My 2 gripes w Conseritives and Republicans here locally and nationally. - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-22-2003, 10:01 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
So is Condi a lesbian?


or do you just roll all minoities together?
Mr Deep,
I see Condi Rice as a human being and I hope you do too..

Thanks-
diamond
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-22-2003, 10:07 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 06:07 AM
Oh, okay. I posted my reply before you added all the pictures. Although actually, it's still not making sense even after seeing the pictures.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 04-22-2003, 10:08 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Welcome to Diamond 101.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-22-2003, 10:12 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:07 PM


__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-22-2003, 10:21 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:07 PM
How I regret the three hours I spent teaching you how to post pictures.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-22-2003, 10:32 PM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:07 PM
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 04:02 AM   #37
Babyface
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand
Posts: 28
Local Time: 06:07 PM
What these pictures represent is the fact that no other administration (be it Democratic or Repulican) has appointed this many minorities to senior-level positions.
The Republican party may represent many unsavory ideologies, but it does not represent bigotry.
__________________
Anoosh Vs. God is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 07:54 AM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 06:07 AM
Anoosh, I disagree - I don't think that the fact Republicans have appointed Black people to senior positions means the party does not represent bigotry. Just look at that article about Senator Santorum - I don't think anyone can deny that he is a bigot, and yet he is the third most senior Republican in the Senate. Why has the President failed to condemn Santorum's comments? If the Republican party is so committed to equality then the President should denounce those remarks. What about Trent Lott and his admiration of segretation? Please don't tell me that doesn't indicate bigotry, and that was coming from a man who was at the time the most senior Republican in the Senate.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 10:34 AM   #39
Babyface
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand
Posts: 28
Local Time: 06:07 PM
Hi Fizzing,
all minorities (+women) not just blacks (although their presence is highly notable considering they represent only about 10% of the US pop) have unparalled representation in this administration. An impossible feat for any genuine bigot(s).
I feel the label 'bigot' is generalization that is way out of bounds. The Democratic party has recently experienced the shame of some of its public officials/members antisemitic comments. Such statements have not been awarded the same scrutiny as the comments made by Lott and Santorum.
Lott, if I remember correctly, was expelled with the full support of his own party.
I do not believe Santorum falls into the same categoy as that of Lott or Al Sharpton. I may be wrong, but I believe his statement regarding sodomy laws is justified when taken in context.
__________________
Anoosh Vs. God is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 01:02 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 06:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anoosh Vs. God
I do not believe Santorum falls into the same categoy as that of Lott or Al Sharpton. I may be wrong, but I believe his statement regarding sodomy laws is justified when taken in context.
No offence Anoosh, but I do think you're wrong. Let me post exactly what the Senator said:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

He's equating homosexuality with bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. If that doesn't meet the defintion of homophobia then I don't know what does.

That's without even mentioning the outright stupidity of his comments: of course people have the "right" to adultery, how can it be any other way? Does he want to introduce legislation saying if you commit adultery then you go to jail? Yes I think adultery is bad, but do I think it's something the government should be seeking to control? No way.

Those remarks are bigoted and homophobic. I don't see how anyone can say they aren't and I especially don't see how they can be defended.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 01:54 PM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Normal

I will not defend Sen. Santorum's views on sexual issues and frankly am tired of the conservative's focus on the subject - there is no hierarchy to sin. All sodomy laws should be taken off the books.

The comment, however, has been raised before when trying to define the right of privacy. In essence, on what principle do we separate personal behavior that is free from government intrusion/limitation from personal behavior where we support government regulation? Polygamy between consenting adults is still against the law. As a society, we can approach the right of privacy on a case-by-case basis or issue-by-issue basis. But our guaranty of liberty requires that our rights be based on principles, not issue specific matters.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 02:22 PM   #42
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 12:07 AM
Quote:
In essence, on what principle do we separate personal behavior that is free from government intrusion/limitation from personal behavior where we support government regulation?
Why should we regulate any personal behaivor between consenting adults that does not harm anyone in any measubale way? It's not the right of government to put forth issues of morality.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-23-2003, 02:41 PM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Why should we regulate any personal behaivor between consenting adults that does not harm anyone in any measubale way? It's not the right of government to put forth issues of morality.
I agree. But what is our standard for "not harming anyone in any measurable way"? Take morality out of the equation, there are still plenty of activities that cause physical, emotional, psychological, social, etc. harm. There are harms we dismiss, are afraid to talk about, or merely accept as part of "modern" society.

By way of illustration only, an act of adultery can cause all sorts of harm for the two participants, the non-participant spouse(s), children, families, friends, etc. The harm exists, but it may be too difficult to measure or may be acceptable given the cost of trying to prevent the activity.

I think we are just scratching at the surface on this issue
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 02:55 PM   #44
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 12:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I agree. But what is our standard for "not harming anyone in any measurable way"? Take morality out of the equation, there are still plenty of activities that cause physical, emotional, psychological, social, etc. harm. There are harms we dismiss, are afraid to talk about, or merely accept as part of "modern" society.

By way of illustration only, an act of adultery can cause all sorts of harm for the two participants, the non-participant spouse(s), children, families, friends, etc. The harm exists, but it may be too difficult to measure or may be acceptable given the cost of trying to prevent the activity.

I think we are just scratching at the surface on this issue
I agree, but these are immeasurables. So how can we possibly legislate these things. Polygamy may or may not effect some women psycologically, but then again it may effect the men as well. Adultery, the same thing...yes it harms the non-participant spouse, but there may be some extremely harmful actions inflicted onto the spouse that led them to commit adultery. Then are we going to start regulating what takes place in the marriage.

I believe these are society issues. These are issues that need to be regulated within families, individuals, etc. Is society taking responsibility in fulfilling these "regulations" often times not, but it doesn't mean government should step in.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-23-2003, 03:12 PM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 06:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I agree. But what is our standard for "not harming anyone in any measurable way"? Take morality out of the equation, there are still plenty of activities that cause physical, emotional, psychological, social, etc. harm. There are harms we dismiss, are afraid to talk about, or merely accept as part of "modern" society.

By way of illustration only, an act of adultery can cause all sorts of harm for the two participants, the non-participant spouse(s), children, families, friends, etc. The harm exists, but it may be too difficult to measure or may be acceptable given the cost of trying to prevent the activity.

I think we are just scratching at the surface on this issue
Using your illustration though, while I agree that adultery can cause tremendous harm to a great number of people, how could it be the responsibility of government to stop adultery? Firstly it's just not possible! Secondly, I think it's something which an individual family should deal with in whatever way they see fit, there can't be a prescribed 'one-size-fits-all' solution to it.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com