Skip to comments.
Republican Congressman Kolbe - "Gay Marriage...its time has come"
03/05/04
| sasafras
Posted on 03/05/2004 11:15:20 AM PST by sasafras
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-212 last
To: dsc
I completely agree with you. And that's how I see it. I was just pointing out that liberals are correct in saying most of the tax cuts go to the wealthy. They do, and you are saying so too. I just think it's the right thing to do, in many respects.
To: sasafras
How about this:
"Republican Congressman xxxxx xxxxx just announced that universal concealed weapons carry (in opposition to the laws)is something whos "time is come" and compared the civil disobediance of gun owners carryign weapons where denied to the civil rights struggles of African-Americans."
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Full faith and credit should already be on our side although no one in government is willing to stand up for us.
miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal
202
posted on
03/08/2004 6:46:01 PM PST
by
Fun Bob
To: Abram
"maybe so, but intolerance caused:
"Nazi Germany"
No, intolerance did not cause Nazi Germany.
"and the Concentration Camps: Europe WWII"
Possibly. Not worth arguing about.
"Mass Graves: Bosnia
Kashmir Bombings: India
Church Bombings: Pakistan, US
9-11: US"
Islam caused those events, not "intolerance."
"Mormons driven out of NY, OH, MO, IL: US"
Those are atrocities? The history of what the Mormons did to get chucked out of those places is not easy to dig up, but neither is it impossible.
"The Killing Fields: Cambodia
Mass Graves of Kurds: Iraq"
Communism caused the Cambodian atrocities, not "intolerance," and the megalomania and evil of Saddam Hussein killed the Kurds.
"Slavery: Everywhere
Japanese-Americans WWII: US"
Pommes de la Rue...or, more colloquially, road apples.
I'd suggest you read Thomas Sowell's series on XX and Culture (Migrations, Race, and Conquests) for some accurate information on slavery.
As far as the internment of the Japanese goes, to equate wartime suspicion with "intolerance" is just silly.
"Lots of examples of intolerance."
No, lots of examples of you reducing complex issues to childish caricatures and laying the blame on your boogeyman.
"I love humanity"
Bullsh*t.
"Homosexuals need our love."
Real love would never lie to them by pretending their disorder is health. Real love would make strong efforts to get them the treatment they need. And real love would certainly never put them in the near occasion of mortal sin (and heinous crime) by allowing them to be teachers, doctors, clerics, scout leaders, or any other vocation or avocation that put them in proximity with youths and children.
"We don't need to accept everything they are doing, but we need to be tolerant of their views."
Your call for "tolerance" here is not a well-examined philosophical position; it is a moral postulate that you were spoon-fed, together with the assurance that accepting this postulate makes you a good person.
When someone's view is that disorder is a good thing, that is not something of which one should be tolerant.
203
posted on
03/08/2004 7:58:45 PM PST
by
dsc
To: sasafras
straight from his own lips
Heh heh.
But anyway... I think GWB's proposal for a constitutional amendment is, at the very least, a great campaign idea. Kerry OTOH sez he's against gay marriage, but thinks it should be up to the states. Is that his idea of something that will help him in the South? Bit by bit, Kerry has to take some kind of contrary position, or be revealed as a man who has no devotion to any idea.
204
posted on
03/08/2004 11:58:32 PM PST
by
SunkenCiv
(GWB will win by at least ten per cent)
To: Mark17
Actually, Kolbe has a quite conservative voting record for the most part. He just happens to be gay. He's kind of a libertarian, except he once broke a no tax raising pledge, which he once signed with ATR.
To: sasafras
Perhaps but the homosexual marraige issue can really be played up. NO matter what anyone says, in private people will not want homosexuals near their young.
This will resonate with the men voters. For women it will be as a mother, NO reasonable mother wants her son to bring home a homosexual sex partner.
It just takes placing Kolbe as a dead end ideolog whose priority is his homosexual "friends" and not the other 98% of the population.
To: wylenetheconservative
Bush carried that Congressional District with less than 50%. The Gore + Nader vote actually defeated Bush by 3,000 votes. More Hispanics move in every day and the RATS register them to vote whether they are legal or not. Considering the GOP used to carry Tuscon with 60%+ I'd say the area is trending toward the Democrats. The GOP would have a real hard time holding that district without Kolbe as the candidate. I can't find that data. Can you give me a link? You may be comparing Tucson's vote for President with District 8's votes for Congressman. District 8 only contains a small part of Tucson and a bunch of rural SE Arizona to include Sierra Vista. Tucson is decidedly more liberal than District 8 itself.
207
posted on
03/09/2004 9:15:13 AM PST
by
Spiff
(Don't believe everything you think.)
To: dsc
Well you have put everything into a nice little package. Hate who you want to...lump everything into the "people you hate" vs. "those you tolerate" vs. "those acceptable based upon this little list of criteria". I would disagree that intolerance and hate propelled racial genocide...it might have been an underlying current, but the NAZI regime played to the population's unlying hatred of those they considered inferior to them...Jews, Gypsyies, Slavs, homosexuals, JWs, political desenters, handicapped, whatever. Intolerance fueled that fire.
