Subscribe: Comments on: Bill Richardson & the Politics of Gaffes
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
blockquote  choice  don  find  gay  homosexual  ian  ilovecapitalism ian  ilovecapitalism  much  question  responsible  richardson  wrong 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Bill Richardson & the Politics of Gaffes

Comments on: Bill Richardson & the Politics of Gaffes

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Last Build Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 21:57:33 +0000


By: corwin

Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:52:38 +0000

I find two things tiresome about this.First,the OFFICIAL PARTY LINE that must be followed .This is akin to the creationists attacking evolution as a tool of evil.(Although,I have commented I know several friends who are afraid to acknowledge a belief in the IQ differential lest they be outed on that) Secondly,I'm more impressed by a sincere,even if wrong,unpopular opinion,because I don't feel it's a calculated opinion.

By: V the K

Sat, 18 Aug 2007 13:47:00 +0000

Lotta truth in that, ILC. Perhaps more truth than many can handle.

By: ILoveCapitalism

Sat, 18 Aug 2007 01:26:59 +0000

As for the whole "choice" thing - I am sorry if I sound impatient, but after years of reflection the answer I now find the answer so blindingly obvious, it's not an interesting discussion for me. - Inborn or innate desire is not chosen. (It's inborn or innate desire - whether science eventually ascribes it to genetics or something else.) - Personal behavior is chosen. Always, absolutely chosen, no matter how much some may care to pretend otherwise. I act on my gay desires - responsibly - because I cannot find any logically valid reason why doing so would be wrong. (I don't find the religious objections logically valid; the alleged Biblical injunctions, in fact, are greatly overrated even taking the texts as a believer - but that's a long discussion for another time.) There is, of course, a lot that is wrong with *ir*responsible gay behavior - but the same can be said of irresponsible straight behavior. I.e., the moral issue involved is one of responsible vs. irresponsible, not one of gay vs. straight. Finally, as others have said: whatever the answer is, it shouldn't matter for public policy. Show me someone who says "But I never chose to be gay" **as an argument** in the debate for gay equality (rather than as mere personal description), and I'll show you someone with lingering gay self-hatred. To answer Ian's proverbial "stupid question" to V at #35: On the level of orientation, I never chose to be gay. On the level of behavior, I make a new choice to be gay - each and every day. How about you?

By: V the K

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:23:55 +0000

Actually, I haven’t seen much evidence that the liberals give a crap about the murder.. Do you think if only the Pentagon had been attacked on 9-11 that the liberal left would have allowed us to go to war at all? Or, do you think they would have fallen in lockstep behind the ABC News exec who said the Pentagon was a legitimate target?

By: ThatGayConservative

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:16:51 +0000

Destroying the WTC was not just an act of murder and vandalism, as the left would have us treat it. Actually, I haven't seen much evidence that the liberals give a crap about the murder.

By: HardHobbit

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:40:29 +0000

Insisting that Richardson (or any other pol) voted 'the right way' re. DADT neatly assumes spokesmanship while denying debate. I find this interesting, particularly in the context of a discussion as to the degree to which sexuality is rational. After all, if, as Richardson claimed, sexuality is a choice, why are soldiers not required to simply choose an orientation more palatable to the military services when required? If he believes the choice occurs at a very young age, is there any discernible (meaning responsibly valid) difference between that and a completely biological determination? Likewise, if nurture trumps nature, how can one be held responsible, whether choice is involved or not? Does Richardson assume that one who chooses to be homosexual cannot also choose to serve his/her country quietly (and in my opinion more honorably)? Richardson's confusion is likely a mixture of honest misunderstanding of homosexuality and posturing. (The idea that a 'gay debate' is even relevant is a non-sequitur. Gays have some cash, but are of no real electoral importance. This is merely a means for liberal candidates to prove their stripes, a litmus test or pap smear of sorts.) But I resent the idea that anyone who disagrees with 'the official gay position' is wrong and/or votes 'the wrong way'. Thanks, but such awfully self-important attitudes are best left for those who don't believe in responsible sexual choices and need spokesmen and voting guides.

By: fnln

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:23:46 +0000

Government surveillance creep would certainly be a good reason.

By: fnln

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:22:14 +0000

I doubt Lynne Stewart is representative.

