The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[thx1123]

We have made a lot of huge mistakes in foreign policy.

And that has earned us the hate of some.We need to recitify those mistakes.But men like BIn Laden are haters.



They showed their hatred for women by polcies that kept women from getting basic health care and turned them into legal subhumans.



The Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corolalary declaring South America our territory were monuments to arrogance.



Reagan was right to oppose the sandinistas but wrong to support the contras.We were attempting to replace communist thugs with noncommunist thugs.



In vietnam we supported dictators that were just as bad as the VC if not worse.



We only worried about making the case why countries should help us fight Leninist and Maoist regimes(those regimes are not true marxists) to the leaders who usually cared more about pocketing the foreign aid we sent than fighting communism or helping their people.



We treated the common folk as afterthoughts.



And that has created some maybe even a majority terrorists. But no matter what we do there are going to be people who hate us and if not us someone else.



The genocide in the Sudan and Kosovo/Bosnia proves that.





South Africa has offered the former butchers of the Apartheid ammenesty if they just come clean on what they have done and frsake what they did.There are those who refuse to just say I was wrong becuase they were right to hate and oppress blacks in their mind.



This is the mindset that we cannot counter with goodwill.



I wish it was as simple as eliminating the conditions that create terrorism.



That is the place to start but while we are trying to rectify our mistakes and make it where men like bin laden are not welcome and the locals gladly turm him in,we ave to deal with him and his ilk.



Bin laden is no different than those who call for capital punishment for gays in this country.



Fred Phelps and Bin Laden are of the same ilk.



one day we will make good are sins against others and his message will only be accepted by those who are as small minded as hateful as him but until that day.We have to deal with him and his ilk both in the world and at home(Eric Rudolph)



I thank you for the link.I ordered the book and will try to read it with an open mind.



Tabby

[Jimmi Magnus]

You are welcome. I thought the writers tried to get to the depth of the question (almost) unbiased, and was positively surprised by the book.

Branded sexist, labelled racist.

Want it clearer? Check the mirror.

[The Angry Lion]

ah libertarians, anti-statist, yet you support on the other hand the harshest actions a state can take in your 'ruthless war on terror' (paraphrasing to make this short). Yet you have the gall to call NAACP and affirmative action racist? I must say that is funny, quite hilarious, libertarians like you (not all libertarians, libertarians like Noam Chomsky are somewhat different) attack government programs that help people, then say, spend more on the military, build more bombs, invade more countries!, creating the biggest form of government in this world, the American military industrial complex.



As for all your left bashing, and hating, well what does that have to do with the Democrats? they have never been a left wing party, New Deal liberal from the days of FDR until roughly Jimmy Carter. As for hand outs, Clinton Deformed, oh I mean Reformed Welfare. A measure I personally disagreed with quite strongly, all it did was make things harder for single mothers and their children and pushed people in to homelessness.

Im not even gonna bother with your blame the victim, but with a little niceness thrown in right wing rhetoric, Ive heard it all before. You know I have a disability too, and Id be royally screwed if it wasnt for the, admittedly meager, government support Ive received, I don't like to bring personal stuff in to debates but why not, everyone else does, just letting everyone know I don't just read books and cruise blogs, I also have rl experience .



Noam Chomsky said it best, oppose the most repressive character of the state, support and expand the socially responsive aspects!



ps do you know that the richest one percent of America own twice as much of America's wealth as they did 30 years ago? cutting taxes for the rich and other pro-business policies haven't decreased poverty, they've heightened inequality!



wasn't it bush senior who called such policies voodoo economics? occasionally wisdom does come from a Bushes mouth.

My Country is the World. My Coutrymen Mankind-Thomas Paine

[Puff]

So I could get into a political discussion but this is WAY more fun watch this I laughed.



I wish I could find the George Bush video that had his head on other people (women) bodies. Done to 'Your true colors' that was funny as well.

---

It's a moo point. It's like a cow's opinion. It's moo.
Words of wisdom from 'Friends'

[Triscuit7]

Hopefully, this won't offend too many, but I think US foreign policy resembles an Eddie Izzard comedy routine.



1) Do you have a flag? From late colonial times thru the War of 1812 the US was pretty much saying "we don't want yours" to the Motherland and trying to export the Revolution. Finally we had our own flag (securely) so a quieter anti-British period thing followed in which we wanted to manifest our destiny by providing our flag to folks who a) didn't have one or b) who had a flag (usually someone else's) but whom we thought would benefit us in some way. But it was not imperialism. Nope. Not us. Just westward expansion and some shrewd land deals and an occasional dustup with Spain over something that we needed more because of our manifest destiny.



2) Napoleon invades Russia ... bad idea, bad idea ... Hitler invades the USSR ... same idea, same idea = US involvment (ooooooh, bad idea, bad idea) ... ISOLATION ... involvement (bad idea, bad idea) ... ISOLATION This is the US foreign policy in the 20th century. So many Americans then (and now) think it's possible to retreat back to the US and just ignore the strange, bad people. It's why the League of Nations failed, it's why the United Nations' authority hangs by a thread. It's why our immigration laws have always been tough. We've got this whole, big continent - why do we have to care about anyone else? It's why we never learned to play well with others like European nations do. Perversely, we're incredibly proud about the fact that our involvement in the 2 World Wars saved civilization - and now, let us have our ball and go home.



3) Tea and cake or ... death? This is US Bush's foreign policy post 9/11. You're with us or you're against us. It's also his domestic policy. Freedom fries, but no monies for birth control because abstinence is better than safe sex. Here, have some freedom fries while we get rid of that pesky dictator. Oh, look, there's another one. Right, eat your fries and we'll take care of your government. We'll make sure it's a good one.



Somehow this is starting to sound like "do you have a flag?" all over again.



Unfortunately, having Kerry win in November isn't going to fix this attitude. So many Americans are utterly clueless about the rest of the world. The events in the Sudan and Bangladesh are barely mentioned on the news and worse, I suspect most Americans have no idea where those countries are located. It's a failure of the news, but primarily it's a failure of American education. The focus is the US and local, not global events. Granted it's been years, but I remember one year of "social studies" in high school that was not devoted to the US. Conversations with my niece and nephew indicate this hasn't changed. This isn't in the cities; this is in the so-called heartland, the part of the US that is being courted by Kerry and by Bush. This is the part of the US that is pro-isolation.



It's very scary, and very un-funny.



Ciao, Melissa

******************



Do something totally irrational and let the enemy think himself to death. (Pyanfar Chanur)

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, having Kerry win in November isn't going to fix this attitude.

