Pam Spaulding likes to pepper her posts with "actual Freeper quotes", that is, quotes from the folks at Free Republic. If you want to see the absolute bottom of the barrell, dumbest and most deluded right wing hacks and their take on any issue, that is definitely the place to hang out. In her post about Condoleeza Rice and the "profoundly offensive" act of saying a gay man can have a mother-in-law, she pulls a bunch of quotes from this Free Republic post. You really must see them. Here's one of my favorites:
It seems obvious that the Democrat's last minute push for this election cycle is all about homosexuals. First Foley, then the sainted Gerry Studds, and now this Dybul thing (I'm sure the MSM will spin this one into something beautiful). Homosexuals are 2% of the population, but they have great power in Democrat circles.
Uh, yeah. Because it's the Democrats who nominated him, a Democratically-controlled Congress that confirmed him, and so forth. These people are so blindly partisan they can't think at all. Some more of my favorites below the fold.
This is really stupid. If we're all lucky he'll quickly succumb to aids himself.
Very classy, don't you think? Must be more of those "traditional values" we hear so much about.
The Republican party Needs to choose once and for all: Either to side with the view that homosexuality is natural and normal (and a very tiny minority among the population) or That homosexuality is abohorant (even though homosexuals are to be respected) it is an abnormal behavior, and should be rejected as radical-evil, liberal. And they can choose to side with the Millions of Christians in America that believe as such.
Along with the random, incoherent use of scare quotes, fundies also tend to engage in random capitalization for some reason.
No, God will handle it. Perhaps it is not very "Christian" of me but I find homosexuality as repulsive as God does from a mere human perspective. There's something DIFFERENT about homosexuality. Male to male, female to female utterly denies what God designed us for and to whom. THAT kind of union is the ULTIMATE slap in the face to God. THAT is why He singles it out in the Bible. Now they adopt and corrupt little kids with their emotional issues. Read what God has to say about THAT. Also notice gay males WANT little baby BOYS. Lesbians want little baby GIRLS - Gee, I wonder WHY ... surely even YOU can figure that out.
Adultery isn't good either but I certainly don't EQUATE the two sins as the SAME. At least they know who they are designed to be with. Unfortunately they lack self control and at times good judgment but at least the parts fit together.OTOH, Homosexuality is PERVERSE. It's sadistic on its face as well as physically unhealthy. I wouldn't be shocked if AIDS was their punishment while they are still on this earth.
More of that random capitalization. It's as if they think that if they put words in capital letters, it makes them really, really true.
Sometimes capitalization works when you don't KNOW ABOUT, or don't HAVE, bold text. In other cases, though, it makes you look like A.A. Milne, and that's not necessarily a Bad Thing.
Also, "abohorant" is another great new misspelling. It's like a totally fun combination of aboriginal, whore and abhorrent. Abohorant, the abhorrent aboriginal whore!
Obviously, homosexuality is more offensive to God. That is why he put it as Commandment No. 1! I am pretty sure adultery does not show up until like Commandment 27 or something - easily out of the top ten, while homosexuality gets top billing.
More home-schooling! And for God's sake, cut taxes to the godless public schools.
"I wouldn't be shocked if AIDS was their punishment while they are still on this earth."
Who was it that said that if AIDS was a divine punishment, then lesbians must be the chosen people?
Everyone is dodging the real question: What do you expect other people to call the mother of your unmarried partner? Our puny language lacks enough nouns for our modern social arrangements.
this Dybul thing (I'm sure the MSM will spin this one into something beautiful)
I'm still... I'm still trying to figure out what on earth this even means. What is the "MSM" * going to "spin" into what? As far as I can tell, so far nobody's really noticed this thing about Condoleeza Rice saying "partner", except blogs. Oh, wait, there is a USA Today article that brings it up almost in passing. Still, it seems like this is an unbelievably minor thing, more likely to insert itself into the public consciousness because sites like freerepublic made a big deal over it than because the news media itself noticed it. What is there to "spin"?
Actually, wait, back up a moment even:
It seems obvious that the Democrat's last minute push for this election cycle is all about homosexuals. First Foley, then the sainted Gerry Studds
What... about Gerry Studds? Is this about the fact that he died? Is the implication here that Democratic political strategists killed him to get more homosexuality into the news cycle?
Cuz the only time I've heard anything at all about Gerry Studds this month was either the articles about him dying, or the rash of right wing blogs trying to call as much attention as possible to the scandal that Gerry Studds (but apparently NOT Dan Crane) was involved in in 1983, as a way of deflecting outrage from the Mark Foley thing. Maybe the right wing blogs were just part of the Democratic push?
