Big Dogs House

Maybe If They Were Less Worried About Gay Marriage

Aug 13, 2010 Political

Looks like California is going further down the tubes. While an activist judge with a homosexual bias (he is gay) disregarded the wishes of over 7 million people and while people are sashaying around celebrating the shredding of Constitutional Law (at either the state or federal level) the state of California is falling off the planet.

California is home to lots of very rich people and the state taxes everything imaginable. Unfortunately, it has a plethora of union workers (particularly public sector workers) who suckle the teat of government and have bankrupted the system. California has too many unions, too many public sector employees, too many illegal aliens and too many welfare programs. It cannot afford all of this.

The state intends to issue IOUs to those who are owed money:

State Controller John Chiang said Tuesday that without a state budget, California’s government would be unable to pay its bills in late August (or maybe early September). That means issuing IOUs to some people. Possible dates for IOUs could be either Aug. 27 or Aug. 31, when big payments to schools are due, according to this schedule on the controller’s website. NBC Los Angeles

The IOUs are a result of not having a budget but the reason there is no budget is because they cannot balance one. They owe more than they take in and they have not figured out how to cut what needs to be cut in order to get out of debt.

While the Governor and the courts are occupying their time worrying about gay marriage, the state is drowning and there is no hope in sight.

But like the passengers of the Titanic, they will have a gay ole time while the ship sinks…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: activist judge, budget, california, gay marriage, gay times, iou

The Ice Cream Social Cause

Sep 2, 2009 General, Humor

Ben and Jerry’s ice cream is not a particular favorite of mine. In fact I have not had their ice cream in years because I do not like the flavors they offer. I prefer Breyer’s ice cream because it tastes good. And additional benefit is that the company is not involved in social activism.

In honor of Vermont’s new law allowing gay marriage, Ben and Jerry’s has renamed their Chubby Hubby ice cream to Hubby Hubby. It is one thing to celebrate the passage of an event with a new label as they did when Obama was elected and they changed an ice cream name to Yes Pecan or when they changed a flavor to Jerry Garcia to honor the Dead’s lead singer but it is quite another to rename an ice cream to mark the passage of a divisive issue. A lot of people find gay marriage wrong and it does not seem like a smart marketing ploy to remind people of the decay of an institution by giving the ice cream a name that references homosexuality.

I really don’t care about Ben and Jerry’s but find it funny that they think it is smart to inject themselves into this kind of an issue.

At least this is just a temporary change of a product and not a new one. Imagine the label if they had developed a new ice cream called Hubby Hubby:

Hubby Hubby
Fudge Packed Ice Cream

Lots of smooth cream sprinkled with nuts
For that bold, in your face taste

Perhaps they could have changed their Dublin Mudslide flavor to Double Mudslide or their Berried Treasure to Buried Pleasure…

I also wonder if the lesbians feel left out. There is no ice cream that has been renamed to honor the women’s ability to marry each other.

I think Ben and Jerry should rename their Banana Split ice cream to No Banana Lickety Split. It can have a label like:

No Banana Lickety Split
without nuts

A delightful tub of ice cream designed
For those who don’t like to lick a cone

Maybe they could have changed their Phish Food flavor to Phish Mood or Jamacian Me Crazy to Jamacian Me Crazy so Lesbe Friends or even changing Sweet Cream and Cookies to Sweet Cream and Nookie.

OK, I have had about enough fun with this locker room humor. This is your chance to suggest flavors to honor other things in America. Perhaps they can come up with San Francisco Treat (packed with Fruits and Nuts) or maybe Democrat Delight (Lots of Fluff and Lacking Nuts).

Perhaps they can even rehonor Obama with a Cashews for Clunkers flavor. You have to use someone else’s money to buy it…

Lastly, they might try a flavor to honor Ted Kennedy. Something like Liver Quiver, an intoxicating ice cream that is sure to make a splash…

Have at it but try not to be to risque…

Ben and Jerry’s Flavors

Tags: ben and jerry's, gay marriage, ice cream, Obama, vermont

Don’t Ask The Question If You Don’t Want The Answer

Apr 20, 2009 Political

I have never been one to sugar coat an answer to a question and I don’t tell the person asking what they want to hear if I feel that is not correct. Of course, like everyone, there are questions I prefer not to answer or that I answer tactfully in order to spare one’s feelings. Does this make me look fat is one such question…

I have always been of a mind that you should not ask a question unless you are prepared for the answer even if it is not what you wanted to hear. Not every answer will be the one you want and some will not be tactful.