By: North Dallas Thirty

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:19:24 +0000

In addition to being concerned with terrorist attacks (while not letting the fear of them completely take over everything) The left has an interesting definition of "concerned". Everyone else would call that "facilitates". Furthermore, as to the Hillary Clinton question, given when she and Bill started wiretapping and pulling FBI records on anyone who had ever looked at them funny, I figure I was under constant surveillance from 1992 to 2000 -- and never noticed, and never cared. Indeed, I wonder if they had focused the same amount of energy on spying on US citizens as the Bush administration has on non-US ones, where we'd be today. But then again, I fully understand why Democrats, leftists, and ACLU members are so terrified of being watched.

By: fnln

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:16:36 +0000

I should have added that Richardson said it was a choice and I think he believes that because that's what came out first. I also think he's absolutely and completely wrong.

By: fnln

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:14:27 +0000

One could certainly could argue that Padilla's constitutional rights were abridged. V the K may have CHOSEN to be a homosexual (I don't know that V the K is in fact homosexual), but I feel comfortable saying that the majority of homosexuals are homosexuals for a possible combination of reasons that have nothing to do with their choosing to be so AND are likely homosexual as a result of genetics.

By: V the K

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:12:42 +0000

Nice catch, ILC. I had just brushed it off as one of those vacuous questions people repeat when they're incapable of formulating an intelligent response.

By: ILoveCapitalism

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:10:16 +0000

Well V, the "Ian reading comprehension issues" were on display there, too. He asked you:
So when did you choose to be homosexual?
But you had *JUST* specifically said:
My logic and my analysis lead me to conclude that human sexuality is too complex to be answered by a single [claim]...
Which answers the question in advance, does it not? making it the proverbial "stupid question"? A day without Ian on GP, is a day with one less chuckle than it ought to have. :-) GPW, my apologies for the digression.

By: V the K

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:54:21 +0000

And honestly, I don't find the question of the origin of sexuality much interesting. To me, it's much less important how you got whatever gifts you get in life than what you do with them.

By: V the K

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:16:26 +0000

Meanwhile, Chavez, the guy Ian insisted is not a dictator prepares to sweep aside the few remaining constitutional formalities and declare himself dictator-for-life. Yet again, we conservatives were right all along about Chavez. Any chance Ian and the other apologists will admit it?

By: ILoveCapitalism

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:06:15 +0000

If Ian's faux-dissident claims were even half true, he'd be typing his words from jail - or not at all - as tragically happens to real dissidents in places like Egypt, Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, North Korea, etc.

By: V the K

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:53:23 +0000

I understand why the choice thing is so threatening to Ian. It challenges to dogma he clings to out of his need for emotional validation. My phone has not been "tapped" because I haven't made any calls to foreign terrorist contacts. And despite the paranoid delusions of the left, Dick Cheney is not listening in when I order pizza, which I do on-line anyway. Nor has Bush thrown any of the leftist nutjobs who accuse him of being responsible for 9-11, who call for his impeachment or his assassination, into prison. The Clintons, remember, had people jailed for shouting "You suck," at a campaign appearance. And if the Clintons return to power, of course they will ignore the law, just as they ignored the laws against perjury and against accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals the first time around. They may even sell a few more pardons and pardon a few more terrorists, just like last time around. Because that's the caliber of people Ian and his party elect to office.

By: ILoveCapitalism

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:28:01 +0000

#37 - Because Ian, after all, knows so much about the future.

By: ILoveCapitalism

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:27:14 +0000

Alrighty, then. :-) Ian, I was talking about your comment #31. There, you claimed that:
The fourth, fifth and sixth amendments to the Constitution for starters. Probably the eighth too.
...have been "taken away" from us (V's formulation - to which you acceded). Which is, of course, a total bullsh*t claim, so I said:
Cut the phony slams, that only make you look dumb. You should know better by now, than to make accusations like that around here without having something back it up. Something real. And by “something real”, I mean - partly, or among other things - citations that you have actually read before you cited them [referring to past encounters between us, where you, Ian, hadn't even bothered to read your own citations and they actually undercut you...]
Clear enough for you now? Trust me: It is crystal clear to most other longtime GP readers reading this exchange.

By: Ian S

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:25:45 +0000

my rights under those amendments are precisely the same as they were before
I suspect you'll be singing an entirely different tune if and when President Hillary Clinton starts using the same warrantless searches in the same way as Bush has been doing. Plus locking up American citizens with no charges being brought for years. Not to mention torturing those same "innocent until proven guilty" citizens. Yeah, you'll be singing a much different tune.