Okay - you all know I'm a Bush-supporting, right-wing Republican (even though I'm actually registered as independent, or non-affliated)
When the Swift Boat Vets first came out, I supported their right to free speech to say what they felt was important to them -- especially because Kerry was using photos, which included pictures of some of these same guys, in his ads promoting his military record.
But now the Swift Vets have come out with a new commercial that even I think is hitting below the belt. I heard it on Hannity's program yesterday, I think.
Don't you think this goes too far? Here is some of the text from the Ad:
quote:Announcer: Even before Jane Fonda went to Hanoi to meet with the enemy and mock America, John Kerry secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris.
Announcer: Though we were still at war and Americans were being held in North Vietnamese prison camps.
Announcer: Then he returned and accused American troops of committing war crimes on a daily basis.
Announcer: In a time of war, can America trust a man who betrayed his country?
Farmgirl
("Betrayed his country" is just awfully strong language, and very slanderous)
[ September 22, 2004, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*shakes head* Betrayed his country indeed.. (Did you come up with that title on purpose or completely by accident?) *Impolitely wonders how you can listen to Hannity*
That aside, yes it's going too far! Especially when I think Kerry did the right thing pointing out the war crimes. The honest and honourable thing. This Swift Boat people are a bunch of scummy liars... What does any of this have to do with current issues?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Farmgirl, I actually respect the Swift Boat vets for finally coming out and saying the real reason that so many of them were willing to protest his candidacy.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Syn -- the title was a fluke in that I posted at the same time you posted the other thread. I was surprised by your title when I went back to the thread listing....
FG
(so I change my title)
[ September 22, 2004, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I like the Jane Fonda reference, trying to allude to the faked photo of Kerry and Fonda at the same rally, when it never happened. That one made the round earlier this year.
-Bok
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I'm afraid the Swift Vets are actually going to hurt President Bush's ratings with something like this, while they "think" they are doing just the opposite.
Of course, we never get to actually see these ads in Kansas. Kansas is so heavily Republican that no political candidate ever even bothers spending advertising revenue in this state -- we only hear about these things on national news...
I would imagine it is playing in swing states like Pennsylvania and Michigan...
FG
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
It's as below the belt as Al Gore yelling about George Bush:
"He Betrayed this country! He played on our fears!"
No democrat has any right to complain while Mr. Internet is saying the exact same things.
And he's not an independent organization. He's part of the official party.
So if it's Shame on the Swift Boat Vets, then it's Shame on Al Gore.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Shame on everyone for not paying attention to what matters.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: like the Jane Fonda reference, trying to allude to the faked photo of Kerry and Fonda at the same rally, when it never happened. That one made the round earlier this year.
-Bok
Kinda like the DNC official E-mail referencing forged CBS documents (the morning after the story aired) in their attack on President Bush's Vietnam Era Guard duty.
And they're not referencing the Photo, there is no reference to any photo of John Kerry and Jane "Johnny Walker Lind" Fonda.
I think someone needs to watch the Ad before assuming there's any such reference, which unless I missed something, isn't in there.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: It's as below the belt as Al Gore yelling about George Bush:
"He Betrayed this country! He played on our fears!"
hmmmm.. I wonder how I missed hearing about this.....
Farmgirl
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Chad, look up the word "allude."
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: No democrat has any right to complain while Mr. Internet is saying the exact same things.
Could I have a source for this assertion, please? When did Gore say the exact same things? I'm not happy about the way the Democrats are running the campaign, but I don't believe the accusations are the same on both sides. Even if the accusations are the same, I think we should all complain about all this mudslinging on both sides. I think it is telling that McCain came out against the Swift Boat ads; there is a politician who is as close as they get to being honest and respectable.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
It's because Kerry wasn't a Senator of Texas or the areas in which they live.
He's wanting to be Commander in Chief of our armed forces and President of the United States.
And I would venture that what Al Gore did was much worse (and this is an opinion as much as YOURS was as well) because the Swift Boat Vets are NOT part of the Official Republican Campaign.
Al Gore IS an official spokesperson for the Democratic Campaign and was in fact speaking at a Democratic Sponsored Campaign Rally when he said those things.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
What could anyone criticize about the ad? It is totally factual. No one denies, not even Kerry himself, that he did meet with leaders of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese in Paris on two occasions, while our nation was still at war with them, and Kerry was still an officer in the Naval reserves. This was totally against the law. It was by definition an act of treason. Private citizens are not allowed to conduct diplomacy unless at the specific request of the president, and John Kerry did exactly and precisely betray his nation by doing this. American soldiers were still being killed by the foreign powers Kerry talked to. And notice also that when Kerry returned, he gave public speeches where he parroted the communists' propaganda line and called for the U.S. to cut and run from Vietnam, and then pay reparations to North Vietnam and the Viet Cong.
Do you know what treason is? Do you know what betrayal of your country and fellow soliders is? Do you know what breaking the law is? This is one of the reasons I have been saying all along that John Kerry deserves to be in prison, not in the U.S. Senate, and certainly not in the White House.
As much as anything else he has done and said, this proves that John Kerry is no patriot. He was willing to let our enemies determine our national policy in 1972-1973, and he talks now in the present campaign like he wants to oursource our national defense and let the U.N. determine our foreign policy.
