Fred Thompson Drops Out

[Wraith]

Thompson Ends Campaign for G.O.P. Nomination

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: January 23, 2008

CORAL BEACH, Fla. — Fred D. Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee, dropped out of the Republican race for president on Tuesday after a third-place primary showing on Saturday in South Carolina, a state he had hoped to win when he entered the race riding a wave of optimism among conservatives looking for a strong general election candidate.

Mr. Thompson’s withdrawal came three days after he delivered a rambling speech on Saturday night that signaled that his departure was imminent. Aides said it was delayed because he went to Tennessee to tend to his mother, who was ill.

“I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort,” he said in a statement. “Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people,” he added, referring to his wife.

Mr. Thompson’s advisers said he would not make an endorsement in the race.

...NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/us/politics/23thompson.html?_r=1&ref=politics)

Five candidates remain in each party, with several obviously trailing.
Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani and Paul.
Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich and Gravel.

[IrishWhiskey]

I forget where I read it, but this said it best:

"On Tuesday Fred Thompson woke up to the realization that his campaign was dead in the water, dropped out of the race, after which he immediately fell back asleep."

[jeffbax]

And I'm sure they'll continue to ignore Paul, even though I don't think he's lost a primary to Giuliani yet.

[torrefaction]

I'm so very glad that this guy didn't even have a showing.

[Heretic Machine]

The least likable D.A. from Law and Order wasn't able to be elected president? You're kidding; that is shocking. I'm fucking shocked.

[IrishWhiskey]

The least likable D.A. from Law and Order wasn't able to be elected president? You're kidding; that is shocking. I'm fucking shocked.He fired the cute blond prosecutor who was actually moral and intelligent, because she wouldn't prosecute an innocent kid, right after it was revealed she was a lesbian.

For that, no-man can ever be forgiven.

[Generation ABXY]

I have to say, I actually liked him as a candidate. He takes a minimalistic approach to government, but he isn't so extreme so as to be unbelievable (which is where I stand with Paul - no offense to anyone supporting him).

So long as it isn't Romney or Guiliani, I think I'm okay with the rest of the candidates...to various degrees.

[NationalKato]

Republicans love their Hollywood elite!

[IrishWhiskey]

Republicans love their Hollywood elite!Ha, I hadn't realized that. I can't think of any major Democratic nominees who were actors, and yet every Republican candidate wants to be Reagan.

[SuicideKing]

Thompson would have been my choice, unfortunately, while having all the right ideas, he didn't know how to manage and play along with a media-driven campaign. He focused on substance, what what plays on TV are soundbites.

If you want to know exactly where he stood/stands, here's a link to the 17 minute video (http://blip.tv/file/568413) he put out before the Iowa Caucus expanding upon what he believed in and why.

I agree practically 100% with everything he says in that video.

Now, if Giuliani or Romney get the nomination, I'll probably vote for either one, if Huckabee gets it I stay home, if McCain gets it, I'll probably stay home, if by some Bizarro world inversion of reality Ron Paul somehow gets it after a miraculous Super Tuesday showing (not going to happen in a million years) I most definitely stay home.

For McCain and Huckabee, I'd rather have a Democrat fuck up the country by applying liberal policy, then have a Republican acting like a Democrat do the same. No one has a clue as to what Obama would actually do, and Hillary has proven her socialist/progressive bona fides many times over.

As for the Hollywood elites comment... Obviously it was tongue in cheek, but it echoes what Bill Maher etc.. say. Unlike the Democrats who seem to be functioning solely on identity politics this year, "Hmm, do I go with the black dude or the woman, which would make me feel better about myself?" The conservative base cares about ideas , policy and substance. Reagan wasn't great because he was an actor, he was great because he had the right ideas. Ideas that several current Republican nominees have distanced themselves from, much to the detriment of the party IMHO.

[roboninja]

Thompson would have been my choice, unfortunately, while having all the right ideas, he didn't know how to manage and play along with a media-driven campaign.

If you want to know exactly where he stood/stands, here's a link to the 17 minute video (http://blip.tv/file/568413) he put out before the Iowa Caucus expanding upon what he believed in and why.

I agree practically 100% with everything he says in that video.

Now, if Giuliani or Romney get the nomination, I'll probably vote for either one, if Huckabee gets it I stay home, if McCain gets it, I'll probably stay home, if by some Bizarro world inversion of reality Ron Paul somehow gets it after a miraculous Super Tuesday showing (not going to happen in a million years) I most definitely stay home.

For McCain and Huckabee, I'd rather have a Democrat fuck up the country by applying liberal policy, then have a Republican acting like a Democrat do the same. No one has a clue as to what Obama would actually do, and Hillary has proven her socialist/progressive bona fides many times over.

As for the Hollywood elites comment... Obviously it was tongue in cheek, but it echoes what Bill Maher etc.. say. Unlike the Democrats who seem to be functioning solely on identity politics this year, "Hmm, do I go with the black dude or the woman, which would make me feel better about myself?" The conservative base cares about ideas , policy and substance. Reagan wasn't great because he was an actor, he was great because he had the right ideas. Ideas that several current Republican nominees have distanced themselves from, much to the detriment of the party IMHO.

I was waiting for you to show up in this thread, as I knew you were a Thompson guy. Thank you, the post was precious.

[SuicideKing]

It gratifies me to know I brightened your day, no matter how misguided you might be. :p

[IrishWhiskey]

Unlike the Democrats who seem to be functioning solely on identity politics this year, "Hmm, do I go with the black dude or the woman, which would make me feel better about myself?" The conservative base cares about ideas , policy and substance. Reagan wasn't great because he was an actor, he was great because he had the right ideas. Ideas that several current Republican nominees have distanced themselves from, much to the detriment of the party IMHO.Yup, the conservatives are going with a bunch of old Christian white guys because they care only about policy and not identity politics, whereas Democrats support Hillary and Obama solely because of their race and gender. Clearly Hillary has zero political or policy experience that people might care about. And as for Edwards.... uh, they're voting for him solely for his identity as.... a guy with good hair(?).


