*stands and claps*

/not subby

Watched that over lunch, I wish there were more people like her so we could make some progress in this country.

Very nice.

Of course, about 4 minutes in, she does mention that she has a daughter who came out as a lesbian a few years ago, and she wants be able to have a wedding someday for her daughter and her daughter's partner. Once again showing that the only Republican elected officials who are willing to do the right thing on this issue are those who have a personal stake it it--either because they have a gay child, or are gay themselves.

Cyberluddite: Once again showing that the only Republican elected officials who are willing to do the right thing on this issue are those who have a personal stake it it--either because they have a gay child, or are gay themselves.

It has to start somewhere

I think the trouble is that Republicans try so hard to present a "pro-family" image. Many of them are convinced that blocking gay-rights comes across as pro-family.. until one of their family would be affected.

The Hero Tag choked up,subby?

Very nice video subs. I imagine this will be all over the place by tomorrow.

Cyberluddite: Of course, about 4 minutes in, she does mention that she has a daughter who came out as a lesbian a few years ago, and she wants be able to have a wedding someday for her daughter and her daughter's partner. Once again showing that the only Republican elected officials who are willing to do the right thing on this issue are those who have a personal stake it it--either because they have a gay child, or are gay themselves.

Came here to say exactly this. So, sadly...though her heart is absolutely in the right place, and she WILL be found to be on the right side of History...Here is yet another example of a Republican leader who only manages to find their heart and their compassion for others when a contentious issue affects them DIRECTLY.

Dick Cheney supports same-sex marriage, because he, too has a lesbian daughter. Ken Mehlman came out in support of it only after he came out himself. Nancy Reagan supports stem-cell research, because of the promise it's shown in treating the Alzheimer's disease that killed her husband. But until something affects them directly, they do nothing but pass judgment on other people it's ALREADY effected.

There's an old saying..."A Liberal is just a Conservative that hasn't been mugged yet." Seems like the other side of the coin is, "A Conservative is just a Liberal who has never had to deal with Parkinson's/Alzheimer's/homosexual self or loved ones/tough reproductive choices."

MaxxLarge: Cyberluddite: Of course, about 4 minutes in, she does mention that she has a daughter who came out as a lesbian a few years ago, and she wants be able to have a wedding someday for her daughter and her daughter's partner. Once again showing that the only Republican elected officials who are willing to do the right thing on this issue are those who have a personal stake it it--either because they have a gay child, or are gay themselves.

Came here to say exactly this. So, sadly...though her heart is absolutely in the right place, and she WILL be found to be on the right side of History...Here is yet another example of a Republican leader who only manages to find their heart and their compassion for others when a contentious issue affects them DIRECTLY.

Dick Cheney supports same-sex marriage, because he, too has a lesbian daughter. Ken Mehlman came out in support of it only after he came out himself. Nancy Reagan supports stem-cell research, because of the promise it's shown in treating the Alzheimer's disease that killed her husband. But until something affects them directly, they do nothing but pass judgment on other people it's ALREADY effected.

There's an old saying..."A Liberal is just a Conservative that hasn't been mugged yet." Seems like the other side of the coin is, "A Conservative is just a Liberal who has never had to deal with Parkinson's/Alzheimer's/homosexual self or loved ones/tough reproductive choices."

Well put.

MaxxLarge: There's an old saying..."A Liberal is just a Conservative that hasn't been mugged yet." Seems like the other side of the coin is, "A Conservative is just a Liberal who has never had to deal with Parkinson's/Alzheimer's/homosexual self or loved ones/tough reproductive choices."

Let be help you paraphrase:

"A Liberal is just a Conservative that isn't a selfish hypocrite."

MaxxLarge: Cyberluddite: Of course, about 4 minutes in, she does mention that she has a daughter who came out as a lesbian a few years ago, and she wants be able to have a wedding someday for her daughter and her daughter's partner. Once again showing that the only Republican elected officials who are willing to do the right thing on this issue are those who have a personal stake it it--either because they have a gay child, or are gay themselves.

Came here to say exactly this. So, sadly...though her heart is absolutely in the right place, and she WILL be found to be on the right side of History...Here is yet another example of a Republican leader who only manages to find their heart and their compassion for others when a contentious issue affects them DIRECTLY.

Dick Cheney supports same-sex marriage, because he, too has a lesbian daughter. Ken Mehlman came out in support of it only after he came out himself. Nancy Reagan supports stem-cell research, because of the promise it's shown in treating the Alzheimer's disease that killed her husband. But until something affects them directly, they do nothing but pass judgment on other people it's ALREADY effected.

