November 12, 2005
Hate Doesn't Sell
Most of my left sided blogmates like the aggressive Dean approach to bashing us Republicans. Dean is evidently very entertaining in the same sense that Al Franken or Janeanne Garofolo are … entertaining. But like his fellow comedians, his fan base is limited and despite all the noise he doesn’t actually earn much money for your glorious cause.
Hate and howling doesn’t get the big bucks. From January to September Dean and the DNC raised only about half of what the RNC earned. According to a story in today's Washington post, Dean’s performance is starting to concern some more traditionally minded Democrats.
Let me tell you all plainly, I don't like Dean, probably because he doesn't like me. In fact, he said that he hates people like me and all I stand for. I met him twice in person. He is smaller than he seems on TV but not any nicer. Dean ran an exciting campaign until he imploded. He was the man of the hour and sometimes that is all the time a man gets. After that if he hangs around like a fart in a phone booth . . . well you know the rest.
Jack,
In leiu of any constuctive ideas or values, it appears all they have to offer is hate and an occasional pie in the sky everything for everybody promise. If they really told what they stood for they wouldn’t get any money from anybody.
Posted by: Lowell at November 12, 2005 09:56 AMJack,
As I wrote in our previous discussion, I don’t think Dean has been a great DNC leader. He has not been terrible either. He has said some dumb things, and probably isn’t ideal for the job.
I think he has also been mythologized a lot by Republicans, though. For one thing, he is not really that left-wing.I think he got that reputation by being against the Iraq War. His reasons turned out to be sound, if not prophetic.
I don’t find him hateful or angry either. People made a lot of The Scream, but that had nothing do to with Republicans. I don’t think he was even angry, just sleep-deprived and wacky. I know he said that he “hates Republicans”, but I don’t believe that is literally true.
But there is a more important point here.If you haven’t noticed, Bush and the GOP have been taking it on the chin for the whole year. (Party fundraising being an exception). So if I accepted your argument that the Democrats are peddling hate (which I DON’T), wouldn’t that mean that that is a fairly effect tactic?
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 12, 2005 10:53 AMBy the way, I believe the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has raised more money than its GOP counterpart.
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 12, 2005 10:59 AMThe Republicans have no room to speak about hatred, not after years of constantly insulting and marginalizing liberals, after years of calling us all kinds of names and sowing resentment towards us in people’s hearts.
Do you understand how much resentment your folks have stored up in people’s heart because of this constant campaign of vitriol? If there is hatred on the left for the Right, It is what your people reap for what they have sown.
I think it was about the time the Republicans started calling us terrorist sympathizers that we really started to get angry and stay that way. There’s nothing that gets people who love their country any angrier than a person calling them traitors, and calling their honest dissent treason.
This president told half this country that they were appeasers to those they hated with equal vigor. How do you think people will react? How long could you stand the slander that you don’t believe in your country or wish for its safety?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 12, 2005 11:01 AMWoody
I don’t think so.
Republicans have had a terrible year. You are right. But Democrats have not had a good year. The good news for the Republican is that the bad news has not helped the Dems.
You remember 1994. It was a bad year for Dems. But is was also a good year for Republicans. This time it seems like people are just generally unhappy. They are not flocking to the Dems. One reason might be the Howard Dean hate lines.
During last year’s election, I wrote to Dems that hating Bush was not enough, because most people didn’t hate Bush as they did. Nobody listened. Dems lost. Dems have done a good job of destroying Bush’s vision, but they have not substituted their own.
I watched Warner and Kaine in VA. They are winners, but they would not be popular with moveon.org. In fact, even Bill Clinton would not be popular with the Dem activists if he wasn’t in the past.
Posted by: Jack at November 12, 2005 11:03 AMWhat a strange world we live in where the party of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbuagh, ALL the talk radio hosts, Pat Robinson, Bill O’reilly and God knows what else would start to complain about hate-mongering!!! What? We finally start to be effective by copying the GOP? The losses in Virginia worrying you? Sheesh!!! When Democrats start calling Republicans UnAmerican, Al Queda Supporters, THEN you can complain of the hate we spew. Maybe when Democrats start calling Christian Fundamentalists instruments of the devil, then we can be equal. Otherwise, I find this thread to be the ultimate irony.
BTW… Al Franken’s Book stated verifiable FACTS unlike the crap Ann Coulter spews.
Posted by: Aldous at November 12, 2005 11:14 AMJack,
You are repeating the Republican myth that Bush won because he took the high road and the Democrats took the low road. That is just wrong. Bush’s ads were mostly attack ads. The GOP convention was largely an attack convention. The Dems went out of their way to be positive at their convention. I am not going to waste time trying to change your mind, but I don’t think that any unbiased assessment would say that the Bush side was more positive.
Whether the Dems had a good year — most polls are encouraging. We’ll know for sure next year.
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 12, 2005 11:17 AMMedia echoed baseless claim that Dean is a fund-raising failure
RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie on Kerry and his Democratic supporters:
“We cannot allow presidential candidates or their surrogates to become mouthpieces for terrorists.”
He didn’t use the word “hate” so it must not be hateful, right?
Posted by: Adrienne at November 12, 2005 11:33 AMAldous
I live in Virginia. Democrats like Warner and Kaine don’t worry me. I welcome the moderation.
Woody
I didn’t say Bush won by taking the high road. The campaign was nasty all around (lke most campaigns). My contention is that the Dems thought that hatred of Bush would be sufficient to win. Remember when 7UP was the UNcola. They sold a lot of 7UP, but it never really posed a threat to Coke and Pepsi.
Adrienne
There is a difference between accusing people of doing things you don’t like and saying you hate them for what they are. I don’t know you. I expect that we disagree on most major political issues. I would feel free to dispute what you say and I might even slip into the occasional snide comment. BUT I actually enjoy your comments and certainly don’t hate you. I also don’t hate all you stand for. There are things that people like me, with my orientation, just can’t understand. Sometimes people like you have to force some things on us that we would not normally do. The same with you guys, BTW.
Some people will just never get it.
Hate and howling doesn’t get the big bucks. From January to September Dean and the DNC raised only about half of what the RNC earned.
And who do you think they raised this money from and how? A lot of it came from the religious right to forward their agenda of hate. And they raised it because they endorse hateful legislation.
Let me tell you all plainly, I don’t like Dean, probably because he doesn’t like me. In fact, he said that he hates people like me and all I stand for.
And let me tell you plainly, I don’t like most repubs, because most repubs don’t like me. The right’s culture of hate towards the GLBT community is astounding. The statements by Howard Dean about Repubs, dwarf in comparison. For some reason this topic needed a whole new post, so here is my previous post, it seems appropriate here as well:
Jack said in previous post:
Worse for you all that Dean is head of the DNC. Consider this, around 40% of American voters consistently support Republicans. Dean says he hates them and all they stand for. Dean says he hates me and all I stand for. Dean hates my wife and my 20 year old daughter. My 17 year old son can’t vote yet, but he says he supports the Republicans. Dean hates him too. My 14 year old son helped distribute Bush literature. I suppose Dean must hate him by association. No prominent Republican has said things like Dean.
If you don’t think that is an extreme position, you must also be a hater. I hope that hate has not become such an accepted part of the mainstream to hate more than 40% of the American people.
There is much more hate on the left than the right these days. Coulter and Rush are just entertainers. They don’t speak for me. If Dean and moveon.org speak for you you …
Jack,
These statements really struck a nerve with me, as Howard Dean’s comments did with you. If his comments really made you feel that way, then I’m glad he made them. Here’s why:
Now you know what it is like for every Gay and Lesbian American, when the right spews their hatred. When the President of the United States wants to alter one of the most sacred documents in America, to include hate and bigotry, to say that you are less of a citizen because you are gay. This is worse than anything Dean has ever said. The very document that guarantees our rights and that he took an oath to uphold.
Article. II. Section. 1.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
That word “preserve†is interesting. Writing hate and discrimination into the Constitution is not preserving what this document stands for. His very persuit of this amendment is unconstitutional and un-American.
You now know what it feels like to have the right tell you that your hopes and dreams of having a family and raising children don’t matter. When the right says they hate you for being gay, they hate our relationships and our partners for living openly and truthfully and they hate our children because they don’t fit into what the right’s idea of what a family should be.
How would you if you could go to any conservative website and see people who don’t have a clue dissecting and trashing your life with lies and misrepresentations? You can even look at their website’s source page to see that their hidden agenda is not what they profess on the surface. These people who profess to be only interested in your wellbeing are nothing but the Devil hiding behind God.
Up until today, the meta tag keywords for Focus on the Family’s website “Troubled With†were:
META NAME=”Keywords” CONTENT=”same-sex attraction,ex-gay,sexual partner,life partner,gay,lesbian,lover,butch,effeminiate,dyke,flamer,fag”
dyke, flamer, fag? These are hate words coming from the group that states on their home page:
We care about you. You’re not just a face in the crowd. You’ve found a safe place and someone you can trust.From their contact page:
“The approach and perspective offered here reflect the views of the organization and its founder, Dr. James Dobson.”So all you FOF followers: you are following a self-professed hate monger. Not very Jesus like.
