May 16, 2009
The Republican Minimalist

Republicans are under harsh daily criticism from the press and public. Being a Republican is hard! (Being right is hard, too...)

Having been a Republican for only a very short amount of time, I yet see that there is great diversity in the party. Social conservatives, free enterprisers, those who want the personal freedoms in bearing arms and those who want maximal liberty in running a business and making money.

At the same time we are under a popular President who is challenged with overseeing an economy that is revolutionizing itself and a frightened public who wonders about their job and their family...foremost.

Republicans at the national level have had their voice whittled down to the barest few. I am glad to see that this has not lead them into a life of negative criticism...for example, Republicans recently have launched their own, rational, climate change bill.

What I propose is that we focus on entry-level Republicanism. A minimal set of core ideals that make it easy for people to ascribe to. I look at hardworking people here in Kent...who run shops, work in retail, offer landscaping and catering services. I ask...why are they not Republicans fighting for lower taxes so they can take more money home and pay their employees more?

The answer is they may feel dissuaded by people who bring non-political ideals into a mix that they cannot share or feel their origins or ethnicity may not be wanted...

So, I propose the Republican Minimalist. He focuses on only the political issues that the Constitution allows. Maybe even less than that. We Republicans know that the current economy will recover when businesses can find a firm footing and grow again. New businesses must be created, funded and acquire customers...who have the money to pay! These are things that almost anyone can ascribe to....that there are opportunities, but they grow from investment...not infrastructure.

At the same time, we have to back up our words with action. If we shout "Free Enterprise" then yeah, let's see some in action! Banks are chock full of money. They should be funding start-ups, or growing mid-sized businesses are rates that the prime allows. If we say private insurance can meet all needs, then outline the best companies for doing that and shift business to them.

It's not enough to preach to the choir anymore. People must be convinced that they will gain from the message...but that message must have meaning to everyone.

Posted by jabailo at May 16, 2009 09:28 AM | Email This
Comments
1. That's the problem... Republicanism ISN'T "diverse". Whereas a pro-life Democrat is the leader of the Senate, there is apparently no room for pro-choice Republicans in the party. Straying from the party line gets you dubbed a "RINO", regardless of the issue or the reasons. "Big tent", my ass.

Likewise, if you whittle down Republicanism to simply "lowering taxes", what kind of stupid basis for a party is that? Most people may grouse about the taxes they pay, but if they find them to be equitable and fair, they don't mind paying them to, you know, have a street without potholes and a fire department that comes when your house or business is on fire.

And if you're thinking that "free enterprise" is all that you need to put your faith in, you're a decade too late (at least). Simply glossing over the problems of capitalism isn't quite going to win converts either.

Finally, how exactly is a climate change bill "rational" if it is introduced by a party that tends to object to the very scientific basis of climate change for economic gain?

Posted by: demo kid on May 16, 2009 02:52 PM
2. What "demo kid" is doing here is spouting the latest Democratic talking points.

The Democratic strategy is to destroy the Republican Party's ability to win by moving it to the left. That's why he brings up abortion, and the "big tent". That is why we saw big articles in the mainstream press this past week about how 24-year old pro gay marriage Meghan McCain is the "new fresh face of the Republican Party".

The nonsense implying that conservatives do not want to pay for basic government services is ridiculous and "demo kid" knows it. I've never heard a conservative say they didn't want to pay for fire departments, police protection, or other basic government services. It's what Democrats want people to believe. It doesn't matter to them if it's true, or not.

What Democrats know,(and their polling data must be showing), is that most Americans agree with Republicans on the issues. Americans don't favor abortion (as Gallup showed last week), Americans oppose gay marriage, Americans want us to drill for our own oil, Americans want lower taxes, and less government. Americans don't want their soda pop taxed, and they don't want to be forced to ride crime ridden public transit or drive silly little electric vehicles. They don't want to be taxed on how many miles they drive. Americans don't want what the left is shoving down their throats.

These issues have the Democrats scared. So they are throwing their whole media machine at it in an attempt to effectively destroy the Republican Party before the next election cycle. That's what "demo kid" is doing here and it fully explains his comments.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 17, 2009 04:45 PM
3. @2: What "demo kid" is doing here is spouting the latest Democratic talking points.

Hardly.


The Democratic strategy is to destroy the Republican Party's ability to win by moving it to the left.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" -- Albert Einstein

Too bad the Republicans haven't learned this.


The nonsense implying that conservatives do not want to pay for basic government services is ridiculous and "demo kid" knows it.

Really? Why? Aside from military and police, and maybe road building, it's rare that I hear any conservative say that government is underfunding certain functions. It's also rare that I hear conservatives talk about how they should be paying more taxes.


What Democrats know,(and their polling data must be showing), is that most Americans agree with Republicans on the issues. Americans don't favor abortion (as Gallup showed last week), Americans oppose gay marriage, Americans want us to drill for our own oil, Americans want lower taxes, and less government. Americans don't want their soda pop taxed, and they don't want to be forced to ride crime ridden public transit or drive silly little electric vehicles. They don't want to be taxed on how many miles they drive. Americans don't want what the left is shoving down their throats.

You're misreading polls in ways that are completely dishonest. Quite frankly, Americans DON'T agree with the Republicans on a number of issues: they support civil unions for gay marriage, they support gay adoption, they do not support making abortion completely illegal, and they support green power and domestic capacity that is NOT completely oil-based. And they don't want "less government" per se: they want government that works well, provides the services that it should, and operates fairly.

Republicans have gotten a lot of mileage out of the claim that the US is a "center-right" nation, but it's a blatant, willful lie. The US is a center-center nation, and both the Democrats and the Republicans represent more extremes than the public as a whole.

Posted by: demo kid on May 17, 2009 07:51 PM
4. Well, Well, if it isn't that Babbling Chronic Liar demo kid...Screaming Liar, Liar to those who are the Truth Sayers. Demo kid who claims he once, was an Eagle Scout. Anybody who knows Scouting knows that once you achieve the rank of Eagle Scout, it is for Life. There is No once an Eagle Scout, it is Always an Eagle Scout. Demo kid is such a known Liar on these forums, it would be a waste of time ever to bother to call him on his Lies except, for some of the new readers. So, let it be known....demo kid is a Chronic Liar and there is probably no need to bother saying he is also, a Liberal.

Posted by: Daniel on May 17, 2009 09:55 PM
5. Interesting that "demo kid" talks about civil unions and gay adoption, neither of which I believe Republicans oppose. What Republicans and most Americans oppose is changing the fundamental definition of marriage.

My point, which believe me "demo kid" and the rest of the Democratic Party is very aware of is that American agree with Republicans on a number of core issues. Democrats want to make sure we field another mushy middle candidate like McCain, so they have been busy pushing the notion that the Republican Party is too far to the right. Thus opposition to gay marriage and abortion are painted as "extreme" positions. You only have to read any "mainstream" media to read article after article taking this tack.

Believe me, Democrats wouldn't be spending all this energy saying Republicans are too far to the right to win elections unless they believed the opposite was true.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 18, 2009 08:16 AM
6. @4: Pointlessly ranting again? Why don't you just start singing "liar, liar, pants on fire!" if that's what you believe? :)

@5: Thus opposition to gay marriage and abortion are painted as "extreme" positions.

Opposition to ALL forms of gay marriage, and abortions in ALL situations ARE fringe positions. And yes, when Republicans have been at the forefront of efforts to ban civil unions and abortion even when the health of the mother is at risk, then yes, I think that the Republicans are taking fringe positions that need to be softened.

But if you want Republicans to support civil unions and health exceptions for abortion, that's great! I think that's a softening of positions.

Posted by: demo kid on May 18, 2009 06:19 PM
7. Hey...demo liar..Your statement that ALL forms of gay marriage and abortions in All situations ARE fringe positions, is just another Ridiculous Lie. It is well known even, among Liberals, that it is not the vast majority of Americans who are for gay marriages and abortions. In fact, there is no pole that says so whether, it is from a Liberal Lie Site or not. But then, what else is new that comes from your demented screed.

Posted by: Daniel on May 18, 2009 07:37 PM
8. >>gay marriage

Most Americans support Domestic Partnerships and equality for couples. It's legal, it's American and it's just the right thing to do (paraphrasing Gary Cooper).

>>and abortions in All situations

The Supreme Court outlawed third trimester abortions. That's a great Conservative victory and a victory for all...children and adults.

We still can argue, but people on both sides should accept it.

>>ARE fringe positions

Mostly we fight a battle of words. These issues are not the real issues of politics and the economy.

Posted by: John Bailo on May 18, 2009 09:33 PM
9. John Bailo...Your statement that most Americans support Domestic Partnerships and equality for couples is a LIE. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll showed 49 percent support nationwide for gay marriage. ABC is a Liberal news outlet and even they will not admit to the most Americans statement that you made. Of course, there is far less support for gay marriage than the bloated 49 percent. These issues are Not just, a battle of words and they are real issues of politics and the economy. You're another Liberal that's full of CRAP! Are you and demo Liar the same person?

Posted by: Daniel on May 18, 2009 10:32 PM
10. @8: But supporting domestic partnerships has not been a consistent stance, nor are they allowed in many conservative states that have passed amendments to state constitutions.

Likewise, third trimester abortions are outlawed, but by the same court decision that made abortion legal. No reasonable person, liberal or conservative, would condone aborting a 30-week fetus that is viable outside the womb. Heck, even in countries that are considered more "liberal" than the United States, abortion is only allowed up to 12 weeks, with second-trimester abortions strictly controlled. Equating a six-week-old fetus with a fully formed infant is rubbish.

But I stand by my earlier statement. For all the claims of America being a "center-right" nation, it is actually a center-center one. BOTH the Democrats and Republicans are at the extremes.

Posted by: demo kid on May 18, 2009 11:43 PM
11. @9: And if you're calling Mr. Bailo a "liberal"... well... you really are nuts.

Posted by: demo kid on May 18, 2009 11:46 PM
12. Opposition to ALL forms of gay marriage, and abortions in ALL situations ARE fringe positions.~ Demokid

False on both counts. Prop 8 proved the public isn't with you on the gay marriage issue and the Washington state constitution bans these forms of unions being labeled "marriages". If you want that changed, get off your ample posterior and go collect enough signatures to put it on the ballot at election time...where it will be voted down overwhelmingly by the public.

On abortion, you must have missed the latest gallup poll

...conducted May 7-10 as part of the annual Gallup Values and Beliefs survey found that a majority of Americans (51 percent) described themselves as "pro-life" with respect to the abortion issue, while only 42 percent said they were "pro-choice." The results were made public May 15.

Once again Demokid, you're on the outside looking in when it comes to facts as they are and not how you perceive them to be in your head.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 19, 2009 06:25 AM
13. You're right Rick D. The left resists putting gay marriage on the ballot because they know the majority of Americans oppose it.

Similarly, Americans would never vote to force themselves to drive dinky, impractical little high mileage cars,(that will cost more, of course). So leftists mandate it once they get into office as Obama has done today.

Americans eventually will get sick of these leftist control freaks who want to take our liberty and tell us how to live our lives. Democrats know this which is why they want to push the Republican Party to the left. It's a con, and I just hope the dopes that run the Republican Party don't fall for it.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 19, 2009 07:27 AM
14. Oh and by the way, since Obama now mandates ridiculous high mileage standards guess what the liberals will also do? They will tax the heck out of gasoline to force people to buy high mileage little cars. This is the game these control freaks like "demo kid" play. And just as an aside, all those poor people that Obama promised tax relief to,(who weren't paying taxes anyway), are going to be paying more for everything. Are they going to be able to afford a $35,000 "green" car? Of course not. They will still be driving what they have and will end up paying $5.00 a gallon for fuel. They won't understand that the same policy inflates the cost of everything they buy. They won't understand that the Democrats are deliberately keeping them in misery so they can pander to them and blame "corporate America" for their plight. It's awfully sick, isn't it?