There's an old saying..."A Liberal is just a Conservative that hasn't been mugged yet." Seems like the other side of the coin is, "A Conservative is just a Liberal who has never had to deal with Parkinson's/Alzheimer's/homosexual self or loved ones/tough reproductive choices."

Wish we could say the same thing about Newt Gingrich.

Truly inspirational speech. Would anyone like to sh*t all over it? Yes, Rep Klippert?

"You wouldn't believe the horror in my daughter's eyes when I asked her, 'How would you like to have two of me?' " Klippert said during Wednesday's floor debate.

Read more here: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2012/02/09/1819643/klippert-walsh-explai n-how-they.html#storylink=cpy (new window)

Thanks, always a bastion of logic you are.

Link (new window)

RINO!

"You wouldn't believe the horror in my daughter's eyes when I asked her, 'How would you like to have two of me?' " Klippert said during Wednesday's floor debate.

Wow. Powerful stuff on both sides.

Cyberluddite: Once again showing that the only Republican elected officials who are willing to do the right thing on this issue are those who have a personal stake it it--either because they have a gay child, or are gay themselves.

Which is why I say fark her. She doesn't give a shiat about it being the right thing. She doesn't give a shiat about being on the wrong side of history. It only matters to her because it personally affects her. If her daughter wasn't gay, she would probably still be fighting this to death.

I'll say it again: fark her. Fine, she's not going to oppose it anymore, but I can't stand people like this.

tallguywithglasseson: "You wouldn't believe the horror in my daughter's eyes when I asked her, 'How would you like to have two of me?' " Klippert said during Wednesday's floor debate.

Wow. Powerful stuff on both sides.

Jesus. That's like asking your daughter if she'd like you to add another monster to those already under the bed.

Yet another example of why coming out and being out is so important.

isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that she would be adamantly opposed to gay marriage but for her daughter? isn't it just as possible that she was ok with the concept before or that she didn't have an opinion either way? of course she's going to be more vocal about an issue that directly affects her, particularly if it puts her at odds with her party, but that isn't a reason to discount the import of her doing so.

Classy lady.

Cyberluddite: Once again showing that the only Republican elected officials who are willing to do the right thing on this issue are those who have a personal stake it it--either because they have a gay child, or are gay themselves.

Pretty sure the gay Republican's aren't coming out in favor of it. They're usually the ones screaming the loudest against gays and rights for gay people.

/Oh, did you mean openly gay Republicans?

thomps: isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that she would be adamantly opposed to gay marriage but for her daughter? isn't it just as possible that she was ok with the concept before or that she didn't have an opinion either way? of course she's going to be more vocal about an issue that directly affects her, particularly if it puts her at odds with her party, but that isn't a reason to discount the import of her doing so.

Perhaps belonging to a party which *actively* supports suppression of freedom, liberty, and withholding of equal protection has something to do with it.

lohphat: thomps: isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that she would be adamantly opposed to gay marriage but for her daughter? isn't it just as possible that she was ok with the concept before or that she didn't have an opinion either way? of course she's going to be more vocal about an issue that directly affects her, particularly if it puts her at odds with her party, but that isn't a reason to discount the import of her doing so.

Perhaps belonging to a party which *actively* supports suppression of freedom, liberty, and withholding of equal protection has something to do with it.

eh, both parties have a huge array of platforms. i know a lot of staunch republicans that can't give 2 sh*ts about the social issues. i think the fact that she's *actively* speaking out against the party line should have more to do with it.

thomps:
eh, both parties have a huge array of platforms. i know a lot of staunch republicans that can't give 2 sh*ts about the social issues. i think the fact that she's *actively* speaking out against the party line should have more to do with it.

The rhetoric for the GOP candidates would like to have a word with you. False-equivalence strikes again. What makes it worse coming from the GOP is that they make a point of wrapping themselves in the flag. They're not for freedom, they're for domination and control. The flag-waving is just to placate the plebs.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: RINO!

They've got that phallic tusk thing going on. GOP must love it.

lohphat: thomps:
eh, both parties have a huge array of platforms. i know a lot of staunch republicans that can't give 2 sh*ts about the social issues. i think the fact that she's *actively* speaking out against the party line should have more to do with it.

The rhetoric for the GOP candidates would like to have a word with you. False-equivalence strikes again. What makes it worse coming from the GOP is that they make a point of wrapping themselves in the flag. They're not for freedom, they're for domination and control. The flag-waving is just to placate the plebs.

what false equivalence? is she one of the GOP presidential candidates? what flag is she waving? i'm honestly sure what you're even arguing for here...

thomps: lohphat: thomps:
eh, both parties have a huge array of platforms. i know a lot of staunch republicans that can't give 2 sh*ts about the social issues. i think the fact that she's *actively* speaking out against the party line should have more to do with it.

The rhetoric for the GOP candidates would like to have a word with you. False-equivalence strikes again. What makes it worse coming from the GOP is that they make a point of wrapping themselves in the flag. They're not for freedom, they're for domination and control. The flag-waving is just to placate the plebs.

what false equivalence? is she one of the GOP presidential candidates? what flag is she waving? i'm honestly sure what you're even arguing for here...

honestly not sure

thomps: isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that she would be adamantly opposed to gay marriage but for her daughter? isn't it just as possible that she was ok with the concept before or that she didn't have an opinion either way?

Possible? Yes. "Just as possible"? Statistically speaking, no. I honestly cannot recall a single Republican officeholder who has publicly supported equal marriage rights for same-sex couples who doesn't have a beloved close relative who is openly gay, or who is not himself or herself openly gay. Maybe there are some out there, but I'm not aware of any. Given her party's emphatic platform of hostility toward equal rights for same-sex couples when it comes to marriage, it seems highly unlikely that she would hold this position if she didn't have a personal stake in it.

Having said that, whatever it takes--regardless of personal motivation, I'm glad she chose to speak passionately and eloquently on the right side of this issue, in a sincere attempt to convince others to share her view--a view that is roundly condemned by the vast majority of others in her party and that cannot benefit her politically in that party.

smooshie: Truly inspirational speech. Would anyone like to sh*t all over it? Yes, Rep Klippert?

"You wouldn't believe the horror in my daughter's eyes when I asked her, 'How would you like to have two of me?' " Klippert said during Wednesday's floor debate.

Read more here: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2012/02/09/1819643/klippert-walsh-explai n-how-they.html#storylink=cpy (new window)

Thanks, always a bastion of logic you are.

I'm convinced. We must pass laws banning the practice of cloning Republicans.

Cyberluddite: thomps: isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that she would be adamantly opposed to gay marriage but for her daughter? isn't it just as possible that she was ok with the concept before or that she didn't have an opinion either way?

Possible? Yes. "Just as possible"? Statistically speaking, no. I honestly cannot recall a single Republican officeholder who has publicly supported equal marriage rights for same-sex couples who doesn't have a beloved close relative who is openly gay, or who is not himself or herself openly gay. Maybe there are some out there, but I'm not aware of any. Given her party's emphatic platform of hostility toward equal rights for same-sex couples when it comes to marriage, it seems highly unlikely that she would hold this position if she didn't have a personal stake in it.

Having said that, whatever it takes--regardless of personal motivation, I'm glad she chose to speak passionately and eloquently on the right side of this issue, in a sincere attempt to convince others to share her view--a view that is roundly condemned by the vast majority of others in her party and that cannot benefit her politically in that party.

i suck at googles tonight so i can't really speak either way to your first paragraph (the only source i did find listed only 40 members of congress supporting same sex marriage - all Ds, but that's a really small minority of congress regardless). completely agree with your second paragraph. i just really get annoyed with dumping all of the stereotypes of a party on an individual, especially when that individual is actively bucking those stereotypes.

Is it dusty in here or something. My allergies seemed to be kicking in or something.

thomps: what false equivalence? is she one of the GOP presidential candidates? what flag is she waving? i'm honestly sure what you're even arguing for here...

You're arguing "both parties have a huge array of platforms" Key to the GOP platform is to deny equal protection in state and federal law.

Why would you belong to a party that *actively* targets minorities and would love to see your own child discriminated against?

Cyberluddite: Very nice.

Of course, about 4 minutes in, she does mention that she has a daughter who came out as a lesbian a few years ago, and she wants be able to have a wedding someday for her daughter and her daughter's partner. Once again showing that the only Republican elected officials who are willing to do the right thing on this issue are those who have a personal stake it it--either because they have a gay child, or are gay themselves.

better them wanting to do something about it if they have a stake in it, than them acting like assholes or in denial even though they have a stake in it.

lohphat: thomps: what false equivalence? is she one of the GOP presidential candidates? what flag is she waving? i'm honestly sure what you're even arguing for here...

You're arguing "both parties have a huge array of platforms" Key to the GOP platform is to deny equal protection in state and federal law.

Why would you belong to a party that *actively* targets minorities and would love to see your own child discriminated against?

no man, i'm arguing that gay marriage might not be the defining issue of her political belief system. it might not have even been on her radar when she began her political life. i identify myself primarily with the democratic party but i don't agree with probably half of their official and *actively* pursued goals.

I will always tell my kids that I will never be prouder of them than when they are standing up for the little guy when it's unpopular to do so.

Also, I don't care if she only changed her mind because of her daughter. Plenty of people still hate gays even when they do have kids. Maybe she never thought of it until it became popular--she still supports what's right, now, and I applaud her for it. It's not like she's saying "Gay marriage is wrong except for my daughter." She supports the idea that everyone, including her daughter, should have the right to marry who they love. I don't think that someone has to have always been right for me to appreciate the fact that they are right now.

thomps: i identify myself primarily with the democratic party but i don't agree with probably half of their official and *actively* pursued goals.

Honestly, I don't know why I call myself a Democrat anymore.

GAT_00: thomps: i identify myself primarily with the democratic party but i don't agree with probably half of their official and *actively* pursued goals.

Honestly, I don't know why I call myself a Democrat anymore.

me neither. my dad and i used to get into really heated debates typically straight down party lines, but anymore we both just kind of start and end every topic with a half-hearted "look at these motherf*ckers."

thomps: no man, i'm arguing that gay marriage might not be the defining issue of her political belief system. it might not have even been on her radar when she began her political life. i identify myself primarily with the democratic party but i don't agree with probably half of their official and *actively* pursued goals.

I hear you, no party matched 100% of our personal goals, but man, how do you ignore an issue that is that defined? "I'm an _____ but I disagree with their policy of executing left handed people."

What threshold of denial does it require to continue to associate with them? In her case, is it the smaller government or fiscal responsibility or states' rights platform she finds attractive? Oh, and BTW, those are all marketing lies too just as family values is.

thomps: GAT_00: thomps: i identify myself primarily with the democratic party but i don't agree with probably half of their official and *actively* pursued goals.

Honestly, I don't know why I call myself a Democrat anymore.

me neither. my dad and i used to get into really heated debates typically straight down party lines, but anymore we both just kind of start and end every topic with a half-hearted "look at these motherf*ckers."

It probably has something to do with the fact that there is no other party I'd happily call myself a member of. At least if I call myself a Democrat I can pretend I have some ability to pull the party back to the left.

And yes, I am aware I've bashed Republicans for saying very similar things.

lohphat: thomps: no man, i'm arguing that gay marriage might not be the defining issue of her political belief system. it might not have even been on her radar when she began her political life. i identify myself primarily with the democratic party but i don't agree with probably half of their official and *actively* pursued goals.

I hear you, no party matched 100% of our personal goals, but man, how do you ignore an issue that is that defined? "I'm an _____ but I disagree with their policy of executing left handed people."

What threshold of denial does it require to continue to associate with them? In her case, is it the smaller government or fiscal responsibility or states' rights platform she finds attractive? Oh, and BTW, those are all marketing lies too just as family values is.

so...where does she go? to the democratic party where she presumably disagrees with many other issues that she believes strongly in? or should she instead stay in the republican party and publicly speak out against issues she doesn't agree with the party over?

GAT_00: thomps: GAT_00: thomps: i identify myself primarily with the democratic party but i don't agree with probably half of their official and *actively* pursued goals.

Honestly, I don't know why I call myself a Democrat anymore.

me neither. my dad and i used to get into really heated debates typically straight down party lines, but anymore we both just kind of start and end every topic with a half-hearted "look at these motherf*ckers."

It probably has something to do with the fact that there is no other party I'd happily call myself a member of. At least if I call myself a Democrat I can pretend I have some ability to pull the party back to the left.

And yes, I am aware I've bashed Republicans for saying very similar things.

I have you listed as a Commie PInko, if that helps.

thomps: so...where does she go? to the democratic party where she presumably disagrees with many other issues that she believes strongly in? or should she instead stay in the republican party and publicly speak out against issues she doesn't agree with the party over?

Not arguing with you, but when you acknowledge that the GOP is really not about morality or family values, or fiscal responsibility, or states' rights, or smaller government by simple data checking, what's left that makes the other party (which has enough momentum) still not worthy of the effort?

What really drives a Republican with a consciousness to remain "loyal" -- other than base emotional triabalism (e.g. because my daddy was)?

Ok... that she finally became human about one subject with more than a little nudge is not a reason to declare her sentient or intelligent. I'd like to hear more of her thought out views before we show her the bunker. Have we scanned her for RF? Could be a T .5 unit heavily insulated of course.