Image 01 Image 03

Yet another futile boycott of an entire state

Yet another futile boycott of an entire state

I don’t think we’ve had a boycott of an entire state in a while.

California was boycotted over Prop. 8, and so was Utah because it has a lot of Mormons.  There also was a Mormon boycott, a boycott of a hotel whose owner supported Prop. 8, and a boycott of gays going to work for a day.

California also boycotted Arizona over SB 1070.  And Connecticut for electing Joe Lieberman.

None those worked out very well.

So let’s try North Carolina:

The pro-hate vote in North Carolina is despicable, a throwback to the evil days of the past when “state’s rights” was used to support every form of bigotry, ignorance and hatred that came down the pike.

Don’t get sad. Get angry. So now, fight back. Hit them where it counts. In the wallet.

And it can easily be done.

Actually, no it can’t be easily done to a whole state.

Via Twitchy, the big guns are on it:

Why don’t you just act like the Rush boycotters, and pick on some isolated company, maybe an auto part store, or some hypersensitive big company, and threaten to smear them and chase away their customers, then pat yourselves on the back.

But a whole state?  Good luck with that.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



If we had a proper Dictator, the nation wouldn’t have to put up with these nonsense “votes”. If the people can’t make the right choices on their own, then the government should be able to make those choices for them. /sarc

    Ragspierre in reply to OCBill. | May 9, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    But, remember, Barackah is still “evolving”.

    And his evolution may have hit a hic-up with this vote.

    He may have to wait to evolve, until he has more “flexibility”.

Typical. Tons of emotion. Not an ounce of sense.

    syn in reply to jasond. | May 9, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    What is so odd about their emotionally-enraged arguments is that the law does not state that marriage is only between a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman. Homosexuals have entered into a contract of marrigae with members of the opposite sex-just like heterosexuals-since the dawn of marriage (an institution which even pre-dates Christianity)

    The ‘civil rights’ argument would be valid if heterosexuals were allowed the right to enter a contract of marriage with members of the same-sex while homosexuals were denied the right to enter a contract of marriage with members of the same-sex.

    They are attempting to create a ‘rights to’ which already exists and this must be the maddness wreaking their enraged minds.

      Awing1 in reply to syn. | May 9, 2012 at 1:12 pm

      I don’t like this argument. While I do think it should ultimately be up to the states to decide whether or not they will recognize gay marriage, the argument that “straight people can’t marry people of the same sex either” is reminiscent of this argument from the state of Virginia in Loving V. Virgina:

      “My colleague says that… it is a civil right for a black man to marry a white woman…. I deny that it is a civil right for a white man to marry a black woman or for a black man to marry a white woman…. It is a matter of mutual taste, contract, and understanding between the parties….The law, as I understand it, in all the States, applies equally to the white man and the black man, and there being no distinction, it will not operate injuriously against either the white or the black….”

      It misses the point of the argument about what discrimination amounts to. There are better arguments for letting each state decide on its own.

        syn in reply to Awing1. | May 9, 2012 at 1:43 pm

        The law of marriage (established long before the State or religion) is defined by gender ie male/female, sperm/egg rather than skin color or sexual behavior The case of Loving V. Virgina determined that because of skin color the law discriminated against the male from marrying the female.

        If we wish to change the law of marriage to something other than male/female, sperm/egg (which is what same-sex advocates offer) then the law of marriage ceases to exists (the intent of same-sex advocates)

        If we are to accept the loss of meaning then how can reason exist?

          Awing1 in reply to syn. | May 9, 2012 at 2:02 pm

          I think we can change its meaning without it ceasing to exist, we do that with social constructs all the time. What it means to be a citizen has changed drastically since the founding of our country. I think that is a better argument for letting states decide, in fact it’s the argument I use when people try to argue with me that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage (something I adamantly disagree with, despite generally supporting same sex marriage). My point was simply that the argument that they already have equal rights is a faulty one, because it misses what the real debate is and should be about. I know there are valid arguments against same-sex marriage, that’s why I explicitly said at both the beginning and the end of my earlier comment that I think each state should be allowed to decide for itself.

          Awing1 in reply to syn. | May 9, 2012 at 2:10 pm

          Also, there was supposed to be something in there about how societies decide social constructs like marriage, and that is why it should be left to a vote rather than court decisions and so fourth.

          syn in reply to syn. | May 9, 2012 at 2:30 pm


          The courts in California went against the vote of the people; how reasonable is it to allow courts to decide social construct?