Seriously, do you even believe the baloney you come out with, or is it all just talking points?

[Schnoogs]

He fired the cute blond prosecutor who was actually moral and intelligent, because she wouldn't prosecute an innocent kid, right after it was revealed she was a lesbian.

For that, no-man can ever be forgiven.

I thought that was an idiotic ending and I wondered who they were pandering to with that moronic accusation about her being a lesbian.

Now I know who they were appealing to.

[IrishWhiskey]

I thought that was an idiotic ending and I wondered who they were pandering to with that moronic accusation about her being a lesbian.

Now I know who they were appealing to.Yes. Men.

What was unclear about that? Also, they weren't accusing her of being a lesbian, she just was.

[SuicideKing]

I might say the same to you Irish, if Obama, turned around and echoed Thompson on every policy point mentioned in that video, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, if Obama's WIFE ran on that platform, I'd vote for her. Edwards is in a far distant third, and the only reason he's there is because he's playing the class warfare card, "Corporations are evil, it's not like they actually employ anyone, my daddy works in a steel mill, did I mention that? I want to eradicate poverty, but refuse to say how." Obama is there because he's black, and beating the change drum, while not mentioning race himself, he lets his supporters manage that, Hillary is there because she wants to be in power, and she's playing the feminist card for all she's worth what with her talk of the "glass ceiling" etc etc...

Have you even be watching the democratic debates Whiskey? They have all devolved into identity politics.

Best moment ever:
Z6mPp-ivtEY

[DevilUknow]

The conservative base cares about ideas , policy and substance.

I guess religious supremacy, racism, homophobia, war mongering, misogyny and corruption are TECHNICALLY ideas and policies.

edit: OH, I forgot about denial of science and the deification of money.

[jeffbax]

...
If you want to know exactly where he stood/stands, here's a link to the 17 minute video (http://blip.tv/file/568413) he put out before the Iowa Caucus expanding upon what he believed in and why...

I wanted to stop / vomit after the mushroom cloud bullshit.

[Zanzibar]

I wanted to stop / vomit after the mushroom cloud bullshit.

Seriously, can we all just point and laugh at the GOP supporters now?

Their foreign policy is a joke. Their 'restoring honor and integrity to the White House' is a joke. Their plan to defeat terrorism is a joke. Their economic policies are a joke. Their homophobia is a joke. Their thinly-veiled racism is a joke. Their education policy is a joke. Their health-care plan is a joke. Their energy policy is a joke.

It's really too bad that none of them are funny.

[torrefaction]

I'm so sick of the typical partisanship bullshit you throw out there, all over the place, Zanzibar.

REPUBLICANS ARE TEH STUPID!

Give me a break.

[SuicideKing]

Heh, this is why I highly doubt there will be any across the isle reaching anytime soon, people are way to polarized, the only difference, is us conservatives happen to be right.;)

[torrefaction]

I guess religious supremacy, racism, homophobia, war mongering, misogyny and theft are TECHNICALLY ideas and policies.

That's not conservative, asshole. That's religion. It's not my fault there are no real conservative candidates (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/rush-limbaugh-i.html) outside of Ron Paul (Who, even though I love the guy, is too conservative).

When RUSH says the conservative candidates suck, you know there's a problem in the party.

[NationalKato]

Thompson would have been my choice, unfortunately, while having all the right ideas, he didn't know how to manage and play along with a media-driven campaign. He focused on substance, what plays on TV are soundbites.

You do know Thompson's been a film and TV actor for decades, right? What part of a media-driven anything doesn't he understand? His life is media and TV soundbites! If you think differently, you haven't spent enough time in Hollywood. The truth is he was never sure he wanted to run, never had his heart 100% in it, and is now dropping out.

[Zanzibar]

the only difference, is us conservatives happen to be right.;)

Wow, you might actually be delusional. Where have YOU been for the last seven years?

Conservative policies have been in effect for the entirety of the Bush Administration. Seven years of uninterrupted rule. And here we are, in every sense of the term, 'well and truly fucked.'

Bush might very well have defeated the Conservative movement for decades to come.

[SuicideKing]

Forgive me for correcting you Kato, but did you actually follow the campaign? I did, he kept wanting to give longer, more detailed answers than a 2 minute talking head spot would allow, campaigning in South Carolina was under the big media radar, he went form town to town doing several hour long question and answer sessions, etc...

He refused to consense his answers, ie, the whole raise your hand on global warming refusal, his insistence on talking policy, not horse race campaigning while doing interviews etc.

And Zanzibar if you think Bush has been applying conservative principles, you have no clue what said principles are. He made government bigger, tried to cram amnesty down our throats, just recently the DoJ is trying to limit the second amendment, and spent wildly.

What Bush got right were the tax cuts, and the fact that we are engaged in a global struggle against radical Islam, plus some social conservative stances, (stem cell research, etc).

[torrefaction]

Wow, you might actually be delusional. Where have YOU been for the last seven years?

Watching a President act without conservative values?

Even if some of us non-neocons support the base ideas of both wars, the way in which they were managed from a budgetary and occupational standpoint were ridiculous.