---

No, it's not. Particularly vis-a-vis the Middle East, I think the question is going to come down to whether we want a President who is beholden to chauvinistically pro-Israeli (some, NOT all) Jews OR fanatically pro-Israeli (some, NOT all) Fundamentalist Christians.* We've learned the hard way the last four years, however, that the former is definitely preferable (you can bargain "cost/benefits" w/ a chauvinist---w/ a fanatic, never ).



The argument one makes in favor of a less-than-desirable Democrat vs. an utterly repugnant Republican, is that the Democrat gives you breathing space: that's all.



GG It's up to the Left to ensure that "breathing space" does not become "sleepy time." Out



*I could have missed it, but I don't think I heard one pro-Palestinian remark (y'know: as in the Two State Solution?) from the Democratic Convention in primetime.

[darkmagicwillow]

---

1) Do you have a flag? From late colonial times thru the War of 1812 the US was pretty much saying "we don't want yours" to the Motherland and trying to export the Revolution. Finally we had our own flag (securely) so a quieter anti-British period thing followed in which we wanted to manifest our destiny by providing our flag to folks who a) didn't have one or b) who had a flag (usually someone else's) but whom we thought would benefit us in some way. But it was not imperialism. Nope. Not us. Just westward expansion and some shrewd land deals and an occasional dustup with Spain over something that we needed more because of our manifest destiny.

---

Now now, Spain sold Florida to the fair and square. Andrew Jackson's army was an army of negotiators, not invaders, do you hear? Negotiators. They were just there to motivate the seller. Mexico was another motivated seller, and as for the Spanish-American war, the US had to free those poor Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Phillipinos. Of course, since the textbooks omit events like Wilson's Central American and Carribean conquests, including the 19-year occupation of Haiti, they never happened. You can forget all those other histories. If it's not in the textbook, it didn't happen.



I think those big colored areas on maps help spread the lie that no modern American empire exists. If you look at textbook maps of Rome's or Britain's empires, it's all big areas of a single color, omitting the hundreds of states and rulers in that area that each empire used to indirectly exert its control. As the US doesn't mark states or even bases that it controls with its map any longer, it's not imperialism. After all, no one knows about it, so it can't count. How many Americans knew about Guantanamo before Bush II, for example?

---

2) ISOLATION ... involvement (bad idea, bad idea) ... ISOLATION This is the US foreign policy in the 20th century. So many Americans then (and now) think it's possible to retreat back to the US and just ignore the strange, bad people. It's why the League of Nations failed, it's why the United Nations' authority hangs by a thread. It's why our immigration laws have always been tough. We've got this whole, big continent - why do we have to care about anyone else? It's why we never learned to play well with others like European nations do. Perversely, we're incredibly proud about the fact that our involvement in the 2 World Wars saved civilization - and now, let us have our ball and go home.

---

Given the last four years of US foreign policy, isolation sounds pretty good as an alternative, but I see what you're saying--despite the obvious advantages of not being deeply involved with European wars in the 19th century, Americans also have the disadvantage of not having first hand experience of how European nations learned to deal with each other, especially after 1945. The US is still trying to play the part of a great power, as described so well in Paul JFK's famous book, but though the US has greater economic and military power than any prior great power, ambitions still grow faster than resources.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[thx1123]

I know i come across as small minded.I am trying to expand my mind but in real life I have to spout conservative thought whether or not I believe it to avoid being homeless.i was let now if I was evn thinking of voting for that fag loving liberal commie Kerry I could find a different place to live.



I have to wear a disguise and sometimes I am not good at taking it off.



I don't hate liberals.I hate the fact that my believes are a lot closer to those on this list than those of most in my life but I cannot express them freely.I hate that my boyfriend has to bring a lesbian friend to my house and present her as his date so my parents won't suspect.



i hate seeing the people I love caught fast in the lie that I now see and unfortunately I flame here kinda blaming the messenger.



Conservatism is all about conformity.i see that now.it is a lie.



the Bible says a double minded man is unstable in all his ways.I am proof positive of that.



after I found out i was XXY I told dad I was TG.He accepted it becuase of the XXy.I told myself that was not the case.I bought stuff to cook him a nice dinner and then i was going to tell him about Ryan.that is until I found a letter from a pastor who believes in capial punishment for gays thanking him for his continued financial support while cleaning.





When i was 9 I walked away from a fight.I was spanked for it.Only cowards refuse to fight and my dad was not going to have a coward in his household.



Veitnam hardened my dad.and not in a good way.





The fact is I admire Jimmy Carter.becuase he understands kindness and nonviolence is not weakness.



i tried to walk away from this forum.I could not.



i won't promise that I will never go ultra conservative here.I dont recognize it until mch after the fact and then i am embarassed and that cuases me to dig my heels in.



i get pissed when I see ya'll bad mouthing Bush becuase i see a lot of my dad in Bush(with the exception my dad is a gifted orator).That is my issue nt yours.Gattio Grande sent me an email that got me thinking.



Tabby

[skittles]

Tabby, just try to remember that everyone has an opinion based upon a number of factors (including you). Those factors range from upbringing, gender, education, religious affilliation (or non-affilliation), geographic region (but not always) and experience. There are many many more, but that is a start. And those opinions are subject to change... sometimes they do change.... and sometimes they don't....



Just as your dad has his opinions & "issues", I have mine. I don't always raise a flag & wave it in someone's face, but there are times I read or hear something that makes me explode in righteous (of course) indignation. I try to remember that everyone has a right to their (stupid or not so stupid) opinion, but it is hard.



But the biggest turning point for me was when I discovered my own intolerance. I was shocked!! I was intolerant?? no way!! but when I totaled up my behavior, attitude, anger and indignation, I found that I fit the mold... and I was extremely disappointed in myself.



What was the focus of my intolerance?? Intolerance!!! I found that I was exhibiting the exact same behavior, attitude, & righteous indignation of those intolerant (b*******) individuals exhibited.



I went into extreme self-examination mode and it has started to help me understand why others behave the way they do. I don't agree with them in any way, shape or form... but I understand them a little (just a little) better.



I still get EXTREMELY upset when I hear someone spout their bigotted anthems... but I have learned to try to walk away. The only way to help them is to educate them and we can do that best by example... and by gentle persuasion... it doesn't always work right away, but sometimes it does work.



So, with people you know, & with the rest of the world (including kittens) , be as patient as you can be.... Many of us have a long journey to enlightenment.... some people are already there.... ...... and, unfortunately some will never get there.



I wish the best for you...



