fansince62 Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 how come so many of these great things the Left is in such ecstacy over didn't happen during the Clinton admin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Good question fansince. Is Congress more evenly aligned now (I am being lazy and don;t want to look it up)? Although, it appears that really its the SCOTUS thats making these decisions. Additionally, I would propose, that we now live in an era in which homosexuality is becoming more tolerated - despite the "caveman" appearances of some here. Will and Grace and Six Feet Under come to mind as critically acclaimed TV shows whose main characters are gay. Do you not feel that these same changes (or even greater) changes would have occurred if Gore was President now? Honestly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROSTY28 Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 And do you honestly think Dubya and his ultra-conservative friends supported these decisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Whats your point Frosty? Do only those that support ANY and ALL fringe beliefs and cultural attitudes deserve to have an opinion? Apparently so. I'll say it for the hundredth time...the majority...its a scary thing ain't it? You guys talk out of both corners of your mouth. As fan pointed out in another thread, it was the 'ultraconservative' and 'Bush Administration dominated' Supreme Court that recently ruled in direct opposition to the President's (and your mythical conservative shadow government) personal values and belief systems. So again, what is your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROSTY28 Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Do only those that support ANY and ALL fringe beliefs and cultural attitudes deserve to have an opinion? Of course not. Everybody has a right to their own opinion, no matter what their beliefs. And it's my opinion that Bush and much of his administration are further to the right than the Dad from Footloose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 4, 2003 Author Share Posted July 4, 2003 what is disturbing about much o this is the dishonesty of the Left....this is much more than some open-ended and twisted interpretation of PRIVACY that the framers had no remote "intention", to borrow Kurp's parry in another thread, of addressing. I predicted that this was simply the first step in an orchestrated attemopt at achieving poliytical ends - and that is what is happening. and if anyone seriously believes this won't have enormous costs you are either disingenuous or lazy. two guys live together. they have no real intention to marry, but because it is now a sanctioned bond, they marry anyway to achieve tax and other benefits. they now warrant insurance benefits that issue from married status. what do you think is going to happen to the cost of insurance and who do you think is going to pay? all of us. wal mart is about to recognize gay marriages - according to some article I recently read but can't find. wal mart's costs will rise because of this. moreover, the odds are better than even that major competitors will follow suit. who pays for the increased costs? stand by....there is more about this than just who gets to slip the big banana to whom. btw....you environmentalists out there who celebrate the pristine sanctity of nature (of which we are but one part).........just a small thought....do you think the rectum was designed ("intended" by nature or our creator), to be used in the fashion that is now omni omni'd by SCOTUS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 The sky is falling. The sky is falling! Seriously Fan, Couple of questions: You seem to think people will just get married for tax purposes. It's odd that you say that, but ignore that heterosexuals can do it. Do they? Why do you think it will be worse for gay couples? Insurance? Yup, the insurance industry has just colapsed in Vermont. Oh and I'm sure the University of MD had lost all insurance coverage. UM has recognized civil unions for gay couples for the past 2 years. Fan since 62, I think it's interesting that you feel the reaction is a comming. Has it occured to you that this may BE THE REACTION? Seriously, the supreme court would never have had a case to rule on without some homophobic neighbors and cops in Texas acting on common phobias. Has it occured to you that this may be the beginning of a reaction to the way homophobic people have made it okay to belittle gays and treat them as second class citizens? It just so happnes the current reaction is strong enough to have impact DESPITE the religous right and their president (who admittidly is trying to do as little as possible and maintain their support). And you can't seriously expect us to give Bush credit as he conciders a constitutional amendment or after he writes friends of the court briefs against the the positions on the left. After he argues, you expect the left to give him credit because he lost? Seriously? This is all happening in spite of him not because of him as you suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 5, 2003 Author Share Posted July 5, 2003 it must be comforting to be so progressive!! you may have contempt for the right, or religious elements by virtue of your superior "moral" insights - but there are lots of them just the same. they are part of our society. just as the left fought what they perceived to be the excesses of the social conservatives.........the left's agenda will be fought also. who said anything about the insurance industry collapsing? getting a little extemporaneous with our assaults on logic are we? I said that it would cost us more. what heterosexuals do is irrelevant to the argument. I did assert in other threads that the recent and profound intellectual insight that anal intercourse is a "right" was merely a stepping stone to political ends. there is an effort afoot...it had lost steam for a lengthy while....to change our society according to the lights of one "enlightened" group. it is neither the dominant view nor the ascendant view. i saw this struggle before in the 60s and on into the early 70s. the fight ought to prove interesting and entertaining. who knows....the left may even find ways to accomplish its agenda other than through the courts!