Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Disrespecting a soldier is just fine if you're gay, Dan. Didn't you know? It's the gay part that's important, not the actively serving & risking your life, part.
And all the liberals reading SLOG will let one of them become the next president because they're whiny pussies who can't seem to forgive Obama for not being their black version of Bush and won't vote next election.
Try not to get sick in 2012, kids.
It's the republican base, the conservative fodder and lowlifes of America, those are the ones who truly are rotten to the core. They're the ones who truly hate gays, who truly hate immigrants, who truly hate anyone who isn't exactly like themselves. They're the ones who are evil.
Defying orthodoxy == DEATH.
Logic has no place in this.
Peace.
I wish Santorum would get out of politics, once he is a private citizen it would be worth it to punch him right in the nose.
Correct. Service women get knocked up while serving ALL OF THE TIME. In fact, when I was in Iraq back in '05, one of the females in my company got pregnant. (And if any of you are saying "Pffft! Just ONE?!", then please note that only 6% of the members of the Marine Corps are women. In my company of 200+ Marines, I could count the females in one hand...)
But of course, having gay, job effectiveness altering-free sex on your own time is a much bigger problem! /sarcasm
The responsibility for all of this is squarely on the people on stage, and their standing by silently only deepens it. Having their lackeys call it "unfortunate" absolves them of nothing.
- Supposedly pro-life Republicans applaud hundreds of executions and root for the death of someone without health insurance.
- Supposedly anti-tax Republicans want to "broaden the tax base," which means they want to increase taxes on everybody BUT the rich.
- Supposedly pro-military Republicans will boo an American soldier serving in Afghanistan just because he's gay.
So is there anything left that the Republican Party stands for? And why don't we have leaders in the Democratic Party -- like, say, a President of some kind -- willing to plainly call them out on their transparent moral hypocrisy? I feel like the political right gets away with this kind of behavior and rhetoric because nobody on the left is willing to truly engage.
These are not difficult arguments to win, folks. Right-wing rhetoric is a house of cards. So just blow.
Arrggh. Could someone ask him if all those hetero married soldiers are not supposed to have sex with their wives when they are home on base? That's all the gay soldiers are asking for - the right to openly have partners when they are not on duty.
That is, assuming anybody pays attention.
Love that guy Stephen Hill, love the size-too-small T he wore, love the perrrfect angle to the camera he chose to highlight his enormous.biceps, loved the way he phrased the question. Couldn't have done better.
Yes, but is it the leaders who instill this stuff in the base, or is it the base who elevate leaders who forgive the bases' bigotry and hate? Probably a little of both, but if the current repub leaders weren't there, they'd just be replaced by similar others. The leaders DO whip up the frenzy, but only in feelings that already exist in the base.
I dunno... both the repub leaders and the repub voters are despicable, but I still see the leaders as at least being somewhat open to compromise and in truth, not as vile behind closed doors as they appear to be on stage (since they're doing it on stage to appease the base). But the common repub voters? Many are completely closed minded and shut off to reality. They're truly vile, both in public and private.
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Hamlet Act 1, scene 3
In the spirit of the "choicer challenge", I challenge Rick to go an entire month without revealing his raging heterosexuality to anyone. If it is so easy to hide, nobody should be able to discover any evidence of his heterosexuality; wife, the children he fathered with her, or his past heterosexual behaviors.
One big difference between this field of candidates and when McCain ran last time is that McCain at least showed signs of being halfway honest and halfway human at times. I distinctly remember him talking one fanatical supporter off the ledge when she accused Obama of being an Arab, and McCain was vocal about his distain of Obama birthers. He didn't pander to the crazy right fringe of the party. Mind you, he lost, so maybe that is the lesson the Republicans are taking from it.
Without condoning the actual violence, but certainly appreciating the fantasy, the reason Rick Santorum needs to be splatted is because he is a public figure. Once he is a private citizen, he should simply be ignored or ostracized as the occasion warrants.
The Dems have no killer instinct.