Next on their agenda is to control what you eat. They already propose a tax on soda pop. Watch as they levy a tax on red meat, potato chips, and anything else they find to be "unhealthful".

I've been mocked for predicting what the left will do when it gains power. No one is laughing now.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 19, 2009 08:55 AM
15. Yeah...dk @11, I'm calling Bailo a Liberal. You certainly don't think such a Lying confused IDIOT is anything toward a Conservative with the ridiculous statement he just made on how most Americans are OK with Gay marriages, do you? But then, you're a confused, standing in the dark Liberal and who doesn't know up from down nor can connect the dots.

Posted by: Daniel on May 19, 2009 09:13 AM
16. @12: I'm getting tired of people selectively reading and taking their incomplete conclusions as truth. Read the damn report. The belief that "abortion should ALWAYS be legal" polls at 23%, and the the belief that "abortion should NEVER be legal" polls at 22%. Fringe positions. Likewise, domestic partnerships consistently poll with a significant majority, and there is a slight plurality against amending the US constitution to deal with gay marriage. Not to mention overwhelming support for gay adoption, gay in the military, nondiscrimination against gays, and so forth.

Not to mention that Republicans are hemorrhaging across the board, in ALL demographic groups.


@13: Do you approve or disapprove of marriage between whites and colored people?

Approve: 4%, Disapprove: 94%, No opinion: 3%

-- Gallup Poll, 1958 Sep 24-29

Man, it's a good thing we waited until a national majority decided that anti-miscegenation statutes were a bad idea... in the 1980s.


@14: Are they going to be able to afford a $35,000 "green" car?

Just about as well as they can afford a $35,000 Escalade with 12 mpg.

Of course not. They will still be driving what they have and will end up paying $5.00 a gallon for fuel.

They're probably going to be paying $5 a gallon anyway, even more if growth in demand isn't tempered with new fuel standards... upgrading the fleet to be more fuel efficient now will improve things later.

Next on their agenda is to control what you eat. They already propose a tax on soda pop. Watch as they levy a tax on red meat, potato chips, and anything else they find to be "unhealthful".

It's a sin tax, on what amounts to corn syrup and water in a can. It isn't even really a "sin tax", since the amount is miniscule.

I've been mocked for predicting what the left will do when it gains power. No one is laughing now.

Bull. You're still plenty mockable.


@15: Well, at least there's a bipartisan position he and I can agree on: you're a lunatic.

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2009 09:40 AM
17. Gee, demo liar @16...getting a disconnected insult from you is so..devastating. You don't know what Bailo's position is, concerning my mental cognitive state. Unless, you're one and the same person. You're are such a Dumb Sot. You must remember, that the Liberals are at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to awareness and truth.

Posted by: Daniel on May 19, 2009 10:01 AM
18. "It's a sin tax, on what amounts to corn syrup and water in a can. It isn't even really a "sin tax", since the amount is miniscule."

Exactly, "demo kid". It's all about your snotty, elitist, sick desire to control how people live. Admit it, "demo kid" you people love to tell other people how to live. It's what gets you high. It's why people become socialists and communists. It isn't about the "common good", it's about power over other people.

If you were involved in actually providing a good or service that people want or desire,(which defines the progress of the civilized world that allows you to blog away at your computer), you would not be a socialist.

I'll keep saying it over and over: The left attracts angry, unhappy people that live to control how the rest of us live. That comment from "demo kid" about "corn syrup and water in a can" tells it all. These people are judgemental nasty little nannies, and are about as much fun as ants at a picnic.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 19, 2009 10:05 AM
19. @17: I'm guessing his opinion isn't too far off mine, given that I doubt he enjoys being called a "liberal" by some whackjob that can't seem to lay off the shift key.


@18: These people are judgemental nasty little nannies, and are about as much fun as ants at a picnic.

It's about taking an item that has proven health impacts, and applying a tiny tax to cover the costs of dealing with some of those impacts. It's called "being responsible" about covering other people's fat asses (quite literally). This isn't, say, a "espresso tax" where coffee drinks are taxed for education.

And has anyone proposed a tax on meat for this purpose? I'm waiting for your proof.

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2009 10:22 AM
20. @16: I'm getting tired of people selectively reading and taking their incomplete conclusions as truth.
Umm, I think you said the following: "Opposition to ALL forms of gay marriage...ARE fringe positions."

How many different forms of "gay marriage" are there exactly? You have yet to cite one gallup poll showing a majority of Americans support "gay marriage", the reason why is, there isn't any.

The belief that "abortion should ALWAYS be legal" polls at 23%, and the the belief that "abortion should NEVER be legal" polls at 22%. Fringe positions.

The reality is that the "pro-life" position is trending upwards rapidly while similarly, the anti-life position is losing ground significantly. These latest polls showed an 8 point upswing from just last August and shows that the younger generations are indeed affirming life unlike their parents before them.

Likewise, domestic partnerships consistently poll with a significant majority, and there is a slight plurality against amending the US constitution to deal with gay marriage.
Your cited source for this statement is where? Also, why are you using the term 'domestic partnership' here while above you used the 'All forms of gay marriage' argument.
Those moving goalposts again with demokid.

Not to mention overwhelming support for gay adoption, gay in the military, nondiscrimination against gays, and so forth.
Again, where is your national poll backing this statement up?

Posted by: Rick D. on May 19, 2009 10:29 AM
21. This is great. "demo kid" says "It's about taking an item that has proven health impacts, and applying a tiny tax to cover the costs of dealing with some of those impacts.

Then...I am not making this up...he says, "And has anyone proposed a tax on meat for this purpose? I'm waiting for your proof.

Yeah, liberals never say a word about the "impacts" of eating red meat. Who are you kidding "demo kid"?

As I say "demo kid" you are all about dictating how people live their lives. You are all about taking away individual liberty. You want to control behavior for the good of the "state". You and your buddies are nasty nannies that get your jollies controlling how we live. The Democratic Party is where you people naturally gravitate.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 19, 2009 10:37 AM
22. @19...You may have mistakenly stumbled on to a bit of truth when, you state that you doubt that Bailo enjoys being called a Liberal. Yes, there are Liberals who are embarrassed to be called and to be revealed as Liberals. After all, Liberals are the same class of people who blindly follow any despot such as, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim II Sung etc. They are the people who have proudly waved and continue to do so, the banner of destruction throughout World history. They currently stand four-square behind the wholescale killing of babies by the millions. Not only that, they also, demand that the Tax Payer pay for such killings. It has been proved that there is little to no distinction between the Liberal class and the Criminal class. A survey on those who are filling our prisons, have been found to be 87 percent Liberals. I strongly suspect the percent is actually, in the high 90s. Yes strangly enough, there are some who are ashamed to be referred to as a Liberal. However, not you. You are proud to be known as a Liberal. What a Surprise.

Posted by: Daniel on May 19, 2009 10:50 AM
23. @20: Umm, I think you said the following: "Opposition to ALL forms of gay marriage...ARE fringe positions."

"All forms of gay marriage" include domestic partnerships, which are apparently the same in everything but name in the way they are outlined to most people.


How many different forms of "gay marriage" are there exactly? You have yet to cite one gallup poll showing a majority of Americans support "gay marriage", the reason why is, there isn't any.

Again, another case of read the damn report. It's the SAME POLL:

http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Domestic partnerships (if it can be assumed that gay marriage supporters support that as well) win out in a FOX News poll, 66% to 29%.


The reality is that the "pro-life" position is trending upwards rapidly while similarly, the anti-life position is losing ground significantly. These latest polls showed an 8 point upswing from just last August and shows that the younger generations are indeed affirming life unlike their parents before them.

A nine-percent upswing shows that moderate Republicans are defining themselves with that label, NOT that they believe that ALL abortion (or even MOST) should be illegal. Again, small (21-22%) groups hold the extreme positions, which is reasonably stable, while the rest hold a more nuanced view.


Your cited source for this statement is where? Also, why are you using the term 'domestic partnership' here while above you used the 'All forms of gay marriage' argument.

Those moving goalposts again with demokid.

It's not "moving the goalposts" as much as acknowledging that it is an issue with shades of grey and not absolutes. Opposition to all forms of gay marriage, including civil unions (which are declared illegal according to amendments to the constitutions of some states), IS a minority view.


Not to mention overwhelming support for gay adoption, gay in the military, nondiscrimination against gays, and so forth.

Again, where is your national poll backing this statement up?

See the link.


@21: This is great. "demo kid" says "It's about taking an item that has proven health impacts, and applying a tiny tax to cover the costs of dealing with some of those impacts.

Four cents on a can of soda doesn't quite amount to "highway robbery". In fact, I'd bet that if they didn't tell you, you wouldn't notice it.


Then...I am not making this up...he says, "And has anyone proposed a tax on meat for this purpose? I'm waiting for your proof.

No similar tax on meat you can find, eh?


Yeah, liberals never say a word about the "impacts" of eating red meat. Who are you kidding "demo kid"?

What I'm saying is that a tax on red meat has never been seriously proposed. Can you dispute that?


As I say "demo kid" you are all about dictating how people live their lives. You are all about taking away individual liberty. You want to control behavior for the good of the "state". You and your buddies are nasty nannies that get your jollies controlling how we live. The Democratic Party is where you people naturally gravitate.

There's a difference between nudging behavior in one direction and trying to lessen impacts on all of us, and micromanaging your life for you by banning soft drinks altogether just for kicks (which would be a "nanny state"). Frankly, I don't care if you sit in a house and spend all day hitting yourself in the face with a hammer, but if the government is going to pick up the tab for emergency services to take you to the hospital when you're done, I'd expect that you'd pay your fair share.

Likewise, this is actually *more* fair than a regular tax; if you drink less sugery soda and you're healthier, why should you pay into a system that you'll be using less, on average? Isn't fair allocation of costs an issue here?


@22: Do you even have a point? I really should just ignore you. You really are crazy.

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2009 11:43 AM
24. "What I'm saying is that a tax on red meat has never been seriously proposed. Can you dispute that?"

Yes, http://purduephil.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/meat-tax-will-protect-the-environment-says-peta/

And if you don't think all kinds of taxes designed to control how we live will be proposed once we have national healthcare you are lying to yourself.

Look at how you frame the argument. It is the "social cost" argument you leftists use to mandate bike helmets and seatbelt use. You'll stretch that argument until you meddle with every facet of our lives. I feel sorry for young guys now, they can't even have their girlfriends sit next to them in their cars thanks to you killjoys. In England leftists propose banning sharp edged knives.

But admit it, "demo kid", telling people what to do is what you enjoy. That fundamental truth is what separates socialists, liberals, communists, and nazis from people who enjoy liberty. If you believed in liberty you wouldn't wake up every day thinking about how to control the way the rest of us live.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 19, 2009 12:40 PM
25. @24: What I'm saying is that a tax on red meat has never been seriously proposed in Congress. PETA may be serious, but unless you can point me to an actual power bloc in Congress that's willing to push that, I'll file that in the "That's Never Going To Happen" folder, right up there with the one world currency.


And if you don't think all kinds of taxes designed to control how we live will be proposed once we have national healthcare you are lying to yourself.

In some ways, Pigouvian taxes are a better way of dealing with issues than an outright ban. If you want to do something, that's fine, but you need to offset the cost to everyone else around you. If you want to drive around without a helmet, that's great, but you should at least be willing to pay for the time of the poor EMS worker that needs to scrape your brains off of the pavement when you crash.

