Oh, just go to disneyland already. Who would want to talk politics when Mr Toad's awaits? ;)

I get to go on DL's Space Mtn for the first time since 2001- squeee!

Yeah- who cares about politics......I'm going to DISNEYLAND!:D

Kill the babies any way you can?!? I think you might have Tourette's Syndrome in your fingers, Neph.


As for govt spending, chew on this:

Link

Um- no. That was polite given how I feel about it.

Yes- kill them anyway you can. Remove parental notification and ALL possible barriers to killing your unborn child. Suuurree. That's what America is demanding, just longing for. Not only that- but those of you who loathe the slaughter of abortion- guess what boys and girls- we are going to take your tax dollars and make it clear- stick it in your face even- that we are using YOUR money to pay for those abortions.

I can hear these blood soaked monsters laughing with glee.

I don't play nice about this issue- which is not based on faith, religion or anything else other than what I consider basic common sense.

And you gave me that link why? To prove to me that gov't spending has gotten worse.

DOH!

It's one of the reasons I have less respect for Bush daily- and for the so called conservatives in congress. Those asses are spending money on the most outragous BS- and it is not a party thing. I am as angry at my party for spending and bloating the gov't as I would be dems.

So what?

So nothing. You posted some Dem ideas that offend you fiscally and I wanted to make sure you were aware of who is currently pissing away your tax dollars. Glad to know you already know.



Now, who's killing babies any way they can?

Oh hell yes- I know. Sick of 'em- but the thing is, I don't trust the dems as far as I can throw them- on any issue.


These brainiacs in congress seem to think that this is what we need-

The feds should not be paying for abortions. Or many other things they seem to think they need to do-

bah!

Ya know- I'm going to Disneyland tomorrow. I don't want to spend my afternoon and evening on abortion.

You surprise me Nephy! I was expecting you to tell us all how the spending is Clinton's fault! ;) :evil:

naw- they are all guilty. Ticks me off regularly.

The vote themselves raises and then think they are being SO generous when they offer to raise minimum wage.
They babble on about how great public schools are and send their kids to private hoity toity schools- and most of the money going to schools is still being wasted.
They attach pork projects to everything to try to look good to their constiuents- while they try to put their names on things.

Adding totally odd amendments to things just to get their hands on OUR money.

Loathsome trogs- all of 'em- and NO ONE reigns them in. NO ONE- especially the one guy who should.

It's called veto power! Use it!:mad:

Sign Neph up for anarchy!

heehee-;)

I agree with Bear that most of these are empty partisan silliness and, yes, Republicans do it, too. Since you seem to agree, you should not have titled your post as you did. There are, however, some serious issues here.

Right now, the statutory mandatory minimum for 50 grams of not particularly pure cocaine base is ten years. You have to be working 5 kilos of powder to get ten years. The crack/powder disparity and its obvious racial implications have come under substantial criticism. The United States Sentencing Commission recommended that it be eliminated, but Congress did not respond. Now that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are merely advisory, there is basically a return to discretionary sentencing. Many federal criminal laws have maximums but do not have mandatory minimums. The federal drug laws, which imprison people for far longer than most state laws do, have long been criticized. In short, there is nothing remarkable or out of the blue about this proposal.

National health care is a serious issue. Other countries do it well, but probably nothing will come of this.

As I recall, diapers are expensive. Diapers for big people probably even more so.

I fully support this. Of course, I don't think crack cocaine should be illegal in the first place. But this is a move in the right direction.

Independent of the "drug war" mandatory sentenzing is almost always a horrible idea and should be resisted wherever possible.

I support this as well.

If Medicaire is going to exist, this seems a reasonable thing for it to cover but I can't say that I'm familiar with what Medicaire covers in the way of ameliorative devices.

I oppose this if participation is mandatory and really don't support Dingell's plan. But mandating insurance through employment is an even stupider system so if universal coverage is going to be a societal goal then this is a move in the right direction as a method for achieving it. I just disagree with the goal.

As long as abortion is legal I see no reason it shouldn't be covered by some of the federal health care programs. And abortion should be legal.

I do support restrictions on access to abortion by minors, so long as there are judicial escape routes for extreme situations.

Quote:

(kill the babies- any way you can- but don't put drug dealers in jail)

Kill the fetuses, if you want. And drug dealing shouldn't be a crime.



So, some good ideas in there. Some bad ones.

And if Democrats win in 2006, how many of those bills will pass with enough support to overcome the inevitable veto? If that happens, you should have two years of the spending nirvana you want. Dems won't pass the president's spending and he won't sign theirs. Everybody wins.

That was not the point of my post to JW-

I titled my post based on the articles title- not my words.

Thanks-

I wonder how many ex-senators would be allowed to vote if that voting rights bill passes? :)

All of them.

You know, I'd love to - but it kinda goes against the whole principle. Much better to remain affiliated with a party and act as the monkey wrench within

The devil would be in the details, but on the face of them ... I am in favor of every single one of those so-called Crackpot Democratic Bill Proposals.

Even the menu one??

Yes, even that. I'm totally for transparent food content and origin information. Everywhere food is sold. Nutrition, ingredients, sources, etc. What's wrong with letting consumers know what they are putting inside their bodies? And why let such VITAL health information be optional, when consumers can hardly count on businesses to look after the welfare of their customers?

The big problem with menu regulation is that the testing necessary for detailed nutritional information is expensive. It also precludes frequent menu changes as that would require relabelling, and requires absolute consistency in portion sizes or the restaurant opens itself up to lawsuits.

But why is it a relationship that requires government intervention? When I buy a package of Oreos it is very difficult to inquire as to what may be in the food I just purchased. But at a restaurant this is very easy.

If I don't want to eat foot with a lot of fat, just ask what is in the food and if they can't answer to your satisfaction, don't eat there. Frankly, if you need government mandated labelling to know that the 2-pound plate of fettucine alfredo at Olive Garden has a stupid amount of fat, calories, and sodium then it would be easier for the government ot just put you in an asylum for your own protection.

"Would you like some grated parmesan on your pasta? First I must inform you that it contains these 8 indredients, has 4 grams of fat per 1.5 cranks of the grater, 35 mg of sodium, 70 calories (35 of which are from fat), and I'm sorry but your food is now too cold to melt the parmesan so you probably should just pass on it. Would you care instead for some pepper which has 0 calories per twist of the pepper mill (0 calories is defined as less than 1 calorie per 5 grams), 0mg sodium (0mg calories is defined as less than 1mg per 50 grams), and 0mg fat (0mg fat is defined as less than 1mg per 50 grams). No? Then enjoy your meal, salt is on the table (contains a mix of sodium and potassium chloride; 0mg of sodium (0mg is defined as less than 1 gram per serving); serving size is one shake, approximately 0.75 grams."

No playing tag in MA schools.
Lame.

Yeah, saw that one yesterday. I didn't even know where to begin commenting on the idocy, so I didn't post it.

Ordered to do the impossible. That should work out well.

Sweet, laser tag!

Yeah, it's all fun and games until someone loses a retina.

How about this:

One child is selected to be "it". This player will be known as the principal. He or she will stuff their ears with cotton, blindfold themselves, and repeat over and over, "But you're safe now" in as loud a voice as possible.

All the other children will run in circles around "the principal" and shout out helpful suggestions such as "Exercise is good for you", and "we want to develop coordination".

If the "principal" actually hears any of these comments, then he or she loses the game and a new "principal" is selected.

Perfect! :)

I heard they especially wanted to ban freeze tag for fear of kids getting hypothermia.

Wow! This one has got it all! I hope all our senators and congress men/woman are paying attention. They should be able to knock out a whole boatload of our freedoms in the name of safety on this one case alone.

Just look at all the issues they could legislate on:

Cell phones
Text messages
Underage drivers
seat belts
car safety
gay rights
parent responsibility
and on and on.....


What a field day.

A gay student, while driving her parents' Benz, was text messaging a suicide countdown to a fellow student who had spurned her. When she hit '0' she deliberately corssed over the line...

Sorry for the grammer nazi action, but that one took me a while to decipher.

I have edited the original message for enhanced clarification, Sir! Now kindly step away from my kunckes with that ruler.

Is there anything else he can approach your 'kunckes' with? :evil:

How sad is it that "We're discussing our strategy in Iraq to evaluate if it's working and what can be changed to make it work better" is a newsworthy statement? Ummm, shouldn't you have been doing that? Daily? Since the moment this started?

The entire mustered might of the United States Armed Forces could not succeed one iota in its mission to quell the violence in the Capital City of the Country it is occupying. How frelling pathetic is that?

What's the big deal about withdrawal when it's clear we have been completely and humiliatingly defeated?

Because the neocons in control of the White House are not willing or able to admit that they were wrong.

Remember kids, give the govt plenty of warning before you bring them down.

Link

*snort*

No kidding-

I did not title this

But I found it interesting- but spare me any personal outrage- like I said I did not title it, nor write it- but if that's a liberal- bleaugh!

If embracing logical fallacies is what it takes to be conservative - bleaugh!

Ooh, he has a handgun. I have a handgun, too. No, wait, that's my penis.

To avoid charges of political correctness, I will simply note that the author is a f****** retard.

Funny- I think that it's liberals who need that disconnect from logic. ;)

Seriously.

That list is so rife with logical flaws, loaded questions, exagerations, and enough spin to make the Tasmanian devil dizzy that it's not even worth my effort to go through it and point it out.

what a shame-because each of those sounds like the liberals I hear around me all the time. That's what makes it so sad.

Each of those sounds like a distorted, sound-byte version of liberal ideals menat to be inflamatory and completely devoid of actual merit. It belies the author's inability to discern reality from b.s. slogans he's been fed, and his reliance on distortion and fear-mongering rather than valid reasoning to support his positions.

