• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

My right to basic bodily autonomy is not on the table. that’s the new deal.

The snowflake in chief appeared visibly frustrated when questioned by a reporter about egg prices.

Not all heroes wear capes.

It’s easy to sit in safety and prescribe what other people should be doing.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

I am pretty sure these ‘journalists’ were not always such a bootlicking sycophants.

Hey hey, RFK, how many kids did you kill today?

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

We’re watching the self-immolation of the leading world power on a level unprecedented in human history.

If you don’t believe freedom is for everybody, then the thing you love isn’t freedom, it is privilege.

People are complicated. Love is not.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

If America since Jan 2025 hasn’t broken your heart, you haven’t loved her enough.

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

If ‘weird’ was the finish line, they ran through the tape and kept running.

Narcissists are always shocked to discover other people have agency.

He seems like a smart guy, but JFC, what a dick!

“Loving your country does not mean lying about its history.”

The line between political reporting and fan fiction continues to blur.

Fear or fury? The choice is ours.

Sadly, media malpractice has become standard practice.

American history and black history cannot be separated.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / More Gay Bashers

More Gay Bashers

by John Cole|  August 8, 200510:36 am| 97 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily pens a large missive titled ‘No On Roberts’:

Then, last week, the Los Angeles Times broke the story that Roberts had volunteered his services – pro bono – to help prepare a landmark homosexual activist case to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court…

He did his job well. But he didn’t serve the public interest. And he certainly no longer sounds like the carefully crafted image of a jurist who believes in the Constitution and judicial restraint.

The 1996 Romer vs. Evans case produced what the homosexual activists considered, at the time, its most significant legal victory, paving the way for an even bigger one – Lawrence vs. Texas, the Supreme Court ruling that effectively overturned all laws prohibiting sodomy in the United States…

Roberts was a partner in the firm. His job was not in jeopardy if he excused himself from the case on principled moral grounds. That would have been the honorable thing to do – either that, or resign from a law partnership that took such reprehensible clients…

Roberts did not have a moral problem with that. He did not have a moral problem with helping those activists win a major battle in the culture war. He did not have a moral problem with using the Supreme Court to interfere in the sovereign decisions of a sovereign people in a sovereign state. He did not have a moral problem coaching homosexual activists on how to play politics with the court.

Saturday, Bill Quick penned the following about others who had reactions similar to Farah:

Farking right-wing bigots. If Roberts had had the temerity to “aid and abet” the dreaded faggots, then no matter what his legal qualifications, these dreary homophobes wouldn’t be able to support him. I have no idea how any rational person can look at the barely concealed antics and agendas of these people, and not understand what disgusting, un-American creeps they really are.

It really is all about the sex to these guys. Nick Danger explains why not only is Farah wrong, but offensive.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Ensuring Domestic Tranquility and Providing for the Common Defense
Next Post: Daily Plame Flame Thread »

Reader Interactions

97Comments

  1. 1.

    neil

    August 8, 2005 at 10:43 am

    It’s almost enough to make one think that the sane wing of the Republican party is going out of their way to give the finger to these nutcases. First we have Roberts, who is nominated with this ‘poison pill’ lurking just far enough below the surface that the fundies will cream their pants about his statement against abortion before they find out about it. Then Bill Frist advocates stem cell research. Now we have Santorum saying you shouldn’t be teaching creationism in school.

    I sincerely hope this doesn’t end up being as much of a good strategy for the Republicans as it looks like. Or, barring that, I hope that they get severely punished for their attempts at good governmance. It’s not like they don’t have it coming.

  2. 2.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 10:44 am

    Farking right-wing bigots. If Roberts had had the temerity to “aid and abet” the dreaded faggots, then no matter what his legal qualifications, these dreary homophobes wouldn’t be able to support him. I have no idea how any rational person can look at the barely concealed antics and agendas of these people, and not understand what disgusting, un-American creeps they really are.

    My sentiments exactly. Only more so.

    To paraphrase a very un-great man: Culture war? Bring it on. Nothing would make me happier than rendering the RW culture-war combatants to Iran where they belong.

  3. 3.

    DougJ

    August 8, 2005 at 10:55 am

    I’m sick of the libruls accusing Republicans of homophobia. There are many gay Republicans — they may not believe in gar marriage, but they are gay. I challenge the Dems to find a gay Dem as prominent as our party chairman, Ken Mehlman, whom I have read is gay, though quietly so.

  4. 4.

    Mr Furious

    August 8, 2005 at 11:06 am

    Hmm, sounds like the fake DougJ…

    Anyway, hopefully none of us needs Nick Danger to explain why this is offensive…

  5. 5.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 11:17 am

    I’m sick of the libruls accusing Republicans of homophobia.

    Yes, this could be Doug2 or Doug3. However, whoever it is, I say this to him/her/it:

    Your objection is overruled.

  6. 6.

    Dave Ruddell

    August 8, 2005 at 11:31 am

    Well, you know that DougJ sometimes leaved his computer unattended, so maybe one of his co-workers is having some fun.

  7. 7.

    Demdude

    August 8, 2005 at 11:46 am

    I’m sick of the libruls accusing Republicans of homophobia. There are many gay Republicans—they may not believe in gar marriage, but they are gay. I challenge the Dems to find a gay Dem as prominent as our party chairman, Ken Mehlman, whom I have read is gay, though quietly so.

    And 5 seconds after he wasn’t so “quietly” gay, his ass would drummed out of the party chairmanship.

  8. 8.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 12:16 pm

    And 5 seconds after he wasn’t so “quietly” gay, his ass would drummed out of the party chairmanship.

    So long as you continue to paint the right in colors of your making, as opposed to reality, then you will continue to lose elections with no real idea why it is happening. I have no real problem with it.

  9. 9.

    neil

    August 8, 2005 at 12:20 pm

    Defense Guy, is it possible for “you” to _win_ elections with no real idea why it is happening? Just curious.

  10. 10.

    Demdude

    August 8, 2005 at 12:27 pm

    Since the Republican party has augmented their “Southern Strategy” with trotting out gay bigotry when the need arises, you sir, are out of touch with reality.

  11. 11.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 12:28 pm

    neil

    Sure it is, of course. It isn’t what is happening these days, but it doesn’t mean it couldn’t.

    Step back from the politics for a second and ask yourself why, despite the assertation that the ‘haters’ are running the party, the FMA went nowhere?

  12. 12.

    james richardson

    August 8, 2005 at 12:32 pm

    If Ken is gay, and is OK with being part of a party who wants to outlaw his right to have sex with anyone, making it a criminal offense; a party who wants to make it OK for gays to be evicted, to be fired from state jobs, to in effect be 2nd class citizens, who are we to judge? or mayor west? or santorum’s aide? they’ve sold their souls for lower taxes and power in the party. more often than not they’re so upset with being gay (whereas in the democrat party they would be welcomed with open arms) they are content with hating themselves and don’t think they deserve much equality anyway. it’s much better to marry a woman you don’t love and force yourself to have children in a futile attempt to “fix yourself.”

    if however the GOP is concerning that roberts is a closet “pro-homosexual,” who has the nerve to even mention them as if they were citizens deserving of equal rights, why don’t they just ask him? or, is withholding information only applicable to when democrats request it?

  13. 13.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 12:33 pm

    Demdude

    You mean there are bigots in the Republican party and the press is ever so willing to let us know it? I am shocked. Hey, I know, let’s pretend that they are actually setting policy. That way we can continue to paint these equality issues as an us vs. them where the eeeeevil rethuglicans are responsible for all the bigotry. It isn’t true, but it is politics, so truth really plays a small role anyway.

  14. 14.

    Demdude

    August 8, 2005 at 12:44 pm

    It isn’t true, but it is politics, so truth really plays a small role anyway.

    Since this is a political blog, I didn’t think we were discussing raising hamsters.

    No Republicans are not responsible for bigotry, just exploiting it. The FMA gets mentioned when they need to pander to “your” base. They don’t care if it’s passed, just whip up support or cover up something else.

