Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Obama Halloween


Hat tip. Gary McCoy, artist.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

LOL, the Republican version is just as funny:

Oh crap, a Republican!

Debbie said...

Thanks for visiting Right Truth. You and your wife sound like the Grouch (my hubby) and me -- always talking about how sweet and wonderful the other one is, and actually meaning it.

Her name is Debbie, so of course she's a wonderful person (bwahaha)

Don't be a stranger. Check out hubby's page:

http://grouchatrighttruth.blogspot.com/

Deborah F. Hamilton
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com

radar said...

I notice the Republican one is on "crooks and liars" so naturally it was from a Democrat! (har) It was funny, though.

highboy said...

Of course the democrat version actually is validated by the reality of the current party in power's politics.

Chaos Engineer said...

Highboy, that's a common misconception. If you wanted to make an accurate comic instead of a satire, the caption (for the Federal government) would be:

"Assuming you're among the wealthiest 50% of trick-or-treaters, I'm going to take an average of 21% of your candy. Of that, I'll give 25% to people who are too sick to trick-or-treat, and 22% to retirees who are too old to trick-or-treat. I'll sell 22% and use it to fund the Neighborhood Defense Force, and sell 11% more to pay for public works like roads, parks, and museums, and some other miscellaneous projects. I'll give 10% in interest payments to people I borrowed candy from on previous Halloweens. The remaining 11% will go to people who are unable to trick-or-treat for other reasons. Some of them are just too lazy, but not very many because of the Clinton-era welfare reforms. So most of that 11% will go to people who sincerely want to trick-or-treat but can't because of the lousy economy."

"About the 21% I'm taking...I know that seems like a lot, but remember that you'll be entitled to a share of it if you retire or otherwise become unable to trick-or-treat, and of course you're free to use the roads, parks, and museums whenever you want."

Then the kids could say, "Oh, crap! That's just as bad as previous administrations, give or take a few percentage points, and taking into account the aging population and the ongoing recession!"


So, is everybody following the election? I've been saying that I wouldn't mind losing every other high-profile race tonight as long as gay marriage stays legal in Maine. Right now it looks like both parts of that are going to happen. I need to be more ambitious about what I wish for.

highboy said...

I hope gay marriage just stays in Maine, legal or no.

WomanHonorThyself said...

bwhaha!!

Anonymous said...

highboy said:

I hope gay marriage just stays in Maine, legal or no.

You almost make it sound as if it's the Bubonic Plague. What's so scary about it?

highboy said...

"You almost make it sound as if it's the Bubonic Plague. What's so scary about it?"

Who said it was scary?

Anonymous said...

Who said it was scary?

No one, of course. But your 'keep it away from me'- kind of reply seems to imply you see gay marriage as something scary.

Am I right?

highboy said...

"No one, of course. But your 'keep it away from me'- kind of reply seems to imply you see gay marriage as something scary.

Am I right?"

No. Its the simple fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, always has been, and is more naturally productive for a civilized society, therefore its government endorsed. That would be in contrast with same sex marriage, which not only has zero productive value, but can also be seen as counter-productive, especially when combined with our abortion rate of 1.3 million babies per year. Between the 2, the lack of procreation can't be seen as productive in any way whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

@highboy:

So if it's all about procreation and production, does that mean that heterosexual couples who can't have children can't marry either?

Anonymous said...

@ highboy (by-the-way, to avoid confusion - and your poor reading/thinking skills - it's me Canucklehead)

W. T. F. ? Abortion and gay marriage are somehow related now? How fortunate for you and your narrow minded cause.

What a blinking bigot.

How embarassing for you.

How about you keep your religion based judgieness to yourself, hey Tim? Probably too much to ask. Although your little rant does further explain some of your Canada hate. As gay marriage has been legal here for a while now and the fabric of society seems to be doing just fine.

And as far as I can tell, unchecked procreation isn't really working too well for us globally, so why, again, are gay couples of "zero productive value"? And, out of curiosity, what number would you assign to your own union's "productive value". I mean, what ,of value, do you "produce" in the "religion" industry, again?

- Canucklehead

highboy said...

"W. T. F. ? Abortion and gay marriage are somehow related now? How fortunate for you and your narrow minded cause.

What a blinking bigot.

How embarassing for you."

Apparently I'm not the only one with a problem with reading skills. Because if you actually read my post, you wouldn't have had such a retarded response. You might also read in the dictionary and look up "bigot".

"As gay marriage has been legal here for a while now and the fabric of society seems to be doing just fine."

Yes, all those grey people in the snow seem so happy don't they?

"so why, again, are gay couples of "zero productive value"? "

Because you can't come up with one way as to how gay coupling is productive. Hence, zero.

As to your request to keep my religious prejudices to myself: no. I'll keep my religious issues to myself when you keep your non-religious issues to yourself. See how that works? Now go away and let the grown ups talk.

highboy said...

"So if it's all about procreation and production, does that mean that heterosexual couples who can't have children can't marry either?"

Its not all about procreation. You might remember at the beginning of that post I stated that marriage was between a man and a woman and always has been, and changing it simply to please homosexuals and lesbians because they feel left out just isn't my thing.

