Perhaps you aren’t a member of a minority group, and don’t know much about the workings of civil rights movements.
The professor teaching my minority politics class would disagree with you here.
I only speak for myself here, but being gay myself I feel that there’s some real commonalities between our situation and that of other minorities (real differences exist as well, of course.) And someone who is a member of one minority group definitely ought to, in my opinion, have greater sensitivity to other minorities.
And history would bear me out here. There’s a long tradition of different minority groups working together on civil rights issues, out of a basic recognition that a victory for one group pushes the civil rights agenda as a whole further along. And so it’s kinda shitty to see that tradition repudiated.
However, you can’t claim that he didn’t make his point well later in his post, so if you have some reason to disagree, please specify why, rather than simply ranting about how skin color doesn’t matter.
Isn’t it obvious that Bricker’s late habit of pre-emptively shouting about liberal hypocrisy is starting to get on Otto’s nerves? Panache hadn’t said a damn thing about trying to stop the dude from sharing certain political views - all he’d done was vent because this message is particularly galling to him. Bricker then stole the spotlight, as usual, to start whining that liberals are hypocritical, even though his point had nothing to do with the content of the OP. Had he chosen germane situation to repeat his point, it would have been fine. But instead he’s, once again, steering a thread into his own private bitch-fest about how all liberals are hypocrites.
EXCEPT that it was unclear to me that the OP was saying that the nature of the calls was simply inherently offensive to him, and he wanted the person behind them to stop making them voluntarily. The OP used the words “offensive harrassment,” which have a legal connotation. “Offensive to me,” suggests a personal issue; “offensive harrassment” suggests something that perhaps the law ought to prohibit. But I wasn’t sure what was meant. So I invited the OP to clarify when I posted:
And the OP responded:
Now, I grant you that even that is not crystal clear, but it sure reads to me as though the OP is suggesting that only “Yes” calls are “offensive harrassment.”
Now, of course, the OP has further clarified his stance:
That, too, is not crystal clear, but it reads to me as though the OP recognizes the legal propriety of the phone calls, and is just venting about content.
I suppose it’s possible that I was the only reader that failed to understand this point in the beginning and needed to clarify it. If so, I ceratinly apoologize for holding the rest of the class back with my slow comprehension, as it were.
I don’t agree. When so many of the arguments of late have centered around the legitimacy of court decisions, and when advocates of one side extoll the results of the process but are seemingly blind to the flaws of the process, it’s frustrating in the extreme. It doesn’t go “far beyond demanding honesty” to point out that it’s intellectually dishonest to claim support of a process only when it delivers the results you want. When an anti-gay-rights piece of legislation is challenged in court and is voided, the court challenge is absolutely appropriate. When Bloomberg uses the courts to challenge a pro-gay-rights rule, at the very least, intellectual honesty requires some recognition that “Courts making law” has a downside.
Not all liberals are hypocrites, and not all hypocrites are liberals. Plenty of conservatives play this same game: when the Supreme Court decides Lawrence v. Texas, they are activist judges; when they decided Bush v. Gore, they were simply fulfilling the proper role of the judiciary. It’s just as scummy when conservatives do it.
One exception to take panache45 with this statement:
While you and I were both told a lot of hooey in grade school about how elected officials are there to do what’s good and right and proper, we’ve both grown and learned that politicians get into office based on the agenda of their electorate. This proposition didn’t appear on the ballot for any reason other than there is a block of voters who feel that what you want curtails their rights.
You and I agree that they are at the least misinformed, and at the worst hatemongers. Just the same, they are opposed to any advances for GLBT persons, and if they were/are the backers of Blackwell’s campaign, he’s going to further their objectives, or they will find someone else who will.
Regardless of their “feelings” on the subject, I’m not trying to curtail anyone’s rights. I’m simply saying that they don’t have the right to curtail mine. And if I speak out to protect - or gain - my rights, I really don’t give a rat’s ass about these people’s “feelings.”