Edited to add: If I come across as "preachy", I'm sorry. I'm just trying to help.... it doesn't always work (or help) but I try.....

skittles

Prepare the child for the path, not the path for the child.

Edited by: skittles at: 8/1/04 8:17 pm

[Gatito Grande]

Hmmm: I don't have a problem saying that I am intolerant of the Intolerant.



Let me explain: when I say "The Intolerant," I am referring to those who are prejudiced against those for some innate factor or trait (race/ethnicity/national origin, gender and sexual orientation are the classics), or who have a narrow, stereotyped view of a diverse affiliation (prejudice against those of a particular religious tradition, e.g. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Paganism/Wicca, Indigenous Religions, Atheism, etc. Or a political tradition/orientation like Left, Right, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Liberal, Conservative, Communist, Capitalist, Socialist, Anarchist). Belief-systems, I might add, long known to have at least some remedial and/or redeemable aspects (ergo, it is impossible to be "prejudiced against the Klan" IMO, because the Klan *by definition* is a hate group deserving condemnation). {GG awaits some pointy-headed intellectual-type Kitten to challenge me on that! }



When I say "I am intolerant of the Intolerant," it is obvious that the verb "intolerant" is not the same as the noun "the Intolerant." My intolerance is based upon observation of a *mutable* prejudiced attitude/behavior, not a bigoted/stereotyped view of an immutable trait and/or widely varying belief-system. Moreover, my "intolerance" is explicitly nonviolent, something I'm not convinced true Intolerance ever is (as Intolerance, in this sense, is essentially based upon an annihilation model. An Intolerant person wants the object group of their intolerance to cease to exist: at the very least, an attitude of violence/negligence, if not active violent behavior) {GG waits to be challenged on *that* one too! }



I realize that there's always a playground danger here: "You're Intolerant!" "No, I just don't tolerate your Intolerance!" But I think the distinction holds, in 99% of the conflicts: intolerance is mutable, the object of Intolerance is not.



GG The argument will be made by the Intolerant---i.e. the 'phobes---that they are intolerant of a mutable quality: homosexuality. Thing is, I don't really believe that they believe that: they tell themselves sexuality is mutable (chosen) in order to justify their intolerance. A lesbian or gay male can be attacked (by 'phobes) without expressing the *slightest hint of same-sex attraction*, because the 'phobes are reacting to immutable traits of the person they are attacking (usually physical effeminacy in males, and physical masculinity in females). Out



Now, does that make sense, or have I just muddied the waters further?

[thx1123]

Quote:

---

Now, does that make sense, or have I just muddied the waters further

---

as someone who only went out to play when we lived in germany with his big brother becuase he got beat up by the others kids in the housing complex for being a sissy.You make sense.



Let me see if I get you.



they beat me up becuase I would rather play house with the girls than do sports and read a lot.Thus they were intolerant of my difference.



If they had beat me up becuase I went around picking on girls(heck girls beat me up) or kids smaller than me. they would have been intolerant of my intolerance.



Tabby

[skittles]

Tabby,



It doesn't work that way when you are the victim. I'm just trying to help with understanding... NOT forgiveness.



You are not being "intolerant of intolerance" when you are looking from the perspective of the victim of intolerance. That is a completely different issue.



But, then look to Gandhi and others who faced discrimination & violence... they took the non-violent resistance route... there are your examples.



And, yes, I've been in similar situations with attacks of a verbal & physical nature. It isn't easy, but it is possible to survive.

_____________________________________



But this discussion is taking this thread WAY off topic. If someone wants to start a discrimination thread, then we can continue it there.



Good Luck, Tabby.

skittles

Prepare the child for the path, not the path for the child.

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

Let me see if I get you.

---

I think you do.

Quote:

---

they beat me up becuase I would rather play house with the girls than do sports and read a lot.Thus they were intolerant of my difference.

---

Bingo. They were Being Intolerant. (ergo, BAD)

Quote:

---

If they had beat me up becuase I went around picking on girls . . . or kids smaller than me. they would have been intolerant of my intolerance.

---

Exactly. No one should tolerate violent abuse---against yourself or another (especially a small child). (Not tolerating abuse: ergo, GOOD)



GG who, despite the noble words, has tolerated way too many "poor parenting demonstrations" that I have observed. It's just so hard to interject oneself into a situation where a parent is being violent w/ a child: the fear that the violence will be turned on you! (Especially when so many parents---particularly American ones, if I'm not mistaken---believe it's their mo'fo God-given right to spank their kids ) Out

[AmbersSecretAdmirer]

I too, am "intolerant of the intolerant", to a frightening degree sometimes. I make no apologies of this though.



Tabby: My Dad was incredibly strict, not to mention abusive. he does not know my line when it comes to race or sexual orientation ebcuase he will disown me. I am not afraid of my beliefs, but after 30+ years of being down-trodden, I do fear him. I sometimes make the mistake of treating other people who are kinda like my Dad as if they were my Dad. I'm not proud of it, but I make the mistake. I really should learn to deal with people independently rather than see them as "kinda like my Dad". It sounds like you may need to do the same too.



I know sooner or later I will confront him. Not in a "I'm gonna tell you soemthing" way. I am sure a conversation will start and I will not hold back my beliefs for anyone, regardless of who they are.



Never take attacks on Bush personally, he's not worth it to be honest.



Have your opinions, respect them in yourself, defend them if you must. But never defend the indefensible.

TARA AND WILLOW 2GETHER 4EVER!!! BLESSED BE ETERNALLY!!!

[thx1123]

I have been trying to give kerry a chance.he is not as bad as I thought.he has some good things going for him in fact.



that said before he gets my vote he has to answer some Questions and do somethings .



He said he will create 10 million new qaulity jobs.How?



He is going to answer why he missed over half the briefigs that took place for the senate intelligence comittee.He may have a legit reason



he is going to need to answer for his voting record.I want to know why he voted against certain weapon systems and defense bills.I am finaly ready to concede that he may have had a good reson for voting as he did.Instead of hearing about his war service ,which I commend him for, I want to here his rational for his decisions.



If he has bent over backwards(something I don't believe Bush did) to frm an alliance on an issue he feels needs attention but the allies won't budge will he go it alone(Unilateral is not nessecarily bad thing).i want to know he won't give the rest of the world the bird like Bush as a matter of policy but that he also won't do nothing when he should be doing something just to appease our aliles.



He has to let his wife get active.I like her. the lady has got moxie.even though I dont agree with her all the time she says what he thinks and if you don' t like me bite me.I like that.



If he answers these questions he gets my vote.If not I vote for Nadar.Unless Bush makes Collin powell his VP and promises to resign right after taking office or can get me a date with the governator he will not get my vote.