    They are setting policy. You mention sexual orientation in any department of the govt, adios bucko.

    Their actions show that even though you might have another opinion, your leadership does not share it.

  15. 15.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 12:49 pm

    It isn’t what is happening these days

    Really? So “defending marriage” is a real, valid concern? Show the social evidence from the Red States which support the notion that their “values”, in fact, defend marriage in any way whatsoever.

    So “preserving sanctity” is the responsbility of government?

    So promoting an anti-gay policy while your wife writes steamy books about lesbian love isn’t two-faced?

    Present evidence that gay-bashing “defends” marriage. Present evidence that deciding who can marry is a government role. Show the basis for it, for example, in the Constitution. Show the constitutional basis for any government action regarding “sanctity.”

    Explain and discuss the “reality” behind your government’s posture toward homosexuality. Be specific and cite facts.

  16. 16.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 12:57 pm

    No Republicans are not responsible for bigotry, just exploiting it.

    No, you just have an easier time excusing it when it comes from your side. When it happens on the left it is seen as part of the greater good or done in the name of the cause of equality or whatever other bullshit label you put on it.

    What you are missing, is that the voices in the name of bigotry on the right are always there, only the camera only points at them when the left needs to make a point about how bigoted the right is. It’s crap.

    The other thing you are to blind to see, is that they are not winning.

  17. 17.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 1:07 pm

    What you are missing, is that the voices in the name of bigotry on the right are always there

    What you are missing is that those voices are trying to employ the government to do their work for them. They have declared a “cultural war” and they appear to have the GOP on their side.

    So, just stand up to them. What’s your problem?

  18. 18.

    neil

    August 8, 2005 at 1:07 pm

    Defense Guy, you have no proof that you “get it” and liberals here “don’t” besides the fact that “your side” is winning elections. But if you admit that it’s possible that “you” are winning elections without knowing why, how can you possibly be certain that you are right?

  19. 19.

    Demdude

    August 8, 2005 at 1:12 pm

    No, you just have an easier time excusing it when it comes from your side.

    If you want to discuss other forms, we can do so. The subject of this thread is “More Gay Bashers”. That is why we are discussing it, not other types of bigotry. Ask Mr. Cole to open another thread if you have another subject.

    What you are missing, is that the voices in the name of bigotry on the right are always there, only the camera only points at them when the left needs to make a point about how bigoted the right is.

    The Republicans are in charge of the White House, Senate & House. You folks are in charge and the bigotry is out front and in control. That is our point.

    I have conceded & I know a good portion of the Republicans do not agree with the Anti-Gay Bigotry, but again, it is not reflected in current policies.

    I also agree in the long run it will not win, but that doesn’t help us today.

  20. 20.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 1:23 pm

    You all excuse the Democrats who state, with no sense of irony that they are for and against gay marriage. Tell me, do you have any idea where John Kerry or Ted Kennedy stand on the issue? I do, and it is with that knowledge that I am telling you that you are blind.

  21. 21.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 1:30 pm

    Tell me, do you have any idea where John Kerry or Ted Kennedy stand on the issue?

    Where do you stand on the issue? And if it isn’t in support of “defense of marriage” or “sanctity”, and other veiled official bigotries, why don’t you just say so?

  22. 22.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 1:40 pm

    ppGaz

    I think that if 2 people of the same sex are willing to commit to each other in an honest and forthright manner with no intention at deception or interest in ‘ruining’ the institution of marriage, then they should be granted all of the rights and responsibilities of the institution. I further feel that the use of the word marriage is where the greatest amount of ‘issue’ comes from. I think that focusing on the word rather than the rights and responsibilities of the thing was a mistake. The price for that mistake is being paid now in such liberal bastions as Oregon.

    In the end, I worry not at all about it because I know that G-d is not mocked, even though some will try.

  23. 23.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 1:50 pm

    I think that if 2 people of the same sex are willing to commit to each other in an honest and forthright manner with no intention at deception or interest in ‘ruining’ the institution of marriage, then they should be granted all of the rights and responsibilities of the institution. I further feel that the use of the word marriage is where the greatest amount of ‘issue’ comes from. I think that focusing on the word rather than the rights and responsibilities of the thing was a mistake. The price for that mistake is being paid now in such liberal bastions as Oregon.

    Well, we pretty much agree.

    I think you and I can save a lot of time by figuring what we agree on first. Whatever there is left to argue about, probably isn’t that siginificant.

    However, I’d give more points for pointing out that the “sanctity of marriage” thing is a cover for using anti-gay bigotry for votes. I think that’s the contentious issue here.

  24. 24.

    Demdude

    August 8, 2005 at 1:53 pm

    are willing to commit to each other in an honest and forthright manner with no intention at deception or interest in ‘ruining’ the institution of marriage, then they should be granted all of the rights and responsibilities of the institution.

    What does this mean?

  25. 25.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 1:55 pm

    It means that they aren’t just trying to game the system for lower tax rates or some other benefit. Yes, straight couples may well be just as likely.

  26. 26.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 1:57 pm

    I think you and I can save a lot of time by figuring what we agree on first. Whatever there is left to argue about, probably isn’t that siginificant.

    I just wish I could convince you that the right isn’t the boogeyman you seem to want it to be, that the left is often equally culpable for what confronts us as humans.

  27. 27.

    gratefulcub

    August 8, 2005 at 1:58 pm

    Kennedy and Kerry will tell you “i am for gay civil unions, but not for marriage” if you trap them in a corner and make them answer the question. That doesn’t mean they are spewing bigotted hate, it means they are politicians taking the wrong position because of politics. Not admirable, but it isn’t the same as exciting your base with anti-gay legislation and rhetoric about ‘protecting the sanctity of marriage.’

    This argument is ridiculous. The thought that the republican (right) base is less homophobic and less outspoken about their opposition to all thinks gay (gay marriage, civil unions, Will and Grace, Barney the uber-gay dino) is absurd. Gods Gays and Guns is not a librul media creation.

    Comparing the gay bashing of Kerry and Kennedy to Frist and Santorum?

  28. 28.

    nyrev

    August 8, 2005 at 2:03 pm

    Defense Guy,

    John Kerry is personally opposed to gay marriage, abortion, and most of those other things that the Catholic Church says he should be opposed to. However, as a state senator, his job is to represent the will of the people of Massachusetts, most of whom are in favor of gay marriage, access to abortion, birth control, etc. I realize that it is a difficult thing for some Republicans to imagine a politician considering the will of his constituents to be more important than his religious beliefs when promoting state policy. Goodness knows we’ve seen very little of that on a federal scale over the past 5 years. But apparently it does happen.

    On the other hand, if you can pin down a single consistent political viewpoint Ted Kennedy has ever held in the history of ever, you win the gold star for the day. If Teddy had been an only child, he’d have been voted out of office decades ago.

  29. 29.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 2:03 pm

    just wish I could convince you that the right isn’t the boogeyman you seem to want it to be, that the left is often equally culpable for what confronts us as humans.

    A point which will have a lot more meaning for me on that day when the left has control of every lever of government and they are running the country into a ditch.

    Right now, it’s the other side that is doing that, and that’s why it’s more important.

    It depends on whether the goal is to score rhetorical points, or to try to get a better country, I guess. Trying to save the country from whichever set of assholes is in power, is what it’s all about. In blogworld, it seems to be about who can get the verbal gotcha on the other guy because that’s what racks up the points in blogworld. But before we can get better government, more people have to figure out that they are being manipulated and played for fools by politicians of all stripes.

  30. 30.

    gratefulcub

    August 8, 2005 at 2:04 pm

    I don’t think anyone here believes that ‘the left’ as a whole throughout history is not to blame for any of our ills. But, to our progressive view of how things should be, the right that is occupied by Frist, Santorum, Tony Perkins, Pat Robertson and Bill Bennet is the boogeyman. They have gained a certain amount of power through their ability to turn out the base on election day. They are homophobic bigots. president Bush was possibly reelected because Ohio had an ammendment on the ballot to outlaw gay unions of any type. So, for this issue, and this thread, I consider the Religious Right, and the Conservatives as a whole, the boogeyman that keeps me awake at night.

