In accepting the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday night, Barack Obama endorsed every form of big government interventionism and bureaucratic social engineering known to man ("now is not the time for small plans"), along with a forceful statement of his commitment that "our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters" deserve to "live lives free of discrimination" (except as regards marriage).
Leftists will celebrate him on both counts, while rightists will equally denounce him. Gays of a libertarian bent will have to weigh the whole package in making their decision.
McCain's Choice
I don't know much about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's veep
pick. She's pro-life but apparently no 'phobe. She vetoed an
anti-gay bill passed by the legislature that would have barred the
state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state
employees, and has met with gay groups and spoken publicly about
gay friends and relatives. Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon
issued a statement calling her "an inclusive Republican who will
help Sen. McCain appeal to gay and lesbian voters." Andrew
Sullivan, no friend of the GOP,
sums it up.
But obviously, if your vote is determined by gay issues, it's going to go to Obama/Biden. If you think Obama is better for gays but worse (or even dangerously worse) for the country, than voting for McCain/Palin does not make you a self-loather (though Obama's LGBT devotees will certainly tar you, endlessly, with that brush).
More. Let's see, the relatively unknown GOP governor of Alaska is unqualified to be veep because she has no foreign policy experience, but Bill Clinton, when the relatively unknown governor of Arkansas, was fit to lead. And Barack Obama, just a few years out of the Illinois legislature and with no substantive accomplishments since as a first-term U.S. senator, is also fit to lead. Can you spell m-i-s-o-g-y-n-y? (Oh, I forgot, liberals can't be misogynists, just like they can't be racists (cough, Clarence Thomas, cough) or homophobes.
86 Comments for “Collectivism + Gay Rights”
posted by Doug on
Rightists may indeed denounce Obama but I can guarantee you there will be no mention of ‘our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters’ except in the context of a Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage.
posted by Leo on
I’ll be listening to hear what’s said about gay and lesbians in St. Paul.
Weigh my options indeed.
posted by Richard II on
Well, unless you happen to be an actually Libertarian or an anarchist, you support some ‘collectism’ and as of now most LGBT people are not sold on anarchy or libertarianism. I am certainly not.
Actually, Obama is probably much more of a centrist Democrat.
The party tends to nominate center-left candidates since their terrible presidential races in the 1980s.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
It is sad that Steve Miller could not overcome his partisanship long enough to note even in passing Obama’s statement on the rights of gay couples, in a passage that raises four of the most contentious issues:
?America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices. And Democrats, as well as Republicans, will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past, for part of what has been lost these past eight years can’t just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose, and that’s what we have to restore.
?We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.
?The — the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.
?I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.
?You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.
?But this, too, is part of America’s promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.
“I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer, and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values.
?And that’s to be expected, because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.?
It was a muscular speech, in contrast to those who suggested that it would be mere airy rhetoric. Once again, people underestimated the guy. And it will be interesting to see how the GOP can turn the spectacle of 80,000 people waving American flags and chanting ?USA! USA! USA!? into a negative.
Last night we heard the voice of a leader. And I was awfully damn proud of my country.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I am sorry, in reacting to Steve’s “collectivist” comments I missed his mention of Obama’s gay-rights comments. My bad.
posted by Keith on
Why is this place called “independent”? It isn’t.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Keith, in fairness, one of the key purposes behind the creation of IGF was to provide a forum for gay viewpoints other than the leftist voices that have tended to dominate the gay media in the past. Being independent doesn’t mean embracing all viewpoints.
posted by Keith on
I don’t expect IGF to embrace all viewpoints. I started coming here to get away from leftist ideologues. Didn’t think I’d find rightist ones instead. Nothing wrong with that, it’s just a blog after all.The name however is a bit misleading IMHO.
posted by Douglas on
Well Richard, you certainly can be won over by strings of liberal cliches.
The fact is that Obama supports expanding the military, an agressive interventionist foreign policy, war, corporate favors/welfare, raising (some ) taxes) and expanding government. It’s not any sort of “change” in any significant fundamental way.
But give Obama some credit for being fairly gay friendly.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Douglas, I’m not sure what string of cliches you are claiming I’ve been won over by. It’s hard to recognize Obama in your description. He has rightly called for repairing our military. He has supported a more prudent foreign policy in which miltary action is a last resort rather than a first resort. He rightly criticizes Bush/McCain for their combination of tough talk and poor strategy. Why you claim he favors war is unclear, unless that becomes true unless he calls for unilateral disarmament. He recognizes that we cannot expect to get anywhere in the fight against terrorism without international cooperation, which means we must stop the current administration’s go-it-alone approach and repair our strained alliances (as well as building new ones). I don’t know what you mean by “corporate favors/welfare.” On taxes, he proposes raising some and lowering others. As to expanding government, what distinguishes him from McCain is his different priorities.
As for Obama “being fairly gay friendly,” Obama is in fact better than McCain on a wide range of gay issues including hate crimes, military service, partnership rights, adoption, immigration, employment protections, the Ryan White CARE Act, comprehensive sex education, and state constitutional amendments. I mention this in my column this week, which is more about the media.
posted by Kevin on
Gay issues are but one part of the equation for me. Taking those completely out of the equation, we’ve given McCain’s style of executive leadership a try for the last 8 years, and it has been nothing short of devastating for this country, both in domestic and international issues. McCain voted with Bush over 90 percent of the time. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I will not be voting for Bush’s third term, so this registered independent will be giving Obama his vote. Obama’s much better positions on the gay issues are simply icing on the cake, but I’m sure I can expect to be stereotyped on this site that I’m a one-issue voter that hates America or some such nonsense.
posted by Jorge on
But obviously, if your vote is determined by gay issues, it’s going to go to Obama/Biden.
If we’re coming to that conclusion, I hope it’s based on each ticket’s record before the conventions.
I would not have supported either candidate on the basis of gay rights alone before Obama’s speech and McCain’s VP pick. They were both too much a mix of bad and good. I give Obama a lot of credit for what he said yesterday. I wish he had gone as far as Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy had gone in affirming gay rights, period, instead of taking a moderate position. Still, it mollified a lot of my doubts. I give McCain the same credit in his choice for running mate today based on what’s reported to be her record. I was very worried that he would pick someone who’s all about “marriage, marriage, marriage”.
So things are okay. But if you want to know who’s better for gays, one now has to look at the record of where Barak Obama and John McCain have stood. That means votes and activism.
posted by Timothy on
I believe that Steven is mistaken about Palin’s religion. She was raised Assemblies of God (pentecostal) and attends a nondenominational pentecostal church in Juneau.
posted by BobN on
I do not understand why a gay person would distort Palin’s record vis-a-vis gay rights. She “has gay friends” and “knows gay people”. She vetoed a law which she and her Attorney General concluded was unconstitutional. Her public comment explained that “she HAD to veto it”.
Is that really all you want? Do you hope to become one of her gay friends? I would guess so, because that’s all she’s got for you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….not likely, Richard, given the Obama campaign’s latest line of attack: Sarah Palin’s baby isn’t really hers and she’s just covering up for her daughter. That’s very "scientific". In fact, you can read the whole set of comments attached to it attempting to use "science" to "prove" this.
posted by tristram on
From what I’ve read, Palin vetoed the anti-benefits for same-sex partners bill because she was advised that it was clearly unconstitutional, but she then supported an advisory vote on an amendment to put the prohibition on same-sex benefits in the state constitution AND she expressed support for the substance of such an amendment. That is, she considers denying even modest benefits to same-sex partners important enough to add it to the Alaska constitution’s ‘bill of wrongs.’ No wonder AFA and FoF love her.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Gov. Palin has said that creation science should be taught in the schools alongside evolution. And why not? Science, after all, is subject to popular opinion, and it is not as if the biochemical industry is based on evolutionary biology or our competitiveness in that industry would be harmed by turning out a generation of ignoramuses.
I wrote about this in July 2007 in my article “A Turning Tide on Junk Science”:
“Alas, unfettered information is not a hallmark of this president. A typical ploy of the pseudoscientists among his political base is to manufacture a bogus controversy and then insist that public schools should ?teach the controversy.? The demands for equal time for ?intelligent design? and ?reparative therapy? are not just an attempt to cloak the establishment of religion in the garb of science or victimhood politics. They are part of an assault on the scientific method in service of partisan gain.”
McCain appears to have made a hit with the right-wing base with his pick of Palin. That is unlikely to be the case with the rest of the voters when they learn more about her.
posted by Priya Lynn on
That’s right Tristam. Despite Stephen Miller’s spin she really is a ‘phobe.”
posted by Bobby on
Palin’s a brilliant choice. After the way the liberal media treated Hillary, there’s a lot of pissed-off women out there. The Huffington post is already thrashing her for not having foreign policy experience (neither did Bill Clinton when he ran for president), for being from a small town (great way to piss off millions of Americans), and for being too young (so is Obama).
As for gay rights, please, they all have the same positions. McCain and Palin aren’t any more homophobic than Obama. And if they are, I don’t care. Bush was supposed to put gays in concentration camps, yet I’m still alive. Obama will do nothing for gays, other than raise our taxes!
posted by Richard II on
VP Palin says, at least from Wikipedia, that she has gay friends. Politically this is probably a ploy to allow her to be tolerant, while fundamentally opposing gay rights. She opposes, by her record, giving same-sex couples any measure of legal equity.
What she feels about anti-discrimination or hate crime laws is unknown? Or what she feels about anti-gay criminal laws or AIDS/HIV education? I suspect that some of the Alaska gay righst groups might know.
posted by Richard II on
Well, first of all their really is no ‘right’ to vote in America. The Federal and most State Constitutions have little to say about voting rights or other political rights.
If you are gay and vote for a candidate who basically seems to oppose every single gay right issue, people might just wonder why, perhaps question many thinks about your personal sanity and such.
Of coarse, if you happen to be an Independent, who might not vote for either major party candidate, then — trust me — the looks and long talks can get far less pretty.
The only possible argument I can see, is that gay Republicans really do not care too much about gay rights — when it comes to who they will vote for. If this is the argument that is being made, “I care more about ‘x’, ‘y’ and ‘z’ then gay rights”, people certainly have as much right to be critical about it as thy do to justify it.
posted by avee on
wow, following up on ND30’s link above to Daily kos (www.dailykos.com). Amazing just what an absolutely hate-filled, and hateful, site that is. I felt like I needed a shower after visiting. Wonder how many of the leftwingers who comment above get their daily (or many times daily) talking points from those haters?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DailyKos, MyDD, BlogActive, BlogAmerica… and now IGF.
It’s good to see the same-old-tired rhetoric of hate and personal destruction from the farLeft and the same old-tired gayApologists like King Richard and Richard-the-“independent” (did he actually try to tell us that BarryO is a centerist Democrat??? LOL) spinning BarryO into our gay Savior par exceeeeeelance.
The simple truth that most of the gayDemocrats here will continue to ignore –because it drastically blunts their hate-spewing bile of personal destruction– is that McCain-the-Maverick picked another maverick reformer, outside-the-box GOPer to join his team of REAL REFORM and meaningful change.
And BarryO picked a long-entrenched Washington insider and fellow Leftie to compliment his ticket of “change you can Xerox”.
A simple question, Stephen, when did we accept the gayLeft claim that gay issues were THE deciding factor in any gayConservative’s or gayModerate’s vote? That works for the “my-Party-no-matter-what” gayLefites here but it hasn’t ever been the premise of gayConservative and gayModerate voting.
And, I would argue, shouldn’t be the premise of any self-respecting REAL gayIndependent here either.
posted by Bobby on
“She opposes, by her record, giving same-sex couples any measure of legal equity.”
—That’s not true, gay couples in Alaska who work for the government have equal benefits thanks to Palin.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Not true bobby, she only vetoed that law because the Alaska supreme court had ruled benefits must be provided and the AG advised her the law to deny them was unconstitutional.
– She told the Anchorage Daily News that she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to the domestic partners of public employees, which were ordered by an October 2005 decision of the Alaska Supreme Court, because, she said ?honoring the family structure is that important.?
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/governor06/story/8049298p-7942233c.html
She’s as anti-gay as they come.
posted by Priya Lynn on
I see that’s a little ambiguous. I meant to say that its not true that gay couples in Alaska who work for the government have equal benefits thanks to Palin. They have them because of the Alaska supreme court and that Palin supported a constitutional amendment to deny those employees benefits.
posted by Priya Lynn on
It didn’t take long. Palin’s first lie as VP nominee:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/08/well_that_didnt_take_long.php#more
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…..and here comes Priya Lynn’s next attempted smear of Palin, followed by Priya’s desperate search for bikini pictures of her. Soon to follow will be Priya’s attempt to invoke the so-called “Troopergate”, which involves Palin’s firing of a public safety commissioner who had refused to fire a state trooper who drove drunk, threatened his father-in-law, and tasered his eleven-year-old son.
It’s amazing how bitter these so-called “feminists” become when it’s the matter of a woman who, unlike them, has succeeded and is ascending to power without enslaving herself to the Democrat Party and embracing the sociopathic belief that children should be killed if they’re inconvenient to their mother. The reason, of course, is simple; if Palin is elected, it will shatter the glass ceiling all right — the one that has convinced thousands of women that their only choice is to ally themselves with people like Priya Lynn who mock their religious beliefs, their commitment to their children and families, and their support of being judged on their merits rather than their gender identity.
Priya and her ilk thus attack Palin for the same reason that they attack gay Republicans — because losing the ability to co-opt sexual orientation or gender to cover up antireligious bigotry, educating children with public sex fairs, and unlimited support of abortion would leave them and their beliefs exposed to an unforgiving public.
posted by MIchigan-Matt on
Ahh, NDXXX, we can always count on PrincessPriyaLynn to be the attackDawg of the gayLeft, anti-God, anti-religion bigoted and phobic hater that has become the face of many gayDemocrats.
It’s the tired, old rhetoric… just like BarryoO’apologist extraordinare King Richard impying that someone who believes in intelligent design must be anti-science, anti-secular and anti-gay. What rubbish and bunk.
I think we need to find a new creed for all these hardcore gayDemocrats at IGF: “It’s my Party -right or wrong.”
The silly ends these gayDemocrats go to enforce THEIR sense of what the words “gay” and “political action” should mean for all gays. It’s like they’re saying: put down the flag-waving, gay and Democrat are the same things.
Of course, they’d have to be see the American flag as a symbol of patriotism first, and not as the world’s bloody butcher apron.
I smell flat-out fear in the air coming from the gayDemocrats –and they know this is the beginning of the end. McCain-the-Maverick’s choice of Palin-the-Reformer is putting these gayApologists in a funk royale.
Hey King Richard, if Obama is the Savior of the Free World, where’s the 15-18 point bounce that most Democrat prez contenders have gotten after their convention… even MikeyDukakis is outperforming BarryO at this point.
Ouch, to be beat by MikeyDukakis??
That’s gotta hurt.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFD7113EF935A15754C0A96E948260
posted by Pat on
NDT, I don’t know about bikini pictures, or other future smears that you are attributing to others here. But what about her apparently only vetoing an anti-gay bill only because her Attorney General said it was unconstitutional? And her trying to add an anti-gay provision through other means. Does this mean she is anti-gay? I don’t know. But it does seem to warrant some review.
Matt, regarding intelligent design, my only objection is that it does not belong in a science class. I wonder where in the curriculum Palin intended to have intelligent design.
Anyway, I don’t know too much about Palin. I’ll wait for you to provide all the links about her. 🙂
As for the lack of boost in the polls, I think everyone is giving the conventions the credit they deserve, almost nothing. I don’t expect McCain getting a big boost in the polls immediately after the convention next week either.
posted by Richard II on
(1) As the time goes on, it will be clear where the major party candidates (and their VP’s) stand on LGBT issues, as well as the current two-party system cartel.
It would appear that Mcain and his VP, want to appear to be personally tolerant of gay people, so as not to offend moderate or gay voters, but also opppose just about every single gay rights issue, so as not to offend the social conservatives.
Obama and his VP do not want to offend the majority of voters who oppose gay marriage, but is willing to support other gay riguts issues, including some measure of legal equity for gay couples.
Clearly, neither candidate is perfect when it comes to gay rights. Clearly, LGBT people should be more interested in the problems with our two-party cartel.
Yet, as an Independent I am a bit disappointed that Mcain did not seem interested in builidng up much support among socially liberal Independent voters. I had some hope that the self-avowed ‘maverick’ would actually pick a VP that appealed to Independents.
I am not ready to make a formal endorsement, but I was kinda holding out some hope that the Mcain VP would be a a more socially liberal Republican.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat writes: “As for the lack of boost in the polls, I think everyone is giving the conventions the credit they deserve, almost nothing. I don’t expect McCain getting a big boost in the polls immediately after the convention next week either.”
“Everyone”, as you put it, Pat, doesn’t much matter in polling if you’re talking about the pundits and talking heads on TV and radio as being “everyone”. And, fi conventions are as meaningless and inconsequential as you suggest, why did they hold one? Come on; that’s a dismissal of the truth better waged by the legions of gayApologists here… not you.
Since Mikey-daTankDriver-Dukakis came out of the 1988 DNC convention with a 17 point lead over Bush#41 (Mikey at 55% favorable and SilverSpoonBush at 38%) and VeepBush41 was the virtual incumbent, it’s hard not to believe that the so-called Savior of the Free World in BarryO can’t seem to pull his ObamaBus out of the station in a year that nearly every single credible pundit and expert was saying would be the Democrat Year of All Years.
Someone here –it was probably King Richard– contended that BarryO’s speech was “muscular”… whatever that term means in political speechifying. BarryO’s speech was void of his radical expansionist and world order agenda –it was deliberately written to bring his radical views into closer sync with mainstream, generic Democrats because he isn’t being successful in selling the snakeoil. He has to become a generic Democrat or he’ll lose the election.
The missing truth in the gayDemocrats spin here is that their choice is stuck in a deadheat race with an aging, 72 yr old, career politican and US Senator who even “voted with George Bush 90% of the time” –the most unpopular Prez we’ve had in a long, long time.
Even linking McCain-the-Maverick to the most unpopular prez in a long time ain’t working for the Savior of the Free World.
Ask yourself this: the Democrats had a near lock on the media for a week and weren’t able to sell the public on BarryO and JoeyBiden –that’s gotta hurt as much as HillaryClinton’s ringing non-endorsement of BarryO at the convention.
