[Axo1ot1]

IT'S LIKE TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE!

bait

switch

el oh el

[Dale Sorel]

A video clip from Comedy Central...

Buy a clue

[Phat Bastard]

This was beautiful!! Great find! This is going to be emailed to everyone I know. Right now.

[Buck_Naked]

[The Ayatollah]

you should have posted this 8 oz. filet of spinelessness in the polwar lounge.

[MindFad]

Jon Stewart for President.

[zachs]

Oh yes, I've seen this many times. Funny every time!

(Until you realize that these are actual clips of the Pretzel...'scuse me, President )

[Axo1ot1]

I'd love to hear his candid reaction to this.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
I'd love to hear his candid reaction to this.

"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."—Aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

[Axo1ot1]

It sends shudders down my spine.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
It sends shudders down my spine.

I guess every human beings are entitled to change opinions....

Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
Date: 14th century
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge

That is all politicians have and sell these days. Opinions.

villa

That was really funny nonetheless.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by zachs:
"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."—Aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

I happened to notice your Dean sig - so if you are going to pick on Bush's gaffes, maybe you should expose yourself to some of Dean's as well....

Did you know the Soviet Union no longer exists? Howard didn't!

"Iran is a more complex problem because the problem support as clearly verifiable as it is in North Korea. Also, we have less-fewer levers much the key, I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the Soviet Union and it may require us to buying the equipment the Soviet Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran to prevent Iran from them developing nuclear weapons." - Howard Dean to Chris Matthews

Obviously, Dean meant Russia, not the USSR. However, can you imagine had George Bush said this? He would have been burned at the stake by many of you on here.

Point being, people make errors. Especially people in high pressure, high visibility areas like running for President. It's how they react to their mistakes to correct them that we should watch for.

[MathewM]

Don't forget Dave that Howard Dean is a doctor. That must mean he's smart or something. Doctor's must be really good at running a country. I'm also sure that Vermont "The State that America Forgets About" makes him an excellent canidate as well. Interesting how Republican's all come from large states and the Dems come from po-dunk states.

It will be funny watching the landslide next November and the kooks crying foul that Bush should of never been President in the first place.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Interesting how Republican's all come from large states and the Dems come from po-dunk states.

Point of interest. I'm from BOTH - a BIG state and a po-dunk state. (Montana)

[MathewM]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Point of interest. I'm from BOTH - a BIG state and a po-dunk state. (Montana)

eh, meant to say Republican Presidents.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by MathewM:
eh, meant to say Republican Presidents.

Ah, ok. Is Georgia po-dunk? (Carter)

What about Mass.? (Kennedy)

Texas? (Johnson)

Sorry, had to throw a monkey wrench in your theory...

[Logic]

[davesimondotcom]

Oh, and that one really famous Republican - you know, the one that freed the slaves and such, that bearded guy - wasn't he famous for being raised in a log cabin out in the middle of nowhere?

[WinsOBoogi]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Oh, and that one really famous Republican - you know, the one that freed the slaves and such, that bearded guy - wasn't he famous for being raised in a log cabin out in the middle of nowhere?

He wasn't really Republican...he believed in equal rights.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by WinsOBoogi:
He wasn't really Republican...he believed in equal rights.

Then I guess there were plenty of Southern Democrats who weren't really "Democrats?"



P.S. Your statement reminds me of Life of Brian, when they are trying to figure out what the Romans have done for them...

You need to take a serious look at what people really believe, because your statement is EXTREMELY prejudiced. Even if it was meant as a joke.

[WinsOBoogi]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
You need to take a serious look at what people really believe, because your statement is EXTREMELY prejudiced. Even if it was meant as a joke.

A) I believe they were called "Dixiecrats" and then joined the Republican party, at the disgust that Democrats would extend people equal rights.

B) Two words: Gay Rights.

That's right. Look at me straight in the face, and tell me that Republicans believe in equal rights, and you'd be lying. Why? Gay rights.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by WinsOBoogi:
That's right. Look at me straight in the face, and tell me that Republicans believe in equal rights, and you'd be lying. Why? Gay rights.

