Slog
News & ArtsFriday, September 23, 2011
2012 / Politics / LGBTQITSLFA Let Us Pause Now to Consider the Shit Storm...
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:51 AM
...that would have ensued if a group of Democrats running for president stood silent—literally said nothing—while a left-leaning crowd at a presidential debate booed an active-duty soldier currently serving in Iraq.
1
AT a presidential debate. ;)
Disrespecting a soldier is just fine if you're gay, Dan. Didn't you know? It's the gay part that's important, not the actively serving & risking your life, part.
Disrespecting a soldier is just fine if you're gay, Dan. Didn't you know? It's the gay part that's important, not the actively serving & risking your life, part.
2
It just goes to show that they Republican party are craven little toads with their kissers on the Koch's cocks.
And all the liberals reading SLOG will let one of them become the next president because they're whiny pussies who can't seem to forgive Obama for not being their black version of Bush and won't vote next election.
Try not to get sick in 2012, kids.
And all the liberals reading SLOG will let one of them become the next president because they're whiny pussies who can't seem to forgive Obama for not being their black version of Bush and won't vote next election.
Try not to get sick in 2012, kids.
3
"I would say any type of sexual activity has no place in the military." from Santorum. Um, at what point did repealing DADT sanction sex in the barracks showers? And from what I've heard from servicemembers, there's already A LOT of heterosexual sex going on...
5
Was there really a banner for Google behind Santorum? Or was that a graphic added later? That can be real, can it?
7
Americans should be disgusted at the hate and ignorance on display by Republicans. Can they be any lower?
9
It's not the republican candidates that are evil. I mean, they're repugnant because they cater to the lowest common denominator, sure, but they don't actually believe that shit (for the most part).
It's the republican base, the conservative fodder and lowlifes of America, those are the ones who truly are rotten to the core. They're the ones who truly hate gays, who truly hate immigrants, who truly hate anyone who isn't exactly like themselves. They're the ones who are evil.
It's the republican base, the conservative fodder and lowlifes of America, those are the ones who truly are rotten to the core. They're the ones who truly hate gays, who truly hate immigrants, who truly hate anyone who isn't exactly like themselves. They're the ones who are evil.
12
Things like this really make me wish that the democrats were worth a continental damn.
I wish Santorum would get out of politics, once he is a private citizen it would be worth it to punch him right in the nose.
I wish Santorum would get out of politics, once he is a private citizen it would be worth it to punch him right in the nose.
13
The Anti-American and traitorous leanings of the Republican base should be front page news from coast-to-coast. Republicans are vile people who hate freedom and they pray for America to fail.
14
@9 Actually, you should not make it about political parties, it is about religion. The one thing that xians and muslims agree on is hate.
15
@3
Correct. Service women get knocked up while serving ALL OF THE TIME. In fact, when I was in Iraq back in '05, one of the females in my company got pregnant. (And if any of you are saying "Pffft! Just ONE?!", then please note that only 6% of the members of the Marine Corps are women. In my company of 200+ Marines, I could count the females in one hand...)
But of course, having gay, job effectiveness altering-free sex on your own time is a much bigger problem! /sarcasm
Correct. Service women get knocked up while serving ALL OF THE TIME. In fact, when I was in Iraq back in '05, one of the females in my company got pregnant. (And if any of you are saying "Pffft! Just ONE?!", then please note that only 6% of the members of the Marine Corps are women. In my company of 200+ Marines, I could count the females in one hand...)
But of course, having gay, job effectiveness altering-free sex on your own time is a much bigger problem! /sarcasm
16
@9 - Gotta disagree. It's the candidates and the rest of the GOP leaders who have stirred this up. They've been baiting this kind of thing for years, and now we all may have to reap what they've sown. The bigotry and hate from the base isn't organic. Sure, they may have had their prejudices before, but those at the top have whipped them into a frenzy and told them it's okay to let those tendencies run wild in a cynical and calculated bid for power. The base is playing follow the leader, and now the leaders (who, you're right, don't really believe this shit) are shocked (shocked!) that such ugliness is on display.
The responsibility for all of this is squarely on the people on stage, and their standing by silently only deepens it. Having their lackeys call it "unfortunate" absolves them of nothing.
The responsibility for all of this is squarely on the people on stage, and their standing by silently only deepens it. Having their lackeys call it "unfortunate" absolves them of nothing.
17
To review:
- Supposedly pro-life Republicans applaud hundreds of executions and root for the death of someone without health insurance.
- Supposedly anti-tax Republicans want to "broaden the tax base," which means they want to increase taxes on everybody BUT the rich.
- Supposedly pro-military Republicans will boo an American soldier serving in Afghanistan just because he's gay.
So is there anything left that the Republican Party stands for? And why don't we have leaders in the Democratic Party -- like, say, a President of some kind -- willing to plainly call them out on their transparent moral hypocrisy? I feel like the political right gets away with this kind of behavior and rhetoric because nobody on the left is willing to truly engage.
These are not difficult arguments to win, folks. Right-wing rhetoric is a house of cards. So just blow.
- Supposedly pro-life Republicans applaud hundreds of executions and root for the death of someone without health insurance.
- Supposedly anti-tax Republicans want to "broaden the tax base," which means they want to increase taxes on everybody BUT the rich.
- Supposedly pro-military Republicans will boo an American soldier serving in Afghanistan just because he's gay.
So is there anything left that the Republican Party stands for? And why don't we have leaders in the Democratic Party -- like, say, a President of some kind -- willing to plainly call them out on their transparent moral hypocrisy? I feel like the political right gets away with this kind of behavior and rhetoric because nobody on the left is willing to truly engage.
These are not difficult arguments to win, folks. Right-wing rhetoric is a house of cards. So just blow.
19
"I would say any type of sexual activity has no place in the military." from Santorum.
Arrggh. Could someone ask him if all those hetero married soldiers are not supposed to have sex with their wives when they are home on base? That's all the gay soldiers are asking for - the right to openly have partners when they are not on duty.
Arrggh. Could someone ask him if all those hetero married soldiers are not supposed to have sex with their wives when they are home on base? That's all the gay soldiers are asking for - the right to openly have partners when they are not on duty.
20
I'd like to see Obama take whoever his opponent is to task for everything that has happened in the race so far. It's one thing to pander to the Republican base, quite another to appeal to the nation as a whole, and if the nation as a whole gets reminded constantly of the things Perry/Romney/Whatever has said, done, and watched silently, it'll make their task much harder.
That is, assuming anybody pays attention.
That is, assuming anybody pays attention.
21
That soldier is serving to protect Santorum's freedom to hate him. What has Santorum done to protect that soldier's freedom?
22
They weren't booing an active-duty soldier; they were booing a gay infiltrator in this man's army. Gay ≠ soldier. Since he's not a real soldier, it's not a problem, see how that works?
23
I adored how flustered he made Santorum and speechless the others. Just what we needed to see revealed in the GOP last night.
Love that guy Stephen Hill, love the size-too-small T he wore, love the perrrfect angle to the camera he chose to highlight his enormous.biceps, loved the way he phrased the question. Couldn't have done better.
Love that guy Stephen Hill, love the size-too-small T he wore, love the perrrfect angle to the camera he chose to highlight his enormous.biceps, loved the way he phrased the question. Couldn't have done better.
24
@5: Oh man, that "Google" and then Santorum next to it couldn't have been more perfect if it had been planned.
25
Anthony @16,
Yes, but is it the leaders who instill this stuff in the base, or is it the base who elevate leaders who forgive the bases' bigotry and hate? Probably a little of both, but if the current repub leaders weren't there, they'd just be replaced by similar others. The leaders DO whip up the frenzy, but only in feelings that already exist in the base.
I dunno... both the repub leaders and the repub voters are despicable, but I still see the leaders as at least being somewhat open to compromise and in truth, not as vile behind closed doors as they appear to be on stage (since they're doing it on stage to appease the base). But the common repub voters? Many are completely closed minded and shut off to reality. They're truly vile, both in public and private.
Yes, but is it the leaders who instill this stuff in the base, or is it the base who elevate leaders who forgive the bases' bigotry and hate? Probably a little of both, but if the current repub leaders weren't there, they'd just be replaced by similar others. The leaders DO whip up the frenzy, but only in feelings that already exist in the base.
I dunno... both the repub leaders and the repub voters are despicable, but I still see the leaders as at least being somewhat open to compromise and in truth, not as vile behind closed doors as they appear to be on stage (since they're doing it on stage to appease the base). But the common repub voters? Many are completely closed minded and shut off to reality. They're truly vile, both in public and private.
26
@17 This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Hamlet Act 1, scene 3
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Hamlet Act 1, scene 3
27
Santorum was debating a boy in Iraq because he is too big a pussy to man-to-man with Dan. He's messing with the small fry because he assumes it to be safe for his image.
28
"Keep it to yourself whether you are heterosexual or homosexual." was part of frothy mix's response.
In the spirit of the "choicer challenge", I challenge Rick to go an entire month without revealing his raging heterosexuality to anyone. If it is so easy to hide, nobody should be able to discover any evidence of his heterosexuality; wife, the children he fathered with her, or his past heterosexual behaviors.
In the spirit of the "choicer challenge", I challenge Rick to go an entire month without revealing his raging heterosexuality to anyone. If it is so easy to hide, nobody should be able to discover any evidence of his heterosexuality; wife, the children he fathered with her, or his past heterosexual behaviors.
29
I know name-calling isn't going to advance things at all, but those people are vile, loathsome, and repugnant.
30
Not a decent person among them.
One big difference between this field of candidates and when McCain ran last time is that McCain at least showed signs of being halfway honest and halfway human at times. I distinctly remember him talking one fanatical supporter off the ledge when she accused Obama of being an Arab, and McCain was vocal about his distain of Obama birthers. He didn't pander to the crazy right fringe of the party. Mind you, he lost, so maybe that is the lesson the Republicans are taking from it.
One big difference between this field of candidates and when McCain ran last time is that McCain at least showed signs of being halfway honest and halfway human at times. I distinctly remember him talking one fanatical supporter off the ledge when she accused Obama of being an Arab, and McCain was vocal about his distain of Obama birthers. He didn't pander to the crazy right fringe of the party. Mind you, he lost, so maybe that is the lesson the Republicans are taking from it.
31
@25 I agree with your take. Virtually all politicians (including GOP politicians) are in it for the pursuit of power. So long as GOP politicians think kicking gays gets them votes, they will do it. And kick gays they will in the primaries. And kick gays they won't in the general election because the vast majority of people under 40 don't give a fuck who fucks who.
32
@30: Jon Huntsman seems like a reasonable human being. Of course, he's being all but ignored in the race and in the media coverage, so I don't know if he counts.
33
@12 "I wish Santorum would get out of politics, once he is a private citizen it would be worth it to punch him right in the nose."
Without condoning the actual violence, but certainly appreciating the fantasy, the reason Rick Santorum needs to be splatted is because he is a public figure. Once he is a private citizen, he should simply be ignored or ostracized as the occasion warrants.
Without condoning the actual violence, but certainly appreciating the fantasy, the reason Rick Santorum needs to be splatted is because he is a public figure. Once he is a private citizen, he should simply be ignored or ostracized as the occasion warrants.
34
To Dan's point though, why aren't the democrats all over the media this morning calling out this incident for the shameful, craven, despicable display it was? It's such an easy shot to take, so easy to turn into another "the GOP has gone off the deep end" meme. What the fuck? Why aren't they going for the jugular?
The Dems have no killer instinct.
The Dems have no killer instinct.
35
You folks really should watch sports or something. The reasonless hatred of the opposing team, the primal shouts of rage at bad calls or bad luck kind of make tension relieving sense there.
When you talk this way about those who merely don't agree with your political ideals you just look irrational, and honestly a bit crazy.
In that vein, I did write that all progressives or lefties hate America, for which I apologize. Savage, Goldstein, Mudede and Constant clearly do, but they're fringe nutjobs. Their entire focus is in rousing hatred and vitriol, since they realize that discussion will show their silly ideas as, well, silly. Hate and anger and bigotry against those they dislike is all they've got.
The vast majority of the left is wrong about nearly everything that matters, but they sincerely want the best for this country.
When you talk this way about those who merely don't agree with your political ideals you just look irrational, and honestly a bit crazy.
In that vein, I did write that all progressives or lefties hate America, for which I apologize. Savage, Goldstein, Mudede and Constant clearly do, but they're fringe nutjobs. Their entire focus is in rousing hatred and vitriol, since they realize that discussion will show their silly ideas as, well, silly. Hate and anger and bigotry against those they dislike is all they've got.
The vast majority of the left is wrong about nearly everything that matters, but they sincerely want the best for this country.
36
FUCK !
never in my life have i seen so much crazy. but they're on tee vee ..running for president and they're debating this shit unopposed with just a bare modicum of civility.. i was just over at the cnn site where they summarize the night as a teachable moment ..and the commenters are all, like,' well .. i think this one won because..ummm.. ' and ' we hate obama we'll actually cut off our genitals to spite our faces..' fuckity fuck fuck all these peoples.. seriously .. fuck this shit.
( i'm rapidly approaching the 'i'm mad as hell ' point )
never in my life have i seen so much crazy. but they're on tee vee ..running for president and they're debating this shit unopposed with just a bare modicum of civility.. i was just over at the cnn site where they summarize the night as a teachable moment ..and the commenters are all, like,' well .. i think this one won because..ummm.. ' and ' we hate obama we'll actually cut off our genitals to spite our faces..' fuckity fuck fuck all these peoples.. seriously .. fuck this shit.
