Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Blade)   Howard Dean fires Democratic Party's gay-outreach chief for pointing out that the party takes gays for granted; will later give speech blaming Bush for this   (washingtonblade.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

6655 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 May 2006 at 8:02 AM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



748 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2006-05-04 11:28:01 AM  
Digitalstrange: With our massive penis's. Thats why we have never had a problem with hanging chads.

Yeah, those ballot holes are gigantic. Heh.
 
2006-05-04 11:28:02 AM  
After someone said that the GOP was rational and left-brain, while the Democrats are emotional and right-brain, this outburst was provoked as a counter-point:

What a load of cock. Summarising Dems as "emotional" and "subjective"(you wanted to say women here) is just the kind of macho shiate I'd expect.

Ayep. I think you killed his 'Democrats are emotional' argument but good, soney.
 
2006-05-04 11:29:34 AM  
Code_Archeologist, I'd look at another Democratic example than Lieberman, if you have one to suggest.

/Lieberman's lifetime liberal rating doesn't make him much more maverick than Guiliani
 
2006-05-04 11:29:59 AM  
Headso: But the republicans are working and fighting to restrict their rights to live a normal life like any other person.

How? Even in the Blue states like Maryland, where the government is almost totally controlled by Democrats? You'd think that if this were the case, and the party base was overwealmingly in favor of gay marriage, etc., these Blue states would have already codified their beliefs.

They have not. When they do, I'll entertain the notion that bigotry is defined by support or lack of support of gay marriage, and that the Republicans are bigots because of this.

I would think that would be a big issue with a gay person, maybe I am wrong but it would seem to be pretty high on a gay persons priority list.

I'm sure it is with some. If I were gay, I seriously doubt that I would be worried about applying a broken institution's standards towards myself and those I choose to love. In fact, as a straight man, I don't really care what the government thinks of who I choose to love. Furthermore, what is the government doing deciding what constitutes marriage to begin with?
 
2006-05-04 11:30:03 AM  
Sloth_DC

2) My quoting of the 14th acknowledges that marriages are a legal union conferred by the State, and as such the 14th prohibits the State from applying the law unequally for frivolous reasons, such as sexual orientation.

Your 'frivolous reason' is someone else's 'thousands of years of secular human history' and 'basic teaching of every major world religion'.

Now it might very well be ok anyway for some equally important reasons, but being dismissive and pretending like the idea that marriage as involving partners of the opposite sex (with procreation as a major aspect) is some zany notion pat robertson just came up with last week on the 700 club... well... that's just silly.
 
nfw
2006-05-04 11:30:52 AM  
1) Rights are not "granted" by the US Constitution. Go retake Civics and stop voting until you pass.
2) My quoting of the 14th acknowledges that marriages are a legal union conferred by the State, and as such the 14th prohibits the State from applying the law unequally for frivolous reasons, such as sexual orientation


1) life, liberty, persuit of happiness.
2. Who says the State is prohibiting on frivolous reasons? Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.
 
2006-05-04 11:31:05 AM  
pontechango [TotalFark]

Digitalstrange: With our massive penis's. Thats why we have never had a problem with hanging chads.

Yeah, those ballot holes are gigantic. Heh.


They are when I'm done, the election officials in my precinct call me "John Kerry" because they can't tell if I voted for or against any issue.
 
2006-05-04 11:31:11 AM  
And that is the reason why Guiliani's star is rising and Lieberman's is about to vanish.

I thought it was because he was Jewish. C'mon, a balding man who looks like Skeletor gets a pass on some issues because he's not denigrating his own party? And a less ugly man gets vilified because he voiced his opinion and it didn't jibe with his parties leaders. So, you just proved the point. Democrats don't want a broad party with minds of their own. Republicans don't care as long as the elections are won by their own side. At least the Democrats have principles...the kind that don't win elections, but still they can stand on that.
 
2006-05-04 11:31:14 AM  
phargle: If you're gay, support the War on Terror, and want lower taxes, and the Democratic candidate for president doesn't satisfy you on issue two or three and then says he does not support gay marriage. . .

But another party might like the libertarian party, why compromise your position on something very close to you.

but you are correct, if you think the republicans are good on the war on terror and will actually lower your taxes you might be too stupid to realize that they are also trying to undermine your pursuit of happiness.
 
