# Must be an election coming up.....



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

I see the American right has given up any attempt at moving their "agenda" forward and have reverted to the old favourite topics - immigration and gay marriage (it surely won't be long before they wheel Dick Cheney out to warn us of impending nuclear doom from Iran).

The question is, will the American electorate fall for the fearmongering again?


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

Yeah elections are coming up here in California, the Governator is ready.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Slow day?*



gmac said:


> I see the American right has given up any attempt at moving their "agenda" forward and have reverted to the old favourite topics - immigration and gay marriage (it surely won't be long before they wheel Dick Cheney out to warn us of impending nuclear doom from Iran).
> 
> The question is, will the American electorate fall for the fearmongering again?


Seriously, this is the best you have this week? Remember, Cheney's shotgun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's bumper!

Warmest regards


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Seriously, this is the best you have this week? Remember, Cheney's shotgun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's bumper!


Do you mean Ted Kennedy's car in general? The bumper hasn't killed anyone I know of.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*You are correct*



Srynerson said:


> Do you mean Ted Kennedy's car in general? The bumper hasn't killed anyone I know of.


I was being flippant, Ted did not in fact, run anyone down. I suppose an argument could even be made the car he was driving did not kill anyone either, it was in fact the water that was submerging said car.... 

Warmest regards


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Puts him at the same number of deaths caused as Laura Bush then....


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

Yes, true. But then again Mrs. Bush didn't wait 24 hours to report the accident nor did she meet with Ted Sorensen and Sargent Shriver before reporting the accident to the police to figure out how to spin the accident. With the Interchange so quiet I had almost forgot how cheap you could be.

One more thing - the parents of the boy that was killed in the accident that Mrs. Bush caused don't blame her. Do you even care what the parents of Miss Kopecne think?

Gmac - cheap as ever!

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Eh, if we're just going for a body count...*

No person at this political level tops John Kerry for a body count. Heck, the guy testified before Congress that he committed atrocities. Please do not take my word for it, take Mr. Kerry's. Just search for April 1971 testimony.

Warmest regards

Edit: grammar


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

VOTE GREEN! Or our friends the LIBERTARIANS! or any other third party of serious intent.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Well, seems like it's a requirement to have a body count after your name if you want to reach the upper levels of American politics.

But let's not let Wayfarer hijack this thread with his Teddy Kennedy obsession.

You right wingers must be pretty embarrassed that the best your party can manage is pandering to the fears of the heartland of Mexicans, gays and Arabs. 

Bush's legislative successes are somewhere around zero since his election - this clown will be remembered for nothing other than allowing 9/11 to happen on his watch and then invading a country that had nothing to with it. 

And for being perhaps the worst public speaker to hold high office since Caligula made that horse a senator.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Gmac,
> 
> Yes, true. But then again Mrs. Bush didn't wait 24 hours to report the accident nor did she meet with Ted Sorensen and Sargent Shriver before reporting the accident to the police to figure out how to spin the accident.


So the kid is still alive then?

Oh.......


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gmac said:


> Bush's legislative successes are somewhere around zero since his election


You are kidding, right?

A major part of the negative job approval ratings are because of legislative "successes" that are not popular with his conservative base and libertarians and independents. If this guy has been good at anything it's compromise and moving legislation which is why the base is upset. His "uniting" is often nothing but giving democrats far more legislatively than they deserve with their minority.

His energy bill, prescription drug bill, and CAFTA are good examples. Then there is the homeland security department bill and all of the intelligence reforms, and the two patriot acts. If he gets his immmigration bill (earned amnesty, temporary worker) that is also going to upset conservatives.

He has probably put more important and sizable bills through than any president by several $100 Billion per year. I think HS Dept is one of the largest in history alone.

He had several large successes early that are all but forgotten like Education Reform. And his tax cut legislation was just extended. He has been on a roll with confirmations with Gonzalez as AG, Condi to State, Bolton to the UN, Negroponte to Intel, and also got both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito confirmed. Many less well known Judges are being confirmed now filling the vacancies. He's even supposed to win the latest controversial Judge which sounded iffy to me personally on ethical grounds.

The only thing he has really lost, he hasn't given up on - SS reform. Rove just gave a speech on it and the new tactics to move the ball forward in the next 2.5 years.

If you go to WhiteHouse.gov and search on signed legislation there's about 3,000 items.

Admittedly, lot of them are things like the Manufactured Goods Protection Act.

If anything W's persistent and consisent legislative activity/success is a good reason to hate him or at least hope the Dems win the Senate or House back to slow him down, a little. Both sides complain that W gets whatever he wants legislatively, but neither ever stands up to him.

Where exactly do you get your information?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

ksinc said:


> You are kidding, right?


I think he is the one who is kidding.

I certainly hope so..........

OK then, why don't you tell us all about how Georgie has changed the face of the nation?

Oh yes, the Patriot Act......


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

No - unfortunately the accident that Mrs. Bush was involved with caused the death of a fellow named Michael Douglas. How you can compare this to to Ted Kennedy's incident is beyond the pale. I have come to the conclusion that you are useless Gmac - you won't or can't make coherent arguments, you by your own admission like to bait people and you make accusations that you can't back up. Enough. I am tired of your nonsense. Contribute something to this forum or go seek attention elsewhere.

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

GMAC, Your USA bashing has become tedious. One question, Do you eat with that mouth?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Enough. I am tired of your nonsense. Contribute something to this forum or go seek attention elsewhere.
> 
> Karl


I guess you'll just have to start ignorong me Karl - if you can.........

I haven't noticed you contributing much by the way - other than getting yourself in a tiz about Laura Bush and the kid she killed.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Kav said:


> GMAC, Your USA bashing has become tedious. One question, Do you eat with that mouth?


Yes, I do. Ate rather well tonight too but I'll save that for another thread

You seem to equate George Bush and the USA. I don't think I've had much bad to say about the USA as a whole.

George Bush on the other hand....


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gmac said:


> OK then, why don't you tell us all about how Georgie has changed the face of the nation?


