POZ Community Forums
Off Topic Forums => Off Topic Forum => Topic started by: wolfter on January 07, 2012, 09:03:31 pm
-
The debate hasn't even started yet but I can already feel a blood pressure increase.
Wolfie
-
What really depresses me is how these guys talk about gay issues, as if they were discussing spaying the family dog. It's like we don't even exist, we have no worth or value, so who cares what happens to us. They talk about the right of abortion as if women need them to tell them what to do with their bodies. Most precious is poor old Newty claiming secular bigotry against Catholic Charities, because they won't allow gays to adopt and the Charities have decided to leave certain markets.
If these people don't scare you all to death, I can tell you that the world is watching and we're just as afraid as you are. As much as you may be disappointed in President Obama, just imagine another four years with one of these guys in charge.
-
What really depresses me is how these guys talk about gay issues, as if they were discussing spaying the family dog. It's like we don't even exist, we have no worth or value, so who cares what happens to us.
But Joe, to them we don't exist, but here's the rub, we actually do, and we can vote, so that is what they should be afraid of, there's strength in numbers ;)
-
But Joe, to them we don't exist, but here's the rub, we actually do, and we can vote, so that is what they should be afraid of, there's strength in numbers ;)
Dennis, it's even beyond that point. These are guys running for the highest job in the land, proposing constitutional amendments, to deny gays, etc. equal rights and I wonder why they hate us so much. Why does it matter who we love and why are we unworthy of equal rights? It's disheartening to hear more crap about legalizing discrimination against gays and I just don't get it.
I am also noticing these candidates are advocating special rights for married people, as if we really need more people on the globe. They have such a rigid idea of what a "real" family is and in America, that family hasn't existed for a couple of decades. Why do they hate us so much? I'm still waiting for someone to explain it to me. Canada doesn't hate us, nor do many countries who recognize equal rights for ALL citizens and I wonder why it is so different in America?
-
Most of them most likely don't hate us. However, gay bashing will get them votes from making an enemy (a "them") for others to coalesce around. Look at Cheney -- he clearly doesn't "hate" gays -- but he liked winning elections more than standing up for his beliefs or, even, his own daughter. Oh, there are some who do hate us -- the Santorum's, the Perry's, but I don't believe most do.
Remember American politics have NOTHING to do with principles -- it's all about the numbers -- and that is true of both sides.
Mike
-
I am also noticing these candidates are advocating special rights for married people, as if we really need more people on the globe. They have such a rigid idea of what a "real" family is and in America, that family hasn't existed for a couple of decades.
Funny story (and small sidetrack). I read a book once about this very topic:
http://www.amazon.com/Way-We-Never-Were-Nostalgia/dp/0465090974
It's about how the 50s have been idealized by America as the perfect era for the family. The truth is they weren't that great, we just think they were. This is a fantastic read for anyone who likes nonfiction. Back to the scheduled discussion.
-
That was 2 hours of life I've wasted. Just spewed the same garbage. I had to roll the eyes at Mitt's comment about American focusing on words written in our Declaration. We have the god given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I imagine his continstitutional amendment will include; "unless you're gay".
Jon Huntsman at least acknowledged we should have the same benefits as traditional marriages. And Newt, to talk about how we will destroy the sanctity of marriage is laughable. Isn't he the one who had affairs on ALL of his ex wives?
Wolfie
-
So, Mitt would now admend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. I've never seen anyone or any candidate who flip-flops as much as this man does. He is the type who will tell you what you want to hear--except when he's firing you. He was for gay rights and abortion when running for office in MA.
Newt wants to talk about the sanctity of marriage?! Really?!! This is a man who left one wife with cancer and the other with MS. All while cheating on both of them. I've really only followed politics since 1996. I don't think I've seen a bigger bunch of wacky, loony, uneducated, and scary candidates as now. Perry would send troops back into Iraq?! At what cost? We can't afford it financially and the troops have been asked to do too much. We already see a huge increase in suicides among soldiers. I've also noticed more and more stories of soldiers committing criminal acts (as just happened in that national park), because many have mental illness coming back. They want to start these wars, but don't care what happens when they come home--if they come home.