Anonymous said...

"Its not all about procreation."

So how much of it is about procreation? It still needs explaining how this argument would apply to gay couples and not to heterosexual couples who can't have children.

"You might remember at the beginning of that post I stated that marriage was between a man and a woman and always has been,..."

Now, it's your right to be against gay marriage for whatever reasons you might have, but I'm quite surprised that you use this argument in defense of your position because it takes only half a minute of logic thinking and a quick look at history to realize how worthless 'always has been' is as an argument.
But since you consider yourself to be among the 'grown ups' I will not point out to you why the argument fails and trust you can figure it out yourself.

highboy said...

"So how much is it about procreation?"

Are you asking me to come up with a percentage?

As to the rest of my argument. No, it doesn't fail, simply because you say it does. Its a simple matter of the burden being on you, not me, to come up with an argument as to why the institution of marriage should be altered to include gays. Not the other way around. Its not a rights issue, as marriage is not a right, but a privilege. That's why we pay for a marriage license. Its a state's issue, and Constitutionally speaking, a state is just as capable of voting to abolish marriage altogether in that state as they are keeping gay marriage out.

Marriage is a religious institution in any culture you decide to study throughout history, and is always between a man and a woman. Even cultures that accepted gay coupling did not, in any way, marry them. It is that religious, legal unification that this government has always endorsed and until someone can come up with a logical explanation as to why we need to change an institution to include everyone it will always be that way. Are we going to legalize marriage between a man and his mother as well?

Anonymous said...

"Are you asking me to come up with a percentage?"

No, I'm asking you to defend your argument. You make the argument, but when it's challenged you dodge by saying it's apparently not all that important.
But it doesn't matter whether it's the main argument for your postion or not. If you make an argument you should be able to defend it or not make it at all.
So again I ask you: how would your argument considering procreation and production apply to gay couples and not to heterosexual couples who can't have children?

(oh, and since this is about civil matters, 'go forth and multiply' doesn't count)

"As to the rest of my argument. No, it doesn't fail, simply because you say it does."

You're right. That's why I never claimed that. Instead I claimed that history proves it failed.
As I said: look back in history and think logically for a minute:

- at some time it 'always had been' that women couldn't vote
- at some time it 'always had been' that people from different races couldn't marry
- at some time it 'always had been' that slavery was allowed

And in each of these cases there were lots of people who didn't feel like changing things simply because some people felt left out.
If 'always has been' would be a decent argument, we'd still be burning witches.

"Marriage is a religious institution in any culture you decide to study throughout history, and is always between a man and a woman."

Again the masks fall off and the real motivation behind the opposition against gay marriage is exposed: religion. Alas, this is a civil matter so I'm afraid it doesn't count what your religion says about gay marriage or homosexuality. Don't worry though; if your church feels like discriminating gay people when they want to marry in church, that's still their prerogative.
And what did I just say about 'history' and 'always'?

"It is that religious, legal unification that this government has always endorsed and until someone can come up with a logical explanation as to why we need to change an institution to include everyone it will always be that way."

You say the government endorses a religious unification and want a logical explanation as to why it shouldn't? That's easy: separation of church and state.

Highboy, as I have shown you are not able to provide one single rational argument as to why gay marriage shouldn't be legal. All you have is 'always has been' and religious motivations, which surely aren't rational at all.
Why ask for something you can't do yourself in the first place?

So please try again: give us one logical, rational reason why gay marriage should not be legally allowed.

highboy said...

"But it doesn't matter whether it's the main argument for your postion or not. If you make an argument you should be able to defend it or not make it at all."

I made my argument. You're asking for a percentage, whether you have the "rationale" to admit it or not. I already stated my argument in regards to procreation and productivity, you're asking me how much of my position is about production and productivity. Stop dodging and just answer my point. Not to mention you haven't given one rational reason why the definition of an institution such as marriage should be altered in any way.

"- at some time it 'always had been' that women couldn't vote
- at some time it 'always had been' that people from different races couldn't marry
- at some time it 'always had been' that slavery was allowed"

Difference: voting is a Constitutional right. Marriage is not, not for heteros, homos, or lesbos. Its a privilege, a privilege that we pay for, same as hunting, fishing, driving, etc. So comparing a privilege like marriage to the basic right to vote is so fallacious I can't believe you brought it up. Wait, yes I can.

"Again the masks fall off and the real motivation behind the opposition against gay marriage is exposed: religion. Alas, this is a civil matter so I'm afraid it doesn't count what your religion says about gay marriage or homosexuality."

There was no mask. Marriage has always been religious, not just civil. If your only argument for allowing gay marriage is so that they can have the same tax breaks as me you lose flat out. Not everyone is privy to the same tax breaks, not now, not ever. But you go Nancy Drew.

"You say the government endorses a religious unification and want a logical explanation as to why it shouldn't? That's easy: separation of church and state."

You mean the one that protects the church from the state? Exactly how is that relevant? Or are you trying to claim that the government has no place endorsing marriage if its religious? You may want to show then why the Framers, you know those guys who wrote the establishment clause, continually endorsed Christianity. I'd be delighted to read that.