BarryO should be up at least 17 points over McCain right now… and that was the point spread of a Democrat 20 yrs ago over a 8 year virtual “incumbent” who was the consummate Washington insider –a relative free, open race like this one.
Your claim doesn’t work, Pat. Right, no one expects BarryO to do well. Everyone thought the convention was a big nothing. No justifiable reason to even hold one, right? It wouldn’t make a difference in the polling… nawh, no way.
W-R-O-N-G.
The truth is that even the fireworks and faux-flag waving of the Democrat crowds didn’t fool America about BarryO and JoeyBiden.
The worship service at the Temple of Obama was a bust. HillaryClinton supporters ought to be pressing ScreaminHowieDean to change the course of this political Titanic… or, maybe, they just want BarryO to lose and they’ll be back in 4 years?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, one other point. You write: “Matt, regarding intelligent design, my only objection is that it does not belong in a science class. I wonder where in the curriculum Palin intended to have intelligent design.”
Here’s a question for you. What does intelligent design (which is the preferred phrase, not “Creationism” as King Richard uses here) have to do with gay civil rights?
Like being pro-choice. Like being in favor of unilateral disarmament. Like being in favor of expanding the federal bureaucracy. Like wanting more taxes.
What does any of that have to do with gay civil rights? It seems to me that some here are putting forward a liberalist’s agenda and masking it as a gay rights agenda.
posted by Sean S. on
“Here’s a question for you. What does intelligent design (which is the preferred phrase, not “Creationism” as King Richard uses here) have to do with gay civil rights?”
Alot actually. After all “intelligent design” (which IS creationism, relabeled) is nothing more than an attempt to spin a world view that everything in the world is designed and implemented to fulfill some sort of Godly purpose, and I can assure you, that its promoters don’t view “Gay people” as part of that plan.
Like “ex-gay” therapy, “Intelligent Design” masquerades under the guise of science in an attempt to lend “objective” novelty to man-made social constructions. Like ex-gay therapy, no one actually holding a real degree, with the exception of a handful of cranks, actually believes this nonsense.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The problem here, Sean A., is that you need to cover up your belief that evolution disproves God — which actually is a complete perversion of evolutionary science — under the guise of your sexual orientation.
Hence, you make the assertion that being gay automatically makes one an antireligious bigot.
posted by Pat on
“Everyone”, as you put it, Pat, doesn’t much matter in polling if you’re talking about the pundits and talking heads on TV and radio as being “everyone”. And, fi conventions are as meaningless and inconsequential as you suggest, why did they hold one? Come on; that’s a dismissal of the truth better waged by the legions of gayApologists here… not you.
Matt, maybe saying “everyone” was a poor choice. Sure, the media that is covering these conventions sure want to make them a big deal and all that. So I’ll say most people. And I realized in the past, even in the Dukakis era, that conventions were kind of a big deal, and boosted him big time in the polls. Of course, that didn’t do much good, because most saw Dukakis wasn’t much of a candidate outside of the convention.
I don’t think McCain is going to get a big boost in the polls either after next week. Of course, I could be wrong, so we’ll see. And if so, the question is, is this just a temporary boost or one that will sustain about a month from now.
Why do parties hold conventions? I imagine a good part of it is the hope that it will boost their candidate, as it has done in the past. But now it seems like a lot of the important work, such as selection of VP happens before the convention anyway. Did anybody learn anything more about Obama than we didn’t know already? Are you or anyone else going to learn more about McCain next week?
I’m not trying to downplay what’s going on by any means. And it’s not like I expect anyone reading my post say, “Whew, what a relief. Since Obama’s poll numbers didn’t go up that much, I was going to vote for McCain, but because of what Pat said, I’m going to still vote for Obama” or anything like that. Further, I am far from excited of either candidate anyway. My guess is most Americans aren’t that excited either.
The truth is that even the fireworks and faux-flag waving of the Democrat crowds didn’t fool America about BarryO and JoeyBiden.
And the truth is that even the fireworks and faux-flag waving of the Republican crowds won’t fool America about JohnnyM and SallyPalin. (modified from Michigan Matt, IGF, Aug. 30, 2008, 9:35 pm) I don’t want to get in trouble for plagiarism like Biden. 🙂
Here’s a question for you. What does intelligent design (which is the preferred phrase, not “Creationism” as King Richard uses here) have to do with gay civil rights?
I don’t believe it does. Someone brought it up, and it was an issue that concerned me. Not a major issue, but an issue nonetheless.
Like being pro-choice. Like being in favor of unilateral disarmament. Like being in favor of expanding the federal bureaucracy. Like wanting more taxes.
Agreed.
What does any of that have to do with gay civil rights? It seems to me that some here are putting forward a liberalist’s agenda and masking it as a gay rights agenda.
Perhaps. I don’t know. I’ll let any of them, like Sean S., try to make the case that they tie in to gay rights.
posted by Sean S. on
“The problem here, Sean A., is that you need to cover up your belief that evolution disproves God — which actually is a complete perversion of evolutionary science — under the guise of your sexual orientation. Hence, you make the assertion that being gay automatically makes one an antireligious bigot.”
Actually, no, I didn’t. I didn’t say anything about God being disproven by evolution. What I DID say, however, was that the idea promoted of a God designing everything for an express purpose not only borders on absurd, but reveals clearly that the purpose of intelligent design is to give a “holy imprimatur” on certain views of human bodies especially as it relates to procreation and sexuality. There should be no surprise that many of the same groups that espouse anti-gay and anti-contraception viewpoints are inextricably bound to “intelligent design”. Someone whom believes our sexual organs were designed by God solely for procreative purposes certainly is not going to accept homosexuality.
Gay rights, to a very large extent, is inextricably bound up with legitimate science. Why? Because it disproves all of the bullshit nonsense religious right nutjobs say about gay people. It’s no surprise that the religious right constantly complains about the American Psychiatric Association, and its hostility to “Ex-gay” therapy, constantly prattles on about the promotion of “sin” by legitimate public health authorities trying to stop the spread of AID’s through condom programs and safer sex education, and misuses sociology in an attempt to prove that “a man and a woman” are the only people who can properly raise a child. Science, for the most part, has vindicated us time and time again in the face of nonsensical “Facts” spouted by religious fundamentalists. If conservative gays want to break bread with anti-science cranks, they deserve all the condemnation they get.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Especially given the examples of what “scientific” gays are doing to themselves and to their children.
Given the statistics on who’s getting HIV, why is it that “scientific” gays, who look down their noses at those ignorant religious folk, constitute the majority of cases nationally? Why aren’t religious people who supposedly know nothing about sex and are too ignorant to protect themselves dying in droves?
posted by Jim on
Good Lord. Bill Clinton served 3 and 1/2 terms as Governor. He was well known among “New Democrats” nationally and was Chairman of the National Governors Association. He actually managed to run and win a Presidential campaign against an incumbent President (who, btw, was probably the most “experienced” person to hold that office since the Founding Fathers).
Palin was selected first and foremost because she’s a woman. No man would have had such a chance. She represents the worst form of tokenism: someone selected not on their own merits but to fit a demographic category. (cough, Clarence Thomas, cough)
posted by Sean S. on
“Especially given the examples of what “scientific” gays are doing to themselves and to their children.”
Amazing. Two gay guys take their daughters to a leather festival, and now all of a sudden ALL gay parents are bad. I don’t think I’ve seen credulity stretched further than that.
And the fact that HIV/AID’s overwhelmingly impacts gay men in developed countries shouldn’t be surprising. As a STD, obviously which ever group which would be first to get it, epidemiologically, would also be the one to carry the heaviest burden. As to whether or not gay men have higher risk behaviors that heterosexual people, thats true, but not exceptionally so.
A study of heterosexual men who were HIV-positive found that 21% and 24% had engaged in unsafe vaginal or oral sex in the preceding 3 months. ( Correlates of unprotected sex among adult heterosexual men living with HIV. Milam J; Richardson JL; Espinoza L; Stoyanoff S), which while lower than the 33% mentioned in your article, does not show a vast gulf between the two populations in risky behavior. The reality is a significant portion of those whom have sex have unsafe sex.
As to whether said people are “religious” or not is almost impossible to determine. Certainly Ted Haggard being religious didn’t stop him from smoking meth and sucking a male prostitutes dick, nor Rev. Gary Aldridge from being found dead from autoerotic asphyxiation with a vibrator up his butt so I’m pretty sure that the breakdown of people engaging in unsafe sex includes a fair number of people whom would self identify as “Religious”.
posted by Rob on
NDT:
Especially given the examples of what “scientific” gays are doing to themselves and to their children.
Bravo NDT, way to diverge towards a straw man. Give yourself a lollipop.
Given the statistics on who’s getting HIV, why is it that “scientific” gays, who look down their noses at those ignorant religious folk, constitute the majority of cases nationally? Why aren’t religious people who supposedly know nothing about sex and are too ignorant to protect themselves dying in droves?
Well with your given statistic, which only covers males, you are lumping those “scientific gays,” as you would crudely put it, with just about any man that has sex with a man, regardless of his identity. Most of these ?men? are as ignorant as the religious conservatives advocating abstinence-only education are, because they?re woven from the same fabric of ignorance; that is closet cases and runaways from social conservative backgrounds, many who have a black American background, which obviously didn’t teach them about the risks of unprotected sex via abstinence-only education.
