ENDA Who? The House of Representatives passed a sweeping bill on Wednesday evening that elevates sexual behavior to the civil rights status of race, ethnicity and sex. Except for the New York Times, AP, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Miami Herald, the media swept it under the rug. TV networks ignored it Wednesday night and Thursday morning.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a major expansion of federal government power and civil rights law. Backers call it "historic." Opponents say it is a direct threat to religious freedom. But much of the media skipped the 235-184 House vote (including 30 Republicans for it and 25 Democrats against). Major papers including the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today failed to carry the story.
As with most reporting on homosexual political issues, the AP, the Times and the Herald quote liberally from pro-gay legislators and gay pressure groups like the Human Rights Campaign. Neither AP nor the Times quote any conservative groups, and the AP story quotes only Democrats. The Times piece, "House Approves Broad Protections for Gay Workers," by David Herszenhorn, quotes two Republican House members who warn that the law would hamper business and spur lawsuits. A 660-word piece in the Miami Herald by Steve Rothaus quotes Ted Kennedy, four pro-gay spokespeople and the Human Rights Campaign, and presents the issue in an entirely one-sided, pro-gay fashion until giving Christian Coalition of Dade County leader Anthony Verdugo a brief quote at the very end of the article. Balance, it ain't
Like the Herald's piece, much of the New York Times report deals with a dispute among pro-homosexual legislators and groups as to the absence of a provision that would have added "gender identity" to the bill. The main concern is whether ENDA goes far enough to advance the pansexual agenda. Left-wing lobbies that objected to even a narrow religious exemption are described benignly as "civil liberties advocates" and "civil liberties groups." The free exercise of religion, the first civil liberty guaranteed in the First Amendment, doesn't seem to have a home in their portfolio.
The San Francisco Chronicle's article, which focuses on the gender identity dispute, includes this nugget:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, wearing a lavender suit as a symbolic gesture of solidarity with the gay community, said she had looked forward to the day the bill would pass since joining Congress 20 years ago as a Democrat representing San Francisco. She said she was disappointed that it excluded transgender people but argued that passing a narrower bill would "build momentum for further advances on gender identity rights and the rights of all Americans."
Well, perhaps not the rights of American employers and employees who don't think homosexual behavior is an enforceable civil right. ENDA is expected to be introduced shortly in the Senate, with Susan Collins (R-ME) serving as lead co-sponsor, along with chief sponsor Ted Kennedy (D-MA), according to the Times.
Comments Policy
ENDA
November 8, 2007 - 20:36 ET by PShannonYou vill hire da deviate -- or else!
What in the heck is going
November 8, 2007 - 21:00 ET by msh1973What in the heck is going on? I called the White House and voiced my concern and asked the President to veto this bill.
It's not there yet
November 9, 2007 - 11:41 ET by golfingtitanIt has to pass the Senate before going to the White House, and should it pass in the Senate, President Bush has said he will veto it because it tramples on religious rights.
How is a company
November 8, 2007 - 21:03 ET by MidAmericaHow is a company supposed to know who is a homosexual? Will people be asked to perform their prefered sexual act during the hiring interview? Talking with a lisp and sporting a nice manicure is something I can do. So that's no proof. Living with another person of the same sex is not proof.
Homosexuals do not exist. Only homosexual behavior exists. This law protects not persons but certain types of behavior. Homosexual acts can be performed by anyone who chooses to.
Can you elaborate on this
November 9, 2007 - 11:10 ET by JasonCCan you elaborate on this assertion that "homosexuals do not exist"? I'm rather fascinated. Does this further bar the existence of heterosexuals? Is their only behavior, are we unjustified in labeling ourselves according to which behavior we desire to engage in?
This is all very interesting; please clarify.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Hey, maybe he means "in Iran"??
November 9, 2007 - 11:17 ET by sarcasmoWe've heard that before, anyway, from a less than credible source.
My reaction was curiousity over how I'd perform a sexual act without an erection. I suppose given enough "erectile disfunction" drugs (the news media's recreational sacrament!) it might become physically-possible, but...Ew!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
delete
November 9, 2007 - 14:10 ET by motherbeltdelete
In other words.... what you
November 9, 2007 - 11:50 ET by golfingtitanIn other words.... what you do doesn't define who you are.
