that seems to be the basis for it. There is no good reason to oppose legalizing same sex couples in their relationships.
It is as stupid as anti-miscegenation laws to oppose same sex marriage. We are beginnin to appreciate with modern DNA testing just how not-pure racially most of us really are… much like the understanding of same sex attraction.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Sorry that should read ‘no one is required’ in the first sentence.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:29 am
nate wrote:
“You complain that Emmer wants to impose his vision of morality on the people of this state but you propose to do exactly the same thing. You prefer your vision of morality over his and think yours right, so you have no more qualms about imposing your morality on others than the slave owner or those who banned gay marriage.”
The trend has been distinctly to be more pro-equality in the majority of people; legislators are supposed to reflect the opinion of the majority of their constituents.
I am not proposing to imposed my morality on others. The significant difference is that I favor more individuals having the freedom to make that decision for themselves. Obama is advocating more people making this decision of conscience for themselves, providing greater individual freedom of choice and conscience.
Emmer would impose his view on everyone, denying that choice.
Simple difference. One which those Tea Party fans who whinge on about having freedoms should appreciate, as should libertarians. This is the kind of thinking that makes me doubt the sincerity of those who espouse freedom while really wanting to deny freedom of conscience and freedom of choice.
Same sex marriage does no harm whatsoever to heterosexual marriage or to anyone else. Denying it does harm others, including the children of those relationships.
Simple choice – or it should be.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:42 am
“Same sex marriage does no harm whatsoever to heterosexual marriage or to anyone else.”
Liar. The goal of the homosexual marriage crowd is to destroy any organziaion that does not comply. So far,Boy Scouts have been banned from public property in California, a photographer was successfully sued in Arizona for refusing to photograph a lesbian “wedding”, the online matchmaker was sued and forced to set up a gay dating service.
What next? Does the Catholic church lose its tax exempt status?
August 4th, 2010 at 10:55 am
The trend has been distinctly to be more pro-equality in the majority of people; legislators are supposed to reflect the opinion of the majority of their constituents.
But they do. Gay marriage has lost in the popular vote in EVERY state in which it’s been brought to the ballot, including liberal cesspools like California and Oregon; even there, it wasn’t even close.
I am not proposing to imposed my morality on others.
Well, yeah, you are; you’re saying that your side should control the definition of what “Marriage” is.
Obama is advocating more people making this decision of conscience for themselves, providing greater individual freedom of choice and conscience.
Obama opposes gay marriage.
Emmer would impose his view on everyone, denying that choice.
Nope. The only thing Emmer is on record as proposing, AT ALL, is letting the legislature vote on a constitutional amendment establishing what “marriage” is.
The only thing I’ve actually heard Emmer say on the subject? Last September 5, on the NARN at the State Fair.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: What do you think about gay marriage?
EMMER: I don’t care.
[audience laughs]
EMMER: Seriously – I believe marriage is about procreation [a radical thought coming from a Catholic with seven kids, huh?], but this next election is about jobs…
For all the left’s rhetoric about how “anti-gay” Emmer is, there’s really no there there.
I personally believe the only real answer is to get government out of the marriage business; let government enforce contracts, let churches/synagogues/mosques/ashrams/whatever perform marriages. And if a religion can square single-sex marriage with its theology, by all means let them perform them.
August 4th, 2010 at 11:30 am
During the endorsement process, I’ve heard Emmer speak at least 10 times including debates and in very small groups.
I’ve never heard him give his religious views on any subject nor did I ever hear him even bring up the subject of gay marriage.
August 4th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
No, Dog Gone, you are mistaken, on several counts.
First, legislators are NOT obligated in any legal, moral or ethical sense to reflect the opinions of the majority of their constituents. Legislators are obligated to exercise their best judgment on the issues that come before them.
We elect people we believe have good judgment, not people who will parrot public opinion poll results. That’s the difference between a representative democracy and a democracy.
The way that works in practice is you vote for the candidate whose judgment most nearly matches your own on the issues most dear to you, which necessarily means that on some issues, we’ll disagree. That’s okay, by definition, those are the issues not so important to me.
