Your vote counts

Comments

1. anon on Oct 13, 2007 9:23:45 PM:

   seriously, if you're going to link to an article just so we can see that you were quoted in it, tell is ahead of time. good for you, self-congratulator! yay!

1. Andoni on Oct 14, 2007 12:23:07 PM:

   I am the guy that came up with the medical analogy saying that if you have the ability to cure 90% of the people suffering from an ailment, to withhold that vaccine because it cannot help 100% of the people afflicted would be immoral.

   Although no analogy is perfect, I like analogies, so here are two more to help people try to understand Congressman Barney Frank’s actions:

   1. My grandparents immigrated to the US from Greece. My grandfather came first. Although it would have been nice for the entire family to come all at once, it was impossible for that to happen (economics, logistics, laws), so my grandfather came first. He worked very hard and because of his success he was able to bring the rest of his family over one and two at a time. It was easier each time he brought someone over. The key was to get that first one over. Had he been stubborn and of the mind that “no one can go unless we all go together,” they all would died in Greece waiting for that to be possible.

   2. On D Day, Eisenhower did not try to land his entire army on the shores of Europe. Had he tried that, he would have failed miserably and lost his entire army. It was impossible to land 3 million men all at once. Europe was well fortified -- hostile territory. So Eisenhower sent in a smaller landing force -- focused on one small area. He calculated that this gave him his best chance at a successful landing. It was very important to demonstrate that it was possible to successfully penetrate the enemy. Once this was demonstrated (very important psychologically as well as tactically) and they made an opening, they pushed and shoved and made that opening bigger and bigger, and poured more and more troops through those holes. Their success fed off itself, and they were soon able to bring the whole army over. However, the whole operation had to be done in a very focused manner and in calculated smaller steps -- not all at once. They could not afford to fail in that important first step. Had they gambled big time and tried to bring their entire army over all at once, the invasion would have failed, and the war would have been lost.

   The most important thing for all of us to keep in mind, is that when the first part of our family/army successfully makes it to the other side, we CANNOT FORGET TO KEEP WORKING TO BRING THE REST OF OUR FAMILY/ARMY OVER TOO.
   

1. Double T on Oct 15, 2007 1:51:01 PM:

   Medical Analogy. I'm mixing drugs together to create a cure. Now, if I mix them properly, I cure 100% of the people. Now, if I take a short cut, I can mix them faster, but only cure 90% of the people.

   Hhmmm. If I only knew where the moral high road was.

1. North Dallas Thirty on Oct 15, 2007 3:45:45 PM:

   LOL.....let's expand that analogy a bit.

   Suppose you're fighting a disease that, unless treated, causes death within three days.

   It normally takes four days to mix the medicine to be 100% effective, but, by using a shortcut, you can produce in two days a medicine that is 90% effective.

   Now, what person would, like Matt Foreman and innumerable other gay leftist leaders, would argue that you shouldn't use the shortcut because it's not 100% effective?

   What Foreman's actions make obvious is that employment protections are not an imperative or even necessary for the vast majority of gay people, for a very simple reason; if they were, he wouldn't be wasting his time demanding perfection he's not going to get when he could solve 90% of the problem immediately.

1. Andoni on Oct 15, 2007 5:00:37 PM:

   Yes, North Dallas Forty, you are absolutely right with your medical analogy and with your comment. I’m afraid that the message the gay organizations are sending Congress is that employment discrimination really is not that much of a problem in the gay community, otherwise it would be unconscionable to delay while people are suffering. We are shooting ourselves in the foot.

   Here is an OBSERVATION based on my 20 years of activism:

   Other national governments have made tremendous progress on gay rights over the past 20 years, even traditionally homophobic ones like the UK. What is the formula? How does it happen? My observation is that the key is to get that first piece of gay rights legislation passed. Once a country gets its first piece of pro-gay legislation through, things happen pretty fast after that --- even in countries that have long histories of anti-gay sentiment (think UK, Spain, Australia),.

   Passing that first piece of legislation is so important. It breaks the logjam of the country’s history, breaks the mentality that such things are impossible. It demonstrates that you can pass legislation and that the sky doesn't fall and that elected officials can get re-elected.