    If it were a different issue we were discussing, the left may be the boogey man for both of us.

  31. 31.

    Demdude

    August 8, 2005 at 2:18 pm

    It means that they aren’t just trying to game the system for lower tax rates or some other benefit. Yes, straight couples may well be just as likely.

    Thanks for the clarification Defense Guy.

    There probably hasn’t been any program since the beginning
    of time that hasn’t been gamed by somebody. It doesn’t mean you don’t allow the 99% of the people to enjoy the benefits of that program.

    We’ll have to agree to disagree on your point. My position has been more eloquently presented by other folks on the thread.

  32. 32.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 2:19 pm

    gratefulcub

    At the risk of having ppGaz tell me that my goal seems to be to point out, well whatever he thinks my goal is, I would warn you that the Ohio argument is crap when you put it up against the fact that Oregon has a similiar measure and that state went to Kerry.

  33. 33.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 2:22 pm

    Demdude

    Unless your position is that the USSC was wrong to elevate marriage to a civil right, then we are on the same side of the argument. The largest difference between us, as I can tell, is that I understand where the opposition is coming from, and just don’t happen to agree with it.

    Oddly enough, and contrary to what many claim to see, this does not make me a pariah in my party.

  34. 34.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 2:24 pm

    At the risk of having ppGaz tell me that my goal seems to be to point out, well whatever he thinks my goal is

    The way to avoid that is to state what your goal is.

    That way other people are not left to wonder.

  35. 35.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 2:30 pm

    ppGaz

    Since at the end of the day, I often strike a chord of agreement between those who claim to advocate for the left and those on the right (me), I should think my goal is apparent.

    We are the same in all the ways that matter and those that don’t can easily be dispensed with through ample doses of alcohol. We are at war, not a pretend one either, and we are often too busy fighting ourselves. This is a great strategy for someone who wants to lose.

  36. 36.

    gratefulcub

    August 8, 2005 at 2:31 pm

    I would warn you that the Ohio argument is crap when you put it up against the fact that Oregon has a similiar measure and that state went to Kerry.

    huh? The argument is that the ammendment turned out enough voters to win ohio. If a state is 48-52 without the ammendment, it could become 51-49 with the ammendment. Just because Oregon, which you called a librul bastion i believe, didn’t swing republican has nothing to do with Ohio. Ohio was considered a 50/50 state, Oregon was expected to be blue.

    I believe California may have had some sort of ammendment on their ballot, just because it didn’t go red doesn’t mean it couldn’t have worked in Ohio.

    Regardless if it worked or not, the right tried it. They believed it was in their political interest to put it on the ballot. They believed they could excite their base by offering them the opportunity to vote against gays.

  37. 37.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 2:32 pm

    We are the same in all the ways that matter and those that don’t can easily be dispensed with through ample doses of alcohol.

    First round is on me, DG!

  38. 38.

    Stormy70

    August 8, 2005 at 3:03 pm

    I think the point with the Blue state amendments is that they passed with a healthy percentage of Democrats voting for it. Same in Louisiana, when the Democrat won the election and the amendment passed by 78% approval. I think the gay community should have started incrementally with civil unions, then as time passed “upgraded” if you will to marriage. The majority of gay couples are in committed relationships, and if the country sees civil unions working so well, then slowly it will come to accept gay marriage.

    Long time posters know I believe in gay marriage, and the Gen X and Y Republicans are much more open to it, as well as Gen X and Y Democrats, than older generations of either party. I thought the absolute wrong (and stupid) way to do it was by using the courts. It pissed me off on principle. Use the legislature to get things done, like Connecticutt who instituted civil unions and you will not get the outcry from people who feel it forced down their throats. At least people will have a say in the matter by virtue of their vote, and can choose to reward or punish at the ballot box.

    My mother is a evangelical Christian with a gay son who lives with his partner, yet she treats them the same way she treats me and my husband. I think some of you would be surprised to know that even the most redneck of my relatives accepted him, without any problem. I think some of you assume too much by listening to gay-bashing Christians(?), who by virtue of their wailing and gnashing of teeth, get all the press. If it bleeds it leads. Most people are not like this.

  39. 39.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 3:31 pm

    I think the gay community should have started incrementally with civil unions

    So as not to provide an opportunity for the GOP to demagogue the issue and try to parlay it into votes?

    Or do you favor standing up to the bigoted wing of your party, and telling them they’re wrong, and forswearing any game-playing of the issue for GOP votes?

    Just wondering if you’ll stand up for the right thing, or just look away because your party apparently benefits from the confusion.

    Which part(s) of “God, Gays and Guns” do you disavow, again?

  40. 40.

    gratefulcub

    August 8, 2005 at 3:35 pm

    I come from gay bashing conservatives. You might be a redneck if…..

    This is just my personal opinion, based on personal experience. I came from rural kentucky, ‘blacks’ weren’t accepted, and homosexuals were only spoke of in jokes. Until the aids epidimic hit the media in the 80’s, about as close as I had come to a homosexual was hearing someone say ‘light in the loafers.’ Of course, the media coverage of aids brought the issue of homosexuality out into the open in areas that had never given it much thought before, like rural kentucky.

    Every joke ended with a gay bashing punchline. They were easy to make fun of. I didn’t know one, in fact, I wasn’t sure they existed. But I thought it was creepy, unnatural, and basically gross. I am at times ashamed of my past views, but in my defense, I didn’t know any other view existed. I think that is where part of the conservative (red rural states) hatred and fear of homosexuals come from. They have little to no contact with what they actually fear.

    I moved to Louisville for college. Yes, it is still kentucky, but it is also an oasis of diversity in the area. I was a server and bartender, and before I knew it I had new friends. Then someone told me that my new friends were gay. I went through the conservative bigot to liberal conversion in record time. Come to find out, they weren’t scary, weren’t gross, actually just like me, but with better style. Before long, I thought that maybe, just maybe, all the things I heard about ‘blacks’ might not be true either. I thought I would even use the term African American instead, just to be on the safe side. Knock me over with a feather, they are just like me too! Conversion complete. I proceeded to reject my christian roots, and to disassociate myself from my bigoted homophobic family.

    Funny thing happened after that. One cousin marries an african american, another steps out of the closet (she had to when she got caught in bed with her best friend). My family made a somewhat slow u-turn toward accepting both. Familiarity changed everything.

    So, my long rambling point is that I agree with Stormy in some ways. The conservative christians sometimes get too much hate directed their way. They are a subset of our society that is statistically more homophobic, but it isn’t out of a hereditary character flaw. It is lack of familiarity. That is why rural dems often hold the same opinion on this issue as the repubs.

    And so I agree with stormy again, that the next wave of repubs and dems will have a completely different take on this issue. We are exposed different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, etc on a daily basis, just by turning on the TV.

  41. 41.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 3:41 pm

    Or do you favor standing up to the bigoted wing of your party, and telling them they’re wrong, and forswearing any game-playing of the issue for GOP votes?

    This happens daily, but no one has control over what someone else can think or say. Once again, do you think it is coincidence that the FMA has not moved forward, or do you honestly think that the Democrat ‘outrage’ is why it has stalled?

    The game-playing is evident on both sides, and is unlikely to disappear anytime soon. Do you think it is an honest tactic for Democrats to portray Republians as the cause of bigotry in this country, because that happens too, and I don’t see anyone on that side calling for it to stop.

  42. 42.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 3:44 pm

    I think Stormy is a “RINOINO” — a RINO in name only.

    She’s aw-shucks about all this stuff. But if anyone complains about demagoguery on guns, or on “attacks on christians,” or gay-bashing, then they’re just “lefties.” They’re attacking good folks like her who have a gay brother and a fundie mom and are just, aw shucks, trying’ to git along with everybody.