Ok then - Education scores are up and improving, College enrollment is up and improving, Unemployment is down at record levels, Inflation is good, Interest rates are low historically, Taxes are low, Home ownership is up at record levels, Wages are up, Business ownership is up, the Dollar is even up (from where it was after Greenspan has killed it for years and years).

When people claim this administration is bad at governing it just makes it easier for W to drag the Republicans along. Most people feel good about their personal situation although they are concerned about the War and gas prices.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Now, now gentlemen*

Our favorite socialist, that intimates he leads a wealthy lifestyle none the less, is merely warming up for his upcoming vacation to France. Gentlemen, I have to say I am somewhat jealous. To live the life of affluence yet be so far above the fray of earning an income that one can be so rabidly anti-capitalist is something I fear I shall never attain. I say "cheers" to you gmac, you are truly living the dream!

Warmest regards


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

GMAC, I take issue with your recent post demeaning American unity. I would point out a very salient example. Karl89 and I have often butted heads in threads. We also both know there is a envelope beyond either of us pushing. I think it is called manners, humour and dare I say it, breeding? You've managed with all the consumate skill of a licensed Winnipeg callgirl to blow it. You have us agreeing on your disagreeable nature. The sheer brilliance in this achievement ranks up there with the Ross Rifle,the Dion Quintuplets and discarding the Dominion flag in favour of a marijuana leaf in International orange.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Kav said:


> I think it is called manners, humour and dare I say it, breeding? You've managed with all the consumate skill of a licensed Winnipeg callgirl to blow it.


Nice work - you manage to disprove one sentence with the next.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Our favorite socialist, that intimates he leads a wealthy lifestyle none the less, is merely warming up for his upcoming vacation to France.


Wealthy lifestyle?

Not sure about that - I'm flying charter to go and stay with my mum and dad at their home in Provence. Hardly lifestyles of the rich and famous, is it?

What else has you believing that I intimate I lead a wealthy lifestyle? I'm intrigued.

"Rabidly anti-capitalist"? Moi? Rabid perhaps but happy enough to live within the capitalist system, more or less.

Cheers right back at you! Happy Victoria Day!


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

gmac said:


> Wealthy lifestyle?
> 
> Not sure about that - I'm flying *charter* to go and stay with my mum and dad at their home in Provence. Hardly lifestyles of the rich and famous, is it?
> 
> ...


Does "charter" mean something different in Canada than it does in the US? I don't know of any non-wealthy people that charter airplanes, and I certainly don't know any non-incredibly-wealthy people that charter them to fly to Europe.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Kav and Karl*

Here is something to consider.

A number of years ago, a court in NY held that people couldn't be forced to take medication, against their will. Since then, there are a number of people wondering the streets of NY that could otherwise be leading normal lives.

They usually acost strangers on the street and go into a rant about something like "the third ring of Saturn is made up of lost airline luggage, and we need to get the FAA to act immediateley".

People from out of town sometimes try to reason with these poor souls.People that live here immediately move in the opposite direction, knowing that observers that see the conversation will know that one of the participants is disturbed, but without knowing for sure which one.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Then riddle me this...*



gmac said:


> Wealthy lifestyle?
> 
> Not sure about that - I'm flying charter to go and stay with my mum and dad at their home in Provence. Hardly lifestyles of the rich and famous, is it?


Ummm, yes, because most people in the US and Canada can afford to charter planes from the BC to France. Got the "super-saver" charter rates did you?



gmac said:


> "Rabidly anti-capitalist"? Moi? Rabid perhaps but happy enough to live within the capitalist system, more or less.


 Living within the system does not mean one subscribes to said system. As Orwell pointed out, a pacifist community can only exist for any period of time within the borders of a country with a strong military. What first alerted me to this though, was your comment that you were "proud to say" your district had elected an NDP (a socialist for those not in Canada).



gmac said:


> Cheers right back at you! Happy Victoria Day!


Thanks and same to you! I had almost forgotten it was V-day until I got home last night. I always get homesick over this weekend, it usually opened up boating season back home.

Warmest regards


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> Does "charter" mean something different in Canada than it does in the US? I don't know of any non-wealthy people that charter airplanes, and I certainly don't know any non-incredibly-wealthy people that charter them to fly to Europe.


Yes, it does mean something different: "charter" in Canada means a bargain basement flight, usually run by discount airlines. It also means what you understand it to mean, but since no-one really charters large aircraft for private use, or at least no-one knows anyone who charters really larger aircraft for private use, the most common definition of "charter" is the most popular one.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Learn something new every day...*



Doctor Damage said:


> Yes, it does mean something different: "charter" in Canada means a bargain basement flight, usually run by discount airlines. It also means what you understand it to mean, but since no-one really charters large aircraft for private use, or at least no-one knows anyone who charters really larger aircraft for private use, the most common definition of "charter" is the most popular one.


DD, really? I was born and raised in Ontario and the only definition I have for that term is to privately hire a vehicle, be it tour bus or plane. For instance, I have a friend back home that owns a travel agency as one of his businesses, and he has "charter" buses that he will rent out to private groups needing such transport. I never heard it used to mean "bargain basement". Goes to show you can learn something new everyday. I wonder if that is a regional useage?

Warmest regards


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Kav said:


> GMAC, I take issue with your recent post demeaning American unity. I would point out a very salient example. Karl89 and I have often butted heads in threads. We also both know there is a envelope beyond either of us pushing. I think it is called manners, humour and dare I say it, breeding? You've managed with all the consumate skill of a licensed Winnipeg callgirl to blow it. You have us agreeing on your disagreeable nature. *The sheer brilliance in this achievement ranks up there with the Ross Rifle,the Dion Quintuplets and discarding the Dominion flag in favour of a marijuana leaf in International orange.*


Presumably your comments are meant to be ironic? If not, in order:
(1) Our boys quickly dumped the Ross rifle in favour of the SMLE, which was probably the greatest repeating rifle ever produced. The _British_ SMLE, that is.
(2) The "Dion Quints" are ignored by everyone in Canada, except the CBC. Why foreigners latch onto that obscure historical nugget -- or even know about it -- is quite beyond me and the rest of Canada.
(3) That's a maple leaf, rendered in red and white. Replacing the Dominion flag was a way of distancing us from Britain and the Queen. Democracy and independence used to be American rallying cries, _n'est pas_?

DocD


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Doctor Damage said:


> Yes, it does mean something different: "charter" in Canada means a bargain basement flight, usually run by discount airlines.


Indeed. FlyZoom.com for anyone who is interested - cheap flights between Canada and the UK, and this year Canada and France.

Here is a little information on charter airlines from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_airline


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Doctor Damage said:


> (1) Our boys quickly dumped the Ross rifle in favour of the SMLE, which was probably the greatest repeating rifle ever produced. The _British_ SMLE, that is.
> DocD


I agree that it is a great rifle, but perhaps only _the greatest British repeating rifle ever produced_.

Even if we limit the category to bolt-action, repeating rifles it's important to note that the Lee Enfield and variants were really improved/modified Mauser actions that the British were on the receiving end of in the Second Boer War.

Even so, IMHO and many others the best Lee Enfield pattern rifles were actually the "US Rifle, .30 caliber, Model of 1917" which was the P14 (chambered in .303 British, but produced in the US by Winchester and Remington) re-chambered in 30-06 for issue to US troops.

FYI - the Pattern 13 SMLE used the same .276 ammunition as the Canadian Ross Rifles.

The greatest repeating rifle ever produced is, of course, the M1 Garand. Closely seconded only by the M14 - derived from the M1 and serving proudly in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world today. ;-)


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Ummm, yes, because most people in the US and Canada can afford to charter planes from the BC to France. Got the "super-saver" charter rates did you?


$299 one way, Vancouver to Paris CDG. I actually paid a bit extra to get the premium service (bigger seats, more legroom, free booze, etc) as I find traveling to Europe form the west coast to be a tough trip to get over. I'm hoping that we can all get some sleep and arrive relatively fresh.

I'm sure a lear jet would be more fun but slightly beyond my budget, despite my intimated "wealthy lifestyle".........



Wayfarer said:


> Living within the system does not mean one subscribes to said system. As Orwell pointed out, a pacifist community can only exist for any period of time within the borders of a country with a strong military. What first alerted me to this though, was your comment that you were "proud to say" your district had elected an NDP (a socialist for those not in Canada).


Alerted you to what? You think I am a pacifist? Not so.

The NDP has managed to survive reasonably well within Canada's capitalist economy. Their social democratic principles generally mean they advocate greater government intervention than the Liberals or Tories but I don't think we can anticipate large scale nationalisations or Bay Street fat cats being lined up against the wall and shot should Jack Layton come to power (an extremely unlikely event).

Maybe some kind of national child care program to allow women, particularly single mothers, to get back into the workforce.

Hardly setting the fires of revolution is it?

They may oppose the military mission in Afghanistan but that is more due to the ill defined nature of that mission and the possibility of an open ended combat mission, basically taking one side in a civil war.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

No-one has really addressed the original question - is it coincidence that as the November elections approach the Republicans start to play to traditional conservative bogeymen - immigrants and gays?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gmac said:


> No-one has really addressed the original question - is it coincidence that as the November elections approach the Republicans start to play to traditional conservative bogeymen - immigrants and gays?


In spite of the detailed efforts to inform and educate you by correcting each faulty assumption and accusation you put forth, you remain wholely unteachable. It's not a virtue. The assumptions in your original question have been throughly, but politely, rejected.

Have a nice flight to France. Please come back with an "A game". You're beginning to bore the hell out of us.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

ksinc said:


> In spite of the detailed efforts to inform and educate you by correcting each faulty assumption and accusation you put forth, you remain wholely unteachable. It's not a virtue. The assumptions in your original question have been throughly, but politely, rejected.


Ha! Not here they haven't!

The only "education" one gets from you and your fellow travelers is a regurgitation of Fox News talking points. And not so polite in many cases....

C'mon Ksinc, what is it about Mexicans and homosexuals that makes conservatives crazy? Crazy enough to vote for a loon like Bush and his cabal of right wing crazies? Answer the question!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gmac said:


> Ha! Not here they haven't!


Scroll the thread. Your question has been answered at least three times you just won't accept the answer.

Why should we keep trying to "fix" you?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Scroll the thread. Your question has been answered at least three times you just won't accept the answer.
> 
> Why should we keep trying to "fix" you?


No it hasn't.

You have listed some vague "accomplishments" of the Bush adminstration but nowhere did you address the conservative obsession with immigrants and gay marriage.

I guess your constant obfuscation means you don't have an answer. That's fine, I'll wait for someone who does.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

You did post something quite interesting about rifles too, I'll give you that.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gmac said:


> You have listed some vague "accomplishments" of the Bush adminstration but nowhere did you address the conservative obsession with immigrants and gay marriage.


I believe you are finding that your own propensity to lace your responses with emotional, false accusations like "Bush's legislative successes are somewhere around zero since his election" requires those that attempt to engage you with a great burden to disabuse you of these which detracts from the main point.

If you sidetracked your own thread and now are frustrated that you missed the answer to your question, you have only yourself to blame.

;-)

The same issue lies in your questions. The assumptions they are based on are simply not true.

Perhaps you should reformat your questions to something like "Are you conservatives obsessed with gays?" And then we could simply say "No, we aren't". Since finding no one to accept your presumption and answer the charge isn't working for you. You can take the hint (immigration was already covered extensively). It'd do you wonders on a personal approval level.

You do want to finish W's term ahead of him don't you? He's only at 30% surely you can catch him! ;-)


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gmac said:


> You did post something quite interesting about rifles too, I'll give you that.


Thank you.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

ksinc said:


> If you sidetracked your own thread and now are frustrated that you missed the answer to your question, you have only yourself to blame.


So, you can't answer the original question. Why don't you just say that?

If my original question is so laced with false assumptions it would surely be easy enough to correct me? But no-one has even tried, making me think my assumptions are correct - right wingers hate immigrants and gays.

A for my personal approval levels, in the polls that count I am riding high!