And again, you're diverting into irrelevant topics to the issue at hand. The knife ban in England was ONLY PROPOSED BY DOCTORS, not mandated as official policy. (Although there are limits to children being able to buy knives... do you object to that?) The quip about guys that "can't even have their girlfriends sit next to them in their cars" is unsubstantiated garbage.

And meddling? It's a CONSERVATIVE justice on the Supreme Court that has proposed that Americans do not have the right to privacy, not a liberal one.

I also need to take a point from your total for the mindless "nazi" reference! Ad hominem attacks are merely the sign of a weak position...

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2009 01:29 PM
26. Why don't you simply mandate that everyone riding in a car wear a helmet, "demo kid". Surely that would reduce injury and the time EMS workers have to spend scraping brains off the pavement.

You just don't get it. You people on the left are controllers. You like telling people what to do, what to eat, and what they can say, (political correctness, "demo kid"?). That's really the truth isn't it, "demo kid"?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 19, 2009 01:45 PM
27. demo liar...The use of the term "Nazi" to reflect the term "Liberal" is very correct. The Nazi aka National Socialist Party was indeed, a Liberal party. If you give Liberals runaway control of this Nation it will be just as cruel as the Nazi party. Thank GOD for our Constitution or we would have long ago succumbed to the Liberal reign and idea of Utopia.

Posted by: Daniel on May 19, 2009 01:51 PM
28. "The quip about guys that "can't even have their girlfriends sit next to them in their cars" is unsubstantiated garbage."

Well not exactly. It's entirely true isn't it "demo kid". I'm sure you never have driven around with your girlfriend sitting next to you. It's a part of Americana you liberals have outlawed with your "click it or ticket" mentality. You probably aren't old enough to even remember, are you?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 19, 2009 02:02 PM
29. @27: The use of the term "Nazi" to reflect the term "Liberal" is very correct. The Nazi aka National Socialist Party was indeed, a Liberal party.

I could just as easily make the same comparisons between the Republicans and the Nazis: overreliance on nationalism to achieve political goals, the creation of gulags overseas, increased surveillance, creation of a feared "enemy" to keep people in line, throwing people in prison for years without charges. Spouting off like a madman about how liberals are like Nazis is unsubstantiated, and pure hyperbole.

Then again, you're not one for rational thought. Go put the tinfoil hat back on.


@28: Well not exactly. It's entirely true isn't it "demo kid". I'm sure you never have driven around with your girlfriend sitting next to you. It's a part of Americana you liberals have outlawed with your "click it or ticket" mentality.

I'm waiting for your proof. Show me where it is illegal in the United States for my girlfriend to sit next to me in a car. I'm sure she'll be thrilled to hear that one.

Otherwise, you're just lying to make your point.

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2009 03:09 PM
30. "All forms of gay marriage" include domestic partnerships, which are apparently the same in everything but name in the way they are outlined to most people.

No, if it was about "domestic partnerships", there wouldn't be such a hissy fit about usurping the word "marriage" as is currently defined. This is the whole argument about this issue, the gays can't simply be satisfied without also infringing on the term marriage.
If this isn't about marriage, there simply isn't anything to quibble about as they get everything but the right to call it a "marriage".


http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Apparently you're confused. The first poll on that link has this:
Same-Sex Marriage, Gay Rights

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 14-17, 2009. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ? 3.

.
Question posed:

"Do you think gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?"( 5-14-09 thru 5-17-09)

Yes: 45%
No : 54
Unsure 1%

Opposition to all forms of gay marriage, including civil unions (which are declared illegal according to amendments to the constitutions of some states), IS a minority view.

Once again, you're confusing "gay marriage" with civil unions. The two are not interchangeable to gay groups. The question asked was simple. The results unanimous- 54-45 nay

Posted by: Rick D. on May 19, 2009 03:25 PM
31. "I'm waiting for your proof. Show me where it is illegal in the United States for my girlfriend to sit next to me in a car. I'm sure she'll be thrilled to hear that one."

You must either be too young or just plain dense, "demo kid"

I'm old enough to remember when we had bench seats in cars with no government mandated seatbelts. So when you went out with your girlfriend she snuggled up next to you on the seat. She wasn't strapped into place the way liberals have mandated. It's a small thing maybe, but something nice you liberals have ruined. Thanks a lot.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 19, 2009 03:42 PM
32. You can talk around in circles all you want and it still does not remove the fact that Nazis are Liberals, plain and simple. However, there is no need to limit Liberals to Nazis. Liberals are Marxist, Communist and any other despotic followings as well. But, of course, you're a known Liberal Liar and will spout any nonsense to cover yourself and Liberals in general from any scrutiny. You and your kind have always been a bane to mankind.

Bill Cruchon never stated that it was illegal for a girlfriend to sit next to someone while driving. What was implied, was that it would be difficult to do so if he was strapped to one side of the car and she was strapped to the other side of the car. I'm sure you got his implication but, since your a Liar, you ignored his implication, twisted his meaning and tried to make a Liar out of him. Typical Liberal tactic. With Liberals no method of distorting the Truth is beneath them. Something you...demo liar has proved time and time again.

Posted by: Daniel on May 19, 2009 03:43 PM
33. @30: Apparently you're confused. The first poll on that link has this:

Look at the SECOND question.


This is the whole argument about this issue, the gays can't simply be satisfied without also infringing on the term marriage.

Let me get this straight... a poll clearly shows a majority supporting what YOU YOURSELF define as "marriage in all but name", but a majority of people are "against gay marriage". So what you're saying is that "marriage" boils down to a single word for you, and nothing else? That all the rights and privileges have nothing to do with it?

Sheesh. You're trying to defend how people use a word, and nothing more. You've pretty much already lost that battle, though... plenty of gays and lesbians consider themselves married even if it isn't legally recognized.


Once again, you're confusing "gay marriage" with civil unions. The two are not interchangeable to gay groups. The question asked was simple. The results unanimous- 54-45 nay

54 to 45% isn't unanimous, sport. And saying that other people think that it is "not interchangeable" is more that they just want to call it what it is if it does grant all the rights and privileges of marriage.


@31: No, show me where it is illegal for my girlfriend to sit next to me in my car. You didn't say "snuggling".

Besides... even with your intended meaning, I'd sure as hell rather have her belted in than flying out the windshield, thank you very much. Are you seriously arguing that your significant other should be rubbing up against you in the middle of traffic as opposed to, well, being in a good position to survive in an accident?

Dude, I pity your poor girlfriends.


@32: You can talk around in circles all you want and it still does not remove the fact that Nazis are Liberals, plain and simple.

Now you're just amusing. It is what it is because you say it is? Sorry... go home.

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2009 04:46 PM
34. Bill, I'm happy for you to not wear a seatbelt. As long as your insurance fully covers your medical bills and you don't land on anyone if you're thrown from the car.

Heck, I'm even happy if motorcyclists don't wear helmets - they're just organ donors on the foot so to speak.

What's interesting to me is reading folks here now that have found religion in polling when it appears to confirm their own opinions, having for so long been criticizing polling repeatedly when it doesn't.

Daniel can even dismiss a poll in his post #9 and quote a poll in his post #22 without skipping a beat. I know it's easy to hold contradictions in your head - I just thought it harder to write them down.

Posted by: BA on May 19, 2009 05:50 PM
35. Look at the SECOND question.

Okay, the 2nd poll has those approving of a "legal marriage" of gays @ 33%. So 62% are against "gay marriage" and 5% are confused.

So what you're saying is that "marriage" boils down to a single word for you, and nothing else?
No, 1 man and 1 woman is a couple of words.

That all the rights and privileges have nothing to do with it?
So change the state constitution that restricts this type of marriage in its statute. Since this should really be a states rights issue anyway, wouldn't it make sense for proponents to gather signatures and put it on the ballot? If you, as you claim here, believe a majority of Americans are okay with gay marriage, why the hesitation to put the issue on a ballot here in "so blue its purple" Washington state?

You've pretty much already lost that battle, though... plenty of gays and lesbians consider themselves married even if it isn't legally recognized.
Good, now they can quit whining about why we should allow them to usurp the definition of marriage. If you want to change the state constitution, do it through the people and not some judge legislating from the bench.


Posted by: Rick D. on May 19, 2009 06:08 PM
36. When, I say that it is a Fact that Nazis are Liberals, plain and simple...It is a Fact that is denied by no reputable source. However, your position is filled with lacking of reputable sources and outright Lies. But then, it is expected of a class A Liberal Liar like yourself.

Posted by: Daniel on May 19, 2009 06:09 PM
37. @35: The second poll puts those that approve of EITHER gay marriage OR domestic partnerships at 66%. But again, you said yourself that aside from the name, there is no difference, right? In that case, we're talking about two different issues. I'm addressing all of the rights and privileges of marriage, and you're addressing the name alone.

No, 1 man and 1 woman is a couple of words.

No... saying "domestic partnership" means a majority, "marriage" doesn't. But if they mean exactly the same thing legally, what's the point? It's just a word, then.


Since this should really be a states rights issue anyway, wouldn't it make sense for proponents to gather signatures and put it on the ballot?

As I said above, it worked so well for interracial marriage. If we had waited until a majority supported equal protection under the law, we'd have been waiting until the mid-1980s.

But aside from that, it is an equal protection question, and not a states' rights or popular vote one. Plenty of things in our system are important, but would not pass a plebiscite. (That goes for things that BOTH the left and the right support.)


Good, now they can quit whining about why we should allow them to usurp the definition of marriage.

Damn whiners, asking for equal protection under the law... who do they think they are, anyway? CITIZENS?

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2009 06:22 PM
38. @36: OK... how about this? Ball is in your court. Provide a specific source for specific points that you're making. At least one.

Otherwise, you can fume in peace. I'm not going to feed your insanity.

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2009 06:24 PM
39. Hey BA...I hold you at a higher level than the disingenuous sewer crawler demo liar. Demo liar is so far gone in his darkness that he has no idea as to where it is at. Government to him is his mommy and daddy and can rarely do no wrong. He is a blind useful Idiot who has shown himself wanting on many posts. However, if you want to embrace him and call him one of your own, you will have taken a serious downward plunge. A plunge to the depth of which you may never recover.

Posted by: Daniel on May 19, 2009 06:30 PM
40. @39: Rant... rant... rant. Put up or shut up, dude.

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2009 06:34 PM
41. OK, demo liar....Nazis are Liberals. We all know that Conservatives are for small Government and as little as possible intrusion into an individuals life. Liberals like Big Government, it's rife with social programs, regulations into infinity and entitlements. Conservatives spend conservatively, liberals spend liberally. History has shown, in spades, that the Nazis aka Liberals were for an all controlling Big Government that did intrude into individuals life to the tune of killing millions. History is the most reputable source one can find...It HAPPEN!

Posted by: Daniel on May 19, 2009 06:57 PM
42. @42: Source? Besides, of course: (Daniel's Hyperbolic Ranting, c.2009).

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2009 07:00 PM
43. I must conclude from your #42 post, that you have completely lost your mind.

Posted by: Daniel on May 19, 2009 07:09 PM
44. @43: Saying...

Nazis are Liberals.... History is the most reputable source one can find...It HAPPEN!

doesn't prove your point. WHY are "Nazis" "liberals"? Heck, even drawing a few arguments from Jonah Goldberg's execrable book "Liberal Fascism" would be welcome at this point, instead of this incessant rambling.

(Note as well that it doesn't quite seem as if any of your conservative comrades-in-arms are engaging you in back-and-forth either... what does that tell you?)

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2009 07:16 PM
45. "But again, you said yourself that aside from the name, there is no difference, right?"
In this state? No, not as of yesterday anyway.