2006-05-04 11:31:28 AM  
Code_Archeologist: Lieberman and Guiliani are very different candidates. Guiliani while being against the grain on a couple of GOP planks does not go out of his way to hand out sound bytes to the opponents of GOP candidates. Lieberman does, being critical of the party is one thing, actively denegrating specific members of the party in public airwaves is another issue completely. And that is the reason why Guiliani's star is rising and Lieberman's is about to vanish.

Fine - now compare Lieberman to Hagel.

I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president. -Sen. Chuck Hagel
 
2006-05-04 11:31:35 AM  
Kazuya,

What a load of cock. Summarising Dems as "emotional" and "subjective"(you wanted to say women here) ACTUALLY no I didn't. I started to make a yin/yang reference but figured I'd be more plain about it is just the kind of macho shiate I'd expect. As if republicans are the cool, collected "objective" party. As if they don't abuse emotive issues("they're taking our jobs!, they'll take your taxes!, they're gay!, they could attack any minute!, they have WMD's!, we stand for America!").

Jeez, calm down. You're starting to prove my point for me but in a bad way.

So what your on mushrooms now? Don't know what kinda lens your using but I don't think Fox qualifies as an extension of perception.

Also don't know if it's an error in the posting/page scripts but did you post the same huge bunch of "look we like de blacks" pictures 3 times?


I'd go after facts you posted...but there aren't too many, just opinion. I don't know what to say. Let's just stop before you dig yourself any deeper and say we see things differently then, fair enough?
 
2006-05-04 11:33:35 AM  
BlindMan: Your 'frivolous reason' is someone else's 'thousands of years of secular human history' and 'basic teaching of every major world religion'.

Oh, so you're in favor of polygamy? I mean, that's the traditional form of marriage.
 
2006-05-04 11:34:13 AM  
nfw: 1) life, liberty, persuit of happiness.

Are "rights" that the founders believed were granted by a supreme creator. The Bill of Rights was designed to further limit government's infringment on these "rights".

The Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it limits intrusion by politicians.
 
2006-05-04 11:35:19 AM  
phargle: After someone said that the GOP was rational and left-brain, while the Democrats are emotional and right-brain, this outburst was provoked as a counter-point:

Ayep. I think you killed his 'Democrats are emotional' argument but good, soney.


Read a book, sunshine. You'll learn something.
 
2006-05-04 11:35:45 AM  
Digitalstrange and if the battles you choose to ignore are the ones I want fought then don't be suprised when I stop voting for you. Whiny tard? For wanting the issues he's concerned with addressed? I thought we called that informed voting?

If he is part of the party establishment then he should know that there are limited resources, and fighting these battles effectively requires resources. If the progressives try to fight every single right-wing discriminatory policy at the same time, they would end up unfocused and unable to address any one of them effectively.

Trying to pander to every single squeaky wheel the moment it starts squeaking will mean the Republicans win another election... and then nothing gets done to address the issues important to progressives. So, you choose your battles, and you pick the ones that can be one and will lead to more and more wins. Trying to convince a bunch of red necks in Montana that gays really aint so bad though is a waste of resources, resources that can be used to defeat homophobic GOP representatives and senators in November.
 
2006-05-04 11:35:58 AM  
Kazuya,

Also don't know if it's an error in the posting/page scripts but did you post the same huge bunch of "look we like de blacks" pictures 3 times?


Oh, and as I stated, my browser freaked out on me and I double posted, asking the mods to get rid of one of the posts due to length.

At the risk of crossing the civility line for you, as you are again proving my point, I don't see the 'black' people in those pics as 'black'. They are PEOPLE just like you and me and the guy next door, eminently qualified PEOPLE for their respective jobs. You remember that whole 'judge by the content of their character not the color of their skin' thing MLK was talking about, right? Well it sank in for some of us.

Stop projecting your racism on me.
 
2006-05-04 11:36:14 AM  
Oh, so you're in favor of polygamy? I mean, that's the traditional form of marriage.

Personally, I am all for the Islamic version. You can have as many wives as you can financially support. Often, however, 1 is more than enough. I can't even support one shoe buying spouse, let alone 3. And I don't think I could convince them to do a 4-some to make it worthwile.
 
2006-05-04 11:36:57 AM  
How? Even in the Blue states like Maryland, where the government is almost totally controlled by Democrats? You'd think that if this were the case, and the party base was overwealmingly in favor of gay marriage, etc., these Blue states would have already codified their beliefs.

read further up the thread regarding them actively working at keeping gays out of the military, this is an opportunity to get college money through the government for service and the republicans don't want to give that opportunity to gays.

how about my home state of MA, now you name a republican controlled state that is working towards giving gays rights.
 