What could possibly be more relevant to a presidential candidate's fitness for office?
[ September 22, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Here's another way to look at it.
Democrats from other states didn't attack George Bush's service when he was governor of Texas.
But they are now.
I could very well say the exact same thing you did, from the opposite side of the fence.
I think the issue began when John Kerry decided to make his Vietnam Service the cornerstone of his election campaign.
Well his view of himself (and others positive views) do not gel with these Vietnam Vets who disagree.
I really can't see any single person complaining about these ads considering there's a feature length political propaganda movie called Fahrenheit 9/11.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
No, there was no direct reference to the silliness earlier in the year, that, for a time, people thought (and some probably still do) that Kerry and Fonda were at the same pro-North Vietnam rally. There was no point to mentioning Jane Fonda in the ad, at the beginning, with no later reference in the ad. At the least it was trying to connect Fonda and Kerry in the minds of voters, where Fonda was a very vocal opponent of the Vietnam Conflict; more likely it was to remind people of that pesky photo that made some headlines earlier this year, and was forwarded to have the country. There is another photo that showed them both at an earlier rally. This photo was taken two years before Fonda visited North Vietnam, a visit that Kerry has publically disagreed with.
-Bok
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Ron, I hear what you are saying, but those things do not matter to the people who support him.
You have a guy who TWICE admitted to committing acts in Vietnam that by the definition of the Geneva Convention are "War Crimes".
And that doesn't matter.
They'll vote and herald a guy who dodges the draft completely, but they'll attack a reservist whose military records are missing for a period of time.
You gotta understand that there are things that some people are willing to overlook that maybe you and I are not.
It's fine. It's their right to do so.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:a visit that Kerry has publically disagreed with.
That's odd considering he visited with them in France.
Why is one wrong and one right in your opinon?
Also, there's no relation to that photo and the ad.
But as you so eloquenty put it, they were both at the same rally at one point in time.
Could they perhaps share the same ideals at that time?
[ September 22, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Ron -- I'm not attacking it for not being factual. I know they wouldn't have dared to air it if they didn't have facts to back it up.
It just seems so -- I dunno -- rancid. I mean even though it is true, I don't think this kind of mud needs to be drug into the presidential race.
We all have past mistakes. I certainly wouldn't want my Hatracker friends judging me on the kind of person I was 20+ years ago (you wouldn't have liked me). So maybe that is why I feel this way.
I still support our President. And I still support free speech. I just think this might backfire on the Swift Vets and get everyone up in arms in defense of Kerry.
Farmgirl
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: It just seems so -- I dunno -- rancid. I mean even though it is true, I don't think this kind of mud needs to be drug into the presidential race.
Michael Moore is going to attempt to get F9/11 on Network TV before the election in order to sway it.
It's going to get dirtier before it gets any cleaner.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: I certainly wouldn't want my Hatracker friends judging me on the kind of person I was 20+ years ago (you wouldn't have liked me). So maybe that is why I feel this way.
That's where the difference lies. Kerry HIMSELF made his vietnam service (and lest we forget 3 purple hearts) the cornerstone of his election.
He WANTED people to judge him based on his service there. He WANTED people to vote for him because of his past.
He just doesn't like the current opposition to his platform that he took.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Sure, and maybe Kerry is a secret member of the Communist Party. That's not to say it's likely.
There are 2 photos in question. One shows the two at a podium. This never happened. There is one where they were both in a crowd at a rally (Vietnam Veterans Against the War), and that they both separately spoke at, though they didn't know each other personally, and that Fonda hadn't visited North Vietnam yet.
You have already decided to disbelieve anything Kerry says, assuming the worst motives. That's fine, it could certainly be that way, but you must admit that it's just as, or perhaps more, plausible that they shared some subset of opinions, though not all, and that these rallies weren't so fine tuned as to include only speakers who agreed, down to the finest nuance, on what that opinion was. Odds are, they went looking for high profile people who in a nebulous way all disagreed with Vietnam.
-Bok
EDIT: Whoa, this thread has passed me by. My comment was only at the disguised attempt to link the two, when this link is tenuous at best. If you want to say Kerry was treasonous because of his visit with North Vietnamese leaders, that's fine. It's just a little slimey (when either side) casts aspersions using obtuse comments.
[ September 22, 2004, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I know they wouldn't have dared to air it if they didn't have facts to back it up.
Well, they could - but only on CBS.
Couldn't resist, Mate. <insert pirate smiley here)
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Exactly. Al Gore is not afraid he's crossing any lines by calling Bush a traitor. The Republican Party is not on solid ground when they call Kerry a traitor; what the Swift Boat Vets are saying may be actionable under defamation law, and it may not turn out to be such a smart campaign tactic. In that light, it's ironic that they accuse Kerry of flip-flopping.
I didn't know GWB meet with the leaders of North Vietnam during wartime.
Maybe you could point that out to me.
quote: You have already decided to disbelieve anything Kerry says, assuming the worst motives.
Funny, but that's what most Liberals/Democrats do to anything Bush says.
I guess it's a two way street then.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
But you'd have to run it through the Democratic Party's hands first.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yup, you know me, I'm just like that whole class of people "liberal". I walk lockstep with them!
I think Bush's problem is not that he is lying (I don't generally believe that), but that he sincerely believes in implementing certain policies that I disagree with. That's my opinion.