( i'm rapidly approaching the 'i'm mad as hell ' point )
37
@33
No. He's an easy target, and since Savage is essentially a cowardly bully he likes the easy targets.
Rick Santorum has no chance at the presidency. He holds no elected office. He serves no government role whatever. His views on homosexuality may be something you disagree with, but he has no power to implement them in policy. Even those Savage had to lie about to orchastrate his vitriolic and vulgar campaign, but the man is pathological, so lying is his default position.
Savage just likes throwing scat, like a chimpanzee at the zoo. Rick Santorum happens to be a target at whom he can throw without consequence, and he knows it. In his cowardice he continues a disgraceful and vile campaign against the man long after it had even the very weak justification of Mr. Santorums public role.
No. He's an easy target, and since Savage is essentially a cowardly bully he likes the easy targets.
Rick Santorum has no chance at the presidency. He holds no elected office. He serves no government role whatever. His views on homosexuality may be something you disagree with, but he has no power to implement them in policy. Even those Savage had to lie about to orchastrate his vitriolic and vulgar campaign, but the man is pathological, so lying is his default position.
Savage just likes throwing scat, like a chimpanzee at the zoo. Rick Santorum happens to be a target at whom he can throw without consequence, and he knows it. In his cowardice he continues a disgraceful and vile campaign against the man long after it had even the very weak justification of Mr. Santorums public role.
39
If a straight soldier had asked a non-DADT question last night, everyone on the stage would stood in line to suck the guy's cock.
40
@37 Still not going to admit you've been caught lying, are you? Funny, you complain about others who you think throw scat but you have no problems throwing it yourself.
As for the vast majority of "the left" (a term only you seem to know the definition of) being "wrong about nearly everything that matters", I would ask you to provide some examples, but I know how that works. You'll either throw out a lot of opinions you can't back up with facts, get sarcastic, or refuse to answer. Although we've seen time and again that eventually you'll almost always back down whenever you're challenged to cite facts.
As for the vast majority of "the left" (a term only you seem to know the definition of) being "wrong about nearly everything that matters", I would ask you to provide some examples, but I know how that works. You'll either throw out a lot of opinions you can't back up with facts, get sarcastic, or refuse to answer. Although we've seen time and again that eventually you'll almost always back down whenever you're challenged to cite facts.
41
Yep, Rick Santorum holds no elected office and has no chance at the presidency. Part of the reason for that is that back in '03 Dan Savage redefined Rick's last name.
42
@35,37
Having said that the whole thing about repealing DADT is a ridiculous waste of conservativves time and resources. If the command structure sees no issue with it that should be good enough. Gay or lesbian citizens wanting to serve their nation should be encouraged in that desire, not discouraged.
Conservatives would better spend time defending family and marriage by defending DOMA and the current marriage laws that haven't ruined it, and keeping America out of the socialist mess and massive deficits the left is so eagerly pushing.
Having said that the whole thing about repealing DADT is a ridiculous waste of conservativves time and resources. If the command structure sees no issue with it that should be good enough. Gay or lesbian citizens wanting to serve their nation should be encouraged in that desire, not discouraged.
Conservatives would better spend time defending family and marriage by defending DOMA and the current marriage laws that haven't ruined it, and keeping America out of the socialist mess and massive deficits the left is so eagerly pushing.
43
The Republican Party is the party of hate and death. It's the party of people who see no future, and have no understanding of their past or present. Absolutely disgusting.
@42, besides your usual drivel, you're ignoring the fact that something like 80% of our current debt was accrued under Republicans.
@42, besides your usual drivel, you're ignoring the fact that something like 80% of our current debt was accrued under Republicans.
44
@37: See you escaped your fishing trip with your eyeballs fish hook free. Pity.
As to the matter at hand hows about you address the actual text of Dan’s post. It is only 44 words long including the title. Surely you can handle that. Here, I’ll include it in its entirety:
Let Us Pause Now to Consider the Shit Storm...
that would have ensued if a group of Democrats running for president stood silent—literally said nothing—while a left-leaning crowd at a presidential debate booed an active-duty soldier currently serving in Iraq.
So what about it SB? What would you have to say if The Four Horsemen of the Stranger (as you seem to view those staff members you mention) were to boo an active duty soldier at a presidential debate and Democrats running for president stood silent
You will notice that Dan made no mention of Mr. Santorum specifically.
As to the matter at hand hows about you address the actual text of Dan’s post. It is only 44 words long including the title. Surely you can handle that. Here, I’ll include it in its entirety:
Let Us Pause Now to Consider the Shit Storm...
that would have ensued if a group of Democrats running for president stood silent—literally said nothing—while a left-leaning crowd at a presidential debate booed an active-duty soldier currently serving in Iraq.
So what about it SB? What would you have to say if The Four Horsemen of the Stranger (as you seem to view those staff members you mention) were to boo an active duty soldier at a presidential debate and Democrats running for president stood silent
You will notice that Dan made no mention of Mr. Santorum specifically.
45
@41
Ya know, had Savage gone about it like a civilized human being, I'd have no beef with him. Agree with him, no. Rick Santorum made statements that he likely found offensive but lying about them isn't debate. He may have pushed policy Savage found distasteful or unjust, but attacking the man rather than the policy isn't discourse.
So you argue those issues and those statements. That at least is how grown ups go about political discourse. What you don't do is make it personal, particularly on the sociopathic level Savage did.
For the sake of argument, grant that it worked. At what cost? Is this the way you want American politics to work from now on? This is the level at which you want us to function, hatred and disdain and vulgarity and vile personal attacks?
You really think this a vision for a better America?
Ya know, had Savage gone about it like a civilized human being, I'd have no beef with him. Agree with him, no. Rick Santorum made statements that he likely found offensive but lying about them isn't debate. He may have pushed policy Savage found distasteful or unjust, but attacking the man rather than the policy isn't discourse.
So you argue those issues and those statements. That at least is how grown ups go about political discourse. What you don't do is make it personal, particularly on the sociopathic level Savage did.
For the sake of argument, grant that it worked. At what cost? Is this the way you want American politics to work from now on? This is the level at which you want us to function, hatred and disdain and vulgarity and vile personal attacks?
You really think this a vision for a better America?
46
@ 45, Santorum attacked Savage's family. That's a fact, and your statement that "Rick Santorum made statements that he likely found offensive ... [and] pushed policy Savage found distasteful or unjust" is false.
47
Of course, Seattleblues, this is beside the point. The point is this: If the situation were reversed - if this had happened at a Democratic debate - the media (all of it, not just Fox and company) would be having a field day.
48
@45, Santorum started it with his, as you say, "hatred and disdain and vulgarity and vile personal attacks" against us gays. You seem fine with his having done that, but there are consequences to his actions and these are they. Suck it up, sob sister.
