PDA

View Full Version : Bush's "Paula Jones" comes forward


Ugly Duck
06-05-2006, 11:30 PM
Was Paula Jones telling the truth, or was she just a right-wing hack? Is Leola McConnell telling the truth, or is she just a left-wing hack? Only one way to find out, the tried-n-true way.... put Bush under oath, ask him what he does with his cigars, and broadcast his testimony nationwide. Here's what the Democratic candidate for Governor of Nevada has to say about her and Bush way back in his cocaine-snorting daze:

June 4, 2006 --

"President Bush's speech to the nation Monday. If he doesn't say he's a gay American or at the least a bisexual one then he shouldn't be making one at all. And the notion that it would be in regards to writing bigotry into our nation's Constitution is reprehensible. Too bad it isn't me doing the rebuttal because in 1984, I watched him perform (with the enthusiasm of a homosexual male who had done this many times before) a homosexual act on another man, namely Victor Ashe. Victor Ashe is the current Ambassador to the nation of Poland who should also come out like former Governor McGreevey of New Jersey and admit to being a gay American. Other homo-erotic acts were also performed by then private citizen George Bush because I performed one of them on him personally.


Sincerely,
Leola McConnell
Liberal Democratic candidate for Governor of Nevada"

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

http://mcconnellforgovernor.com/

http://bushssecretlifein84.tripod.com/

jAZ
06-05-2006, 11:33 PM
Holy crap!

Ugly Duck
06-05-2006, 11:36 PM
Holy crap!Time to get us a Ken Starr and start the deep digging, I reckon.

Bob Dole
06-05-2006, 11:44 PM
Other homo-erotic acts were also performed by then private citizen George Bush because I performed one of them on him personally.

So Leola is a guy?

Bob Dole is confused...

jAZ
06-05-2006, 11:49 PM
So Leola is a guy?

Bob Dole is confused...
Sounds like she took him down a dirt road.

jAZ
06-05-2006, 11:53 PM
Q: Mr. President, why do you hang out with a Dominatrix?
Bush: Beats me.

Cochise
06-05-2006, 11:57 PM
ROFL

Riiiiight...

jAZ
06-06-2006, 12:02 AM
Sounds like this was also included in that Kitty Kelly book...

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=39&contentid=1532

Mentioned in Kitty Kelley's book following the already publicized independent investigations of Skolnick and his colleagues:

* That George W. Bush cohabited at his Texas ranch and elsewhere with the Mayor of a major city in Tennessee, says Kitty Kelley.

Skolnick began the discussion severel years ago as a story about "The Pedophile/Homosexual Underground". www.skolnicksreport.com "Overthrow of the American Republic", Part 24.

It relates to George W. Bush's homosexual relationsip, since about puberty, with Victor Ashe, long-time Mayor of Knoxvillle.

Looks like Ms. BucEyedPea can also fairly assert that "it's well know in DC that Laura Bush is a lesiban".
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=39&contentid=1532&page=2

Because of George W. Bush's homosexual relationships, and because his wife of convenience, Laura, was a reputed known and open lesbian since high school, and may be a dyke; that George W. Bush may not be the actual father of the twin daughters. Skolnick has raised these issues.

Now, in her book, Kitty Kelley raises the issue of the little-known relationship between Laura and General Tommy Franks.

Fair's fair, right?

ROFL

WoodDraw
06-06-2006, 12:11 AM
So who in Congress wants the job of asking Bush if he serviced another guy? ROFL


Seriously, a quick google search of her name pulls up pages of credibility issues. I literally laughed out loud when I read this.

Taco John
06-06-2006, 01:38 AM
I think Jenna Bush looks a lot like GWB.

memyselfI
06-06-2006, 05:10 AM
Well this certainly makes DUHbya's bi-polar attitude towards gays make alot of sense. ROFL ROFL ROFL

Special prosecutor is warranted, I tell ya.

Ugly Duck
06-06-2006, 07:17 AM
ROFL

Riiiiight...Oh, I see..... when a bimbette accuses a Dem, its worthy of broadcasting presidential testimony under oath. But when a dominatrix insists she porked a Republican's poo pipe, its not even worthy of investigation. Republicans have recently been popped for all sorts of sexual perversion - why should we believe that Bush is any different than his cohort pervs?

Cochise
06-06-2006, 07:33 AM
Oh, I see..... when a bimbette accuses a Dem, its worthy of broadcasting presidential testimony under oath. But when a dominatrix insists she porked a Republican's poo pipe, its not even worthy of investigation. Republicans have recently been popped for all sorts of sexual perversion - why should we believe that Bush is any different than his cohort pervs?

You're missing something.

I was laughing at the believability of the story. It's not really possible to laugh about the belivability of the cigar holder story because... well, it was true.

Ugly Duck
06-06-2006, 07:53 AM
You're missing something.

I was laughing at the believability of the story. It's not really possible to laugh about the belivability of the cigar holder story because... well, it was true.Let's not sluff off the believeabilty just yet. We gotta get some testimony on this first before we reject it out of hand. Who wudda thunk Monica was a cigar-holder before the investigation? The only way we'll find out exactly what object Bush was "holding" is by following that precedent.

Radar Chief
06-06-2006, 07:59 AM
Let's not sluff off the believeabilty just yet. We gotta get some testimony on this first before we reject it out of hand. Who wudda thunk Monica was a cigar-holder before the investigation? The only way we'll find out exactly what object Bush was "holding" is by following that precedent.

Well, with Billary there was precedent with accusations from Juanita Broderick and others.
This just kinda comes out’a the blue, pardon the pun. ;)

Brock
06-06-2006, 08:04 AM
What goes on in Vegas is supposed to stay in Vegas.

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 08:05 AM
Oh, I see..... when a bimbette accuses a Dem, its worthy of broadcasting presidential testimony under oath. But when a dominatrix insists she porked a Republican's poo pipe, its not even worthy of investigation.
Did I miss some underlying criminal or civil charges to which an investigation would be relevant?
The Monica situation came to light because Clinton was accused of sexual harassment, UNWELCOME sexual advances, and his activities with a young subordinate were relevant to the plausibility of those accusations.
Anything like that to justify investigation here?

I continue, however, to be fascinated by the liberal obsession with the prospect that the best way to destroy someone is to put the stink of teh ghey on them. What's next, Bush had a, gasp!!!, black great-great granpappy?

Chief Henry
06-06-2006, 08:08 AM
I Sure hope the dums try to blow this up big.
(no pun intended btw). I hope the DNC and the
LWNJ on this board just go ape shit over this.
I hope a Peolsi and Harkin and Dirty Harry just bring tis out big time.

It will blow up in there faces.

Radar Chief
06-06-2006, 08:17 AM
Did I miss some underlying criminal or civil charges to which an investigation would be relevant?
The Monica situation came to light because Clinton was accused of sexual harassment, UNWELCOME sexual advances, and his activities with a young subordinate were relevant to the plausibility of those accusations.
Anything like that to justify investigation here?

I continue, however, to be fascinated by the liberal obsession with the prospect that the best way to destroy someone is to put the stink of teh ghey on them. What's next, Bush had a, gasp!!!, black great-great granpappy?

This looks to me a lot more like desperation than “the best way”.
How long before teh Debil is labeled the “Teflon President”? :shrug:

jAZ
06-06-2006, 09:05 AM
I continue, however, to be fascinated by the liberal obsession with the prospect that the best way to destroy someone is to put the stink of teh ghey on them.
Do you read the news?

Cochise
06-06-2006, 09:47 AM
I continue, however, to be fascinated by the liberal obsession with the prospect that the best way to destroy someone is to put the stink of teh ghey on them.

I don't really find it fascinating. The party leadership thinks in slow-witted straight lines.

Since the voting public in every state has lined up squarely opposed to gay marriage, they think "ok... voters don't like teh ghey... we need to make republicans look teh ghey"

I hope they make this a huge issue. Hopefully it will turn out to be bigger than the huge ghey hooker story ROFL

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2006, 10:27 AM
So who in Congress wants the job of asking Bush if he serviced another guy? ROFL


Seriously, a quick google search of her name pulls up pages of credibility issues. I literally laughed out loud when I read this.

Ya think? :hmmm:

ROFL


The desperation of the haters is becoming humorous.

