A question for liberals

[BVS]

even though their stance on homosexuality is nearly identical.

Big difference, one pushed for an ammendment very loud and clear and one didn't. I think Kerry was weak for not standing up for gay rights, but he didn't shout it out for the vote.

 

[Irvine511]

yes.

Kerry is a wimp. Bush is a bigot. big difference, sadly same result.

 

[BVS]

sadly same result.

True.

 

[Matthew Temblor]

So, the question is: is John Kerry a bigot? I'm going to say no. To me a bigot is someone who comes out with irrational, intense hatred of a certain group.

If this is your only definition of a bigot, then this thread start contained a great question!

Are you actually trying to claim that Kerrys campaign was not BUILT on Hatred towards G.W.??

Come on, lets be real!

Do we really need to go back and retrive all the statments by J. Kerry and the Democratic party, to see who really utilized hatred which breeds fear, as a tool in their campaign?

I am not saying the Republicans have not been guilty of this in the past. And I know G.W. used fear (NOT hatred) in his campaign, but at least you know that he had some real conviction about the risk to our nation regarding the war on terroism
and the countries who have sponsored it. ( see the pay stubs from Sadamm Hussien to the palestinian Terrorist family's)

I just hope all involved can learn from their past mistakes and make 2008 a civil election.

"A plan is not a litany of complaints" (G.W.)

 

[BVS]

Thanks I needed that. Used fear but not hate...that's great.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

the reason i pounced on your use of the word is because i don't think anyone has a clue as to what it really means, and it is used as a word to broadbrush ANYONE who doesn't march in lockstep with the current republican platform. there's such horrible groupthink ... liberals think this, liberals do that ... just look at your comments regarding abortion, and everything that you assume "liberals" believe and you'll see that the word, as you've come to use it, exists only as a McCarthyite political tool and has no attachment to reality.

That's fine if you see that. From time to time I may rant about the liberal ideology and how I feel it to be irresponsible, the same way you may rant about conservative ideology and how you feel it is restrictive. I "assume" most liberals are likely to support such issues as abortion for example, after all, it's honestly predictable. There may be republicans who support it as well, but obviously, if they're still dominantly republican/conservative, it's not their main issue.

you still haven't defined what a liberal is. and your above definiton is really flawed. many social libertarians would call themselves conservatives and vote republican (fools ... the current GOP is currently constructing a Christian nanny state and bankrupting us all in the process). a progressive is probably different from a liberal ... and what about classical liberals?

Then they may be fiscal conservatives who vote based on their wallet. I'm specifically talking about the social liberals who don't vote based on their wallet, or based on someone else's wallet, but on social issues.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Big difference, one pushed for an ammendment very loud and clear and one didn't. I think Kerry was weak for not standing up for gay rights, but he didn't shout it out for the vote.

Because Kerry would likely lose votes from the left if he were more vocal about it.

 

[BVS]

Because Kerry would likely lose votes from the left if he were more vocal about it.

See I think he did it for quite the opposite. I saw this last election as a fight for the middle. The middle still has a lot of homophobes.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

See I think he did it for quite the opposite. I saw this last election as a fight for the middle. The middle still has a lot of homophobes.

It was a fight for the middle, but I must say, Kerry couldn't distinguish himself very well on social issues.

 

[BVS]

It was a fight for the middle, but I must say, Kerry couldn't distinguish himself very well on social issues.

Well on some he did, some he didn't. It's really a moot point now.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

In all honesty, I found both campaigns pretty pathetic. Bush did a horrible job defending the war and the economy, while Kerry campaigned as the alternative candidate with nothing really special to show for it.

Kind of creepy to think of it, but I think Howard Dean had a better chance of pulling it off if he survived the media frenzy he was dealt with during his campaign.

 

[melon]

The bigoted pervert strikes again.

Kerry To Dems: 'Don't Support Gay Marriage'
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

(Boston, Massachusetts) Sen. John Kerry has angered LGBT civil rights groups after telling a Boston newspaper that the Massachusetts Democratic Party will be making a mistake if it puts an endorsement of same-sex marriage in the party platform next week.

"I think it's a mistake," Kerry told the Boston Globe. "I think it's the wrong thing, and I'm not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state."

He made the comments following an event he hosted in Louisiana to promote his proposed KidsFirst Act, which would bring health care to uninsured children.

Although he supported civil unions and opposed same-sex marriage in last November's presidential election this is the strongest statement Kerry has made on gay marriage.

"John Kerry is out of touch with Massachusetts voters and Democrats in the state," Josh Friedes, the advocacy director of the Freedom to Marry Coalition told 365Gay.com.

Friedes points to a study released this week that shows that 80 percent of voters who typically vote Democratic support marriage equality.

The poll, taken by Decision Research for the Mass. Equality Education Fund, also shows that 62 percent of all voters support same-sex marriage.

"John Kerry needs to learn that on basic issues of civil rights the electorate respects elected officials who take principled stands," Friedes said.

Kerry's position also puts him at odds with the chairman of the Massachusetts Democrats, Philip W. Johnston.

Johnston says that Kerry's remarks will have little effect on delegates to the party's meeting in Lowell.
"I have great affection and respect for John, but I disagree o this issue," Johnston told the Globe. "It is important that the state Democratic Party support civil rights. We need to take a stand."

Kerry's remarks also are opposed by the senior Senator from the state. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said he supports the inclusion of the same-sex marriage language in the party platform.

