Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Open Thread on Elections

We never do this, but there are a lot of interesting developments in elections around the country and locally tonight. Why don't we use this thread to talk about it? Same-sex marriage, Democrats and Republicans and Independents... Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, all your favorite things! Go at it.

93 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

one interesting thing is that Harry Reid is saying tonight that the health care bill is unlikely to go to the President this year

I was talking to a political science professor at a school down here in the Shenandoah today and he says if it doesn't pass this year, it never will

November 03, 2009 11:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

apparently, gay marriage is now losing in Maine with 56% of vote in but the margin is razor thin

November 03, 2009 11:33 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

It appears that the sexual and gender identity law passed in Kalamazoo:

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/elections/Voters_to_have_final_say_on_gay_rights


Interestingly, the anti-rights folks used the bathroom perv tactic there too. Other reports indicate the vote was roughly 2:1 in favor, but I haven't confirmed that yet.

Have a nice evening.

Cynthia

November 03, 2009 11:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Have a nice evening."

We will comply!

November 04, 2009 12:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

looks like the early lead didn't hold

gay "marriage" has been repealed in Maine:

no state has yet voted to allow gay "marriage" and Maine makes the 31st to vote not to

it is the first time a state has voted to reject a gay "marriage" bill enacted by a state legislature

all past votes have overturned judicial decisions

Sarah Palin's candidate in NY lost by 48-46 but he was unknown before Palin endorsed him so she still looks pretty good

on the gubernatorial races, the one consolation for Dems is that their candidates were deeply flawed so choosing better candidates might have changed things

still, the results are now history and perception is often king

of course, there's this little tidbit of incompetency:

"White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said he doesn't know if White House lawyers have reviewed whether it is constitutional for the federal government to order individuals to buy health insurance"

yes, we can fail

November 04, 2009 2:11 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Re Maine: Remember, they won fraudulently. The yes on 1 organizers have nothing legitimate to celebrate than their own moral bankruptcy.

November 04, 2009 5:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sour grapes, improv

maybe you are thinking of something that happened in a past life

Maine voters also voted to legalize marijuana and to approve an anti-tax ballot

they shouldn't bother with a vote up there

they should just ask me

November 04, 2009 6:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

one thing that we can count on:

no matter what happens, every election will have something for the opponents of the gay agenda to celebrate

last year, California

this year, Maine

what a lot of people don't realize is that what voters voted for last year was a tone

in desperation, the pro-gay agenda Democrat governor in NJ ran ads attacking his opponent for being fat

that kind of TTF-style personal attack is the kiss of death politically

in Virginia, the personal attacks on McDonnell by Deeds were rejected by all voters

Fairfax County, voters under thirty, independent voters, et al: every category went for McDonnell

while Americans generally like Obama, no politician will feel he can help them in 2010: from the Chicago Olympics to Corzine, everyone ignores Obama's endorsement

yikes!

November 04, 2009 7:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Remember, they won fraudulently"

Emprov,

we won

GET OVER IT!!

November 04, 2009 7:30 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Emproph writes,

Re Maine: Remember, they won fraudulently. The yes on 1 organizers have nothing legitimate to celebrate than their own moral bankruptcy.

You have made an allegation; now it is time for you to back up such a claim. Fraud is a serious charge against any democratic election, so back it up *OR* we will all know that your comment is nothing more than "sour grapes".

I had almost forgotten about the vote in Maine; when I heard the news this morning on NPR I was nearly moved to tears of joy and gratitude. Even in these morally confused times in which we live, it is possible for enough citizens to pull out of the haze of relativism long enough and see clearly what is at stake. I am certain there are many stories of great personal sacrifice to have made the result in Maine that took place.

November 04, 2009 8:12 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Orin insisted:

“You have made an allegation; now it is time for you to back up such a claim. Fraud is a serious charge against any democratic election, so back it up *OR* we will all know that your comment is nothing more than "sour grapes".”

From:

http://timesrecord.com/articles/2009/11/02/news/doc4aef1e96e5008287413425.txt

“Supporters of Question 1 also include the National Organization for Marriage, which recently went to a U.S. District Court to challenge the constitutionality of Maine’s campaign financial disclosure laws. However, Judge D. Brock Hornby rejected a restraining order filed by the National Organization for Marriage to prevent disclosure of its donors.

The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices is currently investigating allegations that NOM violated Maine law by failing to register as a Ballot Question Committee, which is required of any group giving $5,000 or more toward passage or defeat of a referendum.

NOM has given some $1.6 million to Stand For Marriage Maine, yet argues registering with the commission and releasing names of its donors is in violation of the First Amendment and its protection of free speech.

Hornby rejected that notion last week, declaring, “Maine has a strong and even compelling interest in helping the electorate assess the particular issue on its merits by providing voters with information about where the money supporting a measure has come from and therefore whose interest it serves.”

Maine Attorney General Janet Mills has requested disclosure of donor names in advance of Tuesday’s referendum and urged NOM to comply with Maine election law.”

The article is dated Monday Nov 2nd. I have not found any information that NOM complied with the law by Tuesday Nov 3rd.

I don’t know if NOM’s actions would legally be considered “fraud,” or some other type of crime. Either way, it doesn’t look good for democracy.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

November 04, 2009 9:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

doesn't sound like fraud

just a legal dispute that will eventually be resolved

one thing I do know is that outside groups supporting gay "marriage" injected significantly more money than the oppostion

I think many people share Orin's joy this morning that our country apears to not be irredeemably lost

November 04, 2009 10:25 AM  
Blogger David S. Fishback said...

To Orin and Anon,

How, pray tell, would the country "be lost" if gay couples had the right to have the same rights and responsibilities as straight couples? How would it hurt the country, for example, if my son and his partner were allowed to marry?

Time is on the side of those seeking full equality,since most younger people do not have the prejudices of their elders. But that is insufficient consolation to those who need those rights now.

Incidentally, there has been little coverage of the vote in Washington State, where petitioners are trying to repeal that state's "everything but marriage" civil unions statute. I just received an e-mail from a friend in the Seattle area that the effort to repeal is losing (a Yes on this referendum would sustain the statute), but that a lot of precincts in both King's County (where most people are pro-gay rights) and in more rural parts of the state (where the reverse seems to be the case) have not yet reported. If the Washington State statute is upheld in the referendum, what is the snapshot lesson? The that a majority of voters are ok with civil unions, about 5% of those people can't yet deal with the M word?

As for Virginia, the smart thing McDonnell did was to utterly ignore the social isseus. I was amazed that the Deeds campaign never brought up McDonnell's tight Pat Robertson connection until an independent group unearthed McDonnell's Regent University thesis. And even then, Deed's response was handled ham-handedly. Maybe Virginians should have nominated Brian Moran, who was thought to be too liberal for the state. At least such a candidate might have been able to mobilize the base, as Deeds was unable to do. (Given McDonnell's long ties to Robertson, he did not have to do anything overt to mobilize his base, so he could pretend to be a moderate). Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that if you are going to try to go to the Center, you'd better have a candidate who appears centered.

The result in NY-23 is very interesting. Given the effort and money poured in to help the Conservative Party candidate in what has been a Republican district since before the Civil War, the Democratic victory there is quite significant. Indeed, it appears that the combined vote for Democrat Owens and ousted GOP (but pro-choice, pro-gay rights) candidate Scozzafava, who backed Owens at the last minute) was 55% to Conservative Hoffman's 45%.

There may well be a ceiling on how successful the Republican Party can be when it tacks far right. (Again, while McDonnell is far right, you would not have known it from the way he campaigned; Christie in NJ, running against an unpopular incumbent, did not talk alot about social issues either.)

Moreover, in a race hardly mentioned in the media, the Democrat won the open seat in California that, before it was won in 1996 by Democrat Ellen Tauscher (who left for an Obama Administration job), had been Republican for decades.

