Franken Leaving Air America
By: Pam On: Nov/16/06 -
Said ALLAHPUNDIT:
He wasn’t good enough, he wasn’t smart enough, and gosh darn it, nobody liked him.
Said ALLAHPUNDIT:
He wasn’t good enough, he wasn’t smart enough, and gosh darn it, nobody liked him.
November 16, 2006 - 09:57 PM on November 16th, 2006
He wasn’t good enough, he wasn’t smart enough, and gosh darn it, nobody liked him.
Classic…
November 16, 2006 - 10:03 PM on November 16th, 2006
No wonder he was ineffective: I guess you can’t tackle someone over the radio.
November 17, 2006 - 07:13 AM on November 17th, 2006
Now if he would just leave the US and take all the Air America creeps with him. Iraq, Sudia, Iran all sound like nice places for them to settle.:razz:
November 18, 2006 - 10:03 AM on November 18th, 2006
The reality about Al Franken is that he wasn’t unkind enough to compete with the like of O’Reilly. That bodes well for Democrats generally as a group. I never thought it a very good idea that he (or any shock jock since that’s what in essence they are) reduce themselves to the same format as the mudlinging of the Republican pundits.
We Democrats have our voices well-heard in Bill Maher and Jon Stewart who can nail Republican bias at every turn.
Either way I wish Mr. Franken well. He’s a thoughtful man.
November 18, 2006 - 01:11 PM on November 18th, 2006
“The reality about Al Franken is that he wasn’t unkind enough to compete with the like of O’Reilly.”
This is a joke, right? The same man that tackled a protestor to protect Howard Dean’s “freedom of speech”?
The same man that calls folks that disagree with him childish names on a regular basis?
While Republicans are indeed blind hypocrites, your post only goes to show that hypocrisy is a common thread for both parties.
Please, give me a break!
November 18, 2006 - 03:31 PM on November 18th, 2006
same modus different pundit Ted..
I don’t listen to them except in the case of O’Reilly when Dave Letterman made a perfect ass oh him on The Late Night Show
Take a break if you want.
There are coffee and donuts over there on the counter —————->
November 18, 2006 - 07:47 PM on November 18th, 2006
Re 6 Ebon:
Then it would seem that thgis statement you made:
“The reality about Al Franken is that he wasn’t unkind enough to compete with the like of O’Reilly.”
contradicts this statement:
“same modus different pundit Ted..”
So was he unkind enough to compete with O’Reilly, or wasn’t he? Are you an apologist or aren’t you? Are you a hypocrite, or aren’t you?
November 18, 2006 - 09:53 PM on November 18th, 2006
Al Franken is an idiot. His high point, his best achievement, was when he appeared on Saturday Night Live sketches as the limp-wristed Stuart Smalley. And even that wasn’t very funny. After that it was all down hill. I knew when Air Jizzeera (AAR) started with Franken at the helm, it would not last.
November 19, 2006 - 05:08 PM on November 19th, 2006
re #7
Neither and apologist nor a hyprocrite on my best days Ted.
Just another flawed American here attempting to make some sense of the idiotic nonsense coming at us from all side of the partisan menu.
That - I dare say - is difficult enough.
re #
Robert? What does ‘limp-wristed’ mean in your context? Is that a euphemism for a homosexual male or is it more that you found Franken’s Smiley characterization too unnerving in its pseudo-affirming quality?
November 19, 2006 - 05:14 PM on November 19th, 2006
re 0: Eben:
Excellent, then could you please clarify your position?
Thank you.
November 19, 2006 - 05:27 PM on November 19th, 2006
Sure, here:
My position is that one must never be forced or inclined to see things through the excrutiatingly biased eyes of either of the two large political parties we have in this country.
While I find both immensely offensive I never quite seen anything like the character assasination by the likes of a Rush Limbaugh who was a precursor to the Bill O’Reillys and his ilk to follow. So in this regard I say the Republicans have set (since initial Clinton-bashing) a rather nasty precedent to which Franken felt obliged somehow to answer in kind.
I think it was a mistake on his part. Democrats don’t fight as dirty as Republicans generally in my experience and from my viewpoint. Think of it in “Swiftboat” terms.
I’m glad Franken’s failed since I think he’s a bright fellows whose talents are better put to more positive use.
November 19, 2006 - 05:38 PM on November 19th, 2006
Pointing out the truth about the Clintons and John Kerry is not dirty politics. Dirty politics involves something like buying a presidential election using the unions and Mafia..that would be considered dirty politics..
The Rush and Bill’s are successful because they can back up their statements..Franken failed because he never had a buiness plan, had no audience, and couldn’t carry a 3 hour show by himself. Tackling a person with an opposing point of view leads many to believe that Franken is neither a smart man, nor one that should be given a platform..
November 19, 2006 - 05:40 PM on November 19th, 2006
Re 11:
“My position is that one must never be forced or inclined to see things through the excrutiatingly biased eyes of either of the two large political parties we have in this country.”
Indeed, on this we agree. Well said, and well thought out.
While I find both immensely offensive I never quite seen anything like the character assasination by the likes of a Rush Limbaugh who was a precursor to the Bill O’Reillys and his ilk to follow. So in this regard I say the Republicans have set (since initial Clinton-bashing) a rather nasty precedent to which Franken felt obliged somehow to answer in kind.