In that case, we're talking about two different issues.
No, I'm talking about "gay marriage" and you're lumping civil unions, legal partnerships and legal marriages into one big cauldron in an attempt to gin up support for a "a majority of Americans support gay marriage" argument that isn't there.

No... saying "domestic partnership" means a majority, "marriage" doesn't.
um , Huh?? You asked what the term "marriage" boiled down to, I provided it.

But if they mean exactly the same thing legally, what's the point? It's just a word, then.
Then why the caterwauling in attempt to usurp the word marriage when they already have "civil unions" "legal partnerships", "domestic partnerships", etc, etc.

As I said above, it worked so well for interracial marriage.
Apples and oranges argument, but you already knew that.

...it is an equal protection question, and not a states' rights or popular vote one.
No, there is no equal protections clause argument since the definition of marriage is not contained in the U.S. constitution...ergo, it's a states rights issue.

Damn whiners, asking for equal protection under the law... who do they think they are, anyway? CITIZENS?
We established why this emotional argument is meritless above.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 19, 2009 07:26 PM
46. If History doesn't prove anything to you, nothing will. I suppose your a Holocaust denier as well. I don't depend on any comrades-in-arms to support me. I'm am able to defend myself against your insipid ramblings well enough. However, they are always welcomed. On the same token....Where are your supporters? Any at all...what does that tell you?

Posted by: Daniel on May 19, 2009 07:29 PM
47. What originally caught my eye was the sentence early in this string about Eagle Scouts...once the rank is earned you are one forever.

Agreed.

But of course, hard to say anyone here is an Eagle Scout - I'd be surprised - since the 12 points of the Scout Law are clearly not guiding anyone's writing in this string.

"Doing your best" isn't an excuse to fall up short, any more than confession and forgiveness is an excuse to sin.

I'm not embracing any of you.

Posted by: BA on May 19, 2009 07:30 PM
48. @46: If you're not going to say anything, why should I respond?


@47: What originally caught my eye was the sentence early in this string about Eagle Scouts...once the rank is earned you are one forever.

True, unless you happen to come out of the closet as gay, agnostic or atheist. I largely support the goals of the organization, but I think it's a lousy thing to kick someone out because they're willing to be honest about who they are. I've known people that have lied to stay in, and people who have told the truth and been shown the door. It's not fair.

But yes, Daniel is leaping and screaming over semantics.


But of course, hard to say anyone here is an Eagle Scout - I'd be surprised - since the 12 points of the Scout Law are clearly not guiding anyone's writing in this string.

Competition and debate shouldn't be misconstrued as flying in the face of those beliefs. In fact, I'd argue that it does keep one "mentally awake" to be forced to defend one's beliefs in the lion's den. Why else would I do it?

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2009 07:51 PM
49. Good for you BA...I knew you stood taller than a particular someone.

Posted by: Daniel on May 19, 2009 07:54 PM
50. @45: Here's the problem with your argument, though. On one hand, you're arguing that gay marriage and domestic partnerships are the same: gay couples have the same rights, they shouldn't "whine" about not having "marriage" since civil unions are "separate but equal", and so forth. On the other, you're arguing that there is some difference: you assume that the folks that said that they supported civil unions but not gay marriage "oppose" gay marriage, even though they pretty much support it in everything but name, and you complain about "the gays" taking the name "marriage" for their unions.

So I'm really not following here. If a majority of folks support, at the very least, domestic partnerships that provide the same rights to gay couples as straight ones, if these gay couples can go through a religious ceremony and call themselves "married", and if they form households in much the same way as straight couples, then what is the use of calling gay partnerships something OTHER than "marriage"? They pretty much ARE married, but you're essentially suggesting that there is something intrinsic about the word alone that should be reserved for straight people.

The religious argument doesn't quite jive, either. I was raised Catholic, and I couldn't marry a non-Catholic and have it considered "valid" without special dispensation from the bishop. There's nothing that has ever suggested that the law will be used to force clergy to marry people that do not meet the requirements of their church.

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2009 08:03 PM
51. @48...I have made statements that were clear and to the point. You wish to deny my having made such statements because, you can't repute them. Again, more disingenuous side-stepping on your part.

Posted by: Daniel on May 19, 2009 08:09 PM
52. @51: "Refute", not "repute". And you're arguments are FAR from clear! How exactly can I refute anything when your arguments amount to "I'm right because I'm right"? Ranting is not proof.

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2009 08:33 PM
53. @ 48 :
I largely support the goals of the organization, but I think it's a lousy thing to kick someone out because they're willing to be honest about who they are.

Does this include 'curves'? the workout facility for women only? Personally, i'm okay with private clubs doing this since, again, they are private clubs.

What I do find offensive is that we have in public government, entities the likes of the "National black caucus" and "national conference of black mayors" or some other alienating group that seeks to segregate into groups which I thought was the reason segregation was outlawed in the first place, especially in public institutions of government.

@ 50 : As the top law enforcment official in the state,Christine Gregoire should, of course, adhere to the current state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, right? The wording in the current statute is very clear:
"The following marriages are banned".

My argument is less of a religious argument than it is a legal one. If you want the states constitutional language to change to accept such currently banned marriages, there are procedural avenues to effect this change. Gather enough signatures to appear on a ballot and have the people of Washington vote up or down on the measure.

As for my parsing of words on the language of "partnership", "union", "marriage" etc. ,you could say the same for your abortion argument earlier re: 51% of Americans find themselves pro-life. Only in my case, I'm merely upholding the meaning of what constitutes a "legal and lawful marriage" under the states definition of the institution of marriage.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 19, 2009 08:39 PM
54. Your Lying through you teeth again. No surprise there. Bring forward one compete comment that was posted that did not have clear meaning and was limited to "I'm right because, I'm right.

By the way thanks for the correction. Hopefully, grammar and spelling to you is not more important than substance. To some Liberals, it is.

Posted by: Daniel on May 19, 2009 08:48 PM
55. Well, demo liar...I'm waiting for you to reply to my request @54. Can't do it and support your Lies of me just ranting without substance? You can't put up so, you decided to Shut Up? How unfortunate for you. What a Joke!

Posted by: Daniel on May 19, 2009 09:25 PM
56. @53: Does this include 'curves'? the workout facility for women only? Personally, i'm okay with private clubs doing this since, again, they are private clubs.

How is that relevant? I wasn't arguing that the BSA should admit women, or that they should be required by law to admit gays... I'm stating that I don't like the policy, and I don't think that it's fair. You're welcome to your opinion, I'm welcome to mine.


What I do find offensive is that we have in public government, entities the likes of the "National black caucus" and "national conference of black mayors" or some other alienating group that seeks to segregate into groups which I thought was the reason segregation was outlawed in the first place, especially in public institutions of government.

They're political blocs based on common interests. Why does this offend you so much? Do you actually think that every elected representative can effectively address the needs of communities that they're not a part of?


As the top law enforcment official in the state,Christine Gregoire should, of course, adhere to the current state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, right?

We're not talking about that. Answer the question: if domestic partnerships are okay but marriages are not, what is the difference?


My argument is less of a religious argument than it is a legal one. If you want the states constitutional language to change to accept such currently banned marriages, there are procedural avenues to effect this change. Gather enough signatures to appear on a ballot and have the people of Washington vote up or down on the measure.

I'm not asking about this issue as it specifically applies to Washington State. Again, answer the question: what is the difference between "domestic partnerships" and "gay marriage"? If there is none, and you support domestic partnerships, why do you care what it's called?


As for my parsing of words on the language of "partnership", "union", "marriage" etc. ,you could say the same for your abortion argument earlier re: 51% of Americans find themselves pro-life. Only in my case, I'm merely upholding the meaning of what constitutes a "legal and lawful marriage" under the states definition of the institution of marriage.

Just as with that, you're assuming that things are black-and-white when the reality is more nuanced. But again, I'll ask: what is the difference? I can define the difference between "no abortion under ANY circumstances" and "abortion under some restrictions". Can you define the difference between "gay marriage" and "domestic partnerships"?


@54: Your Lying through you teeth again. No surprise there. Bring forward one compete comment that was posted that did not have clear meaning and was limited to "I'm right because, I'm right.

Where should I start? I'll even number them:

#1: It is well known even, among Liberals, that it is not the vast majority of Americans who are for gay marriages and abortions. In fact, there is no pole that says so whether, it is from a Liberal Lie Site or not.

#2: A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll showed 49 percent support nationwide for gay marriage. ABC is a Liberal news outlet and even they will not admit to the most Americans statement that you made. Of course, there is far less support for gay marriage than the bloated 49 percent.

#3: It has been proved that there is little to no distinction between the Liberal class and the Criminal class.

#4: The Nazi aka National Socialist Party was indeed, a Liberal party.

#5: You can talk around in circles all you want and it still does not remove the fact that Nazis are Liberals, plain and simple.

#6: Liberals are Marxist, Communist and any other despotic followings as well.

(I should note here that calling someone a "Nazi" AND a "Communist" is not only inaccurate, but absolutely wrong. Anyone that knows anything about history can tell you that.)

#7: With Liberals no method of distorting the Truth is beneath them. Something you...demo liar has proved time and time again.

#8: However, your position is filled with lacking of reputable sources and outright Lies. But then, it is expected of a class A Liberal Liar like yourself.

Not seeing any sources, not seeing any proof. Are you going to pony up? Or are you just going to whine that I'm a "liar", while ignoring the fact that you're just ranting with no point and no proof?

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2009 10:20 PM
57. All those statements are based on common knowledge and Truth. What you have to do is find a reputable source that refutes with accuracy, anything that I have said. This is something you can't do or you would have done so a long time ago.

You claiming that I said, you can call someone a Nazi and a Communist as though they were one and the same is another of your total Lies trying to usurp my credibility by twisting my words into something I never said. Again, a typical Liberal disingenuous tactic. I never said anything of the kind. Nazi and Communist have a different format but, the bottom line is that the supporters of the various formats of the Nazi and Communist are all Liberals. Liberals are the Easy Believers and Lemmings of this World and have and will follow the despots of this World whether, they be Nazi, Marxist, Fascist, Communist, etc. Any con man will tell you a Liberal is always the easier mark and target for their spiel. Liberals stand in the darkness without GOD's given Light to see Truth. Although, there are some who have some of that Light. Anybody who wishes to lift himself from the darkness should pray to GOD for the Light, for without the Light, you will continue to stumble in the darkness. The more Light you receive, the more Truth you will realize. Some have a little, some have more. It all depends on the level of your Blessings.

Posted by: Daniel on May 19, 2009 11:20 PM
58. @57: All those statements are based on common knowledge and Truth. What you have to do is find a reputable source that refutes with accuracy, anything that I have said. This is something you can't do or you would have done so a long time ago.

Seriously? That's EXACTLY what I was arguing: that you're claiming that you're right because "you're right".

You call me a liar, and then offer NO proof. I link to a set of polls, and you say that they're not credible, but don't provide any information of your own. Absolute garbage.

So I'm done. Spout off all you like... you have no credibility and you're not worth anyone's time. I may strongly disagree with these other folks, but at least most try to MAKE their points instead of ranting and rambling and throwing around baseless accusations and insults.

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2009 11:41 PM
59. You have been done with me before. So, what else is new. You can Google as easily as I can and find so-called support on both sides of the issue. Is that Proof? You haven't linked me to any polls. Your Lying again. I told you if you could find a reputable source that refutes with accuracy of anything I said, you would have done it a long time ago. So far, you have never sent me a link that refutes any of my statements. For you to have said that you have is just, another Lie amongst your many Lies. The bottom line is: If you can't recognize nor have the basic understandings as to where it is at...It is you, that is a waste of time. I call them as I see them. You are a Liar. You know that you are a Liar. So, don't feign surprise and insult when, someone calls you a Liar. After all, I'm not the only one who has called you a Liar. Bottom Line: If you can't stand the Heat....Get out of the Kitchen!