When you talk this way about those who merely don't agree with your political ideals you just look irrational, and honestly a bit crazy.
In that vein, I did write that all progressives or lefties hate America, for which I apologize. Savage, Goldstein, Mudede and Constant clearly do, but they're fringe nutjobs. Their entire focus is in rousing hatred and vitriol, since they realize that discussion will show their silly ideas as, well, silly. Hate and anger and bigotry against those they dislike is all they've got.
The vast majority of the left is wrong about nearly everything that matters, but they sincerely want the best for this country.
never in my life have i seen so much crazy. but they're on tee vee ..running for president and they're debating this shit unopposed with just a bare modicum of civility.. i was just over at the cnn site where they summarize the night as a teachable moment ..and the commenters are all, like,' well .. i think this one won because..ummm.. ' and ' we hate obama we'll actually cut off our genitals to spite our faces..' fuckity fuck fuck all these peoples.. seriously .. fuck this shit.
( i'm rapidly approaching the 'i'm mad as hell ' point )
No. He's an easy target, and since Savage is essentially a cowardly bully he likes the easy targets.
Rick Santorum has no chance at the presidency. He holds no elected office. He serves no government role whatever. His views on homosexuality may be something you disagree with, but he has no power to implement them in policy. Even those Savage had to lie about to orchastrate his vitriolic and vulgar campaign, but the man is pathological, so lying is his default position.
Savage just likes throwing scat, like a chimpanzee at the zoo. Rick Santorum happens to be a target at whom he can throw without consequence, and he knows it. In his cowardice he continues a disgraceful and vile campaign against the man long after it had even the very weak justification of Mr. Santorums public role.
As for the vast majority of "the left" (a term only you seem to know the definition of) being "wrong about nearly everything that matters", I would ask you to provide some examples, but I know how that works. You'll either throw out a lot of opinions you can't back up with facts, get sarcastic, or refuse to answer. Although we've seen time and again that eventually you'll almost always back down whenever you're challenged to cite facts.
Having said that the whole thing about repealing DADT is a ridiculous waste of conservativves time and resources. If the command structure sees no issue with it that should be good enough. Gay or lesbian citizens wanting to serve their nation should be encouraged in that desire, not discouraged.
Conservatives would better spend time defending family and marriage by defending DOMA and the current marriage laws that haven't ruined it, and keeping America out of the socialist mess and massive deficits the left is so eagerly pushing.
@42, besides your usual drivel, you're ignoring the fact that something like 80% of our current debt was accrued under Republicans.
As to the matter at hand hows about you address the actual text of Dan’s post. It is only 44 words long including the title. Surely you can handle that. Here, I’ll include it in its entirety:
Let Us Pause Now to Consider the Shit Storm...
that would have ensued if a group of Democrats running for president stood silent—literally said nothing—while a left-leaning crowd at a presidential debate booed an active-duty soldier currently serving in Iraq.
So what about it SB? What would you have to say if The Four Horsemen of the Stranger (as you seem to view those staff members you mention) were to boo an active duty soldier at a presidential debate and Democrats running for president stood silent
You will notice that Dan made no mention of Mr. Santorum specifically.
Ya know, had Savage gone about it like a civilized human being, I'd have no beef with him. Agree with him, no. Rick Santorum made statements that he likely found offensive but lying about them isn't debate. He may have pushed policy Savage found distasteful or unjust, but attacking the man rather than the policy isn't discourse.
So you argue those issues and those statements. That at least is how grown ups go about political discourse. What you don't do is make it personal, particularly on the sociopathic level Savage did.
For the sake of argument, grant that it worked. At what cost? Is this the way you want American politics to work from now on? This is the level at which you want us to function, hatred and disdain and vulgarity and vile personal attacks?
You really think this a vision for a better America?
Do we have to applaud him too?
And the business channels ignored it.
SeattleBlues @42 is correct that if conservatives focused on "keeping America out of the socialist mess and massive deficits the left is so eagerly pushing" the GOP would win easily in this cycle. Which is why this hatred of "the homosexual lifestyle" is so fascinating to me. Its more important to bash the gays than to save your country from perceived economic collapes.
