Warning: Not even an attempt to be PC ahead….
I believe that Politically Correct language has its uses in helping Americans practice tolerance. I believe tolerance is not a state of mind or a destination one reaches, but rather a process one practices throughout one’s entire life, especially in those times when predjudice, bigotry, or simply slopping thinking seem easier. To avoid inadvertently hurting others, you need to stay vigilant about what you say.
Then again, there are those times when you need to whip out your membership card, snap your fingers, pop your neck, and get real on some sad deluded homos. Like these ones:
The Abe Lincoln Black Republican Caucus (ALBRC), a group of young urban Black gay Republicans, voted today in a special call meeting in Dallas, Texas, to endorse President Bush for re-election.
The ALBRC was co-founded by Don Sneed, a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, to address the political issues and needs of young Black gay Republicans, who he says: “Our voices are never heard, yet we exist and are growing in numbers.” The endorsement was fueled by the Log Cabin Republicans’ refusal to endorse President Bush. “We think that the ‘Republican Tent’ is inclusive and there is room for differences, but one does not pick up their marbles and go home if there are a few points of disagreement,” stated Anthony Falls, Republican Precinct Chairman — Dallas and the ALBRC National Spokesperson. “The ALBRC does not support marriage for gays, yet we do support and call for recognition of domestic partnerships,” he stated.
Now the ALBRC does some important work, including pointing out disparity in AIDS Relief funding, but they are totally deluded if they believe the same folks behind passing the state DOMA laws (especially the ones as strict that that passed in Virginia), the same ones they think they agree with on the FMA question, are in any way going to be convinced to allow federal legal recognition for gay domestic partnerships. Honestly, they’re just not paying attention here.
Worse than that, Sneed all but admits this is a publicity stunt geared toward raising ALBRC’s national profile more than anything else:
“Although we are small, have meager resources and are not as widely known as our counterparts in the Log Cabin Republicans, we do exist, we have families and friends who listen to our voting recommendations and we have the capacity to get our message up and out through the worldwide webcasting of our community television show: the ‘ALBRC Community Informer,'” stated Don Sneed, who is also a member of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (a Bush Appointee). “With this election as close as it is, especially in the battleground states, any movement of the Black vote towards President Bush, could make a significant difference,” stated Sneed. “We are determined to use whatever resources we have to get the word out, especially to Black voters of why a vote for Bush is a vote for economic, social and political self- upliftment.”
I can see where he truly feels the GOP platform offers “economic” upliftment (if he’s already rich, mostly, but…), but what in that platform offers the people he supposedly represents “social” upliftment? Having their second-class citizenship status chiselled into the Constitution is uplifting?
So, to Mr. Sneed, I say, “Sweetie, just because you can squeeze your ass into a size-30 pair of Deisel jeans, don’t mean the rest of us want to watch as you gasp the rest of the night, sucking your stomach in. You’re not fooling anyone, it ain’t pretty, and when the evening’s over all you’re gonna have to show for your compromise are the phone numbers of some impotent old trolls, a ringing in your ears from the cruel snickers of those you thought you were courting, and a deep button indentation right below your navel to remind you that you sold yourself out. I’m not kidding. If you’re wanna whore yourself, go for it. But you’ve got no right to sell the dignity of your gay brothers and sisters.”
Is it really okay to say “these ones”?
I teach my kid and his friends that it’s wrong.
Is it really okay to say “these ones”?
No…it’s not OK. You’re right to teach them it’s not OK. I hope they’re not reading this.
Then again, among real friends, everything’s OK, so long as your intent is clear.
If your son calls his gay friends “Homo” and his gay friends understand he’s doing so ironically/comically/in the spirit of true friendship, there’s nothing wrong with that.
Calling someone that he’s not friends with is wrong.
Now, to clarify, I don’t know Mr. Sneed, so I’m playing the “I’m a member” card to get away with this, but more than that I’m trying to make the point that Mr. Sneed’s political gambit affects more than just the national standing of his organization and, more importantly, will come back to bite him and those he supposedly represents.