2006-05-04 11:37:00 AM  
TheGoblinKing: eez, calm down. You're starting to prove my point for me but in a bad way.

No offense, but your point was completely idiotic.
 
2006-05-04 11:37:28 AM  
nfw: 1) life, liberty, persuit of happiness.

Are not granted by the Constitution. I'm serious, stop farking voting until you go pass a civics class. You're a farking disgrace to our nation, and you're not doing anything but adding random noise to the electoral process when you distill your ignorance into a vote.

2. Who says the State is prohibiting on frivolous reasons? Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

By whom? Where is this defined? The Bible says it's between a man and many women. The ancient laws of the indigenous British (from whom are laws are evolved) acknowledged same-sex marriages. Where and why is this definition put forth? And do you really consider "it's the current definition" as a sufficient argument? Would you have argued in favor of slavery 150 years ago because "it's currently defined as legal?"
 
nfw
2006-05-04 11:38:58 AM  
Churnin Urn of Burnin Funk

That is mere semantics, unless you can prove supreme creator exists.
 
2006-05-04 11:39:38 AM  
Headso how about my home state of MA, now you name a republican controlled state that is working towards giving gays rights.

Adoption rights in Indiana. Ok. Now your turn. Name a state that is Democrat run and interested in lowering taxes. If it ends in "York", you get a double word score.
 
2006-05-04 11:41:10 AM  
phargle
Code_Archeologist, I'd look at another Democratic example than Lieberman, if you have one to suggest.

/Lieberman's lifetime liberal rating doesn't make him much more maverick than Guiliani


Its not Lieberman's ideology that is losing him party support, its his personal attacks against fellow Democrats that is losing him support. Can you imagine if Guiliani called Bill Frist an idiot, or Rick Santorum a thief? It is not because Lieberman is not liberal enough (he is actually a little too liberal for my taste many times) the problem is that the guy launches personal attacks against fellow party members all the time.
 
2006-05-04 11:42:32 AM  
nfw

That is mere semantics, unless you can prove supreme creator exists.

It is just a piece of paper. The Declaration of Independence is, I mean. It has no validity because it says "endowed by our Creator". Until you prove a Creator exists, then this country is a colony of the UK. Good point. You might want to point that out to our Queen.
 
2006-05-04 11:43:21 AM  
*pops back into thread after about an hour*
*scans through new posts*

...Holy crap did this thread ever go off topic.
 
2006-05-04 11:43:56 AM  
nfw

Churnin Urn of Burnin Funk

That is mere semantics, unless you can prove supreme creator exists.


www.van-waveren.nl

Done, any other questions?
 
2006-05-04 11:44:02 AM  
Code_Archeologist I think the counter example you are looking for is John McCain. Moderate, pro-war, disliked by the Republicans.
 
2006-05-04 11:45:01 AM  
Headso: read further up the thread regarding them actively working at keeping gays out of the military, this is an opportunity to get college money through the government for service and the republicans don't want to give that opportunity to gays.


You do understand that, by executive order, Clinton could have solved that problem. The military has to follow that order. After fleecing the votes from those who wear their sexuality on their sleeves during the campaign, he came up with "don't ask don't tell" a slight variation from "don't tell" which was the policy before.

nfw: That is mere semantics, unless you can prove supreme creator exists.

Check out the declaration of independence, Einstein, and get back to me. The DoI was quoted, so I mentioned the intent of the quote. The Bill of Rights was mentioned, so I explained that it is a limitation on government powers, not a granting of rights.

Aside from not getting the point, and going off half-cocked just because someone mentioned a supreme being, only outs you as a very shallow, reactionary, person, unworthy of my time.
 
2006-05-04 11:45:33 AM  
I_C_Weener: Adoption rights in Indiana.

That doesn't solely benefit gays it also lowers state expenses by getting more unwanted children off the government payroll, not that there is anything wrong with that but what was the motivation, helping gays or lowering state expenditures.
 
nfw
2006-05-04 11:46:59 AM  
1) As I wrote, it's mere semantics if rights are granted by constitution, or unalienable. It's the nature of all governments to take away liberties from their subjects. Limiting intrusion in that area is functionally the same as explicitly granting those rights.

2) Yes, I do consider the "current definition" to be a sufficient argument from a legal point of view with regard to the 14th amendment.