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

gmac said:


> So, you can't answer the original question. Why don't you just say that?
> 
> If my original question is so laced with false assumptions it would surely be easy enough to correct me? But no-one has even tried, making me think my assumptions are correct - right wingers hate immigrants and gays.
> 
> A for my personal approval levels, in the polls that count I am riding high!


Your assumptions are simplistic, and hate is probably too strong a word, but the answer lies in BOTH parties turning to populist themes when they are in a bind.

Dems do with their class war BS, Republicans do it with morality and nativism (sp?)

Politics is about picking which devils to live with.

Cheers


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Is fear a better word for how the right respond to immigrants and gays?


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

JRR said:


> Your assumptions are simplistic, and hate is probably too strong a word, but the answer lies in BOTH parties turning to populist themes when they are in a bind.
> 
> Dems do with their class war BS, Republicans do it with morality and nativism (sp?)
> 
> ...


I think your post, regarding the populist themes has a lot of merit. Critical thinking is out when it comes to voting, people vote with their emotions rather than their minds... So the marketing on both sides contiues. Rove and Clinton should be working on Madison Ave. not Pennsylvania Ave.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

OK, now we are getting somewhere.

The interesting thing to me is that people will vote directly against their own self -interest due to these emotional issues.

I guess one could say that typical Hollywood liberal ought to be voting republican as they are generally wealthy and will benefit the most from tax cuts.

I think Thomas frank captures the oposite phenomenon well in his book "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0...f=pd_bbs_1/104-1277024-3766309?_encoding=UTF8

"The largely blue collar citizens of Kansas can be counted upon to be a "red" state in any election, voting solidly Republican and possessing a deep animosity toward the left. This, according to author Thomas Frank, is a pretty self-defeating phenomenon, given that the policies of the Republican Party benefit the wealthy and powerful at the great expense of the average worker. According to Frank, the conservative establishment has tricked Kansans, playing up the emotional touchstones of conservatism and perpetuating a sense of a vast liberal empire out to crush traditional values while barely ever discussing the Republicans' actual economic policies and what they mean to the working class. Thus the pro-life Kansas factory worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically. To much of America, Kansas is an abstract, "where Dorothy wants to return. Where Superman grew up." But Frank, a native Kansan, separates reality from myth in What's the Matter with Kansas and tells the state's socio-political history from its early days as a hotbed of leftist activism to a state so entrenched in conservatism that the only political division remaining is between the moderate and more-extreme right wings of the same party. Frank, the founding editor of The Baffler and a contributor to Harper's and The Nation, knows the state and its people. He even includes his own history as a young conservative idealist turned disenchanted college Republican, and his first-hand experience, combined with a sharp wit and thorough reasoning, makes his book more credible than the elites of either the left and right who claim to understand Kansas.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gmac said:


> So, you can't answer the original question. Why don't you just say that?
> 
> If my original question is so laced with false assumptions it would surely be easy enough to correct me? But no-one has even tried, making me think my assumptions are correct - right wingers hate immigrants and gays.





gmac said:


> The question is, will the American electorate fall for the fearmongering again?


This is the equivalent of "have you quit beating your wife?"

Several people tried to tell you. I counted three, as I said.

In other threads people have been trying to tell you for at least a month as far as I can tell.

I did correct some of your faulty assumptions, but frankly it's too much work for just one man and it seemed many of the others were done playing with you.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I did correct some of your faulty assumptions, but frankly it's too much work for just one man and it seemed many of the others were done playing with you.


You have done nothing of the kind. You have simply avoided the question.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gmac said:


> Is fear a better word for how the right respond to immigrants and gays?


Immigration was thoroughly covered. So on the topic of "gay-hating" tell us what you have seen recently that makes you think Right-Wingers are focused on them? or returning to them to save the November House Election?

Frankly, the only thing I have heard of lately is Mary Cheney and John Edwards cat-fighting over her book. I don't know anyone that reallly cares or noticed except Left-Wingers. I think conservatives are pretty matter-of-fact about marriage being between a man and a woman and I never see any "hate" or "fear".

I think most are just a bit "tiresome" of an extreme minority insisting on the extreme view of gay right to marriage, but most don't care about civil unions or other legal categorizations that make their life easier and equal in terms of medical rights, property rights, survivor rights and other meaningful issues.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gmac said:


> You have done nothing of the kind. You have simply avoided the question.


Hello?! I spent a lot of effort correcting you on Bush's Zero legislative record which was your own assumption that he had nothing but gay-hating to run on. Even though he isn't running again. Another bad assumption.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I own a Rigby SMLE in .303 with 215 grain Rhino ( australian made) handloads, a 1915 NO 1 used by the I.R. A. with documentation and a boxed sniper.I figure if somebody REALLY irritates me it is poetic justice to fire VERY close warning shots with their own native product. Ironically the rifling and cartridge primer were american made. But then the M1 was the work of a canadian. Obviously canadian humour has lapsed since the passing of John Candy. I had the sad honour of drinking with the late Stan Rogers after his last L.A. concert. I learned a lot of canadian history and folklore over a bottle of whiskey. Stan's comments about his own government were far more pithy than GMAC's best efforts. He also enjoyed his american tours. You canucks can visit anytime, and we don't charge exit fees. - departs this puckered spincter of a thread playing the Ballad of The Mary Ellen Rogers.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Pretty sure you have called me a "right winger"...*



gmac said:


> But no-one has even tried, making me think my assumptions are correct - right wingers hate immigrants


So then your premise is I hate myself? Interesting.

Warmest regards


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> So then your premise is I hate myself? Interesting.
> 
> Warmest regards


You definitely owe yourself an apology.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Two things....*



Kav said:


> I own a Rigby SMLE in .303 with 215 grain Rhino ( australian made) handloads, a 1915 NO 1 used by the I.R. A. with documentation and a boxed sniper.I figure if somebody REALLY irritates me it is poetic justice to fire VERY close warning shots with their own native product.


NEVER fire a warning shot! Every tactical class I have attended (all three of them, lol) and every cop I am aquainted with has told me if you fire a warning shot and then fire to hit, you will get fried in court. If you have time to fire a warning shot, you could have fled the scene and that will cause you problems in most States.



Kav said:


> You canucks can visit anytime....


Btw, "canuck" properly applies only to French Canadians. Calling an Anglo Canadian a canuck is like calling someone from the deep South a "yank".

Warmest regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*LOL*



ksinc said:


> You definitely owe yourself an apology.


Good one  Think I already covered Celine Dion, no?

Warmest regards


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

ksinc said:


> I think conservatives are pretty matter-of-fact about marriage being between a man and a woman and I never see any "hate" or "fear".


While I disagree with GMAC's premise (but for diametrically opposed reasons than the conservatives on this board) I'm deeply puzzled by your above contention. Other cons I talk to also contend that they don't hate anybody and in the next breath speak favorable for a gay marriage amendment and with a barely repressed anger at the idea of gay marriage. This strikes me as pure doublethink. How does blatant homophobia involve neither "hate" nor "fear"? Explain please.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

clothesboy said:


> While I disagree with GMAC's premise (but for diametrically opposed reasons than the conservatives on this board) I'm deeply puzzled by your above contention. Other cons I talk to also contend that they don't hate anybody and in the next breath speak favorable for a gay marriage amendment and with a barely repressed anger at the idea of gay marriage. This strikes me as pure doublethink. How does blatant homophobia involve neither "hate" nor "fear"? Explain please.


No. I have no problem with gay people, nor fear them. I just don't see what being gay has to do with being married.

The majority agrees. We have majority rule. The laws are written by the majority.

I think cons were happy to not have it in the law, but a bunch of extremists pushing it in court forced us to accept that it must be legislative as the US was designed. If cons fear or are angry at anything it's more THAT. Trying to backdoor us (pardon the pun). The lack of rule of law and/or law being made by judges. I know it's common to teach now, "Judges make the law" and I think cons fear that in any context - not just gay marriage. I think cons fear the things more philosophically like say the lack of truth, absolutes in society.

As I said, it's just a matter of fact attitude with most. We think: congress makes law and marriage is a guy and a girl.

We're not mad AT GAYS, just a little confused as how these simple concepts got so far into debate and frustrated how Judges feel they can override the democratic rule by edict.

Think of it as some Judge ruling the earth was flat. We just say, "no it's not, how can a judge do that?" and someone says, "Because you never put a law that said the Earth was round" and we say, "did we need to really?"

So if asked we support marriaged as between a man and a woman.

The issues faced by gay couples are real and can be resolved in other ways. I definitely empathize with someone who can't get medical rights, etc. with someone they love. I don't see the solution as re-defining marriage in court as between 'any parties'.

I think cons are more scared if that is the word of polygamy, pedophilia etc. being legalized than a gay couple. That's the O'Reilly argument and if encounter any fear/hate I think that's what you are hearing. The "we have to stop gay marriage" slippery-slope argument.

I think another reason Cons are mad is at people like Senator McCain. Here is a person that has used the Commerce Clause for every stinking excuse known to man, but he thinks defining marriage should be left to the states? That's just an outrageous contradiction for him compared to how he wants to regulate everything else. Surely, the definition of marriage as a contract and granted rights impacts a ton of businesses and it wouldn't be hard to find a role for Congress if you were as liberal with finding it as he is. At least, McCain is the only thing I'm mad at in this debate and I just think he's a joke. I would't walk out in the front lawn to protest him however.

Just my view from the people I speak with, and I'm VERY CONSERVATIVE. Like business owner, MBA, gun-toting, F-150 driving, the South will rise again, libertarian-conservative. I know a lot of the so-called "hardcore religious right" and I don't know anyone that hates or fears gays. Just FYI and to help answer your questions.


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

ksinc said:


> No. I have no problem with gay people, nor fear them. I just don't see what being gay has to do with being married.
> 
> The majority agrees. We have majority rule. The laws are written by the majority.
> 
> ...


The same thing that being straight has to do with it. Once marrige is created in a civil, as opposed to religious, context all citizens are entitled to the protections and privileges that accrue to that institution.

I don't understand how anyone can subscribe to the "tyranny of the majority" viewpoint in the U.S. This debate was had at the very beginning of this country and even then people knew that there should be limits on what the majority can impose. The feelings of the people on this subject were so strong that there literally would not be a United States of America without these curbs.

Because the issues faced by gays are real and have not been resolved in other ways.

If someone were to espouse and amendment to the constitution saying jews or blacks should not be allowed to marry would anyone seriously consider that this is neither antisimetic or racist?


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

I don't know why this edit won't show.

The majority of the people wishing to deny the equal protection of the law to a class of people simply by virtue of them being members of that class is exactly the type of situtation and independent judiciary is supposed to handle.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

GT3 said:


> I think your post, regarding the populist themes has a lot of merit. Critical thinking is out when it comes to voting, people vote with their emotions rather than their minds... So the marketing on both sides contiues. Rove and Clinton should be working on Madison Ave. not Pennsylvania Ave.


GT3,

Just read this today. Lou Dobbs' weekly diatribe is a good example of populism at work.

https://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/23/dobbs.may24/index.html

I don't know what is sadder, that this is considered political "analysis" or that many just accept this tripe as fact.

Cheers


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

Thanks JRR I'll take a look at it. Someone as articulate and intelligent as Lou Dobbs could do a lot of good... But you know better than I do how these things go.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

clothesboy said:


> The majority of the people wishing to deny the equal protection of the law to a class of people simply by virtue of them being members of that class is exactly the type of situtation and independent judiciary is supposed to handle.


You mention in an above post "once it becomes civil..." So would you be fine if we had a "civil union" with all the legal status of a "marriage" or do you feel the term "marriage" must be co-opted too? Basically, is it the outcome you are concerned with or the language? I am 100% behind civil unions but I think it is disingenious to propose that "marriage" has not connoted a union between a man and a woman. I can even swallow the position that, "We want to change the definition of "marriage". We want it to now include a union between any two people." The only thing I will not buy is the tripe that "marriage" never implied a union between opposite sexes.

Warmest regards


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> You mention in an above post "once it becomes civil..." So would you be fine if we had a "civil union" with all the legal status of a "marriage" or do you feel the term "marriage" must be co-opted too? Basically, is it the outcome you are concerned with or the language? I am 100% behind civil unions but I think it is disingenious to propose that "marriage" has not connoted a union between a man and a woman. I can even swallow the position that, "We want to change the definition of "marriage". We want it to now include a union between any two people." The only thing I will not buy is the tripe that "marriage" never implied a union between opposite sexes.
> 
> Warmest regards


While I agree with Albert Einstein that, "A difference that makes no difference is no difference.", the law of unintended consequences and history show that separate is never equal.

And the above is off topic (as all good conversations are). My original point, which I still stand by, is if you wish to deny whole groups equal protection you're kidding yourself if you think you neither hate nor fear them.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*No, it is 100% on topic*



Wayfarer said:


> You mention in an above post "once it becomes civil..." So would you be fine if we had a "civil union" with all the legal status of a "marriage" or do you feel the term "marriage" must be co-opted too? Basically, is it the outcome you are concerned with or the language? I am 100% behind civil unions but I think it is disingenious to propose that "marriage" has not connoted a union between a man and a woman. I can even swallow the position that, "We want to change the definition of "marriage". We want it to now include a union between any two people." The only thing I will not buy is the tripe that "marriage" never implied a union between opposite sexes.





clothesboy said:


> And the above is off topic (as all good conversations are). My original point, which I still stand by, is if you wish to deny whole groups equal protection you're kidding yourself if you think you neither hate nor fear them.


No, this is 100% on topic and you totally avoided the question. Is your goal to have gay couple enjoy the rights and priviledges of a legally recognized union (something I wholeheartedly endorse) or is your goal to have people believe the term "marriage" has not connoted a relationship between a man and woman? If you concede "marriage" connotes a relationship between opposite sexes, no equal protection is being denied, now is it? Possibly this is why some people are trying to pull a Jedi-mindtrick and would have people believe the term "marriage" never involved people of the opposite sex.

If civil unions are allowed, which I think they should be, no class of people are being denied the benefits and protections or a legally recognized union, now are they? So it is vitally important to your cause to decide what the goal is, IMO.

Warmest regards


----------



## mr_economy (May 13, 2006)

clothesboy said:


> While I disagree with GMAC's premise (but for diametrically opposed reasons than the conservatives on this board) I'm deeply puzzled by your above contention. Other cons I talk to also contend that they don't hate anybody and in the next breath speak favorable for a gay marriage amendment and with a barely repressed anger at the idea of gay marriage. This strikes me as pure doublethink. How does blatant homophobia involve neither "hate" nor "fear"? Explain please.


I respect the protection of marriage as an institution - a _religious_ institution. The First Amendment of our Constitution means that a church can impose whatever requirements it wants (within reason, of course) on what it takes for their god to recognize a union.

It is when the state sticks its nose in this business that the issue is complicated, and it is here that conservatives get scared. DOMA is unconstitutional, plain and simple. The Supreme Court has laid down clear dicta in previous Equal Protection / Due Process cases (_Romer v. Evans_ in particular) telling us that a group cannot be singled out for legal discrimination simply because it is politically/morally unpopular. A majority in the Court rejects appeals to historical homohatred as a justification for discrimination (_Lawrence v. Texas_ in overturning _Bowers v. Hardwick_).

While I am certain of an easy victory against DOMA on Equal Protection and Due Process grounds, it is also a clear violation of congressional power vis-a-vis the Full Faith & Credit clause. While the Constitution does give the congress power to "prescribe" appropriate means of encforcing the clause, it does not give power to "proscribe". I have no doubt the Court would apply the same analysis that it does with the enforcement provision of the 14th Amendment: that Congress' power does not include "primary legislation" defining the meaning of the Constitution, merely the authority to enforce the meaning as interpreted by the Judiciary. In _proscribing_ Full Faith & Credit from applying to gay marriage, Congress has clearly enacted primary legislation.

Conservatives realize that DOMA is such a terrible piece of legislation that is bound to be overturned, which is why they are turning to their last bastion of hope - a constitutional amendment.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Kav, nice post. I try to visit the States as much as possible, but only recently has the dollar/dollar rate been favourable to me. (Much better than sitting on a plane for 8+ hours just to go sit in pubs with a bunch of drunks, machete-ing my way through the cig smoke to find the bar, and running the gauntlet of yobbo bully-boys on the walk home.)

Wayfarer, as an Ontariariarian I have never been offended by being called a Canuck. In fact I often refer to myself as such! We _do_ live in Canuckistan, after all! <smile> And we mustn't forget Captain Canuck, our fearless wartime super-hero, helping his comrade The Torch Of Liberty and others to fight the scourge of Nazism!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I don't think anyone has denied a gay man the right to marry a woman if he wants to or vice versa. But, to force people to redefine the word marriage is extreme and it's simply not supported by the majority. The role of the independent judiciary is not to fix imaginary or perceived wrongs, but to legally find reliance or restitution.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Somewhere in the land of the lost threads I mentioned my warning shots as two taps to the head. My barbs were all in the spirit of the late and missed John Candy's hilarious Canadian Bacon. I'm still not sure who got spoofed aboot more, us or you guys. GMACS can be debated through logic with unpredicatable results, warning shots as discussed or with humour, ridicule and sarcasm. You know when that one doesn't work. The antagonist thinks the dog peeing on his leg is happy to see him.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Never bothered me either but....*



Doctor Damage said:


> Wayfarer, as an Ontariariarian I have never been offended by being called a Canuck. In fact I often refer to myself as such! We _do_ live in Canuckistan, after all! <smile> And we mustn't forget Captain Canuck, our fearless wartime super-hero, helping his comrade The Torch Of Liberty and others to fight the scourge of Nazism!


Aye, it has come to be a rather generic term, and it's not like "Yank" doesn't get used for all Americans in Europe and such, but still....if you're from south of the Mason-Dixon line you're not technically a Yankee and if you are Anglo you are not technically a Canuck. I just like to point it out once in awhile


----------



## mr_economy (May 13, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I don't think anyone has denied a gay man the right to marry a woman if he wants to or vice versa. But, to force people to redefine the word marriage is extreme and it's simply not supported by the majority. The role of the independent judiciary is not to fix imaginary or perceived wrongs, but to legally find reliance or restitution.