Of course, I’m not black or Republican, so I’ll let someone who is (black, gay, and Republican) draw a distinction here if they choose to. I’ll accept the consequences. Sneed’s a sellout.
Crushing of dissent… at Obsidian Wings.
Crushing of dissent… at Obsidian Wings.
Where?
Blue, perhaps you could explain how Edward’s post equates to “crushing of dissent”? Do you feel that Edward shouldn’t have a right to express his opinions? If so, aren’t you then advocating a “crushing of dissent”?
As far as I can see, Edward has simply but emphatically said that he disagrees with the Abe Lincoln Black Republican Caucus’s decision to endorse George W. Bush for President. I have not seen anything in his post or his follow-up comment to suggest that he is either crushing the ALBRC or that he wants them to be crushed.
I don’t share Edward’s feelings about this quite so much, or at least, I don’t share the intensity about this group in particular. But then, well, I’m not a gay man. 😉 Nevertheless, I think Edward has a right to express his feelings on this matter, and that his doing so cannot possibly be equated with “crushing dissent”.
I meant it half-jokingly…
But, it’s safe to say Edward just put the smackdown on him for opening his mouth.
But, it’s safe to say Edward just put the smackdown on him for opening his mouth.
And you just put the smackdown on Edward for opening his mouth. So are you crushing dissent too, Blue?
I find it amusing when the far right gets huffy these days about “crushing of dissent,” after this administration has made the conflation of dissent and sedition one of its prime campaign tactics.
As for the “Abe Lincoln Black Republican Caucus,” the rumor on Wonkette is that it’s a joke. Anyone have any proof that these guys exist other than their own press release?
Ha! Teach me to write before I Google.
Internet evidence for their existence here and here. Alright, I can safely be enraged by their outrageous stupidity.
Blue,
Who are they dissenting from?
I’m arguing that they’re acting against their own stated goals. I’m trying to help them.
The “emphaticness” was my way of entertaining myself…I certainly don’t expect their endorsement to sway many opinions.
Edward,
“I meant it half-jokingly…”
I was really just commenting on this aspect of your post…
“The “emphaticness” was my way of entertaining myself…
Got it Blue…thanks for the clarification
People who you believe have shared goals, but who also have different opinions and views from you are “sad”, “deluded” and “whores”?
Shame those guys don’t know how good they have it on the plantation hey Edward?
OK noted.
Sadly so.
Shame those guys don’t know how good they have it on the plantation hey Edward?
That would make more sense if the analogues to slavery (such as they aren’t) didn’t cut in exactly the opposite direction…
That would make more sense if the analogues to slavery (such as they aren’t) didn’t cut in exactly the opposite direction…
Except they don’t cut that way at all. Your opinions are not laws. Your feelings are not institutional barriers. They’re just misconceptions about what your political opponents believe and stand for. However your arrogance about your opinions is certainly some sort of barrier.
Except they don’t cut that way at all. Your opinions are not laws. Your feelings are not institutional barriers. They’re just misconceptions about what your political opponents believe and stand for. However your arrogance about your opinions is certainly some sort of barrier.
Lost complete track of this halfway through. Does this even count as a strawman? And the “plantation” crack is incoherent at best.
A gay man who decides that marriage and its accompanying rights and responsibilities just isn’t for him is no different than a straight man who opts to stay single. A gay man who asserts than all gays should be denied marriage rights is actively engaging in and encouraging the politics of bigotry, and more, bigotry aimed squarely at him. A gay man who insists that gays should be denied marriage rights because to do otherwise would be to engage in a legacy of white racism and slavery is an outright, Alan Keyes-grade loon.
but what in that platform offers the people he supposedly represents “social” upliftment
Well, he actually said social self-upliftment, which I suppose refers to the traditional republican theme of encouraging personal responsibility in solving one’s problems, rather than dependence on government programs. You gotta admit, the R platform is unlikely to lead to governmental dependency in the nation’s young black urban population.