I'm white. I don't "do" something to be white. I'm male... I don't "do" something to be male.
So, if a male sleeps with a male, it doesn't make him a homosexual, he just preformed a homosexual act. Just like sleeping with my wife doesn't make me a heterosexual, I just performed a heterosexual act.
So, yes... "homosexuals" do not exist... if they did, then you wouldn't have people who use to be gay and no longer are. They changed what they DO... that doesn't change what they ARE.
By the way, that also flies in the face of "they were born gay". That's like saying "He was born an alcoholic."
I wish we had a rolling eye smilie... that would work well here.
So we're not heterosexuals,
November 9, 2007 - 12:21 ET by JasonCSo we're not heterosexuals, we just engage in heterosexual acts?
I agree that homosexuals aren't 'born' that way. Nor do I think it's a choice. It's a complex network of stimuli and circumstance, much of it assimilated unconsciously, that determines our sexuality. And its a spectrum, a continuum, not an absolute either/or.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
So we're not heterosexuals,
November 9, 2007 - 12:56 ET by MidAmericaSo we're not heterosexuals, we just engage in heterosexual acts?
Yes, in a legally defined sense. You cannot discern the sexual orientation within the mind of another person that is provable beyond a reasonable doubt. Outward behavior is not proof only an indicator.
way to go MA! you nailed
November 13, 2007 - 13:32 ET by TruthMongerway to go MA! you nailed it...
i bet the peds are smiling about ENDA - "progress" is being made:)
Discovery...
November 8, 2007 - 21:21 ET by acumenShe (Pelosi) said she was disappointed that it excluded transgender people but argued that passing a narrower bill would "build momentum for further advances on gender identity rights and the rights of all Americans."
I was wondering what lied at the bottom of Clinton's don't-ask-don't-tell slippery slope...until now.
In past similar cases I've been hesitant to link these disgusting images (consider this sufficient warning) but obviously most Americans just don't understand the depth of immorality Pelosi and her like-minded politicos wish to defend with this new law disguised as protecting "human rights." Can someone please explain to me what is "right" about this public display of "human" behavior the left deems it necessary to protect with legislation?
Queers
November 8, 2007 - 21:48 ET by ThisnThatThis will be a big boon for lawyers. Passing laws to force us to tolerate deviant sexual behavior is going to become very, very contentous.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
This has nothing to do with
November 8, 2007 - 23:17 ET by cleverpigThis has nothing to do with the public display of homosexual behavior. It is about employment. You aren't allowed to fire someone because they are gay. You are still allowed to fire them for inappropriate sexual behavior at work, in the unlikely event that should come up!
hey piggly
November 8, 2007 - 23:19 ET by botgdoesn't the constitution guareentee us the right of association?
GoHunter08
Clever Pig
November 8, 2007 - 23:33 ET by BlondeWell, in this U.S. of A., I'm still allowed to fire the moron for being a jerk.
How does that track for you?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I don't have a problem with
November 9, 2007 - 00:45 ET by cleverpigI don't have a problem with the firing of jerks.
just gays and peds!
November 13, 2007 - 13:34 ET by TruthMongerjust gays and peds!
doesn't the constitution
November 9, 2007 - 01:59 ET by cleverpigdoesn't the constitution guareentee us the right of association?
Yes. Employment is different. You are free to only hang out with white people. You are not free to only hire white people if there are people of other ethnicities qualified for the jobs you are offering. You are most especially not allowed to have a policy of only hiring white people, or not hiring muslims, or only employing women at the secretarial level.
If that's a problem for you, take it up with the civil rights movement!
Two birds with one Marxist stone...
November 9, 2007 - 10:55 ET by CortillaenThis is something I just never understood. Why is the government telling people how they have to run a private business? If someone who owns a business doesn't want to hire or provide goods/services to [insert group here], they should have the right to do so. When that action becomes known, the public response will determine whether or not such behavior is sufficiently-reprehensible to justify a boycott of that business and reduction or elimination of its profits. The government has no place in dictating business practices.
