
![]() |

They may not be all homophobes, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held responsible for the policies set by the leaders they select. If they're content with leaders who bang the anti-gay drum, and the opprobrium sticks to them too, so be it. They can actively oppose or leave the party. They aren't being held captive.
Thank you Bill, that is my actual argument, not the straw man that David produced.
Also, excellent use of "opprobrium." Thumbs up!

![]() |

David Fryer wrote:Also your argument was that all Republicans are homophobes by default because their leadership is. That is simply not true and if you continue to choose to believe it then it is you who "live in fantastic castles of falsehood." I wish you luck on your life and hope someday that you will see the error of your methods.They may not be all homophobes, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held responsible for the policies set by the leaders they select. If they're content with leaders who bang the anti-gay drum, and the opprobrium sticks to them too, so be it. They can actively oppose or leave the party. They aren't being held captive.
Or it could be that in a two-party system, they favour the majority of Republican policy as being the best way to govern the country and this outweighs a few social positions they disagree with. Or it could be that locally their Republican party represents their interests better than the Democratic candidate.
I don't live in the States, so I don't quite "get" the political culture, but isn't it a little narrow-sighted to pidgeonhole one person based on their political affiliation?
I mean, not playing a game with someone who is Republican? That is a little hard-nosed.

![]() |

Or it could be that in a two-party system, they favour the majority of Republican policy as being the best way to govern the country and this outweighs a few social positions they disagree with. Or it could be that locally their Republican party represents their interests better than the Democratic candidate.
That's a nice dose of mature thinking - One that I wish I had made quite a while back. Kudos Jal. Growing up in Louisiana, I was witness to what kinds of damage decades of control by corrupt politicians and an "old boy" network could do to a state that otherwise had great potential. Most of those politicians were Democrats.
Since then, I've done some maturing and realize that not all Democrats are that bad.

Garydee |

Bill Dunn wrote:David Fryer wrote:Also your argument was that all Republicans are homophobes by default because their leadership is. That is simply not true and if you continue to choose to believe it then it is you who "live in fantastic castles of falsehood." I wish you luck on your life and hope someday that you will see the error of your methods.They may not be all homophobes, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held responsible for the policies set by the leaders they select. If they're content with leaders who bang the anti-gay drum, and the opprobrium sticks to them too, so be it. They can actively oppose or leave the party. They aren't being held captive.Or it could be that in a two-party system, they favour the majority of Republican policy as being the best way to govern the country and this outweighs a few social positions they disagree with. Or it could be that locally their Republican party represents their interests better than the Democratic candidate.
I don't live in the States, so I don't quite "get" the political culture, but isn't it a little narrow-sighted to pidgeonhole one person based on their political affiliation?
I mean, not playing a game with someone who is Republican? That is a little hard-nosed.
Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. I'm a Republican but I don't buy into everything they preach. However, I can't agree with liberals on anything, so I can't vote for their side.

![]() |

So I was thinking on my drive back home from my class, if you had to pick a Bond villian to represent each candidate, who would you pick? I know that's kind of a weird thought, but they were playing the theme from "A View to a Kill" on the radio at the time. I would have to go with Goldfinger for McCain and Blofeld for Obama. Can't say why, it just sort of popped into my head. No lie. ;)

pres man |

I am simply pointing out that the organizations devoted to demonizing homosexuals all support your party, and not mine.
All do? So none support your party?
He could very easily be referring to the tension within the Democrat party, as many African-American democrats hold homophobic religious views.
Wait, but you said that all of them were republicans. Were you lying when you said all of them were? Maybe you just forgot, that was several posts before, it is not like you mentioned this group in the ... same ... post ... as ... you
You have, at best, shown that one element of the Democratic base -- African-American baptists -- is as homophobic as a significant portion of the Republican base.
[shakes head in sad disappointment] Glass houses and all that.

![]() |

Leave it to a Canadian to play peacemaker. ;)
But it is very different up here - many people vote for their local candidate and our national leader is the bi-product of the local elections depending on how many seats each party wins.
Oh, and in my riding we had about 7 candidates last election with only 1 or 2 "independents". The rest were all members of a national party. We`ve even had a Marxist candidate a few years in a row. Seriously. Ooo! :)

![]() |

So I was thinking on my drive back home from my class, if you had to pick a Bond villian to represent each candidate, who would you pick? I know that's kind of a weird thought, but they were playing the theme from "A View to a Kill" on the radio at the time. I would have to go with Goldfinger for McCain and Blofeld for Obama. Can't say why, it just sort of popped into my head. No lie. ;)
Obama needs to be a villain who was a media-darling, so someone like Gustav Graves from Die Another Day would be my choice.
Goldfinger is pretty good for McCain.

![]() |

We`ve even had a Marxist candidate a few years in a row. Seriously. Ooo! :)
I din't know that Ralph Nader could run in Canada. ;) Okay, seriously I miss the Rhino party, you know the guys who wanted to nationalize pay toilets, franchese the Parliment dining hall, and provide a government subsidy to whore houses? I could get behind that corporate welfare.

![]() |

I find people that buy into every single position a party stands for as quite fascinating. I say this as someone who is an independent/moderate. There are aspects that I like in each party and aspects I dislike. But to have 100% synergy with a party's platform, that seems almost unbelievable to me, that is why I find those people fascinating.
As someone registered with no party affiliation, I tend to agree with you about seeing merits and flaws in each party. However, unlike you, "fascinating" isn't quite the term I'd use for the 100%-ers.

![]() |

pres man wrote:I find people that buy into every single position a party stands for as quite fascinating. I say this as someone who is an independent/moderate. There are aspects that I like in each party and aspects I dislike. But to have 100% synergy with a party's platform, that seems almost unbelievable to me, that is why I find those people fascinating.As someone registered with no party affiliation, I tend to agree with you about seeing merits and flaws in each party. However, unlike you, "fascinating" isn't quite the term I'd use for the 100%-ers.
were you, perhaps, thinking, mmmmmm, l-o-s-e-r-s? mindless sheep? talking point spewing automatons?
just asking ;)

pres man |

Azzy wrote:pres man wrote:I find people that buy into every single position a party stands for as quite fascinating. I say this as someone who is an independent/moderate. There are aspects that I like in each party and aspects I dislike. But to have 100% synergy with a party's platform, that seems almost unbelievable to me, that is why I find those people fascinating.As someone registered with no party affiliation, I tend to agree with you about seeing merits and flaws in each party. However, unlike you, "fascinating" isn't quite the term I'd use for the 100%-ers.were you, perhaps, thinking, mmmmmm, l-o-s-e-r-s? mindless sheep? talking point spewing automatons?
just asking ;)
No way, those terms are reserved exclusively for h4ters and 4vengers. :D

![]() |

houstonderek wrote:No way, those terms are reserved exclusively for h4ters and 4vengers. :DAzzy wrote:pres man wrote:I find people that buy into every single position a party stands for as quite fascinating. I say this as someone who is an independent/moderate. There are aspects that I like in each party and aspects I dislike. But to have 100% synergy with a party's platform, that seems almost unbelievable to me, that is why I find those people fascinating.As someone registered with no party affiliation, I tend to agree with you about seeing merits and flaws in each party. However, unlike you, "fascinating" isn't quite the term I'd use for the 100%-ers.were you, perhaps, thinking, mmmmmm, l-o-s-e-r-s? mindless sheep? talking point spewing automatons?
just asking ;)
ah, the REAL fascists!!!! ;)

![]() |

All do? So none support your party?
I don't know of a single anti-gay organization that supports the Democrats, no.
Wait, but you said that all of them were republicans. Were you lying when you said all of them were? Maybe you just forgot, that was several posts before, it is not like you mentioned this group in the ... same ... post ... as ... you
I did not say all homophobes were Republican, or that all Republicans are homophobes. So I did not lie, you are simply misrepresenting what I said: creating a straw man argument out of my actual argument.
Read carefully, it's not that hard to understand:
The Republican Party is currently pursuing a homophobic agenda.
Supporting the Republican Party tacitly supports a homophobic agenda.
Therefore anyone who supports the Republican Party tacitly supports a homophobic agenda.
This does not mean that no Democrat is homophobic, or that all Republicans are homophobic. It means that anyone who votes Republican tacitly or explicitly supports a homophobic agenda.
Seriously, does no one in this country understand basic logic anymore?

![]() |

David Fryer wrote:Also your argument was that all Republicans are homophobes by default because their leadership is. That is simply not true and if you continue to choose to believe it then it is you who "live in fantastic castles of falsehood." I wish you luck on your life and hope someday that you will see the error of your methods.They may not be all homophobes, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held responsible for the policies set by the leaders they select. If they're content with leaders who bang the anti-gay drum, and the opprobrium sticks to them too, so be it. They can actively oppose or leave the party. They aren't being held captive.
I like you man. Cheers!

![]() |

ithuriel wrote:Easy Gailbraithe. You can make your point without getting furious. Upping the accusatory tone makes people listen to you less and turns things into a shouting match.Sorry, I just find it frustrating that every conversation I ever had with a Republican about politics descended into forthing fighting because said Republicans lie, manipulate facts, and refuse to acknowledge even the most elementary of arguments.
Like David's claim that groups like Focus on the Family are unconnected with the Republican party. Why should anyone even bother arguing with someone so asinine as to deny something so plainly obvious?
Or more importantly, why should I argue with David in good faith when he presents blatant lies as arguments?
Remember that he said everyone BUT Santorum was kicked out of office by Republican voters? it's right up there.
Here's the reality:
* Jesse Helms choose to not run for re-election due to failing health after one of the longest continous terms in Senate.* Arlon Linder was not kicked out of office by Republicans: ethics violations made him ineligible for the Republican party ticket.
* William Dannemeyer left the House of Representatives to make a failed bid for the senate, but lost to a fellow Republican.
* Sally Kerns is still in office.
* Barabra Blewster stills hold public office.
* Troy King was forced to retire by his own party when it was revealed he was a homosexual.
As you can see, David's claim is nothing but a bold-faced blatant lie, a complete and total fabrication utterly removed from any sort of reality.
And with that, I am done talking to David forever. He is a blatant liar, and cannot engage in honest debate, so he is not worth talking to.
I keep reading your stuff and wish you had been here around page 3 of this thread when I was the sole liberal voice in a sea of conservative backwash. You rule my friend. Don't ever give up the fight; liberals unite!

![]() |

Aberzombie wrote:Wow, there you go with that hypocrisy again. So its OK for you to judge ALL thos who bote Republican based on what some Republicans say, but it isn't OK when its done to you.No, you are presenting a straw man. It is okay for me to judge all republicans on the actual agenda of the Republican Party.
Again, I never claimed that all Republicans are homophobic, or that no Democrats are. I asserted that voting for the Republican Party was voting for an anti-gay agenda, and that it was legitimate to judge all Republicans by the agenda their vote serves, regardless of their actual beliefs.
For example, HOUSE BILL NO. 1969 (State of Washington) was sponsored by Jim West and 14 other Republican lawmakers. It's purpose? To define homosexuality -- along with bestiality, necrophilia and sadomasochism (and using a dildo in a heterosexual relationship, oddly enough) - as a deviant sexual practice, to legitimize discrimination against homosexuals, and to bar homosexuals from working in any government operated facility, from schools to prisons. The key sections of the law:
"Sec. 2. "Deviant sexual behavior" means the following: (1) Any contact or penetration between the genitals of a person and the mouth or anus of another person of the same sex;"
"Sec. 3. A person who has an affectional or sexual preference for or orientation towards deviant sexual behavior has no right to be free from discrimination based on such affectional or sexual preference or orientation."
Voting for Republicans in Washington means giving power to a group that has a proven track record of attempting to legislate discrimination against homosexuals. House Bill 1969 has reappeared many times in the Washington legislature, under different names, but always towards the same goal: to legally define homosexuality as no different than bestiality, and to legitimize all forms of discrimination -- from employment to housing -- against homosexuals...
Man, you are good. Good research too!

![]() |

Or it could be that in a two-party system, they favour the majority of Republican policy as being the best way to govern the country and this outweighs a few social positions they disagree with. Or it could be that locally their Republican party represents their interests better than the Democratic candidate.I don't live in the States, so I don't quite "get" the political culture, but isn't it a little narrow-sighted to pidgeonhole one person based on their political affiliation?
I mean, not playing a game with someone who is Republican? That is a little hard-nosed.
What can we say? We <3 absolutism.
It's times like this that are especially infuriating for an independent; you're still pretty much going to be stuck choosing between two parties that have become bloated mockeries of themselves and all the gods help you if you have friends that are cheerleaders for either of them and they CAN'T SHUT UP ABOUT IT EVER.
We have a knack for taking multi-faceted issues and turning it into black and white either-or's. See also The Edition Wars and any Console War.

![]() |

As someone registered with no party affiliation, I tend to agree with you about seeing merits and flaws in each party. However, unlike you, "fascinating" isn't quite the term I'd use for the 100%-ers.
One of the things I love about New Hampshire is that we don't have to register with a party to vote, but can stay Independent and cherry-pick the candidates we like.
I tend to pick Democrats, but I picked a Republican for a local office last election because I liked his stance better than his opponent.
Wow, it occurred to me that the word 'stance' no longer sounds right in relation to politics, thanks to that idiot in the bathroom...

![]() |

I don't know of a single anti-gay organization that supports the Democrats, no.He could very easily be referring to the tension within the Democrat party, as many African-American democrats hold homophobic religious views.
(on being a Republican)I think that makes you both a fool, a useful idiot, and de facto homophobe. Which two of the three is it?
Every time I have had to deal with racism, sexism or homophobia at the table, the offending player has been a Republican. Every single time.
I did not say all homophobes were Republican, or that all Republicans are homophobes.
But you just did in the same post. By your own definition you are a liar and so your opinions and comments don't matter.
I did not lie, you are simply misrepresenting what I said.
You lied and you got caught and now you are making excuses.
I have no interest in trying to convince someone whose idea of respectful debate is to lie, dissemble and manipulate the truth to support their own ends.
It is sufficient to show that you have promoted falsehoods in order to support your argument. That makes you a liar.
See the problem is all of your words are here for us to read. The text doesn't lie. Thatr's all I've got to say about that.

Garydee |

Aberzombie wrote:Wow, there you go with that hypocrisy again. So its OK for you to judge ALL thos who bote Republican based on what some Republicans say, but it isn't OK when its done to you.No, you are presenting a straw man. It is okay for me to judge all republicans on the actual agenda of the Republican Party.
Again, I never claimed that all Republicans are homophobic, or that no Democrats are. I asserted that voting for the Republican Party was voting for an anti-gay agenda, and that it was legitimate to judge all Republicans by the agenda their vote serves, regardless of their actual beliefs.
For example, HOUSE BILL NO. 1969 (State of Washington) was sponsored by Jim West and 14 other Republican lawmakers. It's purpose? To define homosexuality -- along with bestiality, necrophilia and sadomasochism (and using a dildo in a heterosexual relationship, oddly enough) - as a deviant sexual practice, to legitimize discrimination against homosexuals, and to bar homosexuals from working in any government operated facility, from schools to prisons. The key sections of the law:
"Sec. 2. "Deviant sexual behavior" means the following: (1) Any contact or penetration between the genitals of a person and the mouth or anus of another person of the same sex;"
"Sec. 3. A person who has an affectional or sexual preference for or orientation towards deviant sexual behavior has no right to be free from discrimination based on such affectional or sexual preference or orientation."
Voting for Republicans in Washington means giving power to a group that has a proven track record of attempting to legislate discrimination against homosexuals. House Bill 1969 has reappeared many times in the Washington legislature, under different names, but always towards the same goal: to legally define homosexuality as no different than bestiality, and to legitimize all forms of discrimination -- from employment to housing -- against homosexuals.
It was defeated everytime. [i]By...
You can't judge the Republican party by what some 15 kooks in the state Washington were trying to pull. Your party has them too. There are people on your side that have no problem with live birth abortions, which is appalling. I don't judge your entire party for the actions of a few kooks.

Bill Dunn |

You can't judge the Republican party by what some 15 kooks in the state Washington were trying to pull. Your party has them too. There are people on your side that have no problem with live birth abortions, which is appalling. I don't judge your entire party for the actions of a few kooks.
For what it's worth, I have no problem with a doctor and patient deciding on a drastic medical procedure necessary to protect the health of the patient. The whole "partial birth abortion" is less invasive and dangerous to the mother than the alternative - sticking a scalpel in her uterus to dismember the fetus.
Both are drastic procedures but one, as shocking as it seems to be when used as a rhetorical weapon, is less dangerous to the patient.
Kirth Gersen |

Neither is golf - I know "mulligan" is a term, but I don't know what it means.
When I was 13, I went to the nearest golf course, told them I was 16, and asked for a job. I don't think they totally believed me, but they believed me enough to let me caddy there. As a result, I've carefully avoided playing the game as an adult.
A "mulligan" is a "do-over." It applies only to informal games among lame amateurs.

![]() |

Aberzombie wrote:Neither is golf - I know "mulligan" is a term, but I don't know what it means.When I was 13, I went to the nearest golf course, told them I was 16, and asked for a job. I don't think they totally believed me, but they believed me enough to let me caddy there. As a result, I've carefully avoided playing the game as an adult.
A "mulligan" is a "do-over." It applies only to informal games among lame amateurs.
So what!?! Are you saying I'm "informal"?

Kirth Gersen |

So what!?! Are you saying I'm "informal"?
All of the logic on this thread is informal <rim shot>! But since you ask, a mulligan is most often requested by the guy who's so drunk he misses the ball outright on his swing -- kind of like some of the points people have tried to make on previous pages <double rim shot>.

Garydee |

Garydee wrote:You can't judge the Republican party by what some 15 kooks in the state Washington were trying to pull. Your party has them too. There are people on your side that have no problem with live birth abortions, which is appalling. I don't judge your entire party for the actions of a few kooks.For what it's worth, I have no problem with a doctor and patient deciding on a drastic medical procedure necessary to protect the health of the patient. The whole "partial birth abortion" is less invasive and dangerous to the mother than the alternative - sticking a scalpel in her uterus to dismember the fetus.
Both are drastic procedures but one, as shocking as it seems to be when used as a rhetorical weapon, is less dangerous to the patient.
I don't mind it so much if the mother's life is in danger. I do think that the mother's life comes first. As a form of birth control... well, don't get me started on that.

Bill Dunn |

I don't mind it so much if the mother's life is in danger. I do think that the mother's life comes first. As a form of birth control... well, don't get me started on that.
A lot of pro-choice people feel the same way as well (though would probably be more inclined to add the mother's health being in danger too), but feel the need to keep the medical option legal and as safe as possible because other people may not feel the same way.

Garydee |

Garydee wrote:A lot of pro-choice people feel the same way as well (though would probably be more inclined to add the mother's health being in danger too), but feel the need to keep the medical option legal and as safe as possible because other people may not feel the same way.
I don't mind it so much if the mother's life is in danger. I do think that the mother's life comes first. As a form of birth control... well, don't get me started on that.
The way I feel about it is that if the mother's life isn't in danger, there shouldn't be an option. That's just my personal belief anyways.

![]() |

Aberzombie wrote:So what!?! Are you saying I'm "informal"?All of the logic on this thread is informal <rim shot>! But since you ask, a mulligan is most often requested by the guy who's so drunk he misses the ball outright on his swing -- kind of like some of the points people have tried to make on previous pages <double rim shot>.
Or by the guy who missed the shot because he tried to take it while his partner was screaming past the ball in golf cart as fast as it would go. FYI, I was the guy driving the cart and not the one trying to take the shot. ;)

![]() |

Garydee wrote:A lot of pro-choice people feel the same way as well.
I don't mind it so much if the mother's life is in danger. I do think that the mother's life comes first. As a form of birth control... well, don't get me started on that.
Am I still pro-choice if I hope the choice is life?

Kirth Gersen |

Am I still pro-choice if I hope the choice is life?
If you allow a choice at all, then yes. Surprisingly, many people labelled "pro choice" are actually anti-abortion clinic, but even more vehemently anti-coat-hanger abortion. It's not as if Roe v. Wade invented the whole concept, unfortunately.
And, as posted above, what if the choice of "life" is the mother's life?
It's a more complicated issue than "yes" or "no." (Which stands to reason; if it were totally straightforward, it probably wouldn't be an issue.)

![]() |

David Fryer wrote:Am I still pro-choice if I hope the choice is life?If you allow a choice at all, then yes. Surprisingly, many people labelled "pro choice" are actually anti-abortion clinic, but even more vehemently anti-coat-hanger abortion. It's not as if Roe v. Wade invented the whole concept, unfortunately.
And, as posted above, what if the choice of "life" is the mother's life?
It's a more complicated issue than "yes" or "no." (Which stands to reason; if it were totally straightforward, it probably wouldn't be an issue.)
I have always supported legal abortion so long as it is restricted to cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. It only when I read stories like one that appeared in either the New Yorker or the New York Times about two years ago about a woman who decided to have an abortion because she lived in a walk up and didn't want to go up and down the stairs while pregnant with twins that I get really angry.

Kirth Gersen |

I have always supported legal abortion so long as it is restricted to cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother.
That sets you far apart from most of the absolutists. I actually see three sides in the debate:
1. "No abortion, ever, for any reason, because I believe God says so!";2. "Abortion is unfortunate, but needed in cases of rape/incest/mother's life in danger";
3. "What's the big deal? Everyone should have one!"
What's funny is that the people who select Option 2 get more or less arbitrarily divided in half (usually on the basis of party affiliation) and thrown into the 1 and 3 camps, for no clear reason that I can discern. Then they get told they're supposed to be disagreeing with each other, despite the fact that their stances are more similar to each other than they are to the those at the other end of their own "camp."
It only when I read stories like one that appeared in either the New Yorker or the New York Times about two years ago about a woman who decided to have an abortion because she lived in a walk up and didn't want to go up and down the stairs while pregnant with twins that I get really angry.
As does any sane person.
Then again, it's not illegal to be insane. Or even just plain stupid.
pres man |

That sets you far apart from most of the absolutists. I actually see three sides in the debate:
1. "No abortion, ever, for any reason, because I believe God says so!";
2. "Abortion is unfortunate, but needed in cases of rape/incest/mother's life in danger";
3. "What's the big deal? Everyone should have one!"What's funny is that the people who select Option 2 get more or less arbitrarily divided in half (usually on the basis of party affiliation) and thrown into the 1 and 3 camps, for no clear reason that I can discern. Then they get told they're supposed to be disagreeing with each other, despite the fact that their stances are more similar to each other than they are to the those at the other end of their own "camp."
I would actually add at least one more "tier".
4. "I dislike the idea of abortions in general, but understand some women may have gotten into a situation they can't really handle, even if they're lives are not in danger. But once the child has a reasonable chance of living outside of the womb, then abortion is no longer tolerable. Extreme early delivery even when it is not best for the child might be."Most people would support "reasonable" limits on abortion. But it is the extremists that keep this from happening. One side still shouting that it is still "murder" and the other side shouting "slippery slope" drowns out reasonable discussion.

![]() |

So African-American baptists churches don't get to be considered organizations under your paradigm? As I said before, fascinating.
Anti-gay lobbying is far from the sole purpose of African-American churches. The primary purpose of African-American churches is to give support, aid and a central point of focus for the African-American community. Black churches have long been a focal point for the civil rights movement.
You are confusing the homophobia inherent in Christianity, which appears in black churches (and many white churches), with an actual homophobic agenda. It is as unfair to describe black churches as "anti-gay organizations" as it is to describe Christianity as an "anti-gay religion" or the Catholic Church as an "anti-gay organization."
Contrast this with actual anti-gay organizations like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, whose sole purpose is to lobby against homosexuals, to promote pseudo-scientific studies that demonize homosexuals, and to agitate for laws that adversely affect homosexuals.

Kirth Gersen |

"I dislike the idea of abortions in general, but understand some women may have gotten into a situation they can't really handle, even if they're lives are not in danger. But once the child has a reasonable chance of living outside of the womb, then abortion is no longer tolerable. Extreme early delivery even when it is not best for the child might be."
Yeah, I guess I was including them as part of group 2. Really there's a shaded spectrum, not a limited number of "tiers." And certainly not the "yes/no" binary system that the political hacks, media jackals, and religious zealots would have us believe.

![]() |

You can't judge the Republican party by what some 15 kooks in the state Washington were trying to pull. Your party has them too. There are people on your side that have no problem with live birth abortions, which is appalling. I don't judge your entire party for the actions of a few kooks.
Gary, that was merely one example. I could, given a few hours, find similar proposals made by Republicans in every state in the Union.
Further, I would be willing to bet money -- let's say paizo product of your choice, up to $20 -- that you cannot find a SINGLE example of an ELECTED Democrat LAWMAKER who has attempted to legalize live birth abortions (defined as giving birth to a viable infant and allowing it to die -- this is the only definition I can find online, as the term "live birth abortion" appears to be a pro-life term that has no actual medical definition.)

Garydee |

Garydee wrote:You can't judge the Republican party by what some 15 kooks in the state Washington were trying to pull. Your party has them too. There are people on your side that have no problem with live birth abortions, which is appalling. I don't judge your entire party for the actions of a few kooks.Gary, that was merely one example. I could, given a few hours, find similar proposals made by Republicans in every state in the Union.
Further, I would be willing to bet money -- let's say paizo product of your choice, up to $20 -- that you cannot find a SINGLE example of an ELECTED Democrat LAWMAKER who has attempted to legalize live birth abortions (defined as giving birth to a viable infant and allowing it to die -- this is the only definition I can find online, as the term "live birth abortion" appears to be a pro-life term that has no actual medical definition.)
You're right. There probably hasn't been one single example of an elected democratic lawmaker trying to legalize it because they know it would ruin their careers. They're not stupid. As our country shifts more to the left over time this is going to change. Within a generation or two, you're going to see it happen. Anyway, across the U.S. there might have been cases of anti-gay legislature. Go ahead look them up, and pass them on to me and we can discuss it.
Edit: Please don't get anything more from the 80's. Im talking about recent times.

Garydee |

random W conspiracy generator.
Stone is heretofore obsolete.
Thanks for the link, this is kinda fun.

![]() |

You're right. There probably hasn't been one single example of an elected democratic lawmaker trying to legalize it because they know it would ruin their careers. They're not stupid.
::eyeroll:: Nice backhanded insult there. Let's just ignore the possibility that Democratic lawmakers wouldn't attempt to legalize such a horrendous act because it's clearly immoral and wrong. it must be because they're callous careerists whose beliefs are entirely dependent on public polls, yeah?
As our country shifts more to the left over time this is going to change. Within a generation or two, you're going to see it happen.
And pigs will fly! It will truly be a glorious day.
Anyway, across the U.S. there might have been cases of anti-gay legislature. Go ahead look them up, and pass them on to me and we can discuss it.
Dude, no offense, but I have a game tonight -- I have to leave in an hour or so -- and I really have no interest in proving what most people who pay attention to politics already know. But I'll do Alaska for you.
Here's a brief history of anti-gay political activism in Alaska:
* House Bill 227, which banned same-sex marriage, was introduced by Representative Normaon Rokeberg (R) in 1995.
* Rep. Lyda Green (R) introduced Senate Bill 30 to ban same sex marriage in 1996.
* In 1996, gay couple Jay Brause and Gene Dugan challenged this law. The preliminary findings of the Alaska Supreme Court were that the law introduced by House Bill 227 and Senate Bill 30 were unconstitutional. the Alaska State Attorney General's office refused to challenge the finding. In response, Republican lawmaker sponsored Ballot Measure 2 to alter the state constitution to make discrimination against gays constitutional. The statement for the measure was drafted by State Senator Loren Leman (R).
Hey, look at that. It's all Republicans!
Now you do Alabama.

![]() |

california enacted a referendum (since thrown out by the courts) defineing marriage as between a man and a woman.
and they vote DEMOCRAT in national elections, senate elections, and most of their representatives are democrat.
yeah, republicans DO need to stop with this issue, as it is retarded anyway, but there are people who vote democrat who feel the same way as well, so painting with the broad brush isn't a great tactical maneuver...

![]() |

Or consider this:
"The US House of Representatives voted July 19 [2001] to approve the Bush administration’s “faith-based” initiative, which funnels billions in federal funds to church-based charities, while giving such groups the legal right to engage in discrimination on the basis of religion, sexual orientation or marital status.
The bill passed the House by a 233-198 vote, largely on party lines. Republicans backed the bill 217-4, while Democrats opposed it 193-15. The two independents split their votes, one for and one against. An amendment to strike the pro-discrimination language from the bill was defeated by a 234-195 margin."
Republicans in the House overwhelmingly support allowing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, while Democrats overwhelmingly oppose it.
Seriously, one has to be pretty obtuse to not recognize that the Republican party is the party of homophobic discrimination.