I expect there to be a lot of crowing from the Fox "News" crowd. But President Obama's approval ratings are almost exactly the percentage of the vote he received in the election last year. The lesson for Republicans in this election may be that it is in their electoral interest to tack (or at least appear to tack) toward a non-ideological center. On the other hand, discussion within the Republican Party has gotten so overheated on the right extreme, that the Party may find it impossible to play to the center in most cases. Any Republican candidate who even whispers such a thing is likely to be tea-bagged.

November 04, 2009 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

a lot of thoughtful analysis, David, but I think you misundertand the message the voters sent

McDonnell didn't move to the center, he de-emphasized social issues without changing position

voters haven't moved much on social issues but they had tired of the shrillness at the expense of practical issues, regardless of which side is shrill

in Virginia in 2009, Deeds was the shrill one

when all other things are equal, voters are more comfortable with traditional values

popular as Obama is, he doesn't appear to have any coat tails

he was elected by promising bipartisanship and hasn't delivered

November 04, 2009 11:46 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I see Orin showed up to take delight in the damage caused to those who've harmed no one. Orin in his typical pompous manner said "You have made an allegation; now it is time for you to back up such a claim. Fraud is a serious charge against any democratic election, so back it up *OR* we will all know that your comment is nothing more than "sour grapes"."

Here's your proof Orin:


http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/10/19/15791

The National Organization "For" Marriage repeatedly claimed passage of the equal marriage law would require schools to teach about same sex marriage. In that link they admit that's not the truth and that they lied about it.

November 04, 2009 12:04 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Here's a link to the actual ad where the anti-gays lied and said equal marriage would require children to be taught about same sex marriage:


http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/09/22/14815

November 04, 2009 12:08 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Oh God, take your pick.

How ‘bout the lie that this is about “protecting” traditional marriage.

As one of the SFM articles (linked to above) says:

“Mainers will have to accept a radical new understanding of marriage”

This is one of their “arguments,” that thoughts themselves are at stake.
--
Do us all a favor, Orin and Sociopathanon, learn how to do your own research.

November 04, 2009 12:37 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "our country apears to not be irredeemably lost".

Yes, like countries like Norway, Canada, The Netherlands, and Sweden which ranked 1st, 4th, 6th and 7th on the U.N.'s ranking of the best countries in the world to live compared to the U.S. which ranked 13th.


http://www.nowpublic.com/world/best-country-live-list-countries-2009-un-hdi

In fact Canada has began its path to modern civil rights for all in 1969 when it repealed the barbaric law against gay sex. In contrast the never-the-leader-in-civil-rights U.S. didn't repeal this unjust law until 2003. No coincidence that Canada has consistently ranked high on the the U.N list, being number 1 for almost a decade since 2001 while the U.S. in modern times has consistently failed to make the top 10.

November 04, 2009 12:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and, yet, people flock to the U.S.

none of the examples cited by Breeyuh and Improv are fraud

there are legitimate opinions about the possible effect of the legislation

calling the "fraud" is exactly the kind of shrill behavior that has turned people off

hyperbole and redefiniton and personal attacks and demonization are common tactics of the lunatic fringe gay advocacy movement

November 04, 2009 1:18 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "and, yet, people flock to the U.S.".

On a per capita basis more people come to Canada.

Bad anonymous said "none of the examples cited by Breeyuh and Improv are fraud".

And in your delusional world its not lying to say "there's no discrimination against trans people" and "I never said there was no discrimination against trans people".

In the first link I posted the anti-marriage bigots admitted that their ad saying passage of the law would force the teaching of same sex marriage in schools was not true.

November 04, 2009 1:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

spare us the twisting of words that liars like you do, Breeyuh

you lost, as you have 30 times before

try something you might have a chance of succeeding at

November 04, 2009 1:28 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "hyperbole and redefiniton and personal attacks and demonization are common tactics of the lunatic fringe gay advocacy movement".

Yes and claiming equal marriage would irredeemably lose the country, all gays are bisexuals and calling people deviants, mentally ill and claiming gays are dangerous isn't hyperbole and redefiniton and personal attacks and demonization.

You're such a bullsh**er

November 04, 2009 1:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "spare us the twisting of words that liars like you do, Breeyuh".

I tell the truth, you lie. The anti-marriage bigots admitted they lied themselves. The first link I posted demonstrated that indisputably. Of course delusional people like you can't determine what is reality and what isn't.

November 04, 2009 1:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sorry, Breeyuh, there was no fraud in Maine

you're lying

November 04, 2009 2:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The anti-marriage bigots admitted their fraud in the first link I posted. Your insane denial of reality won't change it.

November 04, 2009 2:37 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And Bad anonymous, thanks for constantly accusing honest people of lying. Your repetitive dishonest assures that you'll always have zero credibility and no one will be fooled by an specious B.S. you post.

November 04, 2009 2:40 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

"none of the examples cited by Breeyuh and Improv are fraud"

Fraud:
1. crime of cheating somebody: the crime of obtaining money or some other benefit by deliberate deception

2. somebody who deceives: somebody who deliberately deceives somebody else, usually for financial gain

3. something intended to deceive: something that is intended to deceive people
--
As I said, Sociopathanon, learn how to do your own research.

November 04, 2009 3:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, this situation doesn't fit the definition so it's not fraud

nice that you can dream something up to talk about other than reality on the day after the worst day in the history of the gay agenda

November 04, 2009 3:21 PM  
Blogger David S. Fishback said...

"and, yet, people flock to the U.S."

Let me give everyone an example. We are friendly with a lesbian couple who moved to Europe at the beginning of the Bush II presidency. They left because Susan, who was a federal scientist, did not want to work in the Bush Administration. She got a great job in her field the U.K., where she and her partner of 25 years were able to formalize their relationship.

When Obama won, they decided they wanted to come back home to the United States. Susan had some very good and useful job offers in the new Administration, but could not accept them because her spouse could not be covered by her insurance. Instead, she took a job with an NGO, which (like more and more large private companies) provides full benefits to same sex partners.

Susan will do great work for the NGO, but the federal government will not have her services because of its discriminatory benefits policy -- which it cannot alter due to a provision of the "Defense of Marriage Act." Senators Lieberman (I) and Collins (R) are trying to get through legislation that would enable people in Susan's situation to get full benefits. (I wonder if that "behavior" -- Gov. Pawlenty's words -- would make them ineligible for recognition in the Palin/Pawlenty/Armey Republican Party.)

Also, regarding McDonnell: I did not say that he had changed any of his Pat Robertson positions; rather, I said that he campaigned without discussing those positions, and thus was able to successfully present a moderate mask to the voters. That approach, in the Palin/Pawlenty/Armey Republican Party, will be very difficult for any Republican candidate to pull off if that candidate has to run in a Republican primary (something McDonnell did not have to do).

November 04, 2009 3:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "well, this situation doesn't fit the definition so it's not fraud".

The anti-marriage nuts put an ad on TV that said passing the equal marriage law would require schools to teach about same sex marriages. That was a lie and they admitted it wasn't true.

That's fraud everywhere but in your psychotic mind.

November 04, 2009 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure they were wrong and, if so, I'm sure it wasn't intentional.

You realize that too and you're a liar.

Trying to make people thinks there's a right to marital status for deviant relationships is really over the line. That's another lie.

November 04, 2009 3:38 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

"well, this situation doesn't fit the definition so it's not fraud"

Prove it.

November 04, 2009 3:46 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "I'm not sure they were wrong and, if so, I'm sure it wasn't intentional.".