Hatred and intolerance go hand in hand. Sorry to disagree with you but you are wrong.
208
posted on
03/09/2004 9:22:51 AM PST
by
Abram
To: sasafras
Doesn't matter what the law of the land says. In God's eyes, there is and never will be such a thing as 'gay marriage.'
209
posted on
03/09/2004 9:24:15 AM PST
by
MEGoody
(Kerry - isn't that a girl's name? (Conan O'Brian))
To: MEGoody
"These is NOT and never will be. . . "
Sheesh, need more coffee.
210
posted on
03/09/2004 9:24:54 AM PST
by
MEGoody
(Kerry - isn't that a girl's name? (Conan O'Brian))
To: BackInBlack
The 'rich' got the most in tax cuts because they pay the most taxes. Simple math - but something that seems beyond the capabilities of most liberals.
211
posted on
03/09/2004 9:30:26 AM PST
by
MEGoody
(Kerry - isn't that a girl's name? (Conan O'Brian))
To: Abram
"Hate who you want to...lump everything into the "people you hate" vs. "those you tolerate"
I have little hope that this explanation will avail, but here goes: The only thing "tolerance" means is that we refrain from persecuting people we disagree with or dont like. That's all. And the "disagreement" or dislike is assumed: you can only tolerate something you disagree with or dislike. If you agree with or like it, no tolerance is required, or even possible.
You can hate the people you tolerate, contemn them, wish for their agonizing deaths, anything at all, so long as you don't persecute them, without violating the strictures of tolerance.
The words tolerance and intolerance as they were handed to you in the form of a crypto-religious moral postulate have nothing to do with the common English meaning of those words. They are only an intrinsically deceptive way of identifying The things of which I approve and The things of which I disapprove.
Since liberals use the word intolerance to identify disapproval of something they themselves approve of, and since they themselves tend to hate everything of which they are not required to approve, they tend to assume that disapproval of one of their sacred cows is indicative of the same hatred they feel for all heresy. Since they habitually misidentify such disapproval with hatred, it then followsin their stunted worldviewthat disapproval is indicative of hatred.
However, non-liberals, by and large, are not under any similar compulsion to hate everything of which they disapprove. Non-liberals can disapprove of a thing without in any way hating the people associated with ita neat trick that liberalism structurally precludes, which probably explains why liberals are so skeptical of this phenomenon.
The above explains why you incorrectly see hatred and tolerance as opposites, and why you misrepresent my position as a dichotomy between "people you hate" vs. "those you tolerate."
Theres another advantage, as well. If you say, He thinks X is bad, and I think X is good, ignorant passers-by might think the two of you were on the same moral plane. But when you say, He is intolerant
Woah! You can get a nosebleed from ascending to such lofty moral heights too rapidly. If you then add, And hes intolerant because hes filled with hate, ah, into what a dark and slimy moral sewer have you thrust your opponent.
Non-liberals generally tolerate lots of things they hate. Liberals, on the other hand, are generally under a compulsion to attack what they hate with a complete lack of tolerance. They often justify this by accusing those attacked of intolerance.
In the real world, hatred and tolerance are on two different continua, not, as for the liberal, at opposite ends of one continuum. One can hate a thing or not. Completely separately from this, one can make a decision to tolerate a thing or not. Liberals are completely blind to such a nuanced worldview. For them, disapproval necessarily involves hatred.
...it might have been an underlying current, but the NAZI regime played to the population's unlying hatred of those they considered inferior to them...Jews, Gypsyies, Slavs, homosexuals, JWs, political desenters, handicapped, whatever. Intolerance fueled that fire.
That Hitler gave the German people identifiable enemies to blame for Germanys predicament is a mere bagatelle. Irremediable social unrest caused by the terms of the armistice negotiated to end WWI allowed Hitler to come to power. He promised to restore German prosperity and greatness, and that was the central message that brought the Nazi party to powernot to mention skullduggery, of course.
Hatred and intolerance go hand in hand.
Thats exactly the premise that I rebutted just above. Boiled down to its essentials, all youre saying there is, People who think bad what I think good do so because they are hate-filled bigots.
People who say such things are generally unableand I mean unable as in they couldnt do it if you put a gun to their headsto understand that one can disapprove of a thing, be it a social policy, a religion, or a type of music, without in any way hating those who approve of that thing.
They are equally unable to conceive of a non-liberal tolerating something he despises, as the result of an informed moral decision.
When a persons thinking is stunted in that way, you can say to him, The legitimization of sexual disorder would be a bad thing to do. It would have bad effects on society as a whole, and would be bad for those who suffer from such psychosexual disorder, and all he can hear is, Im intolerant because I hate fags.
Its sad, really.
212
posted on
03/09/2004 8:20:03 PM PST
by
dsc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-212 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson