Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Certainly you are not speaking about the bill authored by Ted Kennedy? <a href="http://autone.wordpress.com/2007/05/17/republicans-surrender-to-democrats-on-immigration-bill-s1348-amnesty/" target="_blank">http://autone.wordpress.com/20 07/05/17/republicans-surrender-to-democrats-on-immigration-bill-s1348-amnesty/</a>
Originally Posted By dshyates As far as conservitives and the gay issues, the most telling was Ted Haggards response to being caught snorting crystal while have gay sex with a male prostitute. He said that, yes, he is a meth head, but he is in no way a homosexual. Appearently it is better to be a crank addict than to be gay. Seriously, WTF?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Kennedy and Bush's position are quite close on this issue. This transcends the typical conservative/liberal divide.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <As far as conservitives and the gay issues, the most telling was Ted Haggards response to being caught snorting crystal while have gay sex with a male prostitute. He said that, yes, he is a meth head, but he is in no way a homosexual. Appearently it is better to be a crank addict than to be gay. Seriously, WTF?> Good point!
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Here is House Speaker Barbara Boxer's voting record on the matter. <a href="http://immigrationstance.diggersrealm.com/ca/senator_barbara_boxers_record_on_immigration_reform_and_illegal_aliens.html" target="_blank">http://immigrationstance.digge rsrealm.com/ca/senator_barbara_boxers_record_on_immigration_reform_and_illegal_aliens.html</a> <<If an illegal alien avoids being picked up, or remains here after receiving deportation orders, the next thing they look for are incentives, rewards and benefits. Amnesty is the largest of these rewards and gives illegal aliens a path to citizenship or makes them instantly legal. Senator Barbara Boxer has voted in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens.>> <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070726/NATION/107260088/1001" target="_blank">http://www.washingtontimes.com /apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070726/NATION/107260088/1001</a> <<Senate Democrats yesterday defeated a Republican effort to authorize $3 billion for new border security and immigration enforcement. Instead, the Democrats proposed a new agriculture workers program to bring in hundreds of thousands of foreign workers and grant legal status to illegal aliens now working in the fields.>> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/washington/06cnd-immig.html?ex=1301976000&en=e027efcc45f8dc88&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04 /06/washington/06cnd-immig.html?ex=1301976000&en=e027efcc45f8dc88&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss</a> <<Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, addressed his comments to the tens of thousands of immigrants and their supporters who have poured into the streets in recent weeks to press for such legislation, saying he believed the compromise would mean most to the illegal workers who wash dishes, park cars and clean hotel rooms. "So even though we all feel good about today, it pales in comparison to the millions and millions of people out there who today feel that they have a chance to participant in the American dream," Mr. Reid said. "Now, we're not there yet," he said. "But we've moved a long ways down the road.">> And this from DNC Chairman Howard Dean. <a href="http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/06/dean_president_12.php" target="_blank">http://www.democrats.org/a/200 7/06/dean_president_12.php</a> <<It’s an issue that won’t go away. It was, however, a failure to address what’s needed at our borders, and it fails to address 12 million immigrants, most of whom are hard working and law abiding, and who will not go away by virtue of Republican obstructionism. Democrats will continue to look for ways to address the issue. The American people deserve better, and America is capable of better.">> So are you trying to convince me that the DNC isn't FOR amnesty? or that you don't side with your political party on this issue?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And just to pile on, Craig has been more concerned getting out the message that he's not gay than he is saying he doesn't troll for sex in public restrooms.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <So are you trying to convince me that the DNC isn't FOR amnesty? or that you don't side with your political party on this issue?> Do you really need me to post Bush's comments on the subject? Or other Republicans who favor something similar? The point is that this is not a "liberal hot button issue." To be that, it would have to be something they actively press in order to win votes, then promptly forget about when the election is over. It isn't that, even if many favor it. And you are correct, I do not.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom As for "gay issues" lets look at "Don't Ask Don't tell". <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D on</a>'t_ask,_don't_tell <<However, in the 1980s many of the Democratic Party presidential candidates had expressed an interest in changing the regulations concerning homosexuality in the armed forces, and, as American society's social mores changed, public opinion began to express more sympathy with gay people in armed forces, at least to the extent that investigations into a serviceman or -woman's sexual orientation were seen as a witch-hunt. "Gays in the military" became a political issue during the 1992 Presidential campaign, when Clinton, the Democratic candidate, promised to lift the military's ban on homosexual and bisexual people. Congressional opposition to lifting the ban on homosexual people in the armed forces was led by Democrat Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia who organized Congressional hearings that largely buffed the armed forces position that has remained unchanged since the 1981 directive. While Congressional support for reform was led by Democrat Congressmen Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who fought for a compromise, and retired Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, who argued for a complete repeal of the ban. After a large number of people flooded the Congressional phone lines with oppositions to lifting the ban, President Clinton soon backed off on his campaign promise to lift the ban on homosexual and bisexual people in the armed forces.>> Yes the Democrats are so steadfast when it comes to gay issues.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 I think the scariest thing I've ever seen was Ted Haggard in "Jesus Camp" the docudrama. Holy cow he ain't right!
Originally Posted By dshyates "I think the scariest thing I've ever seen was Ted Haggard in "Jesus Camp"" Aw, c'mon. Crank tweaked religious zelots are a hoot
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Yes the Democrats are so steadfast when it comes to gay issues." Sam Nunn hasn't been in the Senate since 1997, and Bill Clinton's been out of office since January, 2001. Got anything from this century?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Sam Nunn hasn't been in the Senate since 1997, and Bill Clinton's been out of office since January, 2001. Got anything from this century?> Yes, there's that. Certainly, Democrats do not generally demagogue on gay issues today like (too many) Republicans do. KT - you gotta admit that one. There are certainly examples of individual democrats wimping out on it, but scant examples of them demonizing us or trying to win votes by being actively anti-gay. It's worth noting also that the Logo channel and HRC this year had a forum with most of the Democratic candidates. They offered to do the same for the Republicans, but Romney said no and McCain and Guiliani didn't respond. I couldn't find how the rest of the candidates responded, but with all three of the then-frontrunners out (Thompson wasn't in the race yet), Logo/HRC decided it wouldn't be worth it.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <a href="http://www.washblade.com/2006/4-27/news/national/dnc.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.washblade.com/2006/ 4-27/news/national/dnc.cfm</a> <<Paul Yandura, a party loyalist, sent an open letter on April 20 to gay Democratic activists charging that Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee have failed to counter efforts by Republicans to promote anti-gay ballot measures as a wedge issue to win elections. "For many months, a number of us have made appeals to Howard Dean and party officials to care about and defend the dignity of gay and lesbian families and friends, in the same way they defend the dignity of other key constituencies," Yandura said in his letter. "All progressives need to be asking how much has the DNC budgeted to counter the anti-gay ballot initiatives in the states," he said. "We also need to know why the DNC and our Democratic leaders continue to allow the Republicans to use our families and friends as pawns to win elections.">> <<Yandura’s letter comes shortly after reports surfaced that some members of the DNC’s Black Caucus had expressed opposition to a proposal by gay DNC member Garry Shay of California to add gays to the party’s affirmative action guidelines for selecting delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. A New York Daily News blog reported that Black Caucus member Donna Brazile was among those who raised concerns about the Shay proposal, on grounds that it could result in fewer African-American delegates. Shay’s proposal calls for a DNC rule change that would require all state parties to establish goals and timetables for selecting a minimum number of gay delegates in the same way they currently allocate certain numbers of delegate slots for African Americans, Latinos, Asian-Pacific Islanders, Native Americans and women.>>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder So KT, you're turning into Darkbeer here with the clips. If memory serves, you're gay. Are you saying neither political party has your best interests at heart?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <a href="http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories07/june/0615075.htm" target="_blank">http://www.gaypeopleschronicle .com/stories07/june/0615075.htm</a> <<Washington, D.C.--The former director of LGBT outreach at the Democratic National Committee is suing the party and three high level employees for discrimination by sexual orientation, retaliation and defamation. Donald Hitchcock was fired last year after his partner, former Clinton administration official Paul Yandura, criticized the party for not doing enough on LGBT issues, particularly state marriage ban amendments. Yandura claims that the party viewed gays as primarily a source of donations. Hitchcock, who worked for the DNC from June 2005 to May 2, 2006, says the party violated the D.C. Human Rights Act, which bars employment discrimination by sexual orientation. He says that besides firing him, they paid him less than non-gay employees doing similar work, and made false public statements that he was not doing his job.>> <<Yandura, now a Democratic fundraiser, continues to be critical of the DNC, telling LGBT contributors that under Dean, the community is not being better served, only better solicited for funds.>> Is that recent enough for you?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Yes, I am gay. What I am suggesting is that the conception that the Democratic Party are the champions for the gay cause is "misguided". At best the National Democratic Party are frienemys.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<The Iraq war is gay. Raging deficits: gay. No-bid contracts: gay. Selling our soul to China: gay. Poverty: gay. 9/11: very gay.>> The Iraq war is global warming. Raging deficits: global warming. No-bid contracts: global warming. Selling our soul to China: global warming. Poverty: global warming. 9/11: very global warming. ;-)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <At best the National Democratic Party are frienemys.> You know, I basically agree with that. They have wimped out on us plenty. But at least they don't actively work against us.