They said in the ad that passing equal marriage would require schools to teach about gay marriages. The attorney general said that wasn't true, the anti-marriage bigots admitted that wasn't true, they lied - period. As to it being "unintential" - ads making those statements don't get made and put on TV by accident so spare us your "unintentional" stupidity.

Bad anonymous said "Trying to make people thinks there's a right to marital status for deviant relationships is really over the line. That's another lie.".

You've never demonstrated me telling a lie while I've repeatedly demonstrated your lies:


http://www.teachthefacts.org/2009/10/survey-shows-discrimination-against.html#comments

People have a moral and innate right to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting others.

Whether or not you think its deviant is irrelevant.

November 04, 2009 3:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spiritual (as opposed to religious) corruption can be just as damaging as physical corruption. It can even be more damaging.

November 04, 2009 8:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"They said in the ad that passing equal marriage would require schools to teach about gay marriages. The attorney general said that wasn't true, the anti-marriage bigots admitted that wasn't true, they lied - period."

Actually, that's never a period. Attorney Generals are elected. A political position that can be swayed by political considerations.

Haven't looked at the arguments so I don't know whose right but to call either side a liar, even if one has later decided the other is right, is a lie. You're an emotional liar, Breeyuh.

"As to it being "unintential" - ads making those statements don't get made and put on TV by accident so spare us your "unintentional" stupidity."

Here's an example of lying.

"Bad anonymous said "Trying to make people thinks there's a right to marital status for deviant relationships is really over the line. That's another lie.".

You've never demonstrated me telling a lie"

You've never presented any evidence or argument that this gay "marriage" is a right. You're a liar.

"while I've repeatedly demonstrated your lies"

that you don't understand nuance is your problem not mine

"People have a moral and innate right to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting others."

To say this is to say that life has no purpose. Pretty empty.

But then, so is homosexuality.

"Whether or not you think its deviant is irrelevant."

Just call 'em like I see 'em.

November 04, 2009 10:08 PM  
Anonymous RT2 said...

I dont really have a strong opinion one way or the other on Gay Marriage. But I do see it as one more incremental step in the long term leftist societal changing agenda.

Such as health care, first you enact social security, for the elderly..... but thats OK we'll all be elderly some day, you'll theoretically get what you paid back..... so I guess thats fair.

Then once you achieve that socialistic goal you move on to the next one, be it disability entitlement, unemployment insurance, welfare, CHIP (for the children, dont you know) ...... till you get to the ultimate goal of forcing the rich and employers into bankruptcy paying for the slacker's needs from cradle to the grave.

Its not just the left either, the Right tries that same shit with their societal changing legislative agenda (Gambling, Alcohol Sales, Music Lyrics, Abortion restrictions,etc), but the Left is much better at it (Restrictive Gun laws, Expanding Hate Crimes Definitions, Affirmative Action, etc).

They both boil down to one side of the ideological spectrum trying to get legislation passed that forces the other side to live by their values.

What I find heartwarming about the Maine vote, is that its nice to see one of these increments rolled back. Keeps the activists such as yourselves from moving on to the next agenda item.

Thats unusual. You usually see ideological agenda initiatives over and over again until they finally pass, then you rarely ever see the topic revisited by later ballot, even after the purported societal injustice ceases to exist.

I think its time we go back and review all societal changing legislation since WW2, and judge it by its merits. Did it improve our overall society, or did it just give the target demographic an unfair advantage relative to the whole of society?

November 04, 2009 10:22 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“RT2 said…: “I dont really have a strong opinion one way or the other on Gay Marriage.

What I find heartwarming about the Maine vote…”


Clearly, gay marriage does play into your overall opinion.

Further, human sexuality is not something that is “ideological,” or an “agenda.”

Believe so if you wish, but be prepared for well deserved scathing evisceration in regard to your “opinion.”

November 04, 2009 11:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nobody's telling you what to do, improv

but you are trying to dictate our response to it

stop trying to use the government as a crutch for your own agenda

that's the whole problem

we all are fine with you doing whatever you want in your own privacy

telling everybody we have to support and endorse it is where you lose us

31 states' majorities aren't wrong

November 04, 2009 11:24 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

31 states' majorities aren't wrong

Luckily, right and wrong are not determined by majority rule.

November 04, 2009 11:29 PM  
Anonymous RT2 said...

I guess I do find it a little amusing as well, that a self-marginalized regional party confined to the bigoted uneducated south, should win the Governorship slightly north and east of y'alls fine burg.

Where's your vitrol for those ignorant hick voters in Jersey?

Dont they realize the ideological dream requires you to look past instituaionalized corruption and economic failures at times?

What could possibly be more important than social issues?

November 04, 2009 11:41 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

From Stand For Marriage Maine:

does not discriminate against gays
restores the meaning of marriage
marriage is between a man and a woman.
marriage is between a man and a woman
does not take away any rights from gay and lesbian
Gays and lesbians…enjoy…the legal rights and benefits of marriage
same-sex marriage…redefines marriage for all of society.
Mainers will have to accept a radical new understanding of marriage
healthy marriages will be eliminated
instruct…kindergartners about marriage
teaching our kids that gay marriage is the equivalent of traditional marriage.
marriage is between a man and a woman
gay marriage advocates want to change the definition of marriage
gays living the lifestyle they choose
redefine marriage for the rest of society.
the legal meaning of marriage
definition of marriage
definition of marriage
marriage is only between a man and a woman.
--
A definition describes what something means, and if it’s your thoughts about that definition that are in jeopardy, then you’re the one with the problem.

Mountains more where that came from. Go Nuts!

November 04, 2009 11:47 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“nobody's telling you what to do, improv”

Phew.

November 04, 2009 11:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A definition describes what something means, and if it’s your thoughts about that definition that are in jeopardy, then you’re the one with the problem."

It's actually your thoughts that are in jeopardy, emslob.

Definitions are indeed the purview of the majority.

November 05, 2009 12:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"“nobody's telling you what to do, improv”

Phew."

you're the one complaining

November 05, 2009 12:02 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“you're the one complaining”

Yes, but everything’s fine now. No one’s telling me what to do.

November 05, 2009 12:12 AM  
Anonymous RT2 said...

Clearly, gay marriage does play into your overall opinion.

Well actually, I have migrated from my initial, instinctual, rejection of the concept, to be marginally in favor of it.

I dont want anyone in this nation having less rights than me. And I wouldn't want anyone telling me who I can or can not marry.

I personally dont think the government should have any legitimate role being in the marriage licensing business in the first place, except perhaps to protect the national gene pool from interbreeding, which I think is why they got in it in the first place.

Which in itself is based on an outdated philosophy that stopping cousins from getting married somehow translates into them not having sex or children.

But, since there will be tax / legal ramification of allowing same-sex marriage, I guess they have a legitimate interest to protect.

I just dont want to see this go to the next step of having MORE legal rights than I do. Which is exactly what ol' Jackknife Jimmy was proposing here last week.

I'm not suggesting that I'm not the least bit homophobic. I'm just as homophobic as most people are.

Just because I dont care what you do in your bedrooms, that doesn't mean I'm OK with your efforts to force your ideology down other peoples children's throats, by demanding it be portrayed as normal human behavior in our schools.

If it was normal human behavior our sub-species would have died off immediately. Its perverted behavior, but I respect your right to be perverted.

I dont doubt your affection for your partner is as real as mine is. And I think you should be as free as I am to choose your lifestyle. But when you start trying to change the fabric of my society by exposing my children to things I, as a parent, dont want them exposed to, I am going to resist your efforts.

..... just like you would if I was trying to force your children to see the world through my social / ideological preferences. If your school district decided that in the name of fairness, I should be able to give a lecture on my views (that I consider perfectly normal), I bet you would be one of the first to actively resist my efforts to shape your children's mind to my way of thinking.

..... wouldn't you?