This is a cached copy of the site. It was saved because just as suspected when FOF found out we knew about this blatant hatred, they changed the keywords.
Now they are:
META NAME=”Keywords” CONTENT=”homo,gay,lesbian,effeminate,GLISTEN,closet,son,daughter,coming out,experimentation,acting out,won’t play sports,tomboy,sissy,same-sex attraction,tolerance”
Homo, sissy? Not much better. Tolerance? What does FOF know about tolerance?
From http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2005/11/focus_on_the_me.html
">Good as You
They didn’t even feel that the word “homosexual” was key, yet dyke, flamer, and fag (not to mention “butch” and a misspelled “effeminate”) were? So much for the “compassionate message of transformation and truth” the FOFers claim to offer those “troubled with” a case of the gay.
These are the people that the Republican Party have sold their soul to. I also wouldn’t be too proud to be affiliated with a party that is trying to forward an agenda that the KKK endorses.
The Republican party has a history of a culture of hate that contiunues to this day. Nothing the Democratic party has done can compare.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 12, 2005 12:39 PMI think it was about the time the Republicans started calling us terrorist sympathizers that we really started to get angry and stay that way. There’s nothing that gets people who love their country any angrier than a person calling them traitors, and calling their honest dissent treason.
We not only were called terrorist sympathizers, I also saw comments from the right that aquated us with Adolf Hitler, with the Nazis and just this last week with the KKK.
Republican Gov. Mitt Romney was introduced as head of a state run by the “KKK … the Kerry, Kennedy Klan” before a speech Thursday in Washington, words that sparked criticism from Massachusetts Democrats and a rebuke from Romney himself.“It’s not appropriate to joke about the Ku Klux Klan,” Romney said in a phone interview from Washington after his luncheon address to the Federalist Society.
Romney branded the remarks “ill-advised” and “inappropriate.”
Romney laughed along with the audience, The Boston Globe reported in a story for Friday’s edition, and thanked the speaker for “a very generous introduction.”
The governor insisted he wasn’t really paying attention to the introduction.
“I was looking at my notes and preparing for my speech at the time,” Romney said.
State Democratic Party chairman Phil Johnston, who has criticized Romney for making Massachusetts the butt of jokes as a liberal bastion during his out-of-state travel as he considers a run for president, said he was outraged that Romney could find any humor in the remarks referring to Sens. Edward Kennedy and John Kerry invoking the KKK.
“It is embarrassing that Gov. Mitt Romney would laugh at any joke that disparages Catholics, African Americans, and Jews,” Johnston said. “This is just further evidence of the lengths this governor will go to ridicule the people of this state in order to advance his own political fortunes.”
It is ironic that the right would try to equate the left with the KKK, when during this very same week the right pushed through a same-sex marriage ban in Texas that was endorsed by the real KKK.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 12, 2005 12:53 PMThere is a difference between accusing people of doing things you don’t like and saying you hate them for what they are. I don�t know you. I expect that we disagree on most major political issues. I would feel free to dispute what you say and I might even slip into the occasional snide comment. BUT I actually enjoy your comments and certainly don’t hate you. I also don�t hate all you stand for. There are things that people like me, with my orientation, just can�t understand. Sometimes people like you have to force some things on us that we would not normally do. The same with you guys, BTW. Posted by: Jack at November 12, 2005 12:01 PM
Ditto, and right back at ya.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 12, 2005 01:01 PMIMHO,
Both parties are guilty of the same shameless behavior. I any of us acted the way the politicians act today, our parent would send us to our room. I am a life long republican and both parties seem to be clueless. Both parties are more about gaining a political foothold and have forgotten that they work for the US Citizenry, not republicans or democrats only. We are their bosses not the other way around. I am so tired of these so-called leaders acting like little children. If there are any parents on this blog, would you let your children act this way? If no, why do we tolerate that from our so-called leaders?
Jack,
Your original post captures my feelings on Dean very well. I don’t like him either. I believe his antics will be a net negative for the Democrats. I sure hope so. We will see.
Posted by: Seatown at November 12, 2005 01:19 PMThe Democrats hate Republicans, The Republicans hate Democrats. WHO THE HELL CARES?
Both parties have pulled the wool over the publics eyes so long that it cann’t see that there aint a dimes differents between the two.
Both are full of arrogant, greedy, politicans that don’t care if you live or die as long as they get their’s.
Neither party is intrested in addressing the real issues that are threating the welfare of this country.
While they have everyone fighting over who ‘cares more’, they BOTH are robbing the taxpayers blind.
We have a defict that’s out of control. The national debt is skyrocking. PACS are running and ruining this country because they OWN the politicians.
But here we sit worrying about who hates who.
It’s time to WAKE UP folks. Neither major party likes you.
The solution is simple:
VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE REGARDLESS OF PARTY!
JayJaySnowman
I guess I could call your recent post a snow job.
FOF does not use fag, dyke, butch, queer or any language which can be considered negative to the homosexual group. You ought to send an e-mail to Dr. Dobson and get it straight from the source. What you did should not be tolerated. FOF does show tolerance and you can prove that to yourself by reading their literature and not depending on outside sources and opinions.
Erik
I any of us acted the way the politicians act today, our parent would send us to our room.
That’s not quite true of mine. They’d have skinned me alive, boiled me in oil, tared and fethered me, and then they’d of really got serious.
Posted by: Ron Brown at November 12, 2005 02:07 PMI knew I was a conservative when, as a young man, Barry Goldwater first gave a name to my political philosophy. Republicans gradually rose from the depths of political oblivion to prominence on the backs of conservatives…..spouting Buckley and Goldwater to the house tops! Now I can see that the Republicans can not be counted on to be anything but pure politicians as they will not govern… much less govern in a manner consistent with the beliefs of those who elected them.
A staunch conservative has become to the Republican politician what members of black community have been to the Democrats for lo these many years….a footstool. In congress, Republicans always seem give a veto to the Liberals even before sending it to the President. ( The President: all talk and no veto) I’m sick of it!
I believe its time to form a Congresional Conservative Caucus for the purpose of fund raising, getting people we want elected and insist on conservative political activism.
Conservatives have always looked at advancing the political agenda as a loose confederation of like-minded individuals. Whereas, the Liberals have “franchised out” group causes and within their party each “group” has taken a blood oath with all the other groups to support each others group come hell or high water. In exchange, each Liberal group gets to nationally run the set of laws passed for its benefit by the Democrats at the expense of the rest of America.
We have to have one large Conservative group fighting a bunch of small Liberal ones. We also have to take a blood oath to one another to make it work…form a Conservative Congressional Caucus!
A Congressional Conservative Caucus could get its way because it can bring everything in Congress to a screeching halt in order to have its views taken to account.
Posted by: Dave Hagerman at November 12, 2005 02:19 PMSo if hate doesn’t sell why are Rush Limbaugh’s ratings so high? Why does Ann Coulter sell so many books? Both their primary wepons are hate and anger. Last year a few months before the election my brother ( a republican) and myself a proud libreal took a road trip across the country we would listen to rush every day and quite honestly it made me sick. The way he berated John Kerry was despicible. The way he mocked Kerry’s service to our country during Viet Nam. My brother told me he hated Kerry and Hated Micheal Moore. I told him that Micheal moore is to libreals as Rush is to consertatives. I don’t hate Rush but I dont like him.
Pundints on the left like Franken are effective and entertaining but they don’t preach hate and anger like rush does.
Just my 2 cents and a little off the topic
Posted by: Doctor Shopper at November 12, 2005 02:33 PMHere, we agree again, Jack. As I have said before, replacing the attack dog, McAuliffe with the attack dog, Howard Dean, does nothing to elevate confidence in the DNC or lend credibility to it.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 12, 2005 02:34 PMJayJay:
I don’t like homosexuality. I don’t know if people are born gay or not, though Sheryl Swoopes—a WNBA basketball star—just came out and said that it was a choice, as opposed to having been born that way.
I consider homosexuality in the same way that I consider promiscuity or adultery. In my opinion, they are all sexually based actions that I think are wrong.
I specifically do not hate, or even dislike, people solely based on these actions. I have many friends who have different lifestyles than I do, and I can find good in them. I don’t like homosexuality foisted on me any more than I like someone foisting their religion on me.
Most of the people that I know feel roughly the same way about these things. You might consider us to be “hateful” based on our thought processes, but you’d be wrong. A person certainly should have the freedom to speak clearly about what they believe, and what they consider right or wrong.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 12, 2005 02:42 PMI didn’t say Bush won by taking the high road. The campaign was nasty all around (lke most campaigns). My contention is that the Dems thought that hatred of Bush would be sufficient to win.
So we have established that the GOP was nasty. Reality is slowing creeping in…
Dave Hagerman
Check this out.
http://voidnow.org
I’m a conservitive myself. I left the Republicans in 1970 because they were going to liberial.
Conservatives have always looked at advancing the political agenda as a loose confederation of like-minded individuals. Whereas, the Liberals have “franchised out†group causes and within their party each “group†has taken a blood oath with all the other groups to support each others group come hell or high water. In exchange, each Liberal group gets to nationally run the set of laws passed for its benefit by the Democrats at the expense of the rest of America.We have to have one large Conservative group fighting a bunch of small Liberal ones.
For some reason a lot of Americans esp. Conservatives believe that the United States is a pure Democracy. It is not. It is actually a Constitution-based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition. In other words, the U.S. Constitution takes precedence over majority rule. The constitution clearly outlines the things that are up for public election, mainly our office holders, and those things that are not, mostly individual rights and liberties. This country wasn’t founded by and the constitution wasn’t written to protect the majority, but rather to protect the minority and those with ideals and beliefs outside the mainstream.
When the conservative right puts our individual rights and liberties up for a vote, such as in same-sex marriage, it is not only un-American it is also un constitutional.
“Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Mathew 22:21God gave us freewill. We must give those things concerning God and religion to God, not to the government. Our forefathers understood this well and went out of their way to protect individual liberty. Some say that our founding fathers never envisioned that our Constitution would allow some of the freedoms we have and continue to fight for. I disagree. The Constitution is written in such a way that those things that outline the role of government are very specific. Those things that outline individual rights are much vaguer. I believe they were written this way purposefully to protect the rights of those that they had not envisioned. In fact they even state in the bill of rights, Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.So when you state, “Whereas, the Liberals have “franchised out†group causes and within their party each “group†has taken a blood oath with all the other groups to support each others group come hell or high water.†This follows the Constitution much more closely than the agenda on the right. In fact I am sure that most conservatives would be happy to scrap most of the Constitution and rewrite it, which is exactly what they are trying to do with the same-sex marriage ban amendment.
As history has clearly shown there are dire consequences to not opposing tyranny.
In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I did not speak out- because I was not a Communist;Then they came for the Social Democrats, and I did not speak out- because I was not a Social Democrat;
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out- because I was not a Trade Unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out- because I was not Jewish;
Then they came for me,-
and there was no one left to speak out.-Rev. Martin Niemöller, speaking about his silence regarding injustices inflicted by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 12, 2005 03:59 PM
FOF does not use fag, dyke, butch, queer or any language which can be considered negative to the homosexual group.
What are you basing this statement on?
You ought to send an e-mail to Dr. Dobson and get it straight from the source.
I did go to the source. Literally. I visited FOF’s site “troubled with” and viewed the page source myself, before FOF changed it, and as I pointed out what they changed it to was not much better. And I will E-mail Dr Dobson, although I highly doubt he will tell the truth.
What you did should not be tolerated.
What? Telling the truth? Stating the facts?
FOF does show tolerance and you can prove that to yourself by reading their literature and not depending on outside sources and opinions.
I have read some of there literature. It’s all baloney. False and misrepresented. Believe me, as I stated above, I did check those outside sources for accuracy by viewing the page myself. The opinions expressed are all mine! But I will take your advice on depending on outside opinions and ignore everything you had to say here.
The only party that is about hate is the Republican Party. The dogma that is poured down our throat everyday with crap like ” your either with us or against” is based on pure hate. Republicans take for granted that the only people that actually put up with your crap is the political left of America. The fact is BILLIONS of people hate the Republican Party of America. I don’t think Republicans understand that it is only the left of this country that do not threaten the Republican Party with violence. You should appreciate the left and be greatful that we use reason rather than force to express ourselves. This whole country has been sold to other countries and to corporations and yet we try to win the debate of ideas rather than force, while you, the Republicans, chip away at our Constitutional Rights to make this country anything but free. You say we bring no solutions to the table, but that is because you do not listen to a single thing we say. Instead you rant and rave about HATE and MORE HATE.
You say your Christian but fundamentally misunderstand what Christianity is about which is love. Your HATE MONGERS and only provoke the sickest things of human nature out of people. To say the left is nothing but hate is just plain crazy.
Our message does not inspire violence, yours does (white phosphorous, bombing civilians, torture). Our message does not inspire hate, yours does (like this message-I’m disgusted with this article). Our message does not say your either with us or against us (Our President), yours does. Wake up—I’ve had enough of feeling anger towards people, apparently you haven’t. Sometimes I think Republicans think this crap is fun.
JayJay Snowman
You make a blanket statement that their statements are false and misleading. Give some examples of what you perceive.
Saying Dr. Dobson will not be truthful with you is the same as terrorists don’t kill.
Dr. Dobson has an great track record of being truthful and honest.
JayJay Snowman
I left out the first response. That of homesexual descriptions. FOF does not have that character to use those negative words in describing homosexuals. It is just not their way of doing so. If is ever used, it would be in response to someones inquiry using that kind of language.
I don’t like homosexuality foisted on me any more than I like someone foisting their religion on me.
Believe me, homosexuality is being foisted on you much, much less than heterosexuality is being foisted on me and other GLBT people. Do you feel that Blacks were foisted onto you by the civil rights movement? If your answer is yes, that turned out to be good thing, didn’t it? If you say no, then we need to start all over at the beginning with the whole hate issue, and I’m getting tired of typing.
I don’t know if people are born gay or not, though Sheryl Swoopes—a WNBA basketball star—just came out and said that it was a choice, as opposed to having been born that way.
Well, I can’t answer for anyone else, but I know I was born gay, and I don’t need science to tell me that. That fact is self-evident. And no I did not have a distant or absent father. I did not have an overbearing mother. I was never sexually, verbally or physically abused, and never had my heart stomped on by a women. I came from a large close-knit Christian family. My parents are still married and they never had a reason to contemplate divorce. Our family is as close as ever. I knew from a very early age that I was gay. How did I know? If you had to make out with another man, how would that make you feel? Probably the same way it would make me feel if I had to do the same with a female.
“Hate doesn’t sell?”
Pure and utter BS. Of course it does. If it doesn’t sell for Democrats, then maybe they’re not as good as peddling it as Republicans. Everyone claims to hate negative/hateful campaigns and wish only that politicians would take the high road. So why are political ads consistently negative? - Because they work. It’s bloody human nature is what is.
I remember reading an excellent post on Dave Pell’s blog that had a huge impact on the way I look at politics. It’s titled “Divided and Conquered”. Here’s a little bit of it:
Too often, voters don’t realize that the endless and wanton attacks are part of the game. And in this environment, we always come out the losers. Why? Because as long as we are determined to hate each other because of political affiliation, we can’t come together to fight for the things that are in our common interest (the very notion that we even have a common interest has been all but obliterated). And that’s just where the lobbyists want us.
It was a real eye-opener for a political newbie like me. Here’s a link to the rest of it.
Posted by: Nikita at November 12, 2005 05:00 PMDogma provides a good example of what I am talking about. Read the post slowly and tell me that you don’t see it.
JayJay
I believe in Gay marriage and I wrote a whole post about it in the conservative part of this blog. It is a family values things, as far as I am concerned. Look it up in the archives. But I will tell you that most Americans disagree with me and I wouldn’t count on liberal support when the going gets rough. Anti-gay marriage referendums get two-to-one support. There are not that many Republicans in the U.S. and there are not that many fundamentalists.
Hate is an overused term. You can do things I hate and it is not wrong for me to oppose you in those things. It is not hate to say that I don’t want to associate with people who do certain things. And there are some things we should hate. If you don’t hate terrorism, there is something wrong with your values. But we should not hate people. And we certainly should not hate people because they are a member of a group. Dean should not have said that he hates Republicans. He could have said that he hates (name the Republican policy),
Re: Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Michael Moore - I have never bought any of their books and treat what they say as entertainment or humor. Sometimes the humor is bad. Sometimes it just isn’t funny. I saw Al Franken on the daily show. The punch line of his joke is essentially that George Bush is stupid. I disagree that it is true, but true or not it is not a good punch line. It is sort of like, “why did the chicken cross the road - because he is stupid.”
Jack,
There is nothing hateful in my article. You just say there is. Why don’t you give an example.
There is disgust, I won’t deny that, but that is only because the Republican Party brought us into a war on lies and continuously destroy our Constitutional rights. Now there attempting to eliminate habeus corpus, once this happens I will believe we live in a dictorship. I personally feel must Republicans feel the way I do, but only now are starting to realize the amount of destruction the Republican Ideology has done to our great country. The sad thing is we still have three more years of this. I would like to ask everyone—where do you see our country in three years if nothing changes? Believe me I do not want to hate, I want to change what is happening.
Has anyone on the left ever said anything this hateful and stupid?
Posted by: Burt at November 12, 2005 05:27 PMDogma provides a good example of what I am talking about. Read the post slowly and tell me that you don’t see it.
That hostility breeds hostility?
It is not hate to say that I don’t want to associate with people who do certain things.
That’s fine, you don’t have to associate, that’s you right, but don’t restrict other’s rights either. Jack, if you are a conservative and believe that same-sex marriage should be legal, then you are in a minority much smaller than the GLBT community.
But I will tell you that most Americans disagree with me and I wouldn’t count on liberal support when the going gets rough.Anti-gay marriage referendums get two-to-one support.
That is a blanket statement. It really depends on your locality. Red states had tremendous support, no surprise there. Blue states however, passed the referendums, but by much smaller margins: Michigan 59% to 41%; Oregon 57% to 43%.
While not all of the opposition to this issue is from the right, I believe the bulk of it is, with part of the center leaning right. Although I can not prove it, I suspect that the smaller margin in votes in the two blue states can be contributed to liberal support, with more of the center going to the right on this issue.
Hate is alive and well in my country I hate and I will never stop hating all you sick rich whites
jews and third world scum that comes to my United States and destroy True Born Americans Lives.
With all that ‘True Born American’ hate you need a place to vent.
Have I got an organization for you. Now listen close.
Next time your in town look for a building that has a sign out front that says I Want You. Go inside and that you want to show everyone how ‘True Born American’ you are, and want to sign a paper that will tell everyone your ‘True Born American’. They’ll be glad to let you sign one. Then to show their appreciation for your signing it they’ll send you on a trip. You won’t need any money because they’ll pay your expenses for you. Why they’ll even give you money every mounth your on this trip so you can go to town and party with other ‘True Born Americans’.
Don’t that sound exciting?
Actually, Burt, I don’t find it hateful. It is aggressive and not pleasant. But let’s look at the outline.
The news is that San Francisco wants to ban military recruiting. This is a very silly thing to do. Don’t you find it puzzling that the authorities of San Franciso want to stop other San Francisans from enlisting to help defend their country . It in effect abdicates and opts out of protecting our country. O’Reilly says that if you don’t want to be part of the country’s defense, don’t expect the country to defend you. It is rhetoric, but it is based on behavior. If San Francisco opts out of U.S. defense, then O’Reilly says the U.S. should opt out of San Francisco. Presumably if San Francisco changes its ways and rejoins the common U.S. defense, the conditions would no longer hold.
It is a lot like when your kid says he doesn’t want to help with something and you say, “If you don’t want to be part of this family – fine. But don’t expect me to … “
Dogma
The example is the post. That is why I asked people to read it slowly. Just substitute Democrat for Republican and left for right and see how it sounds to you. Of course you think that it is true about the right. Just like you believe that Bush lied. Those that don’t agree with you (such as factcheck.org) see it differently.
Jack,
What O’Reilly said isn’t hate? You must be out of your damn mind. What he said is the epitemy of hate. He basically said the people of San Francisco deserve to die. That is crazy! To actually agree with what he said is to embrace hate.
As for my comment, if you want to believe I hate you and all Republicans go ahead. At least I’m not saying you deserve to die, or you don’t deserve the same rights that I have. I would feel extremely extreme if I felt that way or said those things.
Albert,
Your sick.
Ron,
I have had numerous discussions with you and tend to agree with everything you say, with that being said and with the utmost respect towards you, I feel that you and I have completely different definitions of liberalism. Meaning I feel I am right and you are wrong with what liberalism is. I may have a misunderstanding on the approach you take with liberalism. If you are saying liberalism is flawed based on the classical approach of Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville, I agree it is flawed. But if you mean modern liberalism, which, to my knowledge, hasn’t been tackled by any modern day thinkers is flawed I would disagree. If you do know of anyone who has attempted to define this, please let me know. But since I cannot find a definition of it, I will say it is based on economic utilitarianism with a social libertarian element to it. This is what I think of today as modern liberalism. I would also say this is expressed by the far left with whom my reasoning and heart is with. I would like to know how you define liberalism if you have the time and would enjoy carrying the discussion further.
Posted by: dogma at November 12, 2005 07:10 PMDogma
There is a big IF in O’Reilly’s agressive comment. IF the authorities of San Francisco refuse to allow their fellow citizens to sign up to defend their country, then their country will not defend them. It is rhetorical. It points out the absurdity of the San Francisco postion. I would not have said it. But he is giving an IF - Then syllogism. Do you disagree with the premise or the conclusion?
As I wrote, it is like saying to your kid, if you don’t help mow the lawn than I won’t help you with … It is rhetorical and strictly behviorally based.
If you want to see a more extreme version of the same sort of syllogism, just look at Aldous’ comments about the “Republican” war.
Or just read between the lines of what San Francisco is saying. They are saying that they don’t support the wars, so someone other than their sons and daughters should die in them. It is really the same as what O’Reilly is saying. Again, just change the terms and see if you still like the argument.
Posted by: Jack at November 12, 2005 07:27 PMJack,
Not trying to be difficult, but I only see one comment in this article by Alduous and it says nothing about the “Republican’s” war.
As for O’Reilly, I disagree with his premise as well as his conclusion.
First, San Francisco is not saying its citizens cannot join the war effort, only that recruiters cannot come to their high schools to recruit. Even if that were the case, what does it matter, it is an unjust war that has done far more damage than just bringing about an unreported amount of deaths. This war has legitamized totalitarian regimes around the world. Now instead of us being able to use political techniques to end these type of governments we are expected by the world to treat these countries like any other countries.
Second, killing a mass number of people should never be allowed. Isn’t O’Reilly saying we should allow this to happen if you are not with him. That rhetoric is repulsive.
Finally, his statements are based on hate. He has demonized San Francisco ever since I can remember. Why does he do this? Even if he does disagree with them politically, is it just to say they deserve to die? This can only come a passionate feeling of hate, there is no logic in his comment. This is the facism that the Republican party has fully embraced, and I do not want to end up like the Germans where I or my kids have to regret my history. Maybe you do.
I don’t see how San Francisco banning recruiters would stop someone that wants to enlist from doing it. All they have to do is go to one of the other Bay Area towns. Recuiters there will be more than happy to sign them up.
But if figures that San Fransisco wouldn’t want recuiters in their town. About the only town in California that’s more liberial and hates the Military worse than SF is Berkley.
Albert Garibay
Now that is hate!!
Do you love anybody, including yourself?
Burt
Has anybody on the left said hateful and stupid things over the top?
Try Ward Churchill
If that don’t fit come back for more
Dogma
Lies got us into the Iraq war?
Are these the lies you are talking about
“The Buch administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought.”—Ted Kennedy
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction”—Ted Kennedy
“We all know the Vice Presidents”s office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the was and discredit those who challenged it, ..The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq”—Harry Reid
“The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein’s near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for all of us”
“We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”—Carl Levin
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”—Bob Graham
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stockpile, His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa’ida members. it is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”—Hillary Clinton
Try Googling Al Gore, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, etc. for more.
Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: “We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Jack-
1)It’s not a ban on regular recruitment offices.
2)It only aims at colleges and high schools,
And (most importantly,
3)It’s got all the binding force of a soggy handkerchief. It urges them to not allow those things. Urges! A real law against recruitment would not urge, it would prohibit.
But again, that’s not sexy enough for the conservative media machine.
I don’t agree with it, but I think O’Reilly’s response is typical of many Republicans Pundits, unfortunately. Worse, he doesn’t apply his vitriol and malcontent to issues that matter, but just delivers your party’s talking points in full unadulterated glory. Hell, he has a segment called just that: Talking Points!
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 12, 2005 07:56 PMJack,
Don’t you find it puzzling that the authorities of San Franciso want to stop other San Francisans from enlisting to help defend their country . It in effect abdicates and opts out of protecting our country.
O’Reilly as usual twists the facts so that they’re no longer recognizable and comes to a ridiculous conclusion. If you actually read the ballot measure, it simply bans recruiting at public high schools and colleges. How is this ‘opting out’ of protecting our country? We’re talking banning recruiting here—not banning enlisting. The armed forces are, after all, volunteer at this time, right? This inititive doesn’t stop anyone who wants to join from actually walking in and signing up. It also doesn’t stop the armed forces from recruiting elsewhere in the city—just not in public schools.
After all the abuse stories I’ve heard about recruiters over the last couple years, I’m not surprised such an initiative would pass.
Oh, and I definitely view O’Reilly remarks as being hateful. In fact, very little seems to come out of O’Reilly’s mouth that isn’t hateful.
Posted by: Charles Wager at November 12, 2005 07:58 PMTom,
What can I say? I know and it sucks, but this is a two party system. I would love to vote for another party rather than the ruling elite, but until one of the two parties are eliminated from our political system I will vote Democrat. The Republican party is just flat out extreme.
Ron,
You don’t know what the hell liberalism is, do ya?
Dogma
My point is that you are claiming we are at war because of lies from the present administration, and yet there were many who touted the line that is now a lie. How does that work?
Tomh-
Explain this, then:
The administration’s overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.
and
In the same speech, Bush asserted that “more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.” Giving a preview of Bush’s speech, Hadley had said that “we all looked at the same intelligence.”But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President’s Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community’s views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.
In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.
The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary.
Now, I can admit that many Democrats failed to do their duty I don’t mind doing that, because I want each and every one of them not to make that mistake again in my lifetime.
But what’s most shameful here is we have a president lying about how much intelligence our legislators saw. He’s saying they had access to the same intelligence as he did, but as the quotes above show, they didn’t, at least not if you’re using facts to determine that opinion.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 12, 2005 08:14 PMTom,
The people you mention I truly feel represent the exact same thing the Republicans represent. Many say that everyone thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Well not everyone did. NONE of the weapon inspectors said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The Niger documents came from Chalabi who seems as corrupt as Hussein. A large number of our representative are either incompetent or sick in the head. I personally believe the Democrats are incompetent while the Republicans are sick in the head.
Posted by: dogma at November 12, 2005 08:17 PMUnfortunately, hate sells very well. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Pat Robertson, Karl Rove, Lee Atwater and countless others have made very good livings by villifying liberals. If hate DIDN’T sell, these people would be out of office and out of work.
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 12, 2005 08:22 PMYou make a blanket statement that their statements are false and misleading. Give some examples of what you perceive.tomh, I was going to go through the site and give you specific examples. However, after going through the first 4 pages, I decided that the misinformation and deception here was so great, I couldn’t continue. So I guess the answer to this question is just pick something, anything. This is truly a case where the blanket covers the whole bed. I guess the point of this site is to 1) supply ammunition to gay rights opponents 2) this is hiding under the guise of supposedly healing gays straight. A practice with a very low success rate.
Exodus International (1978): The ministry selected 30 of their 800 members as having changed from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual in orientation. Two outside psychiatrists interviewed the 30 and found that only three were actually heterosexual. Two of the male founders of Exodus fell in love and were united in a union ceremony. They claimed that the Exodus program was “ineffective…not one person was healed.” The conversion rate, based on the study is 3 in 800, on the order of 0.4%
Masters and Johnson (1979): An impressive conversion rate of 50 to 60%. Until you find out only five of the 67 participants (7%) began the study with a homosexual orientation. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study due to faulty scientific technique.
Schroeder & Shidlo (in progress): They reported a conversion rate of 0%, so far.
OCRT pilot study (2000): The conversion rate of the Christian ministries sampled was 0%.
Exodus International (2000): Thousands of men and women have stopped homosexual behavior. That is, they have decided to become celibate. These are now “in the process of seeking deeper change in their sexual feelings and attractions.” No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study due to insufficient data.
Spitzer (2000): conversion rate of 0.04%
Conversion therapy has a failure rate in excess of 99.5%
If homosexuality were a changeable choice as FOF claims, shouldn’t the number of successes be much higher?
Saying Dr. Dobson will not be truthful with you is the same as terrorists don’t kill.
That’s why I didn’t say that. I said it was highly doubtful.
Dr. Dobson has an great track record of being truthful and honest.
Well, hopefully he is more honest than his website.
I left out the first response. That of homesexual descriptions. FOF does not have that character to use those negative words in describing homosexuals. It is just not their way of doing so. If is ever used, it would be in response to someones inquiry using that kind of language
Talk about a snow job!
Dogma,
I don’t think anyone can define modern liberialism as I don’t think it’s definable.
Liberialism is seen in the fisical irresponsibilty that has been out of control for as long as I can remember. It’s in the excesive (and contradictory) government regulations that comes from every unconstutional agency in government. It’s in the idea that if someone makes money they should have it confiscated through taxes and then given to those that won’t try to improve themselves. It’s in telling people that they’re to stupid to take care of themselves and cann’t get ahead unless the government helps them. It’s in the failed social programs that are designed to get and keep people depended on government.
These are just a few of the things that i define as liberialism. Both major parties are guilty of all of these things.
Why should they ban recruiting on HS or college campuses? Do they can other recruiters from other organizations? No matter how you spin this, it is definitely a retrograde thing to do. It is our country. San Francisco is part of our country. It is a volunteer military. Surely the authorities in San Francisco believe in choice. They would not want to cause anyone undue hardship by making people go to different jurisdictions to exercise their right of choice.
Dogma
We live in a democratic country. The military defends that country. You have a right to protest and vote as you wish. You have the right to not support the wars you don’t like and others have the right to criticize you. You and the authorities of San Francisco don’t have the right to prevent the legal activities of the United States. If you and they try other Americans do have the right question their motives. It is unpatriotic to prevent people from joining the U.S. military, or set up barriers you don’t do to ordinary employers. Do your seriously want to argue that it isn’t? I don’t think it hateful to point that out. If you think it is hateful, then I qualify in your eyes and have confirmed my worst fears about you. I still don’t apply this to all liberals, since I know that most liberals are patriotic and love their country.
Jack,
San Francisco still can have offices to recruit. All the voters are saying is there is a time and place to do such things and school is not one of them. They are not preventing anyone to join the military. As usual, Bill O’Reilly’s statement is so full of hate that it is guarded with a pack of lies. All I’m asking is to see through that bullshit.
Ron,
I do believe that the last person to balance the budget was your favorite president, Bill Clinton.
Your right to say that modern liberalism believes in regulation. But I ask you this, is it right for people to not be able to afford the basic neccesities of life while oil companies, insurance companies and such make mind twisting profits? I’m so broke along with many others that it is hard for others to grasp the hole many poverty stricken people are in. Something has to be done to stop this madness. Regulation is the obvious and only solution.
You obviously believe in small government but I believe modern liberalism offers this. It seems to me the intrusion the government places in our private as well as public lives is excessive. Modern liberalism seems to eliminate the Big Brother element of government.
As for people thinking they are to dumb to accomplish anything because they face some barrier in their life, this cannot be further from the truth. It is human nature to want to succeed and I find it sad that you think certain people don’t want to make anything of themselves because they were born into a certain society. Everyone wants to be successful, it’s just that some have given up.
And I would say that the voters that allow all manner of firms, NGOs and schools to recruit on campus, but won’t allow the military need to ask themselves who protects their freedom.
It is hateful to single out the military.
Posted by: Jack at November 12, 2005 08:59 PMJack,
It is obvious that Bill O’Reilly is your hero. How the hell is it hateful not to allow recruiters into your schools? What are you talking about? I would say let me try that shit your smoking, but on second thought, I rather not.
Posted by: dogma at November 12, 2005 09:04 PMYou find 59 to 41% encouraging?
I do find it encouraging that those numbers were from a year ago, when no gay or lesbian initiative on the ballot had any chance of passing. Fast forward to election 2005 and on the third try, Maine voters uphold the GLBT civil rights bill.
I find it encouraging that most of the cases that go in front of a judge are won by the GLBT side.
I definitely find it encouraging that the Massachusetts amendment died because it lost support on the right, after living with same-sex marriage for a year and it didn’t cause the world to end.
I am encouraged that this debate is happening at all. I have always said we will win GLBT rights, but our fight will be won for us, by the opposition. As extremist on the right get more hateful and more ridiculous in their claims, centrists will see them for what they are and common sense will prevail.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 12, 2005 09:12 PMJack,
Re-read what Stephen wrote. The prop in San Francisco does not ban military recruiting. It is aimed specifically at public schools. And even then, it doesn’t ban recruiting in public schools, it simply states that the city is “opposed” to it. It is a purely symbolic gesture. For this we should be encouraging Al Qaeda to blow up the city?
Jack, I think you are a good guy. I wish you would take a second look at this and re-evaluate your opinion. It’s an absolutely despicable statement, and O’Reilly would get canned from virtually any other network for saying it.
O’Reilly didn’t even just say that we should withhold defense funding for San Francisco (although that was part of his statement). He wanted to actively encourage Al Qaeda to bomb the city. If this doesn’t fall into the “hateful” category for you, I would be afraid to see what did.
Posted by: Burt at November 12, 2005 09:13 PMDogma
While Clinton did manage to balance the budget he had the help of a Republican Congress. Even then given BOTH patries love for spending I’m suprised that it happened. I reckon that it was one very small period for rationalality that caused it.
I beieve some regulation is necessary but the problem is politicians are so power hungry that they don’t know how to limit regulation.
I don’t believe that either party is for small government and the more liberial the politician the bigger they want government.
I didn’t say that people themmselves think they are to stupid to make it. The government tells people that they are to stupid to be sucessful. Some believe these lies. Some don’t. The ones that do are the ones that get on the programs that are designed to keep them down. This has nothing to do with where they were born. I know one person that was born into a fairly well to do family that’s fallen for these lies and is on welfare.
I believe that anyone who wants to bad enough can make it. Maybe they won’t become a millionaire but they can live without the governments help.
joebagodonuts said:
I consider homosexuality in the same way that I consider promiscuity or adultery. In my opinion, they are all sexually based actions that I think are wrong.
It is very sad that you see a whole group of people as nothing more than “sexually based actions”. Heterosexuality is a “sexually based action”. Do you think it is wrong too? No because you see heterosexuality as something more than sex. You see it as companionship, family, financial stabilty, social acceptance, etc. These are the same things we want. I think you are being more than a little hypocritical. It’s past time people open their eyes and look at people beyond sex.
tomh,
Churchill is not in the same league. First of all, his statement was that some people in the Twin Towers were responsible for the conditions that prompted the attack. He did not actively encourage terrorists to bomb additional similar targets.
Also, Churchill is not a spokesperson of the left. Just an obscure individual whose opinions drew a lot of fire (justifiably in my opinion). O’Reilly is a very public and popular spokesperson for the right. He has a much wider sphere of influence, and as a result, holds more responsibility for what he says.
Also, in the quotes you presented, I had already posted a link to context that does not support your view. Check it out again.
Does it really matter if one person from either party says something hateful? Forgetta Bout it. What is significant is when a majority of that party propagates a hateful message.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 12, 2005 10:06 PMJack,
You say hate doesn’t pay. But consider this:
Election 2004: A deeply divided nation goes to the polls to elect their President. Both parties are in a tight race. 11 same-sex amendments make their way onto the Presidential ballots. Repub Bush is re-elected.
Election 2005: Off-off election year, Texas, a Republican stronghold, (no worries for 2006) is the only state to have same-sex marriage on the ballot. Repubs lose in blue NJ,(no big deal) and red VA, after Repub Bush visits. (oops!)
Election 2006: Major election for control of congress. Repubs start year at record low approval ratings. And guess what? 10-12 states will have same-sex marriage amendments on the ballot.
Coincidence? I don’t think so. Do you think the Repubs could win without exploiting the GLBT community? I guess we will find out if hatred does pay in November, 2006.
Correction:
You say hate doesn’t sell. But consider this:…
….I guess we will find out if hatred does sell in November, 2006.
Jay Jay:
I agree with your premise that hate sells. I would differ on your analogy. I think the Gay community overreached. Shoot me, but I am oposed to gay marriage for several reasons unimportant at this point. I am however for increasing rights to the gay lesbian community. I prefer civil unions. If I would vote agains gay marriage, but would vote for granting civil unions am a hate filled? I don’t think I am.
My son has a friend who came out as gay. (In my son’s words “like that was a big shock”). His parents where hatefilled as they disowned him. I told my son his roommate was welcome in our home anytime. He told me he had already told his friend that. I said “son, I am so glad you know that.”
I do believe hate sells. I see way too much hate in politics. It is hurting our country so much. I will freely admit that it is in both parties, and needs to be dealt with. We are wrong as Americans when we compromise statesmanship in the quest for power, just because we can.
As a Republican I served on a School Board. Education is chuck full of democrats. It was never personal or a problem. The head of the teachers union is a good friend.
Since hate works to win an election I think we are going to see more and more of it. God help us all.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 13, 2005 12:08 AMMy,my,my,
it would be tempting to say that there are alot
of hateful posts in this thread, especially from
those on the left like like Dogma & Jay Jay S.,
but why can’t we agree that these are simply
heartfelt disagreements. Just because one side or
the other can’t agree on certain issues doesn’t
mean that we “HATE” each other…does it?
If it does, then we’ve either got alot of growing
up to do as a country or we’ll continue to
descend into a name calling form of hell that we
may not be able to crawl back out of. There is
alot of anger eminating from many of the posts
here. Again, especially from the 2 previously
mentioned gentlemen on the left. But anger doesn’t
always mean or result in “hate”. We can’t allow
our emotions to overrule our reason, logic and
common sense ( as I believe many on the left
tend to do ). I’m not saying that we should
disregard our emotions either. There should be
somewhat of a balance between the two. But to
allow emotions to rule, lowers us to the level of
intelligence of animals, or at the very least the
type of societies that tend to exist in less
civilized 3rd world countries.
And if you’re going to “assign” certain emotions
to certain groups or individuals, then assign the
lesser emotions like anger. To assign or assume
that someone/group is “hateful”, is not only
intellectually dishonest, it’s a dogmatic attempt
at trying to morally weaken your philisophical
opponent and is the last ditch effort of an overly
emotional debater with a weak argument.
I hate to bring up the slippery slope argument.
But Jay Jay Snowman dogmatically ( if not
emotionally ) stated that he “knows” he was “born”
gay. First of all, is that a scientifically proven
fact…or is that just something you truly FEEL?
My oldest brother lived as a fully involved “gay”
man for well over a decade, but has now been out
of that lifestyle choice for over a decade. I
guess he’s one of that tiny successful minority
you cited earlier JJS. Like any behavioral
anomaly or bad habit, if you TRULY WANT to change,
then you truly CAN.
But back to the slippery slope/incrementalism
argument. Nobody out there can tell me that once
we begin to believe/accept/tolerate one “deviant”
lifestyle, that others won’t be far behind.
Sexual promiscuity of every kind outside of
marriage and divorce have become part of the “norm” of our culture. Now homosexuality? How
long will it be before people are arguing for
“equality” for people who are pedophiles or those
who like incest? After all, how can people who
do such loathesome things do those things by
choice? Surely they must have been “born that way”
…right?
And if you don’t believe that there are ALREADY
child molesters making that argument out there,
then you haven’t seen some of the dark, sick and
evil places on the internet that are relatively
easy to find. I hope that didn’t come across as
too “hateful”.
Jack, I don’t hate you. And a smart guy like you should already know that I don’t. Jeeze!
While I’m the first to admit that I’m very passionate in my beliefs, I don’t tend to hate anyone, unless those people themselves prove time and again that they are haters. And in general, I don’t have to, or care to, get to know those who are racists, xenophobes, misogynists, or those who hate and disparage gay people to know that they are haters.
Indeed, more than anything in this world, I loathe being in the company of people who poison the very air with lethal, joy-sucking hatred and negativity. Those whose only brand of humor is of the vicious, malicious and evil variety are no fun at all. Because all they are displaying is a stupid, tiny minds devoid of depth, and cold, unfeeling hearts devoid of love, gladness, sympathy, empathy, kindness, charity, pity, and mercy.
Unfortunately, this often applies to those who use the word Liberal like it’s a dirty word and treat Liberals like they are some kind of blot on America. And personally, I think it is these kind of people that Howard Dean was talking about when he made his comments. People like Rove, and Limbaugh, and Coulter, and Hannity and O’Reilly. They’re haters. They wish that all of us Liberals were dead.
I think there are several people in this blog who are like that too, and I usually try my best to avoid replying to them. The truth is, people like that never add much to our national conversation, or to any kind of policy debates. They’re usually too busy trying to tear a strip off of someone to present an idea logically, anyway.
Now, to return to one of the topics to your post…
Earlier this year I’d been hearing stories in the newspapers and online that Dean wasn’t doing so well in fundraising, but all of those reports were in fact, lies. (And let’s just clear up one thing right here and now: I realize that Democrats have never raised as much money as the Republicans do — that’s because we’re the party of the Middle Class and the Poor, not the party of the Rich and the Corporately Inclined.) Anyway, I knew for a fact that Dean had been doing a really fantastic job with DNC fundraising for the first six months of this year.
When I read your post, I thought it was probably more lies that had been put out by the Right, but I just took the time to take a look, and you’re right, Dean’s fundraising has fallen off — but for a very fine and very good reason: Hurricane Katrina.
Dean suspended all DNC fundraising and redirected all donations that came in to the victims of the hurricane.
This is the email that Dean sent out to his supporters immediately after the Hurricane:
The federal response over these crucial first days has been totally unacceptable. There will be a time for a full accounting of the preventable part of this disaster, and those responsible will be held accountable. It will be soon.But there are lives to save right now and our focus must be steady. People need help right now. And you can be a direct participant in the relief efforts by providing housing for a victim of the disaster.
The vast number of evacuees has triggered a cascading crisis — the first group of evacuation centers in the Gulf States has been overwhelmed, and the surrounding states have seen their capacity exceeded as well.
Hundreds of thousands of survivors are being transported in small groups to cities and towns across the country. A coalition of groups has put together a web site to collect offers of housing and provide a place for victims to search for help. You can offer shelter — whether for a few days or a few weeks — by signing up here:
http://redir.democrats.org/rdr/0034j036eu0001D
To support your volunteer housing operation the following steps have been taken:
* We are briefing Democratic elected officials on the HurricaneHousing.org program and asking that they treat this as the front-line network of volunteers who are ready and waiting to provide shelter in their jurisdiction.
* We have asked outside organizations to direct their members to HurricaneHousing.org to volunteer; those organizations with representatives on the ground have been asked to help victims connect with the housing bank.
* We have directed the staff at Democratic Headquarters in Washington to use local volunteers signed up on HurricaneHousing.org as they work with DC emergency response officials to assist hundreds of survivors being transported to the DC Armory, which is located nearby.
In addition to mobilizing our infrastructure to support the housing drive, we have also taken the following steps in the last week:
* All DNC fundraising events have been cancelled until further notice and donations are being directed to relief organizations.
* The DNC Fall Meeting that had been scheduled to take place this week has been postponed.
* All staff have been given leave to participate in relief operations (many are completing Red Cross training this week and will deploy shortly).
* The Democratic leadership in Congress has proposed a comprehensive policy package to ensure that victims receive health care, financial assistance and educational and employment opportunities during the crisis (go to www.democrats.org/reliefplan for more).
But more than anything our organization has done, the thousands of acts of compassion by ordinary citizens and a renewed sense of common purpose will be the legacy of this effort.
Our American community will emerge stronger from this crisis.
Thank you for doing what you can.
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
P.S. — A number of organizations on the ground still need financial support. You can learn about them here:
IMO, in this letter, Howard Dean is showing a great deal about what kind of a man he is personally, and in a larger sense, a lot about what kind of people Liberals generally are.
I wonder if the RNC did the same thing with their fundraising schedule, or their donations due to the victims of Katrina?
Indeed, more than anything in this world, I loathe being in the company of people who poison the very air with lethal, joy-sucking hatred and negativity. Those whose only brand of humor is of the vicious, malicious and evil variety are no fun at all. Because all they are displaying is a stupid, tiny minds devoid of depth, and cold, unfeeling hearts devoid of love, gladness, sympathy, empathy, kindness, charity, pity, and mercy.
Adrienne, does this mean our lunch date for next week is off?
Posted by: Burt at November 13, 2005 04:47 AMDale G,
I am sorry that you feel that I am a hateful liberal. I certainly didn’t mean to come across that way. I simply am stating the facts as I know them, and defending my position. There is so much misinformation out there, esp. in politics and homophobia. If someone tells me that I have the facts wrong, then I will do more research, and if I am wrong I will admit it, If not, I feel I have a responsibility to present what I find, and hopefully that will prompt others to do a little research of their own. And hopefully through constructive debate we can arrive at the truth. Something our leaders on the left and right need to learn.
Just because one side or the other can’t agree on certain issues doesn’t mean that we “HATE” each other…does it?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t recall saying that I hated anybody. I was simply pointing out the “real or percieved” hatred some have towards the GLBT community. If I said I hated anybody, then I apologize.
here is alot of anger eminating from many of the posts here. Again, especially from the 2 previously mentioned gentlemen on the left.
Not anger, passion. If more on the left were more passionate about what they believed in, there wouldn’t be this perception that the left has no ideas.
I hope you will not think me hateful but I find some problems with your slippery slope theory.
While marriage serves many purposes religiously it is also a legal contract.
1) Therefore the first test would be the ability to consent to the relationship:
Heterosexuals: Yes
Homosexuals: Yes
Pedophilia: No, Minors cannot consent to such a relationship.
Bestiality: No, animals cannot consent to such a relationship.
Incest: As long as both parties are of age, Yes
Polygamy: Yes
2) In order to enter into a contract you must be of sound mind.
Heterosexuals: Yes
Homosexuals: Yes, in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association officially no longer considered homosexuality a mental illness.
Pedophilia: No, Pedophilia is one of a group of psychological disorders called paraphilias, which are disorders of sexual attraction and include such deviant behaviors as exhibitionism, voyeurism, sexual masochism and sexual sadism. Even if it wasn’t considered a mental illness #1 still applies.
Bestiality: No, the APA lists zoophilia or bestiality in the classification “paraphilias not otherwise specified”. Again even if it was not considered a mental illness #1 still applies.
Incest: Yes, you got me here. Apparently as long as both parties are of age incest is not considered a mental illness.
Polygamy: Yes, this is not considered a mental illness.
3) The relationship would have to be legal
Heterosexuality: Yes
Homosexuality: Yes, sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003, making homosexual relationships legal.
Pedophilia: No, pedophilia is a violent destructive crime.
Bestiality: No, Just over half of U.S. states explicitly outlaw sex with animals and the rest are covered under animal cruelty statutes.
Incest: No, incest is a crime.
Polygamy: No, the United States criminalize the polygamous lifestyle; these laws originated as anti-Mormon legislation, although they are rarely enforced.
4) Is there precedence for marriage equality?
Heterosexuality: Yes
Homosexuality: Yes, 4 countries and Massachusetts grant full marriage equality. 16 countries grant civil unions or similar, as well as 4 U.S. states. Only two countries, Honduras & Uganda outright ban same sex unions as well as 18 U.S. states.
Pedophilia: No
Bestiality: No
Incest: No, considered a criminal offense, in most societies.
Polygamy: Yes, of 1231 societies, from 1960-1980, 186 societies were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.
Out of these 4 tests:
Heterosexuality: passed 4 failed 0
Homosexuality: passed 4 failed 0
Pedophilia: passed 0 failed 4
Bestiality: passed 0 failed 4
Incest: passed 2 failed 2
Polygamy: passed 3 failed 1
Of course these things are not an all inclusive list of tests that could be applied. I felt these were the most important. If you can think of others let me know. As you can see the chances of pedophilia and bestiality marriages are nil. The only other group that even has an argument are polygamist.
Like any behavioral anomaly or bad habit, if you TRULY WANT to change, then you truly CAN.
I have never thought of my homosexuality as a behavioral anomaly or bad habit, but rather just one part of many of who I am.
As I said in a previous post I cannot speak for anyone else. But my sexual orientation was set at birth. If you need scientific evidence to that effect then that’s your problem. (that wasn’t too hateful was it?) I can force myself to live my life as a heterosexual but that won’t make me any less gay. This is who God made me, and while the modern interpretation of the bible my say I am committing sin, aren’t I also committing sin if I live my life as a lie? If I decided to live the lie, I cannot know myself, so how could I expect God to know me? I have made peace with God, and my homosexuality has brought me closer to him, because I didn’t listen to the dogma, but rather sought the truth.
Jesus said, “Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. -The Gospel of ThomasPosted by: JayJay Snowman at November 13, 2005 05:30 AM
Dale G.:
Cute. How about the pedophiles who only molest little girls? You do know little girls are far more likely to be raped than little boys, right? I suppose you intend to ban heterosexual males like yourself too!!!
Posted by: Aldous at November 13, 2005 05:39 AMJayJaySnowman: I love you man!!!
It would be a glorious day when people focused on their own families rather than how someone down the street chooses to live their life.
I’ve always been confused by the Republican mantra of “less government” when alot of what they do is create laws to invade the private lives of others.
I would like, just once, for someone to come up with a sane reason why two people of the same sex who love eachother cannot enjoy equal rights with the rest of America. How does this threaten the institution of marriage?
Posted by: MyPetGoat at November 13, 2005 06:02 AMjayjay: I didn’t mean it like that, lol. :-)
Posted by: MyPetGoat at November 13, 2005 06:06 AMI would like, just once, for someone to come up with a sane reason why two people of the same sex who love eachother cannot enjoy equal rights with the rest of America. How does this threaten the institution of marriage?
It doesn’t. But you have to consider that the people who think it does are also the ones who believe Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church.
Posted by: Taylor at November 13, 2005 10:39 AMI hate to bring up the slippery slope argument. But Jay Jay Snowman dogmatically ( if not emotionally ) stated that he “knows†he was “born†gay. First of all, is that a scientifically proven fact…or is that just something you truly FEEL? ….Like any behavioral
anomaly or bad habit, if you TRULY WANT to change,
then you truly CAN.
Dale G,
Like the others that attempt the slippery slope argument, you’re making a weak argument. There’s already significant studies done into the physiological (not psychological) aspects of human sexuality and sexual response. There is a distinction between heterosexuality/homosexuality and conditions such as pedophelia. People like yourself enjoy lumping anything you see as deviant (i.e. something *you yourself* dont practice) together and then try to build an argument. That argument, however, is only successful in an audience of like minded people and in the complete absence of any of the numerous scientific studies out there.
The thing that blows my mind more than the feeble argument is — why you even care what others do in their bedroom? Do Americans have so little to do and such boring sex lives that we have to snoop, investigate, and legislate what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes?
Posted by: Taylor at November 13, 2005 10:52 AMMyPetGoat
I would like, just once, for someone to come up with a sane reason why two people of the same sex who love eachother cannot enjoy equal rights with the rest of America. How does this threaten the institution of marriage?
Equal rights is great. Marriage no. This is just my opinion. If we grant gay marriage, then morally I have no basis to deny polygamist marriage. If we grant polygamist marriage then I have no moral basis not to grant communal marriage. If we have communal marriage then in theory we can all get married which means there is no marriage.
I believe in civil unions because as society we can use this new institution as a “switz army knife” to grant certains rights to certain partnerships. Many do not even need to be romantic. For instance, what about a brother and sister who “never left the farm” but have lived together for their entire life. Sex between them might be unthinkable. What if one has health insurance and the other does not? They cannot get a marriage licence and would rather die than get one. With a “civil union” concept certain rights can be granted to their partnership with dignity.
Because of the vast compexity and diversity of adult relationships in our society we need civil unions as an institution regardless of who wins the gay marriage debate. For instance, there is an assumption here that romantic relationships where adults have sex is what we should look at. There are far more types of relationships between adults than that!!
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 13, 2005 10:56 AMJust saw Howard Dean on Meet the Press.
He talked about change. Tim Russert asked him what that change might be. Howard spoke generally. Tim caught him. Howard said that since Dems didn’t control congress or the Presidency, they didn’t have to be specific. Tim caught him again.
That is the Dem problem in a nutshell. In 1994, when the Republicans were in a similar postition, they came up with some real specifics.
The Dem policy is “trust us. We will do better.” It is more or less what Kerry ran on. Next year at this time, Dems will again be crying in their beer and figuring out ways to claim the Republicans cheated them.
The real reason Dems can’t take advantage of Republican weakness is that they got nothing to replace it, or what they are selling nobody wants to buy.
Howard has the demolition part of the contracting down cold. He just has no plans for building a new house.
Posted by: Jack at November 13, 2005 11:31 AMJack,
I think you’re going to have to learn to live with the “hatred of the left” if you’re going to continue to spin your right wing view of the world.
You can argue about election results, middle america, and campaign donations till the cows come home, but it’s certain that, 50+ million lazy americans got off thier sofas in 2004 and went to the polls because they dont like Bush and voted for Kerry, whom many argue was a weak candidate.
Of those 50+ million, many feel very threatened and offended by the right wing and would have voted for Mickey Mouse instead of Bush. Bush is the first president who’s had his limo egged on the way to his inauguration. What does that tell you?
The agenda coming from the right wing is such a radical and dangerous agenda, that many feel their identities, rights, freedoms and livelihoods are in jeopardy. That, my friend, is the stuff that fuels civil wars. And the right wing did it, not the left. Every day the right makes more enemies on our soil, out of our own citizens, than any terrorist group has accomplished.
The GLBT community in particular, have good reason to hate the right. Look at the message they are getting from the right. You can candy coat it any way you like, but the heart of the message is — “You have no right to exist with us.” And that’s the message that millions in the GLBT have witnessed. The saddest part about it is that millions of Americans are being used as a political diversion from the REAL issues affecting our nation.
Posted by: Taylor at November 13, 2005 12:01 PMI believe in civil unions because as society we can use this new institution as a “switz army knife†to grant certains rights to certain partnerships.
Craig, I think that’s a wonderful idea, if… and ONLY IF, such unions included every one of the over 1000 rights are included. Otherwise, it’s just another “separate but equal” situation, which just doesn’t work. The reason I’ve seen for the push on the term “marriage” is because thus far, no civil union arrangement has carried the full gambit of rights that marriage offers.
I think it would be good if our government got their noses out of marriage alltogether, but it’s too late to start strip mining what we’re already offering to heterosexual couples today.
Posted by: Taylor at November 13, 2005 12:09 PMAnd if you don’t believe that there are ALREADY child molesters making that argument out there, then you haven’t seen some of the dark, sick and evil places on the internet that are relatively easy to find.
Dale G.,
This statement strikes me as odd and it’s been nagging at me. No, I haven’t seen the dark, sick and evil places on the internet(other than Fred Phelps merry band of hate monger’s site, that is). Nor have I tried to find them. My question is…why have you?
JayJaySnowman: I love you man!!…How does this threaten the institution of marriage?
MyPetGoat,
Thanks man, I love you too. (Ditto on the disclaimer) I think you are the first person to use the L word on this thread about hate.
Apparently, what I’ve heard from the home office, is that the agenda after we get equality and rise to power, we are going to push for an amendment that states “all males over the age of 18 must grow and maintain mustaches.” Then we are going to go door to door and hand out hot pants and short shorts (sing along: we love short shorts!). Then we are going to change the National Anthem to “It’s raining men”. And don’t forget the schools. We will drastically change the curriculum. Social Studies will be changed to gay culture and looking “FABULOUS 101” will be offered. It won’t be long before the whole country goes gay and then we will rule the world!
Actually, I have no idea.
grant certain rights to certain partnerships.
Craig,
I respect your opinion and fears. However, certain rights are not equal rights. Regarding the slippery slope theory again. I think the solution is simple. Let’s go ahead and amend the constitution, but not in a discriminatory way. Make a marriage amendment that states: “A marriage shall constitute a union of two non-blood related consenting adults, exclusive of all others.” Now is that so bad? I have never heard a slippery slop theorist suggest this, which is odd. Would you support such an amendment? If not then you are only telling half the story.
Regarding your example of siblings living together in a non sexual relationship, maybe we need to look at the tax code to remedy this situation, rather than create more government bureaucracy. BTW, because the siblings would be considered next of kin to each other, they already have more rights than homosexual couples. They can consent for medical treatment, visit them in the hospital without restriction, they can claim custody of children in the event of death of one of the siblings, and would inherit the others estate in the absence of a Will and have standing to contest a Will if one were available.
Apparently, what I’ve heard from the home office, is that the agenda after we get equality and rise to power, we are going to push for an amendment that states “all males over the age of 18 must grow and maintain mustaches.†Then we are going to go door to door and hand out hot pants and short shorts (sing along: we love short shorts!). Then we are going to change the National Anthem to “It’s raining menâ€. And don’t forget the schools. We will drastically change the curriculum. Social Studies will be changed to gay culture and looking “FABULOUS 101†will be offered. It won’t be long before the whole country goes gay and then we will rule the world!
You forgot the part about mandating every altar in every church be adorned with figurines depicting same-sex orgies and giant golden phalluses which all church go-ers would be required to bow down to and worship.
=)
BTW, I am a slippery slope theorist too, just not about gay marriage, but when it comes to tyrants. I live in Michigan, were voters passed the hate amendment. All during the campaign they told voters that the amendment was only to preserve marriage and wouldn’t affect anyone’s benefits. Guess what? Now that they have the amendment in place, not only are they aggressively trying to stop benefits based on the amendment for GLBT but also for heterosexual domestic partners. A judge ruled against the Attorney General (R)Mike Cox, but another judge has stayed that ruling until the case can be appealed.
The religious “wrong” won’t stop with just “gay marriage.” They will continue to attack everyone’s rights. How long will it be until they attack something you believe strongly in? As I’ve already said there are dangerous consequences to not opposing tyranny.
Jay Jay,
so everything that the APA or the Supreme Court
does and says is right or morally correct? There have been at least a few psychologists who were
on the governing board of the APA back in 1973
who now believe that they shouldn’t have caved to
the politically correct pressure being put on
them to “normalize” homosexuality. In fact some
of them also now believe that homosexuality CAN
BE reversed back to the natural orientation of
heterosexuality IF that person truly DESIRES to
change. I believe it was that misguided decision
by the APA back in 1973 that helped pave the way
for the tragedies of HIV/AIDS. The approval of a
formally sexually deviant lifestyle opened the
floodgates for newer, more agressive forms of
STD’s. And just in case you’re wondering. I think
that anal sex among heterosexuals is deviant too.
BTW Jay Jay. Where exactly did I say or even hint
that you were a “hateful liberal”? I didn’t. Once
again, emotion or “passion” as you call it, have
clouded your ability to have a debate based on
reason. You claim to be a man of GOD and even
quote scripture based on your interpretation of what you WANT to believe. But yet you seem more
interested in following the edicts of the APA or
the also human, therefore fallible Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court passed a law tomorrow that
all undocumented, street roaming cats & dogs
should be captured & exterminated, would you also
blindly support that? If congress passed laws
that the U.S. could now torture all enemy
combatants from any country, would you blindly
say that’s okay, or would you let your moral
compass be your guide and protest it?
I don’t know about you but I don’t blindly
accept all things coming from my own political
party, my favorite conservative radio talk show
hosts or even the leaders of my religion. Why?
Because they are human and capable of making
errors in judgement. We ALL are. And many, if not
most of those errors come from blindly following
our emotions or even our religious beliefs,
instead of following logic, reason and common
sense ( hopefully balanced with some type of
moral beliefs ). You cite all kind of laws passed
by man, but why don’t you ( apparently ) believe
what the Bible says about homosexuality?
Taylor,
if there are so many scientific studies out there
that supposedly equate homosexuality with
heterosexuality, then why hasn’t the entire world
given in and legally approved homosexual marriages
and so on? Why hasn’t the almighty Supreme Court
or even the mostly liberal media been reporting
that “Homosexuality NOW Equal To Heterosexuality”?
Science and religion have been at war for centuries. Why? Because they’re led by fallible
humans who often have their own agendas, theories
and blind faith making their decisions for them.
And BTW Taylor,
you apparantly believe that homosexuality is still
closeted and they only show their affections in
“the privacy of their homes/bedrooms”. Have you
never seen the sexual debauchery of a “gay” pride
parade? Heterosexuals commonly get arrested for
public displays of decadence in New Orleans, but
if you’re a PC “gay”, you can get away with it.
Have you never heard of Will & Grace or Queer Eye?
Our PC libe