This is a few weeks old, but Porno Pete posted this video of Michelle Malkin absolutely losing it on Fox News over Obama’s support for marriage equality. For some strange reason, Porno Pete thinks this video helps his side.
Sean Hannity is, of course, as intellectually dishonest as ever, but that’s what Fox viewers demand. They need to have their biases constantly repeated back to them, in order to cope.
I have a news scoop for Michelle Malkin, though. Is Michelle aware that some gay married couples have granite countertops?
And as Tbogg always points out, this video never gets old. Ever.
She was a bit heated yes. “losing it”? Hmmm ….. I don’t see that. However, Wan was great at keeping the discussion real and grounded in fact.
It always seems incongruent to me when I see such ugliness coming out of the mouth of a pretty woman. I wonder how can a person who’s won the genetic lottery be so uncharitable to those less fortunate?
She mistakenly thinks she’s got a winner in that tired old “32 states have opposed marriage.” line as though that somehow proves the polls showing majority support for marriage wrong. The reality is those votes were mostly from years ago when support for marriage was weaker. If all those votes were rerun today many of those states would uphold marriage instead.
You’re a loser Michelle and history will remember you as such.
“absolutely losing it ”
Oh, she did not.
The hannity hollaring was mostly about whether Obama is some unusual political flip flopper. Juan Williams saying the evolution makes sense. Malkin saying it’s all political calculus.
Both are right.
And Malkin is right on Obama’s continuing desire to try to have it both ways: ie personally supports gay marriage but thinks the States should decide. Which makes Malkin’s highlighting of the 32 state decisions quite appropriate.
S. Respondent, Malkin brought up the 32 state decisions to try to make the point that the current polls showing majority support for marriage are wrong. That’s misleading and so her bringing up that point was inappropriate.
The 32 decisions were 32 decisions–many of them dated back years (so I fully agree they are not current polls). William’s recitation of poll numbers was sloppy. Neither point was relavent to the other.
The State decisions are absolutely relavent, however, to Obama’s stated position. Because at this point he would oppose any Federal law, policy, or court decision opposing those state decisions. Or would he???
And that last question is where the focus of the discussion was: ie “what is Obama’s real position today?”
I suppose it depends upon your definition of “losing it.” She was definitely screeching. What we see here is a decent person being badgered by two imbeciles.
Screech is her state of calm. Combined the three of them made about four points. Excluding Hannity–what point of either Malkin or Williams qualifies as that of an imbecile?
S. respondent said “what point of either Malkin or Williams qualifies as that of an imbecile?”.
Malking spoke like an imbecile when she tried to claim the 32 state decisions opposing marriage equality meant the current polls showing majority support for marriage are wrong.
Excluding Hannity from the qualification of an imbecile is the most ridiculous thing I ever read.
I guess every guest on talk shows that engage in point-counterpoints that do not directly address each other is now an imbecile. I got it.
Oh, quit playing the victim S. respondent. Williams brought up that 54% of americans in a current survey support marriage and Malkin cut him off and screamed that 32 states have opposed marriage. She was obviously making the false claim that the majority of americans oppose marriage. That you can’t accept that obvious reality and have to try and spin Malkin’s comment as reasonable makes a mockery of your claim to be honest.
Malkin made an idiotic statement – accept reality.
Survey, Hannity and Malkin being imbeciles has nothing to do with what they were doing (debating). It has to do with what is actually coming out of their mouths.
Part of me would like to watch this segment, but I cannot physically stomach Mrs. Malkin. She adds nothing to the conversation and screeches like a banshee whenever she is intellectually cornered. Plus, I still can’t wrap my head around the fact that she is STILL invited on mainstream shows as a political commentator. The woman wrote a book justifying Japanese-American internment during WWII that alone should ban her as a guest pundit. It’s like inviting Scott Lively or David Cameron on shows to discuss the advancement of LGBT-rights. Oh wait…….
I support gay marriage and I oppose a Federal mandate — I don’t see the two things as related. I do support the Federal government enforcing the full faith clause – but that is always a SCOTUS decision, as it was with Interracial marriage. States had to recognize OTHER STATE’S interracial marriage before they themselves were prohibited from forbidding miscegenation, unless I misremember. In any event, I’m not arguing against the 10th amendment, in fact, to the contrary, I support it, which is why I oppose DOMA.
Likewise on the issue of gay marriage itself. I believe, as do many Conservatives (I am NOT a Conservative in any sense of the word, except MAYBE on the 2nd amendment – which I just don’t see as a Right/Left issue) that it is a religious issue. I just see religious issues differently than they do. When they say religious, they really mean, very specifically, Right Wing Christian and MAYBE Ultra-Orthodox Jewish. I mean… well…. religious when I say religious. A number of mainstream Christian denominations, including the United Church of Christ, several parts of Judaism (Reform, Conservative Egalitarian and now Conservative), nearly all of the major Wiccan denominations (and yes, sorry, but having more active participants than Judaism in the US makes it a real religion, along with the SCOTUS decision) including COG (Covenant of the Goddess); Correllian Nativist Church International (sic); Church of the New Aeon and others; The Unitarians, the Universalists, the Spiritualists, and so forth not only support gay marriage, but have specific liturgies for it — or use universal liturgies (most Wiccan groups do that) that are inclusive of it.
So yes, it is a religious issue – and churches that oppose gay marriage should never be required to hold gay marriages — however, likewise, the ceremonies, liturgies, and authority of recognized clergy to perform marriages should prevent government interference with those that support gay marriage. To enforce the doctrine of one set of religious groups on the actions and authorities of another set of religious groups is establishment, and that is exactly what the founders forbade.
Regards,
Reyn