“The gibberish of diversity, equality, tolerance, pluralism or multiculturalism has rendered you irrelevant”

I saw this comment on Bagley’s latest and I just had to post it.  If you live in Utah, this is par for the course.  But for our wider audience (the rest of the modern world), this is REAL!

Yep, its true, there are very serious, not legally insane people who really DO say AND BELIEVE this:

etb says:
In a society that has abolished all boundaries, the only boundary left is to abolish that society.

That’s the endgame in this “race to the bottom” scenario. Your allegiance to “moral relativism” under the guise of “honoring” the gibberish of diversity, equality, tolerance, pluralism or multiculturalism has rendered you irrelevant in any discussion about the state of the culture.

You are the fruit of a mass media educated population. All the self-esteem in the world, but you can’t think, or argue, your way out of a wet paper-bag. You are the type of people who have been groomed to welcome the economic and cultural calamities all around us. Your life mantra hasn’t changed since the 60s, if it feels good…do it!

These latest rounds of various court rulings are more of the circus of the absurd, only important in chronicling the speed of the decline and debauchery of reason. That being said, I’ve done what I can do. I’m going out dancing, not sitting in a cave. You enjoy the affects of the blue pill as long as the ride lasts.

Copyright 2010 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved.

, , ,

  1. #1 by Cliff Lyon on August 6, 2010 - 1:56 pm

    The nut bag goes on to say:

    etb says:
    We are the first civilization and age to teach that the coupling of marriage and gender are irrelevant.

    The folly of men. In the last days men will call good, evil, and evil, good.

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on August 6, 2010 - 2:06 pm

    I note Bagley took care not to depict anybody from the LDS Church in this cartoon (note the crucifixes).

    Who knows who “etb” might be, however I’d bet dollars to donuts he/she has previously declared a strong belief in the U.S. Constitution and the concept of Freedom. Hypocrisy aside, points must be awarded for the “Matrix” reference!

  3. #3 by brewski on August 6, 2010 - 2:09 pm

    So Cliff,
    As I understand it, you say it is wrong for the government to say whom one can marry.

    But it is right for the government to tell you:
    Whom you can hire
    Whom you can fire
    How much you pay them
    Whom you allow into college
    Whom you don’t allow into college
    Where you go to school
    Whether you buy health insurance or not
    How much money you are allowed to make
    Which womyn in history to study
    Which offensive words you may utter
    Which thoughts you may think
    Any more?

    Thanks for the softball.

  4. #4 by cav on August 6, 2010 - 3:37 pm

    In June I maxed 4 low rate credit cards buying BP stock at their low. Now I’m rich beyond my wildest imagining and the cards are paid off too.

    End entitlements for the gay, the down-sized, the ill, and the aged! (Snark)

  5. #5 by James Farmer on August 6, 2010 - 4:18 pm

    brew:

    Marriage is a fundamental right.

    Thanks for the softball.

  6. #6 by cav on August 6, 2010 - 5:39 pm

    Further, individual disfunction, like the suicide of veterans, can almost be viewed as a rather sane response to the shock, awe, greed, stupidity, and bigotry that we’re surrounded by.

    What’s austerity, when you’ve just been shoved over the cliff by it all? What is life?

  7. #7 by cav on August 6, 2010 - 5:50 pm

    Isn’t it aslo something about the fight for rights, and not just gay rights, but yours and mine as well. To be who we are. Maybe each of us ought to own his or her masculine or feminine sides, right along with our commie and conservative natures. Imagine, a population of whole people!

  8. #8 by cav on August 6, 2010 - 5:51 pm

    aslo = also. shees

  9. #9 by Uncle Rico on August 6, 2010 - 5:57 pm

    Rico: You know, this used to be a helluva good country. I can’t understand what’s gone wrong with it.

    cav: Man, everybody got chicken, that’s what happened. Hey, we can’t even get into like, a second-rate hotel, I mean, a second-rate motel, you dig? They think we’re gonna cut their throat or somethin’. They’re scared, man.

    Rico: They’re not scared of you. They’re scared of what you represent to ‘em.

    cav: Hey, man. All we represent to them, man, is somebody who needs a haircut.