He is not such a fringe element that he's not right there on the stage. It's not like he is getting booed of the stage or challenged by the other candidates on these positions.
You can't have it both ways. As I stated above, as long as the Repugnant Party takes him seriously, he is fair game.
is Danny going to be sitting in pool of his own warm piss every time someone at a GOP debate boos?
what a pussy.
perhaps we need a Political Special Olympics for the far left where they won't get their iddybiddy feewings hurt......
By the way, Seattleblues, what made you change your mind about "the left"? You used to go on about how liberals hate and want to destroy the United States. My goodness, you've backed down from your position. Next you'll be saying that some people are poor because of circumstances beyond their control.
I imagine the boo-ers thought process went like that "Studly soldier? I have a hard-on for America! Oh wait, gay studly soldier? I have a gay hard-on! Must act out with some form of violence to keep the gay off!"
Moroever, I think that being treated, or seeing one's brethren treated, as second-class citizens is something that should be treated as a mere "difference of opinion." I would hope that any of my fellow liberals would, faced with one of their own who asserted that, say, believing in an anthropomorphic deity should preclude one from service in the military would have the good sense to call that person on his/her bigotry, and not be shy about applying satire or hyperbole where advantage called for it.
Summed up Rujax/Pol Pot post on any topic-
Blah blah crazy incoherent statement blah blah republicon AmeriKKKa blah blah.
BTW, I would think anyone would rue a mother fucking day. Look at Oedipus.
@62
Gay citizens aren't treated as second class citizens except in their own imaginings. They have exactly the same rights as I, a heterosexual white male, have. What they want is for people to stop being so MEAN to them, Mommy! It's not FAAAAIIIIR!!!! is the constant refrain from the far left fringe like Savage.
Well it isn't, maybe. But a lesbian or gay man chose their lifestyle, and if they dislike the social consequences of that choice it's kind of on them. I have the right to my choices and my opinions. I do not have the right to be free from offense at how others view those choices or opinions.
But at least for the moment you've still backed down from some of your previous positions, even if you're still resorting to the same sort of childishness and poor reasoning you criticize in others.
Haha! That's actually funny. Your humor batting average just jumped from .0 to .00000000001. Congrats.
It's not really so much that we want you to stop being mean (though that would be nice), but we want the system to protect and treat the Queer identified in the same way it protects and treats anyone else.
Gay citizens aren't treated as second class citizens except in their own imaginings. They have exactly the same rights as I, a heterosexual white male, have.
That's arguable; you, after all, had/have the "right" (we could have a reasonable debate as to whether it's a right, but from what I've seen, every time I've tried to begin a reasonable debate with you, you've fallen silent, perhaps sensing that you wouldn't fare well in one) to marry someone with whom you have even a nominal capacity to be erotically or romantically compatible (I don't know about you, but such compatibility is precisely why I got married; you and I are simply fortunate enough that we have such capacities with members of the opposite sex).
That said, one can reasonably surmise that marriage, with its attendant privileges and subsidies, might perhaps not be a "right" in the traditional sense. So let's stick with the matter at hand--military service. Until NOW, the right of a law-abiding citizen to even put oneself up for consideration for military service was not extended to homosexuals. While being accepted into this body isn't a right, per se--one must qualify for any job, after all--discrimination on the basis of this proclivity did, in fact, violate a very basic right to have one's ability to do any given job judged on the basis of capacities related to the job itself.
Well it isn't, maybe. But a lesbian or gay man chose their lifestyle, and if they dislike the social consequences of that choice it's kind of on them.
So far as those social consequences, so far as they are codified by law, are based on empirically demonstrable utilities, sure. Moral concerns, however, are too subjective and complex for an instrument so blunt as government to oversee. Your disapproval is yours to prosecute; you may feel free to spread it amongst your brethren or teach your kids to abide by it. But you cannot ask that our public institutions abide by it.