During the Miss America Pageant Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked by Perez Hilton, a gay man, if she believed in gay marriage (he actually asked her if 46 states should follow the lead of the four that allow gay marriage). Miss California answered in a strange way but she ended up saying she believed marriage was between a man and a woman and that is how she was raised:

“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.” Fox News

We don’t live in a land where you can choose to marry same sex. There are a few states that allow it but nearly all define marriage as between a man and a woman. But Miss California committed a sin because she did not affirm to the world that homosexuals should be able to marry. I think she could have answered it a little better but I am happy she stood for her beliefs.

Hilton’s response was rendered on his blog (today) when he said that Miss California was a “dumb b*tch.” Well, he should not have asked the question if he was not prepared to hear this kind of response. He indicated he would have preferred a politically correct response.

The gays in the audience were livid indicating that she should have never been runner up with that kind of belief. Who knows, maybe she would have won if she had given the answer that they wanted rather than the one that honestly depicted her belief though Hilton contends she lost because she is dumb. My understanding is that she was clearly in the lead prior to that question.

The guy who runs the Miss California competition, Keith Lewis, was saddened by her response. Why? Did he not expect her to say what she believed? Perhaps he thought that since she is from California she would be in favor of same sex marriage. One audience member said that her answer was different than 95% of the people in attendance. Perhaps (though there is no way of really knowing), but she comes from a state where voters rejected same sex marriage on several ballot initiatives. Here is what Lewis said:

“As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman,” said Lewis in a statement. “I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family.”

If politics do not belong in this then why did they allow Hilton to ask a question that has been the topic of a political battle for quite some time?

If the gay men in the audience (and according to the 95% guy, there were many) want to hear a different answer to that question then they should have their own pageant.

They could call it The Siss America Pageant.

Once again, the tolerant homosexual community is intolerant of someone who disagrees with its agenda. Nowhere is that any clearer than in the response from Hilton.

Tags: gay marriage, miss america, miss california, perez hilton, politics

Gay Supporters Mock Religion In Opposing Prop 8 Results

Dec 4, 2008 Political

A group of actors has put together a 3 minute video that mocks religion and the religious right (but they did not mock the black community that overwhelmingly voted for Proposition 8!) for its opposition to homosexual marriage. The video features Jack Black as Jesus Christ and he seems fine with homosexuality by using the tired argument that the Bible calls shellfish an abomination and restricts eating it.

It is a clever little video but it distorts why Prop 8 was defeated and it distorts religious views. The voters of California voted for Prop 8 and it was passed. Not everyone who voted for it is a religious Zealot. Many people in the black community voted against it because they oppose gay marriage. I am sure that many of them are religious people but if religion was their major motivation they would never have voted for Barack Obama since he believes in murdering innocent children. They were selective in their votes in that they voted for Obama despite his anti religious history (his church and his stance on abortion and babies born after failed abortions) and they voted for Prop 8 because they feel marriage should be between a man and a woman. These are suppositions on my part but certainly they make as much sense as assuming religious zealots defeated Prop 8 (and are probably pretty accurate).

Jack Black Jesus listens as the religious right explains that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. He then produces shrimp cocktail and says that this shrimp is an abomination as the fanatics salivate over it. The New Testament and Jesus Christ removed the restrictions on food placed in Leviticus and other texts of the Old Testament. This has been shown in a number of discussions on the Bible though I believe devout Jews still live under the rules of the OT (they are not Christians). Many of the restrictions placed in the OT (on Jews) were removed and we live under the new law established when Jesus died for our sins. The New Testament does, however, state that homosexuality is wrong. As my friend Kat so eloquently and clearly explains:

“The shrimp restriction was part of the ceremonial/purity laws which were designed to make a very clear and distinct difference between the Jews and the Gentiles. Those laws were to point up the holiness God required, as well as the fact that – since no one could meet those standards – they needed a Savior.

The prohibition against homosexuality (found most clearly in the NT in the last verses of Romans 1) is not just for ceremonial purity, but also because it is against God’s design of and plan for the use of our bodies. Therefore, comparing the abomination of shrimp and homosexuality is a bit like apples and oranges”

The other thing to consider is that a lot of people who oppose homosexual marriage are not very religious people. They oppose it for personal reasons like homosexuality is unnatural. It was classified as a mental disorder in an earlier version of the DSM but was removed after fierce lobbying by the homosexual community. The purpose of a man and woman getting together is to procreate. We are designed to work together in order to repopulate the species or we will perish. Engaging in an activity that will eventually cause the demise a species (or a part of it) is unnatural and not mentally sound. The plumbing is different for a reason. If God (or nature for the secularists) wanted men to have sex with men and women to have sex with women then these combinations would be able to reproduce.

