At this past CPAC I heard a fellow from the Washington Blade question the constitutionality of not supporting same sex marriage and a questioner expounding on the great fruits of the labor union movement.

Did you really just equate slavery with gay marriage and labor unions?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118798/quotes?qt=qt0144748 (last line, “All we need…”)

If Frederick Douglass were alive in 2013, he’d identify as a Democrat.

You sure?  I always thought “family values” was code for “anti-gay, anti-porn, anti-sex, anti-secularism, anti-abortion, pro-prayer.”

The ultimate proof? In the event of police abuse, or a violent attack, notice not the offender/victim, notice instead that every time these events occur NO ONE IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY HELPS ANYMORE, instead they pull out their cameras and start filming like sick voyeurs, unaware that if they banded together at that moment they could drive back the violent offender, cop or otherwise. We have lost the basic mentality of strength in numbers, because we have been made to think we are special, and alone, and everyone around me is an idiot who couldn’t help me out even if they wanted too.

You seem to be mixing up different scenarios to get the result you want.
1. People don’t traditionally jump in the middle of “police abuse” because assaulting a police officer is a felony and they’re usually pretty well-armed.  This is not some new 21st century thing.  For as long as I can remember people have tried to avoid picking brawls with cops for some really good reasons.
2. But in the case of violent assaults that don’t involve police officers people do routinely intervene contrary to your assertion.
3. Filming police violence is a great deal more effective than intervening directly.  Intervening directly will get both parties locked up and the jury will take the cop’s side.  The video evidence is essentially the only way to hold the cop to account.

If you get together a gang to beat up on a cop he will call in his gang and his gang is bigger, tougher, and better-armed than your gang.  You’re just being ridiculous.

No doubt the right wing crowd would point out that in the attempts to reach these extremes, one produced America, while the other produced tremendous slaughters in both Russia and China, but assuming that neither wing-nuts visions are going to come to pass, I’ll go with more benevolent intention.

The right wing crowd would be completely wrong about that.  The founding of the USA was a liberal (in the classic sense) experiment, not a reactionary return to “more traditional” ways of life.  The right wingers of the time would have been called “loyalists” because of their loyalty to the crown and the old order.

We know what right-wing reactionary revolutions look like and the kinds of governments and nations you get as a result.  Unfortunately if I got into specifics someone would come along to scream “Godwin” at me.  People are really quick to point to the Bolshevik revolution as an example of what happens when political idealism goes too far but the internet has a special rule to prevent anyone from pointing to a few other revolutions as examples of what happens when racism and traditionalism go too far.

Marx, Marxism, and Marxists are not the one-dimensionally evil boogeymen the right and corporate media would lead you to believe they are.

I didn’t realize some people consider “humility” and “submission” to be synonyms.

They’re not.  When an act of humility is born of someone recognizing and acknowledging their own limits it is not submission.  When an “act of humility” is born of someone telling someone else to shut their dirty blaspheming mouths that actually is submission.

Considering how tone-deaf Christians are to how anyone who isn’t Christian feels about default Christianity I’m inclined to take marilove’s side on this one.  I’ll stop offending Christians when they stop offending me.

The South doesn’t have a monopoly on racism.

Of course not, but it has a bigger market share than the rest of the country, without question.

So, for most Christians, the use of Jesus’ name as an epithet is at least a sorrowful indication of the wayward state of the world, and at worst a blasphemy calling for application of a nice cleansing fire.  It’s an article of their faith that it’s wrong and blasphemous for them to do it (exodus 20:7, deut. 5:11), but only the nastiest most militant Christians want to burn anyone else at the stake over it; the rest of them just don’t want to have to hear it.  In my opinion it’s not wrong for anyone to let a preference be known, and frankly I’d rather not chastise the Christians and Jews for being open about their beliefs.

One would think that the use of his Greek title Christos (translated from “messiah” meaning “annointed one”) should not be particularly offensive, but most Christians don’t know much about the language of their faith – it’s not what their focus is – and many of them probably think of Christ as being a part of Jesus’s given name.

The Republican Party has a long-running, lucrative con going on here.  They have managed to convince millions of average Americans that they are somehow represented by a party that is lead by ultra-privileged extremists.

Do I really want to think about what CPAC attendees hooking up together would be like?  No, no I don’t think I do.

I’m just waiting for the aged bigots to kick the bucket so you guys can have an awesome country over there. Fringe morans like Terry and Heimbach will be less than 0.01% once that’s happened.