Archive for the ‘Weiner-gate’ Category

In Which I Compare Weiners and Boehners

June 2nd, 2011 No comments


Wait. Are you saying that sex plays a role in our society??

Logically, there is no such thing as a Democratic sex scandal. Democrats, according to those who hate them, AKA Republicans, are godless and immoral to begin with. Thus, ANY action they take is godless and immoral. To commit an act of immorality you need morals to begin with. We have none. With in the framework of the stereotype of Democrats anything is fair game.

Look at it this way. If a dog shits on your lawn, you’re pissed but it’s a dog. They shit where they please. Because they’re dogs. Their framework does not encompass privacy or a sense of shame for shitting in public. If a Democrat sends a picture of their junk to some college student, well, that’s not news either. Democrats kill babies. Democrats heart anal sex. Democrats want to legalize child prostitution. We want to give school kids heroin. So, IF Anthony Weiner sens a picture of his jean-clad dick to someone – it’s just not news. It’s the same as a dog shitting on your lawn.

Republicans and, sadly, much of the population of the US fail to make a distinction between the godless committing public sins and the Godly committing public sins. If you, as a Republican pass laws against sodomy, abortion and child prostituion and then go out out and rape a 14yr old girl, get her pregnant and then pay for her abortion – that’s a completely different ethical paradigm.

To equate priest sexually abusing a little boy with a junkie sexually abusing a little boy is simply dishonest.  More so, because not only should the priest know better but those who either defend the priest or accuse the junkie should know better as well.  Let’s muddy the waters a little. Let’s say the priest is a junkie. Ethically, the priest still knows better.

This lapse in plain common sense is the hallmark of wingnuts and xtians. Islam is condemned because Mohammed had sex with a little girl. Guess what? That was community standards at the time. The same held true in Europe.

Let’s take a look at two examples the Bible.

1. “Marriage is between a one man and one woman”.  Not true. King David had wives up the wazoo. Lots and lots of them. He even had the husband of woman he wanted to bang killed so he could bang her…while he was married. And yet Americans decry polygamy. Even though it’s legal in the Bible they call the framework of this country. If Republicans actually believed in the Bible, like they say they do, John Ensign would have used the King David defense rather than resigning. “Hey,” he would have said at the press conference, “at least I didn’t have the husband of this chick I was banging killed. I’m a pretty good guy in the eyes of God.”

2. Kill your kids. The Bible says that you MUST kill your kids if they disrespect you.  MUST. Gotta do it or you displease God. And yet…the laws of America, which according to wingnuts are 100% based on the Bible, has all sorts of outright prohibitions on killing your kids. To rephrase that – the laws of the United States of America directly contradict the Biblical laws it was founded on. This cannot be argued.


Unless you take into account the community standards of that time period in history. Mohammed fucked a little girl. You killed your kids for disrespecting you. No jail time. In fact, Ggod patted you on the back and said, “well done!”

Anthony Weiner may or may not have sent a picture of his dick to some woman. This means nothing since it’s not a crime and if it were, Anthony Weiner would probably support a bill repealing it. If it were a crime, John Boehner would support the law because he wants, Roy Zimmerman so aptly put it, the government out of our lives and into our pants.” If Boehner sends a picture of his dick to some woman, he is a defacto hypocrite.

Can you honestly argue against this?