If a candidate gets a 100 from the American Conservative Union, an A+ from the National Rifle Association, an endorsement from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life and takes the Taxpayer League Pledge, I am confident she has good judgment so I’m comfortable giving her the power to make decisions on other issues.
From her endorsements, this hypothetical candidate believes it should be illegal to kill innocent unborn children and that the government should not hinder law-abiding citizens from defending their families. To her, these aren’t just lifestyle choices, they are wrong, bad, wicked and evil acts.
Those are not legal terms, those are moral terms. It is her view of morality that shapes her view of what the law ought to be.
You, on the other hand, think it is wrong, bad, wicked and evil for society to deny to homosexuals the priviliges granted to hetrosexuals. That is a value judgment borne of your morality, shaping your view of what the law ought to be. Your basis for the laws you want is exactly the same as her basis for the laws she wants – your morality.
You think your vision of what is moral is more correct than Emmers so you want to impose your morality on him (and the rest of us). But you complain when he tries to do it to you.
Look up the definition of hypocrite. That’s you.
.
August 4th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
This is the only definitive statement I’ve seen from Emmer re: gay marriage. It’s from his campaign page:
He does not mention religion.
One lefty makes a bigoted remark that Emmer is against gay marriage because of his religion, and soon all the lefty parrots are spouting that Emmer is trying to impose his religious values on them. None of them ever thinks of checking the facts.
It’s a cheap trick to make a candidate look guilty of trying to use his office to force his religious opinions on others, and make the voters forget that both DFL contenders positively endorse gay marriage, a position with which Minnesotans disagree by a 2:1 margin.
They did the same thing here in Hawaii. Lingle made a grave, in depth explanation of why she vetoed the civil unions bill last month. Long story short, she thought it was a matter that should be decided by a plebiscite, not a last minute bill produced by a lame-duck legislature. Religion was not mentioned.
Yet for weeks now the letters to the editor page in the papers have been filled with venting from liberals blaming the veto on the Christian right trying to impose their values on others. No freakin’ way do these guys want a plebiscite, even in ultra-liberal Hawaii. The last time they tried that they lost by almost 2:1.
Lingle is Jewish. Politically she is about as far right a governor as Arnold Schwarzeneggar.
August 4th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Let me take a step back here for a moment.
I’d like everyone to take a deep breath.
Terms like “Liar” and “Hypocrite” are perfectly appropriate when you can reasonably believe someone is willfully deceiving you, or forcing you into a morally-significant act from which they exempt themselves.
It’s entirely possible for someone to believe, in all sincerity, something that is completely mistaken – as, indeed, the entire left, including DG, do on pretty much every political issue. The fact that they believe something – even something that’s just plain wrong, whether through faulty research, excessive trust in ones’ own talking points, or whatever – means they are less likely trying to *deceive* you into believing somethign they know is wrong than trying to convince you of something they believe to be correct.
I do not believe DG is “lying” or “hypocritical”; she clearly believes what she writes and is, I suspect, not intending to convince you of things she knows to be untrue. As to “hypocrisy” – I think it’s less a matter of consciously and cynically asking you to submit to a moral wrong she’s not willing to herself than simple flawed logic.
Conservatives get falsely hit with both of those charges on leftyblogs constantly. We DO have to be better than them.
August 4th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
The fact remains that whether you are homo or hetro, we all have the same rights.
August 4th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Thank you Sir, may I have another?
August 5th, 2010 at 9:10 am
I do not believe DG is “lying” or “hypocritical”; she clearly believes what she writes and is
So when she writes black is white and it is clearly black, what does it make her? She clearly “believes” it is white, and yet, light does not escape.
February 5th, 2016 at 8:51 am
[…] this is part of a larger Democrat strategy – and it’s nothing new. Back in 2010, the DFL used the media to help “shame” Tom Emmer’s corporate donors into acquiescence. Newspapers around the country have been trying to “gun-shame” […]