  43. 43.

    gratefulcub

    August 8, 2005 at 3:46 pm

    Please give me an example of a democrat blaming republicans for bigotry. Bigotry is as old as civilization itself. The point is that the current GOP is ‘using’ bigotry for political gain. If you can find a democrat blaiming republicans for bigotry, or anyone at all that says that there would be no homophobia or racism if the democrats win the next election, I promise, I will denounce them with all my might. And I will call my senators to get them to denounce the moron. The point of this thread is that the GOP is ‘using’ racism and homophobia.

    While I am at it, I denounce Ward Churchill and I think he should no longer be the voice of the liberal movement.

  44. 44.

    Stormy70

    August 8, 2005 at 3:55 pm

    And so I agree with stormy again, that the next wave of repubs and dems will have a completely different take on this issue. We are exposed different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, etc on a daily basis, just by turning on the TV.

    Exactly. How many of you have girlfriends, wives, or friend-girls that watch Home and Garden Television? Every woman I know watches this channel, and trusts every gay designer to help her choose the next “it” color of wall paint. But the channel goes further than the stereotypical gay designer. They have home, landscaping, and curb appeal makeover shows that feature gay couples. These gay couples are just like everyone else, they want their home to look spectacular! on as little money as possible.

    Queer Eye for the Straight Guy gets alot of guff from some, but my husband was drawn into watching it by Carson, the flamboyent, hysterical, touchy feely gay guy. He now puts Origins on his face and shaves correctly. My Republican Gen X friend’s husbands also watched the shows sometimes.

    As people become familiar with gay people, they will accept civil unions, then marriage. But it is a slow process.

    It’s like this: My husband’s best friend is black, and in the 80’s he had to sneak around with the white girls he dated in high school. This is in Amarillo, Tx. He said he goes to the grocery store now, and the black young man is with the white young woman, and her Mom will be holding the baby. He said it is completely different now that people are used to it. This is a sea change in attitudes in less than 20 years.

    It just takes time, and the screeching from the left will not help. If I yell at my husband and tell him to do something, he will never do it in a million years. I have to use the sweet as honey method, and he does what I want around the house. No need to be harpies about it.

  45. 45.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 4:01 pm

    gratefulcub

    Let’s start with the fundamentals. Are you able to identify any bigotry or racism coming from within your own party? If so, please provide an example. Thanks.

  46. 46.

    Stormy70

    August 8, 2005 at 4:02 pm

    I think Stormy is a “RINOINO” —a RINO in name only.

    She’s aw-shucks about all this stuff. But if anyone complains about demagoguery on guns, or on “attacks on christians,” or gay-bashing, then they’re just “lefties.” They’re attacking good folks like her who have a gay brother and a fundie mom and are just, aw shucks, trying’ to git along with everybody.

    You guys will tar everyone with the same brush without knowing the background of who you are tarring. My mother is not “fundie” or worthy of your dripping contempt because she happens to be a Christian. I have never defended gay bashers, but you will lump every Christian, if they are a Republican, into your “worthy to be denigrated and scorned box.” Well, not everyone fits that box. Also, my brother is a Republican, is it now ok for you to bash him? Some on the left do, but not all. He has a mix of friends ranging the political spectrum, and noone tries to tell them they have to think a certain way to belong. His gay lefty friends are more tolerant than you are to persons like my “fundie” mom.

  47. 47.

    Stormy70

    August 8, 2005 at 4:04 pm

    Look, I have to get some work done, quit making me type too long today. It is almost too reasonable in here.

  48. 48.

    gratefulcub

    August 8, 2005 at 4:14 pm

    DefenseGuy,
    By my party I assume you mean the dems, they are not, but I will go with it anyway. Immigration, by partisan bigotry. All anti immigration politicians use fear mongering to advance their agenda of anti immigration. Democrats in Texas, Arizona, California, Florida, etc use the same rhetoric.

    I assume that he racist ratio in Congress between Republicans and Democrats is about even. I have no illusions that the lefties are saints and the conservatives are devils.

    The points are: The GOP has used racism and bigotry to get their base out to vote, the dems don’t (because it wouldn’t work, not because they are better people). I have no doubt that if a generation from now, the christian and rural supported party is the dems, then they will use racism and bigotry to excite their base. I still won’t be a democrat then, I will still be a liberal looking for a party.
    I still need an example of a democrat saying that the GOP causes racism, unless there is another fundamental.

  49. 49.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 4:27 pm

    gratefulcub

    Ok, you seem to be able to see it as well. I just happen to disagree with you that it is only the republicans that use specious arguments that amount to bigotry to ‘bring out their base’. My point is that we could still seek to bring about social change or to protect against it without the need to always portray it as an us vs. them argument.

    Having said that, nothing would bring me greater pleasure than to see the death of the party that once ran on a platform of ‘white rule’. I would gladly put a stake in the heart of the donkey, and allow something else to take it’s place. That’s just me though.

  50. 50.

    Rome Again

    August 8, 2005 at 4:34 pm

    I think that if 2 people of the same sex are willing to commit to each other in an honest and forthright manner with no intention at deception or interest in ‘ruining’ the institution of marriage, then they should be granted all of the rights and responsibilities of the institution.

    No intention at deception or interest in ‘ruining’ the institution of marriage? You’re kidding right? I’m sure gay men all over the world are sitting in gay bars and plotting the evil end of marriage. NOT!

    What you fail to understand is that the word LIBERAL means just that, those who are liberal gays want everyone to have th ability to enjoy sex (and marriage) with whoever they want to, even you. If you choose a woman as your partner, that’s no skin off of their back. They just want you to realize they don’t choose the same thing.

    If you’re serious about gays intentionally attacking marriage, you’re paranoid, and delusional as well. I’m glad to see that you would allow them the right to choose to marry whomever they wish though. That’s a start.

    Where did you get the idea they’re plotting the destruction of marriage? That sounds like an accusation from Dobsonites.

  51. 51.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 4:40 pm

    gratefulcub

    I’m really not making it up. It has been in the Democrats interest to paint those of us on the other side as the ‘haters’, despite the fact that it is simply not true. Here is your party chairman:

    “The truth is the president of the United States used the same device that Slobodan Milosevic used in Serbia. When you appeal to homophobia, when you appeal to sexism, when you appeal to racism, that is extraordinarily damaging to the country,” Dean charged. “I know George Bush. I served with him for six years [as a fellow governor]. He’s not a homophobe. He’s not a racist. He’s not a sexist. In some ways, what he did was worse … because he knew better.”

    Only, it’s not true and Mr. Dean knows it. He knows that he cannot back up his claims with anything George has said or done. Now, go ahead and bring up the FMA and hide the fact that Clinton actually signed into law the DMA.

    Rome Again

    Save your outrage and spend it on reading comprehension classes. Twit.

  52. 52.

    gratefulcub

    August 8, 2005 at 4:41 pm

    Anit gay rights
    Anti affirmative action
    Anti welfare state
    Anti immigration (bush will get pounded from his right if he goes after his work visa idea)
    Pro States Rights (in rhetoric only, but that rhetoric still resonates in the south)

    This is not part of the platform of the left. This is a GOP platform, and each piece of it is highlighted for electoral purposes. You can disagree with affirmative action, but it being brough front and center on election day is for one reason only, to excite the base of the GOP. It isn’t that important. Gay marriage, ditto. No one in congress actually believes that gay marriage is going to destroy the fabric of american society, they just say it. Welfare is associated with ‘welfare queen crack addicts in Harlem’ even though most of it goes to rednecks in trailers in rural areas.
    The GOP uses bigotry and racism for electoral purposes, not because the leaders of the GOP are all that more racist or homophobic. They do it because it works. To try to say that it is a two way street, I don’t get.

    Can you give me examples this time, when has the current Democratic party ever used race baiting or homophobia to excite it’s base and win elections. Or, passed racist law. Anything. When has the left been leading the charge on racism?