Macallan, I think you’re taking Edward’s smackdown a bit too seriously, but even allowing for that, I really don’t see how the “plantation” reference applies. If your reply to Anarch is as much defense as you’re going to offer, then all I can do is make V shapes with the index finger and thumb of each hand, put them side by side, direct them toward you, and move on.
I think Edward is concerned with grown men, acting “un-gentlemanly” as in “knowing there is a time and place for everything”…even slang and loose language.
“If you’re wanna whore yourself, go for it. But you’ve got no right to sell the dignity of your gay brothers and sisters.”
Amen, Edward_
Your feelings are not institutional barriers. They’re just misconceptions about what your political opponents believe and stand for.
Yeah, Edward. It’s not like you can read the party platform or anything.
Phil’s right. At the heart of this issue is the GOP’s party platform. It is a direct assault on the dignity of all gay Americans and as such deserves the derision of all self-respecting gay Americans. Including gay Republicans. Andrew Sullivan and the Log Cabin Republicans (who endorsed Bush the last time around) see this clearly. I’m dumbfounded that Sneed can’t. And I’m sorry if you can’t, Mac.
Well, he actually said social self-upliftment, which I suppose refers to the traditional republican theme of encouraging personal responsibility in solving one’s problems, rather than dependence on government programs. You gotta admit, the R platform is unlikely to lead to governmental dependency in the nation’s young black urban population.
Good point kenB. I misread that. It’s still a bit of potentially uplifting in one sense (I can see that argument), with an undeniable push down in another sense, though.
I wrote a while back that I look forward to the day when all races are more or less equally divided among the political parties. Bush made an excellent point when he addressed the Urban League about neither party taking the black vote for granted. I personally wish he would extend that to include the gay vote, but he’s seen fit to offer us up as sacrificial lambs in this election. Gay Americans who reward him for that are deluded or whoreish. I can’t see any other options here.
On the general who is better for black folks, generally, the most important issues probably come down more for Reps.
Affirmative Action, for instance, is now more counter-productive racist than helpful (judged on character, or race?). For instance, when whites see lazy white folk at the Post Office, doing a lousy job, they see a lazy guy or a guy in a lazy-making organization. When they see a similar lazy black, they see someone they think wouldn’t even have the job if it wasn’t for AA. Fair? No. Real? Certainly for some. Is AA increasing or decreasing racism? Both, as always, but most real benefits have already occurred, so it’s mostly the long term costs that are accumulating.
On schools, it’s 90% likely that vouchers and school choice will help more black kids read. So there will be improvement on the current terrible 56% or so non-literacy rate among blacks ending high school. But parental choice is totally opposed by Dems and their Teacher Union masters (despite teachers sending their own kids to private schools).
On gay marriage, the Rep tent is totally against “marriage”, or any adopting of boys a la NAMBLA, but much less against some not-quite civil unions/ domestic partnerships. Remember, the big-gov’t pro-life inconsistently anti-gay Catholics have been booted out of the pro-abortion Dems and don’t have anywhere else to go. Most of the sex scandals about priests include an anti-homosexual aspect.
But the passion of the anti-gay marriage Christians is frustrated anti-abortion anger much more than anti-gay (though there is some of that, too). Most Christian Reps would give up on gay-marriage were abortion still illegal in some states, and legal only in those states which explicitly allowed it. SC activism took that option away.
On gay marriage, the Rep tent is totally against “marriage”, or any adopting of boys a la NAMBLA,
Excuse me!?!
I’m sure there are nutjobs out there who assert what you’re suggesting, but it hardly seems relevant to the topic here. Have a look at our posting rules please.
I’m not saying you’re violating them, per se, but that idea seems inappropriately off topic and disruptive as written.
You offer some interesting thoughts on the idea that gay marriage is a proxy fight for abortion, so I’d like to encourage you to continue commenting here, but whether or not nutjobs associate gay parents adopting children with their own twisted phobias, I’d ask you to leave out the gratuitously vulgar tangents.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I can speak for myself: anyone who attempts to link homosexuality to pederasty is indulging in fallacy, if not outright fantasy. I’m hoping that you were simply being unclear, here.