   The significance of getting something through, is much more important than what actually gets passed. So if we want to start passing gay rights legislation in this country, we should pass whatever ENDA we can pass, right now, and keep moving forward. The status quo is unacceptable, especially when the rest of the world is moving forward.
   

1. Double T on Oct 15, 2007 6:38:45 PM:

   NDT/Andoni, Matt Foreman is not telling Congress that ENDA is unimportant. He's doing just the opposite by telling them it's too important to do a half-ass job.

   B-T-W Foreman is not a "Leftist", he's a Moderate AND it appears very clearly that he is speaking for the majority of the community( you can't speak for the entire community, because there's always some nutjob out there)

1. Sean on Oct 15, 2007 6:58:50 PM:

   Can someone tell the sisters of perpetual indulgence to stop what they are doing? They went into a church a week ago all dressed up. We gay people don't need any hostility directed our way because of these goons. In a recent poll 80+% of young Americans believe Christianity is anti-gay. What the sisters are doing is counter-productive. TELL THEM TO STOP!!!!

1. North Dallas Thirty on Oct 15, 2007 7:26:03 PM:

   "NDT/Andoni, Matt Foreman is not telling Congress that ENDA is unimportant. He's doing just the opposite by telling them it's too important to do a half-ass job."

   Which is why he completely opposes ANY workplace protections for gay people unless he gets exactly what he wants. He is using gay people as hostages to push his unpopular leftist agenda and to pander to the leftist organizations from which he wants support.

   And no, he's not a "moderate"; moderates do not argue, for example, that being homosexual requires you to support unlimited abortion and be anti-business. He is a orientation charlatan and huckster, a lavender version of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan.

1. Wes on Oct 15, 2007 8:11:12 PM:

   Hmm. I guess I am a nutjob then by Double T's standards. Matt Foreman does not speak for me. I agree with NDT and Andoni. I especially agree with Andoni's observation that it is important that we move forward making progress even if it is not everything that it should be.

   This country is the laggard of the world in terms of making progress on gay rights. It is time to figure out what can be passed (can the Democrats do this and consult somehow with Bush? Do they talk? There are enough gay people in W's office to talk to are there not?) and start making headway. Progress on benefits for federal workers partners? Progress on immigration? Where are the proposals for these two less contentious matters? Languishing in some Democrat controlled committee? What will W support? Anything? Has anyone asked him? This wonderworks said he would support civil unions before the last election. What did that mean? Did any gay rights organizaton ask? Find some common ground and move on for crying out loud.

   
   

1. Double T on Oct 15, 2007 11:22:58 PM:

   Wes, let me put this as nicely as I can. WHAT A LOAD OF SHIT. The Republicans have had control for the last 7 years. Why is it the fault of the Democrats?

   George W. is the biggest GOD DAMN Hypocrite in office today. He publicly states he wouldn’t hire a member of the LGBT community because he and they have nothing in common, did you hear that Condoleezza Rice. Go home and have your WIFE explain it to you.

   If W can’t figure that one out the value of LGBT’s , maybe he should go visit Cheney’s daughter and daughter-in-law and have them explain it to him.

   I can’t help noticing that W has no problem taking another man by the hand and skipping thru Camp David; as long as that man is a Saudi Prince with the Bush family on his payroll.

   Then I get to watch that erectile dysfunctional group of hetero-want-a-be’s( LCR ) give
   Gov. Arnold –I-admire-Hitler-Schwarzenegger $100k so he can VETO gay marriage, AGAIN!!!!!

   But let’s blame the Demo’s for trying.

   Wes, you want to throw stones. Move out of the glass house. Ok?

   Common Ground? Bush is in total denial, the only “common ground” would be in fantasy land.
   

1. North Dallas Thirty on Oct 16, 2007 3:48:23 PM:

   "He publicly states he wouldn’t hire a member of the LGBT community because he and they have nothing in common"

   You might want to check that quote again.

   Mainly because Bush has hired, as in appointed, numerous gay people, such as Michael Guest, Scott Evertz, Mike Dybul, and others.

   Next:

   "Then I get to watch that erectile dysfunctional group of hetero-want-a-be’s( LCR ) give
   Gov. Arnold –I-admire-Hitler-Schwarzenegger $100k so he can VETO gay marriage, AGAIN!!!!!"