    When has a democrat or lefty ever claimed that the republicans are responsible for racism and bigotry?

  53. 53.

    gratefulcub

    August 8, 2005 at 4:51 pm

    Mr. Dean said exactly what I am saying. The GOP leadership is not racist and homophobic, they just use the fact that their base IS. All of the gay marriage ammendments across the country to bring out the conservative vote. All of the talk of gay marriage destroying the sanctity of marriage. All of the hatred towards affirmative action. Not going to the NAACP for 5 years. He may disagree with the NAACP, he may not like them, he may not want to go, but for god’s sake they are a face of the african american community, and it is a slap in the face when he doesn’t attend. BUT, it plays well in rural ohio. They play to the racist base, they play to the homophobic base.

    The FMA and DOMA have zero in common. Doma said that no state has to recognize a marriage from another state, which was the law before DOMA. Even Wellstone voted for DOMA (please don’t attack him, that is about the only thing that really gets me irrationally upset). The FMA would basically ban any state from allowing gay marriage or civil unions.

    Forget all the rest, the GOP uses homophobia to excite its base. That dean quote is not sufficient to say the democrats say that republicans cause racism or homophobia.

    “It has been in the Democrats interest to paint those of us on the other side as the ‘haters’, despite the fact that it is simply not true”
    I have to disagree. Your party uses homophobia, and it works. If it works, it is working on haters. So, to me, your base has too many homophobes and haters. And yes, it is in our interest to highlight that fact, but we aren’t making it up.

    Rome,
    DG did explain that comment, and it wasn’t what you read into it.

  54. 54.

    Rome Again

    August 8, 2005 at 4:52 pm

    I think the gay community should have started incrementally with civil unions, then as time passed “upgraded” if you will to marriage. The majority of gay couples are in committed relationships, and if the country sees civil unions working so well, then slowly it will come to accept gay marriage.

    Oh, that’s right, all gay couples have only been together for a few months now and have never had the benefit of civil unions. GET REAL!

    Honey, when I was five years old (that was almost 40 years ago now) my mother had good friends who were a gay couple, one of them used to cut my hair. They had a civil union.

    Civil unions do not account for allowing the loved one to be able to be in a room when their partner is dying (a common occurrence with the tragic reality of AIDS), among certain other rights that are are afforded to marrieds but not to the civilly united.

    You are aware that there have been gay couples who have been involved in civil unions for eons, right? Are we clear on that now?

  55. 55.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 4:53 pm

    Anit gay rights
    Anti affirmative action
    Anti welfare state
    Anti immigration (bush will get pounded from his right if he goes after his work visa idea)
    Pro States Rights (in rhetoric only, but that rhetoric still resonates in the south)

    If this is the position you are going to be using as a base for your arguments, I will just opt out right now. You are either willfully ignorant of the facts, or just would rather assume that the side you are on is the right one. I have no use for either position.

  56. 56.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 4:55 pm

    Can you give me examples this time, when has the current Democratic party ever used race baiting or homophobia to excite it’s base and win elections.

    I realize that it is the fashionable thing to repeat a lie often enough to make it a sort of truth. What you should know is that it does not in fact make it the truth.

  57. 57.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 4:57 pm

    Rome Again

    What is clear is that you are angry, and that there is no one you would not steamroll to get your way. The word compromise simply does not exist for you. That you seek to attack 2 republicans who are on the same side as you tells us all we need to know about you. Here’s a message from the moderate wing, go fuck yourself.

  58. 58.

    gratefulcub

    August 8, 2005 at 5:03 pm

    Then opt out. If you can’t see the FMA and all the state anti gay marriage laws for what they are, then opt out.

    I asked a question, and you called it a lie? So, enlighten me. I change my mind more than any individual on earth. Some might call me a flip flopper. If I see evidence that I am wrong, I change my mind or at least open it. So, instead of call my question a lie, answer it.

  59. 59.

    Rome Again

    August 8, 2005 at 5:07 pm

    Rome Again

    Save your outrage and spend it on reading comprehension classes. Twit.

    That’s not an answer, I asked you to provide where you got the idea that gays are plotting the evil end of marriage? Where did you get that idea?

  60. 60.

    Stormy70

    August 8, 2005 at 5:09 pm

    You are aware that there have been gay couples who have been involved in civil unions for eons, right? Are we clear on that now?

    Did you opt out of Reading 101? Just curious because you seem to not understand what the hell you are reading. You are looking really ignorant here, FYI.

  61. 61.

    Another Jeff

    August 8, 2005 at 5:12 pm

    Yeah, the Democratic party never uses race-baiting.

    1)Vote Republican and another black church burns
    2)George Bush, as governor, not supporting a hate-crimes bill is the same as “lynching” someone all over again.
    3)”In Robert Bork’s America, blacks will eat at separate lunch counters”. Sen Ted Kennedy (D-Jamesons)
    4)Tomorrow I’ll bring in the flyer that was slid under my door in Philadelpha with a picture of a “whites only” fountain the night before last Novembers’ election saying that voting Republican guaranteed a return to those days
    5)You had one of the biggest race-baiters of all-time, Al Sharpton, give a prime-time speaking address at your convention, and this was after NOT ONE Democratic candidate, during the primaries, called him on his race-hustling, racist, anti-semitic past, because they didn’t have the guts to.
    –George Bush as governor had far more minorites in his inner-circle than Gov Dean ever had.

    You’re obviously ignorant and stupid to make such a bullshit statement that Democrats have never race-baited, so i’m sure you’ll just ignore everything. I mean, if you’re stupid enough to make a statement like that, you’re beyond hope.

  62. 62.

    Rome Again

    August 8, 2005 at 5:14 pm

    Exactly. How many of you have girlfriends, wives, or friend-girls that watch Home and Garden Television? Every woman I know watches this channel, and trusts every gay designer to help her choose the next “it” color of wall paint. But the channel goes further than the stereotypical gay designer. They have home, landscaping, and curb appeal makeover shows that feature gay couples. These gay couples are just like everyone else, they want their home to look spectacular! on as little money as possible.

    And some of the people who watch these shows are hypocrits who are fighting to end freedom for gays to sleep with whomever they choose. I didn’t say most, or all, I said some. I’m glad you can admit that you’re not one of them Stormy; but you state that with more familiarity people will be more accepting of gays as couples, and unless the Christian Right extremists (I said extremists, not all Christians) just disappear into thin air (the Rapture maybe?) I just don’t see it happening.

  63. 63.

    Rome Again

    August 8, 2005 at 5:16 pm

    Did you opt out of Reading 101? Just curious because you seem to not understand what the hell you are reading. You are looking really ignorant here, FYI.

    Civil unions, while not popular, have existed for quite a while. Just because they were not widely discussed pre-FMA doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.

  64. 64.

    Rome Again

    August 8, 2005 at 5:23 pm

    What is clear is that you are angry, and that there is no one you would not steamroll to get your way. The word compromise simply does not exist for you. That you seek to attack 2 republicans who are on the same side as you tells us all we need to know about you. Here’s a message from the moderate wing, go fuck yourself.

    That’s BULLSHIT, you don’t know me enough to say I’m angry and refuse to have any sort of compromise. I was just about to write a post stating that I agree with some of what you say (that the Democrats are also guilty of many of the same things) but you refused to answer my question and I was just replying to that instead.

    For someone who doesn’t know how to compromise, it seems awfully funny that just the other day I wrote a big todo about how what I learned growing up about Democrats (after seeing racism and elitism from my Republican parents) was probably the exact same thing that Republicans with Democratic parents learned. We’ve been given the same messages about both parties, that both parties are the party of the working man, that both parties are the party of minorities…

    But, gee, I don’t know anything about compromise.

    FUCK OFF DG!

  65. 65.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 5:26 pm

    gratefulcub

    I would point out the painfully obvious fact that those amendments could not have passed on stricly partisan lines. Let me be more clear, Democrats voted for them as well. I will grant that I believe that the president is on the wrong side of FMA (in public) and on the right side of it in private (he is against institutionilized bigotry). If this makes you mad, I can understand why.

