Friday, February 14, 2014

This deck chair would look much better over there.

Here's an actual quote from Mike Delph, state senator from the tony suburb directly to our north, referring to a series of tweets where he went on at length about how he doesn't like them homo commies, or commie homos, or whatever:
"It's also time for conservatives to hold its squishy Republican leaders accountable to the intentional deceipt as told by a sympathetic and hostile liberal news media."
What does that even mean, Senator Delph? Is pronoun-antecedent agreement a lost art these days? And what the hell is a "deceipt"? How can the news media be both sympathetic and hostile? Do you write in English on formal occasions, or is your proposed legislation written in the same gobbledygook?

(Incidentally, gay marriage is already illegal in Indiana, but this bullet-headed cretin and his ilk want to make it double-secret illegal by writing it into the state constitution. Apparently the Party of Small Government® has all our other problems solved in Indiana and has spent much of this legislative session fretting about teh gays. Kinda like Putin.)


B5K said...

Deceipt is where one directly receives deception- from the Olde English word "Maltliquiorish".

The Jack said...

"Maybe if we make it double secret illegal a federal court can't overturn it!"

Maybe that's the "thinking" here.

Here's a hint goobers. Constitutional amendments that and solely ban behavior between consenting adults rarely do well.

Just ask the 18th Federal one.

J. Sullivan said...

Deceipt (n): the attempt to fool the Customer Service representative by convincing them that you only bought the goods the other day when in actuality, it was a Christmas gift from two years past. Often involves the intentional smudging of the date on the receipt.

Anonymous said...

When Republicans have nothing of substance to say, they scream about "gay marriage."

It used to be quite good at turning out the vote. Not so much lately. But they haven't gotten that message yet.

That, and they think gays are icky.

Keads said...

I don't care what you do in your house. Hell, we still have Alienation of Affection on the books here. Sheesh.

As long as you are not doing whatever on my coffee table, I don't care.

Kristophr said...

The TEA Party needs to show some Republicans, like this one, what happened to the Whigs.

There are a whole bunch of religious bigots and eastern corporate screwheads who need to be made irrelevant in the GOP.

Joe in PNG said...

Freaking out about teh gheyz is a lot easier than cutting out the pork.

Anonymous said...

This is the stupid party's default setting.


Critter said...

Deciept is the opposite of receipt. As in, you can dish it out but can you take it?

Anonymous said...

The greatest trick politicians ever pulled was convincing the voters there was more than one party.

Anonymous said...


So is the "Tea Party" bit of the Republican party free of Social/religious bigots then?

Matt G said...

It would make a little more sense (grammatically, anyway) if he used "accountable for the... deceit" rather than "accountable to the... deceipt."

They passed the same anti-gay marriage amendment to the Texas Constitution, back in 2005, I believe it was. I was disgusted, and amazed, that some people that I cared about had voted for it. I think that's about the time that I started getting loud about my support for gay marriage and gay equality.

The tide is turning very, VERY quickly on this issue, and it will be a pleasure to see Senator Delph and his ilk judged appropriately in history.

staghounds said...

"Maybe if we make it double secret illegal a federal court can't overturn it!"

That's what they thought in Virginia-

With bonus Federal Judge grammatical difficulties.

mariner said...

When Republicans have nothing of substance to say, they scream about "gay marriage".

When Democrats have nothing of substance to say, they scream about Republican "homophobia", even if no actual Republican says anything about gay marriage.

Tam said...


I don't think the direct comments quoted at the link require scare quotes. That bullet-headed quasi-literate mf'er thinks people who are my friends are (and I quote) "evil" and some kind of Satanic threat to his pure Jesusland.

I think he's stinkin' up your party. You should do something about the people like him if y'all want my vote.

Buzz said...


His brother is gay and Mike Delph doesn't hate his brother, he just doesn't believe that a marriage between his brother and another dude should be recognized by the state.

Ranting about him not liking "homo commies" or "commie homos" is strikingly similar to the hyperbole from anti-gun forces you (we) so love to mock.

Anonymous said...


Taking me to task (over your quoting of my previous comment) would be more effective I'm thinking, if I was a Democrat. I'm not.

And besides, Democrats don't have to bring up Republican homophobia, the Republicans do that as a staple of their playbook. (Granted, it is a play that isn't working too well lately.) Witness the current situation: a Republican tirade about the evil gays, leads to an article, leads to Tam's post. (and a flurry of comments.) Wasn't the Dems who started this.

I could go on at length about the impact of US vs. Windsor (the SCOTUS ruling that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act), but that would be slightly off topic of Tam's original post.

Kristophr said...


Try looking up the TEA Party platform.

Religious and social issues are not on it. Just taxes, the constitution, defense, and border control.

As for being free of bigots, I suggest you take a hard look at the Democrats as well. One has beclowned himself this week complaining about mixed marriage, and the Democratic bigotry that goes on display when a conservative black speaks is utterly astounding.

Tam said...


"His brother is gay and Mike Delph doesn't hate his brother, he just doesn't believe that a marriage between his brother and another dude should be recognized by the state."

Tell yourself whatever you need to make yourself feel better about supporting a man who described his brother as (and again I quote) "evil".

You can put lipstick on that pig from now until the cows come home, and it ain't gonna get any prettier.

Buzz said...

Please educate me, Tam.

I'm not a twit, so I'm not up on this tweeter madness that seems to keep modern Americans glued to their phone screens. I searched his tweets and couldn't find to what you refer. Was it somewhere else? I found words of fondness and defense from his brother, despite their differences over HJR3: and similar stories

Tam said...

"But I see identity politics and entitlement not to mention evil marching us down to Roman ruin."

Maybe his brother's not part of the identity politics and entitlement not to mention evil.

Maybe he's the good kind of gay; I don't know. People generally don't think things through before spouting bile like that.

Buzz said...

I guess I just don't hear the dog whistle, then. I see LGBT rights in the "identity politics" of that statement.

We must agree to disagree on this one.

Anonymous said...

You know Mrs. Loving (Of Loving vs. Virginia - the Supreme Court ruling striking down bans on inter-racial marriage) has made some statements.

Something about the state recognizing unions between people of different races. There were folks who fought vehemently against allowing miscegenation of the races. Just as hard as folks today are fighting gay marriage.

And folks fought against integration in the services - they pulled out all the same "unit cohesion" arguments that they used against gays in the military (and more recently about women in combat.)

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

JimB said...

" Do you write in English on formal occasions, or is your proposed legislation written in the same gobbledygook?"

Of course he does... That way it can mean whatever thy want it to depending on time and circunstance

Anonymous said...

The arguments used against gay marriage are the same ones that - had they prevailed - would treat my two young children as criminal evidence in the anti-miscegenation trial of me and my wife. Of course that isn't true...because we would not be married due to "Skin Color Mismatch" (scary quotes intended). So we'd probably be double booked for some other deviant act, as well as the act of having mixed-race kids.

These laws are always for the betterment of society. I got the same impression of both kinds of laws, and highly suspect they come from the same kind of person. I just wish they were not significant voices in the Party of Stupid.