So if you could please take me off the unthinking Liberal Cabal list (but not the Hatrack Liberal Cabal list... Shh, it's a secret!), and instead deal with me as an individual, that'd be great.
Our you can just assume my motives like you have in every single response to me that you have had, in your Hatrack time thusfar.
-Bok
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
So wait, you make judgements about ME directly,
quote: You have already decided to disbelieve anything Kerry says, assuming the worst motives.
which I did NOTHING of the sort to you because YOU,
quote: Funny, but that's what most Liberals/Democrats do to anything Bush says.
And you have the gall to cry foul?
Maybe I'm missing something here. You are talking about ME DIRECTLY and I am talking about Liberals/Democrats in general with regards to YOUR opinion, and there's a problem.
Oh, Please.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I haven't compartmentalized. It appeared to me that you were lumping me in with this pre-defined category. I apologize for that misconception. I would rather you impugn me directly, rather than toss me into some box where you no longer feel obligated to listen to me.
I'm sorry about assuming any motives on you, vis a vis Kerry, or anything else.
-Bok
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I wasn't talking about you in that group at all. I was talking about Liberals in general. That's why I said that is what liberals/democrats do with GWB.
If I had meant for you to be included I would have written "that is what liberals/democrats like YOU".
If you thought I was meaning YOU, I'm sorry, I was meaning liberals in general (and referring to the kerry like response to every speech Bush makes whether campaign related or whether it's part of his presidential responsibility, like the UN)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"That's why I said that is what liberals/democrats do with GWB."
Ah. I think this is going to be the source of some confusion around here.
In general, on Hatrack, when you are generalizing about a group but do not wish to imply that ALL members of the group behave in a certain way, it's best to prefix the group with "some."
In other words, try: "what SOME liberals/Democrats do with GWB." It's not only more accurate but altogether less universally insulting.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Oh look its Mr. Hypocrite.
Posted by RRR (Member # 6601) on :
Did I accidently click on a link to Ornery?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
RRR, nope. See, we both defused the situation. How often would THAT happen on Ornery
(Ornery folks, don't kill me! I do go over there from time to time, and do respect you all!)
-Bok
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
What is beautiful about the 527s is that they have allowed parties to remain "clean" by slinging the mud themselves. Kerry is doing worse by this because he has felt the need to reply to each attack whereas Bush just ignores them completely. Some folks have brought up Bush in the 60's and 70's outside of his honorable time in the National Guard and what is there isn't encouraging if we were to apply it to his character today. He was a frequent drug and alcohol user. If we use his time in the 80's to reflect on him now, he was a frequent loser in the business field sending 3 or so oil businesses into the ground, selling his stocks at the last minute with Harken prompting the SEC to look into insider trading. Should we consider this?
Doesn't matter. Bush is running a sweet campaign. He lets the 527s sling the mud and Kerry, too slow on the update, keeps dodging and taking the hits. He needs the can of Teflon that Bush uses. In the current discussions around the election, it hasn't at all been about the issues. Bush isn't running as an incumbent, he is running on what he will do if he becomes President. He talks about things to come, not the current state of affairs because to do so would hurt him, not help him (due to horrible economy, massive job loss, poorly implemented education policy, roll-back environmental policy, etc.). He can't even tout his tax cut because honestly, a good portion of America never felt the effects of it
But that's okay because he can just roll along and let Kerry sputter and putter along responding to inane claims that are over 30 years old. Brilliant, I say. Below the belt, sure, but brilliant.
I only wish the Democrats would just come out swinging, but also half proud that they haven't.
fil
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: In general, on Hatrack, when you are generalizing about a group but do not wish to imply that ALL members of the group behave in a certain way, it's best to prefix the group with "some."
Actually the original post said "MOST". Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: In general, on Hatrack, when you are generalizing about a group but do not wish to imply that ALL members of the group behave in a certain way, it's best to prefix the group with "some."
hmmm... Then, Tom, I really wish I could backtrack and find that thread where you said fundamentalist Christians are the worst thing to happen to America (or something similar -- since I can't find it right now). I don't believe there was any "some" with that statement.
And I think it would have helped not to offend "some" that may not fit your stereotype.
Farmgirl
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Should we consider this?
Yes if Bush tries to build his campaign on it the way Kerry did.
Kerry screwed up by playing the Vietnam Vet card, and the SBV trumped (and pissed him off about) it.
If Kerry hadn't BUILT and LAUNCHED his campaign off of Vietnam and Purple Hearts, he wouldn't be in this mess.
He sowed the seeds and is reaping the whirlwind for it.
quote: I only wish the Democrats would just come out swinging, but also half proud that they haven't.
Every time Bush says ANYTHING (whether it be campaign related or just basic Presidential buisiness) Kerry responds.
I mean a Midnight press conference after the RNC?
Why? I asked myself.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Oh look its Mr. Hypocrite.
Would you mind telling us who it is you are referring to?
Thanks.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:that is what liberals/democrats do with GWB
I am a liberal. I am a Democrat. I do not do this.
Hence I know your logic is flawed. Hence I doubt all the rest of your logic.
Screaming and yelling and insulting the opposition en-masse, no matter how witty, never wins converts.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Chad -- I believe nfl was referring to TomD -- if you look at his quote.
Farmgirl
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Screaming and yelling and insulting the opposition en-masse, no matter how witty, never wins converts.