Hey what can I say I am a sucker for muscular men.



I found some stuff out about libertarians.They do not think one cent of public money should be spent on addicts or the mentaly ill.I am both.I cannot support that.



Thanks for the rant against libertarians.It made me dig deeper.



Tabby

[tkheaven]

With all the 'intolerating the intolerant', I just want to make a quick note (I didn't want to start a whole new thread):



With everything going on from politics, to war and the terrorism scarying the life out of all of us.. IF there is a bomb scare anywhere near you, especially in a building, LEAVE... you have the right. I know it's not the first time it being mentioned, it's more of a reminder...



Where does this come from? We just had one. An unattended bag was noted and called in to security/police. Next thing we know, Brooklyn cops are on the scene with blocks tape up, no access - no entering the premises, no leaving the building (I didn't feel very safe). A guy suited up in a 'bomb' suit much resembling Predator sans the dreads, walked up and checked it out. Thankfully it was a bag full of clothes, nothing else.



Either way, we couldn't leave. I can honeslty say I didn't freak until they announced all fire wardens on the floor to get to their designated (comm) lines. I wanted to JET. That's when we were informed everything was ok.



Don't let ANYONE tell you to stay inside. You have a right to leave the building. Granted, you never know where any terrorist activity/device may be taking place/planted but at least we have brains enough to know that our chances to stick it out inside may be worse than fleeing...





*keeping heart back in rib cage*

Tk's new and improved "GrrArgg"...Crazy? Crazy?? I do not talk to myself...it's called thinking aloud...

---

Tara ate her, devoured her from beneath. -The Edge of Silence giving new meaning to season seven's catch phrase.

bulldog: (gesturing to tk)"Can she get a Sloe Comfortable Screw Against the Wall?" female bartender: (laughing)"Honey, you're living in a fantasy world."

[Gatito Grande]

Tabby (and anyone else interested): for details on John Kerry's economic plans (et al) go to JohnKerry.com. I'm not saying it'll answer all of (or even any) of your questions---maybe he won't convince you---but that's the place for details of his "how."



Well, I'm a Happy (Political) Camper this morning: my area of Michigan has been saddled w/ one of the most Neanderthal members of the House of Representatives, Nick Smith (who in 2000 found Dubya far too liberal for his tastes: of course, Dubya in practice has been more to his liking!).



But Smith (in light of a bribery scandal, I might add), is retiring this year. His son Brad Smith (America is a democracy, or an aristocracy? Your call) was running to replace him, as an Arch Conservative successor.



We had a primary yesterday, to pick who will succeed Nick Smith. And who will be on the ballot this November? Well, I'll be voting for Sharon Renier (Democrat, natch'), an organic farmer who has put equality and civil rights *For All* on (literally) the very top of her homepage---but unfortunately, Democrats are given almost no chance in this district. However, her opponent will be . . . Bob Schwarz, a pro-choice, pro-civil unions *moderate* (who BTW was relentlessly gay-baited by the aforementioned Brad Smith).



GG So, however it goes in November, my district is definitely Trading Up! Out

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

The Boss Takes on the Boss in U.S. Campaign Tour



By Larry Fine



NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Boss is going up against the boss.

       



Bruce Springsteen, the U.S. rock icon known as The Boss, will join two dozen other stars in nine "battleground" states for a rock 'n' roll tour aimed at ousting President Bush, organizers said on Wednesday.



The "Vote for Change" tour -- 34 shows in 28 cities -- is scheduled for the first week of October, one month before the U.S. presidential election.



"The tour is aimed squarely at the radical right wing policies of Republican ideologues throughout the country," said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn PAC, the online liberal political action committee presenting the tour.



Six concert lineups will play simultaneous shows in a blitz of so-called swing states -- those that could go either Democrat or Republican in November: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin.



"I felt like I couldn't have written the music I've written, and been on stage singing about the things that I've sung about for the last 25 years and not take part in this particular election," said Springsteen, who has avoided direct political work in the past.



Dave Matthews, James Taylor, the Dixie Chicks, James Taylor, Pearl Jam, R.E.M, John Mellencamp, Jackson Browne and Bonnie Raitt are among the performers donating their talent and time to get Democrat John Kerry into the White House.



Proceeds from the tour go to America Coming Together, another liberal political action group.



"A vote for change is a vote for a stronger, safer, healthier America," Matthews said. "A vote for Bush is a vote for a divided, unstable, paranoid America."

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[Kieli]

I swore to myself that I wasn't going to reply to your comments, but since you keep going on about certain things, (which tells me you know absolutely zero about the NAACP, et. al. other than what you hear from the media..small shock, that ) I'm going to do it anyway:

Quote:

---

i am not bashing the NAACP.e are robaly very nice people but they are about playing the victim and blaming whites.I am criticizing them.



they are intolerant.any black who dares to go against them is labledan uncle tom.If you cloned Jesse,Al Sharpton and the entire NAACP executiv board a hundred times you could still not erase the facts that they are poor shadows of the blacks they villify,Clreance,Consi,Mr.Powell JC Watts(who I hopes runs for president in 08) are the example younf people regardless of race should be patterning themselves after.

---

Colin Powell is only a good example of a successful professional black man. But so are Sidney Poitier, Harry Belafonte and Thurgood Marshall. However, the big difference is they were not cowed into submission and pressed into defending the indecent actions of a Machiavellian man. They are men who have, more often than not, stood behind their beliefs and done good things no matter what the cost. You cannot compare Powell to the NAACP, in all honesty. Clarence Thomas...well don't me started. He's not a black hero to me (and I am saying all of this as a black woman so...think I may have a bit more experience with this topic). I really only would like to see young blacks pattern themselves after these men as to how they achieved academic and professional success. Their political views and scandals they can keep. These men aren't heroes by a long shot. IMHO Condolezza Rice was set up to take the fall for the series of incompetent and irresponsible acts perpetrated by the Bush Administration (as indicated by Bush's initial vociferous demand that Condi not testify before the congressional committee and his abrupt about face permitting her to do so...can we say Political Opportunist, anyone? I think we can. ) The NAACP often has legitimate grievances (although there are many within the organization that often cry "Foul!" when the political mood suits them) and has been a solid organization probably for longer than you and I have been alive. A little education goes a long way.

Quote:

---

You attacked Bush.Which is the only thing the Dems can do.

