Sarah Palin is not great

A NYDailyNews poll is rigged. No matter what you answer, the poll is 100% 'Yes, she's great!'.

Accidental programming error? Hmmmm...

Ann Coulter, removing all doubt

From StAugustine.com:

On a Fox News panel discussing Tiger Woods, Brit Hume said, perfectly accurately:
"The extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Hume's words, being 100 percent factually correct, sent liberals into a tizzy of sputtering rage, once again illustrating liberals' copious ignorance of Christianity.

100 percent factually correct? How can an opinion be factually correct? Hume himself even qualified his own statements saying, "it seems to me" and "I don't think." He was clearly stating his opinion.

But Coulter doesn't stop there. She wants to remove all (100 percent) of the doubt:

Most perplexing was columnist Dan Savage's indignant accusation that Hume was claiming that Christianity "offers the best deal -- it gives you the get-out-of-adultery-free card that other religions just can't."

In fact, that's exactly what Christianity does.

And that is quite obvious based on the behavior of Christians. They can do the most god-awful (pun intended) things, and not worry about the consequences. If Tiger was a Christian instead of a Buddhist, it would not change the fact that he cheated on his wife. It doesn't make him any better of a person. And it certainly doesn't add one iota of redemption. But somehow it would make his actions more acceptable to the Religious Right, so maybe it is the best deal.

More on Proposition 8

From ABC News:

Lawyers defending the ban, backed by a broad coalition of conservative religious groups, argue that a ban on gay marriage is not discriminatory. They say it simply codifies an historic understanding of what constitutes marriage.

If marriage was simply a code, this would be true. But it is not just a code. It is not just an understanding. It gives people certain rights that they did not have as singles. So if certain people are not allowed to marry the person they want to marry, then they will not have the opportunity for those rights, which, by the way, is called 'discrimination'.

Andrew Pugno, removing all doubt

From CNN.com:

Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for an organization called Protect Marriage, the group that came up with Proposition 8, said he believes the issue was solved when the people of California made their voices heard in the voting booth.

"Seven million Californians voted to preserve or restore what marriage has meant since the beginning of time," he said. "If they're not permitted to do something as basic as that, then there's something, really something, wrong with our system."

If one group of people can deny basic rights to another group of people, then yes, there's something, really something, wrong with our system. If seven million Californians voted to restore segregation in schools, would that be OK? Or maybe you would just like to segregate the homosexuals now? Proposition 8 was a step backwards in human rights, and it's time to move forward.