Your last statement is most telling: “I really don’t give a rat’s ass about these people’s “feelings”.” Guess what? They don’t give a rat’s ass about yours, either.
You can work to help change their opinion, or you can holler yourself hoarse. You choose.
Right back at ya, schmucko! You apparently have a very short attention span, as I support the position of the OP, just from a slightly different perspective. No doubt you will go far, given your ability to elicit agreement. In fact, you should.
I’d argue there’s some truth to that. Martin Luther King’s admiration of Gandhi and his tactics was critical in the formulation of his strategy and approach. Northern voters were dismayed at Sheriff Bull Connor’s use of dogs and firehoses upon peaceful demonstrators in Birmingham. More progress was made from peaceful demonstrations than from the violence, or threat of violence, offered by Malcom X and Elijah Mohammed, to contrast two approaches.
I’ve gotten a couple, too, and both my husband and I are very liberal Democrats. What he suspects, and I’m guessing he’s right - I registered to vote for the first time in the state last January. I didn’t give my party affiliation, and I also voted in none of the primaries. So no one in this state has any idea of my party leanings - so he thinks that the people on the list are Republicans and those who haven’t voted in Ohio prior to this. It makes sense - they may hit a few Democrats, like me, but they’ll reach people they want to reach as well. I’ve also gotten two different fliers against Kerry and Edwards today, just addressed to me. It’s all just speculation, of course.
If you do get one of these calls, there are surveys that they’re taking (that’s how I know the OP and I are getting calls from the same place - ours are originating in VA, too). Stay on the line and take it - because it may get them to stop calling you if you tell them that you are against the gay marriage amendment.
I knew as I was typing that sentence that I was going to get in trouble for it. That’s what the delete key is for, I guess. Another value lesson I learned: don’t talk out yer ass. Do the research before you post.
I stand corrected, Bricker. Thank you for calling me on that. Due to the fact that the majority of African-American voters are Democrats and that they are quite familiar with discrimination as a class, I was under the mistaken impression that they are also, as a general rule, social liberals who would be loathe to deny another group their rights. Oh, how wrong I was:
From here. Wow. That surprised me. I’m sure you can understand why. But I think I better understand Mr. Blackwell’s demographic now, although I still don’t agree with him.
Oh, shall I still tell you what your political positions as a Latino ought to be? How about if I just give you a link to a snapshot of your demographic and let you be the judge.
Irrelevent, since the OP hadn’t suggested he oughta be stopped, especially not by court action. So your little slide into “liberal hypocrisy” mode was unwarrented. And yeah, I call it that because I have yet to run into any of your posts on the same action on the other side (though, as you finally got around to mentioning in the quoted bit, there are a fair number of people on both sides whose views on judicial actions seem to be informed by their views on the politics underlying them.) Perhaps I’ve just managed to miss them, and you can direct me that way. Until then, please drop the “just trying to defend our country from the hordes of hypocrites!” schtick and at least admit you’re motivated by your politics here.
That’s not even so bad, since our system is designed to be self-policing by deliberately playing folks against each other. That way, most humans, who are weak enough not to be entirely objective, still have the opportunity to tattle on their opponents, and the system works. But you’ve spent a lot of time lately calling that hypocrisy. And when you yourself only seem to do it when it’s politically convenient, well, I guess that makes you a meta-hypocrite.
Issue 1 - Proposed Constitutional Amendment- State of Ohio
(Proposed by Initiative Petition - A majority yes vote is necessary for passage)
Not only does it define marriage, as so many do, it further prohibits granting any legal status to unmarried individuals in relationships. Essentially, it will have the effect of banning gays from obtaining any marital status and rights through civil union as well.
Gov. Taft and many business organizations oppose this amendment on the grounds that it’s bad for business and could negatively impact seniors and others who “share living accommodations” though Taft specifically doesn’t mention it’s impact on homosexual couples. It’s clear that Taft :wally objects only to the broadness of the language, not the intent. What a pickle!
