Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for August 03, 2009

Methinks the GOP needs to remove the myriad beams from their own eye before they go criticizing the motes in the eyes of others…

Eh, as Miss Manners puts it, the true dividing line in society isn’t between “liberals” and “conservatives.” It’s between those who think they ought to have a say in the love lives of strangers and those who don’t.

The dividing line is drawn by covetousness over other people’s money.

OK, so conservatives may have been a bit too comfortable sticking their noses in other’s bedroom business (and when was the last time one even passed legislation about such things?), but the next liberal politician that tells me what kind of butter I can eat, where I can smoke, what kind of car I can drive, what kind of light bulb I can use, who I can rent my house to, etc.., etc.., etc.., is gonna get a sturdy piece of timber swung swiftly across his stupid utopia obsessed cranium.

We see this all the time, don’t we? People who think they are especially blessed by God believe that they can do no wrong, because, surely, God would tell them if they were doing wrong!!! - fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, people in secret societies, etc., etc. It gets scarier and scarier every day.

As a part time church employee, I should be horrified and disgusted that Trudeau is working this angle… but it’s only a half-time position, and anyhow I’m Anglo-Catholic. Therefore, I believe I can snicker heartily at this story arc, with no cosmic repercussions. Hee hee hee!

EScott2U’s comment about “where I can smoke” makes me wonder what is is about smokers and pet owners that make them blind to what effect they have on others. You don’t have the right to pollute the air with your secondhand smoke and your cat doesn’t have the right to bleeep on my lawn.

And EScott2U, you forgot to list “tell me what consenting adult I’m able to marry”.

From what I’ve read here, nobody has the slightest idea of what a fundamentalist is! If you add to or take away from the original text in any way, you’re a revisionist not a fundamentalist, no matter how many of the fundamental tenets you espouse.

Hell billington, some of these self styled ultra religions don’t bother with words like consenting or adult. They just designate pretty little 14 yr. olds as their wives. In the name of God yet!!

escott wrote: ” where I can smoke ”

Gee, e, he is only doing it to protect your life.

After all, it is a far better situation for you to be notified by the state where it is acceptable to smoke, than to have me show you by putting your cigarette for you.

The state is trying to limit the actions of vigilantes like me.

Of course, It is difficult to find a posted non-smoking area in which some clown shoe isn’t firing one up.

My girlfriend gets very embarrassed and says I should find less threatening ways of pointing out the obvious signs.

the ingathering of narcissists

EScott2U’s comment about “where I can smoke” makes me wonder what is is about smokers and pet owners that make them blind to what effect they have on others. You don’t have the right to pollute the air with your secondhand smoke and your cat doesn’t have the right to bleeep on my lawn. —— I don’t smoke never have. And at near 50, probably never will. But I’ve never understood how people think that legislating good behavior, common sense and manners is the answer. Smoking in an enclosed space can be rude, but does it really require a law to stop it? It started with smoking folks. Now they’re trying to pass laws against foods with sugar in them. It’s easy to take peoples freedoms, they’ll give them up! Just tell them it is unsafe and do it an inch at a time. —- I_billington I agree with you, those things are rude. But we should be able to ask each other to refrain, not legislate each other. That’s the road to totalitarianism.

First, I don’t smoke, but if I did I’d be #$%ing pissed when the gov’t told me I couldn’t do it in my own house or car. If I owned a restaurant or bar, It’s none of the goverments G-damn business if and where I allow smoking. It’s my business and anybody has the right to choose whether or not to patronize my business.

Mister White It’s not the government’s job to protect me from myself. It’s the government’s job to protect self-righteous busybodies like you from guys like me. That’s a legitimate concern of government.

Likewise, I’ll wear a seatbelt or helmet IF I want to. I’ll eat butter instead of margarine if I want to. I’ll smoke if I want to. It’s my insurance companies perogative if they want to cover my injuries under such circumstances.