    I can tell you that while the evidence is anecdotal, I don’t know anyone on the right who was motivated to vote for Bush to stop the gay agenda. I was motivated to vote for Bush because Kerry was such an obvious loser who lacked even the idea of having balls. In a war, I find this trait offputting.

  66. 66.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 5:28 pm

    Rome Again

    You failed reading comprehension (I never mentioned sexual orientation) and took a position against 2 different people who are arguing FOR the same thing as you. Excuse it however you want.

  67. 67.

    gratefulcub

    August 8, 2005 at 5:29 pm

    Another Jeff,
    It is hard for me to actually have this conversation. Not because you made good points, but because you had to resort to personal attacks. if you have noticed, I have written with DG for a while now, but there was no playground name calling. If we can dispense with that….

    I actually did overlook the minority leaders. Al Sharpton, JJackson, et al. You are correct, we do have that faction on our side. I often wish they would disappear.

    bush had more minorities that dean? I am sure he did. Ever been to vermont, I lived there for a spell. White. White. White. White. White.

    Black churches burn – i don’t get that one

    Bork – that was the 80’s, and I am not concerned with that era, I am strictly speaking of the parties today. The dems were racist to the core a few decades ago. That isn’t the party of today. But, Kennedy was out of line, and that is race baiting.

    Obviously, I knew nothing of your flyer before you told me about it. Philly politics is dirty business, and I have no doubt that you speak the truth when you say that race was used, especially by local pols like the mayor, to get out the black vote. I stand corrected on that.

    We can find individuals, and individual situations of each party throughout history using race and bigotry. The point I was trying to make, a bit clumsily, is that the national GOP leadership has begun to use racism and especially homophobia for electoral purposes. Al Sharpton doesn’t speak for the left, but we can’t attack him because we don’t want to offend the entire african american voting block, but he isn’t setting policy. the right has adopted the far right rant against gays as part of its platform.

    I stand by my original point, maybe a bit refined now. I have no illusions that the dems are pure as driven snow and would never use race for political gain. When they do, I will show my disgust. When they have, I have been disgusted.

    Reasonable? Or am I just stupid?

  68. 68.

    Defense Guy

    August 8, 2005 at 5:33 pm

    gratefulcub

    I think we could both agree that if it does exist on either side, and it does, that it should be made an absolute unforgivible sin when employed as a political tool. That is, both sides need to stop pretending that they are the saints and the others the sinner.

    The problem is, that this is far more damaging for the Democrats than it would be for the Republicans, so you can bet it will not happen anymore than it would if the tables were turned. It appears to be political gold, even though it smells like shit to you and I.

  69. 69.

    gratefulcub

    August 8, 2005 at 5:34 pm

    DG,
    This too is anectodal, but my family is in rural kentucky, and I am near rural ohio. There were amendments in both states. I have never seen so many yard signs in my life.

    One Man + One Woman = Family

    i can still see the outlines of this family, it was like looking at the men’s room sign sitting next to the women’s room sign.

    It was discussed around work, inappropriate, but only to me. Everyone else was down.

    But, it gets back to my earlier post. i don’t think it was such a big deal because these are bad people that love to hate, it is just lack of familiarity and fear of the unknown.

  70. 70.

    gratefulcub

    August 8, 2005 at 5:41 pm

    DG
    I think we have found common ground, and good thing too since i want to go home:)

    I probably closed my eyes a bit to the Democratic problems of the recent past, and focused all my attention on ’04. This isn’t really a partisan issue, it just depends on which election you are looking at. Both sides use it.

    As another Jeff (Gratefulcub is too stupid to breath. I’m rubber you’re glue…) mentioned, and I hadn’t really given much thought to…….local, under the radar uses of race baiting. And, I was really just looking at it from the point of view of bashing minorities, I failed to recognize that it is also used in reverse against republicans.

    I still stand pat on my original issue/point. The modern GOP used homophobia to excite the base in 04. It disgusted me. I personally had never seen a national election with that type of blatant hate mongering. After spending the afternoon talking and listening, I do realize that it goes both ways, and if I hang around long enough I will see the same absurd acts from my side.

    Have a nice evening DG, I shall see you again on another day.

  71. 71.

    Stormy70

    August 8, 2005 at 5:42 pm

    Democrat gay-baiting – examples.
    1. Here.
    2. Here.
    3. Here.
    4. Then there is Kerry and Edwards bringing up Mary Cheneys sexual preference during the campaign. Nice try. The base sure did stay home.

    Don’t get me started on the vicious “outing” campaign of Republicans by Democratic gay activists. Yet, they will leave closeted Dem. gays alone. Privacy is only for Democratic gay people. This is the lowest of the low. Trying to excite the “gay-bashing” right, except the right refused to gay bash like the Democrats thought. These tactics are backfiring on the Democratic Party.

    Democratic race baiting happens every time Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton open their mouths. Of course, they both share the anti-semitic love to their more rabid followers as well. The NAACP is no longer anything more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. After the Byrd ad, I would have marginalized them as well. They don’t represent the majority of the black community anymore. The black church is still the center of the black community.

  72. 72.

    Stormy70

    August 8, 2005 at 5:49 pm

    Great discussion with excellent points (sans Rome). Have a good evening.

  73. 73.

    Rome Again

    August 8, 2005 at 5:57 pm

    1)Vote Republican and another black church burns

    2)George Bush, as governor, not supporting a hate-crimes bill is the same as “lynching” someone all over again.

    3)”In Robert Bork’s America, blacks will eat at separate lunch counters”. Sen Ted Kennedy (D-Jamesons)

    4)Tomorrow I’ll bring in the flyer that was slid under my door in Philadelpha with a picture of a “whites only” fountain the night before last Novembers’ election saying that voting Republican guaranteed a return to those days

    5)You had one of the biggest race-baiters of all-time, Al Sharpton, give a prime-time speaking address at your convention, and this was after NOT ONE Democratic candidate, during the primaries, called him on his race-hustling, racist, anti-semitic past, because they didn’t have the guts to.—George Bush as governor had far more minorites in his inner-circle than Gov Dean ever had.

    Regarding #1-4): Just because I support the Democratic Party that doesn’t mean I’m completely in line with all they do or say. I’ve never burned down a black church (in fact, I defended our maid when I was growing up because my aunt ridiculed her and made her cry one night and my parents let her get away with it, I also called my aunt a royal bitch and never spoke to her again). Does that mean I don’t think a Democrat could be guilty of such a thing? No, I’m sure there are racists Democrats just as there are racists Republicans.

    Not supporting a hate crimes bill does on the surface seem to be adding gresae to a fire, but since I don’t know much about this issue, I’ll refrain from trying to defend that position. I can’t say what the specifics of the bill were.

    As for “Robert Bork’s America”, maybe it hasn’t happened yet, but that doesn’t mean it won’t. Republicans are changing a lot of things with this new power they hold. I will be glad if they don’t relegate blacks back to separate lunch counters. Let’s hope they don’t. Teddy Kennedy (as someone mentioned above) is not someone to agree with on most things. He has a tendancy to go for the jugular and make unsubstantiated charges which could pan out in the future, or might not. Just because I’m a Democrat doesn’t mean I get my beliefs from Ted Kennedy.

    As for Al Sharpton race-baiting, well if the blacks weren’t upset with it, why should I be? Al Sharpton was stating that the Republican party didn’t offer what he felt was necessary for black minorities. There was a huge rush of excitement in that room at the DNC after that speech, much of it coming from black Democrats, so why are you making an issue of it? If black minorities at the DNC felt it was okay, why should I not think it okay too?

    Do you feel the same way about Affirmative Action? That since it provides for minorities, it shouldn’t be allowed to stand? Even if it has allowed said minorities to enter into fields of study they might otherwise never get a chance to be employed in simply because of racist attitudes?

