Blog Comments

This is why I've argued for years that the same tax benefits available to employer-based insurance should be made available to individually-purchased insurance, so low- and middle-income people aren't so required to be actively and constantly employed at a decent-level job in order to plausibly afford coverage. There's a bunch of possible reforms that could be done now to help people, but they will never happen because they don't make a bunch of money for health care companies.

Far from fighting Big Insurance, Obama is catering to them every step of the way.

BJ's job doesn't offer health care until he's worked there for a full year.

Really? It's working for me fine, and has all day. Is your connection slow? Try refreshing your cache.

STLLJ keeps giving me a "can't load" page :/

EDIT: NVM after like 5 minutes of trying to get it to work it eventually did.

Yeah I don't know what is up with HuffPo (among other websites) calling STLLJ a Tumblr. xD

You'll get health care when you get a job, hippie.

HuffPo called you a Tumblr. How random. Great advertising though.

And yaaay no health care! I'm gonna give birth all by myself the way God intended.

Originally Posted by Yearg

I still think that the vast majority of Christian who dislike homosexuality are just inherently homophobic. The Christian part is an afterthought; a convenient justification for their bigotry.

Of course. Religion doesn't require anti-homosexuality, contrary to what mindless idiots think. It is just what people, all people (including "liberal" Christians) use to justify what they want to be true. The only thing that anti-homosexuality religious nuts have as the foundation of their belief is their own personal distaste.

I ask constantly how any laws can be enacted regarding homosexuality. In what was is it constitutional? Is there any non-religious reason to put a law on the books that removes rights from gays? If it fails the Lemon test, then why the hell are we still even discussing it?

Because it's such a common prejudice that their are mindless bigots in the courts, too, who are not afraid to accept obviously ad hoc justifications for this prejudice (e.g., "they can't reproduce!").

rubah: I saw that. I especially like his comment that people being gay apparently "ruins" the lives of good Christians. Just more persecution complex bull about how people supporting something that some Christians disagree with is a willful attack against all Christianity (if only).

*throws you some bait*
Clint McCance, Arkansas School Board Member, Wants 'Fags' To Commit Suicide

I've been thinking. I love to respond to your blog, but sometimes there's just little more to say. I think it's natural that people don't want to concede any ground though. To suggest even a little that post-birth factors or choice can enter into the equation gives bigots a huge foot in the door. If even a little of it can be choice, they assume it's all choice by depraved fags.

It's easier for people to just argue that there's no choice and that it's all genetic, but it's weak position because there's not really the support for that.

I don't think there's an easy solution other than religion bigots to STFU and stop caring so much. It's unimportant whether it's a choice or not. They often claim that they fear the influence it has on society and their children, but I really doubt homosexuals are the biggest fish to fry.

I still think that the vast majority of Christian who dislike homosexuality are just inherently homophobic. The Christian part is an afterthought; a convenient justification for their bigotry.

I ask constantly how any laws can be enacted regarding homosexuality. In what was is it constitutional? Is there any non-religious reason to put a law on the books that removes rights from gays? If it fails the Lemon test, then why the hell are we still even discussing it?

Ah. But still... that's supposed to be against Christian's laws right? If you commit suicide you spend an eternity in some such like Hell right? Eh... blasphemy. That's the word... that just took me off guard...

Pretty much what my belief is, that they should drop the damn subject and let people be who there going to be and don't push their crap on other people because that's how conflicts get started. If Christians (or whatever other religion dislikes the idea of homosexuality) just accept the fact that this person likes this and just gets over it (Let's face it, it's not that big of a deal.) Then life would be better. A thing that I like to think about, is that religious weirdos (pardon that word) say that you'll be damned forever or some junk like that if you are gay, then if God made man in his/her/it's image (I would imagine if god existed it would be both male and female) then by god don't you think he would also be Bisexual? Because just think for a moment, if s/he created heterosexuality, then s/he must have created homosexuality too right? I think the people who oppress the homosexuals just because they can. They think they can at any rate, but they SHOULDN'T!!! I think the idea behind it is that it's "weird" for them because they don't have the preference, so therefore, others shouldn't either, and they swear on the bible it's wrong. BUT! The bible wasn't exactly written by "God" It was written by (Some say Jesus others say some king guy) but either way, it wasn't GOD so boo to them.

Sorry if this is a little.. unprofessional sounding... but I think you get my idea.

Well no Christians actually are committing suicide over this issue, and I don't think the author was trying to say it would be a good thing. He says plenty of other stupid things, though.

So aside the entirety of this blog... Christians... committing... suicide? Isn't... that a bad thing for them? <_<

It's true I've pretty much lost faith in Obama. I was hopeful, but he's either too busy pandering or trying to stay neutral. I'm cynical, but I do still think 4 more years of Obama will be better than 4 more years of any Republican at this point. I also think it's unlikely Palin would run and I really doubt she could win, it would be fairly easy to get a backlash Republican candidate in considering how angry dems and independents are at Obama's inefficacy in areas had made large promises in.

I'm just trying to add a touch of pragmatism to my hopefulness. He sucks, but let's have a reality check about who we had for 8 years prior and what we could have in his stead. I would just hope that if he were in his final rather than first time that he would take action on some things.... and not the type of Patriot Act type BS he's been acting on during this term.


If we had a better political system where anyone but a Dem or Rep had a real chance, you bet I'd be rooting for someone other than Obama, but with our binary system it's silly to root for the other side and even sillier to root for the pipe dream of a third party.

Yearg: please tell me you're seriously not deluded enough to think he would actually ever do anything else. He has not only continued, but expanded Bush's attack on civil liberties. Obama is not going to get better.

And Palin may not even run for President, and she certainly won't win. I would definitely be willing to vote for a Republican in 2012, especially if Congress is still controlled by Democrats.

He's being a smart politician. Part of me is frustrated and part of me can't fault him. He may be thinking in term of a second term. It would be better to have him in a second term than a backlash Republican (*shudder* Palin). If that cost is him giving up some battles to win a long term war, then I'm on board with that.

Just let them be, it's not like they're suddenly going to make sense and it's not like they're going to convince anyway that really cares.

People like this have no empathy, so don't let have an impact.

I've ranted about Obama's continued hypocrisy and inconsideration towards homosexuals in EoEO threads. This is just another example of him trying to play both sides.

What, no rage for Obama's contribution to the It Gets Better/Trevor Project?

Link: YouTube - President Obama: It Gets Better

Too open? I would think it would be considered too closed. But that just shows how ass-backwards some theists view logic: whatever they believe is obviously the default, and anything else is what requires an additional step.