Hence why Al Gore and Michael Moore are idiots. (as well as any number of people on the right who do the same)
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
If he was, that was uncalled for. Tom may be calling foul over things he himself is guilty of, but calling him directly a name is uncalled for. Your response was much better.
Let someone reveal themself that they are a hypocrit (I'm not saying he is because I don't know) but don't call them one.
It's good advice I should take to heart myself.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
BTW is everyone skipping the word "MOST" in my original post? It seems that the paraphrased quote is getting more attention than the actual post.
For the record, I'd like to point out that my original post says "MOST Liberals/Democrats" despite what people are saying.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I'm sorry...but does anyone else feel like Ron Lambert and CS are long lost soul mates?
Or perhaps twins separated at birth?
Posted by RRR (Member # 6601) on :
quote: calling him directly a name is uncalled for
quote: Al Gore and Michael Moore are idiots
Eh?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Chad, FG is right I was referring to Tom and the designation is well deserved on his part. In previous threads he made the statement that all Republicans/conservatives/people who vote for Bush are hateful bigots who want to roast homosexuals over an open fire, despite the fact that the only two Republicans who commented on the proposed Michigan amendment were against it. I'd prefer not to wait for Tom to take the title upon himself, but rather call him on it now.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
One post is aimed at an actual member of this site. Your fellow poster.
Mine are directed at 3rd parties who are not members of this site.
There's a big difference in bashing your fellow posters and bashing public figures, even Presidents.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Ron and Chat strike me as being the same person, just with two different logins.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Except that he specifically bashed me, calling me a bigot because I was voting for Bush.
Posted by RRR (Member # 6601) on :
nfl, do you have a link to that thread?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I understand your reasoning for calling him that. But it's still name calling. It would have been MUCH more appropriate for you to point out how he had practiced what he was preaching against than just attaching the label.
See the response from Farmgirl. Her post was much more effective IMHO because it SHOWED instead of TOLD.
That's the screenwriter popping out in me. Sorry.
Don't tell me what he is, show me what he is.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
My identity has already been established. But you're welcome to invent Conspiracy Theories if you so desire.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
It was directed at Tom, not at you and I expected Tom to know what I was talking about so I didn't feel the need to explain it.
I hadn't read that thread, but now that I see what he is saying there, then accusing others of, it doesn't bode well for him in that instance.
If you could have put that in the original thread, we all could have benefitted.
I'm not attacking you. Please don't think that. Just that name calling with no explanation of fellow posters doesn't bode well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I really wish I could backtrack and find that thread where you said fundamentalist Christians are the worst thing to happen to America (or something similar."
You won't find it. What I said was that fundamentalist Christianity is the greatest danger facing America at the moment.
I would argue that this is a significantly different statement than "fundamentalist Christians are the worst thing to happen to America," and VERY different from a line like "most Democrats are traitors."
quote: In previous threads he made the statement that all Republicans/conservatives/people who vote for Bush are hateful bigots who want to roast homosexuals over an open fire
You, I'm afraid, are lying. Find this statement and I will gladly pay you a hundred dollars, cash on the nose. Otherwise, I expect an apology. My Log Cabin post says nothing of the kind, and your distortions are nothing if not purely ignorant and malicious.
What I said -- and, heck, I'll be charitable; what I implied -- is that there is a movement out there behind the institution of an amendment to the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage that will, quite bluntly, help to make homosexuals feel hated and despised on a national level. While this is probably something you consider an exaggeration or distortion, it's not even close to what you say I said.
So don't be a dork, 'k?
[ September 22, 2004, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: What I said was that fundamentalist Christianity is the greatest danger facing America at the moment.
An interesting opinion. I guess it depends on whose vision of America you associate with.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yep. I'm associated with good America, while people who disagree with me are associated with evil America. But look up the old thread if you want to have that conversation. *grin*
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Aren't Amish people Fundamentalist Christians? They sure don't look threatening.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Good and Evil are religious based terms and intertwined with Ethics and Morality. And words that Bush uses (and anti-bushies squawk over).
I guess that's the funny part of the post. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*grin* Like I said, look up the old thread. You will find all your answers there, grasshopper.
Edit: But I'll help out here, just in case. The Search function can be batty sometimes. Good and Evil are ethical/moral constructs, but have little to nothing to do with religion. Additionally, the Amish are fundamentalist but not fanatic, and -- as the conversation on that thread evolved -- we decided that fanaticism rather than fundamentalism was in fact the greater danger. You'll notice that the fundamentalists don't ever mention the revision, probably because they're just horrified at the thought that someone might have considered them dangerous. *laugh*
[ September 22, 2004, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I did, but it got too hatefilled. And BOTH sides were equally guilty of it.
Glad I wasn't here to read it or participate in it.
Glad it's a dead thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which thread are you referring to? The one to which I'm referring is NOT the one to which NFL linked.
In fact, it's highly unfair of me to expect you to EVER find the thread I'm talking about, I realize, because it started out as a bizarre lamentation over Colin Powell before turning into a conversation about the nature of fanaticism. Here's the thread: http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/forum/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=027055;p=1
It starts being about what it winds up being about (*grin*) most of the way down the first page.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: You're choosing to vote for Bush, thus tacitly endorsing his blatantly bigoted agenda.