Rant just beginning…

And whose taxes will be paying for your care ina nursing home? Those who do take care that’s whose! I’ve seen way to many people who do what they want and then expect to be taken care of when they end up with a head injury or on oxygen because they can’t take normal precautions. It is too bad that many have already procreated ad otherwise the “darwin effect” would prevail. As it is we are diluting our gene pool with all the large families of fundamentalists and addicts, and diminishing the potential brilliance with taxes and expenses high enough that many hard working people don’t feel they can afford to have children. The only ones who really can are the filthy rich and those on pogey.

Nobody’s taxes will be paying for me. I’m not a burden to the taxpayer in any way. I won’t need social security when I retire. I’m not an entitlement whore. I depend on the federal government to pave my interstate and kill my enemy. I expect everybody else to do the same.

And “EScott2U”, you did all this by yourself with no assistance from anyone at anytime, didn’t you?

Escott- What legislation have rightwing hatmongers passed? Banning same sex marriage, for 1.

The Point of this strip is to point out that these phony “christians” think they are above and better than the rest of us. They think they are special. When Bill Clinton’s extra marital affair came out, these guys where calling for him to step down, and when he didn’t they trying to boot him out. All the while don’t the exact same thing or worse. They pass legislation discriminating and gay and lesbians, while trolling for gay sex in airport bathrooms or doing crystal meth with gay prostitues. If you want to eat butter, go ahead. the seatbelt law is wrong, thats more about Insurance Co. than politicians.

Geez, Guys. It’s a comic strip!! Get a life!!

escott- Nice avatar, A picture says a thousand words, and that one is a wndow into your psyche.

“kill my enemies” Who would that be? Do you want right wing hatemongering “christians” to keep America in a state of constant war? because thats what we have. Think “1984”, We aren’t allowed to see what OUR policies actually do, if we question those in Power we are “unAmerican” or “with the terrorists” with any luck Obama will break this cycle of constant war, wasteing OUR nations young and treasure. I’m not very hopeful about that though.

Alabama_Al, yes, I did. I graduated HS in ‘84, got a job, worked my way up by learning various skills, became good at what I do, and am now generally in demand. Haven’t even had to apply for a job since ‘88. When circumstances ran thei course in one endeavor, and I became available, the word was out and my phone was ringing. I put money away, leveraged equity in my home and started my own recording/production business n 2002. It’s been a lean year, I’ve lowered my rates, but the calendar is full and I’m still finding new projects to work on.

Yes, I’ve had help from people ad people have had help from me. The government has not been involved, other than me having to navigate through the maze of inane regulations foisted on me at the city, state and federal level and a confiscatory tax code that is structured to punish achievement.

and if you do happen to have a catastrophic injury that prevents you from working, you have enough cash saved to provide for the balance of your life? no hospital stays long enough to cost you your home? no chronic long term care expenses because you didn’t die instantly in the car crash? (cherry picking examples, i know, but these things happen to people - including some creators on this site) your viewpoint seems a tad unrealistic to me. (and maybe just a bit sanctimonious, too)

thepeoplesmushroom, get your facts straight. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury in a sexual harrassment case, in which the left wing feminists completely abandoned the victim.

As for banning same sex marriage, just think that through for a minute. Tab ‘A’ goes into slot ‘B’, by design. A biological reaction occurs and the species propogates itself, as natural as can be. The other end, shared by both sexes is a waste port, not particularly well suited to having anything shoved up it. Nobody’s stopping you from giving your pal a good rogering up the old dirtbox, but don’t expect rational people to sit still for an institutional endorsement of it. Humanity is riddled with perversions. You want some sort of civil union that keeps the your affairs in order in case one of you kicks off unexpectedly, fine. Some of us take marriage seriously, and don’t even endorse divorce for ‘irreconcilable differences’ which reduces marriage to merely notarized dating. When I say I’m married, I don’t want there to be any confusion. The bugger class has already stolen the words ‘gay’ and ‘partner’ from me - it’s increasingly irritating to casually refer to my business partner as a partner (for brevity’s sake) and have my client look at me with one eyebrow slightly raised.

