Saturday, May 17, 2008

Frothing Insanity

On a regular basis, pretty much daily, I'm confronted with stupid of unimaginable degrees.

Doug links to this post, which displays a stunning level of out-right ignorance and stupidity.

The comments are fantastic. It's like you take a bunch of backwards, ignorant, uneducated, Jesus loving freaks.. who have no idea what form of government the United States has.. and unleash them to spew the most idiotic bile in the history of the written word.

Doug, do you know what a Constitutional Republic is? I'm quite aware that your level of ignorance is just slightly more advanced than those comments I referred to, but I'm just assuming you've had some sort of government education and understand the principle.

Right?

As Douggie sez;

More specifically, the courts overturned the will of the people.
Is it that fucking hard for your fucking retarded fucking logic system to understand that until very recently, the "will of the people" would not have allowed you to marry your very own wife?

You stupid fucking asshole.

/update

From that thread..

Thomas, greenwald is an ass…..wager you don’t have a sensible rebuttal from a respectable source do you?
Funny.. not a single word about why Greenwald is wrong.. just that he is an "ass". LOL

I won't be offering any further comments on that blog as clearly the Loon is strong with them.

4 comments:

Tom said...

Yes, I'm guilty of leaving one more comment there. Who knows.. I might do another. It can be hard to resist stupid as mighty as what I was reading.

I do find it amusing your reference to "a free country ran by our representatives", while also missing the point that the California legislature not once, but twice, passed a new "marriage" law which included same-sex couples.

That wasn't "representative" enough for you?

Well.. all I can say is that I substantiate my point, and you frothed "git off muh lawn".. and you still have no idea how "checks and balances" works.

Too bad your ideology has no more place in government.

Anonymous said...

You know Thomas, I tried to treat you with respect and dignity and realize you have a different opinion. Now maybe you are a lawyer and have a leg up on we maroons but that does not make us ignorant or stupid. I have a degree in medicine and practice it each and every day so that would hardly qualify me as ignorant or stupid.

We have opinions about the ruling and many people out there agree with my position while others agree with yours. You are free to express your opinion but don't you think it is cowardly to write they way you did about my post and the people commenting?

The problem is you believe you are right, and you might be, but I believe I am right and might be however I am unwilling to throw the insults around to belittle you or your point.

The manner in which you handled this makes me question my original assessment that you were an intelligent person who had a a differing point of view.

Unfortunately, you have turned out to be one of those people who resort to inflammatory remarks toward people who do not agree with you.

I fixed your comment, BTW

Tom said...

A couple things.. first.. I kept my viewpoints more straightforward on your blog. I do things differently here. It's a style thing.. some people like it, some don't. It doesn't change the point I am making.

Education doesn't have much to do with the issue actually. The only issue is California law, and the adherence to the Constitution and precedence, as Perez v. Sharp (1948), Brown v. Merlo (1973) and others demonstrate.

The fact of the matter is, a majority of the CA justices are Republicans and they had no choice but to rule as they did.

If you want to disagree with the system of government that California uses - that's fine. However, it's just not possible to argue that the justices did not follow the rule of law in this case.

Anonymous said...

And yet, many lawyers are doing just that..

I am no lawyer but I can recognize when a law is made. If the 4 million people were wrong in the view of the court they should have struck down the definition of marriage and sent it back to the state. This would have put them where they were before.

As it is now, a law exists that did not before.