If, after all these years, you really believe that supporting abortion rights = "I want to kill babies", a point-by-point response to that inane list isn't going to do much good.

Megadittoes to GD.

For the most part, if you reverse each bullet item it sounds, as well, like the stereotypical religious fundamentalist conservative and sounds just as stupid.

That's the problem. There are reasonable assumptions underlying the apparent disconnects hinted at (but as GD says, terribly exaggerated and twisted) but the opposite sides aren't willing to discuss those differences. Better to just assume the other side is filled with unthinking morons.

Conservative stupidity

- It is a horrible sin to destroy a lump of cells but ok to murder a full grown human being.

- It's ok to hatefully target specific groups of people for hate speech, but simply burning the flag should be criminal.

- It is ok to decimate the environment and wipe out entire species just so Suburnite X can drive to work for $8.43 in gas rather than $9.12.

- Actively participating in the political debate is great, except when done by George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, and liberal Hollywood stars.

- Conservatives working to preserve bigoted hate mongers do so by claiming it is traditional American culture, but the "cultural heritage" of new immigrants must be destroyed at all costs.

- Not allowing Caucasian men to discriminate based on race or gender is racism against Caucasian men.

- Conservatives are too stupid to see a difference between one government invading another and the social problem causing spontaneous illegal immigration from Mexico. However, if we lobotomize ourselves to view them as equal and similar things, then conservatives think it is ok to invade another country for no reason at all but it is wrong to do so in search of a better life.

- Those who believe English should be the official American language are engaged in linguistic stpudity exposed by history throughout the world. However, simply because it was the language they were raised speaking they think everybody else should be forced to speak it.

- Conservatives don't believe there should be a minimum wage but use the wage suppressing black labor market as an argument against amnesty and work programs.

- Conservatives can't see the logical fallacy in this statement: Blocking the sale of port security to UAE was necessary to protect homeland security, but securing the border with Mexico would "scapegoat" Hispanics.

- It is worth having thousands of extra untested drivers on the road so that if caught driving poorly you can give them an extra ticket.

- Freedom of speech must never be repressed, except when the life of a flag hangs in the balance.

- Taxes are bad when collected from people with money but good when collected from people without money.

- The religion that controls all three branches of the government, is adhered to by 80% of the population, has two national Federal holidays (compared to zero for all other religions) and has a stranglehold on religious representation in popular culture is under attack and at risk of being stifled into non-existence.

- Government can offer no effiiciencies in any task, so it is best to leave it all to raw capitalism even if that means large swaths of the population would not be served by basic elements of infrastructure.

- Military force must never be used when a Democrat president is in the Oval Office. But once a Republican is in place daddy-revenge is sufficient motive.

This actually makes me change my view. The author is not a retard. He's a REEEEE-TAARRRD!

Monica Lewinsky should be the national spokesperson for Nathan's Hot Dogs. Just sayin'.

There's something I don't like about the cries of racism in the Tenessee ad against Harold Ford just because they've got a white woman pretending to come on to him and he happens to be black. I mean...really? Racist? That requires me to accept some pretty insulting assumptions.

Yes, the insulting assumptions that are part and parcel of Tennessee culture, where the election is to take place.

Sorry, GD, perhaps as an enlightened Californian, it's hard for you to relate to the racist fears of white women shacking up with black men that is still rife in the South.


A commercial which might not be racist in Los Angeles is certainly racist in Chattanooga.

Border fence?

Mexican President calls it an embarrassment

Frankly I think it's an embarassment that we do not adhere to our own laws and deport illegals-

Really, did you find the Berlin Wall simply a method of enforcing communist laws? Or did you cheer when beloved Ronnie brought it down?

The Berlin wall divided a country- this divides two countries, one of which is flooding illegally into the other. Different situation.

Really? Well, how long have the U.S. and Mexico been two countries?


How long were East Germany and West Germany two countries?



What is your time limit on when two countries made from one are legitimately two countries not subject to reunification? 50 years? A hundred? Two?


What makes your chosen time limit unarbitrary?




Or is the southern half of the United States simply rightfully "ours" because it's ours, and East Germany was never rightfully the East Germans' because it was "theirs?"

Is there no difference between a wall designed to keep people out and a wall designed to keep people in?

When were the United States and Mexico a single country? Or would you be ok with such a wall if it were simply farther north so that illegally entering Mexicans couldn't get to the parts of the country that were never part of Mexico?

I don't really support the building of this fence but I don't see what is so abhorrent about building a wall to make more difficult the passage of people into areas that they are not supposed to go. When you cross the border in San Diego, you pass through a wall. Is that wall an embarrassment or just when it is made much longer?

Do you honestly believe that the goal of illegal immigration from Mexico is reunification? Do you really believe that those illegal immigrants would want to see the Southwestern United States once again become part of Mexico? Is it not then a betrayal of those ideals that so many of them end up in Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Florida?

Six years when the wall was built

If the wall is built next year it will be 197 years since they both existed as these separate entities. Much, much longer if you count since they they were separate political entities. If you mean since the various parts of the United States that used to be part of Mexico then 169 years for most of what is Texas, 159 years for large parts of New Mexico, Arizona, and California. 153 years for the final pieces of southern Arizona and New Mexico purchased (to allow railroad construction along a preferred route) in 1854.

I'm offended by the wall only in the sense that it's a huge waste of money and resources and is just a distraction from solving the underlying issues that make risking life and limb to cross the border an attractive option. Until those problems are solved, no amount of bandaids is going to stop the bleeding.

That's pretty much why I don't support it. But the idea of a wall itself doesn't offend me.

If anybody should be embarrassed it is Vicente Fox for having a country so many people are so eager to get away from.

"You can't make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society" - John Dewey, "the father of modern education," - avowed socialist, co-author of the "Humanist Manifesto." & member of 15 Marxist front organizations.

:eek:

Influence of religious right may hurt GOP.

Interesting, but not surprising.

Is the election over yet?

I know, BTD. I can't believe how vicious some campaigns are becoming, and every time (which thankfully hasn't been too often) a Dem succumbs to the temptation to smear, I cringe. I am also amazed by the crossovers, on both sides. I am voting for a Repub sheriff, as are a lot of local Dems, and today I saw a large billboard for a Dem candidate for Congress (Peter Goldmark) that was paid for by 'Republicans for Pete'. I really think the people are starting to work through this devisive crap that has held us all back and aren't falling for the rhetoric any more. Then again, I am a 'glass is half full' kind of person and it could just be wishful thinking.

^Back in the 80s Portland had a Democrat Mayor who belonged to "Democrats for Reagan"......a few years later we had a Republican Mayor who belonged to "Republicans for Dukakis".

The latter may have been the only memeber of his organization;)

^....just what is a memeber anyway?

:blush: /spelling or typo....you decide.

I had to laugh when I read that. Not at your assertion, but at the varying perspective, because if you substitute the word "Dem" for "Repub" in your sentence above, it's something I'd say.

I guess one man's smearing is another man's truth telling.

Huh?

If I do that to the sentence you quoted, I...well, I can't because the word 'Repub' isn't in that sentence. 'Repubs' is in the post, so I did what you suggested:

"I know, BTD. I can't believe how vicious some campaigns are becoming, and every time (which thankfully hasn't been too often) a Dem succumbs to the temptation to smear, I cringe. I am also amazed by the crossovers, on both sides. I am voting for a Dem sheriff, as are a lot of local Dems, and today I saw a large billboard for a Dem candidate for Congress (Peter Goldmark) that was paid for by 'Dem for Pete'. I really think the people are starting to work through this devisive crap that has held us all back and aren't falling for the rhetoric any more. Then again, I am a 'glass is half full' kind of person and it could just be wishful thinking."

:D

Don't be a weenie.:p

You know I meant " substitute the word "Dem" with "Repub" ".

Weenie.:p

Lol!!!

So, instead of 'whiny lib', I'm a 'weenie lib'? I guess you can call me 'WeenieBeth'.:D

You got it wb - from now on, you're "WEENIEBeth" :p

And bringing it home to the schoolyard: "WeenieButt."

God, I hate my name.

I like WeenieButt. Good name.

Anyway.....a few random thoughts in the random thread......

Venezuela leader Chavez has been linked to a woting machine manufacturer. If the dems win, can I complain that it must have been fixed? Relax, it's a joke.

If Al Qaida releases a threatening video, is that a Republican dirty trick? Apparently they are a few weeks behind in their regular official tape releases to Al Jazeera.

Bill Clinton apparently thinks a whole lot of himself. He tried to throw a birthday party for himself with a pricetag of 500,000 to attend. What???? So few accepted that the price tag has been lowered to 5,000 so the Clintons can avoid the embarrassment of throwing a party no one came to. Ego is a requirement of being a politician, but 500K? Yikes.

Just to add some pesky facts...

One didn't have to pay $500K to attend, tickets were always also available for $60K. Also, all money was to go to his charitable foundation to fight aids and poverty throughout the world.

The ego of that man- how dare he!!!!! ;)

I knew all the money was goping to the charitable foundation, but was unaware of the discount rate of 60K. What a bargain!

Still, it does remain that tickets didn't sell even at the lower price. And like I said, having an ego is a prerequisate of being a politician.

Remember- the government is calling on private organizations to fund charities these days. He's only doing his part. If this was a fundraiser for GW and the Republican party, I doubt you would have said anything*. (But I would, of course).;):p


*I would have used a more direct comparison, such as a fundraiser by GW for a charity, but I'm not sure he does that sort of thing.

Oh, I'm sure some of those GOP candidates he's been stumping for are *ahem* charity cases.

What is a woting machine manufacturer? What is a woting machine for that matter?