However, this goes a lot further than just stepping on religious toes, though I do see this as an intentional attack on Christian values: It sets the precedent for ever more invasive government regulations on how private businesses must be run, AKA government control of the middle-class. I think you can see where this is all leading. The simultaneous attack on religion is just icing on the cake for the Marxists pushing this agenda.
www.rhjunior.com/CC/ Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
What you are describing is
November 9, 2007 - 23:46 ET by cleverpigWhat you are describing is the rule of the majority, the will of the people. It's great, and the foundation of the democracy we live in, but there's another very important part you're forgetting-- protection for the rights of the minority. That was the concept of the founding fathers, and they did it on purpose. We don't get to just ignore it.
The fact is that no matter how open-minded and tolerant we think we are, people stick to their own. We are more comfortable with people who are like us, in various ways. Combine that with the unfortunate tendency of a small number of people to go out of their way to make life more difficult for people they perceive as different, and you have a situation in which a certain percentage of the population will be treated poorly if you simply take popular opinion as your ultimate arbiter.
Our system of government is designed in various ways to try and prevent that, and I think civil rights laws and amendments are an important, constitutionally valid part of that effort.
Zifflemeister
November 10, 2007 - 11:25 ET by botgThe great foundation of this country is a republic not a democracy. An important difference. Also, the founders concept was to protect the rights of the individual, not the minority. Another important difference. The basis is 'all men are created equal', and as long as civil rights protect individuals equally they are in line with the constitution. When special protected minority classes are established (via quotas or affirmative action) they inheriently treat people differently. This is bias and/or racist. I believe we are close to returning to Constitutional rulings in these matters based on this quote from the CJotSCOTUS
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
If the founding fathers
November 11, 2007 - 01:37 ET by CortillaenIf the founding fathers were interested in protecting the rights of minorities, as you claim, the Constitution and Bill of Rights would reflect that, but they don't. This country was not founded on the principle of protecting the rights of minorities, no matter how much some people try to claim it was. I doubt any of the Founding Fathers would agree to the government forcing private businesses to hire people the owners don't like. There is no need for it, since a free market will inherently fill any gaps in service or offered goods whenever a vacuum presents itself. If a given market is devoid of or low on competitors, entrepreneurs will view it as a better investment until it is saturated at least as well as other markets, no government meddling and trampling of individual's rights needed. If a private business owner doesn't want to serve a group of customers, then he loses out on that profit and can be beaten by a similar business owner who takes advantage of that market. Simply put, a free market will not only discourage racism, sexism, etc, it will damage businesses that practice such. What you are advocating is having the government try to force everyone to "get along". Five minutes on a school playground can demonstrate how effective that tactic is.
www.rhjunior.com/CC/ Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you.
Quite
November 11, 2007 - 01:42 ET by BlondeThe liberals, like Cleverpig, are all for "fairness".
When we conservatives, and strict constitutionalists, all know what is fair is that without restriction.
What is best for us, as free market capitalists, is best. I don't need to choose to hire, nor fire, based upon some governmental theory de jour.
But...the libs are trying to force this down our throats. Beware.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
cleverpig, perhaps I missed
November 9, 2007 - 11:07 ET by bassndudecleverpig, perhaps I missed it when reading it, but where at in the Constitution is the "...right of association"?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
The Supreme Court ruled that
November 9, 2007 - 23:51 ET by cleverpigThe Supreme Court ruled that it was part of Free Speech. If you want more details, google it.
So it is not there then. The
November 9, 2007 - 23:57 ET by RESTLESS 1So it is not there then. The SCOTUS can err in it's rulings. Take Roe v Wade for example. They should have never even heard it. It is a state's rights issue. Funny how the Supreme Court is all important when their rulings support your view.
Ahem. botg brought up
November 10, 2007 - 02:04 ET by cleverpigAhem.
botg brought up freedom of association in an attempt to argue against my point of view. I don't think it is germane to the discussion at all, which is what I said in my post.
Confusing me with botg is likely to seriously offend him!
piggly
November 10, 2007 - 11:16 ET by botgwhile confusing us reveals a serious misconception in the one confused, i don't think that i am so easily offended. The current SCOTUS interpretation holds to freedom of association. I would assert that in order for the SCOTUS to be consistant they would need need to keep their rulings on employment in line with their ruling on association. They may be wrong in one or both cases, but can not be correct on both if they are contradictory. Germane enough?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Not confused pig, just
November 11, 2007 - 02:59 ET by RESTLESS 1Not confused pig, just pointing out that just because the SCOTUS interprets something as constitutional, doesn't make it so. You said because the Supreme Court ruled as it did, that "freedom of association" was in the constitution, it is not.