[IrishWhiskey]

Obama is there because he's black, and beating the change drum, while not mentioning race himself, he lets his supporters manage that, Hillary is there because she wants to be in power, and she's playing the feminist card for all she's worth what with her talk of the "glass ceiling" etc etc...And the Republican candidates also want to be in power, and play up the Christian (and in coded editorials and talk of electability, the white, male) identity card, along with many others. The difference is its "evil feminists and race baiters" when the Democrats do it, and "just good people voting on policy" when Republicans do it. Have you even be watching the democratic debates Whiskey? They have all devolved into identity politics. Absolutely. Because thats what the media finds interesting. I mean you just showed a news network asking questions, not the candidates. Your suggestion that its all democratic voters care about though, simply comes from knee-jerk talking points, without any attempt an even-handed consideration.

[DevilUknow]

That's not conservative, asshole. That's religion.

I was speaking of the ideas, policies and substance that appeal to the conservative BASE.

I guess I also forgot childish name calling and character assassination.

[Zanzibar]

Watching a President act without conservative values?

Even if some of us non-neocons support the base ideas of both wars, the way in which they were managed from a budgetary and occupational standpoint were ridiculous.

Trouble is, he's hired the best and the brightest minds of Conservative philosophy to run the policies. And they have failed. It's not just him.

Do you really think that Bush ran it all himself? All of the policy ideas were his?

You can try to run away from Bush, but any GOP candidate will tell you they'll hire from the same crop of Conservative policy-wonks that Bush did.

Until the Republicans are defeated, we will get more of the same from them.

[torrefaction]

Your suggestion that its all democratic voters care about though, simply comes from knee-jerk talking points, without any attempt an even-handed consideration.

As sad as it is, this is probably more true than I'd really like to admit. In reality, this is what consists of the majority of America's "political education".

I need only remember how everything Michael Moore said in Fahrenheit 9/11 instantly became fact to most of the college crowd to know how true this is.

[torrefaction]

I was speaking of the ideas, policies and substance that appeal to the conservative BASE.

I guess I also forgot childish name calling and character assassination.

Calling me a misogynistic, racist, homophobe because I'm conservative is a much more significant attack than me (rightfully) telling you that you're an asshole for characterizing all conservatives that way.

[IrishWhiskey]

As sad as it is, this is probably more true than I'd really like to admit. In reality, this is what consists of the majority of America's "political education".

I need only remember how everything Michael Moore said in Fahrenheit 9/11 instantly became fact to most of the college crowd to know how true this is.Pretty much. And although everyone's guilty of it, I do try and be critical of the information I get from liberal sources too.

When RUSH says the conservative candidates suck, you know there's a problem in the party.But is Rush saying that because he really wants a conservative, or just someone who thinks like he does? Because as much as people say that Bush wasn't a "real conservative" now, Rush was at the forefront of defending him while he was pushing big spending programs, increased government powers and interventionism while he was popular.

It depends how you define conservatism, but you get what I mean.

[SuicideKing]

Trouble is, he's hired the best and the brightest minds of Conservative philosophy to run the policies. And they have failed. It's not just him.

Do you really think that Bush ran it all himself? All of the policy ideas were his?

You can try to run away from Bush, but any GOP candidate will tell you they'll hire from the same crop of Conservative policy-wonks that Bush did.

Until the Republicans are defeated, we will get more of the same from them.

There are three big areas to conservative, social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and national security conservatism. Do you really think that Bush adopted everything his advisers said? Perhaps you don't realize the outrage the conservative base exhibited upon them trying to pass the sham that was "immigration reform." Perhaps you missed the fact that conservatives aren't at all happy with his spending habits. Bush has done quite a few things right in the eyes of conservatives, but he's also gotten others flatout wrong.

Bolton, for example, was a brilliant person to appoint as UN ambassador, the problem was, he still represented the administration, and when they waffled he had to waffle, I recommend picking up his book "Surrender is not an Option," though the likes of Zanzibar will probably be dismayed by some of the poistions he takes.


Pretty much. And although everyone's guilty of it, I do try and be critical of the information I get from liberal sources too.

But is Rush saying that because he really wants a conservative, or just someone who thinks like he does? Because as much as people say that Bush wasn't a "real conservative" now, Rush was at the forefront of defending him while he was pushing big spending programs, increased government powers and interventionism while he was popular.

It depends how you define conservatism, but you get what I mean.

The choice between Bush/Gore, and Kerry/Gore was stark enough, Bush hit ENOUGH of the conservative bullet points to be the undisputably better candidate in the eyes of conservatives. The choice between a Huckabee,McCain/Hillary,Obama is far less clear though.

I for one do not recal Rush defending the increasingly profligate spending.

As far as Government powers, conservatives tend to place enough emphasis on National Security to allow temporary increases. Patriot Act for example, has a sunset clause.
If you think that's bad, it's nothing compared to what Democratic presidents instituted during WWII....

[torrefaction]

Trouble is, he's hired the best and the brightest minds of Conservative philosophy to run the policies. And they have failed. It's not just him.

Do you really think that Bush ran it all himself? All of the policy ideas were his?You can try to run away from Bush, but any GOP candidate will tell you they'll hire from the same crop of Conservative policy-wonks that Bush did.

Until the Republicans are defeated, we will get more of the same from them.

Goldwater himself railed against the growing influence of religion on the Republican party. That was 20 years ago. No, I don't think Bush ran it all himself, but that doesn't make the ideas a failure. By your logic, all social programs are failures because it worked out so horribly in the Soviet Union.

Bush ran on a solid platform, but then didn't follow through with it. I gave him the benefit of the doubt to see if he could pull through with the Iraq war on his second term, despite a more than waivering faith in the EXECUTION of his policies.

I can say far more about the failure of liberal policies through historical evidence from countries that have implemented them on a large scale. I don't normally draw a lot of those types of comparisons. I focus on our own failures in implementing social based programs, and the downfalls I see with them.

Why? First, so I can avoid the partisan bullshit you're so sucked in to. Second, because a failed policy doesn't necessarily mean the plan was bad. Sometimes, they're just executed poorly.