I'm not sure, but I'm sure if we ask Elmer Fudd......:D

I think Ensign Chekov would be a better authority to consult.

It's probably some sort of wibewal conspiwacy.

When I tell you guys I have a horrid degenerative nerve disease that makes it hard to type, you're all going to feel really badly about teasing me for typos.:p

And yes, Chekov is more like it. Dirty Commie.

I don't know, liberals and conservatives from both ends of the spectrum are sooo much fun to pick on - but friends is friends despite the different views.

Hasn't stopped us from going after Lisa.

Democrat House Candidate Deb Eddy Admits Theft of King County GOP Property

Democrat Deb Eddy, 48th District state House candidate, has admitted to illegally removing lawfully posted campaign signs belonging to the King County GOP. (documentation here) :

(KCGOP) is asking that [Bellevue Police Dept.], in conjunction with Prosecutor Maleng, take the following action with regard to Deb Eddy who has admitted to acts against the property of the KCGOP constituting theft in the first degree (RCW 9A.56.030), possession of stolen property in the first degree (RCW 9A.56.150) and the lesser included offense of removing or defacing political advertising (RCW 29A.84.040). Theft in the first degree and possession of stolen property in the first degree are both class B felonies (RCW 9A.56.030 and 9A.56.150). Removing political advertising is a misdemeanor. A conviction of either felony charge would warrant removal from public office under RCW 42.12.010.

Link

heh-no, dems don't do things like this! :rolleyes:

-and she has admitted it.

For the umpteenth time, it's not about "Repubs are corrupt and Dems aren't." Duh, no one believes that. It's about the fact that Repubs bank their entire existence as a party on the "fact" that they represent the "moral majority", that to vote Democrat is a morally bankrupt choice, that their shining moral compass is what will save this country. So yes, whenever it comes to light that "moral" Republicans ain't so moral afterall (omg, they're human, not mesiahs?!) they're going to, rightfully, take more flack than Democrats who never claimed, as a group, to be morally superior in the first place.

Thank you! Exactly!

yeah- the notion that it is ok to be morally bankrupt as long as you tout it like your best asset.

- and oddly enough I am not conservative for any of those reasons.

Ah well-

I wish they'd go after those from all parties who litter the public right-of-way with political signs.

Alas, wishful thinking.

Near where I work there is a long stretch of road near a golf course and lots of housing that is surrounded by lush vegitation. Very pretty.

In the center of the divided highway are about 40 small signs each with either No on "whatever" and the other half were Yes on "whatever". The funny part is that they are set up so each follows the other and if you read it at 35 mph, you get yesnoyesnoyesnoyesnoyesnoyesnoyesnoyesnoyesnoyesno yesnoyesnoyesnoyesnoyesnoyesno

I wish someone would make up thier mind! ;)

No, but that degenerative nerve disease excuse is a good one!

Oh, you're all just a bunch of degenerates.

That's the sweetest thing anybody's typed to me all day... :)

HEH- at least we are in good company.:D

Hey Matt:

Stevia rebaudiana

Kerry is a fvckin idiot who can't take responsiblity for his own words

Yeah you doofus- it's a Republican smear to point out that you are an insulting gasbag.

God he is loathsome.

Is it the witching hour already?

And he didn't do that well at Yale, which I guess is why he wound up in Viet Nam. Unlike . . . well the list on both sides of the aisle is endless.

While he was making a questionable joke, I think he touched on the very real ambivalence that people with educational ambitions harbor about dangerous working class jobs. Whether it's the military, building bridges or collecting the garbage, we respect the people who do them while at the same time urging our children to get an education so they don't have to do them.

I think that while some people certainly say they join to serve their country, most join for want of other opportunity, a limitation that is often due to educational failings. The military today is what the clergy was for the second sons of 19th century literature.

Sorry- it was no joke. He's an idiot- like a little kid who says something stupid and hurtful and then tries to pass it off as a "joke".

Even John McCain whom I do not like much says Kerry should be apologizing- he does not see it as a joke.

As if serving in Vietnam makes you an untouchable saint who can say anything stupid you like and then blame it on anyone else-

He's a sad pathetic man- and I hope he tries to run in 2008. I can laugh for months.

Hey, I know you're on a roll, so, go ahead, have fun, but, for anyone who didn't read TFA, the "joke" appears to have been directed at GW, not the troops. Knock yourself out.

That's fine. Kerry shouldn't make fun of people in the military. However, right wing non-combatants like Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough who get all giggly when they talk about military culture don't strike the right note either. The military is not a fourth branch of government. I'd take all this Republican bowing down to our fighting men and women a lot more seriously if they called for a draft or compulsory military service. Without that, military service is just another dirty job to be done by people who are not quite like us.

I'm sorry... I listened to what he said; what was so insulting? I don't get it.

We've got two threads going on this topic at the moment. Tramspotter started an individual thread about the Kerry comment. Just FYI.

yeah, but mine came first ;)

So, post where you want. I obviously care a whole lot. ;)

I see- so if a joke is tasteless and rude and insulting it's MY problem for not thinking it is funny.

Got it.:rolleyes:

Damn nazi cake whoring admin from heck! ;)

Heck? I thought I was going to hell!

That's it! Off to Iraq with you!;)


(Feigning outrage is a well-known diversionary tactic- personally, I find it interesting that this could generate so much feeling while people who are suffering and dying in George's little war get a 'meh').

Well, are you all het up because he insulted the president, or do you still think he was making a comment about the troops?

And yes, I think it is your problem for misinterpreting a news article.

Get it? Good.

NA- well I am dressed as a devil today, so maybe so.

Gn2Dlnd- I did not misinterpret anything- got it? Good.

Kerry is a troglodyte with no sense of the impact of the asinine things he says. I don't care about pot shots at the POTUS- sorry, not all wrapped up in some love thing with Bushie and can't handle critical comments-

-and he WAS referring to the troops- I guess McCain is oblivious too, didn't "get it"

Honestly, how do you get that?

Sorry, I'm not seeing the reason for outrage either. And yet, I would be surprised if there is any republican out there that isn't making sure that everyone knows how incredibly outrageous this is. I would expect nothing less with an election coming up. They can't talk about Iraq, they can't talk about the economy, they can't talk about making the world safer. They can't talk about any of these without everyone realizing how full of crap they are.

They are about to lose their all-encompassing power and they are grasping furiously at any possible way to deflect the attention away from the real issues, the ones that they have failed miserably at. That's all this is, a smoke screen and feigned outrage at one line of a speech that had little to do with the troops and everything to do with their inability to do anything to fix the education system in this country, a system that is failing way too many of our kids, who graduate unable to read and write and can either go to Burger King or into the military.

Sorry, I'm not buying this outrage, no matter how many times the republicans stomp their feet and tell me this is despicable. What is despicable is that our fine soldiers have been turned into cannon fodder in a war that NEVER should have been started in the first place, by a bunch of guys who had better things to do when their country called on them.

There will be no meeting of the minds- because it's an idiotic merry go round of different views and no way to validate one over the other.

You're my friend MBC- despite the fact that we seem to be on opposite sides of the world these days. ;)

Can someone please explain what was so offensive about his remarks? I really don't understand the outrage.

False outrage is the primary tool of modern American politics. It's quite boring, really, and I just ignore it from both sides.

Now that I'm working again and its the week before MouseAdventure, that is all the political talking you'll get out of me.

So what's going to happen before the election?

Are we going to find Bin Ladden?
Are we suddenly going to pull out of Iraq?
Is there going to be some immenent threat that only Bush and his cronies can protect us from?
Will we find WMDs in Iraq?
Will N. Korea pull out of talks and threaten to bomb CA?
Will gas drop drastically?

Not going to find bin Laden.
Not going to pull out of Iraq.
There never was the words imminent threat. It was "gathering threat".
Already found some (I know! They were very old)
N. Korea is led by a madman and is unpredictable.
Gas prices are a function of the market and oil supply, and is far too complex to be controlled by any person.

I realize those were rhetorical, but iI suppose I didn't have a very good breakfast.:p

I guess I would feel there was a point- except for the fact that it is not just the right or the conservatives that feel outrage about it- or who think it was an asinine insulting thing to say.

This is not ME misinterpreting something- or if so I am in vast company.

If Kerry apologizes for this, I'm going to kick him in the nuts if I ever get close enough to him.


Asinine, Neph? Does that mean you preach military service over education to your children? Or are Kerry's words closer to what you say in private than you care to admit?

No one has yet been able to communicate exactly what the offensive interpretation is.

Get out your kickers, Sac.

He apologized? Bastard obviously has no nuts for me to kick. I bet his wife has 'em.

Wow, that's what he "meant" to say? That's quite the botch job.

Oh well, I still don't see how the way he read it is terribly offensive.

I prefer the comment as he originally said it. It makes more sense.

But, poloticians on ALL sides seem to be a bunch of spinning bufoons. But, what is that about bad publicity is better than no publicity?

Work hard, study, and be smart or you'll end up being president?


You suck, Kerry.

See, this is where the phrase "I like pancakes" comes in handy. ;)

I like blowjobs.

This IS you misinterpreting something, and you ARE in vast company. Why can you not read the remarks as stated, in context, and make your own interpretation.

Why go to the trouble of making up your own mind when you can blindly parrot right wing talking points? Much easier.

My favorite fakenewsmen will be on the cover of Rolling Stone this month. You should go read the article's excerpt. It's a riot.

If you apologize on the Don Imus show does that mean it only happened in the '80s?

no

I have- did before it was ever posted here.

This is my main frustration with people here- some of you see perfectly fit to tell me what I think, what I've done or not done- how I misunderstand, misspoke- whatever- and you lay it at my feet no matter what I say is my intent, what I have done, what I personally think.