These programs obviously do more harm to gay and lesbian teens, because they are created from a flawed point-of-view that doesn?t see the existence of gay teens, or if it does, then it would see them as disordered and needed to be fixed. Regan does a better job of explaining the failure of abstinence-only education and the protection of gay youth. Basically, it?s the same core issue on the ?Intelligent Design? point-of-view that Sean?s argument has addressed, which you NDT have completely dodged.
In addition, given the rate of teenage pregnancy and unprotected sex among those exposed to abstinence-only programs, which does absolutely nothing positive for gays and lesbians, and divorce rates in more religious communities, religious folk are hardly the authority on this matter …even less when it comes to gay sexuality.
posted by Sean S. on
Rob:
Actually, the CDC makes a point of mentioning this fact in its statistics, pointing out that the rate of people who self-identify as homosexual is lower than the number who admitted they probably contracted the disease from unprotected sex with another man. Its hard to assess to what extent being closeted contributes to risky sexual behavior. Certainly depression and sex-only liaisons (ie: not with an emotional partner) do contribute to riskier sex choices, both for heterosexual and homosexual populations.
But you can’t win with people like NDT. Like a similar argument I had with a frot advocate on this site about safer sex, its either ass bandits are HIV spreading reprobates proven by statistics or science is a fraud the moment it says otherwise. The complex reality of what contributes to sexual choices, and how a variety of factors influence the spread of a disease, is completely glossed over for political expediency.
posted by Rob on
But you can’t win with people like NDT.
Sure you can, that is if you can clearly deconstruct his arguments, and refrain from letting him get away with straw-men, tu quoque and ad hominem arguments (which NDT beats the record for). His mind might not change, but a lot of independent and moderate minds watching the debates will.
Eh, with NDT, you’ve already won, since he’s incapable of convincing those with open-minds that his arguments have merit of their own. Sometimes there’s a blip on the radar which shows signs of promise, but then he simply crashes it down with pure bashing, partisanship, and trash talk, instead of having a real discussion. Likewise with Michigan-Matt’s juvenile name calling.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Amazing. Two gay guys take their daughters to a leather festival, and now all of a sudden ALL gay parents are bad. I don’t think I’ve seen credulity stretched further than that.
Thanks for demonstrating the point by attacking me instead of the gay parents who take their children to sex fairs.
As a STD, obviously which ever group which would be first to get it, epidemiologically, would also be the one to carry the heaviest burden.
Since there are far more heterosexuals than there are gays, if heterosexuals were as promiscuous as gays, the rate in the heterosexual community would be staggeringly large. It isn’t; indeed, numerically, gays account for the majority of cases.
Along those lines (emphasis mine):
A study of heterosexual men who were HIV-positive found that 21% and 24% had engaged in unsafe vaginal or oral sex in the preceding 3 months. ( Correlates of unprotected sex among adult heterosexual men living with HIV. Milam J; Richardson JL; Espinoza L; Stoyanoff S), which while lower than the 33% mentioned in your article, does not show a vast gulf between the two populations in risky behavior.
Contrast that with this:
The research team found that 37.3 percent of the men said they had engaged in unprotected anal intercourse over the past three months.
In other words, HIV-infected heterosexuals had unprotected sex, period, 24% of the time — but just counting unprotected anal sex alone, gays were over 37%. What do you think it would be if you added in oral sex?
The shame of the matter is that it’s not gay sex in and of itself that’s the problem; it’s the utter lack of responsibility and encouragement of promiscuity that is endemic among the “scientific” gay community, as well as the culture of denialism and attempting to blame others that we see in your responses.
The other problem we see here is how gay and lesbian liberals believe it somehow is “wrong” to teach teenagers to abstain from sex until they’re older and how they believe that it is normal and “common” for adults to have sex with teenagers.
Raising the age of consent is a veiled attempt to assert conservative moral values on youth, queer and youth-led groups told Senators today.
The Senate’s legal affairs committee is studying a Harper government bill that would raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. It will almost certainly pass ? no political party has opposed it ? but queer and youth-led groups came out Feb 22 to insist on their sexual freedom.
The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.
“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.
posted by Rob on
The shame of the matter is that it’s not gay sex in and of itself that’s the problem;
Noted, although you should state this to social conservatives in the same harsh note you use on this blog.
it’s the utter lack of responsibility and encouragement of promiscuity that is endemic among the “scientific” gay community, as well as the culture of denialism and attempting to blame others that we see in your responses.
No one here is denying personal responibility. Again, Sean and I have told you that the majority of those cases are due to social conservative environments, especially with black and ethnic Americans, which in the statistics you provide us, account for 64% of those living with HIV. The “scientific” gay community, again as you would crudely put it, at the medical and community centre level has strongly encouraged the promotion of safe sex, building self-esteem and relationships, including teaching the consequences of catching HIV.
The other problem we see here is how gay and lesbian liberals believe it somehow is “wrong” to teach teenagers to abstain from sex until they’re older
First of all, why is it wrong to have sex as a teenager? I understand how promiscuity, unsafe sex are problems, yet virtually all gay community centres teach safer sex methods, the risks and consequences of catching HIV, as well as tying sexuality matters to self-esteem, which leads to strong relationships. However any coercion on youth whether it is pressured to have sex or not is in my view wrong. That is the personal choice of gay youth, and fortunately we’re heading the right direction. Now my question to you is why is it wrong for a gay teen to have sex, in a context that involves safe-sex and self-respect?
and how they believe that it is normal and “common” for adults to have sex with teenagers.
You’ll have to prove that troubling claim with something more than just anecdotal evidence. Pederasty may have been more common in the past, but it’s hardly the majority of gay relationships.
posted by Richard II on
The Theory of Evolution does not prove or disprove ‘God’ or any other higher power(s). It deals with non-human animals.
Darwin himself was fairly religious man himself and probably thought he was uncovering one of God’s ‘natural laws’.
It remains the basic scientific theory to explain specific things. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is one of the many religious/philosophical theories that exist and that should not be taught in a science class as science.
This does not mean that they cannot be taught in an elective on philosophy or religion. This does not mean that people who support evolution are ‘bigots’ or even opposed to organized religion or religion in general.
The two major party..well..public supported parties used to have a much more important purpose; candidates were chosen and many others failed.
Increasingly, it is already clear who the party nominee is going to be and it is really just a long and expensive commercial and an excuse to party with people who might share some of your political values.
Part of the problem is that, on the one hand, primaries were suppose to totally remove the party leadership from having a direct say on who would represent their party in the general election.
Yet, as we have seen both parties have numerous legal rights to exclude citizens from voting or standing as a candidate, to punnish a State party chapter for not following certain rules and so on.
Thus we have two parties which are being told to be catch-all, big tents who also want the sort of legal rights one might give to a private club or organization. As an Independent I can say tht this causes many problems, including making the role of non-major parties very very unclear.
Their are LGBT-interest groups that only focus on ‘gay issues’ but it is up to the membership of each group to define that term.
Some people feel that being pro-choice is a gay rights issue because of the fact that the pro-life movement is largely anti-gay and seems to worhship anti-gay religious fanatics.
Others LGBT people disagree and either focus on other issues or get involved in a pro-life gay group.
Some people think that gun rights are a gay rights issue or that medical marijuana is a gay rights issue or that election law reform is a gay rights issue.
A person’s own life experiences, political, religious and social opinions and beliefs are going to shape how they may define what is a ‘gay issue’ or not.
Yet, their is nothing stopping a person from joining the LGBT Democrats or Republicans club. Or starting up an interest group that reflects their own defintion of what gay rights issues are and are not.
posted by Richard II on
The ‘experience’ argument is, of coarse, often overblown as part of a marketing campaign to hurt the other side and help the said you support.
McCain Campaign did it with Obama and now Obama Campaign will be doing it to Mccain. I think that in both cases it is probably being overblown. Yet, gay partisans here will likely only have a problem with the ‘experience’ argument when its used to hurt their ‘master’.
I really do not feel that this is a case of m-i-s-o-g-y-n-y (Yes, yes we know that you can spell. Good boy. Want a candy?)
The Mcain Campaign used the ‘experience’ argument against Obama and now Obama is using it against the Mcain Campaign.
If Mcain had picked a man with limited experience, the Obama Campaign would have done the same. It is more a question of tit-for-tat then anything else. Mcaain tried to use the experience argument and then picked some one with little experience.
As a person of color, perhaps one of the few here, I never saw much ‘liberal racism’ in reaction to Clarence Thomas’s nomininating process. Accusations of sexual harassment were made.
Liberals passionatly disagreed with his politics and, in my opinion, right so. His opinions have largely been, IMHO, an embarassment to the legal profession. That says nothing about his race, color, ethnic or national heritage.
posted by avee on
I really do not feel that this is a case of m-i-s-o-g-y-n-y (Yes, yes we know that you can spell. Good boy. Want a candy?)
Amazing how hateful the lefties are. They can’t just make a point; they consistently feel the need to insult. That, in itself, says so much about what’s motivating them.
posted by TerranceDC on
I have to ask, what about McCain’s record on gay issues suggests that he would even be neutral on LGBT issues, let alone good? His positions are almost identical to those of George W. Bush.
