Republican Smear Machine in top Gear

[iamnotafraid]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Once upon a time I too felt that way until I decided it didn't matter whether the candidate could win or not. It only mattered that I was speaking my mind.. even if I were the only one to vote for them.

That's understandable and I can respect that. I really just wish everyone would vote. No matter who they vote for.

BTW, Carly Simon.........one hot mama.

What song of hers' is that?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by iamnotafraid

BTW, Carly Simon.........one hot mama.

What song of hers' is that?

It's a song called "The Best Thing" from her first album. It wasn't a single or anything. The hit from that album was, of course, "That's The Way I've Always Heard It Should Be".

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Yes I am aware of those things.. doesn't mean I have to always agree.

And let’s not forget some of the good things as well; One being his opposition to California Proposition 6 (aka Briggs Initiative). May not seem like much, but for such a strong conservative to take a stand against such an issue at that time said a lot.. at least to me.

I was talking about his Presidency, but --

Touche' -- point taken

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

But overall he found a great balance between the two flavors of conservatism, IMO. There has always been unresolved tension between those two flavors. You had your western and southern conservatives. Western was more Libertarian and focused more on small government and fiscal responsibility. Southern conservatism seem to only deem social issues important, essentially they are what we call today the religious right. I find myself a western type and more of a libertarian.. But sadly these days the religious right seems to rule the roost in the Republican Party!

Maybe one day we'll see a change.. eh?

I agree, but the religious crizies are also in the West, Colorado is a good example.

Interestingly, the R party should NEVER have let those crazy facist Southern D's in the party in the 60's and 70's

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I don't know how you can say that the Republican party is dominated by the southern conservatives when John McCain was far and away beyond Huckabee or Thompson in votes and delegates. I mean, McCain was at 1100 delegates and Huckabee had about 280 when he dropped out. Methinks no one on here has any idea what they're talking about; they're just vomiting up a bunch of drivel because it "feels" right, rather than any of it being based on anything besides pure supposition. How about some source for some opinions, folks? If you can bring up something like, "McCain used the word 'fags' in his townhall meeting" I could understand being offended. But just throwing around random accusations such as "Republicans only pay attention to the verses that condemn fags for all their problems" is a bunch of hooey that isn't supported by anything. Cite someone that said that for dang's sake. Don't just pull vile hate-filled opinions about people out of your collective A$$es and pass it off as fact. The only people I see being prejudiced anywhere are the libbys who accuse other people of being prejudiced. I guess making Republicans into straw men onto which you can transfer your own burning hatreds and vile thoughts is therapeutic. I, for one, don't hate anyone. You can't convince me that I do.

Once again, do not try to sell that shiitte around here. The R party demonized and is demonizing gay people for poltical gain. It is laughable that you assert that just because they do not actually use the word "fag" in public somehow lessens that patently obvious stance.

Once again, please comment on the BO ad that is the issue of this thread. I want to see you actually try to defend it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by iamnotafraid

. . . Being religious doesn't make you a member of the religious right . . . .

I totally agree. And, it sickens me when the current R party blurs that line.

A good example is gay marriage. Heterosexual, married people get greater Federal rights based solely on a religious ideal. How is that fair or even legal? Yet, when you ask that question or make that point, the R party lambastes you as against Christianity as a whole; you are called a "liberl" and you are placed in a category on being un American. In reality, all you are asking is why one religious group gets special treatment from the govt., an ideal seemingly prohibited by the US Const. Put it this way, other than the religious reason behind not wanting gay marriage or even civil unions, what other reason is their for not wanting it? I can't think of one

The public displays of the decalogue, prayer in schools, and other officially sanctioned religious worship are other good examples. If you question the idea of the govt. sponsoring one religion over another in public displays (let's see the Son's of Satan or the Wiccans get a public dime ) -- then the current R party paints you as someone who is taking away an individual's right to worship their God in every context. You are a "liberal" and not a true American; you should go live somewhere else because you are personally offending Jesus. That is an incorrect argument - a bait and switch if you will. All you (general) are doing is asking why public money should be being spent to support essentially one religion, again, an ideal seemingly prohibited by the US Const. You are not in any way telling someone that they cannot go every day to their Church and pray on their own time or that they cannot pray on their own in school or where ever. You are not trying to take away anyone's personal and private rights. It is a red herring of an argument. Moreover, I do not understand why the govt. has to officially sanction your right to be a Christian or in any religion. To me, that is an insult to the religion.

Sadly, the current R party cannot stand the idea of a complete separation of church and state.

Interestingly, abortion is not really the separation of church and state, although it eventually winds up there. In Roe -- the Court weighed the mother's right to control her own body and the state's right in protecting life. The Court determined that the state's valid right to protect a human life was outweighed by the mother's valid right to control her body. To reach this holding, the Court in Roe had to determine when the state's right outweighed the mother's right. The Court concluded it was at the end of the first trimester because that is when the fetus in theory become viable out side of the mother; prior to then the fetus is parasitic to the mother.

For me, the Court's holding in Roe should stand because although I do not think I could abort a child in the first trimester, I will never be faced with that choice. I think that the consequences of that choice are betweem the aborting mother and her maker. I have, though, euthanized my anmials (like my children) and pulled the plug on relatives. Those were agonizing decisions - to take the life of something is not easy -- but, it was the humane thing to do IMO. I am prepared to defend that decision when I meet my Maker.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree, but the religious crizies are also in the West, Colorado is a good example.

and Utah.. again I go back to the Osmonds! (Of course I tease them because I love them!)

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

. . . Once upon a time I too felt that way until I decided it didn't matter whether the candidate could win or not. It only mattered that I was speaking my mind.. even if I were the only one to vote for them. It is our right to speak our mind in this country and damn it.. that doesn't mean I have to vote for a Republican or a Democrat!

I used to have your ideal. However, after seeing what that ideal caused with W and the R Congress and those disasterous years that set back civil rights so inhumanely, I think voting not to let the R's back in power is the only way to go. Put it this way, if I vote for some third party candidate and McCain wins and the R party is back in power, the chipping away at civil rights in the name of some religion will continue. I cannot see how Obama, even with all of this faults, could possibly be worse than that.

Again, the R party has vociferously sponsored, promoted, defended, and prosecuted people under laws that wanted to put gay people on jail for having consensual sex. Hitler anyone?

Remember, some members at the R convention in an officially sanctioned event turned their backs on Jim Kolbe (R - AZ) solely because he is openly gay -- when he spoke at the R National Convention on international trade. And, to my knowledge, not one member of the upp eschelon of the R party or even Kolbe himself had the sand to say one thing against that act - they disrespected an honored member of the U.S. Congress. Yet, some have the effrontery or ignorance to assert the R party somehow does not demonize gay people. Could you imagine if they turned their backs on a black guy?

But, why take my word for it (emphasis supplied) :

Delegates consider boycott of Kolbe speech

By Jeff Barker

August 1, 2000

Web posted at: 2:26 PM EDT (1826 GMT)

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (The Arizona Republic Online) -- This isn't at all what Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., had in mind, not on his big night at the Republican National Convention.

Kolbe, the only openly gay Republican in Congress, just wanted to deliver a businesslike speech tonight on international trade, a subject he probably knows more about than anybody in Congress.

But word filtered out Monday that a contingent in the Texas delegation is considering a silent walkout during Kolbe's address to protest the selection of a gay man to deliver a prime-time GOP convention speech.

The irony, Kolbe said in an interview Monday, is that he doesn't plan to discuss gay issues in his speech, or even refer to his sexual orientation. In fact, some gay-rights groups have wished Kolbe would adopt a higher profile regarding their concerns in Congress.

"I've never denied my sexual orientation. I just don't make a point of it. It isn't what I do," Kolbe said. "Clearly, I'm known for the work I've done on trade and Social Security."

Kolbe was silent for a moment when an Arizona Republic reporter asked him if he had heard that some in the Texas delegation thought that his delivering tonight's speech posed a moral issue, and that a protest was being considered.

"No," he said. And then: "I have no comment on that."

Pat Carlson, chairwoman of the Tarrant County Republican Party, said many of the Texas delegates have told her they want to send a message to Gov. George W. Bush in a "quiet way" and have discussed walking out, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's online edition.

She told the newspaper she was disappointed that Bush, the GOP presidential nominee, selected Kolbe to address free trade issues.

"I think it (a silent protest) is appropriate if we get a speaker like that, who is not representative of most of the delegates' beliefs," Carlson said.

Texas delegate Cathy McConn of Houston told The Republic, "There was concern that he (Kolbe) was chosen because he was openly gay - kind of like a quota" But McConn said she had not taken a position.

Ironically, Mary Cheney, 31, one of GOP vice presidential nominee Dick Cheney's daughters, is openly gay, and plans to actively campaign for her father.

Kolbe arguably will become the most prominent openly gay Republican to address a GOP convention, according to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and other advocacy groups.

Ray Sullivan, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said that as of early Monday evening, there hadn't been any communication about Kolbe's speech between the Texas governor and Carlson or the other delegates.

"We hope and believe that the delegates will be respectful of all the speakers. Congressman Kolbe is speaking because of his expertise and leadership on the issue of free trade," Sullivan said

A Texas walkout would be certain to provoke a spirited defense of Kolbe by Arizona's lawmakers and other delegates.

Arizona Republicans strongly supported Kolbe when he disclosed his sexual orientation in 1996.

"My response to him was very brief," Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., recalled the following year. "I said, 'Jim, it doesn't make a difference to me whatsoever. I could care less.' "

On Monday, Mike Hellon, the Republican national committeeman from Arizona, said, "It (a walkout) would be a black mark on an inclusive, positive convention. For Governor Bush's own delegation to do that, it would be mind-boggling."

For years, Kolbe, first elected to the House in 1984, declined to confirm or deny rumors that he was a homosexual. He finally disclosed it rather than be "outed" on the Internet by activists angry with his vote in favor of a Republican-sponsored bill to deny federal sanction of same-sex marriages.

After he came out, Kolbe told The Republic, "I would rather be known as 'Jim Kolbe, the trade expert in Congress who happens to be gay,' rather than 'Jim Kolbe, gay congressman from Arizona.' "

Sloan Wiesen, spokesman for the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, said Monday, "My sense is that most openly gay and lesbian elected officials have to overcome attempts to pigeonhole them based on their sexual orientation."

Kolbe has quietly been an active member of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay political group that plans to honor him here at a reception before the speech. He has consistently supported legislation to ban employment discrimination against gays and lesbians.

David Smith, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign Fund, said of a possible protest against Kolbe: "I couldn't think of a meaner thing that could happen."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LOCAL/p...lbe/index.html

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

and Utah.. again I go back to the Osmonds! (Of course I tease them because I love them!)

I, too, love The Osmonds

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I used to have your ideal. However, after seeing what that ideal caused with W and the R Congress and those disasterous years that set back civil rights so inhumanely, I think voting not to let the R's back in power is the only way to go. Put it this way, if I vote for some third party candidate and McCain wins and the R party is back in power, the chipping away at civil rights in the name of some religion will continue. I cannot see how Obama, even with all of this faults, could possibly be worse than that.

I disagree with you here, my friend. I don't see a vote for a third party candidate as a "wasted vote" at all. I don't see my vote as wasted unless I vote for someone that I don’t really want to win! Voting for the “lesser of two evils” is the quintessential “wasted vote.” This is why were are in financial and social shambles right now, IMO!

"Be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

. . . This is why were are in financial and social shambles right now, IMO!

Actually, we are in those shambles right now directly because of W. Four more years under McCain will only further this wanton degrading of civil rights, careless spending , and fighting a war that was over and mostly won years ago (we got rid of SH (who was never a threat) and set up a D govt. in Iraq years ago. But, there is no clear win so, the R's want to keep fighting it.

I get it is your vote and the only way to promote change is through the electoral process, there ought to be more than two parties, etc. But, clearly, the situation at hand is exigent and that exigency IMO outweighs any lofty ideals I may have. If we have four more years of a R party rule, I hope you want no rights at all as a gay male. In fact, I hope you want to live in Jesusland and you like prison because that is where the actions of the R party indicate they want you to be. Are your ideals worth that?

Consider the facts of the Lawrence case, which was a R baby (emphasis supplied) :

Lawrence v. Texas: The initial trial:

In 1998, police in Texas responded to a false report, which may have been phoned in by a disgruntled neighbor. They entered the apartment of John Geddes Lawrence, and found him engaged in anal sex with another male: Tyron Garner. Both were arrested and jailed overnight. They are an inter-racial couple -- a factor that may have influenced the police to arrest them, but which has been studiously avoided by the media. They were tried under Texas' Homosexual Conduct Law which defines anal or oral sex between two men or two women as deviate sexual intercourse. The same law permits this behavior if it is between a man and woman. They were found guilty and fined. These convictions for a "crime of moral turpitude" could prevent the two men from getting certain jobs in the state. In some jurisdictions, they would be required to register as sex offenders.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws4.htm

To quote Rick Perry (R) - the Governor of Texas "I think our law is appropriate that we have on the books."

To quote the District Attorney Charles A. Rosenthal (R), representing Harris County, TX, in his argument to the court -- "[morality] is a fluid concept, and public opinion regarding moral issues may change over time, but what has not changed is the understanding that government may require adherence to certain widely accepted moral standards and sanction deviation from those standards, so long as it does not interfere with constitutionally protected liberties."

Can you imagine that what you do in your own bedroom is not a basic freedom or "contitutionally protected liberty?" Moreover, could you imagine being a legally sanctioned sex offender on a publicly posted list just because you were having consenual sex in the confines of your own home That is what the R stands for via its actions. You do not see the D party doing this type of thing.

Suddenly, the phrase "filthy fags" doesn't seem so off the mark does it?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Actually, we are in those shambles right now directly because of W. Four more years under McCain will only further this wanton degrading of civil rights, careless spending , and fighting a war that was over and mostly won years ago (we got rid of SH (who was never a threat) and set up a D govt. in Iraq years ago. But, there is no clear win so, the R's want to keep fighting it.

I get it is your vote and the only way to promote change is through the electoral process, there ought to be more than two parties, etc. But, clearly, the situation at hand is exigent and that exigency IMO outweighs any lofty ideals I may have. If we have four more years of a R party rule, I hope you want no rights at all as a gay male. In fact, I hope you want to live in Jesusland and you like prison because that is where the actions of the R party indicate they want you to be. Are your ideals worth that?

I see your point, and it is valid. But below is a little scenario of how I view the voting process.

"Hey Brandon, I just voted to increase my taxes because I wanted the possibility that I could get married someday to the person I love.” Or, better yet, “Gee, Brandon, it feels great to give up my social liberties so that I can keep the money I earned!” (Either way SUCKS in my book)

It would be much easier for me if I were a socialist and believed in large government, then I could simply be a Democrat seeing as how socially I agree with just about all of their positions.

So my choice is to say "F you" to both parties and align myself with someone who has most of the same ideals that I do. Not to say that could never be a Democratic or Republican candidate.. it's just not in this election!

Don't be mad at me strand.. I really do understand what you are saying.. but I just can't bring myself to vote for a candidate I can't stand behind 100%

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

. . . Don't be mad at me strand.. I really do understand what you are saying.. but I just can't bring myself to vote for a candidate I can't stand behind 100%

I am not angry. I was stating what I thought and why I am voting for Obama even though I am not that impressed by him

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

. . . but I just can't bring myself to vote for a candidate I can't stand behind 100%

Have you ever stood behind any candidate 100% ?

Certainly, you do not stand behind any of the current candidates 100%, including Barr History has rpven his whole let the state's determine everything and the Fed Govt. should stay out of it just does not work. See the Commerce Clause. Moreover, you'd have to strike the word marriage from all areas of the Fed. Govt. I can assure you he is not for that though he may imply he is.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

. I really do understand what you are saying.. but I just can't bring myself to vote for a candidate I can't stand behind 100%

Then you have to resign yourself to the fact that you may never vote.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Then you have to resign yourself to the fact that you may never vote.

I know -- but, to his credit, he earlier said in a hypothetical situation " . . . and align myself with someone who has most of the same ideals that I do." So, there is yet hope for his being able to vote in some election