This guy makes an ass of himself- and you spin yourself into dervishes finding ways to say "he did not mean it that way" - it's everyone elses problem- not his. He is not responsible for the reactions- or for upsetting anyone.

THAT has been the main thing that has undermined my respect for certain people and their tactics- it's only used when it suits their own bias.

Is there anyone in politics who this doesn't apply to? I mean, isn't that the crux of politicing? Who do you think is not being self-serving in today's political arena?

Oh, I think anybody is responsible for the words they say ... but how can anyone be responsible for other people's reactions or upset? Those reactions are completely up to the persons having them ... or do they have no free will while the speaker has complete free will? (don't answer that, Alex).


In a very real sense, I feel a speaker bears a certain responsiblity for how his or her words are taken ... in that if they are not taken they way the speaker meant, then the speaker has failed in some way. I think John Kerry failed in a big way. But even that failure does not make him, or anyone, responsible for reactions. He is only responsible for his words, not what others make of them.

If, based on reactions, a speaker judges to adjust his words, that is wisdom. If anyone claims a speaker responsible for the reactions to those words, that is folly.

Totally what I've been trying to tell people ALL FREAKING DAY. Thanks, iSm.

Hey, I read a columnist today- don't remember who, but if it's important I'll look it up.... Anyway, she suggested that perhaps the opponents of stem cell research should think about providing tiny coffins and services for all those frozen embryos that will be destroyed. I mean, they're babies, right? Morbid and macabre, but a valid question nonetheless.

Wow that brings back memories...I used to argue with anti-choice people about why they didn't have funerals for MaxiPads...because a lot of early miscarriages happen during the first trimester. They look like periods. I know, because I had one. Do I want someone else telling me that was my son's older brother/sister? Nope. Should I have had a funeral? I don't believe so...as the fertized egg was obviously not viable. What if I was considering aborting? *throws that out*

This was your opening post:
Dervish much?

Once again, I am going to post the quote from the article:
Looks to me like a slam at the president. Looks to me that if anyone reads it differently they are willfully misinterpreting the meaning of what was said.

So:
Gosh, imagine my disappointment at losing the respect of one of the more disrespectful people I've ever run across.

:rolleyes:

gee thanks-as if I care? People who actually bother to know ME beyond the difference in political beliefs know better than someone who can't see past their politics and doesn't know DIDDLY about me.

If the left, libs, dems- would do ANYTHING to be deserving of respect maybe I would have some to show for them-meanwhile, excuse me if I show the disgust disdain and mistrust I have for them and their apologists and supporters.

Go ahead- try and tell me it is different on the left- that they do not show disrespect disdain and disgust for MY side, people like me.

I guess a boatload of dems also willfully misinterpreted poor Kerry's words.

No one-

I was mainly referring to people here. It disappoints me to see the double standard.

I say something. Someone else takes my meaning and intent wrongly and gets upset. I say I did not mean it that way- and the predominant response is "you have to apologize and correct your way of saying things- it is not our problem." Putting it on me to take responsibility for their feelings and my words no matter my intent.

But take what Kerry said- same issue- and they are blaming everyone BUT him. It is everyone BUT him who misinterpreted. Other people created outrage where they was none- because he did not mean anything by it. Kerry does not have to correct himself, apologize or take responsibility for his own words- it's everyone else who has to correct themselves.

It's hypocritical, a clear double standard and I think shows a willingness to excuse people who share their ideaology but to slam and accuse those who don't- no matter their intent.

I'm sure it can cut both ways- but for now I am seeing it from this side of the fence and I find it sad.

Why is it a double standard to apply to you the responsibility you wish others to apply to Kerry? And why is it not your double standard to want a certain set of rules applied to you that you are not willing to apply to Kerry.

Either a person is responsible for other people's reactions or they are not. I contend they are not. Why, Neph, are YOU the one contending it's one way for you and another for Kerry?

And even if you claim others are equally double-standarding, how does that make your double-standarding any less wrong?

Well, because I am conservative and therefore inherently superior. Doh! ;)

While I have often taken that reponsibility- Kerry has not. The guy could not even take responsibility for falling down while skiing- he blamed someone else. "I didn't fall, the SOB knocked me down"

He will always be a joke- a two faced joke.

I wonder if today someone might actually articulate the offense in the original statement. Still haven't seen it.

Actually, GD, in one of these threads, I have articulated the offense in the original statement. Taken out of context, I find it to strongly imply that people who don't do well iln school end up, in large numbers, serving in the military.

I don't take particular offense at that statement, but others do. Perhaps the context was Bush's No Child Left Behind, but since the undereducated have been flocking to the military option since loooooong before NCLB, I find the statement in and of itself to have the very meaning that some are finding offensive.

Haven't seen it or haven't seen anything that is convincing enough for you to believe?

You've given me no reason to want to get to know you. How would that enrich my life? You present yourself as a screeching harpy. If I recall, several years ago, when you were having issues with your son, I offered some personal experience that I thought would be helpful. You responded with the same sort of "how dare you assume you know anything about me" nonsense. I can't tell you the number of times people have said to me, "Oh, but she's so nice in person." Who cares? Stop being an unpaid attack ad. Stop being so insulting. Stop making generalizations about me and my politics. Stop making provocative posts and frothing up whenever someone responds. Stop being a living example of the phrase "double-standard."

The Kerry issue has nothing for me to do with politics. He said something that has been taken out of context and misinterpreted. If the entire world got their panties in a bunch over GW's verbal gaffes I would be just as irritated. Instead, thoughtful people laugh at him, while his supporters interpret it as good ol' boy speak.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —President George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Stop being so childish and start taking responsibility for the results of your behavior.

Haven't seen it, though iSm's is more towards the latter.

People may be interpreting it that way, but that's not what the statement says. We're talking about judging it based on the words spoken, right. Well, the words say "Uneducated people end up in the military." I'd like to know what the offense in that statement is. NOT the offense in the alternate interpretation, which he didn't say.

Harpy-cool- now I can be an Egyptian Demon Bitch Harpy.

I take more responsibility than you can ever imagine-and I don't recall any advice from you-perhaps it was offered at a bad time and my tension showed through. How about you stop carrying that chip around- for goodness sake- let it go.

I have no froth. I have every right to be as hostile about what I consider vile politics as you do- because I have seen plenty of nasty comments from you about conservative politics. I don't choose to take them all personally.


Even better- use ignore- works wonders for me.

Yes, I've been waiting for that answer for several days. My conclusion is that they're reading it into the statement.

Maybe because there are plenty of "uneducated" people who do not choose the military- and there are plenty of people in the military who have a greater education than some in the private sector. To imply that choosing the military meant you had no choice because you are too uneducated to know any better or choose any better is insulting.

There are options outside the military-

Once again, that's NOT what the statement said, that's what people have read into it. It did NOT say "If you choose the military, you're uneducate." It said "If you're uneducated, the military is nearly your only option." You may decide it IMPLIES that, but let's try sticking to the actual statement he made instead.

Two-thirds of people who take the ASQT don't pass. And of the 1/3 that pass, some portion never make it into active duty. So yes, there are a large number who do not choose military, though not for lack of trying. And of those that don't choose military, most of them don't make a living wage. So, to updated the claim a bit, people unable to succeed in the education system are left with little viable option that will net them a livable earning beyond applying for military service.

Link

"That one's not a fan" Nice one, Mr. Bush.:snap:

I have to say that, now I've heard a bit more of what was said immediately BEFORE the too-quoted comment-of-death, soldiers were not the subject of the sentence at all.

Show me where in the sentence he mentions soldiers? Why did people assume he was talking about the education of potential soldiers, when his prior sentence reveals he was talking about Bush's education, and about George W. StupidAss Bush getting stuck in Iraq?

The assumption that he was talking about soldiers or students who might become soldiers was made up out of whole cloth. Almost any sentence taken out of its context can be alleged to be about anything. If I use the word "you" in a sentence and only my previous sentence revealed who "you" was, any hack could present my second sentence and claim the "you" was anyone.

So, I hereby revise my earlier opinion. I was misinformed and led to believe Kerry was taking about No Child Left Behind. Um, he wasn't. From what I've read of the more complete remarks, he was talking about George W. Bush, and it was Bush who is "stuck in Iraq" - a phrase which applies to soldiers, true ... but is perfectly applicable to the President of the U.S.

Yes, that I believe is true. Basically, there are 3 things going on.

1) He was talking about Bush and the speech was written to specifically mention Bush in that line, he screwed it up

2) The way he read it, it COULD reasonably have been interpreted as "If you fail at school, you'll end up in the military." That's been what I've been talking to, choosing to ignore the manufactured outrage and discus what I found to be an interesting side topic unintentially breached by the misstatement. Even assuming he did really mean (or Freudianly mean) it as spoken, to me that's the "worst" interpretation of the joke. That got me thinking of No Child Left Behind and how it was tailored to steer more and more youth towards military service.

3) Opponents of Kerry took a false logical leap and decided that "Bad students end up in the military" is the same as "Everyone in the military is uneducated/stupid." Thus, outrage.

So, there you have it.

Was it only three days ago that I pointed out the same thing? With linkies? It seems so long ago now.

See post 1599. And relive the future of today.

Hmmm, no links in your post 1599, but I believe you if you say you provided this information previously. Sometimes I skim these threads that get my blood boiling, so as to keep my cystolic within healthy range.

Sorry if I missed it.


I'm back now.

^ Oh, oops. It was a quote, not a link. But the quote was from the link in Nephythys' OP #1595.

No, you haven't.