On this we disagree. While I can easily point out the Reagan bashing that went during and after the man’s adminstration and even during the mans funeral, I find no solace in the “they started it first” position.
Both are as equally as appalling.
“I think it was a mistake on his part. Democrats don’t fight as dirty as Republicans generally in my experience and from my viewpoint. Think of it in “Swiftboat”terms.”
Again, I disagree. The Democrats have their fair share of problemss, no more or less profound as the Republicans. I find both parties as appalling, and even if I could empirically state that the “Republicans have 60% to 40$ edge in cheating, mudsling and other immoral behaviour” I would still have a hard time justifyinhg that as an excuse for their behaviour, as you are seeming to do with Franken and the Limbaugh/O’Reilly comparison.
November 19, 2006 - 05:53 PM on November 19th, 2006
Your truth (as you call it peejz) was nothing more than a tightly organized ploy to discredit Senator Kerry’s miliatry record crafted by a very adept Republican machine.
… and all the while our present President was hiding in the Air National Guard.
I dunno. Seems like the truth is alot deeper and real than many care to admit.
To Ted in #13:
Reagan bashing was something I never saw during his presidency in any broad way. And certainly didn’t see it as anything akin to what these pundits do now. I think it’s appalling on all fronts. (notice I said all)
What I do recall about the Reagan years was the vast hew and cry about his refusal to address the pandemic we now know as A.I.D.S. For that alone (since he was unquestionably well-informed of the seriousness of the matter) the man will go down a one of the worst presidents in American history to me.
It’d be like saying “gee wasn’t old Harry Truman a great president! Pity he had to drop that nasty bomb and slaughter all those Japs”:roll:
Some things it’s difficult to let pass.
And you’d have to define “immoral behavior” in your terms for me Ted in order for me to address your last part.
November 19, 2006 - 05:56 PM on November 19th, 2006
to Peejz in #12
Then I assume you’d give due credit to Bill Maher and Jon Stewart for their delicious character assasination and their ability to ‘back it up’?
(sorry forgot to incude in last post):sad:
November 19, 2006 - 06:10 PM on November 19th, 2006
You see Eben, this is what I mean:
Your truth (as you call it peejz) was nothing more than a tightly organized ploy to discredit Senator Kerry’s miliatry record crafted by a very adept Republican machine.
: and all the while our present President was hiding in the Air National Guard.
While I didn’t fall for much of the Kerry accusations, nor did I say that Bush “was hiding in the Air National Guard.”. Either service is honored, and I don’t think of those who serve in the Air National Guard is hiding.
THAT is the type of completely biased slant I refer to.
Reagan bashing was something I never saw during his presidency in any broad way. And certainly didn’t see it as anything akin to what these pundits do now. I think it’s appalling on all fronts. (notice I said all)
I did. “Ronnie Rayguns”, folks refering to him as the “Senile Old man”, his optimism and his USSR policy, the vicuious effigies by “ACT_UP”- not to mention the actor based shots he took. Of course, you don’t see it on the scale that you do now, for it wasn’t possible then. The internet was in it’s infancy. The canvas is bigger now, so you have a larger over all scale to draw with.
As for your position of Reagan, AIDS and his place in history, we definately disagree. It would appear you bought into the movie. Spending on AIDS Research went from $8,000,000 per year in 1982 to $2,322,000,000 per year. He averaged a raise of $165% per year. That said, IMO he was the greatest President in my life time.
November 19, 2006 - 06:12 PM on November 19th, 2006
Oh re 13:
“And you’d have to define “immoral behavior”in your terms for me Ted in order for me to address your last part.”
Illegal behaviour, or behavior justifiable for impeachment.
November 19, 2006 - 06:17 PM on November 19th, 2006
Well then Ted I can see we see thing rather differently since I have a decided issue with any president who’d send our fellow Americans off to war without having experienced the horror of it himself.
With Kerry at least the fellow “knew from whence he spoke”.
I suspect you are about as much to the “right” of this country’s politics as I am to the “left” truth be told.
Re “immoral behavior” (first off are you one of our Canadian neighbors?)
But more topically I’ll tell you I didn’t realize you meant specific people. I was asking about what (to you personally) constitutes “immoral” behavior.
November 19, 2006 - 06:23 PM on November 19th, 2006
As for your position of Reagan, AIDS and his place in history, we definately disagree. It would appear you bought into the movie. Spending on AIDS Research went from $8,000,000 per year in 1982 to $2,322,000,000 per year. He averaged a raise of $165% per year. That said, IMO he was the greatest President in my life time.
I ‘bought into’ nothing.
I lived the reality.
I think this debate is better left for an off-board one since it’s very personal to me and I think it unfair for you (as a heterosexual I assume) to spout erroneous figures which have no real impact on you personally as an American citizen.
Truth be told Reagan never mentioned the word “AIDS” but once:
This url will bring you to the reality of the thing should you care to address it:
http://www.actupny.org/reports/reagan.html
The reasons he refused to address it are hidden in the Christian fundamental movement very much afoot in politics and easily the reason he got elected to office (odd since Nancy’s a fag hag).
But so be it.
November 19, 2006 - 06:45 PM on November 19th, 2006
Eban, being gay does not grant you the moral authority to try an change a reality. Reagan didn’t create AIDS, nor did we have much understanding of the disease..to this day, I think that is still true. AIDS does not discriminate between a gay or straight human being…Thanks for the link, but what was it that we were to learn? At the time Reagan was POTUS, people were having unprotected sex and not thinking twice about it..what was the worse that could happen? Nothing that penicillin couldn’t cure..how wrong we were..Here is another source, complete with graphs, to counter your link:
Precise budget requests are difficult to calculate, as online records from the 1980s are spotty. Nevertheless, New York University’s archived, hard copies of budget documents from fiscal year 1984 through FY 1989 show that Reagan proposed at least $2.79 billion for AIDS research, education, and treatment. In a Congressional Research Service study titled AIDS Funding for Federal Government Programs: FY1981-FY1999, author Judith Johnson found that overall, the federal government spent $5.727 billion on AIDS under Ronald Reagan. This higher number reflects President Reagan’s proposals as well as additional expenditures approved by Congress that he later signed.
Table 5 of Johnson’s report shows annual federal AIDS spending during Ronald Reagan’s watch. This is hardly the portrait of a do-nothing presidency:
November 19, 2006 - 06:48 PM on November 19th, 2006
14- Kerry is the one who came home and threw his medals, and betrayed his fellow soldiers…the tapes and his own written account don’t lie..If he believed in it, then he should have no problem defending himself..the problem is, he doesn’t think he needs to answer to anyone..
November 19, 2006 - 07:14 PM on November 19th, 2006
Re 18:
Well then Ted I can see we see thing rather differently since I have a decided issue with any president who’d send our fellow Americans off to war without having experienced the horror of it himself.
Hmm…then I would assume you were against Clinton’s actions regarding Bosnia? Do you hold the position that no person should be President without combat experience?
This isn’t logical. As the last draft was in 1973 and as a result our army is much smaller, it is more and more likely that we will have Presidents from both parties who have not served in combat.
But more topically I’ll tell you I didn’t realize you meant specific people. I was asking about what (to you personally) constitutes “immoral”behavior.
Politcal parties , like religions, can not act imorrally. Only people can act immorally. What else would I refer to, besides people?
“I suspect you are about as much to the “right”of this country’s politics as I am to the “left”truth be told”
You suspect incorrctly. I am a moderate by most accounts.
I ‘bought into’ nothing.
I lived the reality.
I think this debate is better left for an off-board one since it’s very personal to me and I think it unfair for you (as a heterosexual I assume) to spout erroneous figures which have no real impact on you personally as an American citizen.
Yes you did.
The figure I quoted were from the Congression Research Service, a non-partisan arm of the United States Congress.
As for your other assertions: yes, I am a hetero sexual male. That isn’t relevant. AID’s is a universal problem. Don’t beleive me? Ask Africa.
And as for it having no impact personally: you are once again dead wrong. You should not make such assumptions.
But I will give you credit- you have brass ball the size of grape fruit. You quyote “ACT-UP” immeditately after I mention the falsehoods that the perpetuated.
“The reasons he refused to address it are hidden in the Christian fundamental movement very much afoot in politics and easily the reason he got elected to office (odd since Nancy’s a fag hag).
But so be it.”
An interesting statement, as it assumes much that con not be proven and belies your claims to be impartial.
But so be it- it is not uncommon for folks to give into their personal bias.
November 19, 2006 - 08:15 PM on November 19th, 2006
Eben Said:
On November 19, 2006 - 06:17 PM
Well then Ted I can see we see thing rather differently since I have a decided issue with any president who’d send our fellow Americans off to war without having experienced the horror of it himself.
So I assume that same tired lame argument would have been valid for all other presidents as well?
James Madison — war of 1812
John Tyler — mexican war
Woodrow Wilson — ww1
Franklin D. Roosevelt — ww11
Why do liberals rarely think before espousing?
mike w
November 19, 2006 - 08:24 PM on November 19th, 2006
Eben Said:
On November 19, 2006 - 06:17 PM
Well then Ted I can see we see thing rather differently since I have a decided issue with any president who’d send our fellow Americans off to war without having experienced the horror of it himself.
Or were you really trying to indicate that hillary should not run, as having no military service back ground, she couldn’t possibly possess the moral authority to send troops into combat, should the need arise.
If so, I like your thinkin, who says we can’t find common ground. Hell, Eben you got a winner in that one, you should forward that idea far and wide.
mike w
November 20, 2006 - 10:56 AM on November 20th, 2006
re #20
No Peajz. I never suggested ‘being gay gave [anyone] the right to change a reality’. However it does give one a pretty clear view on a specific topic.
‘Reagan didn’t create A.I.D.S.’ No. No, he didn’t. (Did he?:lol
But excuse Reagan as you must. How anyone can see him as an effective humanitarian (since its from this perspective I speakt) given the hard statistics of denial is beyond me. But reality is a selective and a subjective thing as I suspect you’ll agree. Though I don’t understand how you could justify his behavior during that time- I allow you your view and imagine you’ll allow me mine.