November 05, 2009 12:26 AM  
Anonymous RT said...

except perhaps to protect the national gene pool from interbreeding

whoops, Freudian slip. ;-)

that was supposed to be "in-breeding".... as in the past practice of pre-martially blood testing.

But feel free to use it as a straw man in your wily scathing eviscerations.

November 05, 2009 12:37 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“but I respect your right to be perverted”

Thank you for the respect of giving us the right to be perverted.

“I dont doubt your affection for your partner is as real as mine is.”

If you really felt that way, then you wouldn’t lump us all into one big conglomerate:

“And I think you should be as free as I am to choose your lifestyle. But when you start trying to change the fabric of my society by exposing my children to things I, as a parent, dont want them exposed to, I am going to resist your efforts.”

Your society? This is why people like me resist your efforts. What, pray tell, are you children being forced to be "exposed" to in "your" society?

“just like you would if I was trying to force your children to see the world through my social / ideological preferences.”

If I had kids, they’d know the social and ideological ramifications of what they were being exposed to, before they were exposed to it.

We live in a post 9/11 reality. Anal sex wouldn’t be at the top of my list of things to teach my children to avoid.

Anyone who defines and promotes the notion that same-sex attraction is an evil that is worse than terrorism, is a terrorist, and should be marginalized as such.

November 05, 2009 1:28 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Kalamazoo passed inclusive non-discrimination,

Washington appears to have passed Domestic Partnerships,

Chapel Hill (North Carolina) elected an openly gay mayor,

and Houston (Texas) is well on its way electing an openly lesbian mayor.

Alas for Maine.

November 05, 2009 5:46 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

RT2 said I just dont want to see this go to the next step of having MORE legal rights than I do. Which is exactly what ol' Jackknife Jimmy was proposing here last week.

I'm curious to know what you were referring to here.

(Jackknife Jimmy) JimK

November 05, 2009 6:52 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Priya Lynn writes

I see Orin showed up to take delight in the damage caused to those who've harmed no one.

You are mistaken...it is joy that for the moment natural marriage has been preserved. There are purposes to marriage and they are more than the goopy "love & commitment" that far too many believe is all that constitutes marriage.

November 05, 2009 7:57 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Here's what tea bagger central spun yesterday, before heading to the hospital to have his appendix removed. Let's hope his insurer doesn't consider the appendicitis to be a pre-existing condition.

GLENN BECK: "Then you have New York 23, and I love the propaganda on this one. First of all, this just shows ‑‑ I mean, when you've lost Virginia by 20 points, Corzine loses in the most corrupt state in the union. No, my apologies to Massachusetts .... But anyway, when you lose that, when you've got the Democrats coming out and saying, yeah, but the congressional district 23. And here's their case: Well, you know, this just shows the failure of the tea party. Okay. Let's just go through this. Let's just go through this. If I heard that one more time last night, I was going to blow my head off. Here it is. This is the failure, okay? ....

I like him, but he is not, he's not flashy. He's an accountant eight weeks ago that nobody even knew, a complete unknown. He's a third party guy. The Republicans spent with what's her face, Scuzzia, they gave her, I believe it was $800,000? Is that right? .... To destroy him. To destroy him. Then she drops out of the race and then she unites with the Democrats who are also spending money hand over fist to destroy the accountant! And you win by 3 points? That's a victory? You've double‑teamed an accountant and you only won by three points. Boy, you guys are good .... That's like the Yankees playing a high school team and winning by three runs. Oh, wow! ....

And here's what the ‑‑ forget about the Democrats. Here's what the Republicans should learn. The tea party movement, if you think you're going to run people that are going to be, you know, ACORN wannabes and they're just part of the corruption, part of the system, if you're going to run those people, you can expect a tea party guy to come out, and the tea parties, they'll help you lose every single election. Every single election. Because I for one am not ‑‑ if I believe in the Republican, I'll vote for the Republican. But if you're running somebody who's like part of the system, I'm not interested. I'm not interested. And I think that a lot of Americans are like that. So the Republicans have a choice to make. You can either spend a million dollars trying to destroy a third party accountant, or you could say, wow, this accountant probably would come in within three points of beating the Democrat if we combined our efforts, Republicans and Democrats, spent a fortune, had our candidate then drop out and campaign for the Democrats, we might be able to come in with about a 3‑point margin. You might want to just say, "Maybe we should go with the accountants. Maybe we should go with the regular people...."

This is setting the stage for ‑‑ it's going to dwarf 1994, dwarf it. Dwarf it. What's coming next year, dwarf .... I really think that this is going to make what happened in 1994 look small."

November 05, 2009 8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know what RT2 meant about having more rights, but hate crimes' laws certainly give some people more rights than others.

If someone beats me over the head because I have some money, and someone beats Joe Somebody over the head while calling him gay or Baptist...and Joe Somebody's attacker gets more time in prison than my attacker....well, then, Joe Somebody is getting more rights than me.

November 05, 2009 8:26 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Kalamazoo passed inclusive non-discrimination,

Washington appears to have passed Domestic Partnerships,

Chapel Hill (North Carolina) elected an openly gay mayor,

and Houston (Texas) is well on its way electing an openly lesbian mayor.

Alas for Maine.


There's more good news to add to this list Robert.

Detroit's new city council president is gay as well.

While we lost Maine, we lost it by a small margin. When you look at the history of the struggle for full civil rights legislation in this country, you can see how far we've come. In 1998, Alaska was the first statewide vote on a state constitution's definition of marriage. Marriage equality lost that vote by a wide margin, 32%-68%. In 2000, Nebraska voted against marriage equality 30%-70%. Since then many states have grappled with this issue with predictable outcomes -- the reddest states defeat marriage equality by the largest margins. But last year in California (with 2 Democratic Senators) and this year in Maine (with 2 GOP Senators), that gap has narrowed considerably to less than 5 percentage points.

The GOP won both governor races, and the Democrats won both House seat races.

The day after his win, the WaPo reports that Governor Elect McDonnell "will govern the same way [he] campaigned," which was to "steer toward the middle."

I just dont want to see this go to the next step of having MORE legal rights than I do.

Now there's a fallacy for you. LGBT people don't want MORE legal rights than anyone else has, they simply want the exact same EQUAL RIGHTS, not three fifths, but simply full equal rights. The time is drawing near when Americans will come to realize that we're all equal, with none more deserving of full civil rights than any others.

The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

November 05, 2009 9:20 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

If someone beats me over the head because I have some money, and someone beats Joe Somebody over the head while calling him gay or Baptist...and Joe Somebody's attacker gets more time in prison than my attacker....well, then, Joe Somebody is getting more rights than me.

Bull-oney. If both attackers go to jail following sentencing guidelines, justice was served in both cases. If you accidentally run over my friend, you'll go to jail for manslaughter, but if you deliberately run over my friend, you'll go to jail for pre-meditated murder, which carries a longer sentence because criminal *intent* is a factor in sentencing.

November 05, 2009 9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Which is why the days of the gay agenda are numbered.

The only question is whether America goes down with it.

The governor election are much more significant than the Congressinal districts because we elect Presidents by state not county.

November 05, 2009 10:06 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

In contrast to Glenn Beck, who failed to add up all the tea bag *club* money spent, here's what Politico is reporting about Senator Lindsey Graham had to say about NY's 23rd District congressional race:

The morning after Republicans lost an upstate New York House seat, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned that conservative activists will bring destruction to the Republican Party if they drive out moderate candidates across the country.

“To those people who are pursuing purity, you’ll become a club not a party,” Graham told POLITICO in the Capitol Wednesday. “Those people who are trying to embrace conservatism in a thoughtful way that fits the region and the state and the district are going to do well. Conservativism is an asset. Blind ideology is not.”


It will be interesting to see how many tea bag club members win GOP primaries in 2010.