Having just scanned through my 1,186 posts, I'm unable to find the nasty comments to which you refer. I've ridiculed the preznit's bad grammar. I've spoken up about anti-gay bias. I've ranted about willful misrepresentation of facts (Disney's Path to 9/11, John Kerry). I've railed against the mismanagement of the Katrina disaster, and I've called Tucker Carlson a dick. None of which rise to the level of "Kerry is a fvckin idiot who can't take responsiblity for his own words. Yeah you doofus- it's a Republican smear to point out that you are an insulting gasbag. God he is loathsome."

Please do not misrepresent me. Please do not willfully misinterpret what I post. Please don't think it's clever to use my negative characterization of your behavior on the board in your sig line, it's not. Last of all, I will not put you on ignore, nor will I play "cute board feud" with you. The importance of addressing the outrageous things you post far outweighs the irritation I experience in doing so.

Live up to your own standards- do not misrepresent me either.

You may not like my bluntness or my admitted lack of tact when dealing with some issues- that does not give you license to personally malign and attack me, or tell me what my intent is- or that I am "frothing" as if I am some rabid dog.

You have been insulting and rude.

Cheers- off to vote.

Now, there ya go bringing logic and facts into this again. Rush listeners have a hard time processing information when it's presented in this form- you know that, silly!

Well, what do you know- looks like more people think Rumsfield needs to go.

"This is not about the midterm elections," continued the editorial, which will appear in the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times on Monday. "Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go."

That would mean that Bush would have to admit that his administration's course in Iraq is wrong. That will never happen. He would rather see this country go down the toilet than admit he made a mistake.

From the same article:

What they can live with? What the hell does that mean? Hom many times has Bush said that whatever the generals ask for, they will get? What they have asked for and what they can live with sure sound like two very different things to me.

Not that it is a surprise or anything.

CNN and MSNBC are both reporting this, while FauxNews is doing it's usual bang-up job of not spinning by not reporting.

Looks like the Neo-Rats are deserting the sinking ship: Bush screwed it up!.

If this was Kerry, of course, it would be understood that when Bush said "what they can live with" is the same as "what they need". After all, if you can live with it, you have what you need, right?

I AM SHOCKED AND APPALLED BY SUCH SPIN, MBC!

That's one big if. I'll be waiting for Bush (or his peeps) to issue the correction to his statement.

But of course you are. :)

Gosh...maybe Fox news didn't report it because what Perle said was completely misrepresented.

From a statement made by Perle yesterday:

Now that doesn't sound like someone leaving the ship. It sounds like he believes there are some things we could be doing better, and those items were taken out of context. The nedia trying lying to someone to get a sound bite to try to influence the election? I'm shocked!

Did MSNBC or CNN report that soundbite? Could be. I don't know....but I doubt it.

Oh no- not FACTS!


ahhhhhhhhhhh! ;)

Wuv ya Leo!

Thanks, Leo. I always prefer hearing things in context. I wish all speakers would be given that accord and respect, and I loathe the soundbite culture that makes almost every comment a zinger to be used as a weapon.

Perle says that he was assured by Vanity Fair that the story wouldn't be released until after the election, which it isn't. It is scheduled to be in the January issue. However, the press release from the magazine gave excerpts from the article before the election and now he is doing damage control.

In other words, party before country.

Funny you would mention party before country- sounds like the Democrat party through and through.

Editorial by Orson Scott-Card

Very long- but worth reading. Even he, as a Dem, can see the Dems are putting political power over the safety of our country.

Heh- my kind of Dem. Too bad the moonbats seem to run the party.

Pssst, Nephy- that's what commonly known as 'spin', which is why you are so quick to buy it! Getting dizzy yet, dear?

A democrat in the grand tradition of Zell Miller. C'mon, the reason this guy considers himself a dem is solely based on his pro gun legislation stance. Otherwise, he has always been pro-war, pro-bush, and anti-gay. So I'm not in the least surprised that he feels the way he does.

And his view that we are winning the war in Iraq and on Terrorism in general has no basis in reality. Y'all can keep repeating those lines as much as possible. It doesn't change the fact that it isn't true. Just listen to what the military leaders are saying. They are there and they understand that they are in a hopeless situation.

And the sad fact is, I think that most republicans understand this as well. Unfortunately, it is more important to retain power than to try to figure out a way to putting an end to our soldiers being killed on a daily basis in an unwinnable war, simply because the administration refuses to admit that they erred in starting this war.

And yet, had they paid any attention to this:

I guess you buy the media and the spin that best fits your appetite.

I know I would not trust the left with protecting this country.

It's not about wanting a change- it's about trust. It's about a party that shows disdain or open hostility for the military, America, Christians.....

Meh-

My... that's a mighty big brush you're painting with, nephy. Care to back up that outrageous accusation with some facts?

Silly me... I should know better than to ask you for that.

Most Democrats respect and honor the men and women who serve in the military. So much so, in fact, that they are doing their best to bring them home from Iraq – a place they should never have been sent in the first place. Republicans love the military? What about the veteran’s benefits the Republican lead Congress and the Republican President cut? What about the callous disregard with which the Republican administration sent them off to die in the thousands just so the Republican President can get off on being a “War President”.

Democrats hate America??? Where do you get that sh*t??? Just because Democrats don’t agree with you and Bush and the way things are headed in this country, you say they hate America? How arrogant! Yes, millions of Democrats (and independents, and even Republicans too) are fighting to turn this country around, and head it in the right direction – a direction away from heedless aggression, despotism, economic collapse, and the shredding of the Constitution. They must really hate America to want too see it made better, freer, stronger.

Democrats hate Christians? That must be news to the millions of Christian Democrats. They must be self-hating Christians. Thanks for letting them know. :rolleyes:

Certainly you should have no problem providing a cite that shows the democratic party showing disdain or open hostility towards Christians, the military, or americans. Not a cite that shows someone who considers themselves a democrat saying it but a statement or evidence that the Democratic party is anti-Christian, anti american, or anti-military.

I know that this is what the religious right would like voters to believe but I would like to see it backed up with something more than blind accusations. Seriously, just because Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Rush say it is true doesn't mean that it is.

As opposed to a "grand ol' " party that shows disdain and open hostility to the citizenry?

As for the military, they'll do just fine once they have leaders who don't disregard their safety.

America? Do you mean all of it, or an aspect of it? I'm unaware of any politicians in or running for office who think we should disband the country. I'll bet you're talking about border control, aren't you?

Christians? Please. They're (you're?) doing fine. They'll pray good ol' Rev. Haggard up some het'rosexuality and a cure from crystal meth (how I'd love to be a fly on that wall), Christmas and Easter will survive, and, hopefully, they'll take their ridiculous anti-science notions home and pray to Jesus to shut their mouths, 'cause they sure love to broadcast their ignorance. Any Christians reading this who don't behave this way need to get on the phone or write a letter, because these morons aren't doing you any good.

Holy culture of victimization!

Let me be the first to say . . . Happy holidays!

When the groups on the left stop claiming victimized status by the right- you might have a point with the snarky comments.

I am so frelling sick of the double standard.

Repeatedly I have seen the entire party maligned as evil, bigoted and out to get people-but when I comment on the view from this side- you defend the party.

I believe it because of personal experience-

Meh-I am sick of it all. I'll vote tomorrow- but the way my life is being lived won't change a whit no matter the outcome.

We rip Republican politicians for their actions and policies. You rip Democrats in general simply because you hate Democrats. Big difference Nephy. If you can’t see the difference, then I feel sorry for you.

:p
:decap:

BINGO!

Sure your life may change, Neph! Maybe we can get out of this damned war before your kids get drafted, because that is the next step, you know. They can fudge the mumbers all they want; we are understaffed and there are not enough new ones coming in to be of much help. Just ask any service member who is on their third or fourth tour. Even the generals and the leadership of the Reserves are getting very vocal in their criticism and concerns with regards to how this war is being conducted and it's impact on the home front. Hell, ask the GAO, who's September report is scathingly critical of our economy and the inevitable coming crash.

You think the Dems might be problematic; I know the Repubs have been so.

What's with the robo-calling?

Did they not expect to get caught? Or is winning all that matters?

heh- according to Pelosi there are two choices for the outcome of the election:

"we either win, or they cheat"

So- if the GOP loses it is a national rejection of their policies.
If the Dems lose it's because the election was stolen.

If the GOP loses it's because people want change and believe in the Dems to provide it.
If the Dems lose it has nothing to do with their policies, it's because someone cheated.

I've never seen so many whiners in my life- "we don't lose because people don't like our politics- we lose because everyone else cheats"

Charming.

Eh, let's just see how it plays out first before we start speculating what everyone's reaction is going to be.

At this point, I consider it an anything-can-happen tossup and am not getting my hopes up.

I'll just be happy when it is over, and even happier if some balance of power is brought back into our system of government. Everyone should want that balance of power, if for no other reason than to bring some control over spending.

As far as I'm concerned, a balance of power is FAR more important to the health of the government, than one side or the other winning. Unfortunately, most on the right don't seem to understand this concept and think that anything other than complete control is a loss. It isn't.

This is not a guess- this is history. Nothing new- already been said.

Well, without a cite, it's a good as a guess. I have yet to see this reported anywhere and that's after reading a number of quotes from Nancy Pelosi that took place over the last few days. I'm willing to change my mind, depending on the source. I've heard her express concern over the integrity of the election but nowhere have I heard her say "We either win or they cheat". And Google comes up empty on that phrase as well.

Care to offer a different quote or provide a cite for this bit of history?

I've heard more whining here than in any political speeches.:rolleyes:

Eh, no matter WHAT happens, there's gonna be some stupid spin happening causing me to roll my eyes and hat politics all the more.

Link

Let's see-

...and now, feel free to spin away my paraphrase cause that of course is what matters.

Dems win- rejection of the course the President has set us on.
Dems lose- was it an honest count?

It's a common refrain from Dems when they lose- this is not new this year, and won't be new in any other election they may lose.

I voted.

AZ has the longest ballot it has ever had (due to 15 or so propostitions). I got there at 6:00 when the polls opened, was the 33rd person to vote, and I didn't get out of there until 6:45. That's going to be some long, long wait times if it's taking 1.5 minutes or so per person in line.

Figured.

I tried voting on Thursday- line was too long, tried early voting again on Friday- too long again. I came in an hour and a half early to work so I could take a long lunch and vote after the lunch rush.

:snap: for voting

My voting went very smoothly this morning.

Check in was quick. Ha, my mom was working poll checkin this morning and trying her best to be shiny and happy so early in the morning. The machines were calibrated properly. We had visible audit trail printers on each machine.

I'm happy.

While I am frustrated to have to go three times to get it done- I did get something accomplished on Friday. I found out that I changed my address after the deadline so I need to vote under my old address. Good thing I did not move far away!

It feels like I voted about three years ago. I'm on permanent absentee status and I sent it in as early as possible.

Deep down I have a problem with people voting at various times with different amounts of information available but it is nice that I voted with little pushed awareness of candidates and mostly pulled information that I sought out.

After my move, I reregistered in CA just in time to make the deadline to spare with a few days.

Since I am on early hours at work, can't vote before coming in. I'm leaving work at 3 to get home and then get myself to the polls with plenty of time to vote/stand in line, whatever.

I don't care where you stand, left right, center, up, down, underground. if you don't vote, you lose all rights to bitch about the outcome if you don't agree with it!

While it's possible for voting irregularities to go either way ... funny how it just so happens that all the instances found in early voting (and there have been many ... check Maryland, Florida and Georgia for but a few examples) .... all the "errors" have gone in favor of Republicans.

Imagine that! Coincidence??

In wards 7, 19, 51 in Philly, PA, the crowds are going wild. Inside several voting locations, individuals have poured white out onto the polling books and the poll workers are allowing voters to go into the polls and vote without first registering. Several individuals are on hand demanding that voters vote straight Democrat.

RNC lawyers have headed to the scene of the incidents, which are occurring in mostly hispanic precinct locations. The District Attorney has also been contacted.

More from the ground: Reports of voter intimidation by son-in-law of Philadelphia City Commissioner in 19th Ward. Carlos Mantos is not allowing Republican poll watchers with valid poll-watching certificates monitor polling places.


(no link yet- will look)

What do you mean "no link yet"?

That's a direct lift from redstate.com.

I was looking for a news link- clearly I know the audience. Excuse me for trying to find a cross reference.

I could have posted the Redstate link- which would have been soundly rejected- or I could look for an alternate link with more info from a different source- I chose option B.

If I find more- I'll post it.

How's that going? I'm having no luck.

I'm hardly sitting here surfing for one link- if something comes up during the day I will post it.

I'm sorry but when you put something in quotations, that implies that it is a direct quote, not a paraphrase.

It does matter.

Excuse me I made a mistake in typing.

...and here it is AGAIN-

"Neph- you made a mistake- you put quotes around the words. That means something- now take reponsibility for it"

"Mr Kerry- you just made a mistake on a joke. It did not mean anything- your words were twisted by people who don't "get it"- you have no responsibility"

:rolleyes:

Honest to God- I need a smilie throwing up his arms and saying Fvck it.

How about, "Mr. Kerry Said A, meant to say B, other people decided he meant C which would have been offensive if he had either said it or meant to say it. But since he said A, and meant B, what the hell does C have to do with it?"

Compared to,

"Neph said A, menat B, people had a problem with B."

The outrage over Kerry had not to do with what he said, but what people decided he meant. MBC was going on exactly what you said. If it's not what you meant, fine you corrected it. But he didn't pull some 3rd interpretation out of nowhere.

And I thought there wasn't going to be anything good to watch today since the networks were covering the election.

;)

How's this?

I am over it.

Fvcking over it.

Move on- new topic- we will never agree and I am fvkcing sick of it all.

(ok- sorry- I am just angry today- it is not about the election or you guys- it's just...a no good horrible very bad day)

Promise?

Damn. I thought this was going to be entertaining.

I know! Now you have to go be productive. And I have to work.

Bah!

There's no whining over election fraud, Neph. At least that's always been your stance before today. Or is it only moonbat-ish to raise concerns over Republican shenanigans?

What are you talking about?

I have never said no one should whine or not whine- I said they should freaking get over it when there is no proof of something that DID NOT happen years ago.

Concerns- fine
Being cautious- fine
Getting it right- very good

Harping on as if the only way the GOP wins is through fraud.
Complaining about stolen elections that were NOT stolen-

gets frelling old really fast.

Thought you were over it?

So Nephy… If the Democrats win control of Congress today, and Republicans demand recounts, can we tell them to, “get over it”?

*shrug* You were the one who brought it back up with a poor analogy, but okay, you're over it. I'm more than willing to move on.

Spiffy.

Next topic?:p

Link

:rolleyes:

That's too bad. But, so what? Yeah, there are dumb people who do wrong things and think intimidation is the way to go.

I wish I could say that I'm surprised by that story but I suspect that today will be filled with story after story of people letting their emotions get the best of them today.

I suppose it is a good thing to see people so passionate about today's outcome but this election has really brought out the worst in everyone.

I was going to point that out as well. As far as the Redstate snippet, you were right about it's reception, and right on to Scrooge for catching that. (I thought it was Rush, but I can only bring myself to scan FauxNews to see what the other side is up to and my Rush is rusty).

Why are you working so hard to make the Dems look like your side- so you can say "They do it too?"

I thought you were dropping the subject, Nephy......

So, I went to vote today and I have a provisional ballot because they claim they didn't get my address change in time. I think it was a vast right wing conspiracy to prevent me from voting. stomp stomp stomp pout pout fakeyage its not fair stomp stomp.

Give that girl some cha cha heels!

Oh lordie- :rolleyes:

Link requires registration on Chicago Tribune website.

Voting went smoothly for me- just took over 2 hours- which is why I was not here enjoying such charming company. ;)

Haven't you seen Man of the Year? They are conspiring to win with electronic voting machines! And they aren't counting my vote either! stomp stomp [hair toss]

Hey at least it wasn't a crazy cat LADY smashing the screen!

Ok- that would have been too much for words! LOL:eek:

However- despite differences Lisa is too damn cool and classy to do any such thing. Her passion is for things other than politics. ;)

That paints a vivid image.....

Link

I'll see your voting machine tampering, and raise you one voter intimidation !

OMG Corruption poker!

*socks flying*

It's not strip poker, Scrooge.

You're no fun anymore

Let me get the Tequila.

Laura Ingraham is apparently telling people that it would be a good idea to call and jam the phone lines that are being used to report voter fraud issues. ThinkProgress.com has the audio available of her saying this.

It's a random thread-and since I have learned not to click on certain posts I am happily posting into random silence for all I know or care.

Though the cat thing was amazing- I hope no one's votes were lost because of that idiot.

Oh, if I didn't have to play a gig tonight, I would be so in on this! :)

Does she identify herself- has there been a voice print comparison?

I mean come on- maybe yes and maybe no.

Just saying.

Are you just sitting around, trolling the internet for examples of voting proplems that involve Democrats? Have you nothing better to do?

Ahha! You are reading posts!

Just random ones.

OH MY GOD- not ID- heaven forbid you have to identify yourself with gov't issued ID.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! :rolleyes:

link

If I'm not mistaken (and I could be), doing so is blatantly illegal. If it is true, my guess is that we will find out soon enough. It is being reported by people all over the country though that they heard her say it on her show.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Whether you agree with it or no, the fact is that current laws forbid requiring ID. A change in those laws may or may not be a good idea, but poll-worker ignorance is once of the biggest sources of voter confusion/disenfranchisement/fraud.

That's all I wondered.

yeah- cause people are so scared and stupid that someone asking them for their ID makes them afraid to vote.

Someone asking them for ID and not handing them a balot (or computer login code) if they don't produce it prevents them from voting as is illegal.

And regardless of what political side you are on, I think it is glaringly apparent that the voting system in this country is seriously broken at this point. There should not be questions so early on about alleged fraud (from both sides) all over the country and there shouldn't be people calling voters and spreading misinformation. Likewise, electronic voting machines are obviously not trustworthy enough to be counted on.

I am seriously dumbfounded and saddened at the overwhelming number of issues being reported in precincts all over the country. How can we expect people to vote if nobody on either side can trust that their vote counts for anything?

I understand the argument against poll workers giving bad info. I do not understand nor accept the ludicrous notion that requiring ID causes people to not vote, or feel that they can't vote.

Seems like a sure shot way to prevent fraud.

What I love is when we go to other countries to make sure their elections are above-board.:rolleyes:

Amen Brutha MBC- my question is, how do you fix it?

Which is fine, but a totally different discussion. No matter what the specifics of voting laws are, poll workers are by-and-large idiots and rarely know how to properly apply them.

I honestly don't know. It just seems like the old system served us well for many, many years. Sure there were occasional problems but overall it seemed far more reliable. I'm not convinced that electronic voting is anywhere near as reliable. Just too many problems so far.

Technology is a wonderful thing but until there truly is a tamper-proof way to utilize it, I think I am going to be an absentee voter from now on.

I wonder if the problems we are seeing now are really worse than the past, or if in this age of instant information, we are more aware of them now.

I honestly believe the first, and easiest, step is to actually properly educate the poll workers. 99% of the issues you read about are either caused or exacerbated by poll workers who don't know the laws, don't understand the system, don't know how to resolve issues if they come up, and don't know where to turn for help. That's a serious flaw and no matter what rule changes you make, if the people running the show don't understand how to enforce them, we'll never get anywhere.

Gosh- what a nice thing to say about the people who take their day to help people vote.

Sorry, I meant to specify the poll workers involved in most of the problems that get reported. Didn't mean to implicate all poll workers.

That's the rub, isn't it?

MBC, I'm surprised also but on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. I expected a free for all. I don't know if that's because of the good experience I had here, but I'm not seeing as many system failures in the news as I expected. For the most part, it seems the machines have been calibrated properly. There is some vote switching, but again not as much as I expected.

Tequila makes my clothes fall off.

And double sorry, I shouldn't imply that just because they screw up they're idiots. The can't be blamed if the correct information isn't readily available to them, or if procedures for dealing with issues aren't clearly laid out.

I'll revise to say that the entire system (or lack thereof) of running polling places is idiotic, independent of the actualy laws that govern them.

Screw all this election crap...Brittney and K-Fed are getting divorced!!!!

Man, I do NOT envy the judge who has to make THAT custody decission.

COming in late...

So you don't have to show ID to vote? I always have... from what I remember. Don't they need to check your address etc? So I can go anywhere and "be" someone else, give an address of someone I know and vote in thier place? Hmmmm... Am I an idiot or does that sound odd?

uh... There's goes my reason for living?

No wait, how about...Well butter me up and sell me as a roaster but I never saw THAT coming?

Anyone?

Lindsey Lohan is also upset that people see her as a party girl. Maybe it's that Brazillion Taxi photo......

I had to show mine too- I prefer it that way.

It's a distraction by the [insert not your party here] to screw with the election results!!!!!!

Okay I'd just read about Lindsay Lohan's taxi "shot" and didn't see that Nephy had posted this after a quote...so you can imagine...!:eek:

In California, you are only required to show photo ID the first time you vote if you regisetered by mail (that would be the first time after you register in California...not the first time per election. No ID required if you're voting more than once per election ;) ).

You are required to sign the registration book.

The reasons it is like this are varried, but the three most used arguments are, A) Requiring photo id constitutes a de-facto poll tax as it costs money to get said photo id, B) requiring id would force a voter to reveal private information in what's supposed to be a secret ballot, C) Voter intimidation in that people who may be in a situation where getting an valid photo ID is difficult would be reluctant to jump through the hoops to vote.

Note, I don't vouch for the validity of any of these clamis, just laying out the arguments that are generally used.

I think I'm going to stay away from the coverage for the rest of the day, until I get home from my gig tonight. Then, I can turn on the special Jon Stewart/Steven Colbert coverage when i get home, and get the real scoop. :)

heehee- been following me around to parties?:D

Voted, fed some cats and dogs and camped out at the Volvo dealer getting a remote programed. CNN was reporting on various and sundri things regarding the election when this BREAKING NEWS was announced.

Sometimes I feel I reside mostly in an alternate universe, just making occasional trips into reality to do mundan errends and be amused and disgusted in the process.

Ok. Works for me. No argument here. Next!

Let me be the first on the LoT to congratulate you, House Speaker Pelosi.:evil:

Here's hoping she lives up to her vow to not let the House go into useless impeachments which will waste time and money.

Imagine- asking a Dem to keep their word.

Of course, if Bush gets a blowjob from someone, all bets are off.

Can we give Bush some pot? Maybe he'd quit trying to pick a fight with the rest of the world

whatever- clearly you missed the perjury and tampering with witnesses part that caused Clintons impeachment.

Clearly you've missed the last five years somehow...

There is no perjury when a man is asked questions that are nobody's business. Only injustice.

Imagine - Asking a Repub to keep them self out of criminal prosecution.

Whatever - clearly you missed that it was all started because some republican couldn’t keep his nose out of the President’s private sex life.

:snap: freakin' :snap:

I see I didn't miss much. :)

Exactly.

Let's see. Clinton will go down in history with Monica.

Bush. I don't even want to go there. Let's just say denial is something I see a lot of.

Or would that be Monica will go down in history? :evil:

Hee hee...I read that and thought 'Oh, that will get some visuals'...:blush:

I agree to an extent. It stopped being private when it was happening in the Oval Office while foreign leaders were waiting for him in the Rose Garden, and I have heard of a sotry (no link, as it hasn't broken yet, but is supposed to soon) that Boris Yeltsin had intelligence about Monica and used that as leverage against Clinton. However, I digress from my intended subject matter.

I remember in 1994 watching election returns and rejoicing. I would imagine that is what is happening throughout most of the LoT community right now. However, I am not as depressed as I figured I would be. I didn't watch the TV last night figuring it would be bad, and this morning it was proven to be, well, bad. From my perspective, of course.

I'm trying to think of a positive spin, but I can't. Bush lost this election, sa is common in second term midterms, because of three things (two his fault, one not) - history (the party in power losews in midterms), Iraq (the PC prosecution has sucked, and the dems were fired up against it in general), and abandoning his based on spending and immigration issues.

That being said, I'm willing to give the dems a chance. Seriously - don't laugh.

They can't spend more money than the Republicans have. And that's there only real power at this point. Bush will hopefully pull out the veto pen when necessary, but I'm doubting it will happen.

My only concern is raising taxes. The economy is great by pretty much every measure, and I beleive that is largely because of tax policy. It has not hurt government receipts, in fact, the money collected has incresed with economic activity. The income tax is a tax on the attempted accumulation of wealth and has little or nothing to do with "taxing the rich", but that's a different story.

So, enjoy, my friends. I predict infighting within the dem party for the speakership, with Pelosi winning and hopefully in the spotlight sounding like a raving idiot, damaging her party for the 2008.

Subpoena power

:snap:

Hmmm...early morning grammatical booboo. Not "there only power", but "their only power". Too late to edit it, and Scrooge quoted my ineptitude. Sigh. Anyway....

I hope they do. Seriously. If they do, I predict their power won't last past the next election because they will appear to be motivated by political vengence.

Better?

The political vengeance angle is something the republicans will definitely try. Whether that's successful depends on how effective the new Congress is in proving Bush's lack of honesty with the citizenry. And how petulant and bull headed Georgie decides to be in the coming months.

Why should George change, he's been petulant and bull headed since he's been in office? Okay, he'll be more petulant and bull headed. :D

A fire in the master's house is set.

Oh, and fvck you, Santorum.

It's useless- you will excuse anyone on your "side" no matter their offense- yet stomp and yell for the other "side" to pay and pay for any infraction.

My emotional disgust at some of you is too much for me- it makes me sick. I'll just side in with Leo- he has the best points.

One thing I do respect about Santorum (and it truly is a limited list) is that he stuck by what he believes in and who he believes in even when he knew it was costing him the election. Rather than what most of us got (politicians who's views adjust to get more votes) his constituents got a person who puts his views out and they got to decide if they liked them or not. No guessing what he really thinks is required.

No, there's nothing to respect about Santorum.

I challenge you to find an example of me excusing any politician's bad behaviour.

Look in the mirror sweetie.

Okay, so now that the Democrats have the majority in the House, will anything really change? Somehow I doubt that it will. Although according to news reports President Bush congratulated to Democrats, somehow I figure he'll not be very cooperative and will not forego the partisan nature of politics and exercise his veto power to stem any real changes. I don't know, but I am glad all the mud slinging is done for time being and we can move on.

Injustice? Perhaps. However when you are entering sworn testimony and lie that's pretty much the definition of perjury. I would have had a lot more respect for Mr. Clinton if he had just told them to piss off.

Yep. I'm sure when that stem cell bill reaches his desk he'll say to himself "well, if that's what the democrats want I guess I'll give it to them. After all they hold a majority".

Gridlock. It's what's for dinner.

My "side" is America, democracy, and the american people. What's yours?

Agreed. I bet Mr. Cheney tells Congress to piss off when they supoena him.


And I know the definition of perjury, tyvm. I didn't literally mean Clinton did not commit perjury. I simply hold that perjury charges against a man who is asked questions that he should not be compelled to answer is an injustice.

(Before you ask Neph, yes I would stand in defense of Bush if he was ever called in front of Congress to testify about a blowjob.)

I don't expect a non emotional response from you but I am going to venture a guess that you don't like the Clinton/Lewenski comments?

How about comments about how the election was rigged? How about how the Bush family acts like they are American Royalty? How are his daughters excused from duty?

And, finally, how about some emotional disgust with all of the body bags being sent back here from Iraq. Those bags hold our people, our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers.

That is disgusting to me. And, your constant remarks about Dems and how you can't imagine them keeping their word, etc. etc. That is so, ah, narrow minded? Democrat is a political stance, and, if you knew some who lied or whatever, that doesn't mean every single Dem does.

You see, that is where I, as a Dem, differ from you, a Republican. I do not lump people together and then insult them all, of course, all the while presuming that I am better.

Which is what a lot of your posts do.

Thought I'd point that out because I just don't think you get that.

I see you came out here and had a great time, people welcomed you and were eager to meet you. People are people. This constant knocking of 'dems' is really getting old. I know this is a political time but I think enough is enough.

Just my .05c

And a freakin' good morning.

Wasn't going to ask.

Though I suspect your dream of subpeonas is never going to happen-however, if so you better hope they find something huge (which I doubt) because otherwise they will look like nothing but a gang out for revenge- hardly what most people want.

Could care less about them actually.

It wasn't- hasn't been- so what? That's not my perception. It's a volunteer military- they choose to not volunteer- shall we bring back the draft?

Who knew what they were going into- who are more honorable than any of the armchair generals sitting safely here deciding how things REALLY are over there.

Bullshyt- you just did.

Said from the safety of the majority around here.


Spare me-

Conservatives get just as knocked here. I don't like the democrat party- and I will say so.