[Devilturnip]

Peace pipe time.

Everyone on BOTH sides of the aisle should stop looking at the televised debates as anything substantive. If we go by the debates, the republicans are only concerned about bombing Iran and Mexicans and the democrats only care about change, skin color, and differing gonads.

It's funny how everyone knows that the debates are utter bullshit, but when it comes time to argue politics everyone uses them for ammunition.

[IrishWhiskey]

There are three big areas to conservative, social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and national security conservatism. Do you really think that Bush adopted everything his advisers said? Perhaps you don't realize the outrage the conservative base exhibited upon them trying to pass the sham that was "immigration reform."The reason he was for amnesty, work programs and lax penalties for companies is because he's an economic conservative. Those three things don't always neatly overlap. Particularly in how you define social conservative.

Perhaps you missed the fact that conservatives aren't at all happy with his spending habits. Bush has done quite a few things right in the eyes of conservatives, but he's also gotten others flatout wrong.He pushed tax cuts and massive military spending increases, both of which conservatives were happy with (speaking generally). Why does it comes as a surprise then that the debt has also risen? Cutting welfare, the NEA and EPA doesn't exactly make up for that loss.

[torrefaction]

But is Rush saying that because he really wants a conservative, or just someone who thinks like he does? Because as much as people say that Bush wasn't a "real conservative" now, Rush was at the forefront of defending him while he was pushing big spending programs, increased government powers and interventionism while he was popular.

It depends how you define conservatism, but you get what I mean.

Well, who knows? But I know how *I* feel as a conservative. I think you and I have had enough debates for you to know where I fall and that I've been pretty consistent in my views. I've changed some, and part of that is because I've recognized our failures in Iraq. Learning from history is how I help shape my views.

But I've always said want I want to see is a fiscally conservative government, a massive revision of our tax code, and a cut down in failing social programs. That doesn't really mean no NEW social programs, but let's see how much money's left once we cut away all the fat.

I've also been pretty staunch in my issues with the Federal government overstepping boundaries, especially in regards to states rights. I think a lot of this separates me pretty drastically from what the Republican party has turned into.

[jeffbax]

If it wasn't for war and religion commandeering the GOP I would be much more interested in what they had to say.

I am torn between my Ron Paul protest vote and going for Obama vs Clinton.

But seriously, when people like Ghouliani appear to know nothing about foreign policy, the lessons of history, checks on executive power, and a steaming scent of corruption around them it baffles me how far they can get in coverage.

[Johan]

Who?

Did what now?

:confused:

[torrefaction]

If it wasn't for war and religion commandeering the GOP I would be much more interested in what they had to say.

I am torn between my Ron Paul protest vote and going for Obama vs Clinton.

Quite honestly, I feel the very same way. Look at that, we agree on something!

Ron Paul is certainly getting my vote in the primaries though.

[IrishWhiskey]

Who?

Did what now?

:confused:Oh yeah. Thats right, this thread was about Fred Thompson.

Kinda says it all about his campaign really...

[Whimbrel]

I wonder when gay marriage will become an issue in this election. Huckabee said something about "defending the role of the traditional family", which I think is the Jesus way of saying "hate thy neighbor." But so far it has not seemed to be a real platform issue to get out the straight/scared vote and defeat the godless liberals.

[jeffbax]

Quite honestly, I feel the very same way. Look at that, we agree on something!

Ron Paul is certainly getting my vote in the primaries though.
I think the only thing we have ever disagreed on is the benefits/value of a Mac. I don't see how that automatically makes us mortal enemies in all things life related.

[torrefaction]

I think the only thing we have ever disagreed on is the benefits/value of a Mac. I don't see how that automatically makes us mortal enemies in all things life related.

It doesn't. It was more of a joke, because it's popped up in a few threads lately. Not funny?

[SuicideKing]

The reason he was for amnesty, work programs and lax penalties for companies is because he's an economic conservative. Those three things don't always neatly overlap. Particularly in how you define social conservative.

He pushed tax cuts and massive military spending increases, both of which conservatives were happy with (speaking generally). Why does it comes as a surprise then that the debt has also risen? Cutting welfare, the NEA and EPA doesn't exactly make up for that loss.

I would strongly disagree with you tying in amnesty to fiscal conservatism. Second, IMHO our national spending on the military is paltry compared to what it should be, currently, it's an estimated 4.1% of our GDP, that's not enough in my view.

I'd like to see a return to a million man army as well, as well as a renewal of our military hardware, most of our aircraft is 24 years or older, and our tanks etc trend towards 13 years old. That's unacceptable when pursuing military dominance in my book.

[DevilUknow]

Calling me a misogynistic, racist, homophobe because I'm conservative is a much more significant attack than me (rightfully) telling you that you're an asshole for characterizing all conservatives that way.

as soon as the conservative base stops supporting misogynistic, racist, homophobes, I'll stop calling them on it.

[torrefaction]

as soon as the conservative base stops supporting misogynistic, racist, homophobes, I'll stop calling them on it.

So you're in the Rosanne Barre crowd then? Good to know I should never take a word you say seriously.

[Johan]

as soon as the conservative base stops supporting misogynistic, racist, homophobes, I'll stop calling them on it.

No you won't. You're the devil!

Liar! :D

[IrishWhiskey]

I would strongly disagree with you tying in amnesty to fiscal conservatism. Second, IMHO our national spending on the military is paltry compared to what it should be, currently, it's an estimated 4.1% of our GDP, that's not enough in my view.

I'd like to see a return to a million man army as well, as well as a renewal of our military hardware, most of our aircraft is 24 years or older, and our tanks etc trend towards 13 years old. That's unacceptable when pursuing military dominance in my book.Yeah. I can't even argue that simply because its a matter of how you define conservatism. And thats fine.