BTW, here's an interesting recipe from Mudflats, an Alaskan blog:

Thought I’d share a newly developed recipe for Elephant Upside-Down Surprise Cake.

First you take a congressional district that has had Republican representation in the U.S. House of Representatives since before the Civil War, then add a teabag, pour on some hot steamin’ Sarah Palin, add a squeeze of Rush Limbaugh, then carefully strain the mixture until there is no trace of the moderate Republican. Then just wait and watch. Pretty soon you’ll have….Surprise! A Democrat!

There you go folks. Dems across the land can now send thank you notes to Our Lady of Perpetual Meddling. Can’t wait to find out whose fault THIS one is going to be.


Sound yummy!

November 05, 2009 10:08 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

The governor election are much more significant than the Congressinal districts because we elect Presidents by state not county.

And how did those two governors win those elections? By campaigning in the middle and avoiding tea baggers, that's how.

Tell us Anon, how many campaign appearances did your favorite for 2012, Governor-quitter Sarah Palin make on behalf of either McDonnell or Christie?

Zip, zero, nada!

November 05, 2009 10:19 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

More good news about Tuesday's election results:

Twenty-three Progressive Majority candidates were elected to office and flipped control of three local governments. Three races are still too close to call.

Most notably:

After a rash of hateful and cowardly attacks -- in the form of anonymous flyers taped to voters doors -- Jim Llanas prevailed over two conservative candidates in Maplewood, Minnesota. Jim now joins 2007 Progressive Majority candidate John Nephew on a city council that has shifted in just two years from one of the most conservative in the state to one of the most progressive.

In Washington, well known progressive leader Julie Anderson, a member of the Tacoma City Council, defeated conservative Jan Shabro, a former state legislator, for the critical office of Pierce County Auditor. Because the auditor oversees the elections in the 2nd most populous county of the state, and because it historically has been at the forefront of electoral reforms such as ranked choice voting and vote-by-mail, it is an essential office to hold.

A new wave of young, progressive candidates is evident in Ohio. Greg Holcomb (26) and Marcus Madison (22) were elected to city council positions in Lorain and Elyria. These dynamic candidates are demonstrating the political appeal and growing power that our next generation of progressive leaders are bringing to key swing districts in Ohio.

In Pennsylvania, Aurea Ortiz became the first Latina elected to the Bethlehem School Board. Although Bethlehem has a large and growing Latino population, she is the first Latina to be elected to serve on the board. This is an historic victory.

In Colorado, Rachel Zenzinger won election to the Arvada City Council. Rachel joins a group of women running for office for the first time who are redefining what's possible in electoral politics - across the country, 78% of our first time women candidates won yesterday.


What's the news from the right flank? We all know Hoffman lost NY's 23rd Congressional district race but who can tell us how many tea bag club members won their races this week?

November 05, 2009 10:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aunt Bea Said:

"Bull-oney. If both attackers go to jail following sentencing guidelines, justice was served in both cases. If you accidentally run over my friend, you'll go to jail for manslaughter, but if you deliberately run over my friend, you'll go to jail for pre-meditated murder, which carries a longer sentence because criminal *intent* is a factor in sentencing."

That's a horse load of crap, Bea. In your example, one person killed someone by accident, while the other did it on purpose. With my example, the attacker murdered both people on purpose. One motivation was money while the other was religion or sexual orientation. Why should one attacker get off on a lighter sentence?

November 05, 2009 12:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hee hee -- Last week, Bea was acting like McConnell was some flaming nut. Today, she's saying that he campaigned in the middle. hee hee

At least stay consistent, Bea! tee hee hee tee hee hee

November 05, 2009 12:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oops -- spelled his name wrong -- meant "McDonnell"

November 05, 2009 12:57 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Last week, Bea was acting like McConnell was some flaming nut.

No I wasn't. Here's what I said last Saturday, November 01, 2009 at 8:49 PM:

Other than that masters thesis bombshell, the Virginia race has gone well for McDonnell. Why? Because he has run as far away as possible from his ultra-conservative views in order to disguise himself as a moderate. To help maintain this phoney centrist image, McDonnell rejected Sarah PitBull's offer of campaign help. He was worried "that Palin could polarize the electorate ahead of the elections and associate McDonnell...with unpopular perceptions of Republican politics." At the same time, the "moderate" McDonnell campaign embraced RNC Chairman Michael Steele's offer of help.

Most reasonable people would not equate saying

"the Virginia race has gone well for McDonnell"

with

acting like McConnell was some flaming nut

But of course, no one here is accusing Anon of being reasonable.

November 05, 2009 1:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "I see Orin showed up to take delight in the damage caused to those who've harmed no one.

Orin said "You are mistaken.".

Oh, I most certainly am not. You are taking delight in the harm your side has caused to the children of gay parents by denying them the protection of legally joined parents. You're taking delight in preventing gay couples from seeing or making decisions for their sick partner in the hospital. You're taking delight in a surviving partner being forced out of a shared home and having all of his shared possesions taken away by an anti-gay family because the law sees the gay couple as legal strangers and the relatives who've sought to harm them as the deceased's family. You're an immoral person Orin.

Orin said "it is joy that for the moment natural marriage has been preserved."

Never in the history of equal marriage has any gay couple's marriage resulted in the dissolution of or harm to any heterosexual couple's marriage. It is quite simply a lie to say that any marriage has been "preserved" - quite the opposite is true, marriages have been destroyed.

Orin said "There are purposes to marriage and they are more than the goopy "love & commitment" that far too many believe is all that constitutes marriage.".

There's something seriously wrong with the morals of anyone who trivializes love and committment as "goopy". They are the foundation of marriage and certainly far more important than your concept that the central aspect in marriage is society dictating to people who their marriage partner should be.

November 05, 2009 1:40 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I also see that Orin after pompously suggesting it was a serious and unwarrented statement that the anti-gays lied to defeat equal marriage pretended not to notice when proof of those lies was presented instead of acknowledging the truth. Real classy Orin.

Another example of the heninous lies by the anti-marriage bigots was Marc Mutty, the Stand "for" Marriage Maine executive chairman who told National Public Radio Sept. 3:

“It isn’t about anything other than the definition of marriage, what it’s going to mean to us and how it’s going to be defined in society….Many certainly feel uncomfortable about [the belief that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to a new curriculum in the schools] and about the fact that children as young as 7 or 8 years old are being taught about gay sex in some detail.”.

What a scumbag. Of course I'll take it all back once Orin shows us where 7 and 8 year old school children were taught about anal sex, which will be...never.

November 05, 2009 1:46 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "With my example, the attacker murdered both people on purpose. One motivation was money while the other was religion or sexual orientation. Why should one attacker get off on a lighter sentence?".

The hate crimes law doesn't give anyone lighter sentences, it gives a heavier sentence to the person who's committed a hate crime because they've committed two crimes, the immediate murder of the victim and the second crime of terrorizing the community the victim belonged to. The goal of a person committing a hate crime is not to hurt a specific individual, its to attack the entire community the individual symbolically represents. That's what a hate crime does, and that's what the additional punishment is for.

November 05, 2009 1:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And how did those two governors win those elections? By campaigning in the middle"

This is a misperception. McDonnell didn't disavow his beliefs and didn't forsake or disassociate himself from any past allies.

What he did do and social conservatives will do in 2010, is make clear that he won't pursue these issues to the detriment of practical goals. In short, conservatives want people to know they will keep the trains running.

That's not moving to the middle.

Americans want more freedom and less government involvement and fewer taxes. They don't consider extremism a vice on those issues.

Nor does McDonnell.

His formula will work nationwide in 2010. You guys are in for a rough year unless you can figure out a new approach. The shrill hypoerbole you traffic in won't work well now that George Bush is gone and Obama looks like a less effective clone of Bush.

