Political thought

[kellinator]

Wouldn't it be supremely ironic if George W. Bush finally made good on his claim to be "a uniter, not a divider" -- by uniting voters of all creeds and political persuasions to vote against him?

I'm very obviously not a Republican, but from what I understand of the party ideals, if you're a Republican I can't fathom why you'd want Bush as the main representative of your party. I thought Republicans were supposed to be all about fiscal responsibility. Bush has shown none. In fact, he's pissed away the surplus left by that notorious tax-and-spender, Clinton.

And here's another thought that's been driving me crazy for the past few days -- the furor over same-sex marriage rights should be exposing the hypocrisy of so many in the Republican party. So many Republicans are constantly insisting that they want less government, "no more big government" -- well, as far as I can tell, that means they want less government poking around in big business, but apparently it's the government's sacred duty to tell people what they can and can't do in the bedroom. Why does anyone else care? Don't give me that "sanctity of marriage" bullshit: Vegas' new ad campaign invites you to go there and marry a total stranger, and that was even before Britney Spears' little matrimonial adventure, plus we've got an entire genre of reality shows based around marriage or at least the possibility thereof in increasingly depraved variations (streamweaver and I have agreed the thing that makes "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance" watchable is the fact that the bleach-blond money-hungry this-is-going-to-launch-my-career-and-I-don't-care-who-gets-hurt-in-the-process bitch being duped so richly deserves it). We straight people are doing a fine job of ruining marriage on our own, trust me. It reminds me of a debate on same-sex marriage rights I attended at Vanderbilt a few years ago. At the very beginning, those speaking for equal marriage rights stood up and said "We're not telling anyone what to do religiously, we just want equal civil marriage rights." Then the anti-people got up and STARTED RAILING ON RELIGION, as if they hadn't even listened to what was just said, which I suspect they hadn't (I knew one personally and he was a bona fide idiot). Think about it: can you heard anyone make a single argument about same-sex marriage rights that isn't rooted in religion or similar morality issues? So you object because you think men marrying men or women marrying women is icky. Well, I think anyone marrying Newt Gingrich is icky, but that doesn't mean I don't think people should have the right to. (Whether they're fucking stupid enough to marry Newt Gingrich, Mr. Family Values who didn't pay his child support and was conducting an extramarital affair at the same time he was on his Contract On With America rampage, is another matter entirely.) Look at the Bible, for heaven's sake, all you fundies: Did Jesus spend His furor on the prostitutes and tax collectors? No, He saved it for the Pharisees, who held themselves up as superior and perverted religion to hold others down and enrich themselves. And yet so many people out there follow the example of the Pharisees rather than that of Jesus. Those people make me sick. Yeah, I do plenty of things that I probably shouldn't be doing, but I'd like to think I try to treat people with kindness and compassion. What good is nitpicking Leviticus if you can't get the basic ideas down?

That's my rant, and I'm stickin' to it.

Comments

Re:

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

I'd like to see some evidence, please.

Re:

[dwivian]

Certainly. It's all over the web. Google for parts of this story:

Jackie Gingrich was recovering from surgery. They were already in the process of divorce, after she decided to quit covering for his cheating. The cancer was uterine, and she was not on her deathbed, but in recovery. He came to the hospital because they had a pre-arranged time to discuss the particulars of the divorce. He brought a yellow legal pad, and took notes of what they wanted to divide.

That's the story. The rest is embellishment by a lunatic left.

What he did afterwards (remove support for his older children, which caused their church to hold a special donation drive to help them out) is far more sinister....

Re:

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

With all due respect, a lot of this sounds like semantic hair-splitting to me. Sickbed instead of deathbed... Still doesn't change the main issues. He's still a jerk.

And frankly, you don't have to embellish the story that far. I'm sure there are far more impressive "embellishments by the lunatic left." Though I see far more crazy stories from right-wingers... the "lunatic left" is too busy tripping over its own feet.

Re:

[sharrainchains.livejournal.com]

How 'bout I change the remark to "hospital bed?" Even if we accept all your statements as true, the story still sounds equally sleazy, dishonorable, and disrespectful of the concept of marriage as a sacrosanct union (to me).

Re:

[dwivian]

Ah, but it's not....the whole point of the 'deathbed' comment is to say "you're going to die, so I'm going to divorce you. Here's the papers."

That didn't happen.

What he said was, "You want this divorce, so I'm coming to where you are as we agreed and we'll work out how to divide our property."

Not as sinister, dishonorable, or disrespectful, on the face of it.

Now, what GOT him there, the infidelity, speaks more to the dishonorable and disrespectful nature of his actions.

Re:

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

You know, I've been working with this trying to get my point of view across as gracefully as I can, and here's the best I can do:

What I'm getting is, you're annoyed because of the perception that Newt left his wife while she was dying of cancer, when in fact, they were already splitting because he was a habitual philanderer who then failed to pay child support, and anyway she didn't actually die. (Note: I wasn't even the one who brought up this particular detail or not-detail.) So is he a California-king-sized piece of shit or just a king-sized piece of shit? For someone who's made such a big deal about how wonderfully moral he is, it's just details. And no, no one should exaggerate defaming stories, but the truth in this one is bad enough that no one particularly needs to build upon it anyway.

And I am done with this topic. Some people like arguing on LJ. I am not one of them. Newt Gingrich is a jackass, and that's all I gots to say 'bout that.

Re:

[dwivian]

Other comments I just made answer it better, but it is NOT merely semantics.... the woman was in recovery, not about to die. He did NOT spring divorce on her, but was there to discuss a divorce already in process, at an arranged time.

The intent of the distorters is to make it seem as if he walked up to a woman in torment and pain from the knowledge of her impending death and told her without any previous warning that he wanted a divorce. That's a lie. He's a jerk, but inaccuracy and spreading of lies diminishes the speaker, and any causes they represent. Focus on the truth, or people will pull you down with those you're opposing.

[gladstone.livejournal.com]

Your comments are the best, dwivian. They simply ooze rationality and logic. I approve, sir.

Re:

[dwivian]

I assure you, I'm having that oozing looked into. These compresses just aren't having any effect anymore.