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2006, 10:31 AM
Well, with Billary there was precedent with accusations from Juanita Broderick and others.
This just kinda comes out’a the blue, pardon the pun. ;)

Shhhhhhhhh. :mad:



You're gonna ruin the moonbat wankfest we got going here.....;)



:)

Mr. Laz
06-06-2006, 10:35 AM
no wonder Bush is determined to outlaw da gays









guilt ROFL





is that why that gay pron star/writer got such special "access" to the white house?

jAZ
06-06-2006, 10:45 AM
The desperation of the haters is becoming humorous.
Yeah, we Bush "haters" are absolutely desperate to find anything to point to that this guy has done wrong.

Desperate I tell ya.

patteeu
06-06-2006, 11:04 AM
More gay hate from the left, I see.

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2006, 11:06 AM
Yeah, we Bush "haters" are absolutely desperate to find anything, illegal or impeachable, to point to that this guy has done.

Desperate I tell ya.

I fixed your post your, jAZ.

;)

Mr. Laz
06-06-2006, 11:07 AM
I fixed your post your, jAZ.

;)

you mean like you righties were for Clinton?

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2006, 11:09 AM
you mean like you righties were for Clinton?
Sexual harrasment (there was a legitimate lawsuit, in progress), along with the subsequent perjury and obstruction charges count as "illegal" in the real world.

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 11:11 AM
Sexual harrasment (there was a legitimate lawsuit, in progress), along with the subsequent perjury and obstruction charges count as "illegal" in the real world.
Correction, the sexual harassment was a civil liability. The perjury was a crime.

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2006, 11:13 AM
Correction, the sexual harassment was a civil liability. The perjury was a crime.

Both are illegal though, which was my point. I think......

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 11:18 AM
Both are illegal though, which was my point. I think......
Illegal connotes criminal liability.
If you are negligent in keeping up your yard and someone falls and gets gets hurt, you're civilly liable. But a crappy yard isn't illegal. It's a failure to meet the standard of care towards people invited onto your land and owe for the damage that failure caused.
If you sexually harass someone, you're not facing jail time unless it sojourns into assault or rape. You failed to meet the standard of interaction with peers and owe for the damage that failure caused.

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2006, 11:19 AM
Illegal connotes criminal liability.
If you are negligent in keeping up your yard and someone falls and gets gets hurt, you're civilly liable. But a crappy yard isn't illegal. It's a failure to meet the standard of care towards people invited onto your land and owe for the damage that failure caused.
If you sexually harass someone, you're not facing jail time unless it sojourns into assault or rape. You failed to meet the standard of interaction with peers and owe for the damage that failure caused.Thanks for the clarification, counselor. :thumb:

Hey....so sexual harrassment isn't illegal. Cool. ;)

Velvet_Jones
06-06-2006, 11:54 AM
It will blow up in there faces.
Bukkake?

Mr. Laz
06-06-2006, 12:08 PM
Sexual harrasment (there was a legitimate lawsuit, in progress), along with the subsequent perjury and obstruction charges count as "illegal" in the real world.
actually was referring to the blow job-gate


it started out as a morals issue ... then went to a lying to the public is a bad example for president issue ... then a he lied to the grand jury as THE problem.


much like the war in Iraq ... the "issue" kept being changed by the right until they found something that couldn't be proven false

WMD
just wait WMD
not giving up yet on WMD
911 link
general terrorism
Saddam Insane is just bad
General nation building


gay is unethical and a crime against nature until it might apply to the GOP's leader ... then we start spinning looking for excuses.

penchief
06-06-2006, 12:11 PM
From what I hear, cokeheads are pretty bold when they're high. I also hear that they're prone to sexual experimentation. If this supposedly happened during his cokehead days, who knows? It could be true.

Radar Chief
06-06-2006, 12:19 PM
actually was referring to the blow job-gate


it started out as a morals issue ... then went to a lying to the public is a bad example for president issue ... then a he lied to the grand jury as THE problem.


much like the war in Iraq ... the "issue" kept being changed by the right until they found something that couldn't be proven false

WMD
just wait WMD
not giving up yet on WMD
911 link
general terrorism
Saddam Insane is just bad
General nation building


gay is unethical and a crime against nature until it might apply to the GOP's leader ... then we start spinning looking for excuses.

Shifting justifications for bitch’n? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) But you’re, like, against that, right?

BucEyedPea
06-06-2006, 01:08 PM
Monica Lewinsky's bj saved our economy under Clinton. :thumb: :D
I'd rather have BC's hands on her head than on the economy. :)

Saulbadguy
06-06-2006, 01:17 PM
Mission Accomplished.

patteeu
06-06-2006, 01:18 PM
Is there anything wrong with it if George W. Bush was full blown gay during his early years? I don't believe it for a minute, but as far as I'm concerned, it would be no big deal.

Cochise
06-06-2006, 01:23 PM
From what I hear, cokeheads are ...prone to sexual experimentation. If this supposedly happened during his cokehead days, who knows? It could be true.

Uh... it causes it to be difficult to engage in any kind of sexual activity, even if you could work up the desire.

jAZ
06-06-2006, 01:24 PM
Is there anything wrong with it if George W. Bush was full blown gay during his early years? I don't believe it for a minute, but as far as I'm concerned, it would be no big deal.
I think that the folks who voted for him because of his "values" campaign would care more than those that voted against him because of his policy positions.

vailpass
06-06-2006, 01:40 PM
And Jaz continues to wonder why the vast majority of CP wants DC shut up and walled off?
Do you have any idea how offensive/repulsive this post is to the regular population?

patteeu
06-06-2006, 01:44 PM
I think that the folks who voted for him because of his "values" campaign would care more than those that voted against him because of his policy positions.

If this thread is any indication, that doesn't seem to be the case.

jAZ
06-06-2006, 02:02 PM
If this thread is any indication, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Use your head.

jAZ
06-06-2006, 02:04 PM
And Jaz continues to wonder why the vast majority of CP wants DC shut up and walled off?
Do you have any idea how offensive/repulsive this post is to the regular population?
It's no more or less offensive that BucEyePea claiming that everyone in DC knows that Hillary Clinton is and always was a Lesbian who sleeps with more woman than Bill.

banyon
06-06-2006, 02:10 PM
It's no more or less offensive that BucEyePea claiming that everyone in DC knows that Hillary Clinton is and always was a Lesbian who sleeps with more woman than Bill.

I agree, but her post did have more entertainment value. :)

go bowe
06-06-2006, 02:15 PM
Q: Mr. President, why do you hang out with a Dominatrix?
Bush: Beats me.i don't care what anybody says, that there shit is damned funny! ROFL ROFL ROFL

Radar Chief
06-06-2006, 02:20 PM
It's no more or less offensive that BucEyePea claiming that everyone in DC knows that Hillary Clinton is and always was a Lesbian who sleeps with more woman than Bill.

Damn, I’m read’n the wrong topic. Where’d this happen? :shrug:

go bowe
06-06-2006, 02:21 PM
. . .Bush had a, gasp!!!, black great-great granpappy...NO SHIT?

i heard he had an illegitimate half-wit daughter living in hong kong with a python...

but what's a little bestiality among friends?

Iowanian
06-06-2006, 02:27 PM
I wonder if Duck, Jaz or laz will get their lipstick color to the closest to the base of the pole at the lipstick party fundraiser?

I suppose if he admitted it....Dubya would be "hip" again with the leftards?

BucEyedPea
06-06-2006, 02:27 PM
Damn, I’m read’n the wrong topic. Where’d this happen? :shrug:


Note...his changing of my words. I said she "well known to be"...I did not say "everybody." The post was really not about that as much but more a secondary point to the idea that her marriage is about access to power than standing by her man.

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 02:27 PM
NO SHIT?

i heard he had an illegitimate half-wit daughter living in hong kong with a python...

but what's a little bestiality among friends?
Your little semi-alliteration reminded me of my niavete of youth.