I can look at you straight in the face and say that.

Just because of party label you can't judge if someone is for or against "equal rights."

There were Republicans who marched with Dr. King and there were Democrats who were against the Civil Rights movement.

There are racist Republicans and racist Democrats.

There are homophobes in both parties.

Your blanket statements about Republicans are offensive to me because I am not a homophobe/racist/sexist and I am a Republican.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by WinsOBoogi:
That's right. Look at me straight in the face, and tell me that Republicans believe in equal rights, and you'd be lying. Why? Gay rights.

You clearly don't know squat about the history of gay rights. Ever heard of a guy called Frank Kameny? He's a friend of a friend of mine. He was a gay activist years before Stonewall. He was the first to challenge the government's discrimination in the Civil Service and was the first openly gay man to run for Congress -- and he's a Republican.

Incidentally, the majority of Democrats oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians. The party platform, and that of all the mainstream Democratic presidential candidates calls for continuing the current discrimination in marriage. Just like Bush, they support the back-of-the-bus solution of Civil Unions. Until that changes, please don't boast to me about supporting equal rights.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Your blanket statements about Republicans are offensive to me because I am not a homophobe/racist/sexist and I am a Republican.

First, I agree with you.
Second, I think you should then be able to understand (not that you are specifically guilty of this) why we are offended when Democrats are characterized as communist pinko flag-hating anti-american traitor Saddam Sympathizers.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You clearly don't know squat about the history of gay rights. Ever heard of a guy called Frank Kameny? He's a friend of a friend of mine. He was a gay activist years before Stonewall. He was the first to challenge the government's discrimination in the Civil Service and was the first openly gay man to run for Congress -- and he's a Republican.

Incidentally, the majority of Democrats oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians. The party platform, and that of all the mainstream Democratic presidential candidates calls for continuing the current discrimination in marriage. Just like Bush, they support the back-of-the-bus solution of Civil Unions. Until that changes, please don't boast to me about supporting equal rights.

um....I'll have to disagree with this characterization. "the majority of democrats oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians"...have anything that backs that up?
Its certainly not true of EVERY democrat I know...many of whom are gay.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
First, I agree with you.
Second, I think you should then be able to understand (not that you are specifically guilty of this) why we are offended when Democrats are characterized as communist pinko flag-hating anti-american traitor Saddam Sympathizers.

That's the problem with generalizations and why I chose to try to nip WinsOBoogi's in the bud... they tend to not be true, but they are repeated enough that to the group that agrees with that stereotyping, they become the truth, no matter what the facts are.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
um....I'll have to disagree with this characterization. "the majority of democrats oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians"...have anything that backs that up?
Its certainly not true of EVERY democrat I know...many of whom are gay.

Just as the vast majority of my republican friends are openminded about sexuality, etc.

However, the ELECTED Republicans and Democrats are yet to do much more than pay lip service to gay rights.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
um....I'll have to disagree with this characterization. "the majority of democrats oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians"...have anything that backs that up?
Its certainly not true of EVERY democrat I know...many of whom are gay.

I don't have the polls to hand at the moment. I think I'm right about the average Democratic voter -- especially as you get away from urban centers. They may be marginally more tolerant than the average Republican voter, but not by a large margin, especially on the marriage issue. The consensus seems to be on allowing civil unions. That's where the major Presidential candidates are, as well as both Clintons, Al Gore, but also Bush, for that matter. However, civil unions are not equal rights. They are just less unequal than nothing.

I think what a lot of urban Democrats, including gay Democrats, forget is that the average Democrat includes some demographics that do not tend to be gay friendly. Blue collar workers, union members, African Americans, older Americans in general, Hispanics. These groups are really no more likely to be gay-friendly than Republican-leaning evangelicals. They certainly form as much a part of the base as urban liberals.

Former Maryland governor Parris Glendening found this out the hard way. He tried to pass a human rights law that included the transgendered (Glendening is very gay-friendly, and he had a brother who dies of HIV). The Human Rights bill was defeated even in liberal Maryland by a coalition of conservative Republicans and equally conservative Democrats -- especially African American church leaders.