49
Trying to save DOMA is a waste of time and money. Homophobes may drag out the process, spending lots of time and tax payer dollars, but they will ultimately fail. More and more people are realizing that gay marriage is no threat to them. DOMA will be struck down.
50
When intolerant religious fanatics get mocked for their wacky beliefs I think that's a good thing. Dan's redefinitions of Santorum's name wouldn't have caught on the way it did if the senator's political beliefs were not abhorrent to a large part of the electorate.
52
Face it, they're so crazy no other channel even carried that debate.
And the business channels ignored it.
And the business channels ignored it.
53
@ #37 - But you are the one posting anonymous hate-speech on Mr. Savage's website. Using your own definition, you are the cowardly bully.
54
@49 you are right and I would even go a step further. When Obama is re-elected, the sane wing of the republican party will realize they lost an election that was otherwise gift-wrapped, solely due to pandering to the irrational wing of the party. No serious candidate for national office will again demonize homosexuals, defend creationism as science, etc.
SeattleBlues @42 is correct that if conservatives focused on "keeping America out of the socialist mess and massive deficits the left is so eagerly pushing" the GOP would win easily in this cycle. Which is why this hatred of "the homosexual lifestyle" is so fascinating to me. Its more important to bash the gays than to save your country from perceived economic collapes.
SeattleBlues @42 is correct that if conservatives focused on "keeping America out of the socialist mess and massive deficits the left is so eagerly pushing" the GOP would win easily in this cycle. Which is why this hatred of "the homosexual lifestyle" is so fascinating to me. Its more important to bash the gays than to save your country from perceived economic collapes.
55
@37 No. Santorum is an official mouth-breathing-piece for the portion of the Repugnant Party that believes these things.
He is not such a fringe element that he's not right there on the stage. It's not like he is getting booed of the stage or challenged by the other candidates on these positions.
You can't have it both ways. As I stated above, as long as the Repugnant Party takes him seriously, he is fair game.
He is not such a fringe element that he's not right there on the stage. It's not like he is getting booed of the stage or challenged by the other candidates on these positions.
You can't have it both ways. As I stated above, as long as the Repugnant Party takes him seriously, he is fair game.
56
boofuckinghoo.
is Danny going to be sitting in pool of his own warm piss every time someone at a GOP debate boos?
what a pussy.
perhaps we need a Political Special Olympics for the far left where they won't get their iddybiddy feewings hurt......
is Danny going to be sitting in pool of his own warm piss every time someone at a GOP debate boos?
what a pussy.
perhaps we need a Political Special Olympics for the far left where they won't get their iddybiddy feewings hurt......
57
@45 You complain about Dan using insults, but you're unwilling to admit that in the past you've accused Dan of lying and then been unable to back up that accusation. But I guess you think making a false accusation is different from insulting someone--at least as long as you're the one doing it.
By the way, Seattleblues, what made you change your mind about "the left"? You used to go on about how liberals hate and want to destroy the United States. My goodness, you've backed down from your position. Next you'll be saying that some people are poor because of circumstances beyond their control.
By the way, Seattleblues, what made you change your mind about "the left"? You used to go on about how liberals hate and want to destroy the United States. My goodness, you've backed down from your position. Next you'll be saying that some people are poor because of circumstances beyond their control.
58
I watched the clip expecting much worse. It seems the vast majority of the crowd sat silently. Not exactly praiseworthy behavior, but it could have been worse.
I imagine the boo-ers thought process went like that "Studly soldier? I have a hard-on for America! Oh wait, gay studly soldier? I have a gay hard-on! Must act out with some form of violence to keep the gay off!"
I imagine the boo-ers thought process went like that "Studly soldier? I have a hard-on for America! Oh wait, gay studly soldier? I have a gay hard-on! Must act out with some form of violence to keep the gay off!"
60
@57 The only time he'll ever feign a conciliatory tone is when he wants to wag his finger at everyone else. He's backed off his insults about "the left," progressives, and liberals in the past, but in another day or two he'll be back to insult people en masse again. He just says whatever he needs to say at the moment to make his insults seem less hypocritical. He only takes the high road when it gives him a better vantage point to shit on everyone.
61
Each and every person on that stage agreed with the booing, as evidenced by their silence. Each and every modern day republican is an America hating, flag burning, troop hating terrorist. At least, that is what they would be braying from every rightwing propaganda outlet in America, were the tables turned. I can't wait for the next time I see some Republican on the street corner trying to GOTV. That asshole is going to rue the motherfucking day.
62
Seattleblues>--I don't see where political discourse is demonstrably different from sport. Both are part of the elaborate web of fictions that we call civilization, and use to comfort ourselves with the illusion that we are safe (and separate) from the rigors of nature.
Moroever, I think that being treated, or seeing one's brethren treated, as second-class citizens is something that should be treated as a mere "difference of opinion." I would hope that any of my fellow liberals would, faced with one of their own who asserted that, say, believing in an anthropomorphic deity should preclude one from service in the military would have the good sense to call that person on his/her bigotry, and not be shy about applying satire or hyperbole where advantage called for it.
Moroever, I think that being treated, or seeing one's brethren treated, as second-class citizens is something that should be treated as a mere "difference of opinion." I would hope that any of my fellow liberals would, faced with one of their own who asserted that, say, believing in an anthropomorphic deity should preclude one from service in the military would have the good sense to call that person on his/her bigotry, and not be shy about applying satire or hyperbole where advantage called for it.
63
So... Republicons teamed up with al Qaeda to bankrupt the nation and now they are booing combat troops - Sounds like a bunch of anti-American terrorists to me. Surely we must apply the Bush doctrine here and wage a preemptive war against all republicons before they attack us with weapons of mass destruction.
64
@63
Summed up Rujax/Pol Pot post on any topic-
Blah blah crazy incoherent statement blah blah republicon AmeriKKKa blah blah.
BTW, I would think anyone would rue a mother fucking day. Look at Oedipus.
@62
Gay citizens aren't treated as second class citizens except in their own imaginings. They have exactly the same rights as I, a heterosexual white male, have. What they want is for people to stop being so MEAN to them, Mommy! It's not FAAAAIIIIR!!!! is the constant refrain from the far left fringe like Savage.
Well it isn't, maybe. But a lesbian or gay man chose their lifestyle, and if they dislike the social consequences of that choice it's kind of on them. I have the right to my choices and my opinions. I do not have the right to be free from offense at how others view those choices or opinions.
Summed up Rujax/Pol Pot post on any topic-
Blah blah crazy incoherent statement blah blah republicon AmeriKKKa blah blah.
BTW, I would think anyone would rue a mother fucking day. Look at Oedipus.