At the heart of this issue is the GOP’s party platform. It is a direct assault on the dignity of all gay Americans and as such deserves the derision of all self-respecting gay Americans. Including gay Republicans. Andrew Sullivan and the Log Cabin Republicans (who endorsed Bush the last time around) see this clearly. I’m dumbfounded that Sneed can’t. And I’m sorry if you can’t, Mac.
The problem you’ve got Edward, I could equally say sweeping and assumptive things about many issues in the Democrat’s party platform as well. So, if you’re cool with anyone who endorses your party’s approach to National Security or entitlements getting called ‘deluded whores’ and so forth; then we’re fine. You know me, give me that kind of license and I can be quite creative.
If, however, you’d like me to treat your contrary approaches and opinions with some modicum of respect and decency, well then you’re on rather flimsy ground.
Apples and Oranges, Mac. One is a disagreement about policy; the other an attack on a minority.
What in the Dem platform singles out a group of tax-paying, law-abiding citizens as less than worthy of the dignity shown all other citizens?
You mean besides the entire population of the U.S.?
cute, but eventually pointless, snark Mac.
I was hoping for better.
Neither pointless nor cute. My opinion of the who gets subverted by the democratic platform is as valid as yours about the GOP’s. You are entitled to your opinion so is the deluded whore.
Neither pointless nor cute.
Fine, then based on a convoluted projection originating in a philosophical difference of opinion that relies on singling out a minority as a political wedge.
My opinion of the who gets subverted by the democratic platform is as valid as yours about the GOP’s.
Oh, so it’s OK to sacrifice gay Americans, so long as everyone else get’s their share of the American Dream. That’s what this amounts to, you know.
Macallan: You mean besides the entire population of the U.S.?
The Democratic platform singles out the entire population of the U.S. as being less than worthy of the dignity shown all other citizens? What other citizens are you referring to? Citizens of other nations? And which are the offending planks?
Like I said Edward, if you’re cool with this standard of rhetoric, we’re good to go. Though the “whore” thing wouldn’t work for me, but I’m sure I’ll come up with some good stuff.
Like I said Edward, if you’re cool with this standard of rhetoric, we’re good to go.
In a context with a less careful set up (and a “warning” notice, no less), I’d agree with your point, Mac.
In this context, though, I keep expecting a more pointed critique from you.
If your point is in general conversation it’s not right to call people who disagree with you “whores” then we agree.
If your point is there’s no context in which such heated rhetoric is understandable, then we disagree.
Sneed can vote his conscience like the rest of us. His rationale for doing so is offensive to me though.
Edward: Oh, so it’s OK to sacrifice gay Americans, so long as everyone else get’s their share of the American Dream. That’s what this amounts to, you know.
Yes, it is. But then, I somehow get the impression Macallan could care less about that.
Wow what a degenerate fork this thread has gone down.
Am I to assume that gay men are to pedophiles as straight men are to pedophiles?
Otherwise I don’t see the logic.
On the plantation.
Classy.
What’s the definition of race-baiting again?
Sneed can vote his conscience like the rest of us. His rationale for doing so is offensive to me though.
As is the rationale for many people voting their conscience is to me.
Macallan: if, when you say that your opinion is as valid as anyone else’s, you mean that you have every right to hold it, then I completely agree, and would fight to protect that right. But if you mean that your opinion has as much to be said for it as anyone else’s, that needs to be argued for. Likewise, if when you say that you “could” say similar things about the Democratic platform, you mean that it would be physically possible for you to do so, or that it would be legal, then we agree; but if you mean that you could say so with some justification, that’s not obvious.
I assume you aren’t just making the point that it would be possible for you to say that the Democratic platform constitutes a direct assault on some group of citizens, since that’s both obvious and not very interesting. (I mean, it’s also possible for me to say that George W. Bush is eight feet tall and glows in the dark — see? I just did!) If you meant to make the more interesting claim that such statements would be justified, however, it would be helpful if you could give us some idea of what, exactly, that justification might be.
sizzling analysis, hilzoy!