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. D Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 it is interesting to see so many viewpoints crammed into the "right" or the "left" tends to polarize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 Personally, I dont think who the current president is or might have been makes a difference. As a society, we will get over our lack of understanding and in time we will be more tolerant. It's just slower for some. Once the "fear" is gone, once everyone realizes you can't "catch gayness" or what ever else the flavor of the month is, people will relax and go on about their business. 10 years ago, I can't imagine that people would be as "accepting" of gays as they are now. Another 10 years and no one will care who is sleeping with whom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 5, 2003 Author Share Posted July 5, 2003 give me a break code....as I recall your version of tolerance included copmments to the effect "as long as I don't have to see it in front of me".....and masquerading this and other issues as tolerance is a sham......while, once again, I underdstand the mindset as practiced by the Left (tolerance of mass murder in Iraq, tolerance of mass murder in Africa, tolerance of mass murder in "family" clinics)........the ground is being laid for tolerance of all activities - including some that may not be so palatable to the "progressives" on the left who are there with ya right up until the moment the first shot is fired. and yea....Dr D....this polarization has been underway for quite a while. it's going to get worse. but the noble folks on the left, who preach so heatedly about lieinfg in the white house, can nevertheless pick up the paper each day, read the latest ad hominems from a known liar like Maureen Dowd writing for a paper known to have manipulated the news, but nevertheless think so "knowingly"...."you go girl"... what a bunch of pathethic intellectual frauds. fights on friends.....we'll see where all of this ends...... many of us are no longer going to roll over. while recognizing the excesses and calumnies that issue from the right, we also see the hypocrisy and grossly undemocratic methods of the left. the maneuvering room for compromise that OM eloquently argued for is fast disappearing. the left doesn't get it: their unwithering attack on the very institutions that must eultimately enforce their "vision" weakens any authority they might have - and can be perpetuated by others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROSTY28 Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 Geez, wouldn't it have been easier to just write that you hate homos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 give me a break code....as I recall your version of tolerance included copmments to the effect "as long as I don't have to see it in front of me".....and masquerading this and other issues as tolerance is a sham......while, once again, I underdstand the mindset as practiced by the Left (tolerance of mass murder in Iraq, tolerance of mass murder in Africa, tolerance of mass murder in "family" clinics)........the ground is being laid for tolerance of all activities - including some that may not be so palatable to the "progressives" on the left who are there with ya right up until the moment the first shot is fired. I'm not a crusader for anything but myself, I've said that from day one. All of my political ideals are selfish to some extent, but if something doesn't affect me, I don't care generally. Gays don't affect me. Therefore, they can be married and have butt babies for all I care. My point is, I'm not loosing sleep over Gays and whether they should be married or not. It's a non issue to me, my question is more along the lines of "why does the right care so much?" Why spend so much effort to discriminate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 Originally posted by FROSTY28 Geez, wouldn't it have been easier to just write that you hate homos? i was wondering the same thing.... fan, your tirades read like you were once raped by a liberal homo or something... is that the problem? that might explain for your deep rooted hate of non-heteros and anything even resembling a liberal idea... christ, it's a wonder why this polarization is occuring... when reading the rants of people like you even a moderate is disgusted by your progressive, superior "moral" insights... i guess the fight between the fan man and all other rational people is on... we'll see where all of this ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama All of my political ideals are selfish to some extent Here's to honesty. That's true for all of us, wether we want to believe it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 6, 2003 Author Share Posted July 6, 2003 frosty...typical mindless pap.....I will state this for the last time and then I'm done since the retention factor seems limitted to nanoseconds: gay sex is immaterial to me. the notion of regulating it was a chimera from the get go. in the conduct of my own life, the decision curve falls more along effectiveness/competence/merit (all foreign concepts to the Left when it comes to practice in our Brave New WOrld of equal opportunity, diversity and general bon homeyism) than it does sexual orientation. my eyes were opened during OIF and continue to be. It should have come as no surprise to me: the Left is an amoral lot that bases its prescriptions for the "good life" on nothing more than what happens to strike its fancy as a "good feeling" each waking day. the Left is largely invidiously destructive of all institutions, discipline, and order. it doesn't stand for anything. it is baseless and unprincipled. it's thorough-going relativism is evident for all to see - certainly so during OIF. I personally chose, as a strategic, operational and tactical matter, to oppose everything the Left champions. clearly, there are folks from the Left who are doing great things. it's the thought process, the ultimate destructiveness and the core emptiness that is worth fighting. see ya!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 so i guess you are against the $400 billion bill adding a prescription-drug benefit to Medicare that Bush is going to sign...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 I support gay marriage/unions and I thought fan's post was right on. I find it laughable when the left accuses the right of intolerance; some of the most intolerant people I come across are leftists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.