    I’m curious about the flyer you got, what indication is there on the flyer that it came from a Democratic organization? Perhaps it came from a “Pro-White” group instead? Up until a few weeks ago, I have to admit that I was totally ignorant of Pro-White groups. I happened to find a website run by a Pro-White group in an internet search. I was amazed to find so many people on it openly espousing white supremacy, and these seemed to include mothers with small children according to the little bit I read.

    I do not hate those who care about equality, I am an enemy of those who would take it away. If that’s a Republican or a Democrat matters not, his/her ideology is the enemy.

  74. 74.

    Rome Again

    August 8, 2005 at 6:25 pm

    and took a position against 2 different people who are arguing FOR the same thing as you

    So were you arguing my position DG or weren’t you? It seems to me you were arguing against me. Perhaps it is your writing ability that needs some improvement. Such as your stating that Gays might be trying to destroy marriage only meaning that you didn’t want them getting special tax priveleges?

    I am willing to compromise DG, I am willing to admit that there are racists in both parties, that no one party is responsible for all of the ills of this country and that there are good people on the other side. I think you were wrong in the way you expressed certain things and I called you on it. Perhaps if you’d just said “I don’t want gays getting special tax priveleges” in the beginning instead of sounding as if they were part of some vast conspiracy against marriage might have done enough to abate the conversation we had. Maybe you should be careful choosing your words, and I’ll be more careful in trying not to misconstrue what you say.

  75. 75.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 6:48 pm

    the right isn’t the boogeyman you seem to want it to be

    The right has the power, and they are misusing it. Whether that’s a “boogeyman” or not, I am not qualified to say, DG. I haven’t studied “boogeymen.”

    You guys will tar

    I think thou dost protest too much, Storms.

  76. 76.

    jg

    August 8, 2005 at 7:05 pm

    I think the gay community should have started incrementally with civil unions, then as time passed “upgraded” if you will to marriage.

    Thats the same bullshit that was said to MLK about civil rights. Slow down, you’re asking for too much too fast. Letter from a Birmingham Jail is a good read.

  77. 77.

    Rome Again

    August 8, 2005 at 7:06 pm

    Don’t get me started on the vicious “outing” campaign of Republicans by Democratic gay activists. Yet, they will leave closeted Dem. gays alone.

    What you fail to understand Stormy is the hypocrisy is what we’re targeting. It is wrong to say you’re against something but still practice it in some way (such as Lynn Cheney’s book, and the fact that the Cheneys have a gay daughter but are pushing legislation to take her rights away). That also goes for Republicans who legislate against gays and are gay at the same time. It is not because we think their being gay is wrong, we never did, we think their hypocrisy is wrong.

  78. 78.

    Stormy70

    August 8, 2005 at 7:50 pm

    What you fail to understand Stormy is the hypocrisy is what we’re targeting. It is wrong to say you’re against something but still practice it in some way (such as Lynn Cheney’s book, and the fact that the Cheneys have a gay daughter but are pushing legislation to take her rights away). That also goes for Republicans who legislate against gays and are gay at the same time. It is not because we think their being gay is wrong, we never did, we think their hypocrisy is wrong.

    If it is their heart felt political beliefs, then who are you to judge them? You can’t even read the simple declarative sentences above.

    ppGaz – maybe I did not appreciate a person that screams “Fundie’s suck” every damn post, referring to my mother as a fundie. She is not, she is evangelical which is completely different. I’m sorry, but you do go overboard with the slurs on right Christians, without knowing one thing about them. You don’t know the first thing about my mother or how she raised us. We were not raised in a racist or homophobic household, and were raised as Republicans. Shock!

  79. 79.

    Demdude

    August 8, 2005 at 7:57 pm

    Don’t get me started on the vicious “outing” campaign of Republicans by Democratic gay activists. Yet, they will leave closeted Dem. gays alone.

    Give me the name of a Democratic Official that attacks Gays during the day and cruises for guys at night, I’ll out them myself.

  80. 80.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 8:03 pm

    she is evangelical which is completely different

    Okay, different …. but completely different?

    This works at home, I’ll try it here: Yes, dear.

    Please revise my blast to say “evangelical” instead of “fundie.”

    Is that better?

    You know what, Stormsie, if you don’t want people talking about your Mom, maybe you should stop talking about her and your family all the time. Just a suggestion.

  81. 81.

    Rome Again

    August 8, 2005 at 8:06 pm

    If it is their heart felt political beliefs, then who are you to judge them? You can’t even read the simple declarative sentences above.

    First of all, I’m not a Christian, so don’t think I have to live by the “Judge not lest ye be judged” mantra. The Old Testament will tell you that you should judge and make good decisions via those judgments. Besides, Hypocrisy is something that your Jesus tackled himself. I’m sorry if you feel the need to coddle hypocrits.

    I read just fine dear, you project accusations that are not well reasoned.

  82. 82.

    Rome Again

    August 8, 2005 at 8:07 pm

    Give me the name of a Democratic Official that attacks Gays during the day and cruises for guys at night, I’ll out them myself.

    And I’ll help you!

  83. 83.

    John Cole

    August 8, 2005 at 9:03 pm

    DemDude: Personally, I find ‘ouoting’ people, even if they are hypocrites and part of the problem, pretty reprehensible. Remember- not only the person being outed is hurt in most of these cases.

  84. 84.

    Demdude

    August 8, 2005 at 9:57 pm

    DemDude: Personally, I find ‘ouoting’ people, even if they are hypocrites and part of the problem, pretty reprehensible. Remember- not only the person being outed is hurt in most of these cases.

    I used to share that opinion once upon a time.

    I’m not advocating blanket outing of members of any political party if they don’t vote the way I want. There have been public officials that have no problem destroying other people’s lives and families for political gain. Pushing the bullshit “Gay Agenda”, lying about gays being responsible for pedophilia, and flat out lying about the community in general. These folks should be targeted.

    I take no joy that other people are hurt in the process. In the cases where they are leading a double life, they chose that, it wasn’t forced on them. There are consequences for it and it lands on their shoulders.

    When people come after your friends, neighbors and family, I’m sorry, the gloves are off.

  85. 85.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 10:27 pm

    In the cases where they are leading a double life

    Proof that sooner or later, you will see everything.

    Demdude, let me make this as clear as possible:

    It’s none of your damned business. Under no circumstances is anyone else’s sex like any of your business. The emphasis here is on “no”.

    Unless they are breaking a law, what you suggest is a violation of privacy. If you cross that line, then you are advocating that everyone’s sex life is everyone’s business. There are no circumstances under which that is acceptable. Period.

    You are dead wrong. You are making an “ends justify means” argument of the lowest order.

  86. 86.

    Stormy70

    August 8, 2005 at 10:38 pm

    You know what, Stormsie, if you don’t want people talking about your Mom, maybe you should stop talking about her and your family all the time. Just a suggestion.

    I brought her up to illustrate a point that there are people who do not fit the stereotypes of the Christian right or Republicans. That’s it. But you degraded the discussion by calling my mother a fundie. I thought the discussion was reasonable, and I was surprised you came after me the way you did by insulting my mother. If family is fair game to you, are you going after Grateful Club for describing his family background in regards to this issue? I know you like to go after me, fine, I expect it. Don’t go after my mother because you dislike what I am saying. Why do you feel the need to piss on everybody you disagree with?

  87. 87.

    Stormy70

    August 8, 2005 at 10:56 pm

    It’s none of your damned business. Under no circumstances is anyone else’s sex like any of your business. The emphasis here is on “no”.

    Unless they are breaking a law, what you suggest is a violation of privacy. If you cross that line, then you are advocating that everyone’s sex life is everyone’s business. There are no circumstances under which that is acceptable. Period.

    I agree with this whole heartedly. Everyone’s bedroom should be off limits. Right, Left, or Center. (But not Hollywood, they want you to know, right?)