Your same logic justifies preventing interracial marriages as well. Nobody was denying a black man the right to marry black women, or a white man the right to marry white women.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Need I remind everyone:

mar·riage
n. 

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. 

civil union
n

A legally recognized and voluntary union of adult parties of the same sex.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mr_economy said:


> Your same logic justifies preventing interracial marriages as well. Nobody was denying a black man the right to marry black women, or a white man the right to marry white women.


Please! No, it doesn't.

Example: We deny a straight man the right to marry another straight man.

It has nothing at all to do with whether you are a gay man, a straight man, a black man or whatever adjective or class you would place yourself as a man.

A man simply cannot by definition "marry" another man.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Aye, it has come to be a rather generic term, and it's not like "Yank" doesn't get used for all Americans in Europe and such, but still....if you're from south of the Mason-Dixon line you're not technically a Yankee and if you are Anglo you are not technically a Canuck. I just like to point it out once in awhile


Was never aware of the Francophone link with "Canuck". Will have to make that trivia point in conversations, although no-one will know what I'm talking 'aboot'!


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> No, this is 100% on topic and you totally avoided the question. Is your goal to have gay couple enjoy the rights and priviledges of a legally recognized union (something I wholeheartedly endorse) or is your goal to have people believe the term "marriage" has not connoted a relationship between a man and woman? If you concede "marriage" connotes a relationship between opposite sexes, no equal protection is being denied, now is it? Possibly this is why some people are trying to pull a Jedi-mindtrick and would have people believe the term "marriage" never involved people of the opposite sex.
> 
> If civil unions are allowed, which I think they should be, no class of people are being denied the benefits and protections or a legally recognized union, now are they? So it is vitally important to your cause to decide what the goal is, IMO.
> 
> Warmest regards


First, I never heard of anyone, "...trying to pull a Jedi-mindtrick and would have people believe the term "marriage" never involved people of the opposite sex." People have been saying the protections that accrue to the legal institution of mariage should be available to all. This is not even close to the same thing.

Perhaps some historical perpesctive will help. In your statement put the word white before every instance of man and woman. You now have the same bigoted "logic" used to deny marriage to blacks and, in my lifetime anyway, deny interacial marriage.

I had hoped that as a society we had moved beyond such flawed reasoning. More and more I am beginning to realize I am sorely mistaken.


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

ksinc said:


> I don't think anyone has denied a gay man the right to marry a woman if he wants to or vice versa. But, to force people to redefine the word marriage is extreme and it's simply not supported by the majority. The role of the independent judiciary is not to fix imaginary or perceived wrongs, but to legally find reliance or restitution.





mr_economy said:


> Your same logic justifies preventing interracial marriages as well. Nobody was denying a black man the right to marry black women, or a white man the right to marry white women.





ksinc said:


> Please! No, it doesn't.
> 
> Example: We deny a straight man the right to marry another straight man.
> 
> ...


Ksinc, I hope you are a young man because otherwise such ignorance is unforgivable. I was in the deep South (Alabama) in the early sixties and not only does such "logic" justify banning interracial marriage that is the precise history of such reasoning.

I cannot post the relevant quote as they come from a time when people did not hide their hatred behind "political philosophy" or "religious dogma" and their bigotry was there for all to see.

EDIT: Quote by mr. economy


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

clothesboy said:


> Ksinc, I hope you are a young man because otherwise such ignorance is unforgivable. I was in the deep South (Alabama) in the early sixties and not only does such "logic" justify banning interracial marriage that is the precise history of such reasoning.
> 
> I cannot post the relevant quote as they come from a time when people did not hide their hatred behind "political philosophy" or "religious dogma" and their bigotry was there for all to see.


paraphrased: "You're wrong. I can't tell you why. I can't make any substantive argument or even distinguish between race and gender. However, I can make hysterical claims and insult people that disagree with me because I'm not a bigot and I'm hiding anonymously on the internet."

Congratulations, on your integrity and informed opinion ... "boy"

FTR --

"Yet another faction of gay rights advocates actually favors gay marriage as a step toward the abolition of marriage itself. This group agrees that there is a slippery slope, and wants to hasten the slide down.

To consider what comes after gay marriage is not to say that gay marriage itself poses no danger to the institution of marriage. Quite apart from the likelihood that it will usher in legalized polygamy and polyamory, gay marriage will almost certainly weaken the belief that monogamy lies at the heart of marriage. But to see why this is so, we will first need to reconnoiter the slippery slope.

DURING THE 1996 congressional debate on the Defense of Marriage Act, which affirmed the ability of the states and the federal government to withhold recognition from same-sex marriages, gay marriage advocates were put on the defensive by the polygamy question. If gays had a right to marry, why not polygamists? Andrew Sullivan, one of gay marriage's most intelligent defenders, labeled the question fear-mongering--akin to the discredited belief that interracial marriage would lead to birth defects.

Scoffing at the polygamy prospect as ludicrous has been the strategy of choice for gay marriage advocates. In 2000, following Vermont's enactment of civil unions, Matt Coles, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, said, "I think the idea that there is some kind of slippery slope [to polygamy or group marriage] is silly." As proof, Coles said that America had legalized interracial marriage, while also forcing Utah to ban polygamy before admission to the union. That dichotomy, said Coles, shows that Americans are capable of distinguishing between better and worse proposals for reforming marriage. 
Are we? When Tom Green was put on trial in Utah for polygamy in 2001, it played like a dress rehearsal for the coming movement to legalize polygamy. True, Green was convicted for violating what he called Utah's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on polygamy. Pointedly refusing to "hide in the closet," he touted polygamy on the Sally Jessy Raphael, Queen Latifah, Geraldo Rivera, and Jerry Springer shows, and on "Dateline NBC" and "48 Hours." But the Green trial was not just a cable spectacle. It brought out a surprising number of mainstream defenses of polygamy. And most of the defenders went to bat for polygamy by drawing direct comparisons to gay marriage.