Already, health care reform and "cap and trade" are dead. Blue Dog Dems and moderate Repubs know the Pelosi-Reid brand is not ascendant and they want a future.

November 05, 2009 1:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"McDonnell rejected Sarah PitBull's offer of campaign help"

So sad. What you don't realize is that people like Sarah Palin are perfectly poised to implement McDonnell's strategy successfully.

The social conservative base knows they are with them regardless of their campaign emphasis.

Independents are indifferent as long as practical issues are addressed.

If Tuesday is any indication, even alot of liberals like to jump on a winning bandwagon.

You guys are right to be afraid of Sarah.

"they've committed two crimes, the immediate murder of the victim and the second crime of terrorizing the community the victim belonged to"

There's a word for valuing the community above the individual.

It's called communism and whenever it's taken hold, the result has been a nightmare.

November 05, 2009 2:06 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, both the crime against the individual and the crime against the community are punished, the law values both equally. There must always be a balance struck between the individual and the community for society to function in a fair, just, and productive way. Its a shame that you oppose this.

November 05, 2009 2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There must always be a balance struck between the individual and the community for society to function in a fair, just, and productive way."

This is untrue. Time and again, it has been shown that focusing on a faceless "community" allows political manipulation by unsavory characters.

Focusing on individuals will allow society to function in a fair, just, and productive way because any real community is merely a collection of individuals.

Watch the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves.

We know enough to watch out when someone says they want to do something because it's good for the community.

Watch for unsavory characters like Priya.

November 05, 2009 2:51 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

What bad anonymous is proposing is that there should be no consideration to the community, that only the individual matters. This is the culture of selfishness that social conservatives feign disdain for. When push comes to shove their true position of being all about themselves comes to the forfront.

November 05, 2009 2:52 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "There must always be a balance struck between the individual and the community for society to function in a fair, just, and productive way."

Bad anonymous said "This is untrue. Focusing [only] on individuals will allow society to function in a fair, just, and productive way because any real community is merely a collection of individuals."

And those members of the community who are terrorized by hate crimes are individuals as well and their well-being must also be addressed which is what hate crimes laws do.

Bad anonymous is suggesting that it was wrong to pursue the people who plotted to fly the planes into the world trade centre as terrorists, that there is no such thing as terrorism, its not a crime and it should not be punished. All honest and decent people thoroughly reject that twisted premise.

The disingenous nature of people like bad anonymous's objection to hate crimes laws are made abundantly clear by the fact that they never made a peep about those laws until it was proposed to add sexual orientation to them. They don't stand against hate crimes laws out of any honest concern for principle, they stand against the addition of a clause that will provide protection to gay people just like everyone else. They have no concern for society, or individuals beyond themselves, their goal is to harm gay people at any and every opportunity.

November 05, 2009 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

ABC News reported the day before the election:

"Sarah Palin is robocalling in Virginia but the Republican candidate for governor is still not embracing her.

My colleague, ABC News' Teddy Davis, has the story:

Republican Bob McDonnell kept his distance from Sarah Palin on Monday even as the former Alaska governor had begun making automated phone calls to more than 300,000 Virginia households on behalf of a conservative group, urging them to vote their values in Tuesday's election.

"I don't know anything about them," McDonnell told ABC News on Monday when asked about the Palin robocalls which are paid for by the Virginia chapter of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a socially conservative group headed at the national level by Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition..."


IMHO McDonnell was the one afraid of Palin's campaign help. Personally I wish she had come to Virginia to campaign for him in person. We'd be having a very different conversation if she had.

November 05, 2009 3:02 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Here's another example of the anti-marriage crowd lying to deny those who hurt no one the right to marry the partner of their choice:


http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/09/23/14819

At a rally in the Augusta Civic Centre Charla Bansley described gayness as “a public display of psychosis.” and said:

"A study in the Netherlands found that the average duration of a homosexual marriage was just one and a half years certainly nothing to build a society upon. The same study found that committed homosexual couples were also intimate with an average of eight extra marital partners per year this is not anti-gay rhetoric this are statistics published in Journal of the International Aids Society.".

The study she was referring to:


http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm

actually took place before gays were allowed to marry in the Netherlands and obviously couldn't have said anything about the duration of the typical gay marriage. Further, it wasn't a study on the duration of gay relationships prior to them being allowed to marry, it was a study on the transmission of AIDS.

For most of the study period it excluded men that were HIV-negative. It also excluded anyone over the age of thirty, thus excluding the couples with the longest lasting relationships. No one outside of Amersterdam was included making this an exclusively urban population, and most damnning for Bansley's heinously dishonest attempt to portray it as a study demonstrating the duration of the average gay marriage, it excluded monogamous couples by design.

On a public radio broadcast Bansley repeated the lie that a study had shown the average gay marriage to be only 1 and 1/2 years long. This tactic is typical of the dishonesty of the anti-gay crowd. They love to use studies that focus on AIDS, or the patients attending an STD clinic and deceive people by stating such populations are typical of gays in general.

November 05, 2009 4:49 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The dishonesty of anti-marriage activists like Charla Bansley is nothing new. She's a teacher at a religious school where she lies to and abuses students who stand for what's right.

Charla recently gave her students an assignment that involved writing a letter to the editor of their local papaer explaining their views on allowing same sex couples to marry. They were specifically told they were allowed to write one way or the other and it would not affect their grade. What Bansley neglected to tell her students that if they did write in support of equal marriage as one student did, the letter would be given to their principal, parents, the school superintendent, and a meeting would be called to discuss the letter and if the meeting didn't go well the student would be expelled.


http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/07/yet-were-the-ones-who-they-accuse-of-stifling-speech.html

November 05, 2009 5:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, please, Bea. "Other than his masters thesis" -- which you were panning relentlessly. When I pointed out that his paper never said that women shouldn't work, you accused me of running away from his ultra conservatism. hee hee

November 05, 2009 9:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"members of the community who are terrorized by hate crimes are individuals as well and their well-being must also be addressed which is what hate crimes laws do"

their well-being is already addressed by the law

they don't deserve special protection for being obnoxious

if there is any credible reason to suspect an individual is in danger, the police will assist them

doesn't take a hate crime law

"Bad anonymous is suggesting that it was wrong to pursue the people who plotted to fly the planes into the world trade centre as terrorists, that there is no such thing as terrorism, its not a crime and it should not be punished."

hey, look

Pry-uh the Liar is at it again

"The disingenous nature of people like bad anonymous's objection to hate crimes laws are made abundantly clear by the fact that they never made a peep about those laws until it was proposed to add sexual orientation to them."

I don't make many peeps about the gay addition now unless asked

and, let's face it, TTF always begs the question

"They don't stand against hate crimes laws out of any honest concern for principle, they stand against the addition of a clause that will provide protection to gay people just like everyone else."

Gay people have more protection than everyone else now so you're lying again.

"They have no concern for society, or individuals beyond themselves, their goal is to harm gay people at any and every opportunity."

This is several more lies.

"Republican Bob McDonnell kept his distance from Sarah Palin"

yes, he did

and the beauty of it is, she still worked to get him elected

they both know they stand on the same side and what they did worked

"IMHO McDonnell was the one afraid of Palin's campaign help."