While your endorsing same-sex marriage, why not endorse inter-species marriage? Or sibling marriage? Heck, if a brother and sister love each other, why not?

Very mysterious!

Sung to the tune of “The House of the Rising Sun”

There is a house on C street They call the Fallen Son And it’s been the ruin of many a poor pol And me - oh Lord - I’m one.

I’m going back out to C street My race is almost run To spend my life in sin and misery Beneath the Fallen Son

I’ll bet this is going to be an interesting week - should bring out the Trudeau haters in bunches.

yyyguy, yes if I do suffer something catastrophic, I am heavily insured and have friends and family far and wide to see me through beyond my insurance. It’s an imperfect world. It’s not the Federal Government’s charter to make it perfect. Private charities are much more effective in handling these worst case scenarios and would be radically better funded if the Fed dropped most of their social programs. Who would you rather deal with - some poorly educated smarmy bureaucrat or a volunteer who actually cares about your lot in life?

Joe Allen Doty, did you even read my post through? If so, were you able to comprehend it? Try again.

As for your identifying YYAM as the owner of the house on ‘C’ Street…. oooooh, scandalous!

so, EScott2U, it would seem you are not entirely SELF sufficient with no need to rely on others. is your view of society so cruel that you’d make no allowances for those who aren’t as well off? not a society I’D prefer. i’m not advocating that the government should make things “perfect” - that’s unattainable in any event. but there seems very little harm in everyone paying to mitigate the misfortunes of some. the problem is in avoiding the abuse - which i will agree government seems to find difficult if not impossible. (ranting too much. should quit and go golfing.)

I never said I was SELF sufficient. I just said I don’t need government assistance and I NEVER WILL. I’ll never take it.

Why the #$%^& is it so bleeep important to you libs to get your charity from the government?????????? Are YOU unwilling to take of yourselves and your own friends and families? The government is inferior to the private sector in every conceivable endeavor.

EScott2U -

Chill Dude before U blow a gasket When all the $$ & insurance in the world Won’t keep U out of a Casket!

(Remember who has to wipe the drool off your face & wipe your butt if U ever have a “Stroke” & become “Humbled” by the experience. Things Happen).

EScott, your argument against legalizing same sex marriage is riddled with false assumptions and leaps of “logic” that an Olympic long jumper would be hard-pressed to make. Homosexuality is not, and certainly shouldn’t be, defined by what orifices one uses for pleasure; nor should that be the criteria used as the basis for deciding whose partnerships are legally recognized and who gets the benefits that come with that legal recognition. As far as that goes, many heterosexual couples enjoy using “non-biologically-approved” tabs and slots, and I don’t hear anyone ranting that that invalidates the “institutional endorsement” of their unions. It’s great that you take marriage seriously, but to say people willing to risk rejection by friends and family, public condemnation and scorn (such as yours), hatred, and even violence for the right of a legally recognized union do not take it seriously, is extremely short-sighted. When you say you are married and same-sex couples in Mass. or Ct. say they are married, I’m not confused at all. You’ve all made a (hopefully) loving comittment to your spouses, and want it recognized. They all have equal validity to me. Nobody has stolen or taken anything from you, and if you consider your marriage “devalued” because two people of the same sex are able to get married, I have to wonder how much real value it had to begin with. It’s unfortunate that you get irritated that you occasionally have to explain that you’re heterosexual, but hey, it’s a tough world, and I’m sure some people get irritated that their monogamous relationships of decades aren’t given the same respect or entitlements because of the genders of the people involved. And finally, there are actually some pretty good reasons not to endorse marrying your goat or sibling; in the first case there’s a question of consent, and in both situations the relationships are illegal, which homosexuality is not. So to sum up, when you object to same sex marriage and presumably want to keep people in same-sex relationships from being covered under their partner’s insurance, getting survivor benefits, or being able to adopt their partner’s children, you’re discriminating against people who aren’t doing anything criminal or (in my opinion) immoral. Sorry, that’s just how it is.

baslimthebegger,

Actually you’re right. Madoff is a Democrat, judging by where his political donations went.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/22/nation/na-madoff-hill22

I should rephrase my statement anyway. A chief dividing line is the quest to seek government as the mechanism for satisfying covetousness. Madoff was purely private sector.

