4
   

Ted Olson, best Republican ever?

 
 
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2013 02:15 pm
Ted Olson conservative super-lawyer, a "log cabin" Republican, recently slayed Chris Wallace on Fox News. It is almost beautifully painful to watch, as someone so entrenched in bigotry is educated regarding Constitutional law and the Bill of Rights.
Here's the gruesome footage:


Is this the future of the Republican Party?
Will Republicans be forced kicking and screaming into the 21st century?
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2013 02:43 pm
@MattDavis,
It does seem that there is movement in that direction. On the other hand, maybe the forces of medievality (I made that up) have just been louder and all the sane republicans have gotten very weary of it.

(I am uniquely unable to see youtube most of the time, this time too. The good news is I found my info re my last computer guru, the last person that changed my mac username, which I need in order to access adobe flash as far as I can with my elderly computer, don't get me started on planned obsolescence).
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2013 02:57 pm
@MattDavis,
I thought that Log-Cabin Reps were gay. I remember that he lost his wife in the 9/11 attack. Was he in the closet?

He is somewhat the typical Rep prostitute for the super-rich. But I guess he is quite effective in what he does.
0 Replies
 
JeffreyEqualityNewma
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2013 03:29 pm
@MattDavis,
No fan of the LCRs...but Ted placed Chris W right in his place didn't he?
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2013 03:30 pm
@JeffreyEqualityNewma,
JeffreyEqualityNewma wrote:

No fan of the LCRs...but Ted placed Chris W right in his place didn't he?


I don't know Chris W. or what you mean.
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2013 03:39 pm
@MattDavis,
MattDavis wrote:
Is this the future of the Republican Party?
Will Republicans be forced kicking and screaming into the 21st century?


I'm a-wishin' and a-hopin' that this is another indicator of a split between the Republicans and the conservatives.
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2013 03:42 pm
@ehBeth,
Me too.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2013 04:03 pm
@ehBeth,
It is lamentable that any political party would place themselves in opposition to civil rights. Ironic also that a religious movement would also so align. I don't think that the incestuous relationship between Republicans and "Christian Fundamentalism" has served either camp well.

Separation of Church and State.
...render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's...
yada yada yada
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2013 04:44 pm
One wonder under the logic the gentleman were using if the states would have any rights to control who can married who under the constitution.

Does the constitution right to married disallow the states from baring
incestuous marriages or group marriages or even age limits on marriages and so on?
JeffreyEqualityNewma
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2013 06:01 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

JeffreyEqualityNewma wrote:

No fan of the LCRs...but Ted placed Chris W right in his place didn't he?


I don't know Chris W. or what you mean.


I was referring to the Log Cabin Republicans and Chris Wallace.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2013 07:05 pm
@JeffreyEqualityNewma,
JeffreyEqualityNewma wrote:
No fan of the LCRs...but Ted placed Chris W right in his place didn't he?

Sure did!
Had him for breakfast.
I doubt he takes much pride in quashing an intellectual ant, but I sure enjoyed watching it happen.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2013 07:09 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
One wonder under the logic the gentleman were using if the states would have any rights to control who can married who under the constitution.
Marriage is a civil right protected under the Bill of Rights.
States do not have the capacity to override the Bill of Rights.

Quote:
Does the constitution right to married disallow the states from baring
incestuous marriages or group marriages or even age limits on marriages and so on?
They could potentially do so if they can establish that such marriages cause harm.
Homosexual marriages do not cause harm.
Where is the equivalence?
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2013 08:03 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
It does seem that there is movement in that direction. On the other hand, maybe the forces of medievality (I made that up) have just been louder and all the sane republicans have gotten very weary of it.

Yes. It was a mistake for the Republicans to latch their tent to the shooting (now falling) star that is Fox News. It is tempting to invite someone in who you think will fight for you, but sad when you realize your causes don't actually align.
Foot in the door phenomena.
The Republican party has been infected by bigotry and intolerance. Fox News makes a convenient and public scape-goat, but the infection was actually much more subtle and subversive (of course in my humble opinion).

OssoBuco wrote:
(I am uniquely unable to see youtube most of the time, this time too. The good news is I found my info re my last computer guru, the last person that changed my mac username, which I need in order to access adobe flash as far as I can with my elderly computer, don't get me started on planned obsolescence).

I'm sorry about that. I don't mean to make my threads less accessible.
Here is the court decision striking down Proposition 8 in California:
http://www.bsfllp.com/news/in_the_news/000123/_res/id=sa_File1/2012-02-07%20Ninth%20Circuit%20Order.pdf
The video is basically of Ted Olson explaining to Wallace why Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. Wallace in a remarkable and rare moment of clarity nearly concedes the point at the end of the interview.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Mar, 2013 01:36 am
@MattDavis,
Quote:
They could potentially do so if they can establish that such marriages cause harm.
Homosexual marriages do not cause harm.
Where is the equivalence?


Homosexual marriages will move benefits and cash from single people both gay and straight to them as do all marriages gay or straight in the form of tax breaks and other benefits.

The reasoning to do so have always been that the society as a whole have an interest in promoting stable and long term relationships between mated couples at least long enough to raised the next generation in stable homes.

Given that far less total of gay couples by the very nature of their unions are going to be raising children within the relationship the society seems to have far less of an interest in promoting stable homosexual unions then hetrosexual unions.

Homosexual marriages will not be a large group as far as the total percent of all marriages are concern and some of them will be raising children so for the cause and in the name of social justice even at the cost of some unfairness to single people it might be worth while to allow.

Still that seems to be something the people as a whole should decide not the courts as the two forms of marriages are not completely equivalence for the reason given.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Mar, 2013 01:53 am
@BillRM,
In looking at the ruling of the judge he is completely right that homosexual marriages does not impact marriage hetrosexual couples in a negative manner however once more we have a zero sum situation when it come to the total tax burden and allowing one group of taxpayers to pay less taxes and get more benefits then another group of taxpayers and to grant those taxes and benefits breaks to gay marriage couples over singles taxpayers and un-marriage couples straight or gay there should be some social benefits that justify this transfer of wealth.
roger
 
  3  
Reply Wed 6 Mar, 2013 03:27 am
@BillRM,
Actually, two married people of approximately equal incomes will end up paying more as a married couple than two singles. They will, however, pay less total taxes as a couple than if they use the "Married, Filing Separately" status.

Now, if one has a high income and the other has no income at all, there is an advantage.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Mar, 2013 08:41 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Given that far less total of gay couples by the very nature of their unions are going to be raising children within the relationship the society seems to have far less of an interest in promoting stable homosexual unions then hetrosexual unions.

Do you have evidence that gay or lesbian married couples will be raising fewer children than heterosexual married couples? It seems a very difficult thing to measure without first eliminating the discriminatory practices in place. Practices at this point, which serve as social and legal hurdles for these couples to adopt.
I know of many loving and well functioning same-sex couples who are raising children. Regardless, where would you rather children be? In foster care or in the family of a committed (through marriage) two parent family?
My parents are Catholic. They would like to see fewer abortions in society, being intelligent observers of societies and the Church over the last 1000 years, they realize the folly of theocracy. So how do my parents help society?
They adopt 3 children and have served as foster parents for over 20 different children over the last 10 years.
Frankly, it leaves me disgusted to hear of anyone attempting to limit the number of available couples who can adopt children out of the foster system. Do you realize that if just one couple from each church in this country adopted just one child, there would be no children in foster care?
I don't know if you are religious, but if you are I would suggest spending less energy worrying about who marries whom, and more worrying about children having homes.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Mar, 2013 08:49 am
@MattDavis,
Quote:
Do you have evidence that gay or lesbian married couples will be raising fewer children than heterosexual married couples? It seems a very difficult thing to measure without first eliminating the discriminatory practices in place. Practices at this point, which serve as social and legal hurdles for these couples to adopt.


Give me a break as most straights couples need to take precautions to not have children and even then it can happen and that does not happen to gay couples, so on it face that is kind of self evidence but I am sure there would be no problem in producing proof that on average straight couples do have far more children inside the relationships then gay couples.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Mar, 2013 08:57 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
...once more we have a zero sum situation when it come to the total tax burden...
No actually, we do not have a zero sum situation. You are only looking at this from the perspective of tax burdens and ignoring per-capita GDP. The sociological purpose for marriages (in addition to raising children) is that they allow for a more stable entity in societies that can "weather" the storm during economic fluctuations. When couples are married they are far more likely to keep each other "afloat" and not be forced to rely upon the rest of society to support them (through government programs etc.).
You really do have to recognize that there is no economic conservative justification for banning same-sex marriage. It is simply a matter of religious taste. "Taste" of course being a pleasant way of saying "discrimination".

If you would like to see the some of the economic costs of discrimination I would refer you here:
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/03/pdf/lgbt_biz_discrimination.pdf
Or the bastion of liberal thinking that is Business Week:
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2006-06-05/the-true-cost-of-discrimination
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Mar, 2013 09:03 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Give me a break as most straights couples need to take precautions to not have children and even then it can happen and that does not happen to gay couples, so on it face that is kind of self evidence but I am sure there would be no problem in producing proof that on average straight couples do have far more children inside the relationships then gay couples.

Give you a break?
Why?
Are you being victimized?
I don't even understand what the point you are trying to make in the above passage. Are you suggesting that we make having children out of wedlock illegal? Or that we mandate birth control? Where is this supposed to be leading?
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ted Olson, best Republican ever?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/06/2020 at 07:45:42