One other thing. I will give gay conservatives the benefit of the doubt that they choose their party based on their political philosophy, and not just their positions on LGBT issues. Can it be acknowledged, then that those of us who support Obama/Biden make our choices based on political philosophy and not just on LGBT issues? It just happens that one candidate is clearly better on those issues than another, but that’s not the only reason we chose our candidate or party. Those of us who are not supporting McCain do so not just because of his position on LGBT issues, but because we believe his policies are “worse (or even dangerously worse) for the country,” than Obama’s.
I’ll make a deal with you. I won’t characterize gay conservatives or gay Republicans as self loathing, and in return I’d ask the those of us on the other side not be characterized as mindless, single-issue voters.
posted by Terrance on
Actually, I tend to think being pro-choice is a “gay issue” because of the relationship between Roe and the right to privacy, and Lawrence v. Texas and the right to privacy. (Toss in Griswold for good measure.) They all seem to be tied into the right to privacy. If you can get one overturned, the rest will be easy to reverse too. Depending, of course, on the make-up of the Supreme Court.
posted by Pat on
First of all, why is it wrong to have sex as a teenager? … Now my question to you is why is it wrong for a gay teen to have sex, in a context that involves safe-sex and self-respect?
Rob, I disagree with this point somewhat. I’m not sure that it’s wrong for teenagers to have sex, because it’s obviously natural impulse during that time. But it is a terrible idea. Yes, teens can be taught safe sex and should (and then wait to have sex as adults, in my view), but the self-respect part is hard. Too many times one (or both) of the party to the sex may be coerced, manipulated, or otherwise engaging in sex that does not reflect self-respect on that person’s part. If this happens when one is an adult, well, that’s his/her responsibility. But children should be protected from this. And the fact that sex too many times leads to STDs and pregnancy, means that we do ourselves a disservice by not stating children shouldn’t have sex. For this reason, I advocate raising the minimum age for marriage to 18 everywhere. To say that it’s okay for a teen to have sex, simply because they are married is even worse.
On the other hand, we shouldn’t stick our heads in the sand of stupidity and say that teaching abstinence alone is going to solve the problem. Just like we should educate teens to abstain from alcohol (or cigarettes, for that matter), doesn’t mean that it’s going to happen. That’s why we also teach teens that you should NEVER drive while drunk. And while you can try hard to prevent teens to have access to alcohol, the same is not true with sex, unless the teens are locked up and/or subject to 24/7 supervision. It’s pretty easy for two teens to have a kiss to turn into something much more. Anyway, there’s no reason to not teach teens two lessons regarding sex.
Amazing how hateful the lefties are. They can’t just make a point; they consistently feel the need to insult. That, in itself, says so much about what’s motivating them.
Avee, I don’t know if the statement you refer was hateful. It looks like it could have been a response to a hateful comment made to the poster. Even so, I’m afraid the righties on this site can be just as hateful. What would be their motivation?
posted by Pat on
By the way, is there anybody on this site that believes that it’s okay for parents to dress up their children as sex slaves and/or bring them to a sex fair or willing to defend them? Also, is there anybody on this site that it is okay for a 35-year-old to have sex with a 15-year-old or willing to defend the 35-year-old?
posted by Pat on
I’ll make a deal with you. I won’t characterize gay conservatives or gay Republicans as self loathing, and in return I’d ask the those of us on the other side not be characterized as mindless, single-issue voters.
Excellent point, Terrance. Good luck!
posted by Rob on
Rob, I disagree with this point somewhat. I’m not sure that it’s wrong for teenagers to have sex, because it’s obviously natural impulse during that time. But it is a terrible idea. Yes, teens can be taught safe sex and should (and then wait to have sex as adults, in my view), but the self-respect part is hard. Too many times one (or both) of the party to the sex may be coerced, manipulated, or otherwise engaging in sex that does not reflect self-respect on that person’s part. If this happens when one is an adult, well, that’s his/her responsibility. But children should be protected from this. And the fact that sex too many times leads to STDs and pregnancy, means that we do ourselves a disservice by not stating children shouldn’t have sex. For this reason, I advocate raising the minimum age for marriage to 18 everywhere. To say that it’s okay for a teen to have sex, simply because they are married is even worse.
On the other hand, we shouldn’t stick our heads in the sand of stupidity and say that teaching abstinence alone is going to solve the problem. Just like we should educate teens to abstain from alcohol (or cigarettes, for that matter), doesn’t mean that it’s going to happen. That’s why we also teach teens that you should NEVER drive while drunk. And while you can try hard to prevent teens to have access to alcohol, the same is not true with sex, unless the teens are locked up and/or subject to 24/7 supervision. It’s pretty easy for two teens to have a kiss to turn into something much more. Anyway, there’s no reason to not teach teens two lessons regarding sex.
Hello Pat,
So once they pass this artificially created line, it is suddenly a-o-k? Yes, there are many teenagers coerced into having sex, yet this is not an unknown issue with adults with adults either. There are statutory rape laws to protect them, which I think should be set to 16, with an exclusion of an age difference of 2 years. You also have teens that are more mature than adults are. This is a rather probabilistic issue rather than a deterministic one, and I have never been a fan of this minor, and major dichotomy, since the reality is that teenage development is gradual. Unless you can standardize a way of determining a person’s overall maturity and ability to cope with stressful situations, the issue will remain muddy.
As for the alcohol issue, well that?s for another time. I?ll just point out to the Western Europeans on how they handle children, alcohol (16 years old), driving (18 years old), and sex as well.
posted by Priya Lynn on
If there was any doubt about Palin’s position on domestic partner benefits for Alaska state employees she answered it in a questionaire she filled out in her run for governor:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/from_the_horses_mouth.php#comments
“10. Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples? Why or why not?Why or why not?
SP: No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.”.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallas said “Priya Lynn who mock their religious beliefs, their commitment to their children and families, and their support of being judged on their merits rather than their gender identity.”.
I do mock religious beliefs but most certainly do not mock people’s committments to their children and families nor their support of being judged on their merits rather than their gender identity. Any suggestion to the contrary is a lie.
As to Palin’s claiming her daughter’s child is her own, I really couldn’t care less if she did or not. As to the suggestion I’m “desperately” searching for bikini pictures of Palin, she was a hotty in her younger days, I wouldn’t mind seeing some bikini pictures of her but I’m not by any stretch of the imagination desperate to see them. As far as troopergate goes, its alleged that she improperly used her office to get the trooper fired, I don’t know if that’s the case or not and I really don’t care – it’ll come out in the wash.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Palin’s 17 year old daughter is pregnant:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/01/palins-17-year-old-daughter-is-pregnant/
I don’t think this reflects on Palin in any way, her daughter is her own person and made her own decision. I point it out to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Northdallas. If Palin was a democrat he’d be screaming how this demonstrates her failure as a parent and how she passed on immoral values to her daughter. That he fails to mention it at all shows that its not the right or wrong that people do that matters to him, its simply loyalty to the republican party that matters above right and wrong.
posted by Sean S. on
“In other words, HIV-infected heterosexuals had unprotected sex, period, 24% of the time — but just counting unprotected anal sex alone, gays were over 37%. What do you think it would be if you added in oral sex?”
Slightly higher, as indicated by the 3% spread between unsafe vaginal and oral sex, respectively, in the heterosexual study.
The question is are those whom are not merely promiscuous, but are UNSAFE in their sexual activities, the so called “scientific” gays you’ve made up? I’m not quite sure what you mean when you say scientific gays, but but I presume you are taking aim at the typical white, liberal Stonewall Democrat.
Of course, this is not whom HIV is spreading amongst most rapidly now. Its spreading, rather, most rapidly amongst the undeniably more closeted ethnic communities, including African American’s and Hispanics.
“Since there are far more heterosexuals than there are gays, if heterosexuals were as promiscuous as gays, the rate in the heterosexual community would be staggeringly large. It isn’t; indeed, numerically, gays account for the majority of cases.”
It seems you need a lesson in epidemiology. If a virus, such as AID’s, is transmitted sexually, and the FIRST group of people in which zoonosis (since HIV is a modified version of a virus found in apes) is achieved are gay, than the subsequent spread will be predominantly amongst gay people. How much fucking heterosexual people do is irrelevant UNTIL someone has sex with someone from the gay community in which to pass it on, or shares needles, or has a tainted blood transfusion.
If 10 people in a town are all disease free, and only have sex with each other, no amount of fucking is going to make them get HIV. Their risk of getting any disease is nil. That changes, very rapidly however, if a partner is included whom does test positive for an STD. This is how STD’s spread so rapidly amongst highschools, and how they can trace it so quickly back to the one person whom slept with someone else outside of the “locked box” as it were.
“The other problem we see here is how gay and lesbian liberals believe it somehow is “wrong” to teach teenagers to abstain from sex until they’re older and how they believe that it is normal and “common” for adults to have sex with teenagers.”
It seems that abstention teaching didn’t quite hit home with Sarah Palin’s daughter whom has a bun in an oven, and a shotgun wedding in her future. Unlike “Buick driving welfare moms”, however, Palin’s daughter has full access to taxpayer paid healthcare and a generous salary from her mom.
posted by Pat on
Thanks, Rob, for your comments. Yes, I get the point about an arbitrary line being created. Sure, turning 18 doesn’t magically make one mature, but in the eyes of the law, at least, they are now responsible for their actions. I should say that by coerce, I wasn’t talking about physical rape, and that’s not what I meant (in case you or anyone else thought that). Of course, penalties for rape should be harsh, no matter the ages involved.