Another is the subject of Tom Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions.” The Tragic Vision views humanity as inherently imperfect, “possessing foibles, incentives, and the desire to act in his own self-interest,” to quote the Amazon review. Perfect solutions do not exist, only imperfect tradeoffs. The Utopian Vision sees humanity as perfectible, and thus believes that perfect solutions exist.

http://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Ideological-Political-Struggles/dp/0465081428

bleeep, you people need to learn to read. Jo Jo, try again. I endorsed civil unions.

Also, a sibling arrangement can be consentual. The goat arrangement, not so much. The heterosexual union has obvious greater purpose beyond the tabs and slots and is not nullified by the fun ad recreational misuse thereof.

I believe homosexuality to be immoral and therefore not subject to institutional endorsement. The majority of my countrymen feel the same way, although that number is declining with each new generation that passes through the public school system. Homosexuality is absolutely (and OBVIOUSLY) unnatural. This is all based on a belief in God and the attendant doctrines that descend from that. Throw that out, and all moral arguments cease to stand. You have to start somewhere.

Who started the gay argument and how did I get roped into this??

apparently, YOU did.

Actually I believe that most opposition to homosexuality is primarily secular; people instinctively assume that psychology walks hand-in-hand with biology, and human biology is structured such that maximum sexual fulfillment is possible only with the opposite sex.

(At least that’s the case with men. Alternatives to the pregnancy-inducing kind are available to both gays and straights; if any of the alternatives were as satisfying there would be no history of unwanted pregnancy.)

I wish mainline gay activism would adopt a live-and-let-live approach. Instead of the govt taking ownership of the English language that it has no right to and changing the definition of “marriage,” it could simply extend to nonmarried couples certain privileges accorded to married couples. Let the Boy Scouts interpret their creed the way they want, just as any other ideology-based organization does. (Should PETA be forced to admit Ted Nugent?) Strike down the unconstitutional Lawrence v. Texas decision - and then keep sodomy laws off the books for the same reason we keep heterosexual one-night-stands off the law books. No more using the schools to teach one faction’s version of sexuality, especially when it usurps parental authority. No more hate crimes laws that place some citizens as more equal than others (and that assume that killing a guy out of prejudice is worse than killing him for his wallet).

ok, everybody, calm down. here is my theory. EScott2U is not a real person. Just someone who likes to get other people to froth at the mouth, who knows what to say to achieve this. I really can’t believe that someone with all those kinds of ideas and opinions actually exists! @doctortoon, you have the right idea.

Ha! All the stuff going on, Obama starting to blow it big time, and Garry is starting something to do with republicans????

The republicans are out of power and don’t control anything, at least for another year and a half.

Trudeau is quibbling here… There is all kinds of stuff going on with the Obama administration that begs some good satire.

Come on!

well at least you drink premium ale, hopefully not a watered down american variety? or is that another argument?

thepeoplesmushroom said, about 13 hours ago

escott- Nice avatar, A picture says a thousand words, and that one is a wndow into your psyche.

“kill my enemies” Who would that be? Do you want right wing hatemongering “christians” to keep America in a state of constant war? because thats what we have. Think “1984”, We aren’t allowed to see what OUR policies actually do, if we question those in Power we are “unAmerican” or “with the terrorists” with any luck Obama will break this cycle of constant war, wasteing OUR nations young and treasure. I’m not very hopeful about that though.

Escott i think he means 1984 by George Orwell, my favorite book

WOW.

Doctortoon, please stay around!

LOL @ all the arguing above. Its a lot to go through just to get to the bottom and make a comment, but I did.

Enjoy your day doc!