God, I love philosophy professors.
sizzling and off point…
First time here, linked via Brad DeLong’s site.
Mr. Sneed makes some good points–there *is* racisim, sexism, anti-Semitism, lots of -isms in the gay community. I clearly remember the “3 Picture ID” rule at clubs in West Hollywood that was used to keep blacks out (what person of any color has 3 picture ID’s?), for example. AIDS funding *is* uneven etc. etc. But Mr. Sneed’s group–apart from the loony assertion that he has numerical proof of God–loses me with this:
“We are not afraid of the white gay economic and political behemoth that continues to treat us like third class citizens and trash. It is the epitome of hypocrisy for White gays and lesbians to base their claims for rights to marry upon prejudice, discrimination and civil rights violations, when they are prejudiced, discriminatory and disrespectful of Black gay’s and lesbian’s human rights each and every day,” stated Mr. Sneed. “The White gay community is one of America’s last strongholds for White Supremacy. We will begin the dismantling of that stronghold today in downtown Dallas,” stated Willie Beard, an ALBRC member.
Um, Mr. Beard, you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about. If you honestly think that white homos are worse for black gays than straight white bible-thumping Republicans, then there’s no point in even giving your claim consideration.
sizzling and off point…
I think our back and forth has muddled the point then, Mac. If you’d be so kind as to restate it…
mac
Maybe you should start your own blog so you can express what you find offensive without the extra chip on your shoulder of being considered less credible than the folks who run this blog.
Otherwise, you’re coming off way too cryptic to be understood.
What’s yer point, Dude?
The point is simple and I’ll happily restate it. Edward do you consider this rhetoric acceptable? If so don’t be upset if people who don’t hold opposite opinions of yours thinks the same sort of rhetoric is acceptable.
carsick,
while I appreciate the backup (as do all the ObWi’s I’m sure), Macallan does have a solid reputation as a writer on Tacitus.
We don’t always agree, but I do consider him credible.
He’s loyal (perhaps to a fault, but not blindly) to his worldview, and I believe him when he expresses disdain for what I believe he’s (mis)interpreting as some message by me that gay black Americans should not be Republicans.
He’s mistaken about that, but I think he’s trying to make a point without having to spell it out here, and I’m not budging on this one…I don’t see it.
mac
When Edward states he finds it offensive that the Republican party singles out a minority to constitutionally limit rights to…
You claim the Democratic platform singles out who?
“You mean besides the entire population of the U.S.?”
When Edward states an opinion he finds offensive you respond:
“As is the rationale for many people voting their conscience is to me.”
Where’s Charles Krauthammer’s juvenile psycho diagnosis when you want it?
It’s even simpler if I could type. Try this:
If so don’t be upset if people who hold opposite opinions of yours thinks the same sort of rhetoric is acceptable.
carsick,
Do people ever respond to you and that sort of post?
After all that what you really were driving at was a question about acceptable use of language on this thread?!
Coulda fooled me.
“Words to tell you what to do
Words are working hard for you
Eat your words but don’t go hungry
Words have always nearly hung me
What are words worth?
What are words worth? – words
Words of nuance, words of skill
And words of romance are a thrill
Words are stupid, words are fun
Words can put you on the run”
The point is simple and I’ll happily restate it. Edward do you consider this rhetoric acceptable? If so don’t be upset if people who don’t hold opposite opinions of yours thinks the same sort of rhetoric is acceptable.
boing-a-boing-a-boing
{{{shaking head in hopes that point sinks in}}}
Do I consider calling Sneed a “whore” acceptable? In a less carefully constructed context, no. I don’t. But I was going for a bit of bawdy humor to try and make my point that, whether he currently sees it or not, he’s more like me on the issue that separates him from the Log Cabin Republicans than he is like those whom I insist he’s sucking up to. In short: It takes one to know one.
He’s totally entitled to vote for Bush. He’s totally entitled to refuse marriage for himself. As a “leader” within the gay community, he’s entitled to dissent from the community-at-large on issues. This should be clear to everyone.
He’s not entitled to sell out others for his own political gain, however, which is what I’m insisting he’s doing here.