Here’s my feeling on this piece of his Presidency;
During Reagan’s tenure as President he had an opportunity to address it head-on which he chose not to do in effect setting back the research and public knowledge of same by easily ten crucial years. Real strides could have been made in public education so that the ostracization of easily 10% of our population would not have ensued.
We can argue statistics until the cows come home but had you been a homosexual male during that time you’d have been outraged and frightened. So I get to have an subjective opinion on this one.:wink:
Perhaps to you and those of you who see him as some sort of resepctable individual it’s an “oversight” which you can dismiss. I cannot. I lost too many valuable people while he put money in the pockets of the rich, pandered to a fundamentalist Christian constituency, and ignored many of his fellow Americans. And given the scale of denial within his Presidency to that pandemic aforementioned I’m ever-amazed at the glossing over of this piece of his malfeasance.
As some have said “If every man who grasped a golf club contracted H.I.V. there’d have been a cure for it within a years”. It’s group specifics.
And Ted no… personal bias is understandable but I’d not call it a bias when it effects our entire population worldwide. I’d call it a human rights issue. And I was answering directly your previous. You need not tell me the dimensions of the disease we now know as A.I.D.S. One day Ted go into a Yahoo Christian chatroom and simply ask this question:
“How did A.I.D.S. come be?”
Then watch what the common mentality is. Remember too that the answers you’ll receive (as unbelievably uneducated as you’ll find them) are widely-held to this day. It’s still believed (as you so notably mention when you speak of Africa) to be a disease which effects solely gay men.
Pity our present resident of Penn. Ave. doesn’t see the crime in humanity to those poor souls suffering in Africa from said disease rather than concentrating his efforts (and our countryman’s lives and money) on his father’s old grudge with Saddam Hussein and calling it “the War on Terror”.
It’s simply a matter of humanity. I see the Republicans largely (these new ones) as war-mongers and the Democrats more-inclined to look at this planet globally with an eye for the good of all peoples rather than simply “us Amurkuns”.
To mike in #23:
Yes the same applies to all you mention in varying to degree from my perspective. And let’s not reduce this to personal assault shall we. I’d rather keep it topical. The zinger at the end was small of you.
November 20, 2006 - 11:04 AM on November 20th, 2006
re #21 Kerry is the one who came home and threw his medals, and betrayed his fellow soldiers:the tapes and his own written account don’t lie..If he believed in it, then he should have no problem defending himself..the problem is, he doesn’t think he needs to answer to anyone..
He doesn’t need to.
The whole notion behind patriotism is as follows:
Serve your country
Do it honorably
When you’ve done so come home and take stock of that experience
When you put the reality of what you’ve seen into perspective exercies your right to disagree with National Policy
Speak out against said debacle
That’s what a real patriot does. Our country was founded on these principles.
Peejz?
Here’s an article you’ve undoubtedly not read.
It addresses accountablity. Why not try to see the thing in total?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/washington/28kerry.html?ei=5090&en=7158a7f024f0ee5a&ex=1306468800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1164042174-rkHi0gSDYzjdMPYjpQIydQ
November 20, 2006 - 11:36 AM on November 20th, 2006
Eben- GWB has done more for global Aids than any other POTUS. The drs in Africa are singing the praises of his accomplishmnets…
As for losing your friends during Reagans tenure..did your friends have unprotected sex? Was it up to Reagan to put condoms on them? The gay community knew of the disease prior to Reagan taking office and Rock Hudson dying..yet the unprotected sex continues..Africa is a whole different story though, to this day, we have scietists not in agreement that what we are labeling as AIDS, may not be maleria and other diseases; they can mimic each other and in their case, both deadly… Why no meantion of the fact that Clinton did nothing to expand AIDS awareness.
As for Kerry..his stories he told, turned out to be just that..tall tales not founded on truth. He has every right to speak out, and people have every right to disagree with him.
November 20, 2006 - 12:24 PM on November 20th, 2006
Bush’s experience and impact on the global pandemic of A.I.D.S. peejz is pretty insignificant given the scope of the thing. Again the target audience is person specific to who he may find “worthy”.
1) I didn’t quiz my friends about unprotected sex. Especially when the education to know about its contraction was never available until individuals sponsored the research and the proliferation of legitimate science and knowledge about the contraction of the disease. And realize that Reagan himself was a proponent of abstinence so any sex education as you and I both know was “verbotten”.
2) Rock Hudson only put a face on this disease. And from what I glean from good research the gay community has nearly wiped out new cases since they themselves when left to their own devices did much to insure they saved themselves since their government turned a blind eye to their plight. You are aware, I imagine, that those most prone in our American population to contract said disease just now are heterosexual women?
Pretty telling.
2) As I see the Africa problem it’s more a problem of poverty, ignorance and patriarchy. To this end in South Africa I hold no less than the likes of Nelson Mandela immensely culpable.
As is most things ignorance to a global problem is a guarantee of the refusal to address and therefore a perpetuation of said problem. My point in bringing up Reagan in this instance is that the man had a chance to inform his public. He chose not to. I cannot call anyone who allowed the distribution of erroneous information to go unchecked and unanswered “a good president” by any stretch of the imagination.