@62
Gay citizens aren't treated as second class citizens except in their own imaginings. They have exactly the same rights as I, a heterosexual white male, have. What they want is for people to stop being so MEAN to them, Mommy! It's not FAAAAIIIIR!!!! is the constant refrain from the far left fringe like Savage.
Well it isn't, maybe. But a lesbian or gay man chose their lifestyle, and if they dislike the social consequences of that choice it's kind of on them. I have the right to my choices and my opinions. I do not have the right to be free from offense at how others view those choices or opinions.
65
@64 Oh look, previously blip (@60) said, "in another day or two he'll be back to insult people en masse again", but you didn't even wait a day or two.
But at least for the moment you've still backed down from some of your previous positions, even if you're still resorting to the same sort of childishness and poor reasoning you criticize in others.
But at least for the moment you've still backed down from some of your previous positions, even if you're still resorting to the same sort of childishness and poor reasoning you criticize in others.
68
"I would think anyone would rue a mother fucking day. Look at Oedipus."
Haha! That's actually funny. Your humor batting average just jumped from .0 to .00000000001. Congrats.
Haha! That's actually funny. Your humor batting average just jumped from .0 to .00000000001. Congrats.
69
@64, Funny, I thought we were fighting so that, regardless of who they are or who they love, anyone can marry their partner, and no one must fear being turned from their home, fired from their job, expelled or suspended from their school, or being bullied to death.
It's not really so much that we want you to stop being mean (though that would be nice), but we want the system to protect and treat the Queer identified in the same way it protects and treats anyone else.
It's not really so much that we want you to stop being mean (though that would be nice), but we want the system to protect and treat the Queer identified in the same way it protects and treats anyone else.
70
@64--
Gay citizens aren't treated as second class citizens except in their own imaginings. They have exactly the same rights as I, a heterosexual white male, have.
That's arguable; you, after all, had/have the "right" (we could have a reasonable debate as to whether it's a right, but from what I've seen, every time I've tried to begin a reasonable debate with you, you've fallen silent, perhaps sensing that you wouldn't fare well in one) to marry someone with whom you have even a nominal capacity to be erotically or romantically compatible (I don't know about you, but such compatibility is precisely why I got married; you and I are simply fortunate enough that we have such capacities with members of the opposite sex).
That said, one can reasonably surmise that marriage, with its attendant privileges and subsidies, might perhaps not be a "right" in the traditional sense. So let's stick with the matter at hand--military service. Until NOW, the right of a law-abiding citizen to even put oneself up for consideration for military service was not extended to homosexuals. While being accepted into this body isn't a right, per se--one must qualify for any job, after all--discrimination on the basis of this proclivity did, in fact, violate a very basic right to have one's ability to do any given job judged on the basis of capacities related to the job itself.
Well it isn't, maybe. But a lesbian or gay man chose their lifestyle, and if they dislike the social consequences of that choice it's kind of on them.
So far as those social consequences, so far as they are codified by law, are based on empirically demonstrable utilities, sure. Moral concerns, however, are too subjective and complex for an instrument so blunt as government to oversee. Your disapproval is yours to prosecute; you may feel free to spread it amongst your brethren or teach your kids to abide by it. But you cannot ask that our public institutions abide by it.
More...
Gay citizens aren't treated as second class citizens except in their own imaginings. They have exactly the same rights as I, a heterosexual white male, have.
That's arguable; you, after all, had/have the "right" (we could have a reasonable debate as to whether it's a right, but from what I've seen, every time I've tried to begin a reasonable debate with you, you've fallen silent, perhaps sensing that you wouldn't fare well in one) to marry someone with whom you have even a nominal capacity to be erotically or romantically compatible (I don't know about you, but such compatibility is precisely why I got married; you and I are simply fortunate enough that we have such capacities with members of the opposite sex).
That said, one can reasonably surmise that marriage, with its attendant privileges and subsidies, might perhaps not be a "right" in the traditional sense. So let's stick with the matter at hand--military service. Until NOW, the right of a law-abiding citizen to even put oneself up for consideration for military service was not extended to homosexuals. While being accepted into this body isn't a right, per se--one must qualify for any job, after all--discrimination on the basis of this proclivity did, in fact, violate a very basic right to have one's ability to do any given job judged on the basis of capacities related to the job itself.
Well it isn't, maybe. But a lesbian or gay man chose their lifestyle, and if they dislike the social consequences of that choice it's kind of on them.
So far as those social consequences, so far as they are codified by law, are based on empirically demonstrable utilities, sure. Moral concerns, however, are too subjective and complex for an instrument so blunt as government to oversee. Your disapproval is yours to prosecute; you may feel free to spread it amongst your brethren or teach your kids to abide by it. But you cannot ask that our public institutions abide by it.
72
"Black citizens aren't treated as second class citizens except in their own imaginings. They have exactly the same rights as I, a heterosexual white male, have."
That's along the lines of what they said before lifestyle choice of biracial sex and marriage was legalized. They reasoned that since white people couldn't marry black people, and vice versa, everybody had equal rights.
The laws that stop you from marrying a same sex partner are just as unconstitutional as the ones that stop gay people from marrying.
That's along the lines of what they said before lifestyle choice of biracial sex and marriage was legalized. They reasoned that since white people couldn't marry black people, and vice versa, everybody had equal rights.
The laws that stop you from marrying a same sex partner are just as unconstitutional as the ones that stop gay people from marrying.
73
Homosexuals do not exist (as per previous blog entry). Therefore, homosexual soldiers do not exist. Therefore, they could not have booed him. You just imagined it.
74
Seattleblues please address the actual posted topic. If the parties of the canidates had been reversed, do you, or do you not, believe that there would be outrage at their silence?
And may I add that it gratifies me no end to see you back peddling on the issue of gays in the military. I have also noticed that since NY now has gay marriage you've dropped the whole "Dan and Terry aren't married" canard as well.
You know in your heart that you are losing. How you must suffer in your impotence. It almost makes up for you not losing an eye to a fish hook on your trip.
And may I add that it gratifies me no end to see you back peddling on the issue of gays in the military. I have also noticed that since NY now has gay marriage you've dropped the whole "Dan and Terry aren't married" canard as well.
You know in your heart that you are losing. How you must suffer in your impotence. It almost makes up for you not losing an eye to a fish hook on your trip.
75
@74
Oh. That's easy.
I remember the deafening silence when an actual Democrat candidate called all the men and women serving in Iraq too stupid to do otherwise. (As do muy brother and brother in law then serving in Iraq. Vividly.) Granted, John Kerry had a long history of hating soldiers, even going before Congress expressly so that he could betray his fellow servicemen after Vietnam. But still, I don't remember either the media or the Dems going off on Kerry for saying such an idiotic thing. And again, he wasn't a few audience members in a Dem debate. He was a candidate for the presidency.
Savage and his boyfriend aren't married. Not here. If they lived in Vancouver BC maybe, but in the state in which they have residence they aren't married. Nor could they be, since marriage is the union of a man and woman in lifelong comittment.