    Rico: Oh, no. What you represent to them is freedom.

    cav: What the hell is wrong with freedom? That’s what it’s all about.

    Rico: Oh, yeah, that’s right. That’s what’s it’s all about, all right. But talkin’ about it and bein’ it, that’s two different things. I mean, it’s real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. Of course, don’t ever tell anybody that they’re not free, ’cause then they’re gonna get real busy killin’ and maimin’ to prove to you that they are. Oh, yeah, they’re gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it’s gonna scare ‘em.

    cav: Well, it don’t make ‘em runnin’ scared.

    Rico: No, it makes ‘em dangerous. Buh, neh! Neh! Neh! Neh! Swamp!

  10. #10 by Cliff on August 6, 2010 - 6:04 pm

    Excellent Uncle R, Too funny! ROFLOL

  11. #11 by Del Usual on August 6, 2010 - 6:16 pm

    Is anyone saying anything? Must be hearing things.

  12. #12 by cav on August 6, 2010 - 8:00 pm

    jesus,ricoyoumissedbythismuch!()
    ^

  13. #13 by brewski on August 6, 2010 - 9:32 pm

    James,
    I never said it wasn’t. Try reading next time.
    You struck out…again.

  14. #14 by Larry Bergan on August 6, 2010 - 9:50 pm

    In June I maxed 4 low rate credit cards buying BP stock at their low. Now I’m rich beyond my wildest imagining and the cards are paid off too.

    Who could have imagined the oil would disappear like that!

  15. #15 by cav on August 6, 2010 - 11:06 pm

    Well, now that I’ve been rendered irrelevant, I guess I’ll take my hard earned wealth and follow the chimps nation-saving, post-9-11 directive… and go shopping.

    What else is a true patriot to do?

  16. #16 by James Farmer on August 7, 2010 - 11:15 am

    brew:

    Then you based your comment on some bizarre, brewzoid premise that only you can understand.

    Maybe you should read your own comments before hitting the Submit Comment button; IOW, self-QC your rants, if you will.

  17. #17 by brewski on August 7, 2010 - 1:04 pm

    Jimmie,
    My comment is pretty self-explanatory. Cliff believes it is wrong for the government to tell someone whom they can marry. But Cliff believes it is right for the government to tell people lots of other things. No where did I say the government should tell you whom you may marry. In other words, Cliff is a hypocrite and you are reading-comprehension-challenged.

  18. #18 by James Farmer on August 7, 2010 - 1:43 pm

    brew:

    Your argument is factually incorrect. You assume that your list of government intrusions each carry the same constitutional weight. Marriage is a fundamental right, so the government may not muck around with telling who can marry whom. The remaining items on your list do not enjoy the same level of protection from intervention. So think twice before the making the comprehension challenged comments. Such just makes you look more off-base than you already are.

    BTW, thanks again for the softball. If you want to retrieve it, you can find it outside the fence of the ballpark.

  19. #19 by brewski on August 7, 2010 - 2:14 pm

    James,
    Please show me where in the constitution it names marriage above all other activities as a “fundamental right”.

    In fact it doesn’t.

    It does list freedom of the press, freedom of religious expression, equal protection before the law, freedom from having the government take your private property for private use, etc.

    I understand the arguments for gay marriage and I have not disagreed with it, so you don’t need to waste any keystrokes explaining what I already know.

    But the left seems to have discovered the US Constitution just this week when it comes to gay marriage, but when it comes to other “fundamental rights” which are explicitly listed in the constitution, the left mumbles something incoherent about making up anything along the way the consitution being a “living document”. So you are dead wrong about marriage being a fundamental right above those rights which are explicitly listed. So try reading the consitution before embarrassing yourself again.

    Strike three, you’re outta there!

  20. #20 by James Farmer on August 7, 2010 - 2:32 pm

    Loving v. Virginia.

    The hole is getting deeper, brew. But don’t worry, I am happy to toss you a rope.

  21. #21 by brewski on August 7, 2010 - 4:49 pm

    1. You failed to show me where marriage is explicitly listed in the constitution
    2. You failed to demonstrate how marriage is a superior right over other rights which are explicitly listed in the constitution.
    3. You used all your rope to hang yourself.

  22. #22 by James Farmer on August 7, 2010 - 5:07 pm

    brew:

    1. The fundamental right to marry is found in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amend. to the Constitution. See Loving v. Virginia.

    2. How much money you make is not a fundamental right (or if it is, then prove it).

    3. How hot is it down the hole? Keep commenting and you will eventually reach China.

  23. #23 by Cliff Lyon on August 7, 2010 - 5:08 pm

    Brewski, The Constitution IS a living document. Thats why they provided for amendments.

    Furthermore, the interpretation of the Constitution has changed many times since its inception. Remember slavery?

  24. #24 by James Farmer on August 8, 2010 - 11:07 am

    Conservative pillar – Ted Olsen – schools brewski on why he is so 100% wrong on the issue of gay marriage.

  25. #25 by Larry Bergan on August 8, 2010 - 12:26 pm

    James:

    Ted Olsen’s take is interesting to say the least:

  26. #26 by Del Usual on August 8, 2010 - 12:58 pm

    So how long do you think it will take for plural marriage to make a comeback?

    The government has no right to infringe on who marries whom is the premise. There is no difference for cause then, heck there are even less people ultimately “married” in plural marriage that in coupled marriage. The right and benefit it would then seem is for the individual to decide what relationship constitutes their “marriage”, and the State will have to abide by it, lest it be evident discrimination against “plurals”.

    We’re here, we’re plurals, get used to it. I’m married to who I choose, right?

  27. #27 by brewski on August 8, 2010 - 4:24 pm

    James,
    You have a huge reading comprehension problem. I never disagreed with Ted Olsen’s position. You are arguing with yourself and losing, quite a challenge for most people not named James.

  28. #28 by James Farmer on August 8, 2010 - 5:47 pm

    brew:

    Ok. In light of my alleged reading problem, why don’t you go on the record here and now and state whether you agree that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. You just stated you agree with Olsen’s position. Let’s now take that statement full circle and have you unequivocally state you agree with Judge Walker’s decision which, after all, is based on Olsen’s position.

    Waiting …….

  29. #29 by brewski on August 8, 2010 - 6:33 pm

    #13
    #17
    #19
    #27

    I am still waiting……… for you to show me how the right to marry whom you whose is a superior constitutional right over those which are explicitly listed in the constitution which the left seems to want to ignore. I’ve been waiting longer but I have no expectation you have the ability to answer or the balls to admit there is none.

  30. #30 by James Farmer on August 9, 2010 - 12:12 pm

    brew:

    Do you agree with Olsen or not? If you do, as you state above, then you have answered your own question. Your stubborn, rightwing, tea-bagging obstinacy is over the top!

  31. #31 by brewski on August 9, 2010 - 12:35 pm

    Look in the mirror bub.

  32. #32 by James Farmer on August 10, 2010 - 11:28 am

    And the answer to the question is ……? Did Olsen get it correct? Do you agree with Walker’s ruling?

    Take a position, bub; enough already of the position dodging and hand-waving rhetoric..

  33. #33 by brewski on August 10, 2010 - 2:38 pm

    I learned how to position dodge and hand wave from you on your ludicrous position that the CBO didn’t say that the combined health care bills would increase the deficit:

    The Combined Budgetary Impact of Enacting the Reconciliation Proposal,
    H.R. 3590, and H.R. 3961

    You asked about the total budgetary impact of enacting the reconciliation
    proposal (the amendment to H.R. 4872), the Senate-passed health bill
    (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009
    (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add
    $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period
    .

    - Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director

  34. #34 by James Farmer on August 10, 2010 - 3:43 pm

    Care to answer the question, rather than avoiding it?

  35. #35 by brewski on August 10, 2010 - 3:46 pm

    Care to answer the question, rather than avoiding it?

  36. #36 by Joey Chitwood on August 10, 2010 - 5:27 pm

  37. #37 by Larry Bergan on August 11, 2010 - 1:08 am

    Joey Chitwood:

    Interesting article! I like Glenn Greenwald’s comment about Gibbs’s sorry rant:

    Perhaps one day the White House can work itself up to express this sort of sputtering rage against the Right, or the Wall Street thieves who destroyed the American economy, or the permanent factions that control Washington. Until then, we’ll have to satisfy ourselves with White House explanations that the Real Culprits are not (of course) them, but the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything. I’ll give credit to Gibbs for putting his name on this outburst: these are usually the things they say anonymously and then deny afterward on the record that it’s what they think.