But you should be able to recognize that there's a lot of GOP members thats define it differently, and that if Bush made decisions you are unhappy with, maybe its not because he wasn't listening to conservatives, but he was listening to a different type of conservative. Like the big business and free-trade Republicans opposing immigration crackdowns, or the limited government conservatives opposing massive military build-ups.

[SuicideKing]

as soon as the conservative base stops supporting misogynistic, racist, homophobes, I'll stop calling them on it.

Way to prove you know diddly squat regarding what you're talking about. Bush must fail at racism, what with him appointing more blacks and latinos to positions of power, not to mention a female NSA, than any democratic president. Guess Chimpy McBush was too stupid to even get that right! :rolleyes:

[IrishWhiskey]

Way to prove you know diddly squat regarding what you're talking about. Bush must fail at racism, what with him appointing more blacks and latinos to positions of power than any democratic president. Guess Chimpy McBush was too stupid to even get that right! :rolleyes:Not that I agree with him, but thats not a very good counter-argument. Nor did he specifically reference Bush, there are plenty of House members, lower offices, pundits and others you could make those sorts of charges about. I also notice you aren't combating the homophobe charge.

[Johan]

He has a brother, too.

VW0YLWWf2b8

[torrefaction]

Not that I agree with him, but thats not a very good counter-argument. Nor did he specifically reference Bush, there are plenty of House members, lower offices, pundits and others you could make those sorts of charges about. I also notice you aren't combating the homophobe charge.

Honestly, I know you're going to argue against this, but I don't necessarily think not wanting gay marriage makes someone a homophobe. It can be an indicator of course, but it's not entirely that simple.

[Whimbrel]

Jesus man. Do you even know where the deep end is in your pile of horse shit?

Appointing two or three minorities to administration posts while implementing policies that directly harm millions of ethnic americans does not make somebody a saint.

Sure, in general the conservative base in this country supports policies that directly help minorities and the poor, increase tolerance and diversity, and lead to an enlightened electorate. Conservative states like Utah would never advocate amending the constitution in order to prevent Americans from enjoying marriage. That would violate their core conservative beliefs.

[IrishWhiskey]

Honestly, I know you're going to argue against this, but I don't necessarily think not wanting gay marriage makes someone a homophobe. It can be an indicator of course, but it's not entirely that simple.Sure. I think it usually is, but there are other reasons (though not good ones in my mind). On the other hand I do think Bush acts as a homophobe (whether for personal or strategic reasons I don't know). If nothing else as the standard bearer of his party, when he supports rather than condemns comments about how homosexuality is equivalent to "man-on-dog" and some blatantly homophobic Congressmembers, he is condoning homophobia.

[Johan]

Jesus man.

Is "Jesus" an adjective? Or should "man" be capitalized as a proper noun?

Jesus Man!

[Whimbrel]

Jesus Man is Michael Behe's superhero name. But I thought you knew that, wink wink.

[SuicideKing]

Honestly, I know you're going to argue against this, but I don't necessarily think not wanting gay marriage makes someone a homophobe. It can be an indicator of course, but it's not entirely that simple.

/Agree.

I also notice you aren't combating the homophobe charge.
I didn't get into it, because I knew we would disagree on what constitues homophobia.

I believe the act of homosexual sex is a sin, but I don't believe it's something that should be illegal, what I do oppose it Gay Marriage, I could get behind Gay "civil unions" as long as it was strictly a legal status conferred by a local legislature endowing a gay couple with the economic benefits of traditionally defined marriage.

I don't consider myself a homophobe, hate the sin but love the sinner and all that, it's sad that it seems you can't disagree with someone's actions without being painted as disagreeing with their existence.

Back on topic, Thompson's exit makes me a sad panda. :(

Here's hoping he does the Goldwater thing and becomes a strong conservative voice from the sidelines, making the case for conservatism and how the frontrunners fail to advance it.

[NationalKato]

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/4253/lebowskibowlingsh7.gif

[torrefaction]

Sure. I think it usually is, but there are other reasons (though not good ones in my mind). On the other hand I do think Bush acts as a homophobe (whether for personal or strategic reasons I don't know). If nothing else as the standard bearer of his party, when he supports rather than condemns comments about how homosexuality is equivalent to "man-on-dog" and some blatantly homophobic Congressmembers, he is condoning homophobia.

Can you link me to that? Because his most recent comments have him supporting state civil unions, just not marriage at the federal level.

There are a lot of valid arguments for the state supporting heterosexual marriages, although they do start to lose ground in the face of a booming population and technological advancements. I'm a bit mixed on the issue, and not by any means because of any homophobia. I just see some of the counter-arguments as valid, and don't dismiss them outright.

[IrishWhiskey]

I believe the act of homosexual sex is a sin, but I don't believe it's something that should be illegal, what I do oppose it Gay Marriage, I could get behind Gay "civil unions" as long as it was strictly a legal status conferred by a local legislature endowing a gay couple with the economic benefits of traditionally defined marriage.

I don't consider myself a homophobe, hate the sin but love the sinner and all that, it's sad that it seems you can't disagree with someone's actions without being painted as disagreeing with their existence.Well, when "doing gay things" is the sin, its not hard to equivocate that with "being gay". Its like saying "I'm not a misogynist, as long as they look, dress and act like men".

And not to get into this whole thing again, but you do understand that gay people can get married anytime right? Church ceremony and everything. The only issue at stake is the legal rights and recognition conferred. If they can marry, and have all the legal rights, then what the point of labeling them as something else?

[NationalKato]

All gays have ever wanted is the legal rights and benefits afforded married couples. Most could care less about the sanctity of marriage, as defined in religions of the world.

[Atepsflame]

Fuck the two party system. Get back to me when we have at least one more party and I'll get excited about american politics. Right now it's just a bunch of noise and mild entertainment that is honestly just embarassing for this country.

[SuicideKing]

And not to get into this whole thing again, but you do understand that gay people can get married anytime right? Church ceremony and everything. The only issue at stake is the legal rights and recognition conferred. If they can marry, and have all the legal rights, then what the point of labeling them as something else?

Not true, in the sense I mean it, a Church can CHOOSE to marry a gay couple. They can also refuse to do so. What I want to maintain is the right to not provide church ceremonies if so desired by the pastor.

What some people don't seem to get, is what "marriage" means to social cons. You name it civil union, and make it a purely legal transaction, not at the federal level, and I think opposition would diminish.

[IrishWhiskey]

Can you link me to that? Because his most recent comments have him supporting state civil unions, just not marriage at the federal level.That phrase in particular was from the Santorum interview (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm) (which homophobia aside is pretty hilarious) but there were a number of similar equivalences made during the gay marriage debates, including more than a few Godwin's. Meanwhile Bush was raising the issue as much as possible to mobilize voters and relying on the Congressmembers and pundits to do the dirty work for him, and supporting and campaigning for the people making blatantly homophobic statements.

I seem to recall someone comparing it to man on turtle once, which I always thought very odd. How does that even work? Except maybe with one of those huge Galapagos turtles.

[IrishWhiskey]

Not true, in the sense I mean it, a Church can CHOOSE to marry a gay couple. They can also refuse to do so. What I want to maintain is the right to not provide church ceremonies if so desired by the pastor.THEY STILL HAVE THAT! WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE GAY MARRIAGE ISSUE?!?

....sigh.

You do understand, this isn't about forcing churches to perform ceremonies they don't want to, right?

[SuicideKing]

THEY STILL HAVE THAT! WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE GAY MARRIAGE ISSUE?!?

....sigh.

You do understand, this isn't about forcing churches to perform ceremonies they don't want to, right?

I added stuff to that post, you might want to re-read that. The fear is, that they will no longer be able to refuse it on moral grounds. Social cons, the ones opposing "gay marriage" tie "marriage" to a church ceremony, deal with it. It's a perception issue, that needs to be addressed imo.

[torrefaction]

That phrase in particular was from the Santorum interview (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm) (which homophobia aside is pretty hilarious) but there were a number of similar equivalences made during the gay marriage debates, including more than a few Godwin's. Meanwhile Bush was raising the issue as much as possible to mobilize voters and relying on the Congressmembers and pundits to do the dirty work for him, and supporting and campaigning for the people making blatantly homophobic statements.

I seem to recall someone comparing it to man on turtle once, which I always thought very odd. How does that even work? Except maybe with one of those huge Galapagos turtles.

Well, I remember the comparison. But what I'm asking is when Bush condoned the arguments about man-on-dog, etc...

[asimonk]

Not true, in the sense I mean it, a Church can CHOOSE to marry a gay couple. They can also refuse to do so. What I want to maintain is the right to not provide church ceremonies if so desired by the pastor.

Actually they can't. Not in any way that matters. Its not a legally binding union. No rights or benefits are conferred. Therefore it really doesn't matter outside of the church. And contrary to what some Midwesterners feel, this is not a theocracy. So it doesn't matter for squat. It has as much bearing as being married by an Indian guy dressed as Elvis in Vegas.

As for someone mentioning Rush earlier, people like him are why we have such a fucked up system. People like Rush, on both sides of the aisle, could give a fuck all about the country. The important thing is that they can keep their bogey man alive and well. That bogey man keeps people like him in silk shirts, fat paychecks, oxycotin and illegal viagara.

Edit: Suicide added a more afterwards, which kinda makes the first part of mine moot. I still think you're going to see the same rabid resistance regardless of what you call it.

[Whimbrel]

I haven't had any good man on turtle in years. God I miss college. Those sorority girls would do anything once you let a few reptiles get in the bed.

[Johan]

You do understand, this isn't about forcing churches to perform ceremonies they don't want to, right?

If legal marriage is extended beyond one man and one woman, what is the logical basis for preventing polygamy and other similar groups from enjoying the same right?

If you redefine what has historically, throughout most (not all, but most) of human history, been a one man to one woman institution, where do you find a logical basis for arbitrarily excluding other groups?

If it's open beyond the traditional legal arrangement, then there's no basis to prevent it for others...including polygamists, and on.

Oh, and also...so what? This forum isn't going to solve the "issue" so...so what?

[SuicideKing]

As for someone mentioning Rush earlier, people like him are why we have such a fucked up system. People like Rush, on both sides of the aisle, could give a fuck all about the country. The important thing is that they can keep their bogey man alive and well. That bogey man keeps people like him in silk shirts, fat paychecks, oxycotin and illegal viagara.

Sigh, I get the feeling you don't listen to Rush much.

[Whimbrel]

Sigh, I get the feeling you don't listen to Rush much.

Never a more glowing endorsement of somebody's perspective.

[torrefaction]

Oh, and also...so what? This forum isn't going to solve the "issue" so...so what?

So don't post on forums, if you think there's no value in discussing issues with others, as you continuously seem to espouse.

[Johan]

So don't post on forums, if you think there's no value in discussing issues with others, as you continuously seem to espouse.

Oh, there's value. Entertainment value. It's a blast! :D

[NationalKato]

If legal marriage is extended beyond one man and one woman, what is the logical basis for preventing polygamy and other similar groups from enjoying the same right?


If legal marriage is constrained to one man and one woman, what is the logical basis for preventing restrictions on race, creed, or social standing? See how you can go both ways if you're crazy enough?