-
Most of them most likely don't hate us. However, gay bashing will get them votes from making an enemy (a "them") for others to coalesce around. Look at Cheney -- he clearly doesn't "hate" gays -- but he liked winning elections more than standing up for his beliefs or, even, his own daughter. Oh, there are some who do hate us -- the Santorum's, the Perry's, but I don't believe most do.
Remember American politics have NOTHING to do with principles -- it's all about the numbers -- and that is true of both sides.
Mike
Kinda like do as I say, and NOT as I do, believe what I say , and NOT as I do, no wonder why most people are so disillusioned ;D ;D ;D
-
Kinda like do as I say, and NOT as I do, believe what I say , and NOT as I do, no wonder why most people are so disillusioned ;D ;D ;D
Hypocrisy is the word you're looking for. There are many many articles written about this election cycle and the built-in hypocrisy that a Republican must espouse in order to even come close to being viable. It's kinda funny.
-
Hypocrisy is the word you're looking for. There are many many articles written about this election cycle and the built-in hypocrisy that a Republican must espouse in order to even come close to being viable. It's kinda funny.
Hypocrisy, a Grade A hypocrite, anti cabal, I've been called a lot more than that in my lifetime, even by some of you queers in this forum for one reason or another mind you ;D Hey Trey, nice to see you around young man, we've missed your good candor in these forums, don't be such a stranger now :-*
-
I wasn't calling you that. I was talking about basically every Republican candidate who has ever existed (especially the gay ones). It's good to be back, hopefully I'll be right back in the swing of things soon enough.
-
I wasn't calling you that. I was talking about basically every Republican candidate who has ever existed (especially the gay ones). It's good to be back, hopefully I'll be right back in the swing of things soon enough.
Truly you are the John Huntsman of these forums.
MtD
-
I miss Michelle Bachman. Her eyes could put you in a deep trance likedy split
-
I miss Michelle Bachman. Her eyes could put you in a deep trance likedy split
Jesus Bugsy, me too! :)
How wicked a GOP nominee for the Presidency would she have been?
And, frighteningly, representative of the Grand Old Party.
MtD
-
Jesus Bugsy, me too! :)
How wicked a GOP nominee for the Presidency would she have been?
And, frighteningly, representative of the Grand Old Party.
MtD
I'm now at a toss of whether to support Paul or Santorum.
Paul reminds me of Mr. Burns from the Simpson and he HATES everything (you've got to admire that).
But
Santorum speaks directly to Jesus and he brought home his dead fetus and passed it around the dinner table.
Decisions Decisions
-
I'm now at a toss of whether to support Paul or Santorum.
Paul reminds me of Mr. Burns from the Simpson and he HATES everything (you've got to admire that).
But
Santorum speaks directly to Jesus and he brought home his dead fetus and passed it around the dinner table.
Decisions Decisions
D00d
You gotta vote for Ron Paul.
More than time that a Gold Bug was returned to the White Hizzeh.
MtD
-
Its disgraceful that with all the big challenges to acknowledge, meet, try to solve, or avoid,
that social and moral non-issues are being trucked about as if they were equally important.
Also a presidential candidate should inspire hope and have a positive embrace of all Americans in their diversity. Where is that?
These debates are like Sunday School classes by the WORST teachers in Sunday School, not the cool kind nun you got if you were lucky. And no gumby animated bible stories.
-
Its disgraceful that with all the big challenges to acknowledge, meet, try to solve, or avoid,
that social and moral non-issues are being trucked about as if they were equally important.
Actually, these social issues are hugely important -- from a principled POV, perhaps the most important. The fact that I do not have the same rights as a straight American is completely un-American. I was good enough to risk my life in war, but not good enough to be treated equally at home. Yes, yes, from a practical POV getting the economy in better shape and increasing employment are paramount. So -- at what unemployment level would it be appropriate to start pushing for equal rights? I do believe that we can handle both.
Honestly, I get your point -- you don't want people "wasting time" talking about things you don't believe in. I wish they'd shut up too, but the fact that people don't have the same basic rights means this topic is important.
Mike
-
Actually, these social issues are hugely important -- from a principled POV, perhaps the most important. The fact that I do not have the same rights as a straight American is completely un-American. I was good enough to risk my life in war, but not good enough to be treated equally at home. Yes, yes, from a practical POV getting the economy in better shape and increasing employment are paramount. So -- at what unemployment level would it be appropriate to start pushing for equal rights? I do believe that we can handle both.
Mike
Try being Gay, Black & having AIDS, I already have 3 strikes against me due to this, I haven't even thought about the gay equal rights part yet ;D ;D ;D
sarcasm off :D
-
Its disgraceful that with all the big challenges to acknowledge, meet, try to solve, or avoid,
that social and moral non-issues are being trucked about as if they were equally important.
Also a presidential candidate should inspire hope and have a positive embrace of all Americans in their diversity. Where is that?
These debates are like Sunday School classes by the WORST teachers in Sunday School, not the cool kind nun you got if you were lucky. And no gumby animated bible stories.
Were you mainly talking about Republican candidates trying to use social/moral issues and talk about them as much as other things to get in good with the religious base, and not that gays shouldn't push for candidates to take a stance and to make equal rights a priority?
Sometimes, I am surprised moderators ask about gay rights as much as they do. But, it is just as important as Afghanistan, energy, and jobs. Gay rights has an impact on many things--from military preparedness to jobs and healthcare.
-
They are touting "Defense of the Family" (Read ban on gay marriage) as having equal weight to say fixing our struggling economy. I would be absolutely thrilled if gays were finally recognized as equals in the marriage department, but if I had to choose between being able to eat, pay my rent, and afford my meds over say the right to marry then the choice becomes obvious. It's a false setup though because marriage equality is an easy black and white civil rights issue. So get over it and move on to the "important" issues.
-
...but if I had to choose between being able to eat, pay my rent, and afford my meds over say the right to marry then the choice becomes obvious.
I get that. But, married folks get tax benefits that give many extra money (perhaps just a little in many cases) in their pockets to pay the rent and buy food. And, they can get on their spouses insurance. Hell, they even get a break on car and life insurance. How many people on these forums have to rely on ADAP, when their partner has insurance. It would actually take a lot of burden off the social programs that repubs always complain about. It is an interesting question. How would ADAP be affected, if there was marriage equality? I have no idea whether it would have a huge impact, but there has to be thousands on it who otherwise would be on their partner's insurance. However, you would have some who would prefer to be on ADAP, instead of dealing with insurance companies.
-
They are touting "Defense of the Family" (Read ban on gay marriage) as having equal weight to say fixing our struggling economy. I would be absolutely thrilled if gays were finally recognized as equals in the marriage department, but if I had to choose between being able to eat, pay my rent, and afford my meds over say the right to marry then the choice becomes obvious. It's a false setup though because marriage equality is an easy black and white civil rights issue. So get over it and move on to the "important" issues.
Why do we have to choose? There is no reason that something as important as equality needs to wait for employment to go up. Things don't have to be done sequentially. Things can be done in parellel. I also think that there are folks out there who may have just lost a partner and are fighting for everything they own -- I suspect if they rank ordered these two items, equality would #1.
I flatly reject the notion that equality is "less important" and can wait for a brighter economy.
-
They are touting "Defense of the Family" (Read ban on gay marriage) as having equal weight to say fixing our struggling economy. I would be absolutely thrilled if gays were finally recognized as equals in the marriage department, but if I had to choose between being able to eat, pay my rent, and afford my meds over say the right to marry then the choice becomes obvious. It's a false setup though because marriage equality is an easy black and white civil rights issue. So get over it and move on to the "important" issues.
The argument always used by despots to deny people their civil rights.
-
Apparently I left out the line in my hurry where I said "Get over it and grant it, and move on to bigger more discussion worthy topics". In my mind there's not even an argument to be had. Dachsund of course chimes in with something completely off topic and irrelevant as usual.