I never argued for DADT. How many times is this necessary? Once the officer corps decided there wasn't an issue, for my money there wasn't an issue.
Oh. That's easy.
I remember the deafening silence when an actual Democrat candidate called all the men and women serving in Iraq too stupid to do otherwise. (As do muy brother and brother in law then serving in Iraq. Vividly.) Granted, John Kerry had a long history of hating soldiers, even going before Congress expressly so that he could betray his fellow servicemen after Vietnam. But still, I don't remember either the media or the Dems going off on Kerry for saying such an idiotic thing. And again, he wasn't a few audience members in a Dem debate. He was a candidate for the presidency.
Savage and his boyfriend aren't married. Not here. If they lived in Vancouver BC maybe, but in the state in which they have residence they aren't married. Nor could they be, since marriage is the union of a man and woman in lifelong comittment.
I never argued for DADT. How many times is this necessary? Once the officer corps decided there wasn't an issue, for my money there wasn't an issue.
76
@72
A person born black or Asian or confined to a wheelchair had no choice in the matter. They shouldn't be proud or ashamed or asked to be either for something which doesn't involve volition.
My wife and I married in a ceremony that wouldn't have been legal, but should have been, 50 years ago. We did not seek to redefine marriage for everyone else. We asked that our male/female partnership receive the recognition that every similar male/female partnership did.
You can keep conflating the two all you like. It won't make them in reality the same thing.
A person born black or Asian or confined to a wheelchair had no choice in the matter. They shouldn't be proud or ashamed or asked to be either for something which doesn't involve volition.
My wife and I married in a ceremony that wouldn't have been legal, but should have been, 50 years ago. We did not seek to redefine marriage for everyone else. We asked that our male/female partnership receive the recognition that every similar male/female partnership did.
You can keep conflating the two all you like. It won't make them in reality the same thing.
77
@71
Please show me ANY science that proves a person is born homosexual.
PS- Studies won't serve. When asked 'As a man, do you prefer sex with men or women,' 'I prefer guys' isn't science. It's a statement of sexual tastes, not of any origination for those tastes or biological inevitability to them. I prefer dark haired slender women. I couldn't tell you why. But I don't attempt to call this preference an orientation or my sexual estiny, or impose that taste on others as some kind of obligation.
Please show me ANY science that proves a person is born homosexual.
PS- Studies won't serve. When asked 'As a man, do you prefer sex with men or women,' 'I prefer guys' isn't science. It's a statement of sexual tastes, not of any origination for those tastes or biological inevitability to them. I prefer dark haired slender women. I couldn't tell you why. But I don't attempt to call this preference an orientation or my sexual estiny, or impose that taste on others as some kind of obligation.
78
Oh and SB? Just to show what a stand up guy you are, and how, (and I quote,) you feel:
"Gay or lesbian citizens wanting to serve their nation should be encouraged in that desire, not discouraged."
why don't you head on over to the He Had It Coming All Along thread and ask Stephen Hill's husband (who is posting as jeaksua) to pass on your thanks for his service since none of the presidential candidates from your party saw fit to do so.
Go on. I'll wait.
"Gay or lesbian citizens wanting to serve their nation should be encouraged in that desire, not discouraged."
why don't you head on over to the He Had It Coming All Along thread and ask Stephen Hill's husband (who is posting as jeaksua) to pass on your thanks for his service since none of the presidential candidates from your party saw fit to do so.
Go on. I'll wait.
79
@76 Please don't use words like "reality" when you've demonstrated repeatedly that you don't know what they mean.
As for your continuing battle against marriage, I have to ask: do you love your wife? Was that part of the reason for your decision to marry her? And if so, why do you think gender should be a deciding factor in keeping people who love each other from marrying? It is nice, though, that you acknowledge that if Dan and Terry lived in another place they would be married. It's fun watching you back down from your previous opinions.
As for your continuing battle against marriage, I have to ask: do you love your wife? Was that part of the reason for your decision to marry her? And if so, why do you think gender should be a deciding factor in keeping people who love each other from marrying? It is nice, though, that you acknowledge that if Dan and Terry lived in another place they would be married. It's fun watching you back down from your previous opinions.
80
@77 I know studies won't convince you, anymore than geology will convince you that the Earth is more than six thousand years old.
And if you're going to insist that giving homosexuals the same right to marry is somehow an obligation please explain how it's an obligation. No one's asking you to marry a person of the same sex. Why is it any of your business if two people of the same sex want to marry?
And if you're going to insist that giving homosexuals the same right to marry is somehow an obligation please explain how it's an obligation. No one's asking you to marry a person of the same sex. Why is it any of your business if two people of the same sex want to marry?
81
@76 You're right that they're not the same, with one notable exception: 50 years ago many of the same anti-marriage equality arguments used today were applied to marriages of mixed race. Of course that sounds ridiculous to us today, but that only underscores how these social consequences you speak of are subject to the prevailing mood of the times and are not based on absolute truths. 50 years ago God hated miscegination as much as he hates fags today.
A majority of Americans once opposed miscegination but it was legalized anyway. Today most Americans support marriage equality, and the trend continues steadily in our favor. I'll leave the rest of the math to you.
A majority of Americans once opposed miscegination but it was legalized anyway. Today most Americans support marriage equality, and the trend continues steadily in our favor. I'll leave the rest of the math to you.
82
@75:
"since marriage is the union of a man and woman in lifelong comittment."
Except, of course, in 33 countries around the globe and 12 of these united states, all of which recognize legal same sex unions.
You're losing.
Now run along and express your support to Stephen Hill's husband like a good boy.
"since marriage is the union of a man and woman in lifelong comittment."
Except, of course, in 33 countries around the globe and 12 of these united states, all of which recognize legal same sex unions.
You're losing.
Now run along and express your support to Stephen Hill's husband like a good boy.
83
76, Gay people did not choose to be gay, nor did they choose what sex they born. Legalizing the lifestyle choices of biracial sex and marriage did redefine marriage in a way that many people still object to even in this day and age.
84
@83 You can keep telling Seattleblues that but no amount of evidence will ever convince him, just as he'll never admit that he's just as guilty of lying and throwing around insults as he claims others are.
85
I have to agree with the others, SB. You can try as much as you want, but since (a) people don't choose their sexual orientation (did you choose yours?) and (b) there are people even today who are convinced marriage shouldn't be interracial and that allowing it to be interracial "redefined" it... you don't stand much of a chance.
It's a question of logics. If you can't really present an argument that shows how exactly there are differences, and relevant differences, between these cases, then you have no hope of getting near the truth. A difference, to be a difference, must make a difference.
It's a question of logics. If you can't really present an argument that shows how exactly there are differences, and relevant differences, between these cases, then you have no hope of getting near the truth. A difference, to be a difference, must make a difference.
