Alex Blaze

Gay marriage is Socialism

Filed By Alex Blaze | September 24, 2009 9:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: Congress, fundies, gay marriage, iowa, marriage, politics, socialism, steve king, wingnuts

Rep. steveking.jpgSteve King, a Republican from Iowa, thinks same-sex marriage is part of the socialist cabal:

If there's a push for a socialist society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together living collectively off one pot of resources earned by everyone, this is one of the goals they have to go to, same sex marriage, because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. They want public affirmation, they want access to public funds and resources.[...]

Not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept in the final analysis.

They really have no idea what the term "socialism" even means, do they? It seems that no matter what the issue, no matter what it is they don't like, whether it be same-sex marriage, modest health care reforms, stimulus money, integration, Hollywood actors they don't like, terrorists, other religions, whatever, it's always socialism or communism. Is the worst insult they really have for everything is that it might make poor people's lives a little better? Are they so wedded to the idea that the rich should stay rich and the rabble should stay poor that they think the worst accusation they can make against anyone is that it threatens to grant people who don't deserve it access to "public funds"?

Well, if you're so pissed with people having access to public funds, Steve King, then please refund your paycheck to the federal government. One would think that a government employee wouldn't be so quick to deride "public resources," but it's just a sign as to how messed up our political discourse is.


Recent Entries Filed under Fundie Watch:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Unfortunately, many of the classical subjects are no longer used in education. Think of how this person would be helped by courses of informal logic, rhetoric and civics.

In addition to plain ol' ignorance, I think this rhetorical obsession with "socialism" is a result of the creeping libertarianism in American society in general and particularly in the conservative movement, which has come to view any and all government intervention in any aspect of the economy as "socialist."

I remember back in 2000, I was at dinner with some friends, and one of them -- a self-described libertarian -- launched into this diatribe about how the U.S. is actually socialist country.

Socialism means government ownership of the means of production, so technically, the only truly socialist countries left in the world are North Korea and Cuba, and even they're toying with capitalism.

I've always found libertarianism to be one of the more annoying political philosophies. I mean, it has some good ideas -- particularly on social issues, and even some of its economic ideas make sense to me -- but it operates on the mistaken notion that the answer to economic overregulation is to go to the opposite extreme of no regulation whatsoever. Not only that, but libertarians always seem like they're on the knife edge of sanity, ready to advocate privatization of everything while denouncing as "socialist" anything that includes any government involvement.

Same sex marriage leads to socialism.

If only...

The truth is that the only meaningful economic state intervenion in the US is welfare for the looter rich and Obama is stuffing trillions down their gaping gullets. Oh, and I forgot, socialized medicine for Congress and top federal bureaucrats.

----------------

Gay marriage is for gay men. Same sex marriage is for GLBT folks. Gay marriage is a term used by the religious right; people like Hillary Clinton, James Dobson, Barak Obama, Pat Robertson and John McCain and their supporters.

I think if we boil it down, here's what he's trying to say:

"They want to make everyone equal, dammit! I'm better than they are!"

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | September 26, 2009 8:53 PM

What will the world do with no one to look down upon?

The Republicans are bereft of good ideas, so they are resorting to scare tactics and to lies. Yelling "socialism" at everything makes people think that they will loose their individual property.
It's strange, how the main beneficiaries of the government "socialist" bailouts to AIG and the big banks, have been the republican fat cats, who all still got the obscenely huge bonuses in the billions. Yelling "socialist" is a new shorthand, and allows the know-nothings to have an excuse, but no factual reason. The tea-bagger movement, the fundamentalists, etc. are all happy if they have a bogeyman (socialism), rather than a plan that requires them to analyze or to think. Denouncing gays helps the know-nothings widen their appeal. This is the reality. This is one reason I was so opposed to "Bruno", because it just had to bring in a few more know-nothings against us.

There is none so blind as he who will not see; none so deaf as he who will not hear.

The Republicans are bereft of good ideas… And yet they and the Democrats agree that the TARP giveaways to the looter rich are necessary. They agree that troops should remain in Iraq, that socialized medicine is off the books and that DADT and DOMA will remain on the books. Both parties support the central idea of HR 2454, a phony cap-and-trade rip-off that will make it easy for corporate polluters to continue wrecking the environment for at least another decade.

If you’d just rephrase to indicate that both are bereft of the programs we need, or quantify which party is more ‘bereft’, it’d be helpful, but simply ignoring the political crimes of the Democrats and concentrating on those of the Republicans is inaccurate.

“It's strange, how the main beneficiaries of the government "socialist" bailouts to AIG and the big banks, have been the republican fat cats, who all still got the obscenely huge bonuses in the billions.” That’s not strange at all, it’s SOP. What is strange is say that Republicans are the only Party benefiting from TARP, graft and obscene bonuses. In fact it’s simply not true. It presupposes that the looter rich are all Republicans, when in fact they bankroll both parties and get a huge return from both parties on their investment.

According to the Chicago Tribune “One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago's Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.” He was on the board when it’s “portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis… The Freddie Mac money was a small piece of the $16 million he made in a three-year interlude as an investment banker a decade ago.” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story

Now Rahm Emanuel is Obama’s “gatekeeper”, a supremely lucrative job that requires him to pick and choose from the highest bidder which lobbyists get into the Oval Office to discuss things like heath care reform, or the lack of it, environmental hoaxes, welfare for the looter rich and which merchants of death will get the contracts for murdering Afghan civilians. If he wasn’t rich before he is now. And so is Obama. They’re just doing what the Clintons and the Bushes did.

According to Open Left its likely that Obama chief financial officers Geithner and Summers not only knew that AIG and other companies that had received TARP money (and were demanding more) would use it for multi million dollar bonuses, but they may have kept the information from Congress and they did tried to stop efforts to reclaim the money. Did they and the Obama Administration do that out of the goodness of their hearts or were they paid to do it? http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12282

According to the Washington Post “Almost 30 key lawmakers helping draft landmark health-care legislation have financial holdings in the industry… Their total health-care holdings could be worth $27 million…” They include “Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and the family of Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee drafting that chamber's legislation, held at least $3.2 million in more than 20 health-care companies at the end of last year.” All of them will claim that their votes are pure as the driven snow, or in Reid’s case, as pure as the driven sand. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/AR2009061204075.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Any one with a computer can google thousands similar stories of Congressional and White House malfeasance from both parties. Washington DC is a sewer of money laden lobbyists and money hungry political hustlers. To claim that only Republicans are in on the game is to ignore the truth.