So you didn't say this?
And you implied the rest.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
NFL.....where is the part where he calls you a bigot?
He is saying that if you support a bigoted candidate you share in the resonsibility if his views become laws.
Pretty basic politics 101 stuff, really...
Kwea
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm still looking for the "roast homosexuals over an open fire" bit, too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So the hype about voiting for pro-choice politicians actuallty contributing to abortions seems reasonable under that theory.
Dagonee
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
I just wanted to add that TomDavidson is an awesome guy, who states a lot of the things I want to say better then I could. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So the hype about voiting for pro-choice politicians actuallty contributing to abortions seems reasonable under that theory."
Does the Democratic Party have "increase abortions" somewhere in its platform? The Republican Party DOES have "no gay marriage" in its platform.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It does have "Do not protect the rights of unborn children" in its platform.
Kind of like "Do not protect the rights of homosexuals," huh?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Dag, I'd like to see that line in their platform, actually - could you point to a reference?
There's been a lot of biased paraphrasing in this thread, and such slanted summaries really undercut the rest of their arguments. Direct quotes with referenced sources work so much better.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Where are they guarenteed such rights, Dag?
Where does it say that they even exist until they are born?
Last I checked, homosexuals ae citizans, right?
Too bad they aren't proteced by the Consist....
wait, they are...
Nice try, though... (not really)
[ September 22, 2004, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The Democratic platform does not respect the rights of unborn children.
Teh Republican platform does not respect the rights of homosexuals.
Both phrase it differently, of course.
The point is that if I am responsible for anti-homosexual bigotry for supporting Bush, then voters who support Kerrey are responsible for the abortions that occur because of the Democrats' refusal to protect the rights of the unborn.
Of course the actual truth is much more complicated, but I'm not the one who started flinging the accusations around.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And Kwea, where are homosexuals guaranteed such rights? The reason we have this as an issue is because they're not, and they should be.
Yeah, it's real clever to point to a deficiency in the rights of one group as a reason they shouldn't have those rights...
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I'd like to see that line in their platform, actually - could you point to a reference?
The Democratic platform upholds the right of a woman to kill her unborn child. Makes it pretty clearcut that it therefore denies the rights of those children to live.
Dagonee
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:The point is that if I am responsible for anti-homosexual bigotry for supporting Bush, then voters who support Kerrey are responsible for the abortions that occur because of the Democrats' refusal to protect the rights of the unborn.
I'm pro choice, so I am responsible for the lives lost during legal abortions. There just isn't a way around that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Let me make the analogy more precise - what about pro-life people supporting Kerrey? What is their repsonsibility if the justices he appoints if he's elected cement Roe for another generation?
Dagonee
[ September 23, 2004, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I think they are still responsible. Clearly, these pro life voters decided that there are other issues more important than abortion. There's nothing wrong with that. But their responsibility for the unborn children killed under legalized abortion is no less than that of a pro choice person who voted for Kerry.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then if that damn marriage amendment is passed I'll take some responsibility for it.
It won't be, though.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It is under the right to pursue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", in a little thing called the Constitution.
At least that is what I believe....not that they meant it to apply to homosexuals, but they didn't mean it (at the time) to mean women, or blacks.....
And Dag, I was merely pointing out that one group are beyond a doubt already citizans, and human...
And they aren't in a womb.
I don't approve of abortion, at all, in a personal sense.
My wife and I would never even consider one, unless it was necessary to save her life.
So please stop saying I don't respect anyone rights....
:::I am tired, and edited this statement out...not because it isn't true, but because it was imflammitory....sorry...)
Kwea
[ September 23, 2004, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I agree with your prediction Dag. This whole amendment debate is just a wedge issue Bush is using to divert some of the swing voters' attention away from Iraq and the economy. I'm not saying Bush isn't sincere about being against gay marriages, but I do not believe he stays up all night thinking about how he can deprive gay people their constitutional rights.
edited: last sentence for clarity.
[ September 23, 2004, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" isn't in the Constitution.
And Kwea, the fact is you don't respect the rights of a 2-month old fetus enough to make it illegal for someone to kill him, even if you respect those rights enough not to do it yourself.
That might be because you don't recognize those rights, it might be because you consider those rights subordinate to the mother's rights, but it's clear you limit them to such a degree that they provide no real legal protection.
It's a simple fact that as of right now, the Constitution does not protect the rights of homosexuals to marry, just as it's a fact that it does not protect the rights of a fetus to be free from being killed.
Dagonee
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Unless you can... edited by Kwea
Thanks Kwea. I'm not picking on you or anything, but any kind of baby imagery gives me the willies. The dancing baby in Alley McBeal used to give me nightmares.
[ September 23, 2004, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: if I am responsible for anti-homosexual bigotry for supporting Bush
I didn't say that...I just said that there is some responsibility that must be shared in both cases, IMO.
I didn't say you were a bigot for supporting Bush...but I believe his agenda is bigoted toward them, and you are voting to put him in place to fight for such bigotry.
How would you NOT be partially responsible?
Well, you could lobby against those particular views...as you have here, for instance.
You could try to moderate such views within the party.
And you could be clear that you don't support that sort of treatment of any human being, gay or not.
Sort of sounds like what you are already doing, Dag.
But if the legislation passes barring these rights....you would be responsible, just for supporting him.