    By all means, Gibbs, let’s piss test more liberals. That’s the time tested answer!

  38. #38 by Richard Warnick on August 11, 2010 - 9:31 am

    I linked and quoted both Gibbs and Greenwald in my Obama vs. Obama post.

  39. #39 by James Farmer on August 11, 2010 - 9:40 am

    I am still waiting……… for you to show me how the right to marry whom you whose is a superior constitutional right over those which are explicitly listed in the constitution which the left seems to want to ignore. I’ve been waiting longer but I have no expectation you have the ability to answer or the balls to admit there is none.

    brew:

    For the umpteenth time, I will answer your question. Most, if not all, of the laundry list of circumstances you identify in #3 is not addressed in the Constitution, while the right to marry is, through the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amend.

    Did you recently bump your head? Is that why you feel compelled to be so annoyingly obstinate?

  40. #40 by brewski on August 11, 2010 - 10:06 am

    I said:

    It does list freedom of the press, freedom of religious expression, equal protection before the law, freedom from having the government take your private property for private use, etc.

    James said:

    Most, if not all, of the laundry list of circumstances you identify is not addressed in the Constitution,

    Hahahahahahaha!

  41. #41 by shane on August 11, 2010 - 10:10 am

    The biggest problem i see in brewski’s stance is that in general in liberal societies we allow what is not explicitly outlawed. the constitution need not express a right to marry, it needs only to not forbid it.

    even having considered that, enter the 14th, and we have two arguments for allowing.

    further, each of his objections can be answered by looking at the question of whether a right is being protected or taken away. Generally speaking it is the right that seeks to take rights away.

    His laundry list is addressed indirectly however. Most of his list is in fact an attempt to protect the “life liberty and pursuit of happiness” of those whom current society has taken away the capabilities of said pursuit and seek redress.

    There are also some points where he appears to simply have gone insane. Really Brew? The government tells you how much you can make? They tell employers how much they must pay at minimum, but there is a new maximum pay rate? Do we need to invoke the Frank rule here?

  42. #42 by James Farmer on August 11, 2010 - 10:18 am

    brew:

    You have been talking about your laundry list in comment #3, above. I guess following your realization that you were 100% incorrect on that, and following your realization that by agreeing with Olsen, you necessarily must agree with gay marriage, and having generally just figured out you were wrong, wrong wrong on all counts, you have now decided to shift to explicitly enumerated subjects in the constitution.

    Playing dodge ball again, I see.

    So, for what it is worth, the new laundry list you identify are not elevated above the fundamental right to marry, nor the other way around, your annoying obstinacy, notwithstanding.

  43. #43 by brewski on August 11, 2010 - 12:21 pm

    James,
    I would say that you are dumber than a bag of bricks, but that would be unfair to the worldwide community of bags of bricks.

    the new laundry list you identify are not elevated above the fundamental right to marry

    I never said they were. Try reading again.

    I have never argued with Olsen so you are continuing to argue with yourself on that one.

    Marriage is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. However, as you pointed out, is has been held to be a fundamental right by the courts.
    As for my list in #3. Most are also covered under “equal protection” unless you agree with George Wallace, which wouldnt’ surprise me.

    Also, the right to marry whom you want is not unlimited. As we know from Reynolds v. United States, that the government can and does limit whom you can marry.

  44. #44 by Del Usual on August 11, 2010 - 6:56 pm

    Hey, a bag of bricks certainly has it on what leads us now. At least a bag of bricks by itself can do no harm. Like Jimbo. So being as dumb as a bag of bricks can be seen as a virtue.

    I think Shane could agree with me, perhaps these are the moral and ethical standards he is talking about we can all agree on and are not subjective. Yes folks, in progressive reality, it is clear from the bag of bricks, that stupidity is a virtue, as long as imagine yourself morally and ethically superior.

  45. #45 by cav on August 11, 2010 - 8:50 pm

    …what leads us now.