It’s one thing for a child to buy the “you have to have sex with me to prove that you love me” or the locker room bull$h&t that coerces people to have sex when they otherwise wouldn’t. But at some point (and I picked the legal age of majority) you have to be responsible to see through the bs that the manipulation is.
Yes, some at 16 are more emotionally and sexually mature than some 19 years olds. But these 16-year-olds would then see the virtue of waiting until at least 18 to have sex.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I don’t think this reflects on Palin in any way, her daughter is her own person and made her own decision. I point it out to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Northdallas. If Palin was a democrat he’d be screaming how this demonstrates her failure as a parent and how she passed on immoral values to her daughter.
Notice how Priya attacks based on hypothetical actions and ignores the people in her own party who say that it IS a reflection on Palin and that women who do not stay home with their children are bad parents.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’m not quite sure what you mean when you say scientific gays, but but I presume you are taking aim at the typical white, liberal Stonewall Democrat.
Of course, this is not whom HIV is spreading amongst most rapidly now. Its spreading, rather, most rapidly amongst the undeniably more closeted ethnic communities, including African American’s and Hispanics.
Which is why, I suppose, the statistics show white men who have sex with men producing more cases of HIV infection than black men, Hispanic men, or other categories.
Of course the gay community is going to obsess itself with rate; since minority communities started with a smaller number, any increase at all has a greater proportionate effect on the rate of increase. But in a disease in which the odds of it being spread are increased by the increase in number of people with it, obsessing with the rate while ignoring the vast increase in number in other populations doesn’t make any sense.
It seems you need a lesson in epidemiology. If a virus, such as AID’s, is transmitted sexually, and the FIRST group of people in which zoonosis (since HIV is a modified version of a virus found in apes) is achieved are gay, than the subsequent spread will be predominantly amongst gay people. How much fucking heterosexual people do is irrelevant UNTIL someone has sex with someone from the gay community in which to pass it on, or shares needles, or has a tainted blood transfusion.
If 10 people in a town are all disease free, and only have sex with each other, no amount of fucking is going to make them get HIV. Their risk of getting any disease is nil. That changes, very rapidly however, if a partner is included whom does test positive for an STD.
Indeed. However, in this case, despite HIV having been introduced to the heterosexual population, which has far greater numbers, why do men who have sex with men still make up the majority of HIV infection cases — and why have HIV rates dropped everywhere else EXCEPT among gay men, where they continue to increase?
It seems that abstention teaching didn’t quite hit home with Sarah Palin’s daughter whom has a bun in an oven, and a shotgun wedding in her future.
Because, of course, we know that “comprehensive sex education” has prevented any and all teen pregnancies.
Personally, I think telling teenagers not to have sex and having the occasional mistake from disobedience is far better than encouraging them to have sex. After all, the gay community adamantly opposes abstinence and encourages its teens to have sex, and look at the lovely results it produces.
(Before you get too excited about the 22% drop among older gays, note what the article says about a parallel spike in syphilis across all age groups. That’s not surprising; you only get HIV once, so many of the people in the older groups already have it.)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And Terrance:
I’ll make a deal with you. I won’t characterize gay conservatives or gay Republicans as self loathing, and in return I’d ask the those of us on the other side not be characterized as mindless, single-issue voters.
Deal. For you.
posted by Rob on
Which is why, I suppose, the statistics show white men who have sex with men producing more cases of HIV infection than black men, Hispanic men, or other categories.
What’s this “Other/risk factor not reported or identified”? So 37% of HIV infected black men got infected magically? Even if they were, the production, and rate of HIV+ black and Hispanic men is pretty damning when taking population disparity into consideration. Rate does matter due to the non-uniform infected population size, and those infected in a shorter period are more likely to spread it than the older generation, especially when they have no fucking clue that they’re already infected.
Because, of course, we know that “comprehensive sex education” has prevented any and all teen pregnancies.
Nothing is perfect in this universe.
Personally, I think telling teenagers not to have sex and having the occasional mistake from disobedience is far better than encouraging them to have sex. After all, the gay community adamantly opposes abstinence and encourages its teens to have sex, and look at the lovely results it produces.
Yet comprehensive sex education doesn’t encourage teens to have sex, and it hardly can be blamed on higher HIV rates. In most cases, those programs advise teens to wait for the right person, and not to rush over a serious matter. Nor does it state that condoms are 100% effective (again, nothing is perfect).
NDT, just to clarify, are you telling us that you’re in favour of abstinence-only until marriage programs, or that you simply want to emphasize abstinence in comprehensive gay sex education programs, like Sean would? Tell us throughly, what would NDT’s sex education programs look like for schools, families, and community centres? How would it improve the welfare of gay youth? I’m all ears to constructive analysis.
posted by Sean S. on
“Which is why, I suppose, the statistics show white men who have sex with men producing more cases of HIV infection than black men, Hispanic men, or other categories.”
Yes. Because theres more. Sweet fucking christ man? So let me get this straight if California, a state with 36 million people roughly, has more people with AID’s than the state of North Carolina, a state with 7 million people, what does the larger number prove? Nothing! The only way to determine such a thing is based on rate.
“Of course the gay community is going to obsess itself with rate; since minority communities started with a smaller number, any increase at all has a greater proportionate effect on the rate of increase. But in a disease in which the odds of it being spread are increased by the increase in number of people with it, obsessing with the rate while ignoring the vast increase in number in other populations doesn’t make any sense.”
I don’t think that paragraph made any sense. The rate of spread amongst a population relative to their size is whats important. 50 pigeons getting killed is not a reason to call up the EPA. 50 cougars is. And the rate, and the geographical and ethnic distribution are important, because ones odd’s of getting the disease vary depending on these circumstances.
“Indeed. However, in this case, despite HIV having been introduced to the heterosexual population, which has far greater numbers, why do men who have sex with men still make up the majority of HIV infection cases — and why have HIV rates dropped everywhere else EXCEPT among gay men, where they continue to increase?”
Except HIV was only introduced to a very specific area of the heterosexual population; namely IV drug users and bisexual men and women. The number of these, and their “Ghettoization” sexually, preclude a wider spread amongst heterosexual men and women. The only area where this is NOT the case, is amongst African American women, where women are sleeping with bisexual men who are closeted, or have not been open about their sexual histories.
Frankly, I don’t care anymore. You willfully misunderstand and misconstrue basic public health concepts to promote a nonsense, reactionary view on sexuality that no one on here, even amongst other gay Republicans, seems willing to endorse.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jim offers: “Palin was selected first and foremost because she’s a woman. No man would have had such a chance. She represents the worst form of tokenism: someone selected not on their own merits but to fit a demographic category.”
Umm, Jim, if McCain had wanted a female nominee he would have selected Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Elizabeth Dole or Condi Rice or any number of GOP Congresswomen or governors.
Nice try at spitting out the gaydemocrat talking points, but it isn’t getting you there.
Sarah Palin was chosen because she is a maverick and proven reformer with a track record of fighting corruption and exercising executive leadership.
A reform-minded maverick (McCain) chose a proven political maverick with a record of reform accomplishments (Palin).
Your attestation that McCain picked her just because she was a female is demeaning of all women, demeaning to any political minority who struggles against the impression they got to where they are because of one ethnic trait or their sex.
It’s a shame that you can’t find the voice to applaud McCain for proving once again he’s a maverick who thinks outside the box… instead, you just want to demean women, minorities and misdirect attention away from the fact that Obama’s veep is more qualified than Obama to be prez.
posted by Priya Lynn on
northdallas said “Notice how Priya attacks based on hypothetical actions and ignores the people in her own party who say that it IS a reflection on Palin and that women who do not stay home with their children are bad parents.”.
You’re in no position to criticize those who criticize Palin. You constantly blame all LGBTS for the wrong actions of isolated individuals, nothing hypothetical about your hypocrisy.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Also notice how Northdallas didn’t criticize Palin’s daughter for having reckless premarital sex. When isolated gays have done that he won’t shut up about it and insists it means the whole gay community is sexually promiscuous and irresponsible. As far as he’s concerned being a heterosexual makes it okay to be sexually irresponsible.
posted by Jim on
“if McCain had wanted a female nominee he would have selected Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Elizabeth Dole or Condi Rice or any number of GOP Congresswomen or governors.”
Umm…..Hutchinson? She supports Roe as settled law. McCain (and everyone else) dislikes her. And she’s publically stated she is uninterested.
Dole? She’s struggling for dear life to get re-elected in North Carolina. Yesterday’s news. And again, McCain doesn’t like her especially after the NC GOP defied him by running over-the-top anti-Obama ads.
Condi? Please! Not even the Koolaid drinkers can choke that one down.
If Palin were a man, there is no way on this earth she’d be what she is today: the answer to some future trivia question. A powerful (and older) man picking an unqualified beauty queen is demeaning to women as well as a demonstration of poor judgment by McCain.
Gaydemocrat? Sorry, you’re quite confused. I’ve actually voted for McCain (unlike the typical Republican I might add). The question in ’08 is whether I’ll be forced to vote for a Democrat presidential candidate for the first time? Maybe McCain can yet arrange a tasteful withdrawal and hope that Ridge or Pawlenty are still willing?
posted by Richard II on
Palin was picked for two reasons; (1) she is a woman and (2) she supports the socially conservative policies of the GOP base.