Would agree, on this argument, it is irrelevant.
restless
November 11, 2007 - 11:39 ET by botgpractically speaking the current SCOTUS interpretation is the enforcable law. I agree that their interpretation can be wrong. Even so, precedent plays a role in the SCOTUS decisions and if the SCOTUS holds that freedom of association proceeds directly from the first ammendment that precedent can be argued before the court. Whether association is limited to personal and excludes business is a separate argument which would begin with all business is conducted by persons.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
I understand that. Legally
November 14, 2007 - 23:32 ET by RESTLESS 1I understand that. Legally speaking, "freedom of association" is in the constitution as it is presently interpreted. Literally speaking, it is not.
Show me where in the
November 9, 2007 - 12:26 ET by NL207Show me where in the Constitution the power to regulate the employment practices of private business resides. Which of the enumerated powers of Congress is this?
Until you are able to do this, I will continue to reject these laws as the usurpation of private rights they are.
What you describe is mothing more than fascism.
Well, more communist than
November 9, 2007 - 13:34 ET by CortillaenWell, more communist than fascist, in my opinion, but it amounts to the same thing in the end. If the government can tell private business owners who they have to hire in certain circumstances, then it's not a big leap to start dictating who they can hire in all circumstances, then dictating who they can buy goods from, then dictating what they can sell, then dictating who they can sell to, then... well, you get the picture. Slippery-slope arguments are usually fallacious, but with heavy governments, does anyone honestly doubt that slope will be followed if left unchecked? Marxists and socialists have seen that revolutions don't work well, but incremental destruction of liberty just might, especially if people don't start waking up to smell the Manifesto behind laws like this.
www.rhjunior.com/CC/ Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you.
clever squealer,
November 8, 2007 - 23:42 ET by Dave RGays are the least discriminated-against group in the corporate arena.
Often they are promoted ahead of heteros who are very often more qualified.
I work in Mid-town Atlanta, and see this happening almost daily.
But hey, if the Democrat Party is willing to commit utter suicide over a group that makes up only about 5% of the population, then so be it.
After all, their support for criminal invaders obtaining licenses has pretty much destroyed their union support, and their open support for our enemies (Chavez, Akhmedinadinnerjacket, etc.) should pretty much take care of the rest.
Looks like they are toast in '08.
Perhaps as soon as this law
November 8, 2007 - 23:49 ET by alamojbPerhaps as soon as this law passes, if it does, we should turn it around on them. Sue for discriminating against Heterosexuals.
Its time we went tit for tat against these leftist social engineers.
Another way to confuse
November 9, 2007 - 00:21 ET by MidAmericaAnother way to confuse this legal issue is when there is a charge of harrassment of a 'gay' person then everyone involved should announce they are also 'gay' therefore they cannot be guilty. After all being 'gay' is a self validating claim. There isn't a legal test for it.
MidAm... I was wondering
November 9, 2007 - 00:32 ET by Clear thinkerMidAm...
I was wondering about this myself... do you have to prove you are gay if you cry discrimination, and if so, how? I mean... do you have take the Judge to a motel???
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
There is no way to prove
November 9, 2007 - 00:46 ET by MidAmericaThere is no way to prove a person is 'gay'. The designation of being 'gay' is a personal choice. If I choose to call myself 'gay' and use this law to my benefit no one can stop me. I can be legally 'gay' without ever being with another man or leave my wife.
Oh what a tangled web we
November 9, 2007 - 00:48 ET by Clear thinkerOh what a tangled web we weave.
This country needs a time out!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
You don't have to prove you
November 9, 2007 - 01:49 ET by cleverpigYou don't have to prove you are gay, you just have to prove you were discriminated against! Personally, I'm not okay with someone firing me because they think I'm gay, even if they turn out to be wrong. Think about how much that would piss you off if it happened to you!
You don't have to prove you
November 9, 2007 - 02:13 ET by MidAmericaYou don't have to prove you are gay,....
No one can prove they are 'gay'.
I can do any sexual activity a 'gay' person can do. (just not willingly)
clever, I live in an at-will state. I can be fired if my
November 9, 2007 - 14:48 ET by Dave Remployer decides he doesn't like the way I tie my shoes.