---

Really? And have the Republicans been taking the high road? Not bloody likely. In fact, if you will read a little, you'll find that Dubya has spent more money on negative, Kerry-bashing, Democrat-bashing advertisements than can be imagined. He's all about the mud-slinging so I wouldn't paint Golden Boy there as a saint. Kerry can only promise so much. One cannot give away all of their plans for the future. I challenge you to come up with any real solid plans that Bush has for creating jobs in the future or balancing our budget. Put forth the questions you are forcing Kerry to answer, to our dear Dubya and if he even remotely answers your questions (and be honest!), I'll eat my hat.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[The Angry Lion]

you left out Danny Glover kieli, hes a successful actor, and quite politically vocal on the left. As for the whole uncle tom thing, i do use that phrase, not to describe someone who wants a good education, or who wants a decent job, but to describe someone who embraces conservative ideology, anyone, black, gay, or unionist but usually only when Im angry. It is a phrase that can be abused so I usually try to illustrate in words why theyre making a mistake, but Im human, I lose my patience, and then Uncle Tom and other colourful phrases do come out.



I also called Joss Whedon Jay Dubya from time to time :



oh yes David Chappelle, he described himself as anti-war in an interview i saw, and he just signed a big deal with comedy central, onwards and upwards David!

My Country is the World. My Coutrymen Mankind-Thomas Paine

[thx1123]

I know the NAACP's history.Unfortunately it's history and it's present are very different.



It's past leadership called for unity and healing between so called white southern rednecks and blacks.



It's current leadership now compares the confederate flag to the swatztika.



My ancestor was not a slave owner.He was a dirt poor farmer who was defending his home but yet i am told that it is racist to honor the flag he fought under.



Robert E Lee believed in neither slavery nor sucession but believed it was a duty to defend his home.



I am glad the old flag is down in Georgia,It was divisive and adopted as a snub at desegergation.



That said I do not hang the confederate flag in my room as something to celebrate slavery but to honor men like Horace Higgins,my great,great grandfather.



Instead of calling me a racist how about doing something about the self destructive culture that is threatening to destroy the black family.



When I go to the food closet to volunteer and see these kids in there being raised solely by their mother who was raised solely by her mother and i see the hopelessness in their faces it tears me apart.It is not only blacks but many are. And I do not see the NAACP doing anything to promte the young men stepping up and fulfilling their roles,nothing to try to stem the tide of unplanned pregeanceis that is destroying young black women's futures.



if they are doing something besides wringing their hands and placing blame please show me.



You show me something they are doing that s real,not symbolic,the Georgia flag issue did not create one job or feed one poor black baby and I will admit on this board I was wrong about the NAACP.





And to Bush's credit Bush has not gone negative,unless you call attacking Kerrys record negative.



I cannot believe libeals who call Kerry's record irrelevant and say Bush is using smear tactics for attacking Kerry's senate record.Both men's records are relavent and neither one is answeribng the tough questions on their records.



Kerry does have a record that appears anti military.Instead of witty quips,broad generalizations and Veitnam stories how about explaining himself.Bush needs to explain himself and so does Kerry.



Let's face it a lot of people could only care about 1 thing.Kerry is not Bush.So he will get their vote.



I will not vote for somebody just to get somebody else out.









Tabby



.

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

I know the NAACP's history.Unfortunately it's history and it's present are very different.

---

I'm not entirely sure that you do. Like any organization, the NAACP is not without its faults, this is true. But you show me any white, conservative organization (read: Focus on the Family) that is any better.

Quote:

---

It's current leadership now compares the confederate flag to the swatztika.

---

That's probably because, if you're a white Southerner who is deceiving themself with the idea that there even was such a thing as a "kinder, gentler South" that river of denial is pretty wide. For blacks, there was no such thing and thus, many have no love for the Confederate flag or what it stands for.

Quote:

---

Instead of calling me a racist how about doing something about the self destructive culture that is threatening to destroy the black family.

---

I never called you a racist. I believe that you're misguided about what you think you know are the problems blacks need to tend to. If you aren't black, you're an outsider with no clue whatsoever. IMHO, the black family has more than the "self-destructive culture" (and I'm assuming you mean the sub-culture of "gangsta rap", odd fashion statements and the tendency to "blame whitey" for every little present social ill) as its enemy. Even Bill Cosby observed that and there were many in the NAACP who agree with him.

Quote:

---

And to Bush's credit Bush has not gone negative,unless you call attacking Kerrys record negative.

---

Um, no, but apparently you're either watching foreign media or just refusing to pay attention Bush's ads because you dislike Kerry. To be honest, I really doubt ANYONE could say anything about Kerry you agree with so....admit that. Kerry's not doing or saying anything that Bush hasn't done or worse. And personally, if Bush's present record isn't enough for you to vote him out, I really have no idea what planet you've been living on.

Quote:

---

And I do not see the NAACP doing anything to promte the young men stepping up and fulfilling their roles,nothing to try to stem the tide of unplanned pregeanceis that is destroying young black women's futures.

---

Are you black? Are you a member of the NAACP? So you think that volunteering at ONE food kitchen makes you supremely qualified to posit that the NAACP is sitting idly by and doing nothing? Hardly.

Quote:

---

I will not vote for somebody just to get somebody else out.

---

Well unless you're gay, or you don't give a damn that your rights could potentially get swiped by a President who could and would alter the Constitution as often and in a manner as HE sees fit, or have lost your job so that companies can get tax breaks by farming their work overseas (legislation, I might add, which Bush signed in his term...but I bet you didn't know that, did you?) you don't have much to lose then now, do you? You can afford to "take the high road" (and I use that term so very loosely).

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[thx1123]

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never called you a racist. I believe that you're misguided about what you think you know are the problems blacks need to tend to. If you aren't black, you're an outsider with no clue whatsoever.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That whole it's a black thing you would not understand is why I have no use for the NAACP leadership.



I do not need to be black,just human.



The problems that beset the black community are in no way unique to blacks.So called white "trailer trash" also suffer from too many single mothers trying to go it alone,absentee fathers,crank(the rural crack) use is rampant,rural schools are about as dismal as urban schools,wide spread poverty.I live with this all around me.



Only difference is that I do not have to worry about being called rascist if I point that stuff out about them.



We are all human,we all have the same needs and wants.Although each group has nuances the basics are the same.









Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, no, but apparently you're either watching foreign media or just refusing to pay attention Bush's ads because you dislike Kerry.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No,both sides have attacked records.There is nothing wrong with that.If Kerry says Bush is the worst president ever that is not negative as long as he is basing it on his record.And I have stated many times I am not voting for Bush,why would I ignore it if I do not support Bush.



Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be honest, I really doubt ANYONE could say anything about Kerry you agree with so....admit that



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sorry.i have been trying to give Kerry a chance Some of the things he says makes sense.I have no problem denying gov contracts to companies that outsource for instance.i am giving him a fair glance but I also am going to tell it like I see it.Or is it if you do not bash Bush you must support him?





Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And personally, if Bush's present record isn't enough for you to vote him out, I really have no idea what planet you've been living on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Again I have no plans to vote for Bush,however I see him as misguided not evil.







Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you black? Are you a member of the NAACP? So you think that volunteering at ONE food kitchen makes you supremely qualified to posit that the NAACP is sitting idly by and doing nothing? Hardly.:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



.



No.I never said that.I said I do not see them doing anything and invited anyone to present nonsubjective evidence they had that they were.You have not done that.



And are you White?Are you Conservative.Are you a supporter of Focus on the family.No Then what gives you the right to critcize them.



Becuase you see things they do and do not agree.That gives you all the rights you need.Same with me.







Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well unless you're gay, or you don't give a damn that your rights could potentially get swiped by a President who could and would alter the Constitution as often and in a manner as HE sees fit, or have lost your job so that companies can get tax breaks by farming their work overseas (legislation, I might add, which Bush signed in his term...but I bet you didn't know that, did you?) you don't have much to lose then now, do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually I did.

You are attacking me,not presenting a factual case why am I wrong.



I am gay,I want the outsourcing stopped and again I am not voting for Bush.But I need to know more about Kerry than he is not Bush before he gets my vote.if we had a legitimate thrd party or multi party systm here it would not be a choice between only two alternatives neither which are garunteed to be good choices.



I am trying to be fair and give both sides their props and criticize them wen I see it nesecary.







I guess you dislike Bush too much to tolerate any comment about him that is not 100% negative.That is okay.I think he has screwed the pooch on many things but has done some good things. like the billions for combating aids in Africa and his across the board tax that he went and made meaningless by shwing no fiscal restraint.I disagree with him but do not dislike him and have no problem giving him praise if I think he deserves it and a boot in the backside when I thnk he deserves that.Lately he has deserved a lot of boots to the backside.



Tabby





Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can afford to "take the high road" (and I use that term so very loosely). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If we do not take the high road where are we.I was wrong when i said if we need to go into the sewer to combat terrorism.If we do that we may win the war but loose our souls.I am trying to widen my world vew but I am not going to grasp onto any idea just becuase it is different from what I believed before.



If I do not vote for Kerry I will vote for Nadar.He is a straight shooter even ifI do not always agree with him.

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

New 'Bushism' Born at Bill Signing



WASHINGTON - President Bush offered up a new entry for his catalog of "Bushisms" on Thursday, declaring that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people."



Bush misspoke as he delivered a speech at the signing ceremony for a $417 billion defense spending bill.



"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."



No one in Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon chiefs reacted.



The president was working his way toward a larger point. "We must never stop thinking about how best to defend our country. We must always be forward-thinking," he said.



White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush's misstatement "just shows even the most straightforward and plain-spoken people misspeak."



"But the American people know this president speaks with clarity and conviction, and the terrorists know by his actions he means it," McClellan said.

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

That whole it's a black thing you would not understand is why I have no use for the NAACP leadership.



I do not need to be black,just human.



The problems that beset the black community are in no way unique to blacks.So called white "trailer trash" also suffer from too many single mothers trying to go it alone,absentee fathers,crank(the rural crack) use is rampant,rural schools are about as dismal as urban schools,wide spread poverty.I live with this all around me.

---

But this is NOT what your comments are saying. You specifically singled out the NAACP for criticism not by their actions as humans but by their actions within the black community. And yes you cannot really know nor understand some of the problems within said community unless you are of that ilk. For the same reason that I cannot possibly understand what Serbs, Iraqis or Afghans are going through right now. I only get limited and unfortunately very biased information...I cannot trust that all is fact which you are wont to do. How much do you really know about the works of the NAACP? Hardly anything, I'll wager.

Quote:

---

No.I never said that.I said I do not see them doing anything and invited anyone to present nonsubjective evidence they had that they were.You have not done that.

---

You could answer your own question by educating yourself a bit more. The NAACP website is a good place to start. Especially about their programs. Granted there are some aspects about the NAACP that disturb me...however, they do not threaten anyone's way of life, as it were. Focus On the Family supports the concept of using the Constitution to promote institutionalized prejudice. That I can NEVER agree with.

Quote:

---

No,both sides have attacked records.There is nothing wrong with that.If Kerry says Bush is the worst president ever that is not negative as long as he is basing it on his record.And I have stated many times I am not voting for Bush,why would I ignore it if I do not support Bush.

---

I think you're forgetting some of your earlier comments. They are clearly contradictions of the quote above.

Quote:

---

Again I have no plans to vote for Bush,however I see him as misguided not evil.

---

I strongly urge you to go see Farenheit 911. You might change your mind about that thought.

Quote:

---

And are you White?Are you Conservative.Are you a supporter of Focus on the family.No Then what gives you the right to critcize them.

---

One can criticize without stating said criticism as fact. Focus on the Family is not merely white nor conservative but homophobic (and this link too)and that gives me the right to criticize.

Quote:

---

Actually I did. You are attacking me,not presenting a factual case why am I wrong.

---

What other facts do you require? Ask a proper question and I'm sure I can answer it for you. Bush's record these past four years should surely be enough for you...but if you require the Cliff Notes version, then I can accommodate.

Quote:

---

I am gay,I want the outsourcing stopped and again I am not voting for Bush.But I need to know more about Kerry than he is not Bush before he gets my vote.if we had a legitimate thrd party or multi party systm here it would not be a choice between only two alternatives neither which are garunteed to be good choices.

---

There hasn't been such a thing for quite a long time, I'm afraid. That is the fault of the people for allowing a two party system to have such a stranglehold on our country. I agree, if there were ANY other GOOD candidate, I might be tempted to rethink my position. Nader...what can I say about Nader? He's reactionary and while I agree with some of his ideas, I don't think he's stable enough to run a country.

Quote:

---

I guess you dislike Bush too much to tolerate any comment about him that is not 100% negative.

---

Untrue, however I'd be hard pressed to find anything positive about him and his record these past four years.

Quote:

---

like the billions for combating aids in Africa and his across the board tax that he went and made meaningless by shwing no fiscal restraint.