Biden was picked for two reasons (1) older working class white man and (2) foreign policy expert. I am not sure why non-major party candidates pick their VP’s.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
No Jim, nice try at the spin but your earlier post suggests an antipathy which would drive you away from any GOPer like a Cross to a vampire… it’s like Richard2 suddenly tellin gus he’s coting for McCain except he thinks the guy is wrong on guns, wrong on abortion, wrong on gay marriage, wrong on DADT, wrong on the UN, wrong on social spending… has an ugly wife, is too old… but would have voted for him if McCain would just change all those positions. And run as a 3rd Party cnadidate, too.
Right, you claiming to have voted for McCain may be true but it’s because you were hoping to hamper, hazard and constrain the GOP nat’lly by picking the worst GOP to go up against Clinton or Obama.
Palin was chosen because she is a maverick, she’s long worked against the GOP establishment just like McCain, she’s a reformer who has a record of accomplishment much like McCain’s and she can handle herself on the campaign trail without micro-management.
There were at least 5 other women vetted by AB Culvahouse’s committee.
I can understand how gayDemocrats would like to create and swirl controversy where none exists… but the real controversies about Obama’s 1st vetting chief, corrupt CountryWide CEO Johnson were never answered and the improprieties of Obama’s 2nd vetting chair Eric Holder have never been answered.
But if you want to diminish Palin’s outstanding credentials as a maverick, as a reformer as a candidate with an effective record… you go ahead. The women bristling to kick your butt for your blantant sexism will do it on Election Day by picking McCain-Palin.
Don’t let me stop you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Also notice how Northdallas didn’t criticize Palin’s daughter for having reckless premarital sex. When isolated gays have done that he won’t shut up about it and insists it means the whole gay community is sexually promiscuous and irresponsible.
Nope, I criticize her; she made a really dumb and stupid decision.
Problem is, her family admits it was a bad decision and she admits it was a bad decision. No one’s encouraging it, and no one’s making excuses for it. What they’re doing is supporting her and helping her.
Contrast that to people like Priya, who make excuses for gay promiscuity and scream that holding gays accountable for their promiscuous behavior is antigay and hateful.
Also watch how gay Democrats state publicly that it’s perfectly acceptable to attack a person’s family, including children.
posted by Rob on
Nope, I criticize her; she made a really dumb and stupid decision.
Problem is, her family admits it was a bad decision and she admits it was a bad decision. No one’s encouraging it, and no one’s making excuses for it. What they’re doing is supporting her and helping her.
Contrast that to people like Priya, who make excuses for gay promiscuity and scream that holding gays accountable for their promiscuous behavior is antigay and hateful.
Also watch how gay Democrats state publicly that it’s perfectly acceptable to attack a person’s family, including children.
Note how NDT has completely dodged Sean’s and my refutation. So did Michigan Matt in a previous article.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, that’s easy to explain, Rob; here’s what Sean said.
Frankly, I don’t care anymore.
Since you’ve already stated you’re not going to listen, there’s no point in wasting my time.
However, since you decided to bait, let’s throw out an example of your and Sean’s version of public health.
Yes. Because theres more. Sweet fucking christ man? So let me get this straight if California, a state with 36 million people roughly, has more people with AID’s than the state of North Carolina, a state with 7 million people, what does the larger number prove? Nothing! The only way to determine such a thing is based on rate.
Of course, what rate by racial classification also conveniently assumes is that black people only have sex with black people, and so forth. If a white man infects a black man, the incidence is counted as “black”, even though a white man is responsible. Hence, pointing to race and rates is really little more than an attempt by white liberal gays to dodge responsibility for sexual promiscuity.
Except HIV was only introduced to a very specific area of the heterosexual population; namely IV drug users and bisexual men and women. The number of these, and their “Ghettoization” sexually, preclude a wider spread amongst heterosexual men and women. The only area where this is NOT the case, is amongst African American women, where women are sleeping with bisexual men who are closeted, or have not been open about their sexual histories.
Except the fact that, if that were the case, the prevalence of HIV in the black community would imply that the rate of bisexuality is far greater among blacks than it is among whites.
Inadvertently, Sean stumbled on the answer; the reason HIV spreads so readily among bisexuals, urban blacks, and gays is because they all share a common cultural trait of endorsing, supporting, and promoting sexual promiscuity. That is not the norm among heterosexuals, which is why the disease has made so little headway in the normal heterosexual population; it has remained concentrated in populations that, like the gay community, practice sexual irresponsibility as a rule, oppose and ridicule any form of sexual restraint, and equate sexual conquests with power and status.
posted by Rob on
Of course, what rate by racial classification also conveniently assumes is that black people only have sex with black people, and so forth. If a white man infects a black man, the incidence is counted as “black”, even though a white man is responsible. Hence, pointing to race and rates is really little more than an attempt by white liberal gays to dodge responsibility for sexual promiscuity.
Again, you’re dodging my argument. This is a strawman. My argument is that even though those who are HIV+ are pretty much responsible for their risky behaviours, a great deal of their choices are due to their neglected or social conservative background, regardless of race. The only reason I mentioned black Americans as an example is because their families are very high in either background mentioned.
How is it related? Well for the most part, no sex education has really been provided towards the issues of their sexuality. Self-worth is nil due to a lack of a real family, and of course, many of the closeted ones are obviously conflicted with their sexual orienation.
Except the fact that, if that were the case, the prevalence of HIV in the black community would imply that the rate of bisexuality is far greater among blacks than it is among whites.
Well yes, that’s essentially what the Down Low subculture is all about: black men with girlfriends, cheating with other men behind their backs. It’s riddled with promiscuity, and broken relationships, yet what is interesting though is how it was formed out of a rejection of gay culture.
Really now, when, where and how has the ‘scientific’ gay community promoted risky behaviour? The closest thing I can think of is the pornography industry with its countless ‘bareback’ videos. But they’re definitely not part of ‘scientific’ gay community, which are actually outraged about it.
Yet you didn’t answer my previous question NDT: are you in favour of abstinence-only until marriage programs, or do you just want more emphasis on abstinence in comprehensive sex education programs directed for gay youth? Tell us throughly, what would NDT’s sex education programs look like for schools, families, and community centres? How would it improve the welfare of gay youth?
Let I said before I’m all ears to constructive analysis.
posted by Rob on
Bloody tags. Ignore the previous post.
Of course, what rate by racial classification also conveniently assumes is that black people only have sex with black people, and so forth. If a white man infects a black man, the incidence is counted as “black”, even though a white man is responsible. Hence, pointing to race and rates is really little more than an attempt by white liberal gays to dodge responsibility for sexual promiscuity.
Again, you’re dodging my argument. This is a straw man. My argument is that even though those who are HIV+ are pretty much responsible for their risky behaviours, a great deal of their choices are due to their neglected or social conservative background, regardless of race. The only reason I mentioned black Americans as an example is because their families are very high in either background mentioned.
How is it related? Well for the most part, no sex education has really been provided toward the issues of their sexuality. Self-worth is nil due to a lack of a real family, and of course, many of the closeted ones are obviously conflicted with their sexual orientation.
Except the fact that, if that were the case, the prevalence of HIV in the black community would imply that the rate of bisexuality is far greater among blacks than it is among whites.
Well yes, that’s essentially what the Down Low subculture is all about: black men with girlfriends, cheating with other men behind their backs. It’s riddled with promiscuity, and broken relationships, yet what is interesting though is how it was formed out of a rejection of gay culture.
Really now, when, where and how has the ‘scientific’ gay community promoted risky behaviour? The closest thing I can think of is the pornography industry with its countless ‘bareback’ videos. But they’re definitely not part of ‘scientific’ gay community, which are actually outraged about it.
Yet you didn’t answer my previous question NDT: are you in favour of abstinence-only until marriage programs, or do you just want more emphasis on abstinence in comprehensive sex education programs directed for gay youth? Tell us throughly, what would NDT’s sex education programs look like for schools, families, and community centres? How would it improve the welfare of gay youth?
Let I said before I’m all ears to constructive analysis.
posted by Richard II on
Their was no way that Mccain would have picked Condi as his VP. She once commented that she is more pro-choice, then pro-life and then…their…well..she is unmarried…legally.
posted by Richard II on
Despite what a serial liar has claimed, I have not endorsed any candidate.
I have mentioned — to explore my own beliefs — that I do support the 2nd Amendment as protecting both an individual and a collective right.
In the context of this presidential race, I have not made comments about the U.N. I certainly have not made comments about the candidates wives. I have spoken some about electoral law reform issues.
Palin was chosen because (1) she is a woman and McCain is hoping to appeal to women. (2) she has the pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay socially conservative political viewpoints that
Mccain needs to shore up support with that particular voting block.
She is not a maverick. Mcain gave up his maverick role in exchange for money and power.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard2, it seems that your finally coming out of the closet and embracing your true political nature as a gayDemocrat; good for you. That’s progress toward truth.