3) I’ll have a Clinton discussion if you’d like one. But specific to your question I think his initial friendliness to gay people by wanting their inclusion in the Armed Forces - and the vast hew and cry of the conservatives that they not be - set a tone by which it became infinitely obvious Clinton’s ability to enlighten public opinion with regard to gay rights would be slashed by partisan politics at every turn. Clinton put a face and a name to the A.I.D.S epidemic and during his presidency real strides at understanding and the dispelling of dangerous myths was undertaken and largely successful. Remember during the Clinton years gay Americans became educated to this disease and managed to virtually wipe out most new cases of HIV contratction.
4) Re Kerry: Why is his record something everyone like you feels compelled to discredit no matter what is put before you - yet you’ll defend Bush and his pointless war when the fellow never saw active duty?
It simply amazes me. It seems that you’ll throw a negative slant on anything simply to reinforce your stance.
Kerry served, saw, came home, spoke strongly and with great conviction about his disagreement with the War in Southeast Asia, then did his civic duty by protesting peacefully that which he deemed wrong with government policy. What’s “unAmerican” about that?
Hell the country was founded by people like him. Patrick Henry was considered a traitor by the British Crown because he and those like him in no less a guise than Thoman Paine, John Adams, and Samuel Adams refused to tolerate tyranny.
We cannot forget that this country was founded in dissent and those who put together its Constitution inalienably gave the right to dissent to every American not simply to give it lip service but to have them exercise that right if so-compelled.
Yet George Bush gets our collective asses embroilled in a war without end and without (even by his own admission) justifiable intelligence and you see him as effective and “just” for lack of a better word.
What does it take for people to see things reasonably and globally rather than subjectively?
November 20, 2006 - 01:05 PM on November 20th, 2006
Yes, let’s talk about how friendly Clinton was to te the gay agenda..shall we start with the Defence Of Marriage Act that he signed? What exactly is it that the democrats have done for the gay community?
Please cite the programs and funding initiated by the Clinton administration..
You said alot but really never said anything about the unprotected sex. Prior to AIDS, there were other communicable diseases that both gay and straight people contracted. Did you need the govt., to tell you that you could catch one of them? When AIDS first broke out in this country, it was predominately in the gay community, but now we know it is not limited to it. For all that it gets knocked, abstinence really i the best protection from any STD..not the most practical, but the most effective..
Kerry was was a member of the military and during a time of war, met with the enemy…that is considered a tereasonous offence…or as some would say..unamerican.
November 20, 2006 - 01:46 PM on November 20th, 2006
“And Ted no: personal bias is understandable but I’d not call it a bias when it effects our entire population worldwide. I’d call it a human rights issue.”
Then you would be wrong, completely wrong. Many things that effects people world wide is not a human rights issue. I would like you to explain your line of thinking regarding this.
And I was answering directly your previous.
Please clarify what you are refering to here.
“One day Ted go into a Yahoo Christian chatroom and simply ask this question:
“How did A.I.D.S. come be?â€
I can go to any number of chatroom and expose ignorance. Men are born ignorant. But your assertion that it is group related is astoundingly false.
Pity our present resident of Penn. Ave. doesn’t see the crime in humanity to those poor souls suffering in Africa from said disease rather than concentrating his efforts (and our countryman’s lives and money) on his father’s old grudge with Saddam Hussein and calling it “the War on Terrorâ€.
Again, we disagree. It would seem your perspectie is skewed, but that is a discussion for another time.
It’s simply a matter of humanity. I see the Republicans largely (these new ones) as war-mongers and the Democrats more-inclined to look at this planet globally with an eye for the good of all peoples rather than simply “us Amurkunsâ€.
Wow…this is simply so off kilter I have to address it here and now.
There are only two things those parties care about: money and power. Both are coporate fed and are no longer beholden to the people. But what your statement does is belie a hard partisanship here, much like your Republican brethern on this board. It is unfortunate to be blinded to fact by such partisanship, and like them you have my pity.
November 20, 2006 - 03:19 PM on November 20th, 2006
#29
Yes, let’s talk about how friendly Clinton was to te the gay agenda..shall we start with the Defence Of Marriage Act that he signed? What exactly is it that the democrats have done for the gay community?
Here’s a start: THESE are not Repbulicans.
Doubt there are many Republicans in their ranks Peejz.
to Ted in #30
can go to any number of chatroom and expose ignorance. Men are born ignorant. But your assertion that it is group related is astoundingly false.
Yes but it’s cross-the-board ignorance there Ted.
‘astoundingly false’ is it?
Go to the URL I posted for peejz above or better yet here:
Take a look here
Not so astounding after all.
The notion of ‘homosexuality’ equated to Biblical sin cannot be lost on you as fundamentally Christian in its proponence and rhetoric. It permeates this society in many areas of this country. It feeds the mass need to marginalize what many seem to feel needs to exist in this society; a “sub” group.:roll:
You seem bright. That cannot be lost on you.
To do with the last part I agree with much of your theory on partisan politics per se. However, of the two, I find the Republicans are effectively eliminating a middle class in this country which should certainly alarm both of us.
November 20, 2006 - 03:35 PM on November 20th, 2006
Sorry peejz-
Should have included this in my last.
Clinton (though obviously more gay-friendly than a Bush) has no fine record on gay rights. But I didn’t introduce him to this volley you did.
I was making a case on Reagan and an epidemic. I’ve made it too.
Beyond that no politician Democrat or Republican can posture him or herself as a proponent of gay rights in the present atmosphere of revival tentist religiousity we’ve seen over the years since Reagan was voted into office and now so obvious in Bush’s second successful bid for a second term.
It’d be political suicide to say (as I’d wager a weeks salary that Senator Kerry and President actually do) believe wholeheartedly in equal rights for same sex couples.
That’s why Ted and I are probably in a similar place in a sense with regard to our feel about each party. We just side more with one than the other in platform.
Reagan had a real chance to spearhead a public knowledge of a disease that has now swept this globe. And in my opinion since the focus group in the early 80s which was on the receiving end (pun intended) of the disease was not something “worthy” of addressing. This, for me, was a fatal flaw in judgment on Reagan’s part. Hell he even ignored the Koop Report as late as 1986. But you know that.
”
Possibly in deference to the views of the powerful religious right, which saw AIDS as a disease limited to the gay male community and spread by immoral behavior, Reagan prevented his Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, from speaking out about the epidemic. When in 1986 Reagan finally authorized Koop to issue a report on the epidemic, he expected it to be in line with conservative policies; instead, Koop’s Surgeon General’s Report on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome greatly emphasized the importance of a comprehensive AIDS education strategy, including widespread distribution of condoms, and rejected mandatory testing.” - Wikipedia
(tried to use the most unbiased source I could find peejz)
And the rest, as they say, “is history”. We’re living it today.
November 20, 2006 - 04:31 PM on November 20th, 2006
Yes but it’s cross-the-board ignorance there Ted.
‘astoundingly false’ is it?
Yes, it is.
Go to the URL I posted for peejz above or better yet here:
Take a look here
Not so astounding after all.
Yes it is. It is easy to point to a group of people within a group to decry their ignorance. I can do the same with any group- it does not make the stereotype a truism.
The notion of ‘homosexuality’ equated to Biblical sin cannot be lost on you as fundamentally Christian in its proponence and rhetoric. It permeates this society in many areas of this country. It feeds the mass need to marginalize what many seem to feel needs to exist in this society; a “sub”group.
Indeed not- the assertion that homosexuality is wrong is not just a Christian tennant. It is one common through out history. However, this is simply an opinion. There is nothing “right” or “wrong” about it and thus irrelevant.
What we are speaking of here is the issue of “facts”. Ignorance about HIV and AIDs is widespread, even among homosexuals.
To do with the last part I agree with much of your theory on partisan politics per se. However, of the two, I find the Republicans are effectively eliminating a middle class in this country which should certainly alarm both of us.
I agree with all but your last part. Republicans and Democrats alike are eliminating the middle class. Speaking from persoinal experience, my family simply refused the entitlements that the Dems so easily push among the deperate. It was not out of pride, but out of knowledge that it is a tool to mangle independence and self pride and to capture a vote.
That said, the parties are simply a symptom of the problem. The real probnlem with America is the people, her citizens.
November 20, 2006 - 06:05 PM on November 20th, 2006
Ted,
Within the group of homosexuals I know knowledge of HIV and AIDS is not ignorant. It’s widely informed. It’s had to be to make the numbers dwindle as they have in new cases.
As a group I’ve found homosexuals - of necessity - widely (but not exclusively) a pretty self-sufficient group. Is there the odd superflous queen? Yes. Is that the norm? Not in my experience. Homosexual women are also pretty informed in my considered experience. (I don’t mean those pseudo-bisexual females who act bi for their heteosexual male counterparst either - but rather legitimate homosexual females (Lesbians) who’ve championed the rights of their gay brothers and sisters in places like Massachusetts.
By-in-large they’ve (homosexuals) been left to their own devices to make their way in this world what with marginalization by mainstream society and the religious “right” (so-called) it’s made for a very self-sufficient and well-informed group I’m please to see. There’s nothing like adversity to rally a cause I guess.
Therefore with regard to HIV I find it curious our President’s efforts (since he purports to be such an “America” fan) has largely deserted the human rights issues of a portion of “his” American population to jump the pond to discuss the African AIDS epidemic.
As I see it until we’re all on the same page in this thing ignorance will prevail.
With regard to your thinking that America’s citizens are its problem I know what you mean. It’s pretty frightening just now. But I hold onto some hope (but not lots) given the fervor of some zealots in our midst. However I see with the latest mid-term elections a reason to think that finally Mr. Bush will have to play nice with the others in his “sandbox”.
Maybe it’ll make a difference.
November 20, 2006 - 06:10 PM on November 20th, 2006
Indeed not- the assertion that homosexuality is wrong is not just a Christian tennant. It is one common through out history. However, this is simply an opinion.
This is an erroneous assumption.. I missed it in your last.
Within the cultures which engendered socially what we now call “Western Civilization” its ‘wrongness’ is solely based on Chritian tenant.