The State doesn't apply one set of definition to gay couples, another to straight ones. The fact that the gays fail at the first hurdle is not relevant to the 14th amendment.
 
2006-05-04 11:47:17 AM  
Joe Lieberman's lifetime rating from the ADA (liberal index, higher is better) is 76. For 2005, he was 80.

That admittedly makes him the least liberal of the Democratic senators, putting him 20 points off the most liberal senator. Only one other senator (Bill Nelson) has an 80 rating. In the entire party, you can find two politicians who are 20 points away from John Kerry (100)

Conversely, there are many Republicans more than 20 points away from Sessions of Alabama, one of only five Republicans with a 0 rating (contrast with the twenty-one Democrats with a 100 rating.)

Maine has two Republican senators who are 65 points off the most conservative Republican - three times as much variance as Lieberman is from his own party.

Minnesota has one Republican senator who is 30 points off the zero - 50% more out of range than Lieberman.

Ohio has one Republican senator who is 50 points off the zero. The other Republican senator is barely less 'maverick' than Lieberman.

Oregon has one Republican senator who is 20 points off the zero.

Pennsylvania has one Republican senator who is 45 points off. . . the other one is the hated Santorum, who, at 10 points, is less lock-step than half the Democratic party.

Rhode Island has one Republican senator sitting at 75. Imagine a Democrat with a ADA of 25! The closest to that . . . is Lieberman, who is 80.

South Carolina. . . wait a second, let's say that again, SOUTH CAROLINA has a Republican senator with a rating of 20. One of the most red of the red states, and they have a senator who is as much of a 'maverick' (or heretic, if you prefer) as Lieberman allegedly is from the Democrats.

Hell, if Lieberman (with an 80) is unacceptably diverse in his views for the Democratic Party, maybe the GOP should toss Bill Frist (who at 15 is just barely less of a wild man than is Joe.)

These numbers demonstrate two things. First, Lieberman's heresies in the Democratic Party pale in comparison to what exists in the GOP, and he is still demonstratively liberal. Second, the Democratic Party is very uniform in its views. 50% of Democratic senators have a 100 ADA rating (perfectly liberal). 10% of GOP senators have a 0 (perfectly not liberal).
 
2006-05-04 11:48:00 AM  
headso,

now you name a republican controlled state that is working towards giving gays rights.

Respectfully, that says it all right there.

It ain't about giving anything to anyone as if it were a 'hey I'm doing you a favor' kind of thing. What rights do non-gays have that gays have? The entire constitution applies to gays just as it does non-gays.

Marraige is not a right. Not. A. Right.

I can no more demand that the Catholic Church serve Twinkies and Pepsi at communion than you can demand a change in how marraige is performed. It is a set, sacred tradition. Now if you're talking equal rights to medical coverage and life insurance and inheretance and all that, I am ALL FOR that. That is only fair, and actually I am surprised they haven't gotten that hammered out yet.
 
2006-05-04 11:48:24 AM  
Headso He asked for an example, I gave it. I also cheated a little. It was a judicial decision striking down limitations on adoptions by gays. There are other fun legal decisions in Indiana on gay rights which don't fall into the category of "OMG its a Red State, all gays must run for their lives".

There has been no legislation challenging these rulings however.

Now, I am still waiting on my blue state that wants to lower taxes.
 
2006-05-04 11:48:57 AM  
Churnin Urn of Burnin Funk: You do understand that, by executive order, Clinton could have solved that problem.

who cares about what Clinton did, what he did or didnt do has nothing to do with the current republican discrimation against allowing gay people better themselves through military service.
 
2006-05-04 11:49:08 AM  
Headso

I_C_Weener: Adoption rights in Indiana.

That doesn't solely benefit gays it also lowers state expenses by getting more unwanted children off the government payroll, not that there is anything wrong with that but what was the motivation, helping gays or lowering state expenditures.


Wow, stupidest point ever. Do you think we should take back credit for freeing the slaves from Lincoln too cause that isn't what he was after? OK darkies, back out in the fields picking cotton, we didn't really go to war for you.
 
nfw
2006-05-04 11:49:20 AM  
It is just a piece of paper. The Declaration of Independence is, I mean. It has no validity because it says "endowed by our Creator". Until you prove a Creator exists, then this country is a colony of the UK. Good point. You might want to point that out to our Queen.


You are conveniently forgetting the founding fathers had to take up arms. Or did you think the supreme creator suddenly told the King one day to leave the colonies alone?
 
2006-05-04 11:49:36 AM  
Digitalstrange Thanks for that yummy hunk of burning man meat! There surely is a God! Long live the God! mmmmmm.
 
2006-05-04 11:49:42 AM  
I_C_Weener
I think the counter example you are looking for is John McCain. Moderate, pro-war, disliked by the Republicans.

Even John McCain though holds his tongue when it comes to making personal comments about fellow Republicans (well except for the Religious Right).
 
2006-05-04 11:50:54 AM  
phargle So, you and your study are saying that the Republican Party has a big umbrella, and that the Democrat party has a small penis, right?
 
2006-05-04 11:51:12 AM  
TheGoblinKing: Marraige is not a right. Not. A. Right.

No, but the legal status of marriage is recognized by the state and is given rights that are denied to homosexuals.

No one is demanding that churches change; they're demanding that LAWS change.

Your argument is misleading and dishonest, but not uncommon. Maybe that's why they haven't gotten it hammered out yet.
 
2006-05-04 11:51:27 AM  
pontechango,

No offense, but your point was completely idiotic.

Well, you see you're not in that class. You think. Your less evolved classmates still throw spitballs and paper airplanes instead of doing their homework. It was only a generality anyway. Obviously any position has some degree of factual and emotive 'reasoning' to it.
 
2006-05-04 11:51:52 AM  
Headso: who cares about what Clinton did, what he did or didnt do has nothing to do with the current republican discrimation against allowing gay people better themselves through military service.

I already know that you hold your opposition to a higher standard than your own, whining when the other side doesn't see it your way, and looking the other way when your side pays lip-service and does nothing.

You're the posterboy of the two party system.
 
2006-05-04 11:52:26 AM  
I_C_Weener: Adoption rights in Indiana.

Yeah, real progressive state you've got there.

Indiana Bill To Ban Lesbian Pregnancies Dropped
 
2006-05-04 11:53:45 AM  
Beemer,

I don't see too many states, hardcore liberal states, passing laws to say that's OK though (miraculously discovering gay marriage in a constitution is not changing the law either as you well know, that's judicial rule)
 
2006-05-04 11:54:31 AM  
phargle: Joe Lieberman's lifetime rating from the ADA (liberal index, higher is better) is 76. For 2005, he was 80.

What's the ADA?
 
2006-05-04 11:54:54 AM  
img-nex.theonering.net

The Howard Dean Nation LIVES!
 
2006-05-04 11:55:01 AM  
I_C_Weener: Now, I am still waiting on my blue state that wants to lower taxes.

Asking about states trying to lower taxes in the current environment is crazy when the fed is slashing state funding like it is going out of style. I doubt you could find many states lowering taxes right now and if they are i bet you will find every town in that state jacking up their property tax.

That said, I understand that democrats are tax and spend, and personally I hate big government I have had to deal with asinine bureaucracy personally and it drives me insane.
 
nfw
2006-05-04 11:55:04 AM  
Check out the declaration of independence, Einstein, and get back to me. The DoI was quoted, so I mentioned the intent of the quote. The Bill of Rights was mentioned, so I explained that it is a limitation on government powers, not a granting of rights.


DOI proves the supreme creator exists? Limiting government power == granting rights the government cannot intrude on. Writing supreme creator gives off more legitimacy than "the willingness to take up arms".
 
2006-05-04 11:56:34 AM  
No, but the legal status of marriage is recognized by the state and is given rights that are denied to homosexuals.

And the right to vote is denied to those under age 18, or convicted felons, and people who can't get to the polls.

Where else is a group not given the same as another group? Medicare will not pay one dime for my pregnancy. Of course, I am a man. Clearly discriminatory. At least I should get some alternative benefit to make up for this discrepency...like free prostate exams for life.

Benefits of marriage fall into the category of voting rights, and other "rights" that are dependent on legal status. Illegal immigrants are not allowed the same as U.S. citizens. It has nothing to do with their worth, but their legal status. Legal status is a question of politics.

Equal rights require you fall into a protected category. Sex, ethnicity, race are protected. Legal marriage is not.
 
2006-05-04 11:56:52 AM  
nfw: DOI proves the supreme creator exists?

I wasn't discussing proof of anything other than the intent of the founders through their documents.

Isn't there enough idiots here that you can feel at home with, rather than wasting my time rehashing 5th grade civics?
 
Displayed 50 of 748 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report