Betcha he would party if she was elected President

he made a smart move

funny that you think it's a plus for your side

"Personally I wish she had come to Virginia to campaign for him in person. We'd be having a very different conversation if she had."

doubtful

"Here's another example of the anti-marriage crowd lying to deny those who hurt no one the right to marry the partner of their choice"

you don't marry partners, you marry spouses

you hurt the people you and your partner should marry and your kids, who will never be born

Charla Bansley described gayness as “a public display of psychosis.”

good assessment

"A study in the Netherlands found that the average duration of a homosexual marriage was just one and a half years certainly nothing to build a society upon. The same study found that committed homosexual couples were also intimate with an average of eight extra marital partners per year"

and Pyr-uh's ojection is that the study only included HIV-negative, unmarried men under 30?

yikes!

thanks for pointing to a study that indicates what we have said all along:

gays are extraordinarily promiscuous

November 05, 2009 11:19 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

When I pointed out that his paper never said that women shouldn't work, you accused me of running away from his ultra conservatism. hee hee

No I didn't. I pointed out you were lying and there's nothing funny about it. The right wing Washington Post reported:

At age 34, two years before his first election and two decades before he would run for governor of Virginia, Robert F. McDonnell submitted a master's thesis to the evangelical school he was attending in Virginia Beach in which he described working women and feminists as "detrimental" to the family. He said government policy should favor married couples over "cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators." He described as "illogical" a 1972 Supreme Court decision legalizing the use of contraception by unmarried couples.

The 93-page document, which is publicly available at the Regent University library, culminates with a 15-point action plan that McDonnell said the Republican Party should follow to protect American families -- a vision that he started to put into action soon after he was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates.

During his 14 years in the General Assembly, McDonnell pursued at least 10 of the policy goals he laid out in that research paper, including abortion restrictions, covenant marriage, school vouchers and tax policies to favor his view of the traditional family. In 2001, he voted against a resolution in support of ending wage discrimination between men and women...


Not only did his Master's Thesis say working women are "detrimental" to the family, he actually voted against equal pay for equal work for both sexes. To this working woman, McDonnell's views are hateful and harmful. I'm sure Virginia's women hope he sticks to his election night promise to govern as he campaigned, from the middle rather than from the far right fringe.

November 06, 2009 8:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unmarried men tend to be promiscuous. That's why marriage was invented, to settle them down.
Don't you want gay men to settle down too? Is that because you like them promiscuous?

November 06, 2009 8:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bea, let's just face the fact that you've talked out of both sides of your mouth on the McDonnel issue!! laughing here...

November 06, 2009 8:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And again, Bea, have you read McDonnell's thesis to draw your own conclusion? You're taking the Washington Post's interpretation of it as the truth! Think: fox and hen house!

November 06, 2009 8:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"During his 14 years in the General Assembly, McDonnell pursued at least 10 of the policy goals he laid out in that research paper, including abortion restrictions, covenant marriage, school vouchers and tax policies to favor his view of the traditional family."

All those goals are positve. Abortion is evil. Covenant marriages are good. School vouchers are proving to be superior to public education. Helping traditional families with tax breaks is the right thing to do.

All these policies will gain him public support unless he's too shrill.

Thank you, Creigh Deeds

"In 2001, he voted against a resolution in support of ending wage discrimination between men and women..."

Undoubtedly, there is more to this story than is advertised.

"To this working woman, McDonnell's views are hateful and harmful."

You think everyone who disagrees with you about anything is "hateful".

That's the kind of shrill hyperbole that Americans are sick of and which will sink the Democrats in 2010.

Please, keep it up.

"I'm sure Virginia's women hope he sticks to his election night promise to govern as he campaigned, from the middle rather than from the far right fringe."

He didn't campaign from any middle. He's pro-family. True, he didn't emphasize that but Deeds did that for him and he didn't disavow his views. This left him free to discuss taxes and transportation. On both if those issues, he took the conservative low-tax approach and won. Unlike Deeds, he didn't try to find a "middle" ground on taxes or spending.

Sorry, Charlie.

If there's one lesson from this election, it's that trying to compromise your principles and looking for the middle ground, is the kiss of death for politicians.

November 06, 2009 8:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Unmarried men tend to be promiscuous. That's why marriage was invented, to settle them down.
Don't you want gay men to settle down too? Is that because you like them promiscuous?"

Most unmarried twenty-somethings aren't averaging eight sexual partners a year, as priya has shown that gays are.

Even if not married, there is a tendency toward monogamy in heteros, perhaps in large part because of the female influence in the relationship, which is absent in homosexuals.

November 06, 2009 10:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On November 3, the fairy tale died. The election results in Virginia and New Jersey dismantled the self-satisfied, just-so story that Democrats have been telling themselves about last year's election.

The story goes like this: In 2008, Americans voted for change not just in the nation's leadership, but in its fundamental political orientation. They wanted a shift to the left not seen since 1932. The nation's political map had been utterly transformed. Barack Obama owned the suburbs and independents, and laid claim to formerly secure Republican states. An outdated GOP had been reduced to a rejectionist husk clinging to rural areas and the South.

The Republican sweep of the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey is flatly incompatible with this fairy tale interpretation of 2008. If things changed so fundamentally, they wouldn't have snapped back so quickly.

Candidates from a fringy party doomed to oblivion don't perform this well in a Democratic state and a swing state, respectively. In New Jersey, Democrats have a 700,000-voter edge in party registration over Republicans. After 2008, Virginia was touted as the next blue state. The Washington Post wrote a piece headlined "Democrats Make Most of Shifts in Va.; Demographic Changes Put Party in Optimal Position." They went from optimal position to wrong side of a historic landslide in all of twelve months.

Liberals are comforting themselves that McDonnell and Christie had to play to the center, as if that in itself were a stinging rebuke to the Right. They seem to forget that they have long been arguing that conservative candidates can't appeal to the middle. That the pro-life, anti-gay-marriage, limited-government conservatives McDonnell and Christie had more cachet with the center than their opponents should be a Democratic warning sign.

Of course, Obama wasn't on the ballot, although that's cold comfort for 2010. In New Jersey, the the youth vote dropped off from 17 percent to 9 percent of the electorate. The infatuation of starry-eyed Obama kids apparently isn't transferable. In Virginia, the youth vote fell off by half.

Obama's mistake is governing as if he has a heroic mandate when he really has a modest one. This is his mandate gap. It accounts for the paradox of his current political standing. His job approval is holding up around 50 percent, and people still like him, even as his rating on key issues - health care, the economy, and the deficit - falters.

The mandate gap is a potential killer for Democrats not named Barack. Consider poor Creigh Deeds, the losing Democrat in Virginia. He got saddled with Obama's unpopular policy positions, while Obama's likability naturally didn't make him any more charismatic or inspiring. At the end of his campaign, Deeds ran an ad consisting entirely of vintage Obama waxing poetic about him at a campaign rally, in the forlorn hope the magic would rub off.

It didn't, and it won't for other Democrats. The mandate gap threatens their congressional majority. They'll persist anyway, sprinkling more pixie dust on their tattered fairy tale and wishing, wishing it were so.

November 06, 2009 6:39 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, we would all appreciate it if you would give us the source of copy-and-paste articles such as that one by Rich Lowry in the National Review. If you don't know how to add an HTML link, just ask, I'll show you.

JimK

November 06, 2009 7:00 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

he [McDonnell] didn't disavow his views.

Yes he did.

TPMDC reported in "McDonnell Disavows Controversial Right-Wing Ideas From His Thesis:"

"...Said McDonnell: "A contention by my opponent [state Sen. Creigh Deeds] that a 20-year-old academic exercise somehow represents my 18-year career in public service is just a flat misrepresentation, and the Senator well knows that.'

McDonnell, point by point, disowned the positions he took in the thesis -- even at one point minimizing it as a "term paper." He said that he respects women in the workplace; that he would not try to re-restrict divorce; that he does not advocate discrimination against gays; and that he does not regard civil law is subject to Biblical law..."


Even the Washington Examiner reported in "McDonnell: 'I've changed, but not my central thesis':"

"...When we asked McDonnell exactly how he has changed in the 20 years since he wrote the 70-page document, he offered a very lengthy answer. Although he disavowed some of the more incendiary assertions he had made in the thesis, he also stuck to his guns regarding the central thesis of the paper..."