That's along the lines of what they said before lifestyle choice of biracial sex and marriage was legalized. They reasoned that since white people couldn't marry black people, and vice versa, everybody had equal rights.
The laws that stop you from marrying a same sex partner are just as unconstitutional as the ones that stop gay people from marrying.
And may I add that it gratifies me no end to see you back peddling on the issue of gays in the military. I have also noticed that since NY now has gay marriage you've dropped the whole "Dan and Terry aren't married" canard as well.
You know in your heart that you are losing. How you must suffer in your impotence. It almost makes up for you not losing an eye to a fish hook on your trip.
Oh. That's easy.
I remember the deafening silence when an actual Democrat candidate called all the men and women serving in Iraq too stupid to do otherwise. (As do muy brother and brother in law then serving in Iraq. Vividly.) Granted, John Kerry had a long history of hating soldiers, even going before Congress expressly so that he could betray his fellow servicemen after Vietnam. But still, I don't remember either the media or the Dems going off on Kerry for saying such an idiotic thing. And again, he wasn't a few audience members in a Dem debate. He was a candidate for the presidency.
Savage and his boyfriend aren't married. Not here. If they lived in Vancouver BC maybe, but in the state in which they have residence they aren't married. Nor could they be, since marriage is the union of a man and woman in lifelong comittment.
I never argued for DADT. How many times is this necessary? Once the officer corps decided there wasn't an issue, for my money there wasn't an issue.
A person born black or Asian or confined to a wheelchair had no choice in the matter. They shouldn't be proud or ashamed or asked to be either for something which doesn't involve volition.
My wife and I married in a ceremony that wouldn't have been legal, but should have been, 50 years ago. We did not seek to redefine marriage for everyone else. We asked that our male/female partnership receive the recognition that every similar male/female partnership did.
You can keep conflating the two all you like. It won't make them in reality the same thing.
Please show me ANY science that proves a person is born homosexual.
PS- Studies won't serve. When asked 'As a man, do you prefer sex with men or women,' 'I prefer guys' isn't science. It's a statement of sexual tastes, not of any origination for those tastes or biological inevitability to them. I prefer dark haired slender women. I couldn't tell you why. But I don't attempt to call this preference an orientation or my sexual estiny, or impose that taste on others as some kind of obligation.
"Gay or lesbian citizens wanting to serve their nation should be encouraged in that desire, not discouraged."
why don't you head on over to the He Had It Coming All Along thread and ask Stephen Hill's husband (who is posting as jeaksua) to pass on your thanks for his service since none of the presidential candidates from your party saw fit to do so.
Go on. I'll wait.
As for your continuing battle against marriage, I have to ask: do you love your wife? Was that part of the reason for your decision to marry her? And if so, why do you think gender should be a deciding factor in keeping people who love each other from marrying? It is nice, though, that you acknowledge that if Dan and Terry lived in another place they would be married. It's fun watching you back down from your previous opinions.
And if you're going to insist that giving homosexuals the same right to marry is somehow an obligation please explain how it's an obligation. No one's asking you to marry a person of the same sex. Why is it any of your business if two people of the same sex want to marry?
"since marriage is the union of a man and woman in lifelong comittment."
Except, of course, in 33 countries around the globe and 12 of these united states, all of which recognize legal same sex unions.
You're losing.
Now run along and express your support to Stephen Hill's husband like a good boy.
It's a question of logics. If you can't really present an argument that shows how exactly there are differences, and relevant differences, between these cases, then you have no hope of getting near the truth. A difference, to be a difference, must make a difference.
It doesn't matter if Alexander the Great conquered almost the entire known world of his time, and that by the time he turned 30; and that his courage and valor earned the deepest trust of his soldiers. But who exactly did he like to have sex with? That is the big question, or so it seems.
They shouldn't be proud or ashamed or asked to be either for something which doesn't involve volition.
