My 2 gripes w Conseritives and Republicans here locally and nationally.

[diamond]

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

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

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.

 

[deep]

Welcome to Diamond 101.

 

[diamond]

 

[deep]

How I regret the three hours I spent teaching you how to post pictures.

 

[diamond]

 

[Anoosh Vs. God]

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.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

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.

 

[Anoosh Vs. God]

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.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

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.

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[nbcrusader]

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

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

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.

 

[meegannie]

How I regret the three hours I spent teaching you how to post pictures.

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

Well, I think BonoVoxSupastar, you and I all agree this is a difficult thing to measure and control. We make prostitution illegal, though it is not possible to stop it, and may be more of a societal problem than a governmental problem. Still, it is illegal.

If we really have a right of privacy (beyond the right to close the drapes on our windows), how far can we take this in our behavior? What other laws should be stricken based on this right, even when it is difficult to measure the harm caused by the activity? Consipracy is nothing more than planning in private. Yet, it is a separate crime.

The idea of the right to privacy is very attractive, but nearly impossible to clearly define.

 

[BVS]

One would almost have to start from scratch. There are so many laws that border on this. My personal belief is that everyone should have absolut privacy if what they are doing is between consenting adults and harms no one physically. This would mean there would be a lot of things that are legal that I don't personally agree or believe in, but if it hurts no one, then why not. It's the same with free speech, I may not believe in it, but I believe in them being allowed to say it. This opens a whole new can of worms, maybe another topic for another day. But yes it's an issue with a lot of grey.

 

[nbcrusader]

A big ol' can of worms indeed. Even the concept of "harms no one physically" is hard to define, as verbal and psychological abuse can manifest itself physically.