"Highboy, as I have shown you are not able to provide one single rational argument as to why gay marriage shouldn't be legal."

Sure I have. Just because you stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la! You're not rational! You're not rational" doesn't mean my responses weren't rational. I gave scientific reasons (procreation, natural order), legal reasons (marriage is not a civil right), and religious reasons. (marriage is a religious institution) Those are verifiable facts. When you can give me verifiable facts that state clearly why gay marriage should be legal, or offer me evidence as to how gay marriage benefits humanity one single ounce, then I'll take you seriously.

Anonymous said...

Highboy,

I notice it is all getting unnecessarily complicated, so let's break things in part, shall we?

First off: I retract my question of 'how much of it is about procreation' and apologize for the confusion it apparently has caused considering percentages and all that.

With that out of the way, I would like to get back to my original question to you, which still hasn't been answered:

You stated that gay marriage has zero productivity because of their lack of procreation. If this is the case, does that mean that heterosexual couples who can't have children also cannot marry?

So, highboy, let's get this solved first before we go any further. And since this is a yes/no question; needless to say I'd like you to explain your answer.

Once again: apologies for the confusion caused by my follow-up question.

Waiting for your answer.

highboy said...

"You stated that gay marriage has zero productivity because of their lack of procreation. If this is the case, does that mean that heterosexual couples who can't have children also cannot marry?"

No, because its not all about procreation, as I already answered, which you well know. I'm pretty sure I listed all my reasons throughout our many exchanges.

Anonymous said...

Highboy,

Thanks for your answer. So we have a 'No'. That's a start. But there's still the second part of my question that needs answering: the 'why'.

Surely you are not claiming that your argument is valid, simply because you have other arguments. I think we can both agree on the fact that if the ability to procreate was a deciding factor whether a couple is eligible for marriage, this would rule out both gay and infertile heterosexual couples.
Yet from your answer I understand that you have arguments that allow you to make a distinction in the argument.

And that's what I'd like you to explain: how exactly do your other arguments allow you to use the 'argument from procreation'?

I must say it's a bit weird though, since you categorise your argument from procreation under 'scientific reason', so it would seem that the argument can stand on itself without needing to rely on other arguments which might be outside the scientific realm.
But then again, I might be wrong and I invite you to point out to me where exactly.

After a false start, I hope for a mature and civilized discussion. Hope I made myself clear enough as to what I expect from you. If not, let me know.

highboy said...

I'm lost now, but I'll attempt to answer your question:

the argument about procreation is more to point out the fact that same sex couples operate outside the natural order and is not productive for the human race in any way. The human body both male and female have both been clearly designed (for lack of a better word) for coupling with each other, not among themselves. The fact that some species of animals have been found to practice same sex here and there means nothing, animals operate solely on instinct: when you're horny put it where you need to put it. Humans do not. Yes, this would rule out heterosexuals who can't or won't have children, but procreation isn't the only reason that the natural nuclear family is endorsed, which is why I brought up religion. Throughout history, marriage has always been a religious institution, in every culture it has been practiced. You can argue that the government should not endorse a religious institution, and many libertarians do, which is why they oppose any government endorsement of marriage whatsoever. While I disagree, that argument holds more water than simply changing the institution to include those it shouldn't. If marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman, than it is impossible to discriminate against gays in that sense. Marriage is what marriage is.

Anonymous said...

Highboy, thanks for the answer.

You said:

Yes, this would rule out heterosexuals who can't or won't have children, but procreation isn't the only reason that the natural nuclear family is endorsed, which is why I brought up religion.

Now, you see, this is the problem: you state that gay marriage is outside the natural order because it cannot produce children. But earlier you said that marriage is NOT a problem for sterile heterosexual couples although they too can not (or do not want to) produce children.
You then say that this is so because there are other reasons, like religion.
BUT -and this is what I've actually been asking- you don't demonstrate how religion determines that being outside the natural order is a problem for gay couples and not for sterile heterosexual couples. As far as I can tell, you are simply saying that the argument from procreation is valid simply because you have other arguments. But from a rational point of view an argument is not valid simply because another argument is valid, UNLESS you can demonstrate a connection between the two.

So that is what I'd like you to do: please demonstrate how your other argument (religion) makes the argument from procreation valid against gay marriage and invalid against non-productive heterosexual marriage.

Anonymous said...

This is radar using the anonymous button. But, since I am identified I am not really anonymous. Debbie also identifies herself. This should be easy to understand, even for a liberal.

Marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman. Homosexuals want to change the meaning of the word and the institution just to try to validate their lifestyle. It is a vain attempt to show the world that they are not depraved.

You don't see alcoholics trying to be declared legally sober. You do not see a bill come through a state legislature declaring fat people as skinny. No one is trying to have corpses legally declared alive (other than in the Chicago area where they vote). Get it now>

Anonymous said...

Radar, thanks for your input, but I'm not going to rebut your arguments since I'm more interested in the discussion I'm having with highboy right now.

Take care,