Pretend McDonnell didn't disavow anything from his Master's thesis, "The Republican Party's Vision For The Family: The Compelling Issue for the Decade," which I have read here, or that McDonnell and Christie didn't campaign from the middle, or that Hoffman's loss was somehow a victory all you need to. Spin and pretense don't change the facts.

November 07, 2009 7:50 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Tea baggers protesting health care reform continue to practice Godwin's law. At their protest on Thursday, November 5, 2009, they carried this “National Socialist Health Care: Dachau, Germany – 1945" sign.

A survivor of Buchenwald Concentration Camp who saw his father die there, Elie Wiesel, responded on Twitter:

"Elie Wiesel on the GOP Tea Party's anti-Semitism and Holocaust comparisons: 'This kind of political hatred is indecent and disgusting.'"

Thanks to Mr. Wiesel for commenting on the tea baggers' continued despicable use of this tactic.

November 07, 2009 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Pretend McDonnell didn't disavow anything from his Master's thesis, "The Republican Party's Vision For The Family: The Compelling Issue for the Decade," which I have read here,"

I didn't pretend that. His paper was just a paper.

I said he didn't disavow the pro-family positions he has taken in his years in politics.

"or that McDonnell and Christie didn't campaign from the middle,"

Neither did. They focused on the practical issues that are more relevant to the office they were campaigning for.

Both are solid pro-family, social conservatives and they never denied that.

But the big winner issues in 2010, and 2012 for that matter, are going to be ineffectiveness of the Democrats who took control in 2006. So we'll tend to emphasis those, and we won't take a middle ground there either.

We are racking up horrendous debt and unemployment topped 10% this week after our most bumbling President assured us if we passed his stimulus bill in February that it would top out at 8%.

Add to the unemployment and deficit, the bungling of the health care issue, the public dithering over Afghanistan, the ineffective foreign policy, et al

It's old-fashioned incompetence for ya.

"or that Hoffman's loss was somehow a victory"

The NY congressional race was bizarre. The Republican Party was stupid enough to nominate a liberal Republican and the result was a disaster. When this individual, drawing 6% in the polls, withdrew at the last second and endorsed the Democratic candidate, it caused a bunch of chaos and the Democrat eked out a victory.

The lesson for Republicans is that liberal Republicans are not presentable and will turn on the party.

Win for the conservatives.

"A survivor of Buchenwald Concentration Camp who saw his father die there, Elie Wiesel, responded on Twitter:

"Elie Wiesel on the GOP Tea Party's anti-Semitism and Holocaust comparisons: 'This kind of political hatred is indecent and disgusting.'"

Thanks to Mr. Wiesel for commenting on the tea baggers' continued despicable use of this tactic."

Well, Mr Wiesel is someone who has actually EARNED a Nobel Peace Prize so I'm sure he's right but I fail to see how you could bring this up without feeling like a hypocrite. Comparing their opponents to Nazis is a common TTF theme.

It's happens on both sides since Nazism is the purest form of evil we know. It represents a lazy and cheap way to demonize your opponent.

Everyone should have more respect for history.

November 07, 2009 10:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A few random thoughts on the election before the concrete sets on history.

Obviously, the way liberals spun the results of the 2008 election were proven false this week.

A couple of things:

-It's been observed that McDonnell beat Deeds because he was more charismatic. That seems to make sense but remember this: four years ago, Deeds and McDonnell ran against each other for attorney general. McDonnell won a razor-thin victory. This time he won by 17 points.

The difference? The thesis McDonnell wrote in college was revealed.

I'd submit he gained from a widespread knowledge of his socially conservative views.

That's a winna in Virginia!

-Obama tried and tried to help Corzine in NJ. He appeared there several times and told the crowds things like "let's do it again".

People voted for Obama's individual characteristics in 2008 not his policies. His popularity is not transferrable.

-In the final tally, gay "marriage" lost by six points in liberal Maine. Liberals are saying this was close.

Funny, when Obama won the presidency by a similar margin, they called it a landslide and a historic re-alignment.

-In NY it was proven that being called "Republican" is not enough to get elected. Pro-choice and pro-gay "marriage" stances doomed the nominee who withdrew at the last second and endorsed the Democrat. Face it, if you want to know if a Republican is electable, ask Sarah Palin.

-finally, after all the ridicule and trash-talking, everyone owes Michael Steele an apology. He presided over a huge win for the Republicans. Look for a high appointment in the Huckabee administration.

Tim Kaine, on the other hand....yikes!

November 07, 2009 10:31 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Face it, if you want to know if a Republican is electable, ask Sarah Palin.

Well, in the town of Wasilla and state of Alaska, she got herself elected, but on the national stage, she didn't. When she lost her national race, she went back to her Alaskan Governorship and quit.

You think that makes her electable?

< eye roll >

I don't!

And it looks like the concrete has set despite Anon's efforts to spin and re-shape it.

The big bad scary GOP wins of the governorships in VA and NJ did not undo the Democratic wins of House seats in NY and CA or stop House Democrats from passing health care reform legislation. Last night House Democrats and a single GOP House member passed an historic health care reform bill.

Last night President Obama said:

"Tonight, in an historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act is a piece of legislation that will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality affordable options for those who don’t; and bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the government while strengthening the financial health of Medicare. And it is legislation that is fully paid for and will reduce our long-term federal deficit.

Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America. Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation. I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year."


Yes we can!

November 08, 2009 12:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

brilliant-anon says: "Face it, if you want to know if a Republican is electable, ask Sarah Palin."

a-non-B says: "Well, in the town of Wasilla and state of Alaska, she got herself elected, but on the national stage, she didn't. When she lost her national race, she went back to her Alaskan Governorship and quit.

You think that makes her electable?"

this is the kind of thought process we get out of a-non-B on a regular basis

didn't say she was electable, I said she knew who was

Palin has a good shot though

polls show people think she isn't experienced enough but they think she is sincere

not a bad place to be

she win over Deeds or Corzine any day of the week

"And it looks like the concrete has set despite Anon's efforts to spin and re-shape it."

if you'll look back, you'll find that every time a-non-B is losing an argument, she falls back on calling her opponent's position "spin"

meaningless

"The big bad scary GOP wins of the governorships in VA and NJ did not undo the Democratic wins of House seats in NY and CA"

governor races involve a lot more votes than House seats

the CA seat is a joke, of course the Democrat will take San Francisco

the NY seat proved a liberal Republican is an oxymoron, emphasizing the last six letters

NJ and VA are two states(states the elect presidents) which Obama won and which Democrats lost this time

the swing in Virginia alone is 23 percent

wow!

please encourage all your friends to stay in denial

it will make 2010 so much easier
some day, your grandchildren will ask if you remember what you were doing when you found out McDonnell took Virginia

"or stop House Democrats from passing health care reform legislation. Last night House Democrats and a single GOP House member passed an historic health care reform bill"

uh, a-non-B, it will be historic when a president signs it

right now, there needs to be a Senate version and Harry Reid says don't expect it before year-end and then a reconciliation before they can both vote again

"Last night President Obama said:"

actually, that guy says a lot of stupid

"Tonight, in an historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people."

well, most experts say it will be more expensive and quality will go down

it will insure more people but it will be by no means universal and the cost has the potential to bankrupt the country

Yes we can!

We can screw things up.

If we can get 60 votes

November 08, 2009 6:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous"...if you were speaking your endless words, you could easily be accused of suffering from diarrhea of the mouth!

November 09, 2009 1:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I call it TTF Syndrome

it's when you get so flustered you start using excretory metaphors

it's an execrable habit

November 09, 2009 2:12 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home