Posted by: Daniel on May 20, 2009 12:12 AM
60. @59: I told you if you could find a reputable source that refutes with accuracy of anything I said, you would have done it a long time ago.

I'm bringing this on myself by feeding into your delusional, schizophrenic game, but I posted a link to a set of polls above, and explained that a vast majority of folks support at least domestic partnerships for gay couples, which is decidedly against many Republicans' perspectives on gay marriage.

In fact, these numbers are continuing to trend upward:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/gay-marriage-by-numbers.html

So did you refute this all in any way? No. Your rebuttal instead was:

ABC is a Liberal news outlet and even they will not admit to the most Americans statement that you made. Of course, there is far less support for gay marriage than the bloated 49 percent.

Any polls quoted? No. Any source that confirms the numbers were "bloated"? No. English language butchered? Oh yes.

And don't give me that crap about "you can Google as easily as I can". Use whatever evidence you like, but everything that you've said is baseless. You haven't proven ONCE that I've lied about anything, and you haven't proven anything that you've said, except by saying "All those statements are based on common knowledge and Truth". Quite frankly, I don't think that you'd know truth and common sense if they bit you on the butt.

So in the end, you're nothing more than a fraud. Go ahead and call me a liar... I don't take insults too personally if they're thrown by deranged fools. :)

Posted by: demo kid on May 20, 2009 01:11 AM
61. How is that relevant?
It's relevent because 'curves' doesn't allow men to work out in their private facilities, just as Augusta national golf course disallows women from their private membership (though there are two on the waiting list). I'm sure you have two differing opinions on the above two even though they both have similar policies of exclusion from their club with respect to gender. Tell me I'm wrong.

I wasn't arguing that the BSA should admit women, or that they should be required by law to admit gays... I'm stating that I don't like the policy, and I don't think that it's fair.

You don't have to like the policy. It's a private club that excludes openly gay scouts and scoutmasters (for obvious reasons with scoutmasters) on religious grounds that the organization was founded on. Fair, unfair, if you don't like it you are more than welcome to start your own private scouts organization without the excusionary policy. That's America.

They're political blocs based on common interests. Why does this offend you so much?
Because in every other aspect of public life, segregaton is not allowed. Apparently you have a sliding scale of acceptability of segregating races. In public schools you agree there shouldn't be segregation, while in public government, sure, why not? Seems fairly inconsistent doesn't it?

Do you actually think that every elected representative can effectively address the needs of communities that they're not a part of?
You've never heard of a poor, white constituent in a mostly black community? I really don't care about the existence of a voting bloc, my problem is with the labeling by color. National Urban caucus accomplishes the same thing without the exclusion by color. You at least agree with me on this point, right?

We're not talking about [Gov.Gregoire adhering to legal statutes].
We aren't? So she's above the law and can declare any relationship she sees fit as a "marriage"? I don't think so and you know it. But nice attempt to muddy the legal reality that same sex marriages are currently banned by RCW statute.

I'm not asking about this issue as it specifically applies to Washington State.
Why? it's a states rights issue. This is just a reality some can't get past.

"Again, answer the question: what is the difference between "domestic partnerships" and "gay marriage"?
The former is legal, the latter is illegal in Washington state.

If there is none, and you support domestic partnerships, why do you care what it's called? I didn't say I supported domestic partnerships, I simply said it was legal as of yesterday with the governor signing the "everything but marriage" bill. As I said above, the difference is one of legality as you can see by the naming of the bill.

Can you define the difference between "gay marriage" and "domestic partnerships"?
:: sigh :: I hate repeating myself ad nauseum.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 20, 2009 05:56 AM
62. Demo liar...I checked out your provided link on your post @60 and there was nothing earth shaking offered except for common commentary. What was your Point? I have proved and others have proved that you have Lied. These Lies have been pointed out to you time and time again but, it doesn't seem to matter to you and you never acknowledge the fact anyway. You just continue to ramble on in your mindless babbling. You have blown your credibility time and time again on this forum and others. Where are your supporters? You have none. Even the Liberals on these forums of late have not chimed in to support you. What does that tell you? One of your corner stone Lies is when you stated that you were an Eagle Scout. What a Joke? Nuff Said.

Posted by: Daniel on May 20, 2009 08:42 AM
63. "Besides... even with your intended meaning, I'd sure as hell rather have her belted in than flying out the windshield, thank you very much. Are you seriously arguing that your significant other should be rubbing up against you in the middle of traffic as opposed to, well, being in a good position to survive in an accident?

Dude, I pity your poor girlfriends."

Doesn't this statement from "demo kid" tell us everything we need to know about the left? They want to stick their controlling noses into every facet of our lives, don't they? So a couple can't snuggle up on the seat like we used to because of "demo kid" fears that the lady might end up "flying out the windshield". Oh for crying out loud!

This is exactly what I'm talking about. "Demo kid" is nothing more than a typical leftist control freak. Don't you just love liberals? They have no qualms about killing innocent unborn babies in the womb and yet these same kooks want you strapped into your car seats and force you to wear a helmet while bicycling. Creepy.

I bring up this kind of thing just to simply illustrate what a bunch of controllers these leftists really are. They oppose personal liberty. They want the state to dictate how we live our lives. They want to tell us what to drive,(as Obama did yesterday), and what to eat and drink. These people aren't "liberals" or "progressives" they are socialist nanny controllers.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 20, 2009 09:49 AM
64. It's relevent because 'curves' doesn't allow men to work out in their private facilities, just as Augusta national golf course disallows women from their private membership (though there are two on the waiting list). I'm sure you have two differing opinions on the above two even though they both have similar policies of exclusion from their club with respect to gender. Tell me I'm wrong.

They are for two fundamentally different purposes: Augusta is excluding women for the sake of excluding women, while Curves is excluding men to keep them from ogling women working out. Intent plays a role in my book. To me, there is no substantive reason for women to be excluded from a golf club just as there should not be a reason to exclude a potential African-American or Jewish member. On the other hand, having a single-sex gym seems as reasonable as a single-sex locker room or bathroom.

There have been lawsuits in both cases, though, and I think that people have the right to file them if they so choose.


You don't have to like the policy. It's a private club that excludes openly gay scouts and scoutmasters (for obvious reasons with scoutmasters) on religious grounds that the organization was founded on. Fair, unfair, if you don't like it you are more than welcome to start your own private scouts organization without the excusionary policy. That's America.

Hmmm. Did I say that it was anything but my opinion?

And given that women are allowed to be scoutmasters, I'm not really seeing the "obvious reason" for excluding gay men.


Because in every other aspect of public life, segregaton is not allowed. Apparently you have a sliding scale of acceptability of segregating races. In public schools you agree there shouldn't be segregation, while in public government, sure, why not? Seems fairly inconsistent doesn't it?

You're taking "segregation" without any sense of what it means. Representation of different interests is hardly "segregation", given that these groups are not mandated parts of the government, have no designated power beyond that of a "legislative service organization", and are not the only official means for these groups to have their voices heard. It's free association. You might as well be saying that the Republican caucus is discriminatory because it normally excludes non-Republicans.


You've never heard of a poor, white constituent in a mostly black community? I really don't care about the existence of a voting bloc, my problem is with the labeling by color. National Urban caucus accomplishes the same thing without the exclusion by color. You at least agree with me on this point, right?

I'm actually not completely unsympathetic, since I think that representatives from majority black districts could be allowed into the CBC. Still, assuming that a member of a majority group can completely understand a different cultural group to the point of effectively promoting their goals from a personal perspective isn't too reasonable. Should Deval Patrick be let into the Western Governors Association? Should Rick Santorum have been a member of the LGBT Equality Caucus?


We aren't? So she's above the law and can declare any relationship she sees fit as a "marriage"? I don't think so and you know it. But nice attempt to muddy the legal reality that same sex marriages are currently banned by RCW statute.

My question isn't about Washington law, it's about the general concept: if domestic partnerships are the same as marriage but people support domestic partnerships and not gay marriage, what is the difference between the two in people's minds? What are people voting to protect?


Why? it's a states rights issue. This is just a reality some can't get past.

"States' rights" is a cop-out. Protecting rights is not an issue that should go for a simple majority vote.


I didn't say I supported domestic partnerships, I simply said it was legal as of yesterday with the governor signing the "everything but marriage" bill. As I said above, the difference is one of legality as you can see by the naming of the bill.

But you also said that "the gays" should stop "whining", because they pretty much have all the rights of regular married couples. If that is the case, then what is the problem with it being considered "marriage" and not "civil unions"? I'm not talking about the legal fine print, either: if people vote down gay marriage but support "domestic partnerships" that provide the same rights, what are people voting to defend? A name? Is that reasonable?

And getting back to the main point of this thread, if you don't support it but two-thirds of Americans do, how wise is it to try to make it a cornerstone of party loyalty?


@62: Prove that I've lied in your next post (with proof). Semantics about earning an Eagle Scout award don't count as "proof". Likewise, what proof would be acceptable for you to show you that I did earn the Eagle Scout award? (Any that wouldn't attract a crazy person to me IRL, of course.) There aren't too many secret handshakes or codewords in the BSA.

Posted by: demo kid on May 20, 2009 10:03 AM
65. Get Real!...demo liar. It's not about semantics, it's about making a statement that you Were an Eagle Scout...Period! Words have meanings. An Eagle Scout would have NEVER made such a statement. No need to go further than that....Nuff said.

Posted by: Daniel on May 20, 2009 10:25 AM
66. Wow... when forced to back up your accusations, you chicken out. Why should anyone listen to you again? Because you say so?

Sheesh. I know feeding the trolls (or rather, the other trolls) is stupid, but if you're going to accuse me of being a liar, the least you could do is back it up. So you can go back to Posting with Random Capitalization... I'm not dealing with a libelous piece of crap that didn't quite read that part of the Bible about "bearing false witness".

Posted by: demo kid on May 20, 2009 11:15 AM
67. @64:
(how did I know I'd trip you up on this inconsistency with logic)

They are for two fundamentally different purposes:
Congratulations. Yes, one is for golf and one for working out.

Augusta is excluding women for the sake of excluding women, while Curves is excluding men to keep them from ogling women working out.
A- How do you arrive at that conclusion?
B- Why is that relevent to exluding someone by gender?
C- As a private club, Couldn't one argue that 'curves' serves more of a public need as they have more facilities around the nation and thus, should not exlude on gender alone? Augusta on the otherhand is simply one golf course in Georgia. See your inconsistency here?

To me, there is no substantive reason for women to be excluded from a golf club just as there should not be a reason to exclude a potential African-American or Jewish member.
Again, you completely go out to left field for your comparisons using the old race card. I'm talking apples/apples and you're talking Grapefruits/bowling balls. Obviously, if curves, as a private club, can exclude men...why do you have a problem with Augusta excluding women?

On the other hand, having a single-sex gym seems as reasonable as a single-sex locker room or bathroom.
...Um, are you sticking with that desperate attempt at logic or can we laugh now?

[the congressional black caucus is] free association. You might as well be saying that the Republican caucus is discriminatory because it normally excludes non-Republicans.
No, it's not free associatin when the very name is exclusionary. The only way your point would make sense is if the Republicans had a "White, male caucus", as the name "Republican" is not, in itself, and exclusionary word.


if domestic partnerships are the same as marriage but people support domestic partnerships and not gay marriage, what is the difference between the two in people's minds?
You seem to not be able to get over this legal reality. Marriage in Washington state among same-sex couples are banned. This dead horse is tasting like glue already.