For you Darwinists, survival of the fittest means that a man and a woman have to get together to reproduce (in order to survive a species has to reproduce). Those who engage in acts that prevent it are, by Darwin’s definition, not the fittest.

The reality is, the Proposition passed and the gay community did not like that so they are causing problems. The gays have an agenda and they want to push it through no matter what. They are not happy with the rule of law or the will of the majority unless that will aligns with their beliefs.

I have received several emails and I have read at different sites a few words that Obama supporters have written to conservatives who are unhappy with the Obama win and I will use those words for the gay community in California (and across the country for that matter).

Get over it.

As an aside, the gay community supported Obama/Biden and they are not in favor of gay marriage. The gays voted for the ticket even though that ticket opposes what the gays want. Now, for some reason, we are supposed to understand their position when they voted in a manner that was against their best interests. To be sure, McCain/Palin were no different on that issue.

In any event, the gay community does itself no good when it attacks the religious community and conservatives in this manner. No more Mr. Nice Gay might be their theme but the blowback (I had to use that term) might not be to their liking. Funny how when a person attacks homosexuality he is a homophobe but when homosexuals attack their opponents they are just activists standing up for their “rights”.

Perhaps instead of putting on a rendition of Brokeback Shoutin’ they could accept the loss and move on.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have some shrimp salad to finish…

Bushwack has an interesting point of view

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.

Tags: gay marriage, jesus christ, misinterpretation, prop 8, video

Intolerant Homos Resort To Violence

Nov 16, 2008 Political

The homosexual community is in a snit because Proposition 8 passed in California. Prop 8 changed the California Constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman. The proposition might have failed if it were not for the huge turn out in black voters who showed up to vote for Obama.

For years gays have told the rest of us that we had to accept their agenda and that we needed to be tolerant. They scoff at any attempt to define marriage as anything that excludes the union of same sex couples and they continually force their agenda on school systems so that our children are taught that Johnny can have two dads or two moms.

Well, it looks like those who expect tolerance are not willing to give tolerance as the gay community has resorted to violence because they did not like the outcome of the vote on Prop 8. The gays have blamed the black community and started calling them “niggers” and they blamed the Mormons who received white powder in the mail and had the Book of Mormon burned on the steps of one of their churches. All these acts were done by gay activists. Additionally, an 80 year old woman was assaulted by a bunch of tolerant gays because she held a Cross up at a rally.

Why is it that when a vote goes the way they want these people say that the will of the people has been shown and that we should respect the decision. There were no riots from non gays and there were no assaults on gays after a judge overturned the last vote which demonstrated the will of the people. The opponents went to work crafting a proposition that would change the California Constitution and keep activist judges from legislating from the bench.

Early on it looked as if Prop 8 would be defeated but a lot of supporters pumped money in to defeat it. The gay community, aided by California Governor Schwarzenegger, is trying to challenge the results in court. The Governor and the gay community are hoping that a judge will once again overrule the will of the people. Why do we have votes if judges can interfere in the process? The people of California have spoken and that is the end of the issue. The law says that a proposition that changes the California Constitution takes effect the day after the election (or in this case after the absentee ballots were counted and the results confirmed) so one man and one woman is now the definition of marriage in that state.

Suppose the millions of Americans who did not like the Obama victory decided to start sending suspicious substances in the mail or assaulted people who voted for Obama and then worked to have a judge overturn the election. Of course, there are lawsuits challenging Obama’s qualification but that is a Constitutional issue. In any event, it is unlikely that any judge has the testicular fortitude to require Obama show a vault copy of his birth certificate. Judges don’t seem to be too keen on the Constitution these days.

As for gay community, they are not playing this very intelligently. They are attacking people to try to get their way which seems a bit queer to me. Do they really think more people will become sympathetic to their cause after watching them act like animals? Interestingly, gays across the country staged rallies in opposition to the results of Prop 8 and one held a sign that read “Don’t spread H8.” Maybe they should start at home and work outward. No one beat that guy up but I bet there would have been violence if there was a sign that read “Don’t spread AIDS” held up by an opponent…

Be wary of the gay community. They have come out of the closet and now instead of preaching tolerance they are committing crimes and trying to browbeat people into giving them their way.

If attacked, shoot first and ask questions later.

Related:
Yahoo News
Breitbart
GatorGOP
American and Proud

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.

Tags: assault, crimes, gay marriage, prop 8, violence