He’s said nothing even remotely convincing about why the FMA is good for America. And just because marriage is not important for him, doesn’t give him any right to assert, through association, that it’s not important for me.
Gay families, like mine, are putting off all kinds of decisions, important decisions, in hopes that legal marriage will come to our state (soon) and we can realize some of our dreams. If Sneed doesn’t want to marry, that’s his business. He’s making a mockery of the dreams of other Americans, however, by playing this issue for his own self-centered interests.
Face it. You think because an issue is important to you it gives you license to label those who see it differently as deluded and sad. The issue itself doesn’t change what’s acceptable does it?
Mac
The guy who writes Boondocks, Aaron Magruder, can use a euphemism for “n****r” in his comics but if Brant Parker (Wizard of Id) did it I’m sure there would be a pretty big uproar about it being inappropriate.
If I use the word “jew” as an identifier for someone, I’m pretty certain the nearest jew would take a moment to guess the odds of the possibility my blonde WASPy ass wasn’t being derogatory.
Perhaps Edward was using terms better accepted or understood inside a minority to make a point about someone also inside that minority.
This is the point in a discussion where it would probably helpful for all parties to just say “whatever” and move on, as there’s no sign of any actual communication taking place.
You think because an issue is important to you it gives you license to label those who see it differently as deluded and sad. The issue itself doesn’t change what’s acceptable does it?
You didn’t appreciate the humor. Got it. The issue doesn’t change what’s acceptable, but one would hope a carefully contructed context might. I knew it was risky, but, it’s a difficult issue to discuss without humor (even bad humor…I’ll grant you).
The “license to label” issue though, that’s more complicated.
Mr. Sneed is doing some labeling himself, you see. He’s labeling the Log Cabin Republicans as unloyal losers who “pick up their marbles and go home” (as if all the work to be accepted should be the gay Republican’s responsibility).
Without delving too deeply into the psyche of Mr. Sneed, I’d suggest that represents a bit of low self-esteem.
It suggests that he feels he has to sacrifice to be accepted. That he has to check his dignity at the door of the GOP tent in order for a place at the table.
The Log Cabin Republicans refused to check their dignity at the door. They instead took the higher road of saying they’ll work from within to change opinions (not quite the charge of picking up their marbles and going home Mr Sneed unfairly hurls at them). He’s the one rolling over here.
But let me ask you, what about his reasons for endorsing Bush, if any, do you admire?
Perhaps Edward was using terms better accepted or understood inside a minority to make a point about someone also inside that minority.
No, “whore” means the same thing to gay people it does to straight people.
“Homos” is like the “n” word though. We can call each other that, but outsiders need permission. It’s considered distasteful unless it’s being used ironically, though.
kenB
I’m sorry, could you restate that?
“there’s no sign of any actual communication taking place”
joking
Edward, it isn’t Sneed that concerns me; it’s you. Sneed’s just a guy who has different political views from you, and I don’t know him or care. However, I respect you and I’m just chagrined to see you do this.
There is a vast difference between saying someone is whoring and calling someone a whore. The former is an aspersion on behavior, the latter an irrevocable identification. E-prime and all that.
‘sad’ and ‘deluded’ are meat and potatoes tame. Both show up with tedious frequency everywhere, including tacitus, redstate, and I’d bet a maple cruller both have issued from Mac’s fingers more than a few times.
Also, only I and my compatriots are allowed to call each other table-scrap pilfering grabasses. If anyone else calls us that, it’s totally out of line.
I’d bet a maple cruller both have issued from Mac’s fingers more than a few times.
I’m sure they have. But I’m an evil and mean conservative…
So Edward’s an evil and mean liberal. We need a few.
Now we get down to the real meat and potatoes.
Mac’s just using a double standard to judge Edward.
Par for the course for – not conservatives – but the contemporary republican party.
Heck, I’m thrilled. I’ve been operating on the theory that I ought not question people’s patriotism or dismiss them out of hand when they spout their misguided and naïve thoughts about foreign policy. This’ll be fun.