"States' rights" is a cop-out. Protecting rights is not an issue that should go for a simple majority vote.
No, states rights is reserved for those issues that don't appear in the constitution. As for protecting rights, there is no guarantee of a right to marry. There are legal and lawful marriages and they vary by state- Washington bans those types of marriages.
in re: majority vote:
Don't we vote the Governor and State Senators by "a simple majority vote"? Could have sworn we did in this state. Where am I wrong on this?

If that is the case, then what is the problem with it being considered "marriage" and not "civil unions"?
If they have everything but the word, isn't it silly to keep complaining you're being denied a "RIGHT"??? Does to me, as there is no right to marry, that we can at least agree on.

...if you don't support it but two-thirds of Americans do..

54% Nay
45% Yea

Your numbers don't bear out the reality of the question posed about it being a "Constitutionally guaranteed right to marry", which was the question. Your mistake is conflating the term marriage with "union", "partnership", etc. I understand why'd you'd use this tactic, but it's disingenous as the debate is regarding the specific word "marriage".

Posted by: Rick D. on May 20, 2009 12:29 PM
68. @67: (how did I know I'd trip you up on this inconsistency with logic)

Hardly.


Congratulations. Yes, one is for golf and one for working out.

What i'm saying is that IN MY OPINION, one is reasonable, one is not. Does the Augusta Golf Club provide ANY reason why women could not join, other than "that's the way we've always done it"? Maybe if they were a pantsless golf club, I might see the reasoning.


A- How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Well, it's a broad conclusion of course, and a little hyperbolic. Still, what reason does the Augusta Golf Club give? Any?


B- Why is that relevent to exluding someone by gender?

I'm saying that it is a reason, just as I can see why public facilities wouldn't have unisex bathrooms. Again, does Augusta even HAVE a reason?


C- As a private club, Couldn't one argue that 'curves' serves more of a public need as they have more facilities around the nation and thus, should not exlude on gender alone? Augusta on the otherhand is simply one golf course in Georgia. See your inconsistency here?

"Public need"? That's a pretty shaky argument. It would apply for one or many. I'm saying that I can understand the reasons for Curves excluding men more than Augusta excluding women. But hey... I'm not saying that they shouldn't sue in court either way.


Again, you completely go out to left field for your comparisons using the old race card. I'm talking apples/apples and you're talking Grapefruits/bowling balls. Obviously, if curves, as a private club, can exclude men...why do you have a problem with Augusta excluding women?

I'm saying that there is a REASON why they set up the policies at Curves, and no reason given to set up a policy like that at Augusta. It's the same thing as excluding African-American folks from membership... there's no substantive reason to do it.


...Um, are you sticking with that desperate attempt at logic or can we laugh now?

I'm saying that there are certain cases where divided facilities are appropriate. Again, I doubt that anyone would be interested in unisex locker rooms at gyms. (Well, SOME people would be interested... but probably not for good reason.)


No, it's not free associatin when the very name is exclusionary. The only way your point would make sense is if the Republicans had a "White, male caucus", as the name "Republican" is not, in itself, and exclusionary word.

You're really one for names, aren't you? I'd argue, though, that the Congress IS a "white caucus" when 1% of the Senate and 9% of the House are African-American in 2009, and that is the *highest* proportion in modern history.


You seem to not be able to get over this legal reality. Marriage in Washington state among same-sex couples are banned. This dead horse is tasting like glue already.

I'm talking about the general issue: what is the difference between gay marriage and domestic partnerships? Are you saying that there is no difference?


No, states rights is reserved for those issues that don't appear in the constitution. As for protecting rights, there is no guarantee of a right to marry. There are legal and lawful marriages and they vary by state- Washington bans those types of marriages.

Equal protection is the issue here, not how marriages are defined by each state. That is in the Constitution.


Don't we vote the Governor and State Senators by "a simple majority vote"? Could have sworn we did in this state. Where am I wrong on this?

And the rights of the minority are protected. Point? A simple 50%+1 vote doesn't strip away the rights of the 50%-1.


If they have everything but the word, isn't it silly to keep complaining you're being denied a "RIGHT"??? Does to me, as there is no right to marry, that we can at least agree on.

Again, equal protection. But you're missing the point... if it is equal, why not just call it marriage? Is the difference in polling simply because it's called something else? And if that's the case, what's the legal point of keeping a WORD exclusive?


Your numbers don't bear out the reality of the question posed about it being a "Constitutionally guaranteed right to marry", which was the question. Your mistake is conflating the term marriage with "union", "partnership", etc. I understand why'd you'd use this tactic, but it's disingenous as the debate is regarding the specific word "marriage".

Add the "approves gay marriage" in with the "approves domestic partnerships", and you get two-thirds. You're stating that there's no difference, right? If you take away the name "marriage", you get a majority of people that think that gay couples should be legally recognized.

Posted by: demo kid on May 20, 2009 04:02 PM
69. Maybe if they were a pantsless golf club, I might see the reasoning.
Very weak counter, Demokid. Almost too laughable of a comment to reply to since both the male golfers and women working out are both clothed.
I have to admit, I never figured you for a prude.

Still, what reason does the Augusta Golf Club give? Any?
They don't need one. They're a private club remember?

"Public need"? That's a pretty shaky argument.
Not half as shaky as your seeming "everybody's working out naked" argument. It actually is a better one since this is a concern that came up recently at work. A man needed to undergo Physical therapy for an injury and lived somewhere in eastern washington.His wife wrote saying that the only close place for them to go was a 'curves' workout spa and didn't allow men. It was fresh on my mind and that's why I used this as example of gender exclusion that if we're going to apply it for one "private" club, it would need to apply for ALL "private" clubs.

I'm saying that there is a REASON why they set up the policies at Curves, and no reason given to set up a policy like that at Augusta.
And I just gave you a reason above why one could make an argument for it not to be. A hell of alot more compelling reason than "I don't like guys ogling my ass".

I'm saying that there are certain cases where divided facilities are appropriate.
Yes, and I'm saying that if you're going to ban one, you need to ban them all. If Augusta national has to open its doors to women members (which is already in the process of doing), then why should 'curves' be allowed to continue with its gender exclusion policy?

You're really one for names, aren't you? I'd argue, though, that the Congress IS a "white caucus" when 1% of the Senate and 9% of the House are African-American in 2009, and that is the *highest* proportion in modern history.
Argue all you want and read into it what you'd like, but the "Republican caucus" is not as racial segregating of a body as "national BLACK Caucus". Besides, in this day and age, I thought we weren't supposed to be "trippin on the race thing". Being that these are government bodies, the infraction is even more egregious.

I'm talking about the general issue: what is the difference between gay marriage and domestic partnerships? Are you saying that there is no difference?
No, the words 'marriage' and partnership are not synonomous. Besides, since they have everything but the word 'marriage', it's kind of silly for them to continue on with this issue in this state anyway.
I say "turn the page".

Equal protection is the issue here, not how marriages are defined by each state. That is in the Constitution.
There is no "equal protection" argument. If there was one, it would have been addressed long before now through the courts.

And the rights of the minority are protected. Point?
There is no "right to marry" so your point is moot.

But you're missing the point... if it is equal, why not just call it marriage?
Why not simply let the matter rest since they now have all the legal protections that "marriages" provide in this state? At some point, its merely being petty and irrational.

...what's the legal point of keeping a WORD exclusive?
Because it's in the statute prohibiting it. Like I've said before, if you want it changed, there are any number of ways to make that happen. It hardly seems worth the effort since it is now apparent it's more about "getting one over" on the heteros and usurping one simple word they use to describe their relationship.

If you take away the name "marriage", you get a majority of people that think that gay couples should be legally recognized.
Legally recognized falls short of "marriage". The poll was very explicitly asking to differentiate between each category offered.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 20, 2009 07:09 PM
70. Very weak counter, Demokid. Almost too laughable of a comment to reply to since both the male golfers and women working out are both clothed.

I'm saying that I can understand the reasoning better than Augusta, not that I think that it's legal. You still haven't provided a reason why Augusta should have been excluding women. In BOTH cases though, lawsuits have been filed and won, as they should be.


They don't need one. They're a private club remember?

And Curves isn't? As far as I can tell, you pay a fee and get services from both.


Not half as shaky as your seeming "everybody's working out naked" argument. It actually is a better one since this is a concern that came up recently at work. A man needed to undergo Physical therapy for an injury and lived somewhere in eastern washington.His wife wrote saying that the only close place for them to go was a 'curves' workout spa and didn't allow men. It was fresh on my mind and that's why I used this as example of gender exclusion that if we're going to apply it for one "private" club, it would need to apply for ALL "private" clubs.

You just stated that Augusta didn't need a reason, but Curves did. "Need" is irrelevant. If the closest place to workout for a woman was Augusta, and she couldn't get a membership, would you support her in that situation?

I agree that in both cases, gender exclusion is against the law. My argument, however, is that Augusta doesn't have a good reason for excluding women, while Curves can at least state why they want to exclude men.


And I just gave you a reason above why one could make an argument for it not to be. A hell of alot more compelling reason than "I don't like guys ogling my ass".

Why is saying, "No girls allowed in the He-Man Women Haters' Club ever!" more compelling than "I'd prefer to exercise in spandex while guys aren't around trying to pick me up?"


Yes, and I'm saying that if you're going to ban one, you need to ban them all. If Augusta national has to open its doors to women members (which is already in the process of doing), then why should 'curves' be allowed to continue with its gender exclusion policy?

It doesn't. In many cases, Curves IS open to men. If individual franchises are not, then they should be under the law, and lawsuits have been fought and won to that effect.


Argue all you want and read into it what you'd like, but the "Republican caucus" is not as racial segregating of a body as "national BLACK Caucus". Besides, in this day and age, I thought we weren't supposed to be "trippin on the race thing". Being that these are government bodies, the infraction is even more egregious.

And this is why cultural / ethnic issues are a problem in the US. These issues still matter in the US, and to assume that a "colorblind" society is immune to them is wrong. Denying the right of free association to a group trying to represent these needs simply because YOU assume that they are over is not your call to make.

As to whether it's segregation... is it imposed by law? Until there are rules stating that all African-American members of Congress MUST join the CBC, and their power MUST only be used through that Caucus, it isn't segregation. Do I think that it could be opened up to non-black members representing African-American districts? Sure... but it isn't MY call, and it is not MY right to impose my way of doing things on this group.


No, the words 'marriage' and partnership are not synonomous. Besides, since they have everything but the word 'marriage', it's kind of silly for them to continue on with this issue in this state anyway.

Answer the question. If they aren't "synonymous", but they are the same except for the word, then what's the point of NOT calling it marriage?


There is no "equal protection" argument. If there was one, it would have been addressed long before now through the courts.

The ENTIRE argument is based on equal protection: some couples cannot enter into a legal contract that others can enter into.


There is no "right to marry" so your point is moot.

There is no "right to a driver's license" or "right to enter into a contract", either. The "right" involved is equal protection under the law.


Why not simply let the matter rest since they now have all the legal protections that "marriages" provide in this state? At some point, its merely being petty and irrational.

What is "petty and irrational" is having a legal institution that is everything BUT marriage, and not calling it marriage simply because you want a monopoly on a WORD. Again, answer the question: if they are the same, why call them something different? And I'm not talking about the statute... I'm talking about in practice. Why the difference?


Because it's in the statute prohibiting it. Like I've said before, if you want it changed, there are any number of ways to make that happen. It hardly seems worth the effort since it is now apparent it's more about "getting one over" on the heteros and usurping one simple word they use to describe their relationship.