87
On the topic -- I indeed suspect Faux News (I especially see Papa Bear doing it) would be all over any booing of a soldier in Iraq by left wing Americans... except if said soldier were gay. It won't matter to them whether or not this soldier has saved lives, and how many. All that matters is: what makes his dick hard? What?
It doesn't matter if Alexander the Great conquered almost the entire known world of his time, and that by the time he turned 30; and that his courage and valor earned the deepest trust of his soldiers. But who exactly did he like to have sex with? That is the big question, or so it seems.
It doesn't matter if Alexander the Great conquered almost the entire known world of his time, and that by the time he turned 30; and that his courage and valor earned the deepest trust of his soldiers. But who exactly did he like to have sex with? That is the big question, or so it seems.
88
Lifelong commitment could just as feasibly be shared twixt a man and a man or a woman or a woman (or a man and three women, a woman and three men, three men and two women, and so on and so forth). The historical definition of marriage has not always focused on the number two; the construct you seem so anxious to defend, Seattleblues, is not, in fact, the only construct that has born the name "marriage." That's not a reason for you to support its being applied any other way, but it's a pretty good reason to suggest that your moral anxiety should have no bearing on the question of whether it should be legally allowed; morality and legality have a lot of crossover territory, but they really aren't the same thing (as I've already pointed out to you--to no rebuttal--in other comment threads).
They shouldn't be proud or ashamed or asked to be either for something which doesn't involve volition.
"Pride" and "shame" have nothing to do with legal recognition, even if the matter involves volition. And as I've pointed out before--again, to no rebuttal--there is no indication whatsoever that the proclivity in question has anything to do with volition. Yes, one can choose celibacy, or pleasure-free intercourse with a member of the opposite sex, in the name of achieving social acceptance (sort of the way I can choose to listen to the Eagles, but not to find anything edifying in their music); I happily cede to all the right to make those (dubious) choices. This has nothing to do with whether any empirically demonstrable civic utility is served by allowing equal legal recognition to homosexual and heterosexual unions; such utility is all with which law concerns itself.
Which is all off-topic, of course. This post was about DADT. And while you claim not to feel too strongly about the repeal, you clearly felt strongly enough to comment on the intensity with which some feel that the former policy (and the support it has amongst republicans to this day) represents an unjust prejudice. Do you have any further comment on that matter, or are you going to continue to move the argument to ground where you feel more comfortable, and ignore all arguments not easily dismissed with facile rejoinders? I'm just wondering.
More...
They shouldn't be proud or ashamed or asked to be either for something which doesn't involve volition.
"Pride" and "shame" have nothing to do with legal recognition, even if the matter involves volition. And as I've pointed out before--again, to no rebuttal--there is no indication whatsoever that the proclivity in question has anything to do with volition. Yes, one can choose celibacy, or pleasure-free intercourse with a member of the opposite sex, in the name of achieving social acceptance (sort of the way I can choose to listen to the Eagles, but not to find anything edifying in their music); I happily cede to all the right to make those (dubious) choices. This has nothing to do with whether any empirically demonstrable civic utility is served by allowing equal legal recognition to homosexual and heterosexual unions; such utility is all with which law concerns itself.
Which is all off-topic, of course. This post was about DADT. And while you claim not to feel too strongly about the repeal, you clearly felt strongly enough to comment on the intensity with which some feel that the former policy (and the support it has amongst republicans to this day) represents an unjust prejudice. Do you have any further comment on that matter, or are you going to continue to move the argument to ground where you feel more comfortable, and ignore all arguments not easily dismissed with facile rejoinders? I'm just wondering.
89
@77 - I'll wait for you to go first, since nothing posted here will change your views. The science is out there, but you will just ignore it and believe what you wish to believe.
It's interesting that so many people like you are convinced they know everything about homosexuality, without actually being gay themselves. What makes you such an expert on something you have never experienced? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?
Did you make a choice to be straight? I don't recall ever having that option myself. I just always knew that I wasn't the same as most people. I never made a choice. None of us do.
It's interesting that so many people like you are convinced they know everything about homosexuality, without actually being gay themselves. What makes you such an expert on something you have never experienced? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?
Did you make a choice to be straight? I don't recall ever having that option myself. I just always knew that I wasn't the same as most people. I never made a choice. None of us do.
90
@ Seattleblues, please show us any study that shows sexual orientation is chosen.
Remember - sexual orientation is neither mental illness nor behavior. Any assertions to that effect MUST be supported by current psychiatric or psychological studies.
Remember - sexual orientation is neither mental illness nor behavior. Any assertions to that effect MUST be supported by current psychiatric or psychological studies.
91
Studies won't serve. When asked 'As a man, do you prefer sex with men or women,' 'I prefer guys' isn't science.
A considerable number of studies are based on plethysmograph readings, as opposed to self-reporting.
That said, I don't think anyone is "born" homosexual or heterosexual, just as I don't really think anyone is "born" left-handed. But like left-handedness, I think that sexual orientation is nigh impossible to budge once it's set . . . and that it's set pretty early.
This is only speculative, and irrelevant. If an adult man decided last week that he was gay, and met someone he wanted to marry and who wanted to marry him three days later, I don't see why that should be legally proscribed.
It's a statement of sexual tastes, not of any origination for those tastes or biological inevitability to them. I prefer dark haired slender women.
And you would be legally allowed to marry one of those. So . . . Wait, what was the point of your bringing that up?taste on others as some kind of obligation.
A considerable number of studies are based on plethysmograph readings, as opposed to self-reporting.
That said, I don't think anyone is "born" homosexual or heterosexual, just as I don't really think anyone is "born" left-handed. But like left-handedness, I think that sexual orientation is nigh impossible to budge once it's set . . . and that it's set pretty early.
This is only speculative, and irrelevant. If an adult man decided last week that he was gay, and met someone he wanted to marry and who wanted to marry him three days later, I don't see why that should be legally proscribed.
It's a statement of sexual tastes, not of any origination for those tastes or biological inevitability to them. I prefer dark haired slender women.
And you would be legally allowed to marry one of those. So . . . Wait, what was the point of your bringing that up?taste on others as some kind of obligation.
92
Sorry about the mis-post: "taste on other as some kind of obligation," as tagged on the end there, was from SB, copied and pasted so that I didn't have to keep scrolling up to recall which fallacy I was dismantling.
93
Here everyone, well those who don't live in denial, maybe it will help put a smile on your faces. It did mine, especially the results for republicans and evangelicals. The tide has turned, that doesn't mean that the battle is over.
http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/…
With that in mind consider this quote from the May issue of WORLD magazine (a Christian news source) from John Daly president of Focus on the Family:
"We're losing on [the issue of homosexuality], especially among the 20- and 30- somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. .... We've probably lost that . I don't want to be extremist here, but I think we need to start calculating where we are in the culture."
