Posted on 05/16/2010 8:05:53 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
On Thursday’s The View on ABC, during a discussion of Laura Bush’s recent revelation that she disagrees with her husband on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, normally right-leaning co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck voiced agreement with the former First Lady, but also used a surprising choice of words as she recommended that conservatives talk to gay couples about the issue rather than "hating" about it. Hasselbeck:
I think there are a lot of, maybe, conservatives out there who are talking about gay marriage and not necessarily with someone who wants to have gay marriage or has been in a gay marriage. You know, I had Melissa Etheridge over, we had dinner, we talked for hours about gay marriage, and I would really challenge people: Get out there. Instead of just talking about it and hating on it, actually talk to someone who’s loved someone else and have the conversation about what can be done...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Yeah, riiiiiiiight! Try and justify that! You have an entitlement attitude no different than welfare queens.
The fedgov should be doing borders, treaties, defense, weights and measures is good, and I guess interstates but I’d rather the states took care of their own roads. Coast guard is good, too. They’ve bolluxed up the Post Office but I think that’s theoretically constitutional. They should do citizenship issues.
Other than that, (I may have missed something), everything else should be the states’ responsibility.
No income tax, also totally against property tax, and ID for voting, English only ballots, no vote by mail.
What is this “hate on” expression. How do you “hate on” something? You can hate something, but you can’t “hate on” it. This sounds like some kind of thug language.
Extremely misleading title. She is NOT suggesting that one stop “hating” same sex marriage. She is suggesting that one not just talk about it and “hate” it from an uninformed standpoint. She is suggesting one educate oneself about it. Then at least one can argue one’s point of view from a direction of relevance and not ignorance.
Ah, she certainly is. The transcript with her own words, emphasis added...
It’s interesting, though, because some people are saying, well, this is a day late and a dollar short, where were you when you could have said something earlier? And in terms of gay marriage, I think there are a lot of, maybe, conservatives out there who are talking about gay marriage and not necessarily with someone who wants to have gay marriage or has been in a gay marriage. You know, I had Melissa Etheridge over, we had dinner, we talked for hours about gay marriage, and I would really challenge people: Get out there. Instead of just talking about it and hating on it, actually talk to someone who’s loved someone else and have the conversation about what can be done, and I think that’s a-
She is saying in her normal inarticulate and clumsy Elizabeth way, that Melissa Etheridge changed her mind on gay marriage and people should stop (her words) "hating on" gay marriage.
She is implying, rather directly, that the only people who "hate on" gay marriage are the people who don't understand it. Sorry, that's just offensive to me.
Elizabeth "pea brain" Hasselbeck, who has a degree in fashion design and whose only claim to fame is a reality show - is telling people - some like me with advanced degrees and long records of professional accomplishment - don't understand gay marriage, and that is why we hate it. If we'd only talk to gay people, we would then become "enlightened", apparently like she thinks she is.
Sorry, no one has to explain perversity to me, nor is there any explanation that can justify it.
I don’t get that interpretation at all, but I’m used to parsing words so perhaps I am more precise than she intends her listeners to be.
Her use of the word “just” doesn’t imply she is suggesting one stop “hating” it. It implies that one do more than hate it.
I would take your interpretation from what she said if she hadn’t used the word “just”. Had she said “stop hating it and talk to somebody” rather than “stop just hating it and talk to somebody” her phrasing would be far less arguable.
You're giving her WAY to much credit as an orator. To describe Elizabeth's locutions as stumbled, would be generous, very, very generous.
You also have to appreciate the context in which these remarks were made. They were made immediately after a taped-piece from the LKL show, where Laura Bush comes out in favor of homosexual marriage. Elizabeth is saying, "Hey Laura, a day late and a dollar short."
She placed the "just" in there, very much like youngsters today tend to put "like" in between every other word when speaking; They're buying time to think of the next word or phrase they're going to use. Elizabeth, again like so many youngsters today, will never be accused of having an economy of speech. She rambles, incessantly, and usually never effectively communicates what she saying with ANY brevity. But, what she clearly is saying - again, very clumsily - that people who don't approve of gay marriage, aren't enlightened and they would be enlightened if they "just" got to know some gay people, like she has, apparently.
You would have them confiscate the money of the married couple instead?
Indeed. The "enlightened" "Just" know things.
Exactly right.
The government has an interest in protecting marriage as marriage is what is necessary to maintain the traditional family. The traditional family is the building block of our society. When the family crumbles, so does society.
Ah, the irony.
Can anyone “hate” a nullity?
Completely disagree with the no ID for voting. We already HAVE problems with people who vote without proper ID, and we end up with countless illegals voting, or cheating bas#*#*# voting more than once.
I also disagree with no mail-in voting, as a good number of U.S. citizens serve this country abroad and have to submit absentee ballots. I am not going to agree with taking away their ability and right to vote just because they choose to serve US abroad.
First of all, the agenda for so-called “gay marriage” has nothing to do with taxes.
Secondly, a progressive tax system is never fair. Someone is always paying more than someone else. You, as single people, are not necessarily paying more than married couples. It all depends upon your income and their income, before and after marriage.
You’re complaining about a “tax penalty for singles.” For many years, there was a tax penalty for marriage. Congress attempted to do away with the “marriage penalty”, but there’s still a penalty. For example, if you marry someone who earns a much higher income than you do, you’re still marrying into a higher tax bracket, and marriage will give you an automatic deduction in your pay. The new tax code also has couples at the higher and lower ends paying a “penalty”.
Meanwhile, Congress could reinstate the original “marriage penalty” as early as next year. (I wonder if you’ll complain then about the unfairness of it all?)
For the record, I would go along with a flat tax rate and eliminating the child tax credit IF and ONLY IF (1) everyone pays back any money they received from the government as children and students in public school or college, (2) “free” public education is eliminated, and (3) everyone would agree to do without social security (which my children and their generation will be expected to pay). If you can agree to those demands, then we have a deal. :-)
It is called the marketing of deviance.
I think the only ones to profit from gay marriage will be the divorce lawyers.
What? Again?
This is Melissa’s SECOND wife. Her first wife went back to men. Homosexuals RARELY stay together, for it is not about love, it is about sex. Homosexuality is a sexual aberration based on obsession and anger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.