This thread is important. Because pointing out extreme forms of hypocrisy that some politicians engage in is important. It's not unimportant just because you say so.

7/15/2008 1:42:42 PM

Treetwista, for a variety of reasons, shown in and outside of this thread, you are a bad poster in TSB.

Quote :

"wow another thread about a gay republican...this is some important shit while you're at it, i heard Steve Forbes enjoys some gay sex on the Forbes Yacht "

This adds nothing to this thread, in fact you say you don't even care about this thread - so why post? It is clear from the beginning that your purpose in posting here is to detract from this thread - and therefore this section. Please leave.

7/15/2008 1:45:02 PM

take it to the smackdown thread.

7/15/2008 1:45:39 PM

this is my last post in this thread for real

but i actually did hear that Steve Forbes was into gay sex...seriously...so I thought I'd add that since he is a republican...anyway, carry on

7/15/2008 1:46:18 PM

Steve Forbes wasn't caught in bed with another man by his wife and you are the first person I've ever heard refer to Steve Forbes as being a huggermugger homosexual.

7/15/2008 1:50:48 PM

So, Democrats can't be hypocrites concerning sex-related scandals? Why, because they have no standards in that area or what?

Just asking.

7/15/2008 7:03:42 PM

No one ever argued that. Elliot Spitzer was a hypocrite.

The reason why there are more Republican hypocrites when it comes to sex scandals is because the Republicans hold themselves up as the moral (sexually) party.

I wouldn't care if Troy King was a homosexual, if he wasn't a hypocrite on the issue.

7/15/2008 7:07:39 PM

^ So, the Democrats get a pass on scandals because they hold themselves up to be the "[im]moral (sexually) party"?

7/15/2008 7:13:11 PM

Never said that. But I see what you are attempting to do here and you are going to fail.

7/15/2008 7:16:25 PM

^ I don't think so, because you've yet to answer the question--and it really is a question.

NB: FWIW, I'm not anti-gay. I may not support every single gay issue, but I'm not one of those that thinks my life would be better if it weren't for those darned gays.

7/15/2008 7:22:33 PM

No, your question is a begging the question question and is based upon an extremely false premise. There is not point in asking your question because it holds no water.

Just because the Democratic party doesn't care what two consenting adults do does not make them immoral.

The Republican party running as the "moral (sexually)" party does not make the opposition immoral.

7/15/2008 7:24:20 PM

^ Even though this isn't a big issue for me, how do the failings of some Republicans invalidate this particular plank in the party's platform?

7/15/2008 7:34:30 PM

The actions of members of the GOP does not invalidate that plank of the platform, rather a simple issue of human rights and dignity invalidates that plank of the platform.

7/15/2008 8:07:52 PM

I don't know about "the GOP's" position, but John McCain and Barack Obama are both very close on gay issues.

For example, neither of them support "gay marriage". Both take the centrist (and politically safer) route of supporting civil unions and allow individuals and church leaders to decide whether to call them "marriages".

Neither Barack Obama or John McCain support federal legislation that would prevent gays from adoption children (McCain has recently stated that he prefers traditional couples adopting children, but that it is an issue the states would have to decide).

In terms of actual policy, there is little difference between the candidates.

7/16/2008 2:15:07 AM

^ Yeah, the leftists never want to address the fact that all the Democrat presidents and all the major Democrat presidential candidates have been against gay marriage--they always blame all the alleged "anti-gay rhetoric" on the mean old Republicans. The Democrats--including Obama--get a pass on the issue based on nothing more than a wink and a nod.

7/16/2008 3:21:32 AM

yeah, i don't see why government at any level needs to be involved in any kind of marriage. i think it should just be a social ceremony, not a legal ceremony.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 3:35 AM. Reason : and if we ARE going to make it a legal deal, it should be a state issue.]

7/16/2008 3:35:02 AM

Quote :

"In terms of actual policy, there is little difference between the candidates."

They differ on DADT

7/16/2008 9:24:24 AM

hookshaw,

Aye. No one seems to remember that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (the act that keeps states like NC from having to recognize gay marriages awarded in other states like California) was signed into law by Bill Clinton and was supported by the vast majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Personally, I'm with Duke. I don't think the government should have a hand in marriage at all. And I don't have a problem with gays getting married (though I also think it should be a state issue). But I think it's a bit one-sided to pretend that "anti-gay rhetoric" is restricted to members of the GOP.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 9:31 AM. Reason : ``]

7/16/2008 9:27:54 AM

None of this has anything to do with the Presidential election. This is about Troy King. Quit trying to deflect this shit away.

clinton didn't run on an anti-gay agenda. McCain and Obama are not running on an anti-Gay agenda. Troy King did.

This would be like Marvin Creech getting arrested for Drunk Driving, or Coy Privette getting arrested for soliciting prostitution (wait, that one happened).

Remember Bob Livingston who resigned his post as speaker because he had an affair whilst berating Bill Clinton, or David Vitter who, during the Lewinsky Scandal, spoke on an on about fidelity, only to be outed as using the DC Madam.

The point still stands. The republican party is far more apt to sexual hypocrisy than the Democrats.

So don't bother attempting to make this about Obama or McCain.

7/16/2008 10:22:40 AM

So you guys are saying that allowing civil unions and adoption for gays is a centrist policy now? Ok...

Also, ^

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 10:25 AM. Reason : ]

7/16/2008 10:24:20 AM

^^ Nuts, in the post directly before mine you were talking about the GOP in general. That's also how you started this thread (by talking about the GOP broadly then focusing on Troy King as an example). Heck, you even included this most recent post by talking about republicans in general.

If you want to make sweeping generalizations of millions of people, you're going to expand your dataset beyond Tory King (believe it or not, you may even want to include more than 3 or 4 high profile cases). And I think John McCain, the man that the majority of Republicans participating in the primaries chose to represent them in the general election for the highest executive office in the country, is worthy of inclusion in that data set.

PS* IMStoned, if civil unions isn't the centrist position. What is?

PPS* I always think it's funny when people that political party affiliation is correlated with character flaws. Apparently I'm the only person old enough to remember the Republicans during the late 1990s. "Hey man, Democrats are generally sexual deviants. I mean, didn't you hear what Bill Clinton did to Monika Lewinsky? Come on!!". Ahhhhh party politics.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 10:37 AM. Reason : ``]

7/16/2008 10:32:51 AM

^^^

Quote :

"clinton didn't run on an anti-gay agenda."

Bill Clinton ran on a pro-gay agenda--and all gays got was DADT.

Quote :

"The republican party is far more apt to sexual hypocrisy than the Democrats."

Prove it.


[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 10:37 AM. Reason : .]

7/16/2008 10:35:29 AM

That's like saying forced indentured servitude is a centrist position on slavery.

7/16/2008 10:36:03 AM

^ ?????

7/16/2008 10:38:22 AM

It's going to be interesting to see what McCain has to say about the Massachusetts thing.

7/16/2008 10:39:50 AM

If you change every american from a legal status of being 'married' to being in a civil union then I'll say that is a centrist position.

However establishing a separate group for homosexuals is not centrist, that is still very regressive.

7/16/2008 10:40:26 AM

I was thinking more along the lines of civil unions being basically the same thing as marriage as far as anyone is concerned aside from its title. Which means McCain is basically for allowing gays to get married and letting them adopt kids. Definitely not a centrist position.

7/16/2008 10:51:04 AM

^^ um. The very word "centrist" is derived from the word "center"--meaning that it is at the center of the spectrum of positions on an issue.

In the case of gay marriage you have two broad poles--on one end you have those people who think gays should not be treated the same as hetrosexuals with regards to marital issues and on the other end you have those who think homos and heteros should be treated exactly the same (that may mean everyone gets marriages or everyone gets civil unions).

The idea that a separate institution should be created to provide gays with the same privileges as heteros would not fit at either pole and would hence fall somewhere in the middle. One could say, it would fall somewhere near the center or that it was a "centrist" position.

PS* Just to note, that would mean that my position would be at the end of the spectrum where everyone is treated equally. Though I don't think the state should be involved in marriage period. Indeed, from the state's point of view, marriage/civil unions should be like any other contractual relationship. They shouldn't be in the business of dictating morality or second guessing the love between two people.

PPS* Are you defining centrist as "whatever I agree with"?

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 10:56 AM. Reason : ``]

7/16/2008 10:52:28 AM

Quote :

"^^ Nuts, in the post directly before mine you were talking about the GOP in general. That's also how you started this thread (by talking about the GOP broadly then focusing on Troy King as an example). Heck, you even included this most recent post by talking about republicans in general."

My reference to Republicans in General was in direct response to this line by Hooksaw: "how do the failings of some Republicans invalidate this particular plank in the party's platform"

Do you think all posts operate in their own insular world and are not part of the entire conversation?

Quote :

"If you want to make sweeping generalizations of millions of people, you're going to expand your dataset beyond Tory King (believe it or not, you may even want to include more than 3 or 4 high profile cases). And I think including the man that the majority of Republicans participating in the primaries chose to represent them in the general election for the highest executive office in the country is worthy of inclusion in that dataset."

Not at all. The Republican party is a "big tent party" to use the words of George W. Bush. Likewise, the national platform has little to do with the people who run on the party's ticket. So even though John McCain is the presidential nominee, there still exists in the Party's Platform an anti-homosexual agenda and the hypocrisy of that agenda is highlighted through the likes of Troy King, Larry Craig, Mark Folley, etc.

Quote :

"Prove it."

find me instances of Democrats who have run on moral agendas getting busted for sexual hypocrisy. I'll give you one right now to make it easier for you, Elliot Spitzer. Other than that, find them.

Quote :

"The idea that a separate institution should be created to provide gays with the same privileges as heteros would not fit at either pole and would hence fall somewhere in the middle. One could say, it would fall somewhere near the center or that it was a "centrist" position"

It is still a position of the left. It is not a position you will find extremely common on the right side of the political specturm. There isn't a real center to everything. That is why you always hear the phrase, center-left, center-right, far-left, far-right.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 10:59 AM. Reason : .]

7/16/2008 10:53:48 AM

Quote :

"The idea that a separate institution should be created to provide gays with the same privileges as heteros would not fit at either pole and would hence fall somewhere in the middle. One could say, it would fall somewhere near the center or that it was a "centrist" position. "

Separate but equal (for races) has already been found to not work in society and is considered morally wrong - unless you're in the KKK or whatnot. How is it different in this situation? People used the bible to justify racism when it was legally enforced as well.

7/16/2008 10:57:26 AM

Nutz,Wait. So you're saying I shouldn't have responded to your post because you yourself were going off topic? Wow.

Anyways. It's pretty clear this won't be a fruitful discussion, so I'll duck out now. I mean, you're proposing a counting match to resolve this issue. "Let's count up all the Democrats and Republican politicans who fell short of their own moral standards and that's how we'll decide which party is generally populated by people with character flaws". hahaha

I mean the entire premise of your previous assertions (that there is a correlation between party membership and moral character) is a little absurd. I mean, why should preferring lower taxes make one more morally bankrupt?

This is just not a conversion that sounds very productive, fun, or insightful.

7/16/2008 11:04:32 AM

Skankin,

Quote :

"Separate but equal (for races) has already been found to not work in society and is considered morally wrong - unless you're in the KKK or whatnot. How is it different in this situation? People used the bible to justify racism when it was legally enforced as well."

Disagreeing with the position does not mean it isn't centrist. I also think it's funny that you're comparing Obama's position to one held by a 1960's KKK member. But you're not the first. During the gay issues forum, Obama was told that his position sounded like "separate but equal" from back in the 1960's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8

Did he say "you know you're right, I think gays should be able to get married just like heteros"? No. He said that he was sympathetic to their concerns and suggested that there were probably bigger problems faced by gays than equal marital status (he did so by making a parallel with civil rights movement, saying that if he was advising them now he would not suggest they obsess over marital rights but on "bigger" issues like voting rights, what those issues are for gays he didn't say).

It's funny what strange bed fellows one makes in politics.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 11:20 AM. Reason : ``]

7/16/2008 11:12:49 AM

Quote :

"Disagreeing with the position does not mean it isn't centrist."

Saying a 'middle ground' position is centrist doesn't make it centrist.

I think both of the presidential candidates position on this sucks from a human rights perspective.

We haven't learned the lessons of the past - you can't gradually give people rights like this, it's immoral and regressive.

7/16/2008 11:22:06 AM

^^Quit going off topic, this isn't about Obama or McCain. I don't know why you have the irresitible urge to make every soap box thread on politics about your love for McCain and hatred for Obama.

Quote :

"Nutz,Wait. So you're saying I shouldn't have responded to your post because you yourself were going off topic? Wow. "

Not at all. i'm sorry you are purposefully obtuse.

Quote :

"Anyways. It's pretty clear this won't be a fruitful discussion, so I'll duck out now. I mean, you're proposing a counting match to resolve this issue. "Let's count up all the Democrats and Republican politicans who fell short of their own moral standards and that's how we'll decide which party is generally populated by people with character flaws". hahaha "

Do you only read my posts and not the posts I'm responding to? You have quite the knack for that. Never once, did I at all suggest the Democratic party does not have its own moral flaws. your strawman responses are neither fruitful or worth really debating with you.

Quote :

"I mean the entire premise of your previous assertions (that there is a correlation between party membership and moral character) is a little absurd. I mean, why should preferring lower taxes make one more morally bankrupt?"

You read far too much into it. I never once said there was a correlation between party membership and moral character. I suggest you actually respond to what people write instead of the 15 minute conversation you have in your head with only yourself.

Quote :

"This is just not a conversion that sounds very productive, fun, or insightful."

Yes, and the "Another NC Democrat" corruption thread meet this high standard you have established.

Here is a hint, pull your head out of your own ass and quit smelling your farts. They don't smell as good as you think.

Quote :

"Disagreeing with the position does not mean it isn't centrist."

Center-left, not centrists.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 11:27 AM. Reason : .]

7/16/2008 11:24:08 AM

Quote :

"Saying a 'middle ground' position is centrist doesn't make it centrist. I think both of the presidential candidates position on this sucks from a human rights perspective. We haven't learned the lessons of the past - you can't gradually give people rights like this, it's immoral and regressive."

Skankin,

So "centrist" is defined as "whatever SkankinMonky can agree with"? I don't think that's a very robust definition.

But it's just a label made to ease the flow of conversation. If you disagree with my use, I won't worry about it much. The underlying positions and facts the label is meant to describe haven't changed and we can talk about them without labels if you like (though I already agree with you that a separate institution for gays would be regressive and unfair). But the fact that you said that Obama's position on gay issues is similar to a KKK member's stance on race issues was enough to make my day.

PS* I still had that video of Obama open when a co-worker came in. Now they probably think I'm voting for Obama. I'll have to buy a McCain t-shirt now or something to erase the notion.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 11:43 AM. Reason : ``]

7/16/2008 11:34:34 AM

Crazy Hayseed County Democrat. i'm still trying to figure out how someone can go from Edwards to Clinton to McCain.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 11:43 AM. Reason : .]

7/16/2008 11:43:17 AM

Quote :

"But the fact that you said that Obama's position on gay issues is similar to a KKK member's stance on race issues was enough to make my day."

It's true though. However I still think he's better than McCain.

7/16/2008 12:01:07 PM

Quote :

"Saying a 'middle ground' position is centrist doesn't make it centrist."

7/16/2008 12:46:23 PM

My point with the centrist statement is that the actual 'centrist' position isn't necessarily in the middle of the left and right. Sure, it's somewhere in the extremes but it's not as easy as saying, in this case, 'well conservatives want all gays to not even be together legally, liberals want them to have the same rights as everyone else, so the center position is to let them be together legally but don't call it marriage.' I think you'd find most true 'centrists' in the country more socially progressive and economically conservative (while allowing for a strong safety net). A lot of studies, done by congress, show that a decent majority of americans also support some version of national healthcare, which would also put that as a more centrist position in the US.

We may be talking about different ideologies here, which is causing confusion - but I don't see centrism as taking the middle ground of the fringe left and fringe right.

7/16/2008 1:15:54 PM

Quote :

"A lot of studies, done by congress. . . ."

The Democrat-led Congress? Post some of those numerous studies please.

7/16/2008 1:58:34 PM

Say what you will about the elected officials, but the CBO and GAO are nonpartisan. They do an extremely good job of keeping balance no matter what party is in power.

^Look, it is the non-partisan guy who likes to throw in partisan jabs by not spelling the party's name right. Unless of course he is truely illiterate.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 2:45 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2008 2:45:06 PM

Quote :

"Look, it is the non-partisan guy who likes to throw in partisan jabs by not spelling the party's name right. Unless of course he is truely [sic] illiterate."

1. There is nothing grammatically incorrect about my use of "Democrat-led Congress."

2. In the instances that I use "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" adjectivally, my purpose is to piss off you and others like you through my use of spelling as commentary. I have obviously succeeded.

3. If you're going to question someone else's spelling, you should check your own spelling first, buffoon.

7/17/2008 8:15:02 AM

I'm not a big fan of the Repub-led executive branch right now.

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 8:35 AM. Reason : .]

7/17/2008 8:17:26 AM

Quote :

"Post some of those numerous studies please."

I think I'm going to defer to your behavior in this instance and let you do the research for yourself - you seem to have a lot of free time and the information is out there, I don't keep list of studies readily available to make you happy.

Quote :

"In the instances that I use "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" adjectivally, my purpose is to piss off you and others like you through my use of spelling as commentary. emulate Fox News Anchors and Rush Limbaugh. I have obviously succeeded."

Well played, sir.

7/17/2008 8:31:51 AM

The Republic-led Executive has taken us down a path of hardship and perpetual war.

7/17/2008 8:58:26 AM

Quote :

"truely illiterate"

7/17/2008 9:00:09 AM

Self-pwn.

7/17/2008 9:05:59 AM

I rely on firefox's spell check,

yet make fun of other people's spelling.

7/17/2008 9:21:49 AM

If you have to check the spelling of "truly," you should return your degree to wherever you got it, label yourself a failure, and live out your life in shame.

7/17/2008 9:36:08 AM

nvm

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 9:48 AM. Reason : not gonna feed boone's strawman]

7/17/2008 9:38:08 AM