Clearly Phil Robertson is not as articulate as Pope Francis, butt as far as I can determine they both said essentially the same thing. So why is the Pope Man of the Year and old Phil a dead duck?
Maybe it’s because, as head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis is not required to meet the New American Standards of political correctness, which, in the current case have been determined by GLAAD (Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation).
I should note here that GLAAD has been authorized by the LGBT Alliance to serve as the new Gay arm of the Rainbow Push Coalition. As such it serves as the official clearing house of unacceptable speech regarding homosexuals in America; A&E was simply bowing to GLAAD’s newly designated role as the new centurion. And since they’ve determined that this new tolerance will not tolerate Christian beliefs regarding homosexual activity, they’ve determined that anyone who thinks that way is an ignorant “homophobe.” And in the new hate speech lexicon, “homophobe” is the new “racist” so I’m sure you can see that what Phil Robertson said was totally unacceptable.
I shouldn’t be dealing with this problem today because I need to finish up my Christmas shopping, butt I have this niggling (can I say that?) little problem eating away at at the logic circuit in my mother board: it has to do with the adoption of a politically correct lexicon of approved speech in America. Doesn’t the adoption of an agreed upon politically correct lexicon likewise require the adoption of politically correct group-think - which is quintessentially un-American? Worse, doesn’t it require that someone serve as the clearing house for what is, collectively, approved as “politically correct?”
Exactly who would that be, I wonder?
No, really; don’t tell me. I don’t want to know.
I think maybe we should ban political correctness and go back to the old fashioned method of dealing with different opinions in the public arena: relegate the outcome to the superiority of the idea itself. You know: speaking your mind and defending your position on its merits? Not that we would have many people capable of doing that anymore, critical thinking skills having been abandoned in the public education system for a couple of generations now. Advancing your position through logical argument is a bit more difficult when you wouldn’t know a logic flaw from an cheeseburger.
And speaking of Logic Lessons: here’s what happens when logic dies: after the adoption of new Obamacare standards forced insurance companies to cancel millions of “sub-standard plans” that didn’t meet the new “minimal” Obamacare standards, Big Guy’s little people injected a new twist yesterday. HHS announced that anybody who had their policy canceled because it was sub-standard and now can’t afford to buy the new Affordable Care Act plans available through the Obamacare Exchanges can get an exemption that allows them to buy “catastrophic coverage” policies instead. By Obamacare definition, aren’t the catastrophic-coverage-only policies the same “sub-standard” plans that Obamacare required the insurance companies to cancel in the first place? Or is there something wrong with my logic circuits?
Well, maybe you can figure it out, I’m going Christmas shopping to spread what’s left of my wealth around the old fashioned way.
Carry on.
Liberal Logic 101: Judge not less ye be judged. And we can’t have that.
Linked By: Abby L Call, Mary Ann, Far North Dallas Tea Party Patriots, Sandy Peterson, Ellen Kokoris on facebook, and @Standlow, @birrdytalk, @2oldCrabs, @BlueMusky on twitter, and BlogsLucianneLoves, and NOBO2012 on Free Republic, Thanks!
Cross-Posted on Patriot Action Network
Posts