          About as reasonable as when the courts decided Roe vs Wade ie the meaning of ‘choice’, when life begins and the re-definition of human. We have a law upon this land which was established without a single vote issued by the people Now the courts want to control the social contruct call ‘marriage’.

          And speaking of our judicial system, rights to etc etc ironically what is missed in comparing Loving vs Virgina, there is not a single case in which a homosexual was denied the right to enter a contract of marriage with member of the opposite sex and yet the ‘Gay Marriage’ argument is based upon ‘civil rights’ and ‘discrimination’.

          How crazy is our judicial system? And why does it have all the power to determine the meaning of ‘social construct’?

          Awing1 in reply to syn. | May 9, 2012 at 2:32 pm

          Thank you for agreeing with me.

          Awing1 in reply to syn. | May 9, 2012 at 2:40 pm

          Nope, nevermind. After rereading it, I see you’re still on about the “discrimination” argument. You’re missing the point I’m making, which is that this is not a good case to make. In the 1850s, marriage was defined socially as between people of the same race. When Loving came up before the supreme court, that view had changed substantially, but it was still held in a large minority of communities. The discrimination argument simply isn’t the way to go if you want to make the argument against gay marriage intelligently, because it always bumps up against Loving v. Virginia.

jimzinsocal | May 9, 2012 at 12:11 pm

Sure..that will work..a film withdrawl threat. Create financial problems for all the liberals involved locally. Maybe Barr should ask the convention be moved as well.
Ill bet West Virginia would be a winner.

Why do Democrats hate democracy so much?

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | May 9, 2012 at 12:16 pm

I doubt Roseanne is gonna win NC if she’s still running for president.

Aren’t there about 30 states that have passed similar laws or constitutional amendments? Why single out North Carolina? Why not boycott them all?

**The pro-hate vote in North Carolina is despicable, a throwback to the evil days of the past when “state’s rights” was used to support every form of bigotry, ignorance and hatred that came down the pike.**

Typical of the Kos-sack(o’crap) irrational moonbattery.

They are all FOR “state’s rights” when they vote the way of the Collective.

There is NOTHING connected with “hatred” about wanting to maintain the meaning of a concept that is NUCLEAR to our culture.

I have, do, and will assist homosexual couples with contracts and other instruments that pretty much give them the same rights as a married couple.

But TOLERANCE is not the aim. APPROBATION is the aim. Being told they are completely interchangeable with a heterosexual couple is the aim.

And that is to hope for an official, civic, cultural lie.

NC Mountain Girl | May 9, 2012 at 12:24 pm

The total blow out on the gay marriage amendment was not predicted by the polling which showed a far more narrow victory.

Some gay marriage activists are blaming turnout, as in the wrong people voted. That’s because total turnout was only a couple of percentage points lower than the record turnout in 2008 when Obama and Hillary were going at it hammer and sickle. The difference was there was a huge drop off in Democrat ballots and an increase in Republican ballots. By this time in 2008 McCain was the certain nominee and he got a over 70% of the Republican vote. Romney only got 66% of the Republican vote last night but he also pulled 250,000+ more total votes than McCain.

LukeHandCool | May 9, 2012 at 12:25 pm

Judd should pick Barr for his running mate.

We should all email the DNC and demand that it boycott NC. Move the convention! Put your moral convictions where your money is. And show that you stand firmly opposed to the will of the people of NC.

Oh, and how about peppering BHO at every event with the question, “Are you going to boycott the convention?”

    Ragspierre in reply to coralbrief. | May 9, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    Ewww…dark. Very dark thinking. I LIKE IT…!!!

    theduchessofkitty in reply to coralbrief. | May 9, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    It makes things even more interesting, if you ask me.

    He’s damned if he goes and damned if he doesn’t.

    When those same Democrats go before the nation’s cameras and chide the People of NC shamelessly for their “misdeed” at the very National Convention, that will not sit very well with North Carolinians…

    Pass the popcorn…

    dmacleo in reply to coralbrief. | May 9, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    I’ve been thinking all day on how to do stuff like this. thinking of joining the obama truth squad to screw with them too.
    take the fight to them.

radiofreeca | May 9, 2012 at 12:44 pm

The funny thing about that whole “States Rights” argument is that it was done by the Democratic Party, to protect slavery from the evil Republicans who wanted to end it. Somehow that bit of history keeps getting dropped along the way.