  88. 88.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 10:58 pm

    brought her up to illustrate a point that there are people who do not fit the stereotypes of the Christian right or Republicans. That’s it. But you degraded the discussion by calling my mother a fundie. I thought the discussion was reasonable, and I was surprised you came after me the way you did by insulting my mother. If family is fair game to you, are you going after Grateful Club for describing his family background in regards to this issue? I know you like to go after me, fine, I expect it. Don’t go after my mother because you dislike what I am saying. Why do you feel the need to piss on everybody you disagree with?

    What a bunch of crap, Stormy. I “insulted” your other by calling “evangelical” “fundie?” You know what, you are a piece of work. Not only is it a distinction without a difference in this context, I agreed to the correction.

    And I rest on what I said: You trot your family out every time you get caught being an ass, and when somebody comments on your family soap opera, you whine that your famly has been “insulted.” You’re a liar. Your family is not here, and if they were, and were insulted, then they can take it up with me personally. Maybe they’d prefer not to be used as pawns in your little game of Bash the Liberals / Oops! It’s Just Little Me, the Harmless Ordinary Gal from Texas Let’s All Get Along. Meet my Oh So Diverse Family, Everybody! See, I Have a Gay Brother and Everything. Disgusting.

    To hell with you, Stormy. Your act is wearing thin. You’re a liar and you sling fact-free crap around here on a daily basis whenever it suits your purpose. Come out from behind your phony victim mask. If I were your mother, and I am probably old enough to be, I’d be ashamed of you.

    As for “liking to go after” you …. dead wrong. There is nothing I like about you. Correcting your malapropisms is a chore, not enjoyable at all.

  89. 89.

    Stormy70

    August 8, 2005 at 11:16 pm

    ppGaz, but everyone knows you don’t like to personally insult anyone, ever. No track record there.

    I wasn’t aware I was liberal-bashing, I guess you don’t like my jokes. I happen to have a normal family, nothing special. Just trying to elevate the debate here, and show people a different side of the picture. I liked the new tone of trying to keep the insults to a minimum. I thought Grateful Club’s reply was very enlightening, and made me think there was hope for agreement one day on gay marriage among the Gen X and Y generations.

  90. 90.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 11:23 pm

    Blah blah blah, Storm. You complained about the “fundie” remark, and I agreed to your correction.

    The next thing that should have happened is this:

    Storm: Thank you.

    Me: You’re welcome.

    The end. You chose to puff yourself up into Victim of the Year with your crocodile tears, and I am not buying it. You trot out your family at the drop of a hat; don’t tell me I’ not allowed to mention them. You stop talking about them, I will too.

  91. 91.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 11:35 pm

    You stop talking about them, I will too.

    Or, here’s an alternative. I’ll sic my mother on you.

    My mother can whip your mother. And she’s 80 years old.

  92. 92.

    Demdude

    August 8, 2005 at 11:39 pm

    ppGaz Says:

    I think one needs nap time since they are getting a little cranky.

  93. 93.

    ppGaz

    August 8, 2005 at 11:47 pm

    I think one needs nap time since they are getting a little cranky.

    I stand by what I said to you. “Cranky” has nothing to do with it.

  94. 94.

    Demdude

    August 9, 2005 at 12:03 am

    Just trying to get you to lighten up.

    I’m not going to lose sleep over what you said to me, believe me.

    I’m too tired to deal with you, given what I’ve read subsequent to my post.

    We can argue another time.

    Good Night.

  95. 95.

    Demdude

    August 9, 2005 at 9:54 am

    I’m not advocating blanket outing of members of any political party if they don’t vote the way I want. There have been public officials that have no problem destroying other people’s lives and families for political gain. Pushing the bullshit “Gay Agenda”, lying about gays being responsible for pedophilia, and flat out lying about the community in general. These folks should be targeted.

    ppGaz Says:

    It’s none of your damned business. Under no circumstances is anyone else’s sex like any of your business. The emphasis here is on “no”.

    Unless they are breaking a law, what you suggest is a violation of privacy. If you cross that line, then you are advocating that everyone’s sex life is everyone’s business. There are no circumstances under which that is acceptable. Period.

    Privacy trumps everything, is your take. Good for you.

    In a court of law if you bring up the subject, it’s called “opening up the door”. If a politician wants to bring up family values and legislate it for everyone, their hypocrisy is fair game. Including gays trashing gays for political gain.

    “Live by the Sword, die by the Sword”.

  96. 96.

    Rome Again

    August 9, 2005 at 10:20 am

    I wasn’t aware I was liberal-bashing, I guess you don’t like my jokes

    They’re not jokes Stormy. You take the president’s point of view on nearly everything during discussions here (somehow I think your POV that gays will be accepted in the future is a half-hearted attempt to try to present yourself as non-bigoted, but you and I both know Bush and his base have no intention of allowing gays to do as they wish with their own bodies, and quite frankly I’ve not seen you admit anything negative about our so-called President, so why would I believe you truly mean it when you say gays should be allowed to enter into civil unions (and maybe marry later if it proves to be a successful experiment?), and you DO bash liberals every chance you get. You’re being facetious here, and it is very transparent. Your “joke” about alerting me when the crusade was about to begin, that was no joke either, you meant it, and you pussied out of owning up to it, just like you do (as I’ve noticed in the short time I’ve been posting here) on most issues you get caught in.

    With this country so divided and supporting two completely different “realities”, now is not the time for “jokes”. If you truly want to find compromise, then stop acting like your joking when you bash liberals. It is very poor form.

    At least when I bash New World Order Republicans (or as some call them, New Republicans), I fully and wholeheartedly have the balls to admit it. Quit being a wuss. If you believe you have the right to bash liberals, then at least have the temerity to be honest about it. I’m sure we’ll all respect you much more for your honesty on the matter then we would for cowardly admissions of “I was only joking”.

    If you believe Bush is correct on all things, (or most things), have the cajones to admit it, and in the end when one reality wins out over the other (that would be my reality, because a 300+ billion dollar drag on this economy won’t disappear), then we can compare notes.

    Here, I’ll even give you a place to start Stormy, how about you discuss your POV on whether we are going to invade Iran, how it will go if we do, why we should or shouldn’t, and what you think Bush is going to accomplish if he does. Be honest, defend your position, and don’t wimp out on me.

    My prediction: Bush will try to invade Iran and find he has no ability to do it with the forces he has, he will have to enforce a draft and we’ll have severe problems in trying to pay for this escapade. It will prove to the rest of the world that we’re weak, and as a result, we’ll see heighened rhetoric from all corners of the world trying to trap us into submission (China invading Taiwan, middle eastern countries hyping up their hatred of Israel…). At the same time, Iraq will still be a hot potato and our mission in Afghanistan will be totally forgotten. We’ll have our eyes on too many pies at once, and eventually our ability to try to make it look like we’re keeping things together will totally break apart. We will have fallen, and total chaos will develop out of it.

    This is what Christians want to see happen though, correct? Because it will signal that your savior is coming back (or something like that?)… or, since the New Testament is just a bastardization of the Old Testament, maybe it will just bring chaos, and no savior will appear… and then maybe you’ll realize that you were duped into helping evil men bring about the end of humanity, including the lives of your own progeny.

    So, what is your POV?

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. SayUncle : Roberts again says:
    August 9, 2005 at 9:53 am

    […] that some on the right don’t like John Roberts because he has no problem with gay cooties. | Link | Category: Politics || […]

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - BarcaChicago  - Off the Gunflint Trail/Boundary Waters 6
Image by BarcaChicago (7/7/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • laura on Open Thread: BRICS-A-Bracket (Jul 7, 2025 @ 3:54pm)
  • Martin on Open Thread: BRICS-A-Bracket (Jul 7, 2025 @ 3:53pm)
  • Omnes Omnibus on Open Thread: BRICS-A-Bracket (Jul 7, 2025 @ 3:51pm)
  • Geminid on Open Thread: BRICS-A-Bracket (Jul 7, 2025 @ 3:46pm)
  • Chetan Murthy on Open Thread: BRICS-A-Bracket (Jul 7, 2025 @ 3:44pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!