I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT THE STATUTE. I'm talking specifically about the issue. If the institution, BY YOUR ADMISSION, is the same, why call it something different in practice? Because you like the name, and you don't want "the gays" to use it?


Legally recognized falls short of "marriage". The poll was very explicitly asking to differentiate between each category offered.

But it gave no definition of what "partnerships" are, and the margins supporting full gay marriage are close as it is in that poll. Given as well that there is overwhelming support for other gay rights (adoption, military service, anti-discrimination, etc.), it isn't too much of a leap to assume that the only thing keeping people from approving of gay marriage is the word "marriage".

The data isn't there to assess WHY some people support domestic partnerships and not gay marriage. Still, getting back to the main point, building a party on the basis of a position that two-thirds of the country is opposed to doesn't quite seem like the best way of drawing folks back into the fold.

Posted by: demo kid on May 21, 2009 11:48 AM
71. You still haven't provided a reason why Augusta should have been excluding women.
I support both of these private clubs personally. You're the one with the inconsistent position here by holding one to your standard of acceptance and not the other. I see no reason why either shouldn't admit anyone they choose not to, but that's because I believe in liberty, not necessarily fairness. There is no "right" to join a private club.

And Curves isn't[a private club]? As far as I can tell, you pay a fee and get services from both.
I was playing devil's advocate with the Augusta scenario. As I said, I support both clubs with their exclusionary policy.

You just stated that Augusta didn't need a reason, but Curves did.
No, I did not. I said if one is exempt from being opened up, then so is the other.

If the closest place to workout for a woman was Augusta, and she couldn't get a membership, would you support her in that situation?
How many women do you know that go to golf courses to work out? Besides, Augusta DOES let women golf on their courses, they just can't be members. Curves on the other hand does not let men either workout, nor be members. OOOPS.

My argument, however, is that Augusta doesn't have a good reason for excluding women, while Curves can at least state why they want to exclude men.
Does have a good reason for you maybe, but it still doesn't justify the exclusion if that is the criteria we are holding private clubs too. I support both, you support one despite the exact same exclusionary policy towards gender.

And this is why cultural / ethnic issues are a problem in the US. These issues still matter in the US, and to assume that a "colorblind" society is immune to them is wrong.
But isn't this the utopian view that liberals hold? How can our government expect it from its citizens when segregation exists within our government bodies? It can't.

Denying the right of free association to a group trying to represent these needs simply because YOU assume that they are over is not your call to make.
You're denying a private club its free association to group. Why can't I ask that a color specific public entity be expected to include participation from others?
You said at 68 the following: "I'm saying that there are certain cases where divided facilities are appropriate."
That attitude of public segregation sounds a whole lot like the argument for this
back in the 1960's doesn't it? I do.

As to whether it's segregation... is it imposed by law? Until there are rules stating that all African-American members of Congress MUST join the CBC, and their power MUST only be used through that Caucus, it isn't segregation.
No, segregation does not imply a legal status. It is what it is. I don't think there was a cop stationed at those drinking fountains to ensure no coloreds drank at the "whites only" water fountain and No, they wouldn't have been arrested if they had. As for the "blacks only" CBC, you realize it's segregation and you know its also color exlusionary in its name so why keep up with the ruse with these weak defenses of a public government body resorting to this open discrimination?

Do I think that it could be opened up to non-black members representing African-American districts? Sure... but it isn't MY call, and it is not MY right to impose my way of doing things on this group.
Of course, you think it's YOUR call to demand that August National, a private club, opens its doors to women. Too funny, Demokid. You want to hold a private entity to your standards, but not a public government entity. Nice try, but your arguments get weaker and more desperate with each post.

I'm not continuing the twisted pretzel logic on the Gay debate either. As I suspected, this was never about gaining the rights that "married" people have, because they have them. It's about usurping the word marriage. Which is petty and insolent behavior.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 21, 2009 01:03 PM
72. Rick D...I must commend you for your tremendous patience in dealing with this unfortunate confused soul. However, he will hold fast to his position no matter how well nor how often it is explained to him the errors of his position. Any honest person would realize he was off track and would thank you for the corrections but, not this person. He wants to hold on to his misconceptions until death does he part.

Posted by: Daniel on May 21, 2009 01:35 PM
73. @72: Couldn't put up, but you just can't shut up, can you? :)


@71: I support both of these private clubs personally. You're the one with the inconsistent position here by holding one to your standard of acceptance and not the other. I see no reason why either shouldn't admit anyone they choose not to, but that's because I believe in liberty, not necessarily fairness. There is no "right" to join a private club.

I don't have an inconsistent positions. You have a right to equal treatment and freedom from discrimination based on irrelevant aspects of your background. But I understand why some folks may want that, though, and I sympathize when I think the reasons are good. Doesn't mean that they shouldn't be challenged, though.


How many women do you know that go to golf courses to work out? Besides, Augusta DOES let women golf on their courses, they just can't be members. Curves on the other hand does not let men either workout, nor be members. OOOPS.

In fact, they do let men be members in some locations, and they should in others. But "letting women onto their golf courses" isn't the same as allowing them to be members. Discrimination is discrimination.


Does have a good reason for you maybe, but it still doesn't justify the exclusion if that is the criteria we are holding private clubs too. I support both, you support one despite the exact same exclusionary policy towards gender.

I understand the reasons behind one, but not the other. Doesn't make EITHER legal, but I wasn't talking about legality. I support any lawsuit to stop discrimination.


But isn't this the utopian view that liberals hold? How can our government expect it from its citizens when segregation exists within our government bodies? It can't.

Urggh. Being willfully blind to the fact that there are genuine differences in culture within our country is NOT a "liberal utopian view". "Colorblindness" is not an objective in a fair society; equity is.


You're denying a private club its free association to group. Why can't I ask that a color specific public entity be expected to include participation from others?

A "color specific" entity, which is not the only "color specific" entity in the Congress that represents a distinct cultural group in the US. There are no bylaws with the CBC to prevent anyone else from joining, and many folks that are not African-Americans are honorary members. Still, it begs the question: should a caucus support the membership of someone if they have no fundamental standing or interest in the goals of that caucus? An avowed driver in the Bicycle Caucus, perhaps? A pro-life activist on the Pro-Choice Caucus? Kucinich on the House Army Caucus?

Aside from that, I'm waiting for an explanation as to how excluding women from a country club is rational and legal, but having African-American legislators band together as a bloc to address issues specific to the African-American community is not.


That attitude of public segregation sounds a whole lot like the argument for this back in the 1960's doesn't it? I do.

Then bring on the unisex locker rooms and bathrooms!


No, segregation does not imply a legal status. It is what it is. I don't think there was a cop stationed at those drinking fountains to ensure no coloreds drank at the "whites only" water fountain and No, they wouldn't have been arrested if they had. As for the "blacks only" CBC, you realize it's segregation and you know its also color exlusionary in its name so why keep up with the ruse with these weak defenses of a public government body resorting to this open discrimination?

You pretty much just stated that discrimination like that is okay, as long as it takes place in a private club. Still, as I said, having standing can be an important part of these caucuses. What relevance would the Congressional Black Caucus have to the African-American community if its membership were stacked with white folks?


Of course, you think it's YOUR call to demand that August National, a private club, opens its doors to women. Too funny, Demokid. You want to hold a private entity to your standards, but not a public government entity. Nice try, but your arguments get weaker and more desperate with each post.

For someone who thinks that discrimination is okay, you're certainly going after your ideological opponents hell bent for leather on the same points... so I'm interested in how you can accuse me of being inconsistent when your position shows that SAME inconsistency.

Still, as I said, it seems relevant that to be a member of an organization, you should have some standing. If Augusta only accepted members that could golf, for example, that is just fine. In the case of the CBC, they have no official stance on non-black membership, and quite frankly I do agree with the idea that having a white member or two would not be the end of the world for them. But does that mean that they should simply let anyone who wants to join the opportunity to do so?

This whole discussion also involves certain differences of culture that you (and I) DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Resistance to the idea of having white members is not simply about being exclusionary... it is rooted in certain specific issues related to underrrepresentation in government and social institutions.

But I don't really detect any nuanced view on cultural issues in your responses, so describing that might just be a lost cause.


I'm not continuing the twisted pretzel logic on the Gay debate either. As I suspected, this was never about gaining the rights that "married" people have, because they have them. It's about usurping the word marriage. Which is petty and insolent behavior.

Again, you're calling this "petty and insolent" when you admit that it is ONLY ABOUT ONE WORD. Who exactly is being "petty" when you're ONLY splitting hairs about one word alone? If both "marriage" and "domestic partnerships" were redefined as "civil unions" under the law, would that make it okay, then?

Posted by: demo kid on May 21, 2009 04:01 PM
74. I don't have an inconsistent positions.
You do, but apparently you can't process it.

Discrimination is discrimination.
Then why the existence of the "Congressional Black caucus" in our governing body? Once again, you're completely inconsistent in your position.

I understand the reasons behind one, but not the other.
Right, one is a bunch of old, white men. The default group most hated among liberals like yourself, so you don't need a valid reason, just some made up one.

Being willfully blind to the fact that there are genuine differences in culture within our country is NOT a "liberal utopian view".
So you're defending the segregated water fountains in order to support the genuine difference right?

There are no bylaws with the CBC to prevent anyone else from joining, and many folks that are not African-Americans are honorary members.
"honorary members" but can't caucus with them, right? Discrimination with a caveat...too funny.

I support any lawsuit to stop discrimination.
So if a white member of congress sued to be included in the "black caucus" bloc, you'd support that as well correct?

I'm waiting for an explanation as to how excluding women from a country club is rational and legal.
It's rational because it's a private club...it's legal because it has never been successfully challenged in court.

You pretty much just stated that discrimination like that is okay, as long as it takes place in a private club.
It was good enough for Governor Gregoires sorority, of which she was president. Meanwhile, you're defending discrimination in our body of government that says "discrimination is banned" [unless we're doing it].

For someone who thinks that discrimination is okay...
No, I said I have no problem with a "private club" to be allowed to have the membership of their choosing. You think the same only you reserve your "private clubs" to be in the same government that passes "discrimination laws". Too amusing for words.

...so I'm interested in how you can accuse me of being inconsistent when your position shows that SAME inconsistency.
No, I say private clubs are under no authority to adhere to governments standards of "discrimination" when that very discrimination goes on in that body of government. I'm completely consistent in my views because I say if you are going to ban discrimination in ONE private club, you are then obligated to BAN discrimination in ALL private clubs. You disagree with a very weak argument of "I don't want some man ogling my ass on the stairmaster". Weak as hell argument for discrimating, but I support their right to do so as long as everyone is kept to those same discerning rules.

But does that mean that they should simply let anyone who wants to join the opportunity to do so?
Why not? You can say the same thing about some fat and out of shape couch potato that doesn't know how the machines work going into the "curves" club. Is she out of her element? Should she be banned because she isn't fit and can't relate to the 50 other members who are slim, trim and active? Again, another weak argument you use to try to hand wave your assent to discrimination by the CBC.

But I don't really detect any nuanced view on cultural issues in your responses
Yeah, I'm just married to a hispanic woman. How could I ever relate to cultural issues?


Posted by: Rick D. on May 21, 2009 06:50 PM
75. Talk about not being nuanced on their cultural issues, I give you the Congressional Black Caucus. A blatantly racist organization:

In January 2007, it was reported that white members of Congress were not welcome to join the CBC.[5] Freshman Representative Steve Cohen, D-Tn., who is white, pledged to apply for membership during his election campaign to represent his constituents, who were 60% black. It was reported that although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, former and current members of the Caucus agreed that the group should remain "exclusively black." Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-Mo., the son of Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, is quoted as saying, "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the Caucus is black. It's time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It's an unwritten rule. It's understood." In response to the decision, Rep. Cohen stated, "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in."
Source: Wiki on the CBC

So, Demokid. Will you be backing up your earlier quote of "discrimination is discrimination"? or make excuses for racism in the American governing body?

Game, Set, Match

Posted by: Rick D. on May 21, 2009 07:23 PM
76. Make special note of the party affiliation. As Shanghai Dan would say, "hypocrisy is thy name".

Members of the racist Congressional Black Caucus during the 111th Congress:

Senate

Roland Burris, Democratic - Illinois

House of Representatives
Representative Party State

Congressional District
Sanford Bishop Democratic Georgia - 2nd
Corrine Brown Democratic Florida - 3rd
G. K. Butterfield - Secretary Democratic North Carolina - 1st
Andre Carson Democratic Indiana - 7th
Delegate Donna Christian-Christensen - 2nd Vice Chair Democratic U.S. Virgin Islands - At-large
(non voting congressional delegate)
Yvette Clarke - Whip Democratic New York - 11th
William Lacy Clay, Jr. Democratic Missouri - 1st
Emanuel Cleaver - 1st Vice Chair Democratic Missouri - 5th
Jim Clyburn Democratic South Carolina - 6th
John Conyers, Jr. - Dean Democratic Michigan - 14th
Elijah Cummings Democratic Maryland - 7th
Artur Davis Democratic Alabama - 7th
Danny K. Davis Democratic Illinois - 7th
Donna Edwards Democratic Maryland - 4th
Keith Ellison Democratic Minnesota - 5th
Chaka Fattah Democratic Pennsylvania - 2nd
Marcia Fudge Democratic Ohio - 11th
Al Green Democratic Texas - 9th
Alcee Hastings Democratic Florida - 23rd
Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. Democratic Illinois - 2nd
Eddie Bernice Johnson Democratic Texas - 30th
Hank Johnson Democratic Georgia - 4th
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick Democratic Michigan - 13th
Barbara Lee - Chair Democratic California - 9th
Sheila Jackson Lee Democratic Texas - 18th
John Lewis Democratic Georgia - 5th
Kendrick Meek - Foundation Chairman Democratic Florida - 17th
Gregory Meeks Democratic New York - 6th
Gwen Moore Democratic Wisconsin - 4th
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton Democratic District of Columbia - At-large
(non voting congressional delegate)
Donald M. Payne Democratic New Jersey - 10th
Charles B. Rangel Democratic New York - 15th
Laura Richardson Democratic California - 37th
Bobby Rush Democratic Illinois - 1st
Bobby Scott Democratic Virginia - 3rd
David Scott Democratic Georgia - 13th
Bennie Thompson Democratic Mississippi - 2nd
Edolphus Towns Democratic New York - 10th
Maxine Waters Democratic California - 35th
Diane Watson Democratic California - 33rd
Mel Watt Democratic North Carolina - 12th

Posted by: Rick D. on May 21, 2009 07:49 PM
77.
Then why the existence of the "Congressional Black caucus" in our governing body? Once again, you're completely inconsistent in your position.

I'm arguing that a bloc in government advocating for a cultural group is not "segregation". You're arguing that if a private club wants to be "whites only", it can be. Who is advocating for "segregation" here again?

Besides, it's just about as much a part of the "governing body" as the Congressional Cycling Caucus. The CBC has a grand total of 40 (voting) members out of 535 in Congress, but absolutely no official power whatsoever.


Right, one is a bunch of old, white men. The default group most hated among liberals like yourself, so you don't need a valid reason, just some made up one.

You still haven't given me ONE reason why you think that Augusta should rationally be able to exclude women. ONE. And "just because" isn't a reason.

And I don't hate old white men, since I hope to be one myself someday. I just don't assume that by default, old white men deserve to be given special treatment.


So you're defending the segregated water fountains in order to support the genuine difference right?

There's a difference between being realistic about how people come from different backgrounds, and excluding folks based specifically on irrelevant aspects of their background. You're the one that suggests that "private clubs" could have the segregated water foundations, NOT me.


"honorary members" but can't caucus with them, right? Discrimination with a caveat...too funny.

Again, what is the point of having a voting bloc that represents a minority cultural group comprised of folks from the dominant group in society?


So if a white member of congress sued to be included in the "black caucus" bloc, you'd support that as well correct?

Actually, I would! I personally don't think that a white member would detract from the goals of the CBC, as the Asian Pacific American Caucus has non-Asian members. However, it's a fundamental difference in culture, and I can recognize why African-American folks might disagree.


It's rational because it's a private club...it's legal because it has never been successfully challenged in court.

The definition of a "private club" is very narrow, and doesn't simply mean "non-governmental". Curves isn't covered under the umbrella of a "private club", and its policy has been challenged succesfully in court. I haven't been following the case of Augusta closely to the point where I know of all the cases that have been filed against it, but there are a number of examples of other country clubs that have been successfully sued under anti-discrimination laws.


It was good enough for Governor Gregoires sorority, of which she was president. Meanwhile, you're defending discrimination in our body of government that says "discrimination is banned" [unless we're doing it].

Funny enough, fraternities and sororities are actually covered under this notion of a "private club". But I'm saying that a voting bloc is distinctly different than an exercise club that is "whites only" or "women only". (Or "blacks only", or "men only", or whatever.) You're not going to be refused membership in the NAACP if you apply, for example.


No, I said I have no problem with a "private club" to be allowed to have the membership of their choosing. You think the same only you reserve your "private clubs" to be in the same government that passes "discrimination laws". Too amusing for words.

Again, a voting bloc versus folks that could post a sign saying "blacks need not apply" on the walls of a country club. You're saying that folks can discriminate as long as they aren't the government, but that cultural minorities with fundamentally different points of view should simply accept that they should be represented by members of the majority.


No, I say private clubs are under no authority to adhere to governments standards of "discrimination" when that very discrimination goes on in that body of government.

Tu quoque isn't a good move on your part, but you haven't even proven that it's discrimination in government. Might as well be claiming that the Republicans are discriminatory because they don't allow Democrats.


I'm completely consistent in my views because I say if you are going to ban discrimination in ONE private club, you are then obligated to BAN discrimination in ALL private clubs.

You can't even keep the definition of a "private club" straight.


You disagree with a very weak argument of "I don't want some man ogling my ass on the stairmaster". Weak as hell argument for discrimating, but I support their right to do so as long as everyone is kept to those same discerning rules.

Curves is a business, and they have no right to refuse service to someone just because they are a man. I sympathize with the reasons why they might try to be women only, and I find those reasons to be better than Augusta's, but it isn't legal under the law. Augusta may be able to slip through a loophole, but I wouldn't shed a tear if they had to admit women.


Why not? You can say the same thing about some fat and out of shape couch potato that doesn't know how the machines work going into the "curves" club. Is she out of her element? Should she be banned because she isn't fit and can't relate to the 50 other members who are slim, trim and active? Again, another weak argument you use to try to hand wave your assent to discrimination by the CBC.

You're conflating two different things that are not as comparable as you think. You COULD ban someone from a fitness club if they couldn't use the machines safely, but what would be the point of banning fat people from a club? It's an irrelevant aspect with regards to their membership. Same if they were black or Asian.

The Congressional Black Caucus is different. In many respects, I'd argue that it's the same issue as with Supreme Court appointments; I believe that the Court needs to represent multiple points of view, meaning that specifically selecting someone other than a white male is a good idea.


Yeah, I'm just married to a hispanic woman. How could I ever relate to cultural issues?

Point? You've pretty much displayed no grasp of any concepts here, aside from "why can't everyone just be like me?". I can play "some of my best friends" too, but at least I understand that not everyone needs to act like me.

Posted by: demo kid on May 21, 2009 08:36 PM
78. Demokid~ Reading your responses leads me to the position that I'm done arguing with a blatant hypocrite.

You defend institutional racism of a 40-50member group within our governmental system saying to the effect "they have a right to group and not allow others that aren't like them in" and then claim a group of private citizens who have set up their own private club of about 40-50 members should not be allowed to discriminate on their membership. If you can't see the basic inanity of your argument I simply can't help you. I've provided you blatant discrimination from the CBC and you give me nothing but excuses for it.

Is the government not held to the same standards of private citizens? Do they get a pass because they're a government body?

Your whole premise on this thread has been dissected and skewered point by point. No reason to keep chasing my tail trying to rationalize with the irrational any longer. Unlike yourself, apparently I simply don't have the expendable time necessary to go in circular debates.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 21, 2009 09:25 PM
79. Likewise. For you to call ME a hypocrite, and not see the hypocrisy in your own position is silly. You're essentially saying that discrimination is great, just as long as different cultural groups that you don't belong to try to organize into political blocs in government. I find that less a plea for fairness, and more a game of partisanship than anything else.

Posted by: demo kid on May 22, 2009 12:20 AM
80. I made a distinction between two entities, one public and one private:

1. Private clubs can and should remain private and have the members of their choosing without government dictating their membership. This is a simply an American thing to do. They have the right to peacefully assemble in whatever past time of their choosing. It hurts no one and is inherently what our forefathers sought in the phrase "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

2. Public clubs or in this case, the government body of the National Black Caucus/ National Latino Caucus, etc. should not and cannot be allowed to have the members of their choosing as they are a "public" group. This same public group writes laws outlawing the very practices that they themselves employ in their own governing body. Just as Public property is open to all, and private property is not, the same applies for private clubs and public clubs.

My position is simple. I would hope that private clubs would let persons unlike them in, but it is not incumbent upon them to do as I wish or you wish for that matter.

Government on the other hand is a different entity and should be held to higher standards of inclusion in their caucuses. There should be no caucuses that are exclusionary on the basis of Race, religion, creed, etc. as that is what they demand of other public institutions from the federal level on down to the municipalities.

I maintain your position is a hypocritical one because it dictates that those who make the rules are allowed to break the rules. I simply want one rule applied consistently across the board without nuanced excuses of why one group can't when anoteher group can.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2009 10:26 AM
81. Way down the line of comments here. Comments are good. Here's mine.

1. Social Conservatives have been kicked out of the republican party.

2. The Libertarian Party interests me. It interests many social conservatives. I have some things to say/suggest to Libertarians.

Libertarians have much deeper things to say than to legalize drugs and prostitution, but that's usually what we hear them saying. Talk about the deeper stuff... like the federalization of the medical establishment. or the federalization of education. or the corruption of our judicial appointments. or....Talk about Israel. Most Social Conservatives are very proIsrael. Tell us you support Israel, but want to let Israel do what it wants to do. Tell us you understand Islamic Jihad.

There's a lot of re-organization of politics going on right now. TeaParty goers don't have a leader, but many are trying. If Libertarians play their cards right, you could bring conservatives together. Quit majoring on drugs and prostitution. and... let us love babies.


Posted by: teapartygrandma on May 22, 2009 10:53 PM
82. In recent elections the name of Ronald Reagan was invoke with regard to many issues including Social Conservative ones.

However, there is a critical difference between now and then...and this impacts the popularity of these positions in winning elections.

In the 80s what conservatives asked for was freedom from regulations. They wanted to be able to say the word God. They wanted not to be forced to believe in statism and materialism.

Even freedom loving Liberals may have sympathized when the argument was made to let people express faith -- the same way others were allowed to express themselves.

The thinking in the '00s is perceived not as people yearning for free expression, but a desire to squelch other view points and use the power of the Federal Government to impose them on others.

Posted by: John Bailo on May 23, 2009 12:05 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?