-
Dachsund of course chimes in with something completely off topic and irrelevant as usual.
Huh? Dox was saying that the "struggling economy" argument is one always used by despots to deny a group of people their civil rights.
I fail to see how that was off topic in relation to what you said.
-
Huh? Dox was saying that the "struggling economy" argument is one always used by despots to deny a group of people their civil rights.
I fail to see how that was off topic in relation to what you said.
Maybe I'm jumping the gun by being defensive, if so then that's my bad. Prior experience tells me I could've said "puppies are so cute" and he would've attempted to link it to the holocaust.
-
Maybe I'm jumping the gun by being defensive, if so then that's my bad. Prior experience tells me I could've said "puppies are so cute" and he would've attempted to link it to the holocaust.
Where's the sarcasm icon in these here forums, I can't seem to find it anywhere ;D, ok my sarcasm is off now :D
-
How many debates have they had, those republican Neanderthals?
I am divided if the journalists should keep asking about values to these candidates, since they have answered these questions many times over and we know where they stand.
I mean on the one hand, its good for my camp, and for swing voters who might vote Dem, too, to see how superficial the Bachmanns and Cains and Santorums are as government types, and how far right they are on social/moral and civil rights issues.
On the other hand, there is nothing new here. It is farther right and weirder than other recent potential republican presidential platforms, but the general strategy has long been playing to the populist extremes to get the votes.
" (1) Were you mainly talking about Republican candidates trying to use social/moral issues and talk about them as much as other things to get in good with the religious base, and (2) not that gays shouldn't push for candidates to take a stance and to make equal rights a priority?"
1) Yes mainly. The cynicism, hypocrisy, and/or delusion is disgusting.
2) Candidates should take a stance on civil rights, yes. Yes I agree I am surprised how often the social/moral questions are asked. Reporters can ask them these questions, but, as wondered above, is this the reporters helping the Right by offering a televised silver platter to have this verbal diarrhea (hand-wringing about gay marriage, etc.) whenever they wish?
I thought Cain's fumble on foreign policy questions was one of the more revealing moments for the entire country, watching these candidates. We know Santorum hates the gays. Lets see how stupid he is on every other issue.
More gotcha questions please.
All said, at the end of the day, at the end of the campaign, the quality of the debate probably was determined by the public, more than the candidates or the press. The press shouldn't be held as strawman because the candidates can't be grown-up, provocative and inspiring on big issues. And the candidates are giving what the people want to hear. Santorum didn't rise up in Iowa because the presss helped him. He rose up because some dimwit right Republican Iowans liked his dumbass message.
-
Maybe I'm jumping the gun by being defensive, if so then that's my bad. Prior experience tells me I could've said "puppies are so cute" and he would've attempted to link it to the holocaust.
Or maybe you should open a book once in awhile and study a bit of history.
-
Or maybe you should open a book once in awhile and study a bit of history.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
-
Doesn't this ad seem like the DNC made it? Well golly no -- it's by Newt's new PAC! :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_evS-T-c35M
-
Doesn't this ad seem like the DNC made it? Well golly no -- it's by Newt's new PAC! :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_evS-T-c35M
Nice one!
I wish I could have hoped that Romney gets nominated so, these types of videos could have been used against him more. But, scary part of that is, if he gets nomination and he become the President!!! I rather personally see someone who is in the middle ( who is?!!) who apparently won't "Like being able to fire people.." :o
-
Romney's rise to riches and thus to the 1%, should be processed by the insufferable suffering martyrs, "the 53%"
http://the53.tumblr.com/
They proudly proclaim that being squashed, squeezed, overworked, underpaid, uninsured and living utterly vicariously makes them content, proud, patriotic Americans. Where the super rich deserved everything they have. Despite the argument that the rich got richer so the average Joe has gotten the shaft. (How do they vote Republican????)
-
Oh, some of you will find this amusing. Seems Santorum comes from a long line of pinko communists in Italy!
linky (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/11/rick-santorum-s-italian-family-speaks-out.html)