Comments Posted By Don C.
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 28 Comments
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PARTISANS TO 'OUT' GAY REPUBLICANS
Whose hypocrisy is more venal:
A.) A closeted homosexual Republican elected official.
B.) A Democrat elected official that embraces blacklisting.
Comment Posted By Don C. On 24.04.2009 @ 12:50
The radical Modern Liberal thugs' line was drawn decades ago by Marcuse's "Liberating Tolerance" (i.e., 'intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left').
See:
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyu-9-OhHog
Comment Posted By Don C. On 24.04.2009 @ 12:28
THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR GAY MARRIAGE
Mischaracterizing my words only reveals your own weakness.
You can do better... but, apparently not better than Barney Frank.
Comment Posted By Don C. On 19.04.2009 @ 15:26
Russell Miller Said:
"I am perfectly fine with the courts deciding this, because once it gets to that point it means the legislators have abrogated their responsibility to follow the constitution."
Being "perfectly fine" with decisions from tiny cadres of black-robed "master minds" is a dangerous business.
Infinitely preferable are the imperfect deliberations and policies of/by/for the People via their elected/accountable representatives.
In any case, if Barney Frank doesn't care if it's called 'marriage' or not, why should anyone else?
Comment Posted By Don C. On 19.04.2009 @ 11:06
Russell Miller Said:
"What business is it of yours what they want to call themselves?"
It is my business in as much as I care by what process legal terminology is redefined in our country.
And I agree entirely with Rick that this should be done "by state legislatures and not the courts."
Comment Posted By Don C. On 18.04.2009 @ 17:18
My point is that state by state homosexual "marriage" is rejected by a decisive majority of voters because it is not marriage as traditionally and legally defined.
At the same time, most voters agree that there should be legislated, *state by state*, individual state rights such as were codified in California's Domestic Partner law.
Tangentially, but not unworthy of note: until there are certain restrictions guaranteed that will prevent discrimination lawsuits filed on behalf of homosexual "marriage" advocates against churches that refuse to perform marriage ceremonies in the event of the passage f these "marriage" laws, I see no reason for traditionalists to presume a defensive posture.
Homosexual "marriage" advocates behave with thuggishness ebven though they have all the same rights as actual spouses in California.
Who here believes they wouldn't demand Amendment XIV be subverted to continue their thuggery ex post facto?
Comment Posted By Don C. On 18.04.2009 @ 17:12
"... by arguing that it is 'saving' traditional marriage by railing against alternative lifestyles, you are only marginalizing yourself, isolating the movement and the party from the rest of the country."
If that were true, then liberal Oregon & California would have had very different outcomes when "same-sex marriage" measures were put to their respective voters.
Sorry Rick, the only state that I'd agree has acted appropriately in all this is Vermont. Hardly America's forefront of moral virtue.
Comment Posted By Don C. On 18.04.2009 @ 10:57
REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER
August 1, 2003[Excerpt]
BILL MAHER: Okay, let me ask you this Congressman [Barney Frank (D-MA)], if gay people were allowed all the rights and privileges that anybody else could have, in other words, they could get the insurance and they could get everything else, but you couldn’t get the name “marriage,” would you go for that?
BARNEY FRANK: Oh, I would, yeah. If there were all the legal rights – remember, gay and lesbian people pay taxes and what we’re saying is, we should be eligible for all the benefits that are supported by the taxes we pay. If people want to create a situation which there is the full legal rights that go with being married, and the price of that was to call it something else, I’m not big on what you call things. And so that would not concern me at all.
What I’m looking for is the right, as I said, two people in love who want to join to their emotional commitment a legal and moral financial responsibility for each other, and if you wanted to call it something else, we can even have a contest.
http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_hbo_realtime_080103.htm (expired link)
**
“The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.”
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
**
Rick wrote:
"Gay unions will eventually be established as legal in most of America — hopefully by state legislatures and not the courts. I believe conservatives can embrace this change as part of the natural evolution in society and the simple recognition that denying two people in love the legal and cultural benefits that come with being married simply because they are of the same sex is wrong."
California has already done so (just can't use the word 'marriage'):
297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
**
My question is why do homosexual "marriage" advocates insist on subverting the definition of the word?
Comment Posted By Don C. On 18.04.2009 @ 10:50
B33: It's ridiculous how you apparently fail to comprehend the meaning of the word *seems*.
It seems that, not unlike Perez Hilton's recent bigoted meltdown, you ask questions in the guise that you don’t have a strangle-hold on truth when, in fact, you're true intent is merely to bait respondents with interrogatives that are really not questions at all.
And that, dear readers, displays busboy's intellectual dishonesty, at best.
"the only bias demonstrated by Mr. Nance is in disagreeing with you — a cardinal sin to be sure, but no bias."
Make up your irrational mind, in your biased opinion is Mr. Nance's opinion biased, or not?
Also unsurprising is your reflexive bigotry in asserting that suggesting someone's views present as Buddhist/ML, per his own words, is somehow "slander".
Perhaps you need to investigate both Buddhisms and Modern Liberalism's tenets more comprehensively.
**
"You got any sources with any experience or expertise in the matter that disagree?"
Yep:
"Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, pointed out that most of what we know about al-Qaeda came from using those techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, countering leaks last week from the Obama administration that claimed the methods produced no data" [NYT]:
"President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.
Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times. [...]
Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html
Ed Morrissey, also writes: "In other words, the Obama administration covered up the fact that even their own DNI acknowledges that the interrogations produced actionable and critical information."
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/22/obamas-dni-reminds-obama-that-enhanced-interrogation-worked/
Comment Posted By Don C. On 22.04.2009 @ 12:24
Busbot33 (post #31): "Dick Cheney has repeatedly asserted that torturing prisoners saved lives, thwarted plots. However, he has never offered a single example."
That is an utter falsehood.
Cheney wants CIA files for memoir
By MIKE ALLEN & JOSH GERSTEIN | 4/20/09 9:12 PM EDT Updated: 4/21/09 2:19 PM EDT Text Size:
Researching his memoirs, former Vice President Dick Cheney is pushing the CIA to declassify files that he claims would vindicate the CIA’s use of coercive interrogation techniques that President Barack Obama has banned. [...]
Cheney originally requested the reports in late March as he worked on his book, but now thinks the documents should be made public immediately as evidence that waterboarding and other controversial practices deterred terrorist attacks and therefore saved American lives. [...]
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21487.htm
**
CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chiefhttp://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949
Comment Posted By Don C. On 21.04.2009 @ 17:20
