Republicans branching out to old Dem stronghold.

The fact that the gay marriage issue is a land-mine issue is kind of embarrassing -- and should be to both parties. What the hell is the state doing in the middle of this? The state should stay well away from relationships and bedrooms. If religious sects don't want same-sex marriages in their church, let 'em fry in their own hell. That's what I want to hear my candidate say, should there ever be such a person...

0 Replies

This might be the only issue I'm conservative on...

0 Replies

Snood, do you mean you think the state should be involved? should defend a religious tenet? Or do you simply meant that you'd frown on the practice but not outlaw it (i.e., involve the state)?

0 Replies

I don't believe that everyone practicing homosexual lifestyles has a genetic programming to do so. I therefore resent the constant drawing of parallels to the civil rights movement (or women's lib, for that matter) because minorities are easily identified as such, and really have no choice in the matter. I don't believe that same sex marriages should be legitimized, for all the traditional reasons of believing marriage is supposed to be man/woman by definition.

I am also not interested into getting in any back and forth on this today, and just stated this because I was asked.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Excerpt from cool Alan Simpson interview. He is a spokesperson for the RUC--Republican Unity Coalition.
....

Sofia - Wow. Could Newsweek have had a more blatant agenda? I couldn't believe the loaded questions they asked. I especially liked this little gem:
I'm not judging their (the religious right's) values, just asking the extent to which they are influencing the party?

Why be concerned about how much influence they have, unless you find something bad in that influence?

This interviewer doesn't even seem to recognize his own bias. It reminds me of so many A2Kers who decry Bush policies for being born out of his religious beliefs, rather than decrying the policies and being specific about why they are bad or wrong. It's anti-religious bigotry, but they don't see anything wrong with it. (Of course, the few blatant racists I've met didn't see anything wrong with their viewpoints, either.)

0 Replies

Scrat-- You're not kidding. I was amazed the editors allowed it to run as it was written. The anti-Right bias of the reporter was constantly evident.

But, no complaints from me, as Simpson called him/her on it, and laid it out for everyone to see.

blatham-- Litmus test questions? Like the questions the Dems are asking to judicial nominees...?

0 Replies

"I'm not questioning their (the anti-war sector of the Democratic Party's) values, just asking the extent to which they're influencing the party."

Now that's a question I might well ask of my fellow Democrats or anyone else, and I'm certainly not anti-war, being a protester myself. Why are you reading prejudice or slant into that question?

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

"I'm not questioning their (the anti-war sector of the Democratic Party's) values, just asking the extent to which they're influencing the party."

Now that's a question I might well ask of my fellow Democrats or anyone else, and I'm certainly not anti-war, being a protester myself. Why are you reading prejudice or slant into that question?

Tart - You have a point, but I'm trying to think whether I (or anyone) would bother to ask how much any group is influencing a party unless the implication is that such influence should (or at least might) be cause for concern. If someone asked how much women are influencing the Democrats, I would infer that the person asking thought that there was reason to not want women to influence the Democrats.

0 Replies

and i see communists under my bed

0 Replies

That's your ATTITUDE, Scrat, not a reasonable assumption. We are not all as suspicious and combative. Why might it not be that they liked the idea of women influencing Dems, or perhaps just interesting for demographic reasons?

Ye gods.

0 Replies

I was going to bring back a few pointed questions and Simpson's responses, but it's here on the thread, already.

Scrat said basically what I was planning to say-- If you want to take a course in Bias, replace the reporter's references to Republicans, or the Christian Right with gays, blacks, women or any other popularly defended group--and you will see the Bias.

"You don't sound like a traditional Republican?" How would we recieve a reporter saying, "You don't sound like a traditional woman?" --a traditional black? Republicans nor Democrats are one-dimensional. This reporter kept making negative upon negative assumptions, and questions were framed in a negative vein.

And, Simpson is right about the Christian Right ALWAYS being brought up in a negative way. Sure, the majority of them seem to hit the airwaves with issues and statements I don't condone--but they have a right to speak to what is important to them just as much as any other group does.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

That's your ATTITUDE, Scrat, not a reasonable assumption. We are not all as suspicious and combative. Why might it not be that they liked the idea of women influencing Dems, or perhaps just interesting for demographic reasons?

Ye gods.

I offered that you might be right and explained why it might be that I see it differently...

Quote:

Tart - You have a point, but I'm trying to think whether I (or anyone) would bother to ask how much any group is influencing a party unless the implication is that such influence should (or at least might) be cause for concern. If someone asked how much women are influencing the Democrats, I would infer that the person asking thought that there was reason to not want women to influence the Democrats.

If that's evidence of "my attitude", I am proud to stand behind it.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

"You don't sound like a traditional Republican?" How would we recieve a reporter saying, "You don't sound like a traditional woman?" --a traditional black?

Let's not make the mistake of comparing political affiliation with race or gender (or sexual preference for that matter, snood's uncharacteristically closed-minded opinion notwithstanding).

Sofia wrote:

And, Simpson is right about the Christian Right ALWAYS being brought up in a negative way. Sure, the majority of them seem to hit the airwaves with issues and statements I don't condone--but they have a right to speak to what is important to them just as much as any other group does.

No one is actively seeking to deny them their rights.

0 Replies

PDid-- I hear what you're saying, and I don't discount your opinion as having validity--but, I do argue that the comparisons have merit.

Broad brushes are always wrong, IMO. There are a lot of conservatives, who affiliate with the GOP, based solely on the big issues-- and draw great distinctions with the basic stereotypical negative views hung on the party due to the extremists.

I made the following statement, not to Tartarin, but in direct reference to the article, and the reporter's continued negative statements about this unpopular, continually maligned group. Even I don't like practically anything they say--but, they do have at least a few good points.
---------------
And, Simpson is right about the Christian Right ALWAYS being brought up in a negative way. Sure, the majority of them seem to hit the airwaves with issues and statements I don't condone--but they have a right to speak to what is important to them just as much as any other group does.
---------------
I am beginning to see there are few 'traditional' anythings...

0 Replies

Quote:

Congratulations to the Supreme Court on its 6-3 decision in the Texas sodomy law case and to all those, including the gay rights groups and the American Civil Liberties Union, who have fought so long and hard to rid the legal system of this manifest injustice. The talking head chats featured a number of curious contentions over this decision. It was interesting to see rank bigotry against gays trying to disguise itself as a legal argument ...

Justice Scalia's intemperate outburst -- he said the Court has signed on to "the so-called homosexual agenda" -- brings up the question: What the heck is the homosexual agenda? I hear people on the right talk about it all the time, but as I far as I know, gay groups have not signed on to any master plan or series of proposals. Has anybody seen one? There are a lot of gay Republicans; I should think all the gays would have a hard time agreeing on an agenda. I suspect the "homosexual agenda" is like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Molly Ivins

0 Replies

As far as I can tell, the dread 'gay agenda' is to win the right to live like everybody else.

I do think we're baby-stepping toward legalization of gay marriage. And, I still don't know why this bothers anyone.

0 Replies

Cable news channel MSNBC on Monday fired Michael Savage after the controversial talk show host wished AIDS on a caller whom he dismissed as "one of the sodomites." Savage had been under fire from gay rights groups since February when the network announced it had hired the conservative commentator to host a TV version of his popular talk radio show.

0 Replies

Damned liberal media.

0 Replies

Its hard to imagine any human being wishing AIDS on anyone.
I never heard Savage--just heard of him.

0 Replies

Like many celebrities who have made a name by being outrageous muckrakers, Savage showed his ass, and in doing so, has lost whatever credibility he had outside of a fringe following that does not represent that core of conservative thought.

(Or if they do represent that core, then I am not in agreement with it.)

To me, Savage might as well have lost his temper with a Jewish caller, and suggested the caller should have been shoved in an oven. There's no backing up from that kind of remark; no explaining it away. It reminds me of a line from a song by James McMurtry, "Too Long in the Wasteland":

Quote:

"Whisky don't make liars, it just makes fools,
So I didn't mean to say it, but I meant what I said..."

Substitute "anger" or "frustration" for "whiskey" above, and it fits perfectly. Savage didn't mean to say it, but wouldn't have said it were it not in his heart.

0 Replies

Republicans branching out to old Dem stronghold.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know