Does this mean attitudes will change? Sadly, likely not, locked minds remain locked until the owner opens them. Does this meant that money won't be funneled to stop the "homosexual agenda" ? I don't believe so. What it indicates, to me anyway, is that they are aware that their "a minority is trying to oppress a majority" martyr cry is becoming white noise.
http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/…
With that in mind consider this quote from the May issue of WORLD magazine (a Christian news source) from John Daly president of Focus on the Family:
"We're losing on [the issue of homosexuality], especially among the 20- and 30- somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. .... We've probably lost that . I don't want to be extremist here, but I think we need to start calculating where we are in the culture."
Does this mean attitudes will change? Sadly, likely not, locked minds remain locked until the owner opens them. Does this meant that money won't be funneled to stop the "homosexual agenda" ? I don't believe so. What it indicates, to me anyway, is that they are aware that their "a minority is trying to oppress a majority" martyr cry is becoming white noise.
94
Ok I'm dropping the other shoe -so to speak -since no one has said this yet. The people cheering at these debates are plants. Just as there were provacatuers at town meeting shouting tea party ideology, they got them here too. It's unlikely that someone would spontaneously yell out support for the uninsured to die or boo a soldier without someone at least being startled by the outbursts. None of them were which means it was planned. I'd bet on it.
95
Nice try, SB, but Kerry never said that soldiers in Iraq were stupid. He said that Bush was stupid for getting us into Iraq, albeit in a clumsily worded manner. And it was pretty much the only subject of conversation on Faux News for the next two weeks, so, fail again. Score, Dan, 10,023, SB, 0
96
@94, if that was the case, then wouldn't at least one of the candidates have taken the opportunity to say, "Hey, no. That many executions isn't something to celebrate. We're not ashamed of it, but it's nothing to cheer about." or:
"No, these are tragic circumstances you describe, and real people do find themselves in them. I think government has little to no place in helping, but it's inappropriate to crow about someone's misfortune." or:
"Stop--he is a soldier on active duty in a combat area. He deserves our thanks and respect."
If these things were planned, *someone* would have had an answer ready. All that's shown by no one being startled is that, as frequent public speakers, they've practiced their game faces.
"No, these are tragic circumstances you describe, and real people do find themselves in them. I think government has little to no place in helping, but it's inappropriate to crow about someone's misfortune." or:
"Stop--he is a soldier on active duty in a combat area. He deserves our thanks and respect."
If these things were planned, *someone* would have had an answer ready. All that's shown by no one being startled is that, as frequent public speakers, they've practiced their game faces.
98
#94 has a point, one that I tried to say but failed to, just a little different. You don't KNOW the people in the background are supporters of the candidates, or even if they are supporters of any candidate or ideology. Obama's preacher is a scumbag and no one pushed that on him, so why are you doing the same of the opposition's supporters? It would be nice if any politician was honest, but none have been, and none will be, they aren't stupid enough to say one way or the other because to say they agree with one side alienates the other. That's how all the presidents have won in the past, say what the majority want to hear, even if they don't actually agree with it.
99
@94,98, I think you have a point -- and I'm willing to bet there were many people in that audience who were just as shocked at the booing of that soldier as anyone here is.
As for whether or not pandering to the will of the majority (and which majority, especially in a country so close to being evenly divided as the US now seems to be), it does often work, but I don't think every politician, even every successful politician, even every US president, in history was doing that. I'll bet some of them agree with what they say.
As for whether or not pandering to the will of the majority (and which majority, especially in a country so close to being evenly divided as the US now seems to be), it does often work, but I don't think every politician, even every successful politician, even every US president, in history was doing that. I'll bet some of them agree with what they say.
100
98 & 99, it's true that the candidates (nor the GOP in general) can't be held responsible for every loon who comes down the pike, nor for what they shout. But we can hold them accountable when they fail to cut that loon off. They look as if they condone that nonsense. I would even give Santorum himself a bit of a pass, because he was probably thinking about his answer, and because he's a lightweight. But Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman and Paul each could have taken a moment at their chances to speak and said something. To my knowledge, they did not. Of course, now they're scrambling.
Kitten Koder, you want to back up your statements about Reverend Wright? His statements were controversial and inflammatory, but I think 'scumbag' is a little harsh. Also, Obama caught a lot of heat and not just from Republicans. He publicly disavowed Wright's statements multiple times. Not sure where you're going with this one.
Kitten Koder, you want to back up your statements about Reverend Wright? His statements were controversial and inflammatory, but I think 'scumbag' is a little harsh. Also, Obama caught a lot of heat and not just from Republicans. He publicly disavowed Wright's statements multiple times. Not sure where you're going with this one.
101
The entire transcript of Reverend Wright's eloquent, righteous and inspiring sermon here:
http://www.sluggy.net/forum/viewtopic.ph…
http://www.sluggy.net/forum/viewtopic.ph…
102
@100 My point being, some of the Repub candidates do disavow such connections or supporter actions, they just don't get the aired. ;) Not saying it's some great conspiracy of the Dems, but that it's both sides to blame for it. It has just become an Us Versus Them on this, and no supporter is willing to say "well, we do agree with that" when the opposition says it lest they be ostracized or even attacked by the group they claimed to belong. I am anti-party, I do not believe there should be any party, and there have been some Dem candidates against gay people serving in the military, they were just assumed to be for it because they were Democrats. Now there's a new habit of calling candidates "not a true ...." .... which is bull, the party is just who they get their funding from because a majority of their ideals match that party's ideology. But people have it backwards now, which is why I say we need to abolish the party system.
103
@102, I think you've missed what I was getting at. What I wanted to see was a candidate say something *during* the debate, not afterward, when the backlash was already going. I agree that often the controversial things folks say gets more attention from the press than does the bridge-building stuff, but is there any evidence that happened here? Did *any* of the candidates say, No, booing a soldier is wrong? I think that if they had, we'd have heard about it by now--one of the few SLOG conservatives would have posted a link.
The party system has been in place here for almost as long as this country has been a nation. I think we're a little too far down the track to eliminate it. I do agree that a lot of bad occurs in the name of party politics.
I notice that you didn't address my challenge to you regarding Rev. Wright. What, to you, makes him a 'scumbag'? Put up or shut up.
The party system has been in place here for almost as long as this country has been a nation. I think we're a little too far down the track to eliminate it. I do agree that a lot of bad occurs in the name of party politics.
I notice that you didn't address my challenge to you regarding Rev. Wright. What, to you, makes him a 'scumbag'? Put up or shut up.
104
@103
My opinion of him is based on what he says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNTGRL0OJ…
He's racist, plain and simple.
My opinion of him is based on what he says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNTGRL0OJ…
He's racist, plain and simple.
105
@104, when I tried to watch that link, it stopped at 1:32. Do you have a better link, or even better yet, a transcript?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (105) RSS