I think homosexuals should boycott homosexuality. They’d be in a much better state.

[…] So now some are calling on a boycott of the entire state of North Carolina. […]

Bwahahah! Won’t they have to boycott themselves? Isn’t the Democrat Party holding its convention there?

theduchessofkitty | May 9, 2012 at 1:11 pm

Yeah, sure. That’ll work, just as well as a boycott of TX after it approved the same state constitutional amendment years ago by a 3 to 1 margin…

What ya say? Nevermind…

They embrace evolution as a description of origin while rejecting its principles. Where the former is an article of faith and the latter can be both observed and reproduced within a limited frame of reference. Their position seems motivated to be purely divisive and as rationalization to satisfy their dreams of instant gratification without consequence. I wonder how many of them actually believe what they claim to accept.

In any case, homosexual behavior is a voluntary behavior. While individuals who engage in this behavior can be productive members of society, their behavior is strictly unproductive. As we recognize their individual dignity, it would seem reasonable to tolerate the individuals; but, there is no legitimate reason to normalize their behavior. The male variant is especially harmful in that the mechanism by which they seek self-gratification increases risk to the individuals participating and the greater population.

That said, while homosexual behavior has no redeeming value, the greater threat to the viability of society and humanity is when heterosexuals engage in similar deviant behavior including promiscuity and elective abortion of their children.

As for marriage, it is a social construct engendered by the natural relationship between a man and a woman. It is designed to create an environment suitable for the development of new human life (i.e. a couple’s children). It is also the first layer of social organization in society.

This is not at all complicated. There are two observable orders in our world: natural (e.g. procreation) and enlightened (i.e. conscious, individual dignity). In order for human beings to remain viable, the first order must be respected. In order for human life to be tolerable, the second order must be respected. In order for a society to retain its integrity and productivity, there must be a reasonable compromise between the two.

While I am not a big supporter of the Amendment (I’m not much of a social conservative), I do see a silver lining. I don’t have to worry about Cher or Barr gracing us with their presence here in NC anytime soon. Pfft, they’re probably Dook fans too.

it’s where the future convention is.

The problem with immigration and migration is two-fold: overpopulation and conflict. The first relates to natural and artificial resources. The second relates to cultural norms. These two issues are exacerbated with open immigration (i.e. legal) and unmeasured immigration (i.e. illegal). Each nation serves as an administrative district. It providers order and oversight to its population’s exploitation of natural resources for the purpose of sustaining and potentially improving the condition of its citizens.

There is another problem with illegal immigration, of which the vast majority is composed of individuals from Central and South America, but also from Africa and Asia. The defense of illegal immigration serves to obfuscate the reasons why annually over 1 million people leave their nations of origin and enter another nation illegally. It serves to protect the corruption and violence in those home nations which provides sufficient incentive for people to leave superior climates and historical homes. It serves to increase corruption and violence in the nations where they are uninvited.

FWIW, I’m okay with Hollywood losers staying the hell out of my state.

Molon Labe | May 9, 2012 at 3:20 pm

Hollywood favors North Carolina because we are a Right To Work state. Thus, they don’t have to deal with obscene Union rules & wages for all those grips & gaffers.

Well, Democrats could move their 2012 convention to another state. Lots of liberals are already upset they chose to have it in a right-to-work state. This would definitely them an excuse to pull out.

I back this boycott completely. Clearly if the Democrats don’t move their national convention this year, they are pro-hate. Anyone who attends the convention is pro-hate, and I trust Obama will boycott it. I also denounce any media who refuse to boycott the convention as pro-hate.

The sommelier asks..Would you like to pick your whine now, sir?

44 says, yes, I’ll have a full bodied Chicago 1968.

Sommelier, yes sir. A fine year and there were hundreds of bodies, just not dead ones..

Move the friggin Socialist convention to Chicago, Rahm, Louis, Jesse, Al, Mailk and the rest, need more air time..

So, is the Democrat party gong to pull their convention from NC in protest against the vote?

Good luck with that one. Hypocrites.