Not as responsible as he himself would be, but all his supporters would share in that.
Kwea
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
quote:Unless you can wake up a 2 month old fetus and have him explain it to me. -Kwea
but at the same time. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kwea, this whole line of reasoning was not directed at you, even though your post inspired it.
There was a discussion on the board a while back where it was debated if voting for pro-choice candidates created some responsibility for abortions in America, and this was vehemently denied.
I just wanted to retouch on this subject when I was given such a good opening.
And your explanation is a pretty good example of why I said it's complicated.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I disagree, Dag...and the courts will decide if I am right or wrong on that point. That phrase has been interpeted many different ways as times change.
PS..the preamble is part of the Constitution, isn't it? And the courts have used it in redefining laws...at least I think so....
All means all.
Dag, are you saying that homosexuals aren't human, and therefore aren't protected? ( I know your aren't, but)
Because that is why that protection isn't gaurenteed for fetuses....they aren't legally people. Right or wrong, that is a fact, for here and now.
There is doubt among people if they are or aren't...but homosexuals are, without a doubt.
I realize you have no doubt....but that isn't enough to make me force women to carry unwanted babies to term.
That is the difference....for me, anyway..
Kwea
[ September 23, 2004, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
NP, Dag...I hope you realize how much I respect your views, even when I disagree with them.
More often than not I am actually living my life pretty close to your ideas.
I just don't like to force others to do so.
I think that there is some VERY LIMITED issues of responsibility in these cases...and I don't just mean about these two issues either.
It just sounded like it was directed toward me, as i missed that earlier thread.
Sorry about the imagery, folks...it's lake, and I am unexplainadly grumpy tonight.
It was graphic, and proved my point (sort of), but it was below the belt in and of itself.
I deleted it not because it wasn't a valid point, but because it was unnecessarily inflammatory.
Sorry....
Kwea
[ September 23, 2004, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I understand the difference. But there's a sizable contingent who hold to the "Of course we can't let homosexuals get married to each other - a marriage is between a man and a woman." And according to a lot of history in Anglo-American jurisprudence, they're right.
Two different groups of advocates want to secure previously unrecognized rights for two different groups of people (or beings, if you prefer).
Dagonee P.S., It's worth pointing out again that Dred Scott was one of the first decisions to use the Bill of Rights to strike down a federal law. And it relied on language from the Declaration of Independence to deny that blacks were citizens with any civil rights.
Edit:
quote:Dag, are you saying that homosexuals aren't human, and therefore aren't protected?
No, I'm saying there's no recognized right for two people of the same sex to get married. Homosexuals share in pretty much every other right guaranteed by the Constitution - due process, equal protection (minus marriage and adoption and a few other things), free speech, free exercise of religion, all the criminal rights.
[ September 23, 2004, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not sure what was in response to what at this point, but I think we've both covered all the bases.
I've got to try to get to sleep...
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Me too...
Night!
Kwea
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, I'm a little late with this reply, because I usually don't post at night when things get really active here....
But I just want to say (mainly for Chad's benefit, being new) that TomDavidson and I are really friends IRL (at least I think we are). He is just much better at this online debate thing than me, so at times he gets under my skin with issues -- and so far I haven't even been able to prick his thick skin...
Farmgirl
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
Dag. Not trying to pick on you but something you said hit me (so to speak):
quote:No, I'm saying there's no recognized right for two people of the same sex to get married. Homosexuals share in pretty much every other right guaranteed by the Constitution - due process, equal protection (minus marriage and adoption and a few other things), free speech, free exercise of religion, all the criminal rights.
There are no recognized Constitutional Rights for Heteros to get married either, but they do. You also stated that Gays share in pretty much every other Right guaranteed by the Constitution. With exceptions. Here, IMO, is where you trip up. Either Gay citizens are CITIZENS, and should be afforded EVERY Right of citizens, or they aren't. There is no gray area here. Its an all or nothing situation because they have not, just by the virtue of being Gay, felons; who have, as a consequence of their actions, had some of their rights stripped from them. It wasn't until Lawrence v Texas was overturned that they were afforded some of the criminal rights afforded to others. It also wasn't until Lawerence v Texas was overturned they were afforded equal protection or due process. And they are STILL denied equal protection under the marriage issue. They ARE denied due process under he adoption issue (Kansas I think, though it might be Missouri, will NOT recognize adoptions by Gays who move there from another state).
All things being equal, Gays are NOT being traeted equally.
Again, not attacking or trying to pick a fight. I admire you a great deal. You have an eloquence I envy and can say things that I am thinking much better than myself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Woa! I'm not saying they are being treated equally. I'm saying, under current constitutional jurisprudence, they are not equal with respect to marriage and adoption, and they should be.
There is a constitutional right for heterosexuals to get married without undue state interference - there's a line of cases acknowledging this as a right and requiring some level of judicial scrutiny on regulations of it. Under the current court, I'd be very surprised if they extended this to homosexuals - O'Connor's concurrance in Lawrence gives a decent indication that she likely won't support a constitutional right to gay marriage.
Remember, Lawrence did not turn on the principle that gays were being denied equal protection. This was the big surprise - the Court could have relied on the discriminatory nature of the law to reach its decision. The plurality opinion established the substantive due process right for consenting adults in private to carry on as they wish sexually, barring adultery being an issue. So it didn't establish a right for homosexuals, it established a right for everyone. Small difference, but critical in understanding the state of the Court on this issue.