   Hypocrite.

   You didn't say a word as HRC and DNC gay leaders gave endorsements thousands of dollars of support to FMA supporters ( http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2007/02/lets-see-if-we-can-follow-bouncing.html , http://www.washblade.com/2004/8-13/news/national/emily.cfm ).

   You didn't say a word as Matt Foreman, NGLTF, HRC, Stonewall Democrats, and innumerable other gay groups pumped tens of millions of gay dollars to state constitutional amendment supporter John Kerry, who ALSO fully supported abolishing gay marriage in Massachusetts, calling him "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive" ( http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001999067_kerrygay07.html ).

   Your blatant hypocrisy is obvious to everyone, Double T, given these DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES of you and your fellow gay leftists supporting WORSE than you scream about other people supporting.

   Finally, there's a real simple reason that Republicans think they have nothing in common with gays; for years, Double T, you and your fellow leftists like Foreman, Solmonese, Rosen, and others have claimed that gays are all pro-tax, pro-abortion, pro-welfare, and pro-Democrat while being anti-business, anti-religious, anti-sexual responsibility, anti-education standards, and anti-Republican. Furthermore, they know that you have no problem with laws that you scream are "homophobic"; after all, you give tens of millions of dollars and endorsements to Democrats who support the same thing.

   The common ground will come when you and your fellow leftists stop using your homosexuality as an excuse for your leftist beliefs.

   But, given your obvious inability to do so and your utter dependence on homosexuality to explain them, it won't be any time soon.

1. Double T on Oct 16, 2007 5:32:24 PM:

   NDT, and I was worried my words may have been too strong, guess not.

   It’s not an accident most gays are PRO-Democrat. It’s because they are the only people who we’ve seen progress from. I don’t have a problem with classical conservatives, I agree with a lot of their beliefs. Unfortunately the party has been hijacked and held prisoner by neo-conservatives AND, it’s the party’s own fault. Someone needs to be brave enough to tell the religious wackos to knock it off. But they don’t do that, instead they fan the flames of hatred to keep the masses entranced by this utter nonsense.

   And sure W. has some LGBT’s on the payroll, like Connie Rice, why not admit it?

   I also don’t rely on being GAY as the cause of every that happens in politics.

   Wanting full equity does not make someone a LEFTIST, it just mean you actually value yourself.
   

1. Double T on Oct 16, 2007 5:46:10 PM:

   ...........and I'm PRO-LIFE, by the way

1. North Dallas Thirty on Oct 16, 2007 5:49:24 PM:

   LOL....you just don't get it, do you, Double T?

   Your claims about wanting "equality" are belied by the millions upon millions of dollars of support that you, your fellow Democrats, HRC, and NGLTF give to Democrat FMA and state constitutional amendment supporters, including those who want to REPEAL gay marriage in Massachusetts.

   Your claims against "religious wackos" carry no merit when you slavishly worship and obey Democrats who fawn over selfsame "wackos" and blabber about how they have so "much in common" ( http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/060510a.aspx ).

   And what sort of "progress" is it when a gay employee can be fired for their PARTNER complaining about the party's homophobia, as the DNC -- with the collusion of its other gay employees -- did to Donald Hitchcock?

   You spin fantasy after bigoted fantasy about "what Republicans believe" when I can show example after documented, linkable example of you and your fellow Democrat gays, as well as your leftist organizations like HRC, NGLTF, etc., calling THE SAME BEHAVIOR "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive" when Democrats do it.

1. North Dallas Thirty on Oct 16, 2007 6:12:10 PM:

   "...........and I'm PRO-LIFE, by the way"

   Don't make me laugh, Double T.

   Your "moderate" leader Matt Foreman made it QUITE clear that gays are pro-abortion and nothing else, including supporting partial-birth abortion. ( http://thetaskforce.org/blog/20070514-matt-foreman-damn-right-we-support-a-womans-right-to-choose , http://thetaskforce.org/press/releases/pr666_042304 , http://thetaskforce.org/press/releases/prMF_SC_041807 )

   Furthermore, according to NOW and the transgender groups you slavishly obey, "pro-life" people are nothing but religious misogynist nutcases who think women should be barefoot and pregnant.