"And so, my truth is that I am a gay American,"...what a scoop!

His sexuality is of zero actual importance. It is the spin he is attempting to foist
on you - and it is apparently working since you believe it is the central premise.

No, I suggest you re-read what I wrote:

The whole premise of this being a story of importance is because he is a homosexual.

I am not saying that the story is because of his homosexuality, so I don’t know where you go that one. I’m not a big fan of revisionists! Like I said:

I don’t think it is even remotely fair to call me or others “dupes” because this is a story, a tangent most certainly but still a story.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You spin pretty well yourself, Nico. I'm done.

:m: Peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd love to see the spin...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Was there any law or rule that forbid him to be a governor be cause he is gay? Why resign at all?

If he can be a good governor (assuming that he is good) then so what if he is gay?

 

Well as stated the reason why he resigned wasn't because he was gay per se. But being a homosexual politician in the US isn’t exactly the best election platform. He was involved in some scandal with corruption, but knowing the GOP in the past in aggressively pursuing sexual deviants it may have been intelligent for him to just admit it and not have his personal sex life being all over the papers like some other democrat…which will remain nameless…

 

His head of homeland security is apparently accusing him of sexual misconduct.

I kinda figured Undecided would skew this into an anti-GOP thing. I guess everything that gay people do is okay, no matter how eggregious, because Republicans hate them.

 

I kinda figured Undecided would skew this into an anti-GOP thing.

Well it is not unreasonable to make these assumptions knowing the vigor at which the GOP has in the past gone to discredit a politician by his personal sexual preference or other such irrelevant aspects of governing a constituency. You know as well as I do that if the GOP got a hold on this homosexual thing they would have a field day.

I guess everything that gay people do is okay, no matter how eggregious, because Republicans hate them.

Of course not…

 

What the hell does being gay or sexually promiscuous have to do with one's capacity as governor? Even if he thought he might not get reelected, he'd still finish his term. There has to be more to it.

 

Goofy, it's not the governor who's "foisting spin". It is the media (basically the american conscience). Check the news captions:

Yahoo.com: N.J. Governor Resigns, Admits Gay Affair

CNN.com: New Jersey governor quits, comes out as gay
McGreevey announces resignation after telling of affair

ABCnews.com: ‘I Am a Gay American’
New Jersey Gov. McGreevey Comes Out, Announces Resignation

CBSnews.com: NJ Gov. Comes Out Of Closet, Quits

Foxnews.com: N.J. Governor: I'm Gay and I Quit


“Sexual harassment” or “adultery” doesn’t have the same oomph as “I Am A Gay American”

 

The problem is criminal sexual misconduct charges are on this man, so he resigned, the fact he’s gay is irrelevant.

 

"I think some Americans are deeply outraged by homosexuals in general, but most really are pretending to be religious… ",undecided

Just a quick point. If they were pretending to be religious, they would be against homosexuality. Most christian churches take a strong stance against homosexual relationships. I think the support of gay unions in America is more of a ethical argument based on law, not a moral one based on religion(if based on religion it would never be accepted). It this sense, the fact that you believe Americans are not religious would support the fact that they show no outrage against gay marriage.

 

If they were pretending to be religious, they would be against homosexuality.

I really don’t see the difference though, btwn denying homosexuals the right to marry (a basic human right) and at the same time not hating homosexuality? To me at least that makes little sense, so I maintain my position it’s pseud0 outrage.

I think the support of gay unions in America is more of a ethical argument based on law, not a moral one based on religion(if based on religion it would never be accepted).

The justification of the man-woman argument stems from religion, thus they cannot be separated.

It this sense, the fact that you believe Americans are not religious would support the fact that they show no outrage against gay marriage.

Americans are religious when it is important to be so…I hope u understand what I mean by that.

 

We have to be kind to those little people who fill the dark corners of society! (chuckle) Believe me, moral superiority is a huge driving force in christian ethos. I live in a suburban area and you can't tell me that that's not why most of these dweebs go to church on Sunday. I agree with you -- they're not going because they "believe". So they have to be going for SOME reason.

I've seen this first hand. Toss a couple of kids into a family and it's amazing how fast a morally ambiguous person "gets religion". But ask them a few well-chosen questions and you can quickly determine whether or not they really believe.

Oh well, I didn't mean to stray into hatesville.

 

Believe me, moral superiority is a huge driving force in christian ethos.

I wouldn’t only say it’s a Christian thing, but in the US it is a Christian thing. I know I’ve heard about the “Moral majority” or the “hypocritical majority” as I so aptly name them. As a catholic I am aware of the religious pop up ads as I would call them. We get outraged at what someone else is doing yet don’t expect anyone to question us. I’ve had debates with my friends about Gay marriage, and they tell me “no because its against God, and it’s a sin”…I habitually laugh then point out what they did last weekend at a party. It’s fake outrage and hypocritical one at best.

I live in a suburban area and you can't tell me that that's not why most of these dweebs go to church on Sunday. I agree with you -- they're not going because they "believe". So they have to be going for SOME reason.

Sure they believe in God, but that’s on Sunday Monday to Friday many of these people lead very different lives. Let’s not actually believe that going to church makes you a better Christian!

 

Right, my thoughts exactly. The hypocritical nature of it is so obvious that it really defies reason that they can be so two-faced and not realize it. But I think it's human (not just American) nature to be culturally adapted ahead of being morally aware.

One of the more bizarre aspects of it to me is this need that new parents have to suddenly start going to church. On the one hand you can almost understand it, and it's hard to criticize someone who's making an effort to become a better person. But they're almost universally unwilling to do what it takes to become or remain faithful. And even worse, there's no chance that their children won't recognize the hypocrisy of what they're doing.