All the rights you listed as homosexuals not having were (I believe) covered in the portion of my post you quoted.
Dagonee
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Wow! A political ad thread that turned into a homosexual law thread!
Imagine that happening at Hatrack!
FG
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Either Gay citizens are CITIZENS, and should be afforded EVERY Right of citizens, or they aren't. There is no gray area here.
Who says Gay people can't marry anyone of the opposite sex?
You tripped up because Heterosexual people can't marry people of the same sex just the same as Homosexual people can't marry people of the same sex.
The rights ARE equal as they stand. Heterosexual people have the right to marry or not a person of the opposite sex. Homosexual people have the right to marry or not a person of the opposite sex.
Please show me where a Heterosexual person who decides to marry a person of the opposite sex and a Homosexual person who decides to marry a person of the opposite sex are discriminated against?
The problem however is that the majority of Homosexual People advocate CHANGING the laws to allow marriages to be extended to people who wish to marry someone of the SAME SEX.
As individuals, the law provides the same rights to a Homosexual person as it does a Heterosexual.
It's when it comes to CHOICE OF PARTNER (which is NOT in any way forced on anyone) that their choice is not recognized by the laws. And it's not just Homosexual people who want their couplings recognized who are denied. There is a MIRIAD of couplings by choice which are not recognized as marriage.
But anyone who claims that a Heterosexual Person and a Homosexual person do not have the same rights when it comes to marriage are factually incorrect IMHO.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I mean a Midnight press conference after the RNC?
Why? I asked myself.
The idea, I think, was to steal (or at least mute) the Republicans' thunder on the next day's morning news shows. This plan was hurt by the fact that the whole crisis with the Russian school children having been taken hostage blew up that night, and drew the bulk of the media's attention the next morning (drew it away from both the Republicans and the Democrats, I should add).
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:But anyone who claims that a Heterosexual Person and a Homosexual person do not have the same rights when it comes to marriage are factually incorrect IMHO.
In much the same way that anyone who claims that a homeless person and a wealthy person do not have the same rights when it comes to sleeping on a park bench is factually incorrect, I think.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: That's the screenwriter popping out in me. Sorry
So that's what you do, CStroman, -- screenwrite?
I wondered what you did all day that allows you to spend so much time on Hatrack, as I do. (I work in technical support, so I have to sit in front of this monitor all day long...)
Farmgirl
[ September 23, 2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Okay -- not to sidetrack -- but since Tom said I couldn't find where he said what I claimed he said, I decided to use search to the best of my ability to decide the actual original wording.
Here are some of the things I felt like point to him brushing all Christians with the same stroke:
quote: When you can show me a substantial number of fundamentalists agreeing that the behavior Christian god has been regrettable and many of His interventions should probably have been handled differently, I'll agree that they are not willing enablers of that evil. from this thread, page 2
and
quote:Oil companies and fundamentalist Christians, both of whom have done a lot more damage to America than terrorists ever could. (from the same thread, page 1) (but I found it second)
So, to me, basically Tom has classified me as 1) supporting evil (by his classification of such) if I believe in my God, and 2) on the same level as a terrorist in damage to America. He's knows I'm a Christian, yet I don't see any "some" or "a few" or other such disclaimer.
This was just for the record. I still like you, TomD, whatever you think of me.
Farmgirl
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I'm tech support/QA by day. Dreaming Screenwriter by night.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: In much the same way that anyone who claims that a homeless person and a wealthy person do not have the same rights when it comes to sleeping on a park bench is factually incorrect, I think.
Actually the laws are the same for a rich person who wants to sleep on a bench and a homeless person who wants to sleep on a bench.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
*cheers Farmgirl*
I was thinking the exact same things, and am pleased to see that you found some of the statements that seriously bother me too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
While I don't buy the argument that homosexuals have the same marriage rights because they, too, can marry someone of the opposite sex, it's important to articulate why this argument isn't acceptable, because it's facially accurate.
The key is to define the right in question. In Virginia, the marriage right used to be defined as "An adult can marry any unmarried consenting adult, not related to a certain degree, of the opposite sex and the same race." The latter qualification was removed in Loving.
Now, some people say the right of marriage is "An adult can marry any unmarried consenting adult, not related to a certain degree, of the opposite sex." The Massachusetts Supreme Court has struck down the last qualification in this definition, so it is now "An adult can marry any unmarried consenting adult, not related to a certain degree."
Clearly, none of three definitions discriminate based on anything other than age with respect to the first use of "adult" in the definition. All discriminate in some respect with respect to the second person in the definition: age, blood relation, sex, and/or race.
Each type of discrimination needs to have some justification under the equal protection clause. Race requires "strict scrutiny," which requires a showing of a compelling state interest and means as narrowly tailored as possible to meat that interest. Gender requires either "intermediate scrutiny" or "rational basis." Intermediate scrutiny requires an important state interest with closely tailored means. That is, the goal has to be important, and the means have to be no more than a little under- and over-inclusive. In intermediate scrutiny, the gov't does not have to prove it has adopted the "best" and least discriminatory policy, but it cannot be radically more discriminatory than required.
