Republican Congressman Kolbe - "Gay Marriage...its time has come"

03/05/04 | sasafras

[BackInBlack]

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.

[Fun Bob]

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

[dsc]

"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.

[SunkenCiv]

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.

[FReethesheeples]

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.

[longtermmemmory]

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.

[Spiff]

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.

[Abram]

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.

[MEGoody]

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.'

[MEGoody]

"These is NOT and never will be. . . "

Sheesh, need more coffee.

[MEGoody]

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.

[dsc]

"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 don’t 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 follows—in their stunted worldview—that 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 it—a 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."

There’s 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 he’s intolerant because he’s 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 Germany’s 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 power—not to mention skullduggery, of course.

“Hatred and intolerance go hand in hand.”

That’s exactly the premise that I rebutted just above. Boiled down to its essentials, all you’re 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 unable—and I mean “unable” as in “they couldn’t do it if you put a gun to their heads”—to 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 person’s 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, “I’m intolerant because I hate fags.”

It’s sad, really.