Gays do not deserve protections that I do not have, and I will vote against any politician, regardless of party affiliation, who tries to grant them these protections.
If this lunacy becomes law, there will be a backlash. Count on it.
And if you, along with the rest of the rest of the gay-pandering homsexual mafia don't like it, too bad.
At-Will Firings
November 9, 2007 - 18:15 ET by candanceApparently clever has never lived in an at-will employment state. I've seen people get fired, harrassed, humiliated, demoted, and cut to part time - and their boss didn't have to have a reason why. In North Carolina, for example, you can fired because you have brown hair. Thus if your boss really wants to fire you, they just have to wait for a convenient time and make up whatever story they want. It's almost impossible to prove legal discrimination.
I agree that this is not about protecting gay people. I've actually worked with several gay people at different jobs and never saw them mistreated. But I've seen plenty of others get treated like garbage with no legal protection. List all the stastics you like, but I have my own experience to go on.
This is not any effort to protect gay people. This is a step toward outlawing "hate speech" and forcing private groups to employ certain people. Christian nursing homes, Muslim bookstores, religious law firms - forcing them to hire people whom they believe work against the company's vision.
No one makes gay people sit at the back of the bus. No one says they have to go to different schools or swim in different pools. They have plenty of jobs among the hetero world with no serious oppostion.
Wanna stop gay kids in high school from being picked on? Let's make it illegal to pick on band kids, or math geeks, or kids with glasses, or poor kids, or goth kids. When you single out a group of people and make it illegal to pick on them, you're putting them up on a pedastle.
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
I think it is unfortunate
November 10, 2007 - 02:20 ET by cleverpigI think it is unfortunate that you count your personal experience with "several" gay people as being more indicative of general reality than studies that interview thousands of people. The fact that you don't know anyone who has suffered discrimination, out of all of the "several" you've worked with, is not in fact proof that such suffering does not exist.
I humbly submit that my acquaitances with people of homosexual persuasions are likely more extensive than yours. I did musical theater in Colorado, for goodness sake! Every one of those kids had horrific stories. Sure, almost everyone gets teased in school. Some people are treated horribly despite being straight. But I think it sends a different message, a profoundly damaging one, when kids sense that the abuse they receive is condoned by the adults in their lives. When you single out a group of people and say it's okay to pick on them because your prejudice is protected by religion, you do something much much worse than put them on a pedastel.
Clever, I bet the Muslims aren't happy about the F. Street Fair
November 10, 2007 - 11:33 ET by Dave RI wonder what your Muslim friends think of that whole Folsom Street Fair display. I cannot think of anything that would be more offensive to Muslims than that, except perhaps the pork sausages being sold by the street venders.
Yet you libs walk around (feigning) perplexity as to why they hate us. All you have to do is look around in your very own back yard, or drive just down the road to Hollywierd.
I'm guessing your once fair city is now at or near the top of their target list for American cities to nuke, whenever they get around to it.
Sad, as I have a few friends out their who may very well be at risk.
So by your logic, then, the
November 11, 2007 - 00:30 ET by cleverpigSo by your logic, then, the Twin Towers were targetted as giant symbols of homoeroticism, not as powerful icons of the economic power of this country? Our soldiers are in danger in Iraq, not because they are seen as an invading force, but perhaps because they "don't ask and don't tell?" Was there a fetish faire in London the day their public transportation system was hit that I didn't know about?
"Western decadence" may be a convenient excuse for hate-mongers, but actual reasons are usually found in the way we affect their lives, not what they see on the internet.
And by the way, don't use the term Muslim to refer to terrorists who hate us. Muslim fanatics, Islamofascists... there are plenty of other words to use, please make the distinction.
Not-so-clever
November 11, 2007 - 00:41 ET by BlondeYou are equivocating.
You stated something along the lines of you loved being from such a free-thinking community. But you shouldn't be judged from coming from that background. Which way is it for you?
I'd run screaming from such debauchery. So if you choose to have that kind of idiocy happening in your town, and you condone it....well, I won't cry when the terr's take your city down.
But, it's your so-called "community" that makes the islamo-whacks hate us.
Finally, don't you dare presume to lecture me on the terms I care to, or care not to use.
You are the worst kind of liberal whiny pig. A self-professed whiny pig, I might add.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I'm not saying I shouldn't
November 11, 2007 - 22:33 ET by cleverpigI'm not saying I shouldn't be judged, I'm saying I shouldn't be blown up! And I think you're lying, I think you would cry. I refuse to believe that anyone who considers themselves an American wouldn't shed a tear for any city this country lost.
???
November 13, 2007 - 13:35 ET by UnsaneYou shouldn't be blown up?
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
Clever, did you hear what Akhmedinadinnerjacket said?
November 12, 2007 - 21:17 ET by Dave RWhen that Iranian Hitler was over here a few months ago, he made the comment that Iran does not have homosexuals like we do here in the west. Many lefties laughed rather heartily at that statement. (And don't bother to tell me they didn't, as I have seen the videos).
Do you know why he said it?
It's quite simple, really.
BECAUSE THE IRANIANS HAVE MANAGED TO EXECUTE EVERY PERSON IN THAT COUNTRY THAT THEY EVEN SUSPECT IS A HOMOSEXUAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yet you libs think this guy is the greatest thing since beer and pretzels. Is it because he hates America? Because he hates George W. Bush? Because he hates Jews? Because he hates Christians? Is it a combinbation of all four?
WHAT?
One day, you guys on the left are going to find out, once and for all, who our enemies really are.
I just pray you don't have to find it out the hard way.
___________________________________
As for my referring to these people as Muslims, I'm sorry, but that is what they describe themselves as.
Perhaps when I see the so-called peace loving Muslims rise up in protest of what the so-called radical elements of their "religion" are doing, I may change my mind.
But not before.
I think he's a horrible
November 13, 2007 - 13:10 ET by cleverpigI think he's a horrible horrible man! No one on the left thinks he isn't our enemy, we just don't want to nuke any of our enemies!
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
November 13, 2007 - 13:34 ET by UnsaneI don't necessarily WANT to nuke any of our enemies, but hey, if they desperately want it to happen, then it is our duty to oblige.
We must constantly be prepared to use massive, hellish, horrifying amounts of extreme violence on our enemies. Violence works. It solves many many problems.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
Yet you seem perfectly
November 13, 2007 - 13:43 ET by MightyMouthYet you seem perfectly willing to let our enemies nuke us! It's really hard to understand your mentallity on this.
I know... we need to "talk" with them right? Check out a history book pig, how many evil men set on world domination have been "talked" out of it? LOL you moonbats are so niave and idealistic!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Don't be silly! You know no
November 13, 2007 - 17:02 ET by cleverpigDon't be silly! You know no one of any political party is okay with a nuclear bomb being dropped on the United States. You just like to make your political opponents sound bad by exagerrating their position whenever you can. Let's talk like adults, shall we?
Ok, mr. "Adult" what's your
November 13, 2007 - 17:13 ET by MightyMouthOk mr. "Adult", what's your "solution" to stopping Iran from getting a nuke and smuggling it over here in a falafel cart?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Clever, how we affect their lives?
November 12, 2007 - 21:36 ET by Dave RGet real.
This country has sent our soldiers into harms way to protect Muslims many times. Bosnia and the first Gulf War are of but two examples.
...not as powerful icons of the economic power of this country?
Whether you realize it or not, you just gave away the store with this comment. What has our "economic power" to do with anything? I'll remind you that many Muslims are benefitting directly from the economic power of this nation, and not just Muslims residing in this country, either.
Those who are not are the ones living under Marxist-style governments that they have selected for themselves. The very form of government that YOU advocate, BTW.
Do you really want this country to become an economic basket case?
Have you any idea what that would mean to the rest of the free world? What it would mean to you?
Somehow, I'm guessing that you believe things would be just peachy if that were to happen.
And you would be wrong. VERY wrong.
Everything I say comes back
November 13, 2007 - 13:16 ET by cleverpigEverything I say comes back to Marx with you!
I'm not saying the terrorists are justified in thinking we've had a negative impact on their lives, I'm saying that's what they think. And I'll bet you that Osama bin Laden, who was a powerful businessman, didn't pick the World Trade Center by accident!
Finally, and for the 62nd time, I don't want to live in a communist country. I want a little bit more socialism going of here so that life is easier for some people in this country. I do not want to destroy our economy or let down the rest of the free world! I don't think I'll ever see my own personal vision for this country realized, but I don't think it would be impossible if there was more support for it.
Why not, Miss Piggy?
November 13, 2007 - 13:26 ET by RJ"Karl Marx helped define and establish the modern Socialist movement." (from the very liberal Wikipedia)
Or...check out WorldSocialism.org
Or...just search on Marx and Socialism.
It's amusing that you don't like to be reminded....
Guiltpig the Kleptocrat
November 13, 2007 - 13:38 ET by UnsaneI want a little bit more socialism going of here so that life is easier for some people in this country. Actually, this means that you want to steal from me in order to subsidize, coddle, and nanny people in this country who choose to fail of their own freewill. Pretty disgusting philosophy if you ask me.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
"I want a little bit more
November 13, 2007 - 13:52 ET by MightyMouth"I want a little bit more socialism going of here so that life is easier for some people in this country"
You must be joking!?!? There isn't enough socialism in the US for you?!?! From the socialist school system to the socialist guberment bureaucracy to the socialist welfare state. That's not enough for you? LOL! Face it, you DO want Communism!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Cleverpig:
November 14, 2007 - 23:39 ET by RESTLESS 1"I want a little bit more socialism going of here so that life is easier for some people in this country."
So, just a little more socialism. Where does it stop? Give an inch and you'll take a mile. You say you don't want to live in a communist country, but you slowly want to turn the U.S. into one? Doesn't make a lot of sense. Socialism, communism, marxism, none of this has worked as well as Capitalism has worked here, yet somehow, you and your liberal buddies seem to think you can get it right this time. The lives of my children and their children (when they have children) are too precious to me to bet on your side getting a "little more socialism in this country".
Every demographic group
November 11, 2007 - 01:09 ET by candanceEvery demographic group thinks they're picked on. Interview anyone and they'll come up with a theory that they're discriminates because of [fill in the blank].
I never said gay people never get picked on. I said they have good jobs, come and go as they please, and live where ever they want. Getting the goverment to outlaw being rude is not the solution to social problems
Has affirmative action made America color-blind? You really think a law like this will change the hearts and minds of people?
And like I said above, gay people have horror stories, I believe that, but poor kids in high school have stories just as bad, and grown ups condone that too. Expecting the government to babysit everyone is NOT the solution.
PS My experience with gay people isn't just from a couple gay people I worked with here and there. I was specifically talking about workplace discrimination. I believe in debating ideas, not getting into a contest over who has more gay friends.
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
You are absolutely right,
November 11, 2007 - 23:03 ET by cleverpigYou are absolutely right, this is not about who knows more gay people. I got frustrated with myself last night, while crafting replies, because I hate the "Well, some of my best friends are gay..." thing and I know that's what I'm doing. But frankly, no one else was speaking up for the supporters of this bill, so I decided my voice was better than none.
What is important, though, is to acknowledge that all of us are approaching this issue from limited experience. What bothers me is when people use their limited experience to discount statistics that encompass a much broader picture. Absence of proof is also never proof of absence. I just don't think it is fair to the question to say that because a limited set of people aren't suffering from a problem, then no one else could possibly be suffering either, which is what I read from your statement that you didn't need statistics to give you any information because you had your own experience to draw from.
Often they are promoted
November 9, 2007 - 01:44 ET by cleverpigOften they are promoted ahead of heteros who are very often more qualified.
Back that up. Studies show that 15% (at the low end) of surveyed homosexuals report discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 2% of heterosexuals in a UCLA study thought they had been discriminated against for being straight. Contrary to one widely reported and misleading study, gay men make less money than heterosexual men with the same approximate educational background, between 10 and 30% less depending on which study you read. Studies comparing lesbians and straight women produce mixed results.
I'd also love to see your data that show heterosexuals are "very often more qualified" for their jobs than homosexuals.
clever, I cannot speak for the rest of the nation, but here
November 9, 2007 - 14:58 ET by Dave Rin the Atlanta area, gays make up one of the highest-earning and most affluent groups around.
And speaking of "groups," which is the only thing you lefties seem to be able to think in terms of (black, white, male, female, etc.), what ever happened to the concept of the rights of the individual?