"Pride" and "shame" have nothing to do with legal recognition, even if the matter involves volition. And as I've pointed out before--again, to no rebuttal--there is no indication whatsoever that the proclivity in question has anything to do with volition. Yes, one can choose celibacy, or pleasure-free intercourse with a member of the opposite sex, in the name of achieving social acceptance (sort of the way I can choose to listen to the Eagles, but not to find anything edifying in their music); I happily cede to all the right to make those (dubious) choices. This has nothing to do with whether any empirically demonstrable civic utility is served by allowing equal legal recognition to homosexual and heterosexual unions; such utility is all with which law concerns itself.
Which is all off-topic, of course. This post was about DADT. And while you claim not to feel too strongly about the repeal, you clearly felt strongly enough to comment on the intensity with which some feel that the former policy (and the support it has amongst republicans to this day) represents an unjust prejudice. Do you have any further comment on that matter, or are you going to continue to move the argument to ground where you feel more comfortable, and ignore all arguments not easily dismissed with facile rejoinders? I'm just wondering.
It's interesting that so many people like you are convinced they know everything about homosexuality, without actually being gay themselves. What makes you such an expert on something you have never experienced? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?
Did you make a choice to be straight? I don't recall ever having that option myself. I just always knew that I wasn't the same as most people. I never made a choice. None of us do.
Remember - sexual orientation is neither mental illness nor behavior. Any assertions to that effect MUST be supported by current psychiatric or psychological studies.
A considerable number of studies are based on plethysmograph readings, as opposed to self-reporting.
That said, I don't think anyone is "born" homosexual or heterosexual, just as I don't really think anyone is "born" left-handed. But like left-handedness, I think that sexual orientation is nigh impossible to budge once it's set . . . and that it's set pretty early.
This is only speculative, and irrelevant. If an adult man decided last week that he was gay, and met someone he wanted to marry and who wanted to marry him three days later, I don't see why that should be legally proscribed.
It's a statement of sexual tastes, not of any origination for those tastes or biological inevitability to them. I prefer dark haired slender women.
And you would be legally allowed to marry one of those. So . . . Wait, what was the point of your bringing that up?taste on others as some kind of obligation.
http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/…
With that in mind consider this quote from the May issue of WORLD magazine (a Christian news source) from John Daly president of Focus on the Family:
"We're losing on [the issue of homosexuality], especially among the 20- and 30- somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. .... We've probably lost that . I don't want to be extremist here, but I think we need to start calculating where we are in the culture."
Does this mean attitudes will change? Sadly, likely not, locked minds remain locked until the owner opens them. Does this meant that money won't be funneled to stop the "homosexual agenda" ? I don't believe so. What it indicates, to me anyway, is that they are aware that their "a minority is trying to oppress a majority" martyr cry is becoming white noise.
"No, these are tragic circumstances you describe, and real people do find themselves in them. I think government has little to no place in helping, but it's inappropriate to crow about someone's misfortune." or:
"Stop--he is a soldier on active duty in a combat area. He deserves our thanks and respect."
If these things were planned, *someone* would have had an answer ready. All that's shown by no one being startled is that, as frequent public speakers, they've practiced their game faces.
As for whether or not pandering to the will of the majority (and which majority, especially in a country so close to being evenly divided as the US now seems to be), it does often work, but I don't think every politician, even every successful politician, even every US president, in history was doing that. I'll bet some of them agree with what they say.
Kitten Koder, you want to back up your statements about Reverend Wright? His statements were controversial and inflammatory, but I think 'scumbag' is a little harsh. Also, Obama caught a lot of heat and not just from Republicans. He publicly disavowed Wright's statements multiple times. Not sure where you're going with this one.
http://www.sluggy.net/forum/viewtopic.ph…
The party system has been in place here for almost as long as this country has been a nation. I think we're a little too far down the track to eliminate it. I do agree that a lot of bad occurs in the name of party politics.
I notice that you didn't address my challenge to you regarding Rev. Wright. What, to you, makes him a 'scumbag'? Put up or shut up.
My opinion of him is based on what he says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNTGRL0OJ…
He's racist, plain and simple.