factoryhurl wrote:
you really are a racist. sad. i thought it was schtick.
I did too originally, but about a month ago it all became clear.
| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
BillGuido |
|||
factoryhurl wrote: I did too originally, but about a month ago it all became clear. |
|||
merkyl |
|||
|
So what's the position of the national democratic party again?
|
|||
Visa Declined |
|||
|
national democrats suck ass and not in the good way. But at least democrat-socialists oppose a constutional amendment and favor federal recognition of all marriages as long as they are legal in a particular state. Those are huge differences. |
|||
factoryhurl |
|||
BillGuido wrote: he seemed like a kind hearted person but anyone who could post some of the things he posts makes me |
|||
bluesboi |
|||
|
New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal
Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience. Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence. Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.' |
|||
bob2559 |
|||
unduli clone wrote: A few years back SI was touting a "nonpartisan" group that graded congress on their support of the military. This "nonpartisan" group gave every single Dem a high passing grade, while giving every single Pub a low failing grade. But as it turns out, this "nonpartisan" group was founded by Wesley Clark, a former Dem presidential candidate and front man for the Dems. The same guy who attacked McCain's Navy command experience as being insignificant, yet told us Obama was fully qualified to be Commander in Chief. I'm betting that if some Pubs wanted to create their own gay watchdog group, they could make one that would grade every single Pub as passing, while giving low, failing grades to every single Dem. Pahrump Mania wrote: X. What a horrible man. So glad that Obama didn't employ any of the people from Bush's evil administration who helped push through that bigoted act. You need to give your sarcasm meter a checkup, the DOMA was passed in 1996. |
|||
youfist |
|||
factoryhurl wrote:I love it. typical liberal mantra. When presented with the hypocricy of the left...the standard Ad Hom response it... 1. racist 2. hate monger Seriously, in this thread you have a liberal calling black and gay Republicans nothing but 'tokens'.... and why it that? because they see color and identiy polics first and foremost. You can't be serious and a (R) if you are Black or Gay? Nope...not to the racist Liberal who sees color first. I laugh on how Sotomayor can't be ruffed up due to 'offending' Hispanics...but Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Michael Steele, Alberto Gonzolas....all can get trampled on and that doesn't offend blacks and hispanics?? And why? according to the Paedo, they are mere tokens due to their skin color. and you call me a racist? How obtuse and well, typical of the left. |
|||
superguppie |
|||
|
I think so, Visa. When the 'gay marriage ban' was voted on AZ in '08, Pima County (majority Dem) voted against it; Maricopa County (majority Repub)
voted for it. Phoenix has the numbers so Tucson was pwned again.
And here is the breakdown of voting by party for Arizona's gay marriage ban. In case you can't figure it out, the first percentage is the proportion that voted to ban gay marriage. The second is the proportion that voted against. it. ETA: Forgot my source-the CNN election center exit polls for Prop 102 in AZ.
Last Edited By: superguppie
06/04/09 10:15 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
BobbyBrown06 |
|||
|
You know which "major" party actually supports Gay Marriage?
The Green Party - (G) Go Green in 2012 with me. |
|||
Gregoire |
|||
UrbanSprawl wrote:That's one way to look at it. Or you could also say conservatism is the brakes, liberalism the gas pedal. You eventually need to get to your destination and you want to get there as a society fast, but you don't need to die getting there. |
|||
Ann Margret Thatcher |
|||
youfist wrote: You really can't lecture others on their supposed bigotry while constantly throwing around slurs like "fag" (among many others) and expect to come away with any shred of credibility. |
|||
youfist |
|||
|
That's one way to look at it. Or you could also say conservatism is the brakes, liberalism the gas pedal. You eventually need to get to your destination
and you want to get there as a society fast, but you don't need to die getting there.
Like when the Republican Party was formed to end slavery because the Democrats where blocking that? |
|||
Visa Declined |
|||
|
ending slavery = republicans last accomplishment. Not sure whether
|
|||
youfist |
|||
|
Republicans have always believed that every man and woman is created equal. This is not a choice that can be made for us by others. It isn't up to our government. So we required our government to fulfill that promise. The same year as the first Civil Rights Act, Republicans in Congress wrote another constitutional amendment to extend even further the scope of our civil rights legislation. We extended the concepts of due process of law, and equal protection of the laws, to every state. Now, every state -- even those where Democrats held sway -- would have to implement these principles. No longer just at the federal level, but at the state level as well, the civil rights of every American individual would be protected. This major civil rights advance -- what we now know as the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- is a purely Republican achievement, because every single Democrat in Congress voted against the 14th Amendment. That is another fact deftly omitted from American history textbooks these days: we owe our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws and due process to Republicans, and this bedrock of American civil rights was unanimously opposed by the Democrats. Three years later, in 1869, the Republicans proposed yet another constitutional amendment, this one specifically guaranteeing blacks the right to
vote. The same partisanship was in evidence: 98% of Republicans voted for it; 97% of the Democrats voted against
Republicans led the integration of pro sports. Branch Rickey, owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, was a Republican businessman who hired his
fellow Republican, Jackie Robinson. Together they integrated Major League Baseball when Jackie Robinson took the field in 1947 for his first game. In addition
to being a great athlete, a great Dodger, and a great American, Jackie Robinson was a great Republican -- and a very outspoken one.
|
|||
Gregoire |
|||
Gay Marriage Legal in 'The Sims 3'Lyle Masaki at AfterElton tested the new version of The Sims to see if gays and lesbians could get married like any other couple. He reports: "...after a week of game time, I was able to get a male couple to plan a wedding party and tie the knot." |
|||
StarrEise |
|||
|
Yeah, the only point I'm going to respond to in UC's diatribe is this one because I don't have time today to sit here and go round and round n an
endless circle jerk:
What part does marriage play in your life? NONE. I don't need the state or any religion condoning my lifestyle choices, whether those are to be married or single. If my parents weren't married, I cannot imagine it would have made a huge difference in the choices they made. Aside from tax breaks and some issues regarding benefits (which are now becoming more available than ever before to same sex couples without government interference), it wouldn't much change things. The fact of the matter is this, a bigot is defined as a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. That's you, UC, sorry. You are completely intolerant of anyone who doesn't support the push for gay marriage. I'm glad you consider yourself so advanced, but not everyone has to feel the way you do. I support gay marriage, but I do get a little tired of this being at the forefront of every political discussion. There is more at stake regarding the future of this county than whether or not you can marry your boyfriend. You want it all, you want it NOW. Well, frankly, life just doesn't work that way. But incessantly bashing the other side - the other side you hope to change - and laying claim to the so-called moral high ground isn't doing you (or your cause) any favors. |
|||
Ann Margret Thatcher |
|||
|
This year, 2004, is the 50th anniversary of the modern civil rights
movement, which most people date to the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. That opinion was written
by a Republican Chief Justiceappointed by a Republican President, Dwight
Eisenhower. And of course that Republican Chief Justice had been our three-term Republican Governor here in California, and he'd been our Republican
nominee for Vice President of the United States in 1948
And did you know that Eisenhower later referred to his nomination of Warren as the "biggest damn fool mistake" he'd ever made as president? Or that Republican scion Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Or that more Northern Democrats voted for it than Northern Republicans? Were Goldwater and Eisenhower racists? I don't believe they were at all. But I do disagree with their conservative philosophy that the civil rights legislation was an attempt at "legislating morality" and therefore not the government's job. I'm actually grateful that Earl Warren was an activist judge. We can also talk about that same bill being introduced to Congress by a Democratic president, and later signed into law by another Democratic president. Or we can talk about a Democratic president ending segregation in the military with the stroke of a pen. My point here is that you really don't want to get into a debate about which party was strongest on civil rights, because each side have equal victories as well as shame. |
|||
youfist |
|||
Ann Margret Thatcher wrote: Ann, I agree and I am sure we can play whataboutery all day long. This is apparent in the 'Obama is the worst' thread. I guess the reason I put it out there was becasue UC was bascially calling R's 'backwards' and saying that if you are a R and have black skin or are gay you are a 'token'....something that is blatently racist and quite frankly very obtuse from someone who considers himself the smartest person on the board. Look at what we have, though. 150 posts on my thread and it all boils down to (R) v (D) even when the 'master of Bush' ...the 'Darth Vader' ...the 'Evil Cheney' comes out in favor of Gay Marriage, something that those 'evil conservatives' loathe, it comes down to a (R) bash fest from the lunatic fringe. I was expecting 'wow, Cheney is progessive' or something similar. Certainly more progressive than Obama on this. |
|||
Gregoire |
|||
I was expecting 'wow, Cheney is progessive' or something similar. How do you know that? Cheney and Obama are pretty much eye-to-eye thus far when it comes to their policies on gay marriage. Why would you say either of them are progressive on this issue? Linking Cheney to the word progressive at all is probably one of the funniest things I've heard all day. As somebody earlier said, Cheney will believe in what is good for his own purposes. You've only chosen to highlight this as anti-Obama, which was most likely Cheney's objective. Again, if this was something he truly believed in, he could have done something about it when he had power. |
|||
superguppie |
|||
|
Yup. Let's ditch the posing and just accept the fact that because of the political party system, neither side can really say what they want to say about
gay marriage while in office. Unless, of course, they are against it. Then they're allowed to blather on because this country is getting stupider
by the minute.
|
|||