I said I HOPE they do keep their word- but I DOUBT IT. That is not narrow minded- I am trying to be positive about things and hope for good things.

But I have my doubts-

I don't think I am better- but I am sick of explaining that to anyone.

People are people- the guy who called my politics evil gave me a hug at the wedding. I LIKE the people- I loathe the politics on the left.

I am not backing down from that- anymore than the left backs down from hating the politics on the right.

I am having a freaking good morning thanks-despite the sanctimonious stuff here!

Then perhaps you are not included in the "some of you" statement.

I wonder what the press conference today will be like- and what is it for?

Mousewife gets the level-headed, astute, well-spoken Swanker award for the day. No, the week!

Whatever-:rolleyes:

GOP says Rumsfeld stepping down

Is it difficult to be such a drama queen, or does it just come naturally?

If true, then it's about time!

I suspect, now that checks and balances and congressional oversight have been restored, we’ll see a lot of sudden house cleaning by the administration.

In a word? Yes! Ta-daaa!

:snap: I don't think I could express myself any better than this :snap:

Gosh guys- why don't you just start another kick the shyt out of Nephy thread in the Parking Lot.

:rolleyes:

Well, gee whillikers. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings with the pointed remarks.

Perhaps you meant to post that in the parking lot.

dee-yoo-oh-bee ell-ess-tee-ay enn-tee-ay-ar-dee!

Is that an invitation?

I've said it before and I'll say it again; Neph, you have no idea how you REALLY come across on message boards. I've met you in person and you're fun, nice and really great to be around. But, how you communicate in writing is like having a conversation with a tasmanian devel on crack. How many covert and overt comments do we all have to make before you take a good hard look at your communication style and possible be open to suggestions?

We're not going to provide another excuse for martyrdom.


Enough, already.

Now, MSNBC is reporting Montana went Dem, which leaves VA. While the margin is very slim, VA is a small state and 7,000 votes is actually a pretty good-sized lead. So, barring an unusually large conservative absentee vote, or some big voting discrepencies, I think we are looking at a Democratic Senate. Who'd of thought, eh?

When?

When someone chooses to talk to me rather than call me out and then pile on.

..and before someone calls me a victim- no, I am not.

However-I am sick of being called out and insulted (yes, I have been insulted) and it is human nature to defend.

I am open to suggestions-

And I've said it to you before, if you don't like people attacking you, then don't attack other people. Many of your posts come across as attacks.

Looks like Virginia is the new Florida.

Ohio.

Florhioda.

Florhioda is for lovers

Well, maybe being sick of it will cause you to take a hard look at your communication style.

I had time this morning to post but now have a wide awake full house including a husband who wants my time. So. Just a couple of things before I leave...

Safety? We are all 'safe' here. You and I are the same here. Actually, I think you are here more than I am so I'd think you'd have realized that.

Everyone likes you regardless of how you come across sometimes, which is what I was trying to point out. I am sure conservatives get grief as well but I don't think it is dished out quite the same.

Okay, put it this way. This is a family of sorts, right? I come from a big family. We are all different, thank God, even being raised by the same parents. When we get together it can be great, we all love and accept one another for who and what we are and have conversations discussing our lives and sharing our beliefs.

Well, there are a couple who insist upon pointing out what someone else is doing wrong and how wrong it is. What gives them the right to say they are right and the other wrong? But, the family still loves them and it goes on.

I will be back.

Glad to see everyone is having a freakin' good day. ;)

Ahhh, I kinda like the shoot first take no prisoner Nephy. I'm not sure I'd know how to handle a kinder/gentler egyptian princess bitch (or whatever that title you had was...)

Yeah, well. I don't think things are ever going to change no matter what anyone says, so you have no worries. :D

Egyptian Demon Bitch- a name gifted me by JWBear. I find it delightful actually- despite what I suspect was his intent.

FWIW- I come here more than anywhere else these days- why? Because I like the people- even when I disagree and want to scream and yell and rip their hair out.

Family indeed. ;)

Actually… I pointed out that you named yourself after an Egyptian demon bitch… If you’ve since decided to live up to your name, it’s not my fault. ;)

;) says you tounge firmly in cheek LOL

I think you said something about you would rather deal with someone else rather than an Egyptian Demon Bitch. I loved it.....so I adopted it.

Great title line :D

From FauxNews:

Breaking News >> Dow Industrials Post 12,176 Record Close, Boosted by Election Confidence


It will be interesting to see which stocks rose, and which fell.

Hey... If the shoe fits... ;)

Make sure there's a matching one in the box, ya don't wanna hop around in one shoe lookin' all stupid or something...

The following message was brought to you by the great folks at Tylenol T3 :)

Interesting. Halliburton crashed in early tradeing but actually closed the day up 0.17 points.

Link

An interesting column on why the GOP lost-

Well yeah, there might be one or two dems who for one reason or another feel that way but two is a tad short of a majority.

Should I go looking for onesies and twosies among the republicans that have over the top views or have I already made my point?


Oh and just for the record, Mr. Rangel's issue is that minorities compromise more than 30% of the military and he says:

I couldn't get past the Pat Boone banner ad.

It's a random political thought thread- so I posted a random item. I was not aware I was involved in a juvenile tit for tat battle where we have to justify what we post.

His race baiting and class warfare are disgusting. But typical.

No need to justify what we post? Oh.

Well now that just opens up a whole bunch of new avenues for comments...

Moonliner is a doodyhead!

:p
:decap:

meh

Al Qaeda gloats over Rumsfeld

Charming-

American Thinker?? Nephy, do you ever read anything that's not a conservative spin machine?

Here's an interesting video. Bill Maher on Larry King outing Ken Mehlman. A lot of DC insiders know this and Mehlmen never denied it, so why did CNN censor the interview?

Weird.

More self-hating gays in charge of anti-gayness. Bleh.

I was not aware all gay people had to want the same thing. Are they individuals or just a voting bloc? Are you deciding he hates himself because he does not make it an issue right out front?

Who cares?

but on other items-

Link

I would love to see this change.

If he is gay and he's promoting anti-gay legislation... if that's not self-hate, I don't know what is. And I do know self-hate when I see it.

I am not going to argue your personal experience by any means.

Before even asking another question- what are you considering when you talk about "anti-gay" legislation?

Marriage quality, for one.

So if a gay person does not want gay marriage that makes them anti-gay and self hating?

So I wonder- it just seems like throwing people out who don't happen to get on board a certain issue. No individual thought, just a group think mentality that moves as one- otherwise is tossed as anti-gay or self hating?

He works closely with the Feds and knows the numerous benefits of a Federally sanctioned union. Yet works against it. I'd say it was self-hating. I also think that staying in the closet is lying to yourself and others. If you're willing to do that to keep your comfy job, then your priorities are off. I'm speaking for myself and how I think. It's like a black man being in the klan. Makes no sense.
If he were out and was anti-marriage it would be a different thing. Fine don't get married, don't work towards it, but avidly work against it? That's messed up, too.

ok- another question.

The idea is to have being gay not be a big deal- as in accepted, equal. Right?

So what is with the "outing" of so called gay republicans?

The message is- "being gay is bad- you're a party of bigots- so you should reject so and so"

which seems to go directly against the idea that it should be accepted.

Just seems like a plan that would bite someone in the end. Especially because it seems to rely on some sort of institutionalized hatred which frankly I don't see.

I'm not even going to bother linking to the individual links-

Drudge Report- Germany is going to prosecute Rumsfeld

My honest answer, offered with no defensiveness on my part, is, if a Gay person, closeted or not, supports the work of an organization working against Gay equality, that person should be exposed as a hypocrite.

"Being Gay is bad" is not the message. The message is, "Being a hypocrite is bad," and, "Being against civil rights is bad."

Thank you for giving another view of it.

The comments on Mehlman made me curious-

Biography

So much for no denial.

"[You] have asked a question people shouldn't have to answer."

Good for him. He may indeed be a hypocrite, and that's something he's got to deal with. But I tend to be irked when public figures get pressured to come out of the closet, and particularly so in the political realm. One's sexuality is one's own business, no? So why is it okay to put pressure on them like that? Attack the issue, leave the individual to work their own sexuality and presumed hypocracy out for themself.

I can understand the argument that it's damaging to continued progress of gay rights if public figures are acting as if being labled gay is something to be avoided. But I think it's more damaging to be aggressive about it, and to use a person's sexuality as a political leverage point. In the end, who gives a rat's ass whether individual politicians are gar or not and what they're voting for? The righteousness of the desire for equal rights stands on its own, whether there are hypocrites working against it or not.

I think Gn2Dlnd hit it right on the nose. It's about hypocrisy. If a closeted gay man is advocating anti-gay legislation, that’s hypocrisy. If there were a politician of African-American descent who was able to “pass”, and did so – hid his ethnicity from the public and his family - and if he were trying to pass discriminatory laws aimed at African-Americans, then wouldn’t that be the same kind of hypocrisy? Should he not be exposed?

Perhaps. But I find there to be too much venom and not enough sympathy from a community that is fighting persecution. Should he be exposed? I suppose. I just feel the focus is a little bit too much on demonizing hypocrites (who almost invariably will shoot themselves in the foot without help, thank you very much) and not enough on addressing the actual issue.

Plus, the public calls to out public figures aren't limited to politicians, who are in a position to be actively hypocritical and affect things. It extends to celebreties (Tom Cruise, anyone?). I find the vehement calls for people like Cruise to come out to be...unseemly.

All of this exposes a dichotomy in the gay rights message. "My sexuality is my business...but public figures' sexuality is my business too." Like I said, I see it to a point, but I think it's done in an agressive, political way that trivializes homosexuality and lends support to those that would demonize the "gay agenda".