I'm not sure what's worse: The faithful or the fraudulent. Oh don't get me wrong, if someone honestly believes in a diety, more power to 'em. But what I mean is -- this modern tilting at the religious windmills of history. American Catholics, for example, and their utter disregard for Roman dogma (want to get married again? no problem, we'll just *change everything*). Is that really any less ridiculous than the people who go to church just to fool the kids?

Damifino, but there certainly seems to be enough foolishness to go around.

 

I agree the problem is that the US is corrupted by material wealth and the Christian religion wants you to give more then take. Obviously that’s not happening, and it’s all for one none for all type of attitude in the US. You yourself Pangloss is an example of it by your support for the tax cuts, full knowing the consequences of that support. There is no question that some Americans are really religious, who really follow the word of God and are rather forceful in trying to enforce that belief. But the majorities of “Christian, Jewish, Muslim” people aren’t that religious and only care about their religion when their own “ethics” are being threatened. If America really did care about Marriage, then pre-nups, divorce, should be banned as well those are a much greater affront to the institution then homosexuals.

 

That's because I believe that you can have low taxation while still providing for people when they're down on their luck. I may be sympathetic to others, but I'm no socialist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's because I believe that you can have low taxation while still providing for people when they're down on their luck. I may be sympathetic to others, but I'm no socialist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Rush Limbaughs talking points aren’t selling here; taxation is not socialism that’s idiotic. You can’t spend and cut the supply of income at the same time without eventually raising taxes in the long run, I would support a tax cut if the nation could actually afford it. See this is symptomatic of the American way of thinking, live for the now fuck the kids!

 

I don't want to spend and cut taxes. I want to cut spending and cut taxes. There is a difference.

To use your favorite debate methods: "You seem to have forgotten that". Or wait, how about "to think anything less is idiotic". Or perhaps "you must eat small children for dinner". (But don't get emotional now...) ;-)

What's so funny about that argument above is that we actually had a budget surplus during the Clinton years and taxes were still a fraction of what Europeans have to pay. And frankly that would be fine with me -- promise me it'll never go up and I'll be happy with that.

But of course that would never be enough for the liberal crowd. It isn't enough for them if you're taking care of people when they're down on their luck -- the liberals aren't happy until you provide them with free medical care (the bar of which keeps going up), free food, free housing, and a guaranteed job (so they really don't have to work much).

What they want is for everyone to enjoy the same lifestyle, whether they're productive members of society or not. Meanwhile all the motivated folks, the ones producing, have to work 10x as hard to make up for that crap. Gee, thanks.

You want me to produce for people, you show me why people deserve it. Right now the only thing motivating me to pay for universal healthcare is not the fact that 44 million Americans are without, but the fact that 44 million Americans get free healthcare anyway because I have to pay for indigent care, which is far more expensive than covering them through a tax-paid plan. THAT's what's going to get healthcare passed.

I'll help the unemployed. For a while (a year or so is fine). I'll help the disabled. I'll help people with temporary problems. But income redistribution? Forget it. Take a hike, pal.

Even if I conceed (which I don't) your point about the military budget in the other thread, I still win this argument -- because I don't WANT to be the world's policeman. We spend 5x as much as any other nation on earth on defense. I'd cut that in half TOMORROW, and restructure the entire way that the military-industrial complex works. I'd buy 500 F-15s instead of 20 F-22s. I'd have ten times as many people in uniform, too, but at 150-200 billion a year (and falling). I care *not* about projection of force, and I'd close most overseas bases. And if the world doesn't like it, TOO BAD.

(And they won't, either. The worst thing America could do to the world right now is grant its most fervent wishes about American foreign policy. Fine. As far as I'm concerned, that's just fine.)

Make me president. Please.

 

I don't want to spend and cut taxes. I want to cut spending and cut taxes. There is a difference.

I want to go to the moon is that going to happen? No, so let’s get back to reality shall we. Since we won’t be seeing such spending cuts we have to be realistic even with deep cuts the US would still be in deficit. Why? Because there is a lack of funds coming in…logic only dictates as such.

What's so funny about that argument above is that we actually had a budget surplus during the Clinton years and taxes were still a fraction of what Europeans have to pay. And frankly that would be fine with me -- promise me it'll never go up and I'll be happy with that.

Remember Clinton raised taxes…you forgot to mention that one.

It isn't enough for them if you're taking care of people when they're down on their luck -- the liberals aren't happy until you provide them with free medical care (the bar of which keeps going up), free food, free housing, and a guaranteed job (so they really don't have to work much).

Well that’s hyperbolic and ignorant to say, but I as a fiscal conservative feel that much more is at stake from a persistent trade and budget deficit’s then social programs. I don’t care too much about the state of America the population that’s your problem what I care about and directly affected from the damage that your fiscal irresponsibility causes for the economic future of the US which affects us all. It is your duty as the world’s premier power to fix your mess that comes with the job.

Even if I conceed (which I don't) your point about the military budget in the other thread

What point? All I said that it is a significant factor to the reasoning behind the deficit but not the single reason.

We spend 5x as much as any other nation on earth on defense. I'd cut that in half TOMORROW, and restructure the entire way that the military-industrial complex works. I'd buy 500 F-15s instead of 20 F-22s. I'd have ten times as many people in uniform, too, but at 150-200 billion a year (and falling). I care *not* about projection of force, and I'd close most overseas bases. And if the world doesn't like it, TOO BAD.

I like you…

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but sadly the US military is the military for the capitalist class and they will get angry with you if you give them the corporate welfare checks like Iraq…

Make me president. Please.

Can I be your “advisor” MUHAHAHAHA!