Doug Pitt is just so cute. Even amidst his new-found Internet fame, he won’t throw his mother under the bus for being a nasty, gay-hating, Democrat-despising old bitty. In the above video clip, Pitt (Doug, that is) was asked his thoughts on what his mother recently had to say about reelecting that damn Bay-rack Hoo-sane President for another four terms, and if you can’t watch the video (or don’t like my Doug, for whatever reason, though I can’t fathom that being the case), here’s the gist of it:
“You know, I think moms and dads and kids agree to disagree all over the world. So why would our family be any different? There can be healthy discussion when people disagree with you. The bad thing is when it turns to venom and negativity, and we don’t have that in our family. It’s open discussion. We can learn from each other and, if anything, it solidifies your point. Or maybe you learn something.”
Which is cute. It’s typical, cute Doug doing a typical, cute, non-controversial response on something that actually does make a difference to a lot of people in the world, and namely in the US. It’s plain and bland and vanilla. Kind of like Doug himself is (which is OK, because his plain-vanilla-bland is endearing so far) plain and bland and vanilla. But I have to kind of go ahead and disagree with him that it’s just “OK” to agree to disagree. Yeah, there are some things that are fine to agree to disagree on (example: I f-cking hate rap music, but I can agree to disagree with those who think it’s the best shit on earth. I might f-cking hate it, but hey. To each his own, right?), but there are a whole lot of other things to *not* agree to disagree on. And those things usually mean something significant to others (example: well … not rap music, and maybe something more important like equal rights for people of different races, colors, creeds, ethnicities, or—look out!—SEXUAL PREFERENCES).
I still like you, Doug, but I’ve got some advice for you if you want to be as notable as your brother, Brad—sometimes it’s OK to rock the boat. You know? Lots of times it changes things, and change isn’t always a bad thing.
July 9, 2012 at 2:30 pm by Sarah
I have given much thought to Richard Stoecker’s letter (“Vote for Mormon against beliefs,” June 15). I am also a Christian and differ with the Mormon religion.
But I think any Christian should spend much time in prayer before refusing to vote for a family man with high morals, business experience, who is against abortion, and shares Christian conviction concerning homosexuality just because he is a Mormon.
Any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney’s opponent, Barack Hussein Obama — a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.
I hope all Christians give their vote prayerful consideration because voting is a sacred privilege and a serious responsibility.
So wait a hot second here. I’m not a Christian (well, yes, I am actually; at least according to me) if I don’t vote for Mitt Romney? Because the gist of what I’m reading here seems to be that I should seriously consider my faith if I want to go ahead and vote for the man whom I think would do the best job running the country (just as an aside, I’m going to vote once again for President Obama) if it’s not Mitt Romney. Right? Is there any other way to take what this twat is saying? Especially that one part about—and I’m going to paraphrase here—anyone who’d vote for President Obama is a baby-killing, gay-loving—GASP!—liberal. Shall I generalize and say that everyone who votes for Mitt Romney is a racist, gay-hating devil? Because that’s kind of what she’s doing here in writing this letter to a local newspaper.
Now, I’m not one for calling someone an asshole just because I disagree with their “values,” nor would I ever slam someone’s mama because I just wasn’t raised like that, but come on. Jane Pitt? Wow, dude. You’re an asshole.