Seriously, for all you conservative, anti-gay marriage proponents..I'm writing here a simple, easy-to-understand definition and solution that seems to be missed by all the polygamy- and bestiality-fearing idiots out there:

Marriage is defined as a legal union between two consenting adults.

There! See how easy that was? No man-on-turtle...man-on-child...multiple wives...or any other freakish scare-tactic you can come up with! I'm a freakin' genius!

[bKangy]

It's a shame but he didn't tick any of the Republican boxes specifically:

Giuliani - excessive mention of his 9/11 myths surrounding his actual performance, stealth fascist, massive jerk personally. Ticks the retard patriot box.

Huckabee - stupid, backwater overzealous white protestant with unbelievably backwards social views, proven lack of ability to actually manage anything. Bush with less of the Rove, Cheney Rumsfeld etc

McCain - "wisdom" and safety vote, like voting for your kickass war vet grandpappy. Uncomfortably "liberal" for large portion of Reps but comfortably different from Bush for reaction vote.

Romney - smarmy shithead with a huge machine to make anything necessary believable

Paul - insane minority of racists, ill informed students and the otherwise odd

[Atepsflame]

If legal marriage is extended beyond one man and one woman, what is the logical basis for preventing polygamy and other similar groups from enjoying the same right?

If you redefine what has historically, throughout most (not all, but most) of human history, been a one man to one woman institution, where do you find a logical basis for arbitrarily excluding other groups?

If it's open beyond the traditional legal arrangement, then there's no basis to prevent it for others...including polygamists, and on.

Oh, and also...so what? This forum isn't going to solve the "issue" so...so what?

I don't have a problem with polygamists.

Also, those saying that people will stop hooting and screetching about gay marriage if it's re-termed civil union, well, you're just wrong. If this was an issue of the choices of churches, then, well, it wouldn't be an issue. No, what I am assuming to be at least a lean majority of those that oppose gay marriage, do so for the sole reason that they want to deny homosexuals the rights and benifits afforded "married" couples, as a method of censuring and condemning homosexuality. people are stupid, simplistic creatures that hate irrationally and then string up flimsy arguments to justify their hateful positions. Those who do not and instead use reason and logic to come their opinions first are unfortunately not the rule, they are the exception.

[NationalKato]

bKangy, you should make that into a flier and distribute it. :D

[Johan]

I'm a freakin' genius!

I am warmed by the light emanating from your head.

My opinion. (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html)

people are stupid, simplistic creatures that hate irrationally and then string up flimsy arguments to justify their hateful positions.

Re-read. You made a poopy in your post. :D

[torrefaction]

I just decided what my opinion is.

Marriage just needs to be removed from the federal government entirely.

*Edit*
And kept at the state level, and allow the states to decide what they want to do.

[NationalKato]

Just here to help you, Johan. I do what I can. I'm glad my tens of hundreds of man-hours dedicated to solving the Conservative Fear Conundrum paid off. Miller time!

[Johan]

I just decided what my opinion.

I no understanding here this sent...

Miller time!

Miller sucks. Corona. The prince of watered-down local-grocer crap beers! :)

[torrefaction]

I no understanding here this sent...

Because I left out the word is? Kinda sucks for your analytical skills (And my typing skills!)

[bKangy]

bKangy, you should make that into a flier and distribute it. :D

It's overly cynical and simplified but seriously, the Republicans are tearing themselves apart right now just voting for candidates who fill stupid little niches. Find a leader and find him quick. I wouldn't even be adverse to voting for the right Republican, but even McCain is a struggle due to him being slightly weird on a few things like foreign policy. I think the Republican candidate needed someone like Thompson and passing him over is a terrible, election losing move, unless Hillary gets the Dem nod. Then it's game on.

[Atepsflame]

I am warmed by the light emanating from your head.

My opinion. (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html)



Re-read. You made a poopy in your post. :D

By not capitalizing or by confirming my thesis with my own actions?

[Johan]

By not capitalizing or by confirming my thesis with my own actions?

Actually, I made a poopy out of reading it...I thought you said "irrationality" not "irrationally."

Poopy. :(

[Wraith]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/Ranced/forzawesome.gif

[IrishWhiskey]

I just decided what my opinion is.

Marriage just needs to be removed from the federal government entirely.

*Edit*
And kept at the state level, and allow the states to decide what they want to do.Which will work real well. As long as nobody ever moves across state lines. "Yeah I'm married, but only at home. At my work across state lines we aren't. And when we go to the hospital in Michigan for fertility treatments, I'm not even allowed visitation rights. And don't even get me started on inheritance issues."

On the other hand, that could work out well for Nevada. You aren't married when you go to the brothels there, and you don't have to worry about drunk Vegas weddings following you home.

[torrefaction]

Which will work real well. As long as nobody ever moves across state lines. "Yeah I'm married, but only at home. At my work across state lines we aren't. And when we go to the hospital in Michigan for fertility treatments, I'm not even allowed visitation rights."

On the other hand, that could work out well for Nevada. You aren't married when you go to the brothels there, and you don't have to worry about drunk Vegas weddings following you home.

Doesn't seem to be a problem with driver's licenses. Easy enough to apply for a new license when you move.

If there's a state that doesn't accept who you are, the rational thing to do would be to not live where it's clear the majority people are going to discriminate against you.

[IrishWhiskey]

Doesn't seem to be a problem with driver's licenses. Easy enough to apply for a new license when you move.

If there's a state that doesn't accept who you are, the rational thing to do would be to not live where it's clear the majority people are going to discriminate against you.Uh, the difference being you can drive in another state with your own license. If you get married in Massachusetts, does that mean Alabama has to respect your full marriage rights while you are there?

Not to mention I don't think "Gay couples should stay out of states that don't want them" should ever be considered a good solution.