I remember in pre-school being taught the ditty;

King Kong plays ping pong with his ding dong.

and thinking he was actually playing table tennis with a snack cake, until my mom smacked me one for my impertinence.

vailpass
06-06-2006, 02:27 PM
It's no more or less offensive that BucEyePea claiming that everyone in DC knows that Hillary Clinton is and always was a Lesbian who sleeps with more woman than Bill.

nubile young lesbian sex= excellent

nasty wrinkled old Billary lesbo action= not as good

male rump ranger behavior of any variety= :Lin:

Get with it man.

go bowe
06-06-2006, 02:28 PM
Is there anything wrong with it if George W. Bush was full blown gay during his early years? I don't believe it for a minute, but as far as I'm concerned, it would be no big deal.oh no you don't...

you don't get to portray homosexuality as a lifestyle choice like that...

like they say, once a homo, always a homo...

go bowe
06-06-2006, 02:30 PM
Uh... it causes it to be difficult to engage in any kind of sexual activity, even if you could work up the desire.what the helll kind of coke were you using?

it sounds like it was cut with salt peter...

BucEyedPea
06-06-2006, 02:33 PM
oh no you don't...

you don't get to portray homosexuality as a lifestyle choice like that...

like they say, once a homo, always a homo...


Half the gays I used to hang with told me it's in everybody.

Also, entrepreneurship is genetic.

Iowanian
06-06-2006, 02:35 PM
They were wrong...and you're a moonbat

BucEyedPea
06-06-2006, 02:37 PM
I wasn't even being serious...I never believed that and I was joking with the last part.

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 02:40 PM
They were wrong...and you're a moonbat
All you do is flip a coin.
Heads is hair pie.
Tails, OOOHHH!!! Balls across the nose!!

Iowanian
06-06-2006, 02:43 PM
I wasn't even being serious...I never believed that and I was joking with the last part.

I wasn't joking, I've read enough of your posts to know that you're a moonbat. you're nuckin futs.

Radar Chief
06-06-2006, 02:43 PM
All you do is flip a coin.
Heads is hair pie.
Tails, OOOHHH!!! Balls across the nose!!

:LOL: :Lin:

go bowe
06-06-2006, 02:53 PM
I wasn't joking, I've read enough of your posts to know that you're a moonbat. you're nuckin futs.ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

very nuckin, indeed...

patteeu
06-06-2006, 02:56 PM
Use your head.

Does that mean I'm supposed to assume that posts from the left lack sincerity and that they don't indicate actual concern from the left? :shrug:

jAZ
06-06-2006, 03:04 PM
Does that mean I'm supposed to assume that posts from the left lack sincerity and that they don't indicate actual concern from the left? :shrug:
You are smart enough to see a Democratic attempt at exploiting a Republican wedge issue on a Republican, right?

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 03:13 PM
You are smart enough to see a Democratic attempt at exploiting a Republican wedge issue on a Republican, right?
And you are smart enough to see that, in order to 'exploit' this issue, especially to couch it as scandal, you have to, somewhere, maybe deep down, have a visceral notion that the issue is 'wrong' as well.

go bowe
06-06-2006, 03:18 PM
And you are smart enough to see that, in order to 'exploit' this issue, especially to couch it as scandal, you have to, somewhere, maybe deep down, have a visceral notion that the issue is 'wrong' as well.i dunno...

i think many politicians have a visceral notion that large numbers of people who voted for george bush have a visceral notion that homosexuality is "wrong"...

and some are trying to exploit the visceral notion of those who do in fact think that homosexuality is wrong...

i don't hold the intellectual integrity of politicians in that high a regard, i'm afraid...

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 03:20 PM
i dunno...

i think many politicians have a visceral notion that large numbers of people who voted for george bush have a visceral notion that homosexuality is "wrong"...

and some are trying to exploit the visceral notion of those who do in fact think that homosexuality is wrong...

i don't hold the intellectual integrity of politicians in that high a regard, i'm afraid...
It's all in the tone. Theres a gulf of difference between;

George Bush has unfortunately turned his back on his [alleged] homosexual past

and

Hey, how 'bout that penis sucking prez?

jAZ
06-06-2006, 03:22 PM
And you are smart enough to see that, in order to 'exploit' this issue, especially to couch it as scandal, you have to, somewhere, maybe deep down, have a visceral notion that the issue is 'wrong' as well.
Horseshit. You have to be smart enough to know that your opponent is counting on votes from people who feel that way. And that all you have to do is put the topic out there and feed the hatred so that (in this case) the Republican party eats its own and splits along the moral divide.

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 03:29 PM
Horseshit. You have to be smart enough to know that your opponent is counting on votes from people who feel that way. And that all you have to do is put the topic out there and feed the hatred so that (in this case) the Republican party eats its own and splits along the moral divide.
1. Feeding the hatred is feeding the hatred.
2. Feeding the hatred is disrespectful to gays.

It's no different than running on a platform of understanding of the disease process and need for medical treatment of alcoholism, then attacking your opponent for being a deginerate f@cking lush.

jAZ
06-06-2006, 03:36 PM
1. Feeding the hatred is feeding the hatred.
2. Feeding the hatred is disrespectful to gays.
Well at least you are figuring out a better line of rebuttle than "you people hate gays"! I can't believe it took me spoon feeding you to stumble on to this point.

I'm not going to say it's a puritan political move. In some respect it throws one political cause (gay pride) under the bus in a move to split your opponents base.

It's not friendly, idealistic politics. But your assertions are just complete horsehit.

None of this is to say that being a Dem means that you either have to agree with (or want to have) gay sex. There's nothing wrong with feeling repulsed by the notion of gay sex (or two men kissing or whatever) and simultaneously supporting someone elses right to be gay, adopt kids, get married or whatever. It's a kin to a soldier fighting for the right protect my right to protest the war.

banyon
06-06-2006, 03:40 PM
FTR, Sodomy was illegal until 1993 in Nevada.

penchief
06-06-2006, 03:45 PM
Uh... it causes it to be difficult to engage in any kind of sexual activity, even if you could work up the desire.

Really? I used to smoke a little weed back in the day but many of my casual friends took to snorting and what I've been told about it contradicts your assessment.

penchief
06-06-2006, 03:48 PM
what the helll kind of coke were you using?

it sounds like it was cut with salt peter...

He was just told it was coke.

Cochise
06-06-2006, 03:54 PM
He was just told it was coke.

Well, I was referring to one's ability to rise to the occasion, as it were.

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 04:14 PM
Well at least you are figuring out a better line of rebuttle than "you people hate gays"! I can't believe it took me spoon feeding you to stumble on to this point.

I'm not going to say it's a puritan political move. In some respect it throws one political cause (gay pride) under the bus in a move to split your opponents base.

It's not friendly, idealistic politics. But your assertions are just complete horsehit.

None of this is to say that being a Dem means that you either have to agree with (or want to have) gay sex. There's nothing wrong with feeling repulsed by the notion of gay sex (or two men kissing or whatever) and simultaneously supporting someone elses right to be gay, adopt kids, get married or whatever. It's a kin to a soldier fighting for the right protect my right to protest the war.
You are overstating my case to form a straw man. You admit that there is the spectre of revulsion amongst Dems regarding homosexual activity and the real possibility Dems are throwing a portion of their constituents under the bus. That's enough for me to consider my point made.

jAZ
06-06-2006, 04:17 PM
You are overstating my case to form a straw man. You admit that there is the spectre of revulsion amongst Dems regarding homosexual activity and the real possibility Dems are throwing a portion of their constituents under the bus. That's enough for me to consider my point made.
ROFL

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 04:21 PM
ROFL
Care to take a breath and explain what's so effing funny?

Well at least you are figuring out a better line of rebuttle than "you people hate gays"!
I never said that.

In some respect it throws one political cause (gay pride) under the bus . . .
There's nothing wrong with feeling repulsed by the notion of gay sex
You certainly said that.

patteeu
06-06-2006, 04:28 PM
You are smart enough to see a Democratic attempt at exploiting a Republican wedge issue on a Republican, right?

I'll take that as a "Yes, they lack sincerity."

jAZ
06-06-2006, 04:35 PM
You certainly said that.
Where's all that other stuff that I said that you deliberately chopped out? That might be why you are confused.

jAZ
06-06-2006, 04:38 PM
I never said that.
Your "theory" is that Dems secretly hate gays and that's why they always point out gay sex stories among the Republican party. I shortened it up a bit, but if you want to rephrase your theory into a pithy 3 word lable, I'll adopt that.

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 04:48 PM
Your "theory" is that Dems secretly hate gays and that's why they always point out gay sex stories among the Republican party. I shortened it up a bit, but if you want to rephrase your theory into a pithy 3 word lable, I'll adopt that.
No, hate doesn't figure into it at all. My theory is that some Dems are just as 'skeeved' by homeosexuality as they portray their opposition to be, only they don't have a philosophical or religious basis for their stance. Just a visceral response that callouses them so they feel free to 'throw their constituents under the bus.'

Ugly Duck
06-06-2006, 10:09 PM
And you are smart enough to see that, in order to 'exploit' this issue, especially to couch it as scandal, you have to, somewhere, maybe deep down, have a visceral notion that the issue is 'wrong' as well.Hey now wait a minute.... I didn't mean to infer that sexual deviancy is wrong. If our president suffered from limpness induced by his substance abuse and could only get his ya-yas by being porked up the pooper by a dominatrix-driven latex weenie, more power to him. But he shouldn't now be smakin down on gays, now should he?

jAZ
06-06-2006, 10:19 PM
No, hate doesn't figure into it at all. My theory is that some Dems are just as 'skeeved' by homeosexuality...
Since you are quibbling over words and neuanced definitions (not a bad thing) can you pick a normal word to describe your opinion?

stevieray
06-06-2006, 10:24 PM
Hey now wait a minute.... I didn't mean to infer that sexual deviancy is wrong. If our president suffered from limpness induced by his substance abuse and could only get his ya-yas by being porked up the pooper by a dominatrix-driven latex weenie, more power to him. But he shouldn't now be smakin down on gays, now should he?

:rolleyes:

Taco John
06-06-2006, 10:39 PM
No, hate doesn't figure into it at all. My theory is that some Dems are just as 'skeeved' by homeosexuality as they portray their opposition to be, only they don't have a philosophical or religious basis for their stance. Just a visceral response that callouses them so they feel free to 'throw their constituents under the bus.'



You lack a fundamental understanding of human nature.

Take for instance the story that's surfacing about Tom Delay's little French going away party. It's funny to his opposition, because he tried painting Kerry with the "French Brush" when Kerry was running for president saying stuff like "Kerry looks French." It went far enough that Drudge was reporting everytime that Kerry ate a croissant. Well, now Tom's having his big going away bash at an expensive French restaurant, and it turns out that Delay is French himself...

So when his opposition makes fun of him for this whole French thing, it's not because any of them hate the French, but because Tom has set the table for ridicule now that a connection between him and the French can be established.

Your desperate little theory is amusing in a "Baby Lee watches way too much TV" kind of way.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2006, 10:44 PM
Hey now wait a minute.... I didn't mean to infer that sexual deviancy is wrong. If our president suffered from limpness induced by his substance abuse and could only get his ya-yas by being porked up the pooper by a dominatrix-driven latex weenie, more power to him. But he shouldn't now be smakin down on gays, now should he?

I never seen or heard Bush smack down on gays.

He's on record for gay unions...just wants to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman.

Bush Stand on Gays irks Conservatives
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/

jAZ
06-06-2006, 10:55 PM
I never seen or heard Bush smack down on gays.

"No Marriage for you!"
*smack*

KC Jones
06-06-2006, 11:05 PM
No, hate doesn't figure into it at all. My theory is that some Dems are just as 'skeeved' by homeosexuality as they portray their opposition to be, only they don't have a philosophical or religious basis for their stance. Just a visceral response that callouses them so they feel free to 'throw their constituents under the bus.'

:hmmm:

a) _____ people disturb me

b) _____ people disturb me, because they are inferior and their existence is an affront to almighty God.

You're right, it's so much better to have a bias/hatred/'skeeving' when you can couch it in some sort of religious or philosophical position.

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2006, 11:10 PM
"No Marriage for you!"
*smack*

Marriage should have remained a religious institution. :shrug:

See what happens when government gets involved? They fugg things up.....like they nearly always do. :shake:

jAZ
06-06-2006, 11:12 PM
Marriage should have remained a religious institution. :shrug:
Careful, you are agreeing with the plan I proposed 3-4 years ago right here on the planet.

Civil Unions For All.

Leave Marriage to churches...

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2006, 11:14 PM
Careful, you are agreeing with the plan I proposed 3-4 years ago right here on the planet.

Civil Unions For All.

Leave Marriage to churches...

It's the same plan, if you would have taken the time to note....instead of trying to frame me as some wacko "homophobe".....that I have also voiced support of, as long as it's on a state-by-state basis, in respect to the 10th Amendment.

Taco John
06-06-2006, 11:18 PM
Marriage should have remained a religious institution. :shrug:

See what happens when government gets involved? They fugg things up.....like they nearly always do. :shake:



Wow... It's good to see Kotter making progress. This is the second instance in which I've seen him make a bolt towards the sanity door.

go bowe
06-06-2006, 11:25 PM
this notion that government somehow screwed up marriage by making it a legal institution in addition to a religious institution is a bit peculiar...

the legal status of marriage has evolved over the centuries along with the social and cultural realities of marriage...

the legal status of marriage is no more than a codification of the rights and privileges bestowed by society and culture on the institution of marriage...

the religious status of marriage is a matter for individuals and churches to determine for themselves based on their beliefs...

but the law and/or government didn't create marriage, marriage created the need for the laws pertaining to it...

sort of...

go bowe
06-06-2006, 11:26 PM
It's the same plan, if you would have taken the time to note....instead of trying to frame me as some wacko "homophobe".....that I have also voiced support of, as long as it's on a state-by-state basis, in respect to the 10th Amendment.you are not a wacko homophobe...

you're not at all wacko...

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2006, 11:33 PM
Wow... It's good to see Kotter making progress. This is the second instance in which I've seen him make a bolt towards the sanity door.

I have libertarian leanings on many issues; I'm just more pragmatic than those who piss their vote away....

I made similar posts 12-18 months ago. I'm sure you either missed them, or conveniently ignored them.....:rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2006, 11:35 PM
this notion that government somehow screwed up marriage by making it a legal institution in addition to a religious institution is a bit peculiar...

the legal status of marriage has evolved over the centuries along with the social and cultural realities of marriage...

the legal status of marriage is no more than a codification of the rights and privileges bestowed by society and culture on the institution of marriage...

the religious status of marriage is a matter for individuals and churches to determine for themselves based on their beliefs...

but the law and/or government didn't create marriage, marriage created the need for the laws pertaining to it...

sort of...

They simply should have called it something else (instead of civil marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships would have been better in retrospect,) to avoid this uncomfortable ambiguity....that is causing much of the angst over the issue.

jAZ
06-06-2006, 11:36 PM
It's the same plan, if you would have taken the time to note....instead of trying to frame me as some wacko "homophobe".....that I have also voiced support of, as long as it's on a state-by-state basis, in respect to the 10th Amendment.
I called you a 'wacko 'homophobe'' 3 years ago when I first brought up this point, just because you wanted it to be state-by-state?

I've gotta see this thread.

Linkedy-link?

Taco John
06-06-2006, 11:37 PM
I made similar posts 12-18 months ago. I'm sure you either missed them, or conveniently ignored them.....:rolleyes:


Actually, I remember you arguing against me when I was making these statements. You were pulling the "activist judges" cord back then. Now you're admitting, albeit in a slippery slope way, that the judges are just trying to go back and fix what the government broke in the first place.

go bowe
06-06-2006, 11:39 PM
They simply should have called it something else (instead of civil marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships would have been better in retrospect,) to avoid this uncomfortable ambiguity....that is causing much of the angst over the issue.remember that the law of the church was also the law of the land for many centuries...

so the religious and legal status of marriage have been intertwined since the beginning of civilization...

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2006, 11:41 PM
I called you a 'wacko 'homophobe'' 3 years ago when I first brought up this point, just because you wanted it to be state-by-state?

I've gotta see this thread.

Linkedy-link?

Of course you didn't "say" it....but your posts have clearly indicated your opinion. The state-by-state position is something I've maintained from the start....

I would not be nearly so militant on this issue, were it not for the clear agenda being pursued by the gay marriage supporters.....attempting to use full-faith-and-credit provisions and "equal protection" provisions of the Constitution to attempt an "end run" and Federalize the issue (like Civil Rights.)

Taco John
06-06-2006, 11:41 PM
I have libertarian leanings on many issues; I'm just more pragmatic than those who piss their vote away....


BWAH! You call voting for a guy who you now admit abmivalency towards pragmatism!

I've got one word for you: BAAAAAAA! lambs

I didn't waste my vote. Not only did I get to keep my integrity by voting for a guy I actually believed in, but I emboldened him to keep fighting. Right now, he's making big noise in Texas thanks to the grass roots efforts of people who actually like their candidate because they believe in him... not because they absolutely loathe the other guy.

http://www.badnarik.org/

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2006, 11:42 PM
remember that the law of the church was also the law of the land for many centuries...

so the religious and legal status of marriage have been intertwined since the beginning of civilization...

Ah, yes...but we have the establishment clause, and "separation of church and state".....to address that history here. :)

jAZ
06-06-2006, 11:42 PM
...to avoid this uncomfortable ambiguity....that is causing much of the angst over the issue.
Civil Unions is a term used by people who don't care a lick about gays getting "married" (one way or the other), and who are smart enough to know that the term "marriage" is *just a freaking word!*... and who are just trying find a way to appease the religious folks who pick and choose what to apply from the bible.

It's a transparent attempt at finding happy middle ground by pointlessly pretending that there is a distinction without a difference.

Oh, and Bush and I are both in that crowd.

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2006, 11:45 PM
BWAH! You call voting for a guy who you now admit abmivalency towards pragmatism!

I've got one word for you: BAAAAAAA! lambs

I didn't waste my vote. Not only did I get to keep my integrity by voting for a guy I actually believed in, but I emboldened him to keep fighting. Right now, he's making big noise in Texas thanks to the grass roots efforts of people who actually like their candidate because they believe in him... not because they absolutely loathe the other guy.

http://www.badnarik.org/

TJ, vote for who you want. I don't care what you think of who I vote for, and you don't really care what I think of who you vote for. It's just my opinion, as a political scientist....that outside a "realignment" period in American politics.....that third party votes are like pissing in a 50-60 mph wind.

Ask Nader voters how they really feel about what they "did" to the country in 2000. If they are honest, they'll admit it....

JMHO.

jAZ
06-06-2006, 11:46 PM
I would not be nearly so militant on this issue, were it not for the clear agenda being pursued by the gay marriage supporters.....attempting to use full-faith-and-credit provisions and "equal protection" provisions of the Constitution to attempt an "end run" and Federalize the issue (like Civil Rights.)
What do you call a federal constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage exactly?

Taco John
06-06-2006, 11:47 PM
TJ, vote for who you want. I don't care what you think of who I vote for, and you don't really care what I think of who you vote for. It's just my opinion, as a political scientist....that outside a "realignment" period in American politics.....that third party votes are like pissing in a 50-60 mph wind.

Ask Nader voters how they really feel about what they "did" to the country in 2000. If they are honest, they'll admit it....

JMHO.


"As a political scientist" (*snicker*), you're right about one thing... This country took a turn for the worse in 2000.

go bowe
06-06-2006, 11:47 PM
What do you call a federal constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage exactly?an end run in the other direction?

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2006, 11:47 PM
Civil Unions is a term used by people who don't care a lick about gays getting "married" (one way or the other), and who are smart enough to know that the term "marriage" is *just a freaking word!*... and who are just trying find a way to appease the religious folks who pick and choose what to apply from the bible.

It's a transparent attempt at finding happy middle ground by pointlessly pretending that there is a distinction without a difference.

Oh, and Bush and I are both in that crowd.

Careful, Justin....the inconsistencies in your posts are exposing your little charade. :)

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2006, 11:49 PM
What do you call a federal constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage exactly?

It's a DIRECT FRONTAL ASSAULT; certainly not an end run.....

go bowe
06-06-2006, 11:49 PM
Careful, Justin....the inconsistencies in your posts are exposing your little charade. :)which inconsistencies?

what charade?

this is why people stopped coming to d.c., they can't understand what the hell you people are talking about!

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2006, 11:52 PM
"As a political scientist" (*snicker*), you're right about one thing... This country took a turn for the worse in 2000.
TJ, if you'd stop being so offended by my most significant driving force....pragmatism, even when that force puts us on the opposite side of issues....you'd see, you and I don't really disagree as much, or often as you think. It's sometimes even simply a different perspective, or emphasis. But you get so caught up in the visceral disagreement, you don't see the common ground.

That, and we tend to pick at each other, and provoke each other.....heh. :)

(No, I'm not trying to join your "cool guy" group....Heh)

Taco John
06-06-2006, 11:54 PM
which inconsistencies?

what charade?

this is why people stopped coming to d.c., they can't understand what the hell you people are talking about!



Kotter often talks in ambiguity and then retreat when pressed on them. Otherwise stated as "He often tries to make an end run, rather than a direct frontal assault."

go bowe
06-06-2006, 11:54 PM
TJ, if you'd stop being so offended by my most significant driving force....pragmatism, even when that force puts us on the opposite side of issues....you'd see, you and I don't really disagree as much, or often as you think. It's sometimes even simply a different perspective, or emphasis. But you get so caught up in the visceral disagreement, you don't see the common ground.

That, and we tend to pick at each other, and provoke each other.....heh. :)

(No, I'm not trying to join your "cool guy" group....Heh)there's a cool guys group?

who do you need to blow to get in?

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2006, 11:55 PM
which inconsistencies?

what charade?

this is why people stopped coming to d.c., they can't understand what the hell you people are talking about!

Go back through this thread: Justin, first, tries to distance himself from the militant and in-your-face movement by professing allegiance to a middle ground on the issue.....only to have his later posts belie an allegiance to that fringe group--the very one he has been trying to distance himself from. ROFL

Taco John
06-06-2006, 11:56 PM
TJ, if you'd stop being so offended by my most significant driving force....pragmatism, even when that force puts us on the opposite side of issues....you'd see, you and I don't really disagree as much, or often as you think. It's sometimes even simply a different perspective, or emphasis. But you get so caught up in the visceral disagreement, you don't see the common ground.

That, and we tend to pick at each other, and provoke each other.....heh. :)

(No, I'm not trying to join your "cool guy" group....Heh)


I think your brand of pragmatism is what has this country voting for complete morons for the highest office in the land.

No thanks.

If pragmatism means selling out my principles just because it's the most convenient thing to do, consider me impractical.

Taco John
06-06-2006, 11:57 PM
there's a cool guys group?

who do you need to blow to get in?


There's no cool guys group.

Cool guys don't need groups.

Taco John
06-06-2006, 11:59 PM
Go back through this thread: Justin, first, tries to distance himself from the militant and in-your-face movement by professing allegiance to a middle ground on the issue.....only to have his later posts belie an allegiance to that fringe group--the very one he has been trying to distance himself from. ROFL



I'm pretty unfamiliar with the "in-your-face" strawman group you're talking about. Who on this forum are you ascribing this movement to?

Hell, in the national tapestry, which large profile person are you ascribing this movement to, and what is so "in your face" about what they're doing?

Mr. Kotter
06-07-2006, 12:00 AM
Kotter often talks in ambiguity and then retreat when pressed on them. Otherwise stated as "He often tries to make an end run, rather than a direct frontal assault."Fine.

Reconcile jAZ's, at best, tepid and brief statement in post #91 with the impassioned and much more emotional "plea" in post #104....


Careful, you are agreeing with the plan I proposed 3-4 years ago right here on the planet.

Civil Unions For All.

Leave Marriage to churches...

Civil Unions is a term used by people who don't care a lick about gays getting "married" (one way or the other), and who are smart enough to know that the term "marriage" is *just a freaking word!*... and who are just trying find a way to appease the religious folks who pick and choose what to apply from the bible.

It's a transparent attempt at finding happy middle ground by pointlessly pretending that there is a distinction without a difference.

Oh, and Bush and I are both in that crowd.

Reconcile the tone and tenor of those two posts, and tell me someone is not putting on a show....

Taco John
06-07-2006, 12:09 AM
What's to reconcile? I don't see an emotional plea in post #104. I see Jaz levelling with you... And he's right. People that use the term Civil Union mostly don't care what you call it, but if it'll please the religious folks who are so hung up on the word "marraige," then fine... Let's call them Civil Unions.

go bowe
06-07-2006, 12:09 AM
Go back through this thread: Justin, first, tries to distance himself from the militant and in-your-face movement by professing allegiance to a middle ground on the issue.....only to have his later posts belie an allegiance to that fringe group--the very one he has been trying to distance himself from. ROFLdespite the fact that i am sweating my ass off in this little room with 2 computers and a small refrigerator pouring heat into the air, i did in fact go back and look at jaz's posts again, but i don't see where he belies an allegiance to that fringe group (presumably gay rights activists?)...

post 104 is all i can find, and it seems to indicate that both jaz and president bush publically support civil unions, for different reasons perhaps...

and some loose talk in that same post about people pretending that civil unions are different than marriage just to appease religious people, which is a sentiment that i agree with (unless i'm too inebriated to understand what we're talking about)...

i missed the belie-ing somehow...

Mr. Kotter
06-07-2006, 12:09 AM
I think your brand of pragmatism is what has this country voting for complete morons for the highest office in the land.

No thanks.

If pragmatism means selling out my principles just because it's the most convenient thing to do, consider me impractical.

Fair enough. Seriously. I admire that.

The principaled Jew was the one who proudly admitted his heritage, when the Gestapo came knocking. He was sent to Auschwitz and killed.

The pragmatic Jew was the one who obtained fake papers, sought escape, and used the underground to escape. He made his way out of Polan, and through Norway....eventually to work on the Manhattan Project.

While both understood how the system worked, one disregarded the knowledge for principal....while the other "worked the system" to achieve a more favorable result.

Of course, Nazi Germany posed much greater trials and tribulations than anything our government has, or will ever, pose.....but the analogy isn't far off in the end.

Mr. Kotter
06-07-2006, 12:10 AM
What's to reconcile? I don't see an emotional plea in post #104. I see Jaz levelling with you... And he's right. People that use the term Civil Union mostly don't care what you call it, but if it'll please the religious folks who are so hung up on the word "marraige," then fine... Let's call them Civil Unions.

It's there if you want to see it; believe me. :)

go bowe
06-07-2006, 12:10 AM
Fine.

Reconcile jAZ's, at best, tepid and brief statement in post #91 with the impassioned and much more emotional "plea" in post #104....






Reconcile the tone and tenor of those two posts, and tell me someone is not putting on a show....someone is not putting on a show...

go bowe
06-07-2006, 12:13 AM
Fair enough. Seriously. I admire that.

The principaled Jew was the one who proudly admitted his heritage, when the Gestapo came knocking. He was sent to Auschwitz and killed.

The pragmatic Jew was the one who obtained fake papers, sought escape, and used the underground to escape. He made his way out of Polan, and through Norway....eventually to work on the Manhattan Project.

While both understood how the system worked, one disregarded the knowledge for principal....while the other "worked the system" to achieve a more favorable result.

Of course, Nazi Germany posed much greater trials and tribulations than anything our government has, or will ever, pose.....but the analogy isn't far off in the end.ok now, what's the godwin's law thingy?

Mr. Kotter
06-07-2006, 12:17 AM
....and some loose talk in that same post about people pretending that civil unions are different than marriage just to appease religious people, which is a sentiment that i agree with (unless i'm too inebriated to understand what we're talking about)......

No, you didn't miss it. You are just refusing to recognize it for what it is....because you agree with him.

:)

Mr. Kotter
06-07-2006, 12:18 AM
ok now, what's the godwin's law thingy?

Heh. Exactly. It's way late for me boys.....thanks, though.

Have a good nite fellas.

Taco John
06-07-2006, 12:18 AM
Fair enough. Seriously. I admire that.

The principaled Jew was the one who proudly admitted his heritage, when the Gestapo came knocking. He was sent to Auschwitz and killed.

The pragmatic Jew was the one who obtained fake papers, sought escape, and used the underground to escape. He made his way out of Polan, and through Norway....eventually to work on the Manhattan Project.

While both understood how the system worked, one disregarded the knowledge for principal....while the other "worked the system" to achieve a more favorable result.

Of course, Nazi Germany posed much greater trials and tribulations than anything our government has, or will ever, pose.....but the analogy isn't far off in the end.



Bah... You are truly being fooled. Mostly, apparently, by yourself.

If you truly think you're working the system for "favorable" results, you're less "political scientist" and more "political lab rat."

Your analogy is nowhere close to the mark. That said, it could be extrapolated much further to paint yourself in the same group of pragmatic Christians who allowed it all to happen in the first place. Hitler would have never been able to do it without their help. Ultimately, misguided pragmatism that made Auschwitz possible.

Mr. Kotter
06-07-2006, 12:23 AM
Bah... it could be extrapolated much further to paint yourself in the same group of pragmatic Christians who allowed it all to happen in the first place. Hitler would have never been able to do it without their help. Ultimately, misguided pragmatism that made Auschwitz possible.
You mistake me then. I'm the type that would have left Germany at all costs; even if it cost me my life.

Taco John
06-07-2006, 12:29 AM
You mistake me then. I'm the type that would have left Germany at all costs; even if it cost me my life.


You're also the type that says things that are easier to say than they actually are to do, apparently.

The road to hell is paved by pragmatists with good intentions. There wasn't a Christian in Germany who believed they were supporting the slaughter of millions of innocent Jews. All they knew is that this great leader was saying some things that they agreed with in a very passionate way that made them proud to be Germans. It was easy to get behind him.

Mr. Kotter
06-07-2006, 12:34 AM
You're also the type that says things that are easier to say than they actually are to do, apparently....
Hey, TJ....I'm supposed to be the cynic. :shake:

I served my country in the armed services. I'm a TEACHER for Pete's sake, in the state with the lowest paid teachers in the country....I have four kids.

If you think for a minute, that I'm all about me, and would ignore soemthing like that.....your intuitive skills need some work IMHO.

patteeu
06-07-2006, 02:45 AM
Hey now wait a minute.... I didn't mean to infer that sexual deviancy is wrong. If our president suffered from limpness induced by his substance abuse and could only get his ya-yas by being porked up the pooper by a dominatrix-driven latex weenie, more power to him. But he shouldn't now be smakin down on gays, now should he?

The problem with your explanation is that he's not smakin down on gays. You don't have to be anti-gay to be opposed to gay marriage. The lie you've fallen for is that to be tolerant/supportive of gays you have to endorse the so-called gay agenda. That's simply not the case.

patteeu
06-07-2006, 02:47 AM
You lack a fundamental understanding of human nature.

Take for instance the story that's surfacing about Tom Delay's little French going away party. It's funny to his opposition, because he tried painting Kerry with the "French Brush" when Kerry was running for president saying stuff like "Kerry looks French." It went far enough that Drudge was reporting everytime that Kerry ate a croissant. Well, now Tom's having his big going away bash at an expensive French restaurant, and it turns out that Delay is French himself...

So when his opposition makes fun of him for this whole French thing, it's not because any of them hate the French, but because Tom has set the table for ridicule now that a connection between him and the French can be established.

Your desperate little theory is amusing in a "Baby Lee watches way too much TV" kind of way.

You apparently bought into the same falacy as Ugly Duck. The thing missing in this case is a foundation of Bush being anti-gay or making anti-gay comments.

patteeu
06-07-2006, 02:55 AM
What do you call a federal constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage exactly?

The right constitutional amendment would simply be a clarification of the traditional understanding of the equal protection clause which would eliminate the possibility of the courts "using" (i.e. abusing) that clause to mandate gay marriage recognition on the states.

Ugly Duck
06-07-2006, 08:00 AM
You don't have to be anti-gay to be opposed to gay marriage.Sounds familiar somehow..... oh yeah, people used to say "You don't have to be anti-black to be opposed to interracial marriage." Thats a mighty thin razor-sharp line....

Velvet_Jones
06-07-2006, 08:02 AM
The problem with your explanation is that he's not smakin down on gays. You don't have to be anti-gay to be opposed to gay marriage. The lie you've fallen for is that to be tolerant/supportive of gays you have to endorse the so-called gay agenda. That's simply not the case.
But you can't support our troops and be against the war. Geeeze.

jAZ
06-07-2006, 08:44 AM
It's a DIRECT FRONTAL ASSAULT; certainly not an end run.....
So it's not the federal legislation you object to?

patteeu
06-07-2006, 09:54 AM
Sounds familiar somehow..... oh yeah, people used to say "You don't have to be anti-black to be opposed to interracial marriage." Thats a mighty thin razor-sharp line....

Not really.

Taco John
06-07-2006, 09:59 AM
Hey, TJ....I'm supposed to be the cynic. :shake:



I've never once considered you as a cynic.

Taco John
06-07-2006, 10:00 AM
You apparently bought into the same falacy as Ugly Duck. The thing missing in this case is a foundation of Bush being anti-gay or making anti-gay comments.


You apparently think I'm talking strictly about Bush.

jAZ
06-07-2006, 10:01 AM
This is an all time horrible parallel.
But you can't support our troops and be against the war. Geeeze.
Something closer would be... when Christians say that they don't hate gay people, they hate the gay lifestyle (because it's not Christian-like)... they love the people and want them to behave like proper Christians.

That's certainly possible and in many many cases likely.

Same is true of those who support the troops but not the war. Those troops over there are people, who deserve support and love from over here.

Taco John
06-07-2006, 10:05 AM
The problem with your explanation is that he's not smakin down on gays. You don't have to be anti-gay to be opposed to gay marriage. The lie you've fallen for is that to be tolerant/supportive of gays you have to endorse the so-called gay agenda. That's simply not the case.



For my part, I don't have too much interest in being tolerant/supportive of gays, so much as I'm interested in ensuring a sense of equal access across the board for all. I see no justifiable reason that a Homo couple shouldn't be afforded the same legal constructs that a Hetero couple uses to protect their family's assets. Do you?

patteeu
06-07-2006, 10:35 AM
You apparently think I'm talking strictly about Bush.

Yes I was. My mistake.

patteeu
06-07-2006, 10:42 AM
For my part, I don't have too much interest in being tolerant/supportive of gays, so much as I'm interested in ensuring a sense of equal access across the board for all. I see no justifiable reason that a Homo couple shouldn't be afforded the same legal constructs that a Hetero couple uses to protect their family's assets. Do you?


If we are going to have civil marriages at all, I'm in favor of extending it to gay couples because I think encouraging life partnerships (both gay and straight) is a worthy policy goal, but I'm not arrogant enough to condemn those who think marriage should be a more focused policy tool aimed at building traditional families. I think the majority should rule on this issue. Preferably state by state.

So the answer to your specific question is: yes, I can think of a justifiable reason for limiting civil marriage to heterosexual couples even if I don't agree with it.

Velvet_Jones
06-07-2006, 01:15 PM
This is an all time horrible parallel.

I liked mine better.

Ugly Duck
06-07-2006, 06:35 PM
Hey... it may not happen soon - but it'll happen. America is eventually progressive on this sorta stuff. Usta be women couldn't vote and folks had all kindsa neat little arguments about why they shouldn't. We progressed beyond that. Usta be blacks couldn't marry whites and folks (even those that claimed they weren't anti-black) had all kindsa neat little arguments about why they shouldn't. We progressed beyond that. Same sex couples cannot yet marry and folks (even those that claim they are not anti-gay) have all kindsa neat little arguments about why they shouldn't. We will progress beyond that as well. Even if a president with a propensity to take it up the butt who speaks against it proposes to amend our constitution to ban it. It'll happen.

patteeu
06-07-2006, 07:10 PM
Hey... it may not happen soon - but it'll happen. America is eventually progressive on this sorta stuff. Usta be women couldn't vote and folks had all kindsa neat little arguments about why they shouldn't. We progressed beyond that. Usta be blacks couldn't marry whites and folks (even those that claimed they weren't anti-black) had all kindsa neat little arguments about why they shouldn't. We progressed beyond that. Same sex couples cannot yet marry and folks (even those that claim they are not anti-gay) have all kindsa neat little arguments about why they shouldn't. We will progress beyond that as well. Even if a president with a propensity to take it up the butt who speaks against it proposes to amend our constitution to ban it. It'll happen.

Would there be something wrong with it if the President really liked to take it up the butt? I only ask because you keep mentioning it like there is.

I agree that gay marriage will eventually happen, though.

jettio
06-07-2006, 07:34 PM
This accusation is really unfair to the President.

B*sh is more of a figurehead show pony.

You can bet that Cheney is the true man-lover in chief.

Ugly Duck
06-07-2006, 07:49 PM
Would there be something wrong with it if the President really liked to take it up the butt? I only ask because you keep mentioning it like there is.Yeah, there's something wrong with it... he should stop denying equal rights to those that do what he does. He should come out of the closet and say, "In my drug fiend years, I used to do it with men. I cannot deny marriage to those who behave as I do." Then it be OK.

patteeu
06-07-2006, 08:08 PM
Yeah, there's something wrong with it... he should stop denying equal rights to those that do what he does. He should come out of the closet and say, "In my drug fiend years, I used to do it with men. I cannot deny marriage to those who behave as I do." Then it be OK.

:rolleyes:

No one's equal rights are being denied. But leaving that aside, the question wasn't whether or not there is anything wrong with him being against gay marriage, it was whether or not there is anything wrong with it if he likes it up the butt. The two are quite independent concepts. If it's wrong to deny gay marriage, it should be wrong regardless of whether or not you like it up the butt. If it's wrong to like it up the butt, it should be wrong regardless of whether or not you oppose gay marriage.

Ugly Duck
06-07-2006, 08:46 PM
If it's wrong to deny gay marriage, it should be wrong regardless of whether or not you like it up the butt.Oh, I getcha. He can do whatever he wants with his butt - its his. I'm saying its wrong to be a hipocrit about it by denying equal rights to other gays when he has a weenie up his own butt. Hetero couples have the right to marry, same-sex couples do not have that right. That is not equal rights.

Taco John
06-07-2006, 08:55 PM
If we are going to have civil marriages at all, I'm in favor of extending it to gay couples because I think encouraging life partnerships (both gay and straight) is a worthy policy goal, but I'm not arrogant enough to condemn those who think marriage should be a more focused policy tool aimed at building traditional families. I think the majority should rule on this issue. Preferably state by state.

So the answer to your specific question is: yes, I can think of a justifiable reason for limiting civil marriage to heterosexual couples even if I don't agree with it.



You almost answered my question... Well, actually... No you didn't.

I asked if you see a justifiable reason to deny homosexuals from the same legal construct to protect their property that heterosexuals have access to. Your answer didn't respond to this question.

You're trying to make this an issue of policy goal... What the government wants to accomplish through the promotion of marraige. I don't share your big government view of marraige. I think marraige is about individuals, not about social engineering on the part of Big Brother. I don't understand why you're even going there. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Government didn't create marraige. Individuals did. Government merely responded to what the people were creating.

Government has no place in rejecting people's commitments to eachother. Government has no place in deciding which commitment based relationships should be protected and shouldn't be protected based on race, religion, or even gender. Government's place is merely to serve and protect the people, and especially the individual.

I'm suprised at you. 9/11 did a number on you. You used to be less of a big government liberal.

Boozer
06-07-2006, 08:57 PM
You almost answered my question... Well, actually... No you didn't.

I asked if you see a justifiable reason to deny homosexuals from the same legal construct to protect their property that heterosexuals have access to. Your answer didn't respond to this question.

You're trying to make this an issue of policy goal... What the government wants to accomplish through the promotion of marraige. I don't share your big government view of marraige. I think marraige is about individuals, not about social engineering on the part of Big Brother. I don't understand why you're even going there. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Government didn't create marraige. Individuals did. Government merely responded to what the people were creating.

Government has no place in rejecting people's commitments to eachother. Government has no place in deciding which commitment based relationships should be protected and shouldn't be protected based on race, religion, or even gender. Government's place is merely to serve and protect the people, and especially the individual.

I'm suprised at you. 9/11 did a number on you. You used to be less of a big government liberal.

I wouldn't go that far. Not even close. But it would be nice if some people would ditch the Henry Ford "You can have any color car you want, so long as its black" argument wrt gay marriage and equal protection.

Taco John
06-07-2006, 09:00 PM
I wouldn't go that far. Not even close. But it would be nice if some people would ditch the Henry Ford "You can have any color car you want, so long as its black" argument wrt gay marriage and equal protection.


You wouldn't go how far? I don't understand what you're trying to say...

Boozer
06-07-2006, 09:03 PM
You wouldn't go how far? I don't understand what you're trying to say...

Re the "big government liberal" thing, I think there are valid Burkean reasons for opposing gay marriage rights. Those reasons, however, are neither "big government" nor "liberal."

Taco John
06-07-2006, 09:04 PM
Re the "big government liberal" thing, I think there are valid Burkean reasons for opposing gay marriage rights. Those reasons, however, are neither "big government" nor "liberal."


Well, when you're looking towards governmental policy to deny individuals freedom, I would call that liberal use of government. You would call it...?

Boozer
06-07-2006, 09:14 PM
Well, when you're looking towards governmental policy to deny individuals freedom, I would call that liberal use of government. You would call it...?

Depends on your semantics. Liberal, in the sense of "beyond tradition, orthodoxy, and free from bigotry?" No way. In the sense of "a generous amount?" Less so. A failure to affirmatively recognize a given liberty while recognizing others isn't exactly "big government."

Taco John
06-07-2006, 09:41 PM
Depends on your semantics. Liberal, in the sense of "beyond tradition, orthodoxy, and free from bigotry?" No way. In the sense of "a generous amount?" Less so. A failure to affirmatively recognize a given liberty while recognizing others isn't exactly "big government."


No, but taking an issue on a position based on governmental policy objectives, IMO, is exactly "big government." It certainly doesn't lend any credit to the individual.

The word "liberal" has many connotations... I prefer to look at from the objectivist view, focusing on the individual's goals, not the government's.

Boozer
06-07-2006, 09:43 PM
No, but taking an issue on a position based on governmental policy objectives, IMO, is exactly "big government." It certainly doesn't lend any credit to the individual.

The word "liberal" has many connotations... I prefer to look at from the objectivist view, focusing on the individual's goals, not the government's.

To play devil's advocate, what is government if not a collection of individuals?

Taco John
06-07-2006, 10:17 PM
To play devil's advocate, what is government if not a collection of individuals?


A mob?

patteeu
06-07-2006, 11:58 PM
Oh, I getcha. He can do whatever he wants with his butt - its his. I'm saying its wrong to be a hipocrit about it by denying equal rights to other gays when he has a weenie up his own butt. Hetero couples have the right to marry, same-sex couples do not have that right. That is not equal rights.

It's not hypocritical unless he denies others the ability to experience something while he takes advantage of the same experience (in this case, gay marriage). Just because I change the oil in my own car, it's not hypocritical if I favor a law against driving over 70mph.

patteeu
06-08-2006, 12:12 AM
You almost answered my question... Well, actually... No you didn't.

I asked if you see a justifiable reason to deny homosexuals from the same legal construct to protect their property that heterosexuals have access to. Your answer didn't respond to this question.

You're trying to make this an issue of policy goal... What the government wants to accomplish through the promotion of marraige. I don't share your big government view of marraige. I think marraige is about individuals, not about social engineering on the part of Big Brother. I don't understand why you're even going there. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Government didn't create marraige. Individuals did. Government merely responded to what the people were creating.

Government has no place in rejecting people's commitments to eachother. Government has no place in deciding which commitment based relationships should be protected and shouldn't be protected based on race, religion, or even gender. Government's place is merely to serve and protect the people, and especially the individual.

I'm suprised at you. 9/11 did a number on you. You used to be less of a big government liberal.


The answer was "yes." Does it help if I don't explain it?

Do I have to point out in every single post that I favor government getting out of marriage altogether to avoid having you mistake my position for a big government position? :rolleyes:

Your post expresses a pretty unrealistic view of the world, Taco. Of course civil marriage is about social engineering. So are a ton of other laws including the entire civil rights revolution of the latter half of the 1900's. Regardless of what the civil marriage rules and benefits are, people can continue to freely associate in almost any manner they wish. Gays can form committed, lifelong partnerships if they so choose. Groups can form communal marriages if they wish. The only thing they can't do is demand a spot at the government trough just because they want one.

Maybe you can explain to me why you favor a big government, social engineering scheme that benefits couples over those who prefer the single life?

BTW, you never knew me before 9/11 so your false memory of my change seems a little off the mark. My view on gay marriage hasn't changed in at least a decade.

Taco John
06-08-2006, 02:23 AM
The only thing they can't do is demand a spot at the government trough just because they want one.

Actually, yeah... They really can. The fact that the government trough exists is reason enough in itself.


Maybe you can explain to me why you favor a big government, social engineering scheme that benefits couples over those who prefer the single life?

No problem. I believe that citizens' private property needs to be protected. The founding fathers understood the need to offer protections to the citizens from the tyranny of The Machine. I see the Government's role in officially establishing marraige as one of protection, not one of social engineering.



BTW, you never knew me before 9/11 so your false memory of my change seems a little off the mark. My view on gay marriage hasn't changed in at least a decade.


My mistake. I swear I remember you being here prior to 9/11. Clearly that recollection was wrong. Mea culpa.

Moooo
06-08-2006, 03:50 AM
Lets put all the irrelevant stuff aside and get to the real question...

WHO WOULD MAKE LOVE TO THAT!?! I mean, I'm no chick so I really have no idea what to judge another man on, but I have a DAMN good guess he's no looker. Other than like an ape.

Moooo

patteeu
06-08-2006, 07:42 AM
Actually, yeah... They really can. The fact that the government trough exists is reason enough in itself.

Then we should all be able to collect unemployment whether we are employed or not. And we should all be eligible for welfare and student loans and any other form of government special rights/economic benefits regardless of our eligibility under the current rules. :shrug:

No problem. I believe that citizens' private property needs to be protected. The founding fathers understood the need to offer protections to the citizens from the tyranny of The Machine. I see the Government's role in officially establishing marraige as one of protection, not one of social engineering.

LOL, saying that it's not social engineering doesn't change the fact that it is. Why is it OK to discriminate against single people (or polygamists if you aren't willing to extend marriage priviliges to groups of 3 or more), but it's not OK to discriminate against same sex couples?

My mistake. I swear I remember you being here prior to 9/11. Clearly that recollection was wrong. Mea culpa.

No problem. :)

BucEyedPea
06-08-2006, 07:57 AM
Regardless of what the civil marriage rules and benefits are, people can continue to freely associate in almost any manner they wish. Gays can form committed, lifelong partnerships if they so choose. Groups can form communal marriages if they wish. The only thing they can't do is demand a spot at the government trough just because they want one.


That's a very good point.
I believe they can also get some of the benefits through private contract, too,
except for some. Couldn't the laws on those unavailable ones be changed? I don't know all the laws on these finer points but maybe you legal folks could expand on these.

Baby Lee
06-08-2006, 07:58 AM
Why is it OK to discriminate against single people (or polygamists if you aren't willing to extend marriage priviliges to groups of 3 or more), but it's not OK to discriminate against same sex couples?
We have a thriving community here. How 'bout we devote some time to analyzing the laws and forming CP civil unions that maximize our access to the public trough.
Say, Logical and Mememe could get a civil union, and his income tax bracket gets racheted back a bit filing jointly and he can claim her rugrats as dependants.

Skip and Gochiefs could get a civil union, and GC can pay for college with Skip's pension, plus get attached on his generous insurance plan.

ROFL ROFL.

BucEyedPea
06-08-2006, 08:03 AM
We have a thriving community here. How 'bout we devote some time to analyzing the laws and forming CP civil unions that maximize our access to the public trough.
Say, Logical and Mememe could get a civil union, and his income tax bracket gets racheted back a bit filing jointly and he can claim her rugrats as dependants.

Skip and Gochiefs could get a civil union, and GC can pay for college with Skip's pension, plus get attached on his generous insurance plan.

ROFL ROFL.

oooooooooooooooooooo........I know who I want! :drool: ooo la la!

picasso
06-08-2006, 01:58 PM
I think Jenna Bush looks a lot like GWB.

I think "Jenna Bush" sounds like a vaginal rejuvenation cream for older women.

"Try New "Gena-bush" today and get a free fanny pack. :)