Rational basis means the law is aimed at achieving any legitimate end of government and the means are rational to achieving that end. Basically, the court will not look at the legislature's judgment in such cases and decide that they could have done it better or in a less discriminatory fashion.
It's not clear where sexual preference fits on this scale. Most other distinctions, excepting religion, ethicity, and national origin, require only a rational basis.
As a caveat, if the right at issue is "fundamental," then strict scrutiny will be observed. For example, if a law makes it easier for one group to exercise free speech than another, the court will generally require strict scrutiny, even if the distinction normally only requires rational basis.
What this means is, we need to answer three questions:
1) How important is the government end to be met by restricting marriage to heterosexual couples? 2) How is the right at issue defined and how fundamental is it? 3) What level of scrutiny does the distinction between hetero and homosexual require?
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I was thinking the exact same things, and am pleased to see that you found some of the statements that seriously bother me too."
Well, here's the deal: do you believe that God's plan to destroy the entire human race is evil? If not, you are enabling His evil in exactly the same way that donating to Hamas is evil.
After all, your view can ONLY be good if you're right -- but, let's face it, if Hamas is right, they're good, too. A behavior that's only justifiable by its ends is not, by definition, a good behavior.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Who says God's plan is to destroy the entire human race?
And what about the implication that people of my belief system are worse than terrorists? Do you honestly believe that statement isn't inflammatory and derogatory to Farmgirl and myself?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Okay Tom -- I know that you are familiar with scripture -- I admire that at least you fight with knowledge instead of ignorance.
Please tell me just how the resurrection at the time of second coming of Christ is "the destruction of the human race" -- when instead it will be the resurrection of many who are currently dead?
Farmgirl
[ September 23, 2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, that's an overstatement. "The ends don't justify the means" is almost a meaningless statement, because any valid moral calculus requires examination of both. Most means are acceptable under some circumstances; most means are acceptable under some circumstances. The most prominent aspect of these circumstances is the type of end in question.
Killing is bad. Killing in self defense is OK. Killing in self-defense when non-lethat means of defense are available is bad.
It goes on and on. Some people think it's wrong to kill animals to feed humans. Most people don't think it wrong to kill animals to feed humans. Many people think it's wrong to keep them penned up with no ability to move until they're slaughtered to feed humans. Many also think killing animals solely for fur or ornamental uses is wrong.
Ends are always part of what justify the means.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Please tell me just how the resurrection at the time of second coming of Christ is 'the destruction of the human race' -- when instead it will be the resurrection of many who are currently dead?"
Speaking as one of the ones who will be suffering through the Tribulation, the resurrection of a bunch of dead folk doesn't quite make up for it. He will be killing far more than He'll be bringing back, based on most estimates.
And Belle, I never said that Christian fundamentalism was WORSE than terrorism; I said it was more dangerous to America. For what it's worth, I think obesity is more dangerous to America than terrorism.
-------
Dag, the thing about being an omnipotent God is that your means ARE ends. In other words, you NEVER need to do something unpleasant to achieve your goal.
[ September 23, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's just not true about omnipotence, Tom, at least where free will is involved.
The thing about omniscience is, you know better than humans whether the ends, which include free will, are important enough to use the means.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, see, I'm not comfortable with creating human life with the foreknowledge that I'm going to wind up killing it out of dissatisfaction. I wouldn't buy a puppy if I knew I'd have to put it to sleep.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Actually the laws are the same for a rich person who wants to sleep on a bench and a homeless person who wants to sleep on a bench.
Exactly my point.
Dag goes on to outline the problem with the sort of argument you're putting forth, articulating it much better than I would have.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yeah, see, I'm not comfortable with creating human life with the foreknowledge that I'm going to wind up killing it out of dissatisfaction. I wouldn't buy a puppy if I knew I'd have to put it to sleep.
True. But you don't know enough to know if the good of that action is greater than the evil that results. Presumably God does.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's only if you grant that everything God does is to maximize good. Are we granting that? If so, on what grounds?
[ September 23, 2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Speaking as one of the ones who will be suffering through the Tribulation, the resurrection of a bunch of dead folk doesn't quite make up for it. He will be killing far more than He'll be bringing back, based on most estimates.
Actually, that's like blaming God for allowing Aids to kill a person who choose to have a lifestyle (drugs/primiscuous sex) which led to their acquiring of it.
If your choices lead to an end, it's your choices and ultimately YOU who are responsible for your own destruction.
Anyone who knows the basic Christian Ideology knows that there is no destruction of the human race. There's a cleansing by fire and everyone who puts on their fire proof vest has no problem, those who choose NOT to put on their vest (meet the requirements laid out) have their decision not to put on their vest to blame.
If you suffer during the "tribulation", it's because you choose to.
It's like the girl who killed herself by Alcohol binging. Keywords are "KILLED HERSELF" by her decisions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"There's a cleansing by fire and everyone who puts on their fire proof vest has no problem, those who choose NOT to put on their vest (meet the requirements laid out) have their decision not to put on their vest to blame."
Ah. So in your opinion God is not in fact a CONSCIOUS God, and things just happen whether He wills them or not?
Because if God IS conscious, you're blaming the man who refused to give money to the robber for being shot.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
but at the same time. ![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
(at least I think we are). He is just much better at this online debate thing than me, so at times he gets under my skin with issues -- and so far I haven't even been able to prick his thick skin...