[torrefaction]

Uh, the difference being you can drive in another state with your own license. If you get married in Massachusetts, does that mean Alabama has to respect your full marriage rights while you are there?

Not to mention I don't think "Gay couples should stay out of states that don't want them" should ever be considered a good solution.

I would think yes, if you were visiting, a license across states should work exactly the same way.

I don't totally disagree, but neither do I totally agree on the federal government making the ruling. If the tax benefits at the federal level are nixed, why would gay people care anymore, if the church would wed them?

The thing is, if you remove marriage at the federal level, you remove the disparity of rights.

[IrishWhiskey]

The thing is, if you remove marriage at the federal level, you remove the disparity of rights.I'm just genuinely confused. How does making it so that gay couples have vastly different rights depending on where they live remove the disparity?

Regardless, I'm perfectly fine with having it as a state issue if states are required to recognize gay marriages from other states, but I suspect SuicideKing, Johan, and a number of conservative legislators won't be. Nor does clustering gay people into more tolerant areas seem like a sound policy for the country in general. Not to mention that this would create countless headaches with legal issues crossing state lines (which happens constantly) including medicine, corporate policies, inheritance, custody, etc, etc. Having to keep a scorecard to know where in the country you have a wife or husband doesn't seem very practical.

[torrefaction]

I'm just genuinely confused. How does making it so that gay couples have vastly different rights depending on where they live remove the disparity?

Regardless, I'm perfectly fine with having it as a state issue if states are required to recognize gay marriages from other states, but I suspect SuicideKing, Johan, and a number of conservative legislators won't be. Nor does clustering gay people into more tolerant areas seem like a sound policy for the country in general. Not to mention that this would create countless headaches with legal issues crossing state lines (which happens constantly) including medicine, corporate policies, inheritance, custody, etc, etc. Having to keep a scorecard to know where in the country you have a wife or husband doesn't seem very practical.

Well, one would hope that over time, there wouldn't be a disparity. And how is it vastly different rights. The issue has long been the tax breaks the federal government provides to married couples, right?

It equalizes things at the Federal level. I'm not saying it fixes the problem , but I think it'd be a step forward.

[IrishWhiskey]

Well, one would hope that over time, there wouldn't be a disparity. And how is it vastly different rights. The issue has long been the tax breaks the federal government provides to married couples, right?

It equalizes things at the Federal level. I'm not saying it fixes the problem , but I think it'd be a step forward.Oh no. There's a ton of issues other than taxes. Like the ones I mentioned previously, there have been stores of gay couples who have gone through nightmares in hospital visitation (the partner isn't "family" and so not allowed to see their dying moments or sign consent for live-saving procedures) or divorces (the biological parent gets the kid, the partner has zero rights) or other issues. And while it may make it easier in federal tax issues, thats just the tip of the iceberg and would result in plenty of nightmare situations for people living their lives within the conflicting state systems.

[torrefaction]

Oh no. There's a ton of issues other than taxes. Like the ones I mentioned previously, there have been stores of gay couples who have gone through nightmares in hospital visitation (the partner isn't "family" and so not allowed to see their dying moments or sign consent for live-saving procedures) or divorces (the biological parent gets the kid, the partner has zero rights) or other issues. And while it may make it easier in federal tax issues, thats just the tip of the iceberg and would result in plenty of nightmare situations for people living their lives within the conflicting state systems.

Alright, fuck it. You're right.

No, really. I got nothing. There's not really an excuse for discriminating at that level, despite my agreeing with some of the arguments against it. The arguments may be valid, but not so valid as to allow a class of people to be discriminated against.

[IrishWhiskey]

Alright, fuck it. You're right.

No, really. I got nothing. There's not really an excuse for discriminating at that level, despite my agreeing with some of the arguments against it. The arguments may be valid, but not so valid as to allow a class of people to be discriminated against.....

....

STOP AGREEING WITH ME!

I'm confused and don't know what to do in this sort of situation....

[torrefaction]

....

....

STOP AGREEING WITH ME!

I'm confused and don't know what to do in this sort of situation....

Feel free to call me a republican baby killer, or attack me on some partisan basis, if it'll help you deal with any cognitive dissonance issues. ;)

[RGetz]

....

....

STOP AGREEING WITH ME!

I'm confused and don't know what to do in this sort of situation....

I think we've all just witnessed the first time an argument has changed someone else's opinion, on Evil Avatar.

[torrefaction]

I think we've all just witnessed the first time an argument has changed someone else's opinion, on Evil Avatar.

That's actually pretty untrue, at least of me. I've heard a lot of convincing arguments, from the crazy liberals and from the intelligent conservatives (See what I did there?) that have swayed my opinion in one direction or another. Usually by informing me of facts I was unaware.

No man is a mountain.

[Whimbrel]

Hey Man, you are unaware of facts!

Did it just happen again? I want to be a part of this.

I'll tag on my two cents. My girlfriend and I have a baby together and we are also raising her 9 year old daughter from her previous marriage. We have thought about but have avoided getting married mostly because we have a good thing going and our past experiences with marriage has been horrible. We live in Utah, which recently became consumed with hate gay fever. In the fervor to protect bigotry and some definition of marriage, they recently passed a bill that not only discriminates against gay marriage, but also heterosexual couples who are not legally married. This affects our ability to insure our children, maintain custody, determine health care, hospital visitation, tax status, employment benefits, etc. It is completely fucked. I can understand bending over the gay people, hell, they like it. But this is just way too far.

I kid, of course. But these anti-gay laws do nothing for straight people except give the ones with a fucked up and insecure sense of their marriages worth a fucked up false sense of security, while making things harder for everybody else. The government should stay the fuck out of this and let people have equal fucking rights.

[cp#]

Next up, Giuliani!