    I think Obama, as evidenced by his beyond-all-reasonable attempt at ‘bipartisanship’, and his ‘make me be the proper leader’ if you think getting such shit from the republicans – and such pay-offs from the corporations, – and such ‘convincing rationale’ from the military / blah / blah axis, is not sufficient argument for my ‘politics’. \Then, convince me. Keep arguing. Put your money where your mouth is. Show me how a democracy is people driven?

    From the winners circle, everybody else looks like loosers.

    So dictated to me loosers. Tell me how hard and fast I should pull this Epic Failure away from the shoal. I’m an equal oportunity shit-giver, and, in case you haven’t heard, I’m also quite CORRECT. But it IS very tiresome, so if I can’t find some slack – and soon – I’ll set you suckers ‘free’, and you can grapple with the grizzlies without even a pretence of civil government – if that’s the way you’ld have it.

    I don think we’re talking ‘bag-of-bricks’ here, no amount of eloquence or caring, or working this corrupted system is likely to overcome the ‘train wreck’ that has been barreling toward the cliff for many many years.

  46. #46 by James Farmer on August 12, 2010 - 11:00 am

    brew:

    Ah, the ad hominem you so often deplore has crept into your analysis yet again. I generally appreciate more direct concessions when I beat your arguments to a pulp, but being called a bag of bricks in the alternative in this instance is ok by me. You have once again become quite the obstinate bore in discussing this topic.

    PS. You never got around to answering whether you agree that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Odd how such a simple question demands such “elaborate” dodges and obfuscation.

  47. #47 by Del Usual on August 12, 2010 - 11:15 am

    What leads us now cav isn’t just Obama, though he is the poster boy for this mess. We have seen his backroom deals with insurance companies, his pandering to the military with largest military budget in history, etc., etc. he is as corrupt as the day is long and is making progressives look like exactly what they have become in this scenario.

    Suckers.

  48. #48 by cav on August 12, 2010 - 11:27 am

    I think it’s easier to defend ‘progressives’ than it is the Obama administration. The ptb at long last, seem to have accomplished their little pinnacle from which they are quite certain they’ll never topple. Well, that is where those history lessons they’re totally unaware of are simply going to have to begin again to stutter.

  49. #49 by brewski on August 12, 2010 - 12:39 pm

    PS. You never got around to admitting that the health care bills will increase the deficit. Odd how such a simple observation demands such “elaborate” dodges and obfuscation.

  50. #50 by James Farmer on August 12, 2010 - 1:19 pm

    Del:

    When referring to “mess,” you mean the mess created by the Bush administration, correct? Just want to be sure you are not another misguided apologist.

  51. #51 by James Farmer on August 12, 2010 - 1:20 pm

    brew:

    Ok, I admit. Now answer the question.

  52. #52 by brewski on August 12, 2010 - 1:41 pm

    Yes, I agree with Olsen’s strict application of equal protection to this case. I have never not.

    I would hope that this same strict application is applied elsewhere, but I am not confident in that.

  53. #53 by James Farmer on August 12, 2010 - 3:21 pm

    Great. Then you should be proud that gay marriage is set to begin in Calif. on August 18!

  54. #54 by brewski on August 12, 2010 - 3:41 pm

    I’m going to move there with my wife and her sister-wives and demand equal protection! ;-)

  55. #55 by Del Usual on August 13, 2010 - 12:31 pm

    The mess can only be created by congress, this bailout bullshit was approved by everyone, and is now continued by Obama. If Bush, and Congress made this mess, Obama is like the idiot janitor who just dips his mop into the mess and pushes back and forth across the floor and calling in “clean”.

    Afghanistan is now Obama’s, every opportunity to scale back was available, the mess was his choice to make and Congress backs him right up with it.

    That’s progress!

    James, so funny that it is still bush’s problem..to you. 93k home foreclosures last month, unemployment up and trillions flushed down the proverbial toilet, and all we can get is more bank bailouts with like of Maxine Waters cronying up and taking the bacon, and making sure it goes uh…to her husband’s failing bank. It’ll be fun to watch that mouth flap through the trial.

    Please at what point will what Obama is doing be known as exactly what bush started? If it was bush’s mess why pray tell would Obama continue it? Well, in the eyes of the rational, because he does continue it, IT IS NOW HIS MESS!!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: