Health Care to fail

[DiamondSkin]

The simple answer is yes I'd vote for him, but I'll clarify a couple issues you raised:

of those 4 "anti gay" initiatives you've listed, the first two are already on the books here in FL, I'd agree with the third, and anti-discrimination laws are generally on the books at the local level so on a practical level its irrelevant, and my answer is only applicable on a hypothetical generic state governor level

Ugh, I was imagining the worst anti-gay candidate I could think of and you STILL would vote him.

I'm sure if he tossed in a ban on sodomy and gay bars, that wouldn't matter to you either.

Well, there's no reasoning with you. You've already made up your mind.

You don't respect yourself as a gay person if you OPENLY and WILLINGLY want to vote for ANTI-GAY governor who has made every effort to demean your rights as a citizen.

Do you honestly think it would stop there?

Four anti-gay initiatives from an vehmently anti-gay governor and you don't think he wouldn't go all the way to add MORE initiatives?

He bans gay marriage.

He bans gay adoption.

He bans gay people from the workplace.

He bans hate crime legislation thus opening the door for hate crimes against gays.

You'd think a governor like that would stop there?

Ugh!

 

[jdoe4822]

It's okay to hold other issues dear to your heart....but don't say that there are other issues more important than gay rights.

That says to me, "I don't think my rights are important" or "I don't respect myself as a gay person to think my rights are always important."

Sorry but I think it's self centered and selfish of us to consider gay rights more important than the wholesale legalized slaughter of millions of kids every year in America's abortion clinics. As a gay guy I feel a lot more safe with a gun and laws on the books to protect my right to use it to blow the head off any intruder I don't want in my home (God bless Florida and castle defense) than anything the government can do to protect me. Its selfish to be content to see the global economy wrecked just so dear Uncle Sam will call my partner my husband.

 

[DiamondSkin]

Sorry but I think it's self centered and selfish of us to consider gay rights more important than the wholesale legalized slaughter of millions of kids every year in America's abortion clinics. As a gay guy I feel a lot more safe with a gun and laws on the books to protect my right to use it to blow the head off any intruder I don't want in my home (God bless Florida and castle defense) than anything the government can do to protect me. Its selfish to be content to see the global economy wrecked just so dear Uncle Sam will call my partner my husband.

Gay rights shouldn't be more or less important than anything to a gay person.

It's ALWAYS at the top of the pile.

You've just shot your credibility when you said you wouldn't have ANY problems voting for anti-gay governor.

It's like a black person voting for racist governor who would ban interracial marriage. It's MIND-BOGGLING.

It shows you don't care about gay rights at all and you don't respect yourself as a gay person.

And gay marriage is so much more than "the government calling your partner your husband"

When your partner gets hit by car and you're not allowed hospital visits or allowed medical decisions, let's see how complacent about gay rights you'll be.

 

[jdoe4822]

Gay rights shouldn't be more or less important than anything to a gay person.

It's ALWAYS at the top of the pile.

You've just shot your credibility when you said you wouldn't have ANY problems voting for anti-gay governor.

It's like a black person voting for racist governor who would ban interracial marriage. It's MIND-BOGGLING.

It shows you don't care about gay rights at all and you don't respect yourself as a gay person.

And gay marriage is so much more than "the government calling your partner your husband"

When your partner gets hit by car and you're not allowed hospital visits or allowed medical decisions, let's see how complacent about gay rights you'll be.

we seem to be going round and round here so not sure there's a point in continuing this, but that bein said...

many of those antigay initiatives you mentioned would run into constitutional challenges. The Supreme Court has already ruled Sodomy bans unconstitional. I could see a campaign against gay bars being challenged on 1st amend freedom of assembly grounds. Also, there are other "gay rights" besides the one you talk about. As I said, the most basic and important is my right to personal safety and the most fundemental component of that is my right to own, carry, and use a firearm. Second to that are external threats from foreign enemies who would prefer to see me as an American as well as me as a gay man killed for being an infidel.

 

[01solara]

While the watered-down health care bill offered few solutions to the real issues in US health care, it's telling to see that conservatives will happily cheer on any lack of progress for the issue.

Meanwhile, medical bills continue to be the number one cause of home foreclosure in the US.

Tens of millions of Americans continue to have no medical insurance.

People with pre-existing conditions continue to be denied any form of medical insurance.

Insurance companies continue to deny policy holders many forms of treatment whenever they can.

Hooray, conservatives, hooray. You must be very proud.

10 percent unemployment after a 787 billion dollar stimulus that didn't stimulate might have a little to do with foreclosures as well. For what we spent we could have probably bailed out every single upside down and late mortgage and had money left over. The money from the party that supposedly supports the little guy went to Wallstreet and the unions via Government Motors. The little guys are struggling even harder and now their grand kids will be struggling to pay the bills that we are now racking up to give to the fat cats. Wall Street is flourishing now and they are doing it on our dime. What is wrong with this picture?

 

[hotatlboi]

Michael Castle
Mary Bono
Mario Diaz-Balart
David Dreier
Joe Knollenberg
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Ron Paul

Voted to ban gay adoptions.

Judd Gregg
Olympia Snowe
John McCain

Voted for DOMA.

Ray LaHood
Thad McCotter
Frank LoBiondo
Gordon Harold Smith
Greg Walden
Jerry Weller
Rave Reichert
Jim Saxton
Todd Platts

Voted for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Jon Shimkus

Voted against ENDA and for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

As you can see, you're quite mistaken.

As you can see, you are quite mistaken.

These are the Republicans you are trumpeting for supporting gay rights?

You provided a list of no more than a handful (considering the total number in Congress) of Republican politicians. And even within this list, the support for gay rights is rather shamefully poor.

Your assertion that numerous Republicans support gay rights remains unfounded and vacuous. Believe it if that's what lets you sleep at night, but it simply is not true.

 

[ShyLight]

Can someone explain to me why any self respecting Gay man or Woman would support a republican for anything? A party of people who thrives on the
HATE of the religious right. Oh nevermind, don't bother!

Given that this is a website with a gay audience, it's understandable that you would highlight this particular viewpoint, and I certainly agree with it and the tone of your frustration.

However, the inconsistencies of being both gay and Republican aside, there are other issues that I wish more gay Republicans would speak to beyond gay rights, such as the lack of support for and outreach to minority communities including impoverishment, inequality in the spheres of economics, education, and the justice system to name a few, and other related issues. I never see any gay Republicans bring up these topics or seriously discuss them, and given what gays have had to endure over the years and how much they throw around terms like "Constitution" and "Founding Fathers", one would think it would be an important issue for them.

We can have a back-and-forth philosophical debate about climate change, abortion, and gun control with no problem, but what about other issues of equality that have been invisible to Republicans for so long? Equality is supposed to be a part of the fabric of this nation and yet it's a topic that's been swept under the rug for years.

Even though I believe in many of the principles and the spirit of the Democratic Party, I regularly find common ground with my Republican friends, associates, and colleagues when we debate certain issues. However, I don't think I would ever in good conscience even consider voting for one until I see evidence not only of a massive shifting of their energies toward closing the blatant inequality gap among both ethnic AND sexual minorities in every sector of our society, but also a sincere and substantive effort through tangible policies. To do otherwise is antithetical to what this country was supposed to be founded on.

 

[DiamondSkin]

we seem to be going round and round here so not sure there's a point in continuing this, but that bein said...

many of those antigay initiatives you mentioned would run into constitutional challenges. The Supreme Court has already ruled Sodomy bans unconstitional. I could see a campaign against gay bars being challenged on 1st amend freedom of assembly grounds. Also, there are other "gay rights" besides the one you talk about. As I said, the most basic and important is my right to personal safety and the most fundemental component of that is my right to own, carry, and use a firearm. Second to that are external threats from foreign enemies who would prefer to see me as an American as well as me as a gay man killed for being an infidel.

Honey.

You can spin it all you like and try to bring up technicalities about how the stated anti-gay initiatives won't hurt as much as one would like to think.

But you just stated, than under any circumstances, you wouldn't have ANY problem VOTING for an ANTI-GAY politician who ACTIVELY and REPEATEDLY passes ANTI-GAY initiatives that DISCRIMINATES against you because of your sexual orientation just speaks of your character.

It's just sad.

A gay man voting for a rabid anti-gay politician who actively tries to take away your rights and demean you as a second class citizen.

I don't know whether it's bacause you suffer from sort of Stockholm Syndrome where you complacent with being discriminated against or you have issues with being gay, but you need to re-check yourself.

It's like a black person voting for a racist politician.

MIND-BOGGLING.

 

[jdoe4822]

10 percent unemployment after a 787 billion dollar stimulus that didn't stimulate might have a little to do with foreclosures as well. For what we spent we could have probably bailed out every single upside down and late mortgage and had money left over. The money from the party that supposedly supports the little guy went to Wallstreet and the unions via Government Motors. The little guys are struggling even harder and now their grand kids will be struggling to pay the bills that we are now racking up to give to the fat cats. Wall Street is flourishing now and they are doing it on our dime. What is wrong with this picture?

Yeah I'm still waiting to receive my GM stock certificattes in the mail. I'm a taxpayer, and my government used my money to buy them, so I own shares in them right?

 

[jdoe4822]

Honey.

You can spin it all you like and try to bring up technicalities about how the stated anti-gay initiatives won't hurt as much as one would like to think.

But you just stated, than under any circumstances, you wouldn't have ANY problem VOTING for an ANTI-GAY politician who ACTIVELY and REPEATEDLY passes ANTI-GAY initiatives that DISCRIMINATES against you because of your sexual orientation just speaks of your character.

It's just sad.

A gay man voting for a rabid anti-gay politician who actively tries to take away your rights and demean you as a second class citizen.

I don't know whether it's bacause you suffer from sort of Stockholm Syndrome where you complacent with being discriminated against or you have issues with being gay, but you need to re-check yourself.

It's like a black person voting for a racist politician.

MIND-BOGGLING.

got it so you're saying there's no point in continuing the debate because your mind is made up. and "honey"? dude I'm a guy, I got balls and dick.

 

[grantt]

^Don't hold your breath. The Union controls that now. It was given to them.

 

[jdoe4822]

That's correct. But held in trust by the government.

Without the government, there wouldn't even be a GM right now anyway.

and dare I say we'll actually find something to agree on in saying that they should have been allowed to die?

 

[jdoe4822]

^Don't hold your breath. The Union controls that now. It was given to them.

I know. I was halfway kidding (I know that it will never happen even if I think it should)

 

[DiamondSkin]

got it so you're saying there's no point in continuing the debate because your mind is made up. and "honey"? dude I'm a guy, I got balls and dick.

I use the word "Honey" for individuals who think deserve special attention....

No, YOUR mind is made up.

You would vote for Maggie Gallagher if she supported gun rights.

You would vote for anti-gay politician. And you're a gay man.

If the politician voted against gay marriage, gay adoption, discrimination against gay workers, gays in the military and ENDA, you wouldn't blink an eye.

As long you got a gun...

The fact that you don't see ANYTHING wrong with this is just plain dumbfounding.....

 

[01solara]

I use the word "Honey" for individuals who think deserve special attention....

No, YOUR mind is made up.

You would vote for Maggie Gallagher if she supported gun rights.

You would vote for anti-gay politician. And you're a gay man.

If the politician voted against gay marriage, gay adoption, discrimination against gay workers, gays in the military and ENDA, you wouldn't blink an eye.

As long you got a gun...

The fact that you don't see ANYTHING wrong with this is just plain dumbfounding.....

Once they take away your gun rights what is to stop them from taking any other right they want. It was in the second amendment for that very reason.

 

[jdoe4822]

Appeal to Consequences

Appeal to Probability

Slippery Slope

all three are informal fallacies.

if the British had been able to take away our guns a couple hundred years ago we wouldn't exist as a country today.

 

[DiamondSkin]

Once they take away your gun rights what is to stop them from taking any other right they want. It was in the second amendment for that very reason.

Who said anything about taking away your gun?

In the scenario, the politician was pro-gun rights. The Second Amendment already clear states a citizen has the right to bear arms.

And since where on the topic of "rights" and the Constitution, what about the right to equality and the pursuit of happieness?

If an anti-gay politician bans gay marriage, gay adoption, and supports discrimination against gay workers, than "what's to stop [him] from taking any other right they want?"

It's okay to you to give up OTHER rights for one right? No, ALL rights are self-evident.

Please don't tell me you're another self-loathing gay/bisexual man who has no problem voting for a rabid anti-gay politician...

 

[jdoe4822]

Presentism

A logical fallacy that projects today's standards on the past.

In other words, don't compare apples to oranges.

while the current US government is not tyrannical as the British Colonial one was, I'd argue that a key to keeping things that way is keeping a well armed public. Those who do not know history are destined to relive it.

 

[DiamondSkin]

while the current US government is not tyrannical as the British Colonial one was, I'd argue that a key to keeping things that way is keeping a well armed public. Those who do not know history are destined to relive it.

This is a ridiculous notion.

If in a typical B-Movie clusterfuck, the U.S. government were to somehow get the idea to take over the nation like Britain did, we would be fucked.

You got a shotgun or two?

The military has friggin' robot planes that nuke an area the size of 10 square blocks.

We wouldn't stand a bloody chance.

 

[jdoe4822]

I do not believe, in this day and age, that the way to improving the functions of a modern government is by stockpiling of private arms, nor is it a way to prevent the government from becoming more "tyrannical." I don't believe that either party of the United States is capable of breaching constitutional guarantees of freedom without due process of law before the Supreme court. The Constitution is more powerful than any gun. It wasn't so in 1765, because it didn't exist.

I would agreee that the Constitution is the first, primary, and hopefully only necessary line of defense. Guns are our last line of defense when all else fails. Just as my primary protection from criminals is law enforcement who keep them from ever getting to my front door, but that gun is there just in case they get past. Either way, its there in the (unlikely) event that you ever need it.