There's just so many layers to the illogic here. It's like an onion.
* An abbreviation for "Men who have Sex with Men", obviously
MSM = MainStream Media. aka., anyone but Fox, Hannity, or Rush.
Please pass the kool aid. :|
Nah, I like the other expansion better.
Bottom of the barrel? You haven't even smelled the bottom of the barrel until you've been to Fundies Say The Darndest Things. Guaranteed to make you lose faith in humanity or your money back! Distortion of facts, statements that are just plain wrong, bigotry of the highest order, horrible writing... it's all here!
If you want to get a sampling of the worst kind of fundy, go to FSTDT and Ctrl-F for Mr. Coulter. He has a lot of quotes submitted.
Funny thing, but just Sunday I was eating lunch and a party of four women with a baby came in and sat next to us. It quickly became apparent that two of them were a lesbian couple who had just adopted ... a boy.
Someone missed the memo!
Ye gods, but those freepers are stupid louts! The world they live in is so hermetically sealed it's a pity they don't die of asphyxiation. They reinforce each other's preconceptions in a crescendo of absolute certainty. For example, when Speaker Dennis Hastert bowed to reality and asked the FBI to conduct an investigation of the Foley scandal, the freepers exploded with delight at this masterful move! Here are some actual quotes:
Smartest move made yet.
OMG! Fabulous news!
Anyone who believes that this will be the death knell of Republicans in the mid-terms is smoking crack. Nobody gives a feces about this scandal other than bloggers and the MSM
In the days since, of course, freeper confidence in Hastert's brilliance may have abated somewhat, since the Foley scandal has not been transformed into a GOP triumph.
Now they adopt and corrupt little kids with their emotional issues. Read what God has to say about THAT. Also notice gay males WANT little baby BOYS. Lesbians want little baby GIRLS - Gee, I wonder WHY
Well, I can tell you for one friend of mine who adopted a boy, it was because he was terrified of having to explain menstruation to a daughter!
The most enlightening thing about Freepers and their disgust with homosexuality is that the more they express their disgust, the more disgusting their posts are. Their comment threads on the Brokeback Mountain movie, for example, were far more explicit than anything in the movie itself.
While some of them are probably overcompensating for some repressed sexuality of their own, the explicit language is also intended to make homosexuality nothing more than a depraved sexual act. They are greatly threatened by anything that humanizes gays, sees and treats them as ordinary human beings, just regular guys.
Condi's cardinal sin was to do just that, and they cannot abide it. It's got to be about the sex, otherwise they know they will lose.
The world they live in is so hermetically sealed it's a pity they don't die of asphyxiation. They reinforce each other's preconceptions in a crescendo of absolute certainty.
I just wandered over there for the first time ever after stumbling across an article on the polling done by Constituent Dynamics. Amidst the numerous comments expressing incredulity at particular poll numbers was this gem from one of the freepers:
"I predict a pickup of 1 to 3 for Republicans in the Senate and between 5 and 15 in the House."
How's that for detachment from reality?
Fundies Say The Darndest Things has the best ever creationist quote:
One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.
Ginger that is one of my all time favorites.
Ginger Yellow | October 18, 2006 07:18 AM
This quotation is funny as heck. I guess the fundies don't know what that yellow orb is that rises in the east and sets in the west on a daily basis.
The best bit (apart from the whole sun-doesn't exist conceit) is the last sentence. Apparently "scientists" would definitely notice a large source of energy, but have completely forgotten about the second law of thermodynamics.
I have often asked homophobe fundies to show where, in the Bible, Jesus says anything about homosexuals.
Ginger Yellow | October 18, 2006 12:38 PM
Apparently "scientists" would definitely notice a large source of energy, but have completely forgotten about the second law of thermodynamics.
True, but it obviously illustrates that they (the fundies) have no idea what a "law" in physics is. Unlike a "law" in government, a "law" in physics does not dictate how the universe works or is upposed to work. Instead, a "law" in physics is a succinct statement (usually a 1st or 2d degree differential equation) that appears to describe how the universe works. Such a law is not immutable: if the physical "law" does not conform to other observations, it is modified or junked. That's what happened when Einstein developed his theory General Relativity (which is characterized by ten non-linear differential equations) to supplant Newton's theory of gravitation (which is characterized by one linear differential equation.)
If, in fact, evolution did violate the 2d "law" of thermodynamics, then they would have to be reconciled, which may result in the debunking of the 2d "law."