And why do you want to attach a stygma to homosexuals similar to the one that is now attached to many blacks in the workforce, thanks to Affirmative Action?
Do you social-engineering busybodies ever stop to consider the consequences of your meddling? Do you really think the rest of us are just going to sit back and continue to allow you and yours to elevate whichever "group" just happens to be the flavor of the month over all others?
At some point, this BS is going to stop. One way or the other.
I still say back it up.
November 10, 2007 - 02:23 ET by cleverpigI still say back it up. Show me data about Atlanta. It is a commonly held misconception that gay people earn more, I'm not surprised you suffer from it.
The consequences of my meddling? Have you ever sat and talked with someone, yes a gay someone, about the consequences of the social stigma attached to homosexuality? Until you've had that conversation, you don't have any idea.
There is a reason for that
November 10, 2007 - 21:17 ET by RESTLESS 1There is a reason for that social stigma. It is wrongful behavior. There used to be a social stigma attached to pregnancies out of wedlock. Liberal agenda successfully whittled that away and now teen pregnancies are shooting through the roof. Social stigmas are not necessarily a bad thing.
clever,
November 10, 2007 - 23:14 ET by Dave REver been to the Homo Depot on Piedmont Road in Buckhead?
It's the nicest Home Depot in Atlanta. They have the best stuff around. Period. Shop there often. Have for years.
_______________________________
BTW-This may came as a rude shock to you, as you have clearly been brainwashed to the point of utter stupidity by your idiot, America-hating perverted professors, but WASPs have rights in this country, too.
Hello?
Let's all hope we WASPs don't wind up feeling the need to re-assert those rights. It could get damned ugly before it's over.
And what is more, we don't look to the candy-assed government for protection, or salvation, either. In other words, we don't dial 9-1-1. Well, not until it is over, anyway.
We take care of it ourselves.
You spineless liberal surrender-monkey pukes are so in love with government that you couldn't take a dump without the government's okay, if not their very intsructions. Fact is, they would probably send you to the wrong place, anyway.
And your little shameless pandering bill will never pass the congress. We libertarians will always support the rights of homosexuals to live and be left alone, but we draw the line when it comes to giving them "special" rights.
The line has been drawn. It would be a really good idea if your gay friends chose not to cross it.
BTW-I have gay friends as well. Four, to be exact. Most of them wish this stupid, ill-conceived POS legislation would just go away.
But, then again, they are all tremendously affluent, independent-minded business owners who are self-supporting, and do not rely on government to make their decisions for them.
You'd be surprised how conservative they truly are.
You're getting a little
November 11, 2007 - 00:44 ET by cleverpigYou're getting a little frothy around the mouth, there...
I'm well aware that there are plenty of gay conservatives. I also know that there is a lot of debate in the community about this legislation. I am well aware that "gay" is not a uniform demographic.
Incidentally, a point everyone in this discussion seems to have overlooked, the legislation protects people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It doesn't protect gay people. You can also use this law (if it actually gets enacted, which it won't) to sue someone if you believe you have been discriminated against because you are straight.
So how does this give anyone special rights? The fact is that almost everyone categorizes themselves at some point along a continuum of sexuality. You either think you are gay, or straight, or bisexual, or transgendered... however you define yourself, this law says you cannot be fired for that part of your identity. There is no one to whom this law does not apply. We only think about it as protecting gay people because we all know, despite attempts at demial here, that they are the ones who most often need that protection. But it applies to you, and me, and anyone else who thinks that their private sexual lives shouldn't be a basis for workplace decisions.
not-so-clever
November 11, 2007 - 00:53 ET by BlondeYour San-Fran sensibilities are outing you here.
You are acting like a plus-perfect liberal twit. Which I have been convinced, by your posts that you are. Do me a favor....keep it on the left coast.
We in the rest of America don't need you, don't want you, and certainly don't want to pay for your silliness.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
So, in your mind, this law
November 11, 2007 - 02:49 ET by RESTLESS 1So, in your mind, this law would apply to pedophiles as well? After all, they claim that they have no will against their "sexuality" as well.
C'mon pig, we all know what the big picture is here. Don't try to spin here, it won't work.
It doesn't protect criminal
November 11, 2007 - 10:51 ET by cleverpigIt doesn't protect criminal behavior.