So I think the picture is more complicated, and I'm afraid less tolerant, than it is often depicted to be. The encouraging thing long term, however, is that there is a fairly consistent pattern of younger voters being more tolerant than their elders. That holds true more or less across the political spectrum. Of course, by and large they don't vote, but they will eventually.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't have the polls to hand at the moment. I think I'm right about the average Democratic voter -- especially as you get away from urban centers. They may be marginally more tolerant than the average Republican voter, but not by a large margin, especially on the marriage issue. The consensus seems to be on allowing civil unions. That's where the major Presidential candidates are, as well as both Clintons, Al Gore, but also Bush, for that matter. However, civil unions are not equal rights. They are just less unequal than nothing.

I think what a lot of urban Democrats, including gay Democrats, forget is that the average Democrat includes some demographics that do not tend to be gay friendly. Blue collar workers, union members, African Americans, older Americans in general, Hispanics. These groups are really no more likely to be gay-friendly than Republican-leaning evangelicals. They certainly form as much a part of the base as urban liberals.

Former Maryland governor Parris Glendening found this out the hard way. He tried to pass a human rights law that included the transgendered (Glendening is very gay-friendly, and he had a brother who dies of HIV). The Human Rights bill was defeated even in liberal Maryland by a coalition of conservative Republicans and equally conservative Democrats -- especially African American church leaders.

So I think the picture is more complicated, and I'm afraid less tolerant, than it is often depicted to be. The encouraging thing long term, however, is that there is a fairly consistent pattern of younger voters being more tolerant than their elders. That holds true more or less across the political spectrum. Of course, by and large they don't vote, but they will eventually.

well, your clarification is better. Your original statement implied something altogether different...."Incidentally, the majority of Democrats oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians."

[MathewM]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
um....
Its certainly not true of EVERY democrat I know...many of whom are gay.

Does your wife know about this?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, your clarification is better. Your original statement implied something altogether different...."Incidentally, the majority of Democrats oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians."

I think they do. However, I define opposing equal rights to include the wooley position of supporting civil unions. That's a somewhat pro-gay position, but not support for equal rights (at least, not if that is where the supporter intends things to end up, it could just be a compromise stop-gap position). That's probably not how most people would define being against equal rights, but I think you can understand why I take a fairly absolute position on that. Equal is equal, anything less is not.

Unfortunately, I don't see the average Democratic voter (as opposed to activist) as much different from the average Republican voter on this issue. Most Americans are more or less uncomfortable, both with homosexuality, and with strident intolerance of homosexuality. So they seem to adopt a fairly neutral position, with a slight but steady cultural shift toward tolerance and acceptance.

Individually, however, it can be all over the map. I have seen liberals who support gay rights in the abstract, but still freak out when a child comes out to them. And I have seen a lot of the Dick Cheney types, where people you wouldn't expect to be especially tolerant are tolerant in private. It really is a complex situation, much too much so for blanket statements.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It really is a complex situation, much too much so for blanket statements.

right...which is why I called you on your blanket statement.

the rest of your last post is very good, btw.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Incidentally, the majority of Democrats oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians.

I think everyone would agree that gays should have equal rights to lesbians. I mean, take one look at porn selection. Definitely lesbian dominated.*

*This poor attempt at humor based on a sentence that was meant one way and could be read another was brought to you by the number 42 and the letter D.

[WinsOBoogi]

Generalizations?

I think not.

The Republican party relies too much on the conservative Christians, who believe, like Jerry Fawell, that gays are sinners, and should burn in hell. I exaggerate a bit, but, it's purely for my point.

You've got people in your party leadership, such as Rick Santorum, who says that gay sex is the same as incest or bestiality. You've got people like President Bush, who supports an amendment to state that marriage is between a man and a woman, which would, for the first time, have the Constitution of the United States of America DISCRIMINATE between people.

I am most certainely NOT making generalizations. You have direct, discrimatory acts by higher-ups in your party's leadership. DIRECT.

Thank you.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by WinsOBoogi:
Generalizations?

I think not.

The Republican party relies too much on the conservative Christians, who believe, like Jerry Fawell, that gays are sinners, and should burn in hell. I exaggerate a bit, but, it's purely for my point.

You've got people in your party leadership, such as Rick Santorum, who says that gay sex is the same as incest or bestiality. You've got people like President Bush, who supports an amendment to state that marriage is between a man and a woman, which would, for the first time, have the Constitution of the United States of America DISCRIMINATE between people.

I am most certainely NOT making generalizations. You have direct, discrimatory acts by higher-ups in your party's leadership. DIRECT.

Thank you.

I could name DIRECT discrimintory acts by higher ups of the Democrat party as well. That is not the point.

Santorum didn't say gay sex is the same as incest. He said that if the court overruled a certain sodomy law, the slippery slope would result in things such as bigamists saying they should have similar rights. And soon after, someone did file based on that decision.

There is also a whole lot more to the Republican party than Christian Coalition members. Just as there is more to the Democrat party than radical environmentalists.

What you are doing IS generalizing. You are using specific examples to apply a label to an entire group of people.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by WinsOBoogi:
Generalizations?

I think not.

The Republican party relies too much on the conservative Christians, who believe, like Jerry Fawell, that gays are sinners, and should burn in hell. I exaggerate a bit, but, it's purely for my point.

You've got people in your party leadership, such as Rick Santorum, who says that gay sex is the same as incest or bestiality. You've got people like President Bush, who supports an amendment to state that marriage is between a man and a woman, which would, for the first time, have the Constitution of the United States of America DISCRIMINATE between people.

I am most certainely NOT making generalizations. You have direct, discrimatory acts by higher-ups in your party's leadership. DIRECT.

Thank you.

Nobody is saying that there isn't support for discrimination in the Republican Party. All that anyone is saying is that it isn't isolated in the Republican Party. I'll give you just a couple of for instances of discriminatory laws supported by Democratic leaders.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Originated by Sen. Sam Nunn, D, GA. Passed by the then-Democratic controlled Congress, passed into law by President Clinton.

The Defense of Marriage Act: Instigated by Congressional Republicans, but passed ovewhelmingly with the votes of members of both parties. After signing it into law, President Clinton (then running for reelection) took out ads on Christian radio stations boasting about the vote. The ads are dropped after gay activists complained.

Then there is Al Gore, who as a member of Congress voted to overturn the DC Council's repeal of the sodomy statute. He also has a highly questionable history of attending fundraisers hosted by notorious anti-gay activist Fred Phelps.

My point isn't that the Democrats have a terrible record and the Republicans a good one. The basic problem is that both parties have a history of pandering to homophobia when it suits them. You can find bigoted remarks and highly questionable actions on both sides of the isle, if you open your partisan eyes enough to look.

[BlackGriffen]

While a very funny video, even I must admit that it doesn't make him a liar. People are allowed to change their minds, after all.

Though, now we know why Bush didn't like nation building - he's offered ample evidence of how much he sucks at it (in his capacity as 'strategist/planner in chief').

BlackGriffen

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Nobody is saying that there isn't support for discrimination in the Republican Party. All that anyone is saying is that it isn't isolated in the Republican Party. I'll give you just a couple of for instances of discriminatory laws supported by Democratic leaders.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell + Defense of Marriage Act

The thing about both of these bills is that they are essentially democratic advocacy so that bias can be eliminated, whether that is for or against homosexuality. Rather than use words to protect against discrimination (which Ed Kennedy fought hard for and lost in a proposed amnedments to the bills), or allow states to discriminate against gays, Clinton was trying to find a middle ground where gays could be protected from legislation that would descriminate. The defense of marriage act specifically sets the groundwork so that if one state allows for gay marriage, none of the other states are oliged to honor the partner as a spouse for any of their state programs. Neither of these bills are homophobic per se (because they don't allow homosexuals to be denied any rights), but they do cater to conservative thinking.

[brassplayersrock²]

oh looky a reply box in a very old thread

[vmarks]