On May 17 thousands of same-sex couples in Massachusetts will celebrate the first anniversary of gay marriage. Same-sex marriage became legal on that date following a ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court making Massachusetts the first state in the nation to legalize gay weddings.

As much as I hate Bush and wish that he wasn't reelected, now I know why Kerry deserved to lose. The man has no backbone, and every approach to every issue he has ever taken looks politically calculated.

Now that the Massachusetts Democratic Party is developing a backbone, you might be surprised how far "confidence" and confidence alone can take a candidate in an election. Howard Dean actually discovered this after he had lost the primaries, when he ran into several GOP-leaning voters who seemed to be attracted solely to that: "confidence." And, right or wrong, Bush has had that the entire time (perhaps to the degree of arrogance/stubbornness). Kerry, however, ran around scared of anything the Democratic Party traditionally stood for, and "equality" is one of the big ones.

Melon

 

[melon]

Kind of creepy to think of it, but I think Howard Dean had a better chance of pulling it off if he survived the media frenzy he was dealt with during his campaign.

I think the "Howard Dean" of today could have been a fairly dynamic presidential candidate. The "Howard Dean" of the primaries came off as too inexperienced, and he suffered accordingly.

Having paid attention to him since, Dean is probably one of the most sincere politicians we actually have today. It might be too late for him to run again for the presidency, but he's also proven to be a real maverick when it comes to party organization and helping other people win elections. He may actually have the perfect job right now as the head of the DNC.

Melon

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The man has no backbone, and every approach to every issue he has ever taken looks politically calculated.

I agree, very disappointing. He sure seems out of touch to me.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Big difference, one pushed for an ammendment very loud and clear and one didn't. I think Kerry was weak for not standing up for gay rights, but he didn't shout it out for the vote.

Clinton pushed for a "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996. Is he a bigot as well?

 

[melon]

Clinton pushed for a "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996. Is he a bigot as well?

I don't remember who pushed for it. I think it was the GOP who backed him in a corner. The Democrats did not write that bill, and if the GOP never existed, neither would this law.

Anyway, after reading what Clinton has said in the years following his presidency about this and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," it sounds like more of a case of Democratic cowardice in the face of the bigoted GOP than him actually supporting these laws. Kerry just happens to be the face of cowardice in the Democratic Party.

Melon

 

[BVS]

Clinton pushed for a "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996. Is he a bigot as well?

No Clinton didn't push for it, but he did sign it. Which ironically Kerry was one of only 14 who opposed it.

Clinton did a lot for gay rights during his 2 terms, but yes some of his actions are somewhat confusing.

 

[U2Kitten]

The standard definition:

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

The Fox News definition:

a. all those fags you see in pink leather tutus parading down the street in San Francisco
b. all those anti-God atheists you see trying to take God out of Christmas.
c. those responsible for 9/11, the price of gas, teenage pregnancy, abortion, Nambla, insecure borders, Terry Shiavo, Michael Jackson, Ludacris, the Tsunami, Spongebob Squarepants, and reality television.

My definition:

a person who claims to be 'open minded' and declares anything goes, and everyone should have a right to do anything they want-- UNLESS it disagrees with what they believe, then such person or position gets bashed and called names. So much for all inclusiveness!

 

[BVS]

 

[verte76]

The bigoted pervert strikes again.



As much as I hate Bush and wish that he wasn't reelected, now I know why Kerry deserved to lose. The man has no backbone, and every approach to every issue he has ever taken looks politically calculated.
Melon

I agree, very disappointing. I wish Howard Dean had been the nominee.

 

[melon]

a person who claims to be 'open minded' and declares anything goes, and everyone should have a right to do anything they want-- UNLESS it disagrees with what they believe, then such person or position gets bashed and called names. So much for all inclusiveness!

Sounds like the definition of a "conservative" minus the "open-minded" part.

Melon

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Nobody is truly open-minded if you think about it.

 

[BVS]

Nobody is truly open-minded if you think about it.

I'd like you to explain that one.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I'd like you to explain that one.

No problem.

Under our discretion, we decide who to tune off and on. You may not care much for what the president has to say, as a result that you dislike a number of his policies. For one to be truly open-minded, I would define it as equally and genuinely interested in what all individuals say and do, regardless of who they are and what they stand for.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

In addition, let's use the Unitarian church as an example. Their objective is to proceed in an inclusive environment, coming from all kinds of backgrounds. But God forbid one might open up as a conservative, or at least, a fairly biblically literal Christian, who believes that without Jesus, religion is useless.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

We all have our turn-ons and turn-offs, which get in the way of our openness.

Is this making any sense yet?

 

[BVS]

No problem.

Under our discretion, we decide who to tune off and on. You may not care much for what the president has to say, as a result that you dislike a number of his policies. For one to be truly open-minded, I would define it as equally and genuinely interested in what all individuals say and do, regardless of who they are and what they stand for.

But as much as I dislike Bush's policies I give him a listen and then I make my decision. You can truly be open-minded and still consistantly not like someone's policies or ideas.

 

[BVS]

We all have our turn-ons and turn-offs, which get in the way of our openness.

Is this making any sense yet?

No. Yes we all have turn-ons and turn-offs, but they don't have to always get in the way.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I think the closest thing to being completely open-minded is the "I know nothing" approach that made Socrates quite famous.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

To be brief, I don't see neither conservatives or liberals as being open-minded. It's a useless pun if you ask me. All it really interprets to is "listen to MY argument because I could very well be right."