However, I respect you and I’m just chagrined to see you do this.
Sneed is directly making it harder for me to protect my family. He’s giving a “thumbs up” signal to all the bigots out there who feel gays are second class citizens. “Look, even they agree they’re not fit for marriage.”
If he were straight, I’d give him the benefit of doubt that he’s sincere (and hope some day he understands). Because he’s gay, I know that he knows that he’s totally full of it, or (as the title suggests) he’s simply deluded.
He admits himself he wants “recognition of domestic partnerships.” What in the 2004 GOP platform suggests for even a nanosecond to this man that he’ll get it from Bush?
I’ve been operating on the theory that I ought not question people’s patriotism or dismiss them out of hand when they spout their misguided and naïve thoughts about foreign policy.
Since when?
I think I’ve been writing under the impression that you’re another “Macallan.” ;ppp
Edward,
It’s all about priorities. Perhaps Snead is more concerned that “Anybody But Bush” can’t handle Iraq the way Bush has. Or al Queda. Or the economy. Or…
Now… Why he wants to reward incompetence is a completely different matter.
“Heck, I’m thrilled.”
Wait, you were just chagrined. I don’t think you can be chagthrilled.
“I’ve been operating on the theory…”
Why do you take your propriety cues from Edward? That’s kind of perverse. You should decide what you think is right and principled, and do that, regardless of what other people do.
It’s all about priorities.
He’s not saying that, however. He’s saying something totally illogical. He wants recognition of domestic partnerships, but he still endorses Bush.
“chagthrilled”
It’s a tough job, but someone got to do it.
Edward,
I think the many people have views that make it tougher to protect my family too.
Well, it’s possible for him not to be a single-issue voter. And indeed, if you’re the spokesperson for an organization of young, urban, black, gay, Republicans (more adjectives, please) who may or may not believe that divinity can be mathematically described, it’s probably not even psychologically possible to be a single-issue voter.
Here’s an out of context quote from Wonkette that actually fits here:
“We think being a gay Republican must be torture enough. As for particularly virulent homophobes who are gay, well, they should be mocked and reviled because they’re homophobes, not because they’re gay homophobes.”
It’s actually about Dreier’s anti-gay voting record and the news that he’s actually gay.
Yay for more sanity.
The point isn’t that it’s bad or hypocritical to be A and vote for B. It’s just bad to vote for B. To draw the canonical (and probably incendiary example), anti-Semitic Jews are bad. . not because they’re anti-Semitic Jews, but because they’re anti-Semites.
I think the many people have views that make it tougher to protect my family too.
When they tell you you don’t have a family, I’ll buy you a beer you can cry in.
Besides, united we stand, divided we fall.
The GOP is the party calculatedly driving a wedge between Americans on this one.
We’re slowly getting back to what I was questioning mac for originally.
Are American families in that perilous a situation that their neighbors getting married are a threat to their very “safety”?
Not the safety I’m referring to carsick.
Back to being cryptic I see.
I think the GOP’s lousy foreign policy threatens my family, and I’m straight. But the GOP threatens Edward’s family on purpose, because of homophobia, a desire to score cheap and easy political points at the expense of an unpopular minority, or some unholy combination of the two. It’s different, and it’s worse.
I would also be more upset if the G.O.P. threatened my future economic prospects by arguing that women shouldn’t be allowed to work outside the home, then I am about them threatening my future economic prospects by being grossly irresponsible with the federal budget and risking a fiscal crisis.
And I’d be particularly angry at women who supported prohibiting other women from working. I suppose it’s not especially rational of me, but they are not treated as just another person making a wrong argument; they are treated as living proof that the argument is not wrong.
also, that plantation crack is worse than “whore” and worse by far than “sad” or “deluded”. So stop it with the schoolmarm stuff.
Marguerite
I’m beginning to get the idea that mac thinks it’s fine in a foreign-exchange-student sort of way for mac to be respectful and civil with Edward but ultimately…you know…in a Not-In-My-Backyard sort of way.
(and no that was not intended as a euphemism for a sexual position)