It was only ‘deemed’ wrong once the Judeo Christian ethic was put into effect. Long before Christians held Western Civilization “sway” homosexuality was widely and commonly practiced in all civilizations as a societal norm and a matter of course.
November 20, 2006 - 06:16 PM on November 20th, 2006
Within the group of homosexuals I know knowledge of HIV and AIDS is not ignorant. It’s widely informed. It’s had to be to make the numbers dwindle as they have in new cases.
Which is my point. I don’t find the level of ignorance to be at all among Christians that you say it is. I find it proportional, as with any other group. Sure, I could say that initially the level of education amoung homosexuals about the topic was greater, but no longer. AID’s education appears in school, during heralth classes with most other STD’s.
November 20, 2006 - 06:32 PM on November 20th, 2006
Re 35:
No- some three thousand years before Christians, the jewish tennants were against them concept of homosexuality.
Even before that in ancient Greece, while the concepts of heterosexuality and homosexuality were not defined. While among those who did not have full status in society (women and slaves) erotic attraction to same sex was not as problematic, it was problematic among freemen (those who had full status in society). This said, it was a tolerated practice for a freeman to have attraction over an inferior of the same sex (a slave or a child) but not an accepted social practice.
Ancient Rome initially accepted homosexuality, especially during the Republic. It basically parraled that of ancient Greece. However during the Empire time period that position changed to non-accptance.
Ancient Epypt was an entirely different story, as the rulers their many times considered incest as an acceptable way to preserve ther Godly blood line. Homosexuality however, was not an accepted practice as demonstrated in the story of Horus and Seth.
November 20, 2006 - 07:25 PM on November 20th, 2006
31 and 32-Clinton (though obviously more gay-friendly than a Bush) has no fine record on gay rights. But I didn’t introduce him to this volley you did. You did by saying that Democrats are more friendly to gays..if paying lip service is what you are after, so be it, but you have not received the action necessary to grant you the rights you deserve. It was Clinton that signed the DMA, not Bush, it was a Republican majority that prohibited that, not democratic..
I was making a case on Reagan and an epidemic. I’ve made it too. No you haven’t. You have shown that you are bitter towards Reagan and feel he should have done more. You failed to meantion the MSM..what was their responsibility? Did they get the message out? Reagan did do much for AIDS, but you don’t want to see it, instead you want to blame him for your friends that are living with or have died from the disease.
Reagan had a real chance to spearhead a public knowledge of a disease that has now swept this globe. It had already been sweeping the globe Eben. It swept into your life when it hit our shores..This was nothing new to Africa..or France, which is where Hudson sought treatment, as it was the place to go for answers..
Your link did not work. I would be more than happy to look at it
November 20, 2006 - 09:11 PM on November 20th, 2006
re 37?
Reread Ted. I said Judeo-Christian.
And with reference to both Greek and Roman culture your assertions are grossly mistaken.
Sources my man, sources!
Methinks you’d like to deem homosexuality “wrong” eh?:wink:
November 20, 2006 - 09:15 PM on November 20th, 2006
re 38?
Peejz?
Let’s leave it at I know very few “Log Cabin Republicans” and the two I do know cannot support their parties view on same sex marriage no matter how they try to posture and defend the Republicans.
So there’s a good deal more than lip-service when you read the list of names I cited in my url connecting you specifically to the KnowThyNeighbor site.
Those charming folks are Roman Catholic Republicans who signed a petition to get the issue of same sex marriage on the 2008 ballot. Nah, it’s not lip service. The Democrats may not be the ideal but in comparison they’re not trying to marginalize an entire sector of this society to second class citizenship so I’ll stay more closely aligned to those who espouse equality and a woman’s right to dominion over her own body.
November 20, 2006 - 09:16 PM on November 20th, 2006
oh and I’m not ‘bitter’ about Reagan.
I just think he was an ass.
The dude’s head was squarely buried in the sand.
November 20, 2006 - 09:18 PM on November 20th, 2006
Just tried both links. Both work.
November 20, 2006 - 09:20 PM on November 20th, 2006
It was Clinton that signed the DMA, not Bush, it was a Republican majority that prohibited that, not democratic..
Oh okay.
How do you feel peejz about Bush’s support of his amendment to the Constitution defining marriage only between a man and a woman?
I’m curious now.
November 20, 2006 - 09:37 PM on November 20th, 2006
40- I am a Roman Catholic and I support gay rights, but I’m not sure why you would be shocked that the Catholic Church frowns upon homosexuality, or that Catholics or any other person would live their life following their religious beliefs.
Those charming folks are Roman Catholic Republicans who signed a petition to get the issue of same sex marriage on the 2008 ballot. Nah, it’s not lip service. The Democrats may not be the ideal but in comparison they’re not trying to marginalize an entire sector of this society to second class citizenship so I’ll stay more closely aligned to those who espouse equality and a woman’s right to dominion over her own body. I see, so it is alright with you that while you want same sex benefits, the Democrats are not acting nationally in your favor,so as not to tick off a portion of their base, all the while ballot measures, blocking your rights, are popping up all over the country, and are passing. So as long as someone doesn’t publically knock your homosexuality, but privately does..you are okay with that? BTW, had the states that passed the amendment not been democratic, I could kinda see your point, but there are blue states that have passed the amendments. MI is one of them and my state overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage, during the 2004 election cycle.
Okay, I went to know thy neighbor..and? They used bully tactics to try to intimidate those that signed a petition? Will there be people standing behind the voter in the booth threatening them? God Hates Fags? You think any of us take it seriously? Shall I post Ameriblog? They seem to think that they have the right to out gay people..well not just anyone..republicans..somehow they can justify that..they also did quite a job with the Foley scandal..thanks to them, we have more people than ever equating homosexuals to child molestors..way to further the cause..not to meantion that it ignighted the religious right to become more vigilant than ever…
November 20, 2006 - 09:48 PM on November 20th, 2006
I am not surprised Bush did that, as he said he would.
I support gay rights, as my sils are gay. I take my cue from them, and they are after civil unions and benefits..their biggest concern is that at the end of one of their lives, the other is going to be denied the right to make the judgement for the other..they are no less married than I am, yet they don’t havethe legal documents that I do.
I do believe that many that oppose gay marriage, do support gay benefits or legal recognition of partnership..it may not be much condolence to the gay community, but maybe if we started there, some common ground could be met..
November 21, 2006 - 12:22 AM on November 21st, 2006
I keep telling people that the way to insure that gay marriage is banned is to keep pushing for it in the courts. If you want to get something like that accepted, you have to work for social evolution, versus social revolution. You want to get gay marriage approved? Get the majority of the people to agree with you. Getting a bunch of liberal lawyers in black robes to agree with you does nothing but causes a backlash among the majority that has the ability to over rule the Judges and make their opinions irrelevant.
Want to get gay marriage approved? Here’s an argument that might actually sway people. What determines the sex of a person? Technically it’s whether they have an xy chromosome pair versus a yy chromosome pair. EVERYTHING ELSE IS STRICTLY COSMETIC. With that in mind, what is the sex of someone who has had gender reassignment surgery? Are people supposed to fall in love based on physical attributes or on their personalities? With everyone claiming that people are supposed to fall in love based on personality, not appearance, wouldn’t the logical conclusion be that requiring one person to undergo disfiguring cosmetic surgery (sex change) in order to marry the person they want would be the equivalent of cruel and unusual punishment. It’s not legal to castrate sex offenders. It’s not legal to require obese people to undergo bariatric surgery to get married, why should it be legal to require one member of a same sex couple to undergo sex change so that they can be married? There’s an argument that is Constitutionally sound. It has nothing to do with equal protection, it is solely based on the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Want to sway the populace, make an argument that makes sense. It’s called a logic trap. You don’t tell them how to think, you simply ask them questions that lead them to a logical conclusion on their own.
November 21, 2006 - 11:16 AM on November 21st, 2006
“…Catholics or any other person would live their life following their religious beliefs.”
That is such an outdated, archaic concept to the “progressives”. That you would actually live the same as you profess? To them everything is situational, relational, context-specific. Do what they say, not what they do. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain…
November 21, 2006 - 11:20 AM on November 21st, 2006
It’s called a logic trap. You don’t tell them how to think, you simply ask them questions that lead them to a logical conclusion on their own.
Very true, FAO. I couldn’t help thinking that in the case of Liberals, the logic trap doesn’t work. If they start to follow the path of logic, at some point their brain firmware will lock up since for them the state of a logical conclusion is undefined. Then their brain will reset and they will start from the beginning again.
I have personally seen this phenomenon occur.
November 21, 2006 - 04:24 PM on November 21st, 2006
“I do believe that many that oppose gay marriage, do support gay benefits or legal recognition of partnership”
*raises hand*
That would be me.
November 21, 2006 - 11:49 PM on November 21st, 2006
It was the funniest thing when I was selling cars, so many of the salesmen would refuse to wait on gay couples. I’d wait on every gay couple that I could. They appreciated being treated well, they generally had at least one partner with a good job and credit to match, and would always refer their friends to anyone who treated them well.
As for AIDs during the early 80s, it’s source and cause was basically a mystery for most of the decade. I can remember having to sit through a film that was put together by the military to advise service members as to ways in which it could be transmitted. The film included a number of AIDs victims describing how they had contracted the disease. Paying attention to the film, it was pretty apparent that the government knew there was a disease causing AIDs, but that they didn’t really know much about it. Even as late as 1990, my ex-wife (whose gay brother was living in San Francisco) thought that it might be possible to catch AIDs from a water fountain.
November 22, 2006 - 07:03 AM on November 22nd, 2006
We knew of the disease in the 70’s. People assume that it hit the country when Rock Hudson died from it. There were other carriers in the country..obviously because Hudson died from it. The clinic that he went to in France, had become the leader in research and treatment..they had been doing it for at least 10 years prior to him checking in.
It made the arguement for quarantines at the border. This country used to quarantine people that did not have the proper shots, were carriers of communicable diseases etc..the ACLU did away with that. Look at Iowa. They went through TB and mumps outbreaks within the past year..we immunize against it..
September 30, 2008 - 09:34 AM on September 30th, 2008
loser i will find you
September 30, 2008 - 09:35 AM on September 30th, 2008
freejls