---

Let's take a look at these observations now, shall we? Last I heard, the US was taking back those so-called billions for AIDS in Africa because we wouldn't be able to run the programs that our money was funding. Bush's across the board tax, as Mr. Clinton so aptly put it, benefitted more of the rich than it did the poor. That extra $300 didn't do me much good in the grand scheme of things. Interesting that you should point out his lack of fiscal restraint by wasting away billions of dollars in surplus the US had when he took office. We're now that much money in the red as he's about to leave. Sick isn't it? I'll post some interesting factual tidbits when I get home. Work isn't the place for me to do that at the moment.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Gatito Grande]

In the interests of peace . . .



[Uh-oh: when GG says something like that, you just know I'm about to insert foot-in-mouth ]

Quote:

---

That whole it's a black thing you would not understand is why I have no use for the NAACP leadership.



I do not need to be black,just human.

---

Tabby, why is it so hard to admit there is a point-of-view, being black, of which you have no experience? I'm a white person who, in all modesty, thinks I know more about the black experience than about 99% of whites (grew up w/ black aunt, close black friend for over 20 years, was married to a black person for 7) . . . but I'm still Not Black. I haven't lived in that skin, in a country where people w/ the same color skin used to be objects for sale, and wherein that view (Black = Subhuman Object) was absorbed into the culture.

Quote:

---

And are you White? No Then what gives you the right to critcize them.

---

In any dichotomy of power, the Power-less will ALWAYS know more about the Power-full, than the other way around . . . because they have to: it's a matter of survival. As a gay person, Tabby, do you think you know just a little bit more about hets, than hets do about gays (on average)? I would argue that the percentage of straights opposing "gay marriage" (depending upon the poll/election, we're talking something like 60% or more ), show the *minimum* percentage of hets, who Know Jack Squat about gays. (Whereas the only thing I think I missing in my knowledge about straights, why So Damn Many of them feel so frickin' threatened by LGBTs )



And it's from that knowledge of the Power-less re the Power-full, that criticism justly arises. Do whites, as a race, have any legitimate grievance against blacks, as a race? Hell No. And yet white people, while socio-economically dominating American society, continue to treat black people (*on average*) w/ an extremely high degree of fear&loathing (purse-clutching, lock 'em up and throw away the key, "There Goes the Neighborhood" segregation, "Black poverty/infant mortality/punishment-compared-to-conviction/cannon-fodder rates? Who gives a damn?!") anyway. Why shouldn't blacks---including the NAACP---criticize the white power structure---including Dubya?



Why shouldn't LGBTs criticize straights? Why shouldn't the unemployed criticize the CEOs (Dubya supporters, most of 'em) who shipped their jobs overseas? Why shouldn't women criticize men who believe (or just act like) women should be subservient to them?



Why the f*** should we accept ANY of these inequalities of power???



Finally, Tabby, like I've told you: you've got to stop taking social criticism personally. I, too, had ancestors who lived in (and presumably fought for) the Confederacy. I assume they loved their families, and passed down that love to Lil' Ol' Me. I don't know whether they owned . . . other people, or not, but let's assume they didn't. Furthermore, let's assume (since my peeps do come from Virginia) that they fought w/ honor and bravery under Robert E. Lee.



So, Tabby, what were these noble, loving, non-slave-owning ancestors of ours? Say it w/ me, Tabby (I know you can! ): they were, at best . . . FOOLS, for fighting for an immoral system (chattel slavery) from which they did not benefit.



Or maybe my Virginia ancestors *did* own slaves . . . if so, I hope some boy in Union Blue---preferably a black one---put a bullet in their treating-other-people-as-objects *sses!



Tabby, it does us no harm in dissociating ourselves from the (WRONG) actions of our ancestors: quite the contrary. It may be, that *we* will be the ones to redeem our families' shameful legacies. Here's hopin'!



GG . . . but that can never happen, until we can look at ourselves honestly: neither papering over the oppression our ancestors (*and* living relatives) may have caused (and from which, de facto, we ourselves might be benefitting), nor submitting to oppression we might be enduring as LGBTs now. Equality for ALL, and nuthin' less! Out

[Warduke]

Here's another fine Republican.



From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

Unabashed Racist Leads Tenn. GOP Primary

       

By WOODY BAIRD, Associated Press Writer





MEMPHIS, Tenn. - An unabashed racist will represent the Republican party in the November election for a congressional seat after a write-in candidate failed to derail his effort.



With 86 percent of the primary vote counted Thursday, write-in candidate Dennis Bertrand had just 1,554 votes compared to 7,671, or 83 percent, for James L. Hart, a believer in the discredited, phony science of eugenics.



In November, the GOP candidate will oppose Rep. John Tanner, a Democrat who has represented the northwest Tennessee district for 15 years.



Hart, 60, vows if elected to work toward keeping "less favored races" from reproducing or immigrating to the United States. In campaign literature, Hart contends that "poverty genes" threaten to turn the United States into "one big Detroit."



"I didn't expect to win," Hart said. "I thought their network would beat my ideas."



He has run for the 8th District seat before and drawn little attention. But people began to notice this time because he was the only Republican on the ballot.



Since the deadline for getting on the ballot had passed, Bertrand, also a Republican, began a write-in campaign, saying he wanted to protect the party's honor.



"I think his beliefs are not beliefs of any party that I know of," Bertrand said Thursday night. "I knew it was going to be a really long shot, but in good conscience, I had to at least give it an attempt."



Bertrand, a financial analyst and former military officer, was on active duty with the National Guard when the deadline to get on the primary ballot passed.



Hart said he will have lots of time to campaign for the general election since he was forced Wednesday to resign from his job as a real estate salesman because of the attention he drew during the primary.



"They didn't say 'You're fired' in exactly those words, but it was pretty clear what they wanted," Hart said.



While campaigning, Hart sometimes wears a protective vest and carries a .40-caliber pistol, but he said he has run into no trouble.



"When I knock on a door and say white children deserve the same rights as everybody else, the enthusiastic response is truly amazing," he said.



If a black person opens the door, he says he simply drops off campaign literature and leaves.

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[sam7777]

Wasn't Tennessee also the state where they tried to pass an ordnance to ban gays from living in one of their counties?



And another fine republican:

George Bush’s Religious Crusade Against Democracy:

Fundamentalism as Cultural Politics

Quote:

---

Religion has always played a powerful role in the daily lives of Americans. But it has never wielded such influence in the highest levels of American government as it does under the Bush presidency. Moreover, the religious conservative movement that has come into political prominence with the election of George W. Bush views him as its earthly leader. As Washington Post staff writer Dana Milbank, puts it:



For the first time since religious conservatism became a modern political movement, the president of the United States has become the movement’s de facto leader–a status even Ronald Reagan, though admired by religious conservatives, never earned. Christian publications, radio and television shower Bush with praise, while preachers from the pulpit treat his leadership as an act of providence. A procession of religious leaders who have met with him testify to his faith, while Web sites encourage people to fast and pray for the president.



Considered the leader of the Christian right, Bush is viewed by many of his aides and followers as a leader with a higher purpose. Bush aide, Tim Goeglein, echoes this view: “I think President Bush is God’s man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility.” Ralph Reed, a long time crusader against divorce, single-parent family and abortion and current head of Georgia’s Republican Party, assesses Bush’s relationship with the Christian right in more sobering political terms. He argues that the role of the religious conservative movement has changed in that it is no longer on the outskirts of power since it has helped to elect leaders who believe in its cause. Referring to the new-found role of the religious right, he claims “You’re no longer throwing rocks at the building; you’re in the building.” Bush has not disappointed his radical evangelical Christian following.

---

This is the first part so go to the link to read the rest of it. A government dominated by Religious fanatics will be extrmemely unfriendly to gays which is a big reason for me not to vote for Bush. A vote for Bush is a vote for theocracy not democracy IMHO. If you want Bush out of office and are in a swing state then you must vote for Kerry otherwise your vote will be for Bush. The election is 50-50 and Kerry at least is not anti-gay. It does no good to get tax cuts if you lose your civil rights.



ETA: Yep. It was in Tennessee that they tried to ban gays from living in a county:

Tennessee County Wants To Ban Gays

Quote:

---

Rhea County, about 30 miles north of Chattanooga, want the state to give it the power to arrest gays for "crimes against nature."



In a unanimous vote the county commissioners passed a motion asking its state representatives to introduce legislation to allow it to lay the charges. For Commissioner J-C Fugate, the issue is simple. He wants to keep "homosexuals out of here."

---

Make no mistake the ultimate goal of extremist Evangelicals is not to prevent gay marriage but to prevent gay people from living openly (or at all) anywhere. Bush is their ally and has already pushed the Federal Marriage Ammendment for them. In his next term, Bush could do worse things like making a federal law like Virginia's that prevents gays from even entering into contracts together:

Virginia takes away gay partner rights

Quote:

---

Lawmakers in Virginia passed a sweeping ban on same-sex partners on Wednesday that outlaws any "partnership contract or other arrangements that purport to provide the benefits of marriage."

---

A second Bush administration means more bigotted laws passed against gays under the guise of "protecting" the family. Bush's "family values" simply does not include gays. Republicans talk about protecting children but are more than willing to let the children of gays be unprotected without adoption, insurance and inheritance rights. I'm am an independent but I'd rather vote for a party that does not make hatred of me and mine a plank of their platform: the Democratic Party. The Republicans should rename themselves the Theocratic party IMHO. Personally, I can't see why would any gay person would want Bush to be re-elected? It may be one issue but my civil rights are more important to me than small government, tax cuts, prayer in schools or any of the other things the republicans advocate.



ETA2: Tennessee backup off on the county ordnance but it shows the leves to which these people will sink:

Tennessee County Backtracks On Jailing Gays



However, the 71% who voted in favor of the ammendment to ban gay marriages in Missouri shows that gays still have a long way to go for equal citizenship in the US. Eight states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah have placed marriage amendments on the November ballot. Petitions on ballot initiatives await certification in Michigan, North Dakota, and Ohio. Four states: Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska, and Nevada enacted constitutional amendments in previous years. So out of 50 states 6 have forbidden gay marriage (I include Virginia). The folks fighting these ammendments fear that many will pass:

Missouri’s gay marriage ban resonating in US

Quote:

---

Gay rights groups said they learned a hard lesson from Missouri's passage of a state constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage and would put up a tougher fight in other states where voters may adopt similar amendments this year. But they expect to lose.



"Sadly, I do think a lot of these state ballot initiatives will succeed despite our best efforts to stop them," said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group, and a former state senator in Massachusetts.

---

It seems the republicans can't run on their record with the problems in Iraq and the sputtering economy so they prefer to run on the hatred of gays. The UNITED States is what suffers.



ETA3: For those with questions on Kerry's Senate voting record here are some resources:



John Kerry's Defense Defense - Setting his voting record straight.



Did Kerry Oppose Tanks & Planes? Not Lately

Kerry voted often against nuclear missiles and bombers in the '90s, but GOP claims that he opposed a long list of conventional weapons are overblown.



MEDIA ADVISORY: GOP Rhetoric on Kerry's Voting Record Goes Unchallenged



More Bush Distortions of Kerry Defense Record

Latest barrage of ads repeats misleading claims that Kerry "repeatedly opposed" mainstream weapons.



Bush can't run on his own record so he must run down and misrepresent Kerry's record just as he misrpresented the reasons for going to war in Iraq.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 8/6/04 4:22 pm

[Gatito Grande]

Do pro-Civil Rights (popularly-voted) initiatives ever pass? Don't anti-Civil Rights initiatives almost always??



I swear, if slavery (of anybody *except* whites) was put on a statewide ballot, in most states, it would probably pass too.



In other words, the initiative/ballot measure method is one particularly ill-suited to Civil Rights. They almost inevitably rile up the (electoral) majority, for whom "rights" is equated to "loss of my privilege." Progress in Civil Rights is virtually always advanced by the courts, w/ legislatures (States' and the U.S. Congress) in a distant second.



Which is why stopping the Federal Marriage Amendment is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL, and everything else is (comparatively) small potatoes. As long as the FMA doesn't pass (and *every day* marriage is legal, somewhere, increases the chances it won't---because the issue of ex post facto itself relentlessly complicates the issue: how can you pass an amendment, which conflicts w/ the Constitution on a basic---separate---level?), we have access to the Federal Courts (nevermind the House's meaningless unconstitutional bill just passed), and if we have access to the Federal Courts, we can gain the key which will unlock ALL the States---nevermind bullsh*t like Missouri's and Virginia's.



GG . . . and Michigan's, if it's put on the ballot and passes here. I'd hate to call for LGBTs to boycott my own state, but if Michigan's Constitution is re-written to enshrine discrimination, I will. Out

[maudmac]

Goodness gracious! I go on vacation for a week and I miss all the big politics thread drama. Some of my favorite subjects, too. Damn.



I think my head would explode if I attempted to respond in-depth to the last, like, hundred posts.



So I'll just say thanks to y'all, it's been interesting reading. I love few things more than some good verbal sparring, even if I'm only an observer.



Oh, hell. I lie. I have to say one thing - Bush sucks.



There. I feel better. Thanks.

---

i wasn't sniffing your spicy brains