Writing in the Village Voice, gay leftist Richard Goldstein equated the drive for state-sanctioned polygamy with the movement for gay marriage. The political reluctance of gays to embrace polygamists was understandable, said Goldstein, "but our fates are entwined in fundamental ways." 
Libertarian Jacob Sullum defended polygamy, along with all other consensual domestic arrangements, in the Washington Times. Syndicated liberal columnist Ellen Goodman took up the cause of polygamy with a direct comparison to gay marriage. Steve Chapman, a member of the Chicago Tribune editorial board, defended polygamy in the Tribune and in Slate. The New York Times published a Week in Review article juxtaposing photos of Tom Green's family with sociobiological arguments about the naturalness of polygamy and promiscuity.

The ACLU's Matt Coles may have derided the idea of a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy, but the ACLU itself stepped in to help Tom Green during his trial and declared its support for the repeal of all "laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage." There is of course a difference between repealing such laws and formal state recognition of polygamous marriages. Neither the ACLU nor, say, Ellen Goodman has directly advocated formal state recognition. Yet they give us no reason to suppose that, when the time is ripe, they will not do so. Stephen Clark, the legal director of the Utah ACLU, has said, "Talking to Utah's polygamists is like talking to gays and lesbians who really want the right to live their lives."


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Either marriage, or some equitable institution which similarly establishes certain rights and responsibilities, ought to available for homosexual couples as well as polygamists. And as long as governments continue to grant 
'marriages'; to heterosexual couples, these homosexual and polygamous unions should also be called 'marriages'. 

The divorce rate is so high that straight marriage has been turned into a farce. It is certainly not something 'god-sanctioned' and sacred. It is simply a contract, and one with a frequently-used escape hatch. Religions can continue to define how they will grant marriages to their own members, but states cannot. Modern western states have a much more diverse constituency, to put it mildly.

There is more than a little irony in that there is a huge overlap between those who rail against gay marriage and those who support sending young people to die and get maimed in foreign wars for democracy. It is 2006 CE, and human beings are still trying to kill each other and deny each other equal rights. Hopefully we don't destroy the planet before a more enlightened species of **** sapien evolves.


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

ksinc said:


> paraphrased: "You're wrong. I can't tell you why. I can't make any substantive argument or even distinguish between race and gender. However, I can make hysterical claims and insult people that disagree with me because I'm not a bigot and I'm hiding anonymously on the internet."
> 
> Congratulations, on your integrity and informed opinion ... "boy"
> 
> ...


You consider the entire history of opposition to marriage as anything other than the union of a white man with a white woman as not "substantive"? the historical record regarding discrimination and marriage as "hysterical"?

I didn't say I couldn't tell you why you are wrong. You contend that your logic cannot be used to support bans on interracial marriage and I pointed out the historical application of your "logic" not only could but has been used for precisely that purpose. 

This is what I said, "I cannot post the relevant quote as they come from a time when people did not hide their hatred behind "political philosophy" or "religious dogma" and their bigotry was there for all to see." If you wish email me I will send you, or anyone, the quote. If you can inform me how to get the quote posted please let me know and I will edit my reply and give you due credit.

I said nothing regarding polygamy and have no idea how it is relevant to my postings.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

It is neither relevant or substantive. Adjective man and adjective woman has nothing to do with marriage. You wish it did, but it doesn't. It's not "straight" marriage, it's marriage. It's between a man and a woman. Period.

The fact that black people in this country did not have full rights for a period of time is not relevant to the definition of marriage.

Claiming that people that support the definition of marriage not being changed are ignorant or use the same "logic" as bigoted people that denied interracial marriage is hysterical and a lie. As demonstrated by the article it is merely a tactic being used by Andrew Sullivan to tar the opponents of the ACLU.

You might have met some wacko extremists in Alabama 40 years ago in numbers far fewer than those that support 'gay marriage' today that had the view you project onto the majority, but you have no facts to support your cause.

By far the overwhelming majority of Americans are not racists, have no problem with interracial marriages, yet support maintaining the traditional definition of marriage. You will have to tar them some other way.

However, there is a correlation where the same people that support 'gay' marriage have an overwhelming overlap with those supporting recognizing polygamy and pedophilia at least at the organizing level. Which is where the 'connection' between interracial marriage and gay marriage was made by Andrew Sullivan and other ACLU types. The tactics you are repeating where created by the most extreme bigots in America, the ACLU.

You might remember the original charge made at me:


mr_economy said:


> Your same logic justifies preventing interracial marriages as well.


And What I'm saying is, "No. My logic doesn't.", but somehow your view depends on that being my logic and you being able to ridicule me and marginalize me for it. That's too bad for you, because it isn't going to happen. I know exactly what my logic is, it's the same logic as 75-85% of Americans and it is not based on hatred or bigotry of gays or blacks. But, good luck if want to keep insisting it is based on something you heard or saw in Alabama 40 years ago. Particularly when you are going to be speaking about "unforgivable ignorance".


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*You still do not get it*



clothesboy said:


> First, I never heard of anyone, "...trying to pull a Jedi-mindtrick and would have people believe the term "marriage" never involved people of the opposite sex." People have been saying the protections that accrue to the legal institution of mariage should be available to all. This is not even close to the same thing.
> 
> Perhaps some historical perpesctive will help. In your statement put the word white before every instance of man and woman. You now have the same bigoted "logic" used to deny marriage to blacks and, in my lifetime anyway, deny interacial marriage.
> 
> I had hoped that as a society we had moved beyond such flawed reasoning. More and more I am beginning to realize I am sorely mistaken.


You have yet to answer my question son. Is your goal a legal union or is your goal the usurption of the term "marriage"? Do not call me "bigoted" son, as I have REPEATEDLY stated I am 100% behind civil unions for gays so that people in committed relationships can have the same rights and legal protections REGARDLESS of their sexual orientation. Are you just plain skipping over the parts of my post that do not fit in with your world view so you can somehow call me a "bigot"? Please son, explain to me where I am being bigoted.

I had hoped society have moved beyond the need to constantly employ such bastardized rhetoric. More and more I am beginning to realize I am sorely mistaken.

Warmest regards


----------