I was commenting to Jim about how improbable his position was and it was like “Richard2 suddenly telling us he’s voting for McCain except he thinks the guy is wrong on guns, wrong on abortion, wrong on gay marriage, wrong on DADT, wrong on the UN, wrong on social spending… has an ugly wife, is too old… but would have voted for him if McCain would just change all those positions. And run as a 3rd Party candidate, too.”
The point was trying to underscore how improbable Jim’s position was –as improbable as believing all those things about your unlikely endorsement of McCain-the-Maverick.
Despite what you might like to think (and again hiking those gayDemocrat skirts up around your ears while denying it with passion) Sarah Palin was NOT chosen because she was a woman… she was chosen by a maverick with a record of reform and bucking his Party because she, too, is a maverick who came to office because she bucked her corrupted state Party and began reforming govt.
Now, you may not like that. That may hurt your gayDemocrat chances of electing the ultimate EmptySuitCelebrity… but that’s what McCain and his campaign have said were the reasons for selecting her –despite all the untoward baggage the gayLeft blog world has “uncovered” about Sarah Palin’s “downs syndrime (sic) love child with JohnMcCain”.
Honest, it doesn’t matter why YOU or King Richard think McCain chose Palin. McCain had many more famous and better-reknown women to chose from… he picked Palin because she’s like him –a maverick who bucked the Party and has a record of reform.
Now, BarryO’s only record are the receipts from his last haircut and manicure.
By the way, the IGF editors here take a dim view of guys like you who like to call others “serial liars”. It got another famously “independent” CharlesWilson bitchslapped here a few weeks ago and I hope, Richard2, that your error in labeling others as liars comes from your legendary inability to read for comprehension… as you, once again, missed the context of my comments to Jim in the above thread.
I hope.
You can apologize at your leisure.
posted by Richard II on
MM called me — a person of color — a ‘Negro’ and a ‘slave’. He called another Richard a ‘kike’. He wants me to apologize?!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard2, well, you are either an unwitting dupe or intellectually dishonest or both.
The comments you refer to as mine in another thread are NOT; they are likely the comments of one of your fellow gayDemocrat pals who used to post as Charles Wilson… now he posts as DUMP.
He’s been kicked off at least 14 blogs in the last 2 years and his multiple IP addresses have been blocked by another 4 blogs who have battled his special, DirtyDemocratCampaignTricks tactics far longer than I’ve been around.
That’s why I commented before you raised the concern that those anti-semitic and racist comments at 8:59AM were NOT mine.
Do you even read, Richard2? Oh yeah, in a second we’ll hear that on your resume you were once also an english teacher… in addition to all the other jobs you’ve claimed here as proof of your special credibility on an issue.
Wow, I wonder why a gayDemocrat would work so hard to discredit another commenter on IGF?
Get a clue, Richard2. The comments weren’t mine and I noticed that fact for you and others to see… why do you need to spread such distortions?
Oh, I get it. It’s like the little game your side was playing with Sarah Palin… discredit with smearingly dishonest claims and hope no one checks them out?
How gayDemocrat of you Richard2. Taking plays out of their gamebook, eh?
Now, how about that apology, Richard2? We’re waiting and there’s no sniffling, squirming wriggling out of this one, this time.
Apology?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
We’re up to four occasions for some serious apologies, Richard2… in this thread alone, 2 instances.
First, you called me a “serial liar” here, without provocation or basis.
Second, you claim I’ve written racist and anti-Semitic remarks when I’ve disclaimed those remarks directly below the fakery but, even knowing that, you still spread falsehoods.
Two apologies here in this thread; 4 specific instances in the last 2 days. That sounds like a trend, no?
Come on Richard2… we’re waiting.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Really now, when, where and how has the ‘scientific’ gay community promoted risky behaviour? The closest thing I can think of is the pornography industry with its countless ‘bareback’ videos. But they’re definitely not part of ‘scientific’ gay community, which are actually outraged about it.
While it’s good to see that Dan Savage is speaking out against bareback porn, I actually found his “outrage” to be somewhat lacking. I mean, Savage is rightly concerned that some producers of bareback porn are exploiting naive young HIV- actors, who will likely end up acquiring HIV.
But not all barebacking performers are naive, barely legal, HIV- twinks. Treasure Island Media, for example, often casts 40-something musclebears who are already HIV+ — as evidenced by their biohazard tattoos and in some cases, the lipodystrophy that is just barely kept in check by testosterone/HGH therapy. Yet Savage doesn’t have a word to say about porn that role-models the controversial practice of poz/poz barebacking.
And on the related question of how barebacking porn affects the viewer, Savage is likewise silent — he mentions viewers only insofar as they are already established consumers of bareback porn and thus creating more demand for it. But he avoids the dicey issue of whether bareback porn encourages real-life barebacking by viewers who previously might have been more reluctant to cross that line.
Note — I’m not saying that a single viewing of bareback porn is going to make a gay man who’s been consistent about safer sex suddenly throw out all his condoms and buy himself a “Seed My Sloppy Fuckhole” T-shirt.
I am saying that it’s totally reasonable to suspect that bareback porn is a real co-factor in the ongoing erosion of the hard-built (and life-saving) taboo against condomless anal sex. And “outrage” against bareback porn that doesn’t ask whether such porn encourages VIEWERS to be less safe is tepid outrage indeed.
posted by Kelly on
I found your website, was interested what everyone was thinking…I am not gay, but I find myself frustrated that someone should be given special treatment because of their sexual preference. That is what is so tough I think for the average American, I may not agree with how you choose to run your sex life but in all honesty I don’t want to know how anyone does. If you are a good person, if you are willing to work hard and if you care about our country that is what matters to me. If you love your kids, support your community and are willing to put the welfare of those less fortunate first that is what I care about. Who you have sex with does not matter, only that you are loving and faithful. I am a 40 yr old Mormom and I was taught that it is not okay to treat others badly simply because we do not agree with them and I would hope that is how everyone feels. This election is important not because I am against Gay Marriage but because I think that it is time that our government gets back to the basics. I want Politicians who are willing to serve not be self serving, I am excited to see a woman become VP and I would not be against a gay marriage if it was a Family issue and not a sex issue. That is how it is portrayed and I think that is one of the reasons that Americans are against it. We should all be treated equal regardless of race, religion, gender and sexual orientation…not sexual preference. I think a woman, Sarah Palin can bridge that gap.Granted my opinion is one of many and probably doesn’t mean much, I just felt that maybe it might be interesting to know that not all of us are against same sex families or individuals.
God Bless
Kelly in Idaho
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Just to circle back around… Richard2 has indicated in other threads that, despite the fact he was fully aware that I have not called him racist names nor uttered bigoted comments about him or other IGF readers and it was the highkinks of an IGF troll (angry that he got booted and blocked at IGF), Richard2 will ignore the truth and facts and continue to spread falsehoods.
I expected Richard2 to admit his mistake, retract his fraud and we could have moved on.
He hasn’t and is unwilling to listen to reason or accept responsibility for his intentional misrepresentations.
The IGF editors are aware of Richard2’s conduct. They know the facts in this matter support me and the truth.
I’m sorry to say Richard2 will likely continue his unreasonable claims. On this, he’s as deceitful as his claim of being an independent.
My apologies to IGF readers for having to dwell on this matter but Richard2 gave us no other course.
posted by Jason D on
Here’s ND30, I see you’re still lying:
“LOL….not likely, Richard, given the Obama campaign’s latest line of attack: Sarah Palin’s baby isn’t really hers and she’s just covering up for her daughter. That’s very “scientific”. In fact, you can read the whole set of comments attached to it attempting to use “science” to “prove” this.”
Since when is DailyKOS part of the Obama campaign?
See, I thought that the race was between:
Obama & Biden
vs.
McCain & Palin
I had no idea that it was more like this:
DailyKOS & AmericaBlog
vs.
FreeRepublic & Sean Hannity
Who gives a crap what bloggers say? And why are we holding a campaign responsible for what a blogger says? Does that even enter the area of logic?
That’s like saying that Madonna is an awful singer because her fans are mean.
That’s like saying The Soprano’s is an awful show because someone got robbed while watching it.
How about holding the candidates responsible for what the candidates say? How about that?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
JasonD whines: “Since when is DailyKOS part of the Obama campaign?”
Ummm, newsflash to JasonD, since about the time Hillary dropped the ball and the chanting of leftLoons hit a fevered pitch… maybe we can mark it as the day that DailyKos provided the BarryO Campaign the fundraising access to the Kos-sacks… or I guess we should now call them Kos-sexists since they treated Gov Palin so shamefully and showed their true bigot colors. (02/28/08)
Or maybe we could mark it as the day the DailyKos exclusively published BarryO’s tampered birth certificate to prove he wasn’t a muslim. (6/12/08)
Or gheez, I guess the are a hundred points in the last few months we could contend that the DailyKos and Kos-sexists are an integral, connected and staff-sharing part of the BarryO campaign’s Temple of Doom & Gloom.
Which days would you like to count as the date that the Obama Campaign welcomed his Kos-sexists into the structure?
As for who reads the blogs? Really JasonD, for someone who is so fundamentally in sync with the netRootNuts of the farLeft (take a look at your own blog, Jason and then check out JoeMyGod or BillInExile or a quick 50 other sites) it seems beyond belief you would try to argue the netRootNuts are inconsequential.
THEY ARE the Democrat Party’s farLeft… and the Daily-Kos is the Master of the 3 Ring Circus.