Same onesOBL crashed planes into: none. My point is that it’s hypocritical to say, “You should have respect for the dead if they’re not a mass-murderer, but mass-murderers and the people who order the deaths of large numbers of humans, it’s okay to be happy that they’re dead.” That’s crap. As has been pointed out, it doesn’t matter what kind of after life there is, ol’ Strom don’t care what any of us are saying about him. The only people who deserve respect are the living. So, if my comments about Strom have offended any of his family and friends who’ve read them, I certainly apologize, but if Strom’s somehow upset by them, I don’t care. Frankly, after learning about what Nixon did to NASA, I fully intend to piss on “Tricky Dick’s” grave.
Callous? Petty? Yep to both, but damnit, it’ll make me feel better, and considering I’m the live one, and Nixon’s the dead one, that’s all that matters. And if someone wants to do that to me after I’m gone, more power to 'em!
Hmmm, Strom Thurmond used his political power to ostracize, degrade and deny rights to entire segments of the American populus, literally millions of people, for as long as he possibly could - blacks, gays, people with AIDS, all treated as second class citizens.
When he dies, some of those people, having seen (and sometimes been the direct victim of) the massive amounts of damage, pain and suffering this person’s actions caused, are happy to see him go.
He spent his life being a bigot and doing his best to hold back intergration while he could get away with it, before the tide of public opinion would no longer support his hate.
Who appointed you the Don Quixote of Strom’s memory?
Know what, gobear? I had been pretty respectful of you until this point. You tended to see both sides of an argument, you tended to be able to rise above it and reach the issues. You are no longer such a man, it appears.
You have an oppression complex, for sure. But aside from that, you have no fucking sense of reality. Strom Thurmond might very well have been against many things you support, but “evil” is the sort of word that needs to be reserved to retain any credibility.
I don’t like the views Strom Thurmond held. I don’t like the views Hillary Clinton holds. I don’t like the views Robert Byrd holds. The Senate is filled with dickholes stuck in the 1950’s that I don’t agree with, but I don’t have the arrogance to go about pretending that I’m “oppressed”, nor do I go dancing in the fucking street when something bad happens to those people.
Honestly, gobear, I don’t think you should utter another word ever about even an issue remotely related to homsexuality, if you want to be taken seriously. It would buttress your credibility. You have shown that you have the ability to treat those issues rationally, that you can separate those issues from their political component, that you can hold a rational and temperate discussion on those issues without turning into an irate dissenter who feels the need to label his opponents. You’re so sensible and reasonable in other sorts of threads, I wish you would stay away from this topic and ditch the vitriolic hatred, so as to present us with the well-reasoned analysis that I know you can provide. You need to stop taking this personally. I respect your opinion on so many things, but I simply cannot respect your approach to gay issues, because you carry a chip on your shoulder that destroys any reputable honest approach to these issues. I agree with pretty much any aspect of “gay rights” that entails the government butting out of our personal lives, but I find your overly dramatic arguments to be off-putting.
Oh yeah, and Mockingbird is a dick. I guarantee you that Tars is no supporter of Thurmond. That dickholes like you assume that only a “supporter” of such a man would oppose the BS treatment of his death…well, that speaks a million things about y’all, but I know tars’ heart and soul more than any of you do, so fuckoff.
Dude, you don;t know anything about being gay in america, nor do you know anythng about the history of legal discrimination. I don’t have a persecution complex.
We livin a country where it took a Supreme court decision to declare that gay people have a right to privacy in the bedroom. A cop was called by a fals noise complaint called in by a neighbor, found two guys having sex in the apartment bewdroom, and arested them for breaking the Texas sodomy law. That case, Lawrence v Texas, invalidated that arrest, that law, and all sodomy laws uin the US.
It took a Supremem court decision to grant me a right that you enjoy as a matter of course.
And you say I have a “persecution complex.”
You can marry; I cannot.
You have automatic rights of inheritance from your spouse,; I don’t.
You can walk down the stree holding you wonman’s hand and nobody cares; if I hold my boyfriend’s hand, there’s a cewrtainty we’ll get called “faggot” and there’s a small but real chance of attracting physical violence.
I’m a gay man. This is not just some theoretical exercise, but my daily life. Learn the realities of life in the US as it is lived by millions of gay men and women.
When a concerned citizen attends at a house party to complain about the consumption of alcohol and the playing of loud music, one can either argue to no end with the person, or one can simply say “Party on, dude” and get back to the celebration.
Of course you did. You criticized me for calling a viewpoint other than my own “foolish” because as a non-gay/non-black person I couldn’t “wrap [myself] around the concept.” **
I’m not sure exactly how I’m “forcing” my opinion here. I haven’t sent gunmen to you and gobear’s house to make you recant your statements or anything.
It’s a valid answer. You appear to be claiming that a general principle must be inviolate, that it cannot have any exceptions whatsoever lest it be deemed invalid.
So what about killing? As a general principle, I think most people find “thou shalt not kill” to be part of their moral framework. But most people will give soldiers in wartime a pass. Does the existence of that exception render the general rule any less valid?
Same thing here. I think as a general principle it is unseemly to dance on someone’s grave. I’ll carve out an exception for the oppressed to dance on a murderous oppressor’s grave. Why does that exception kill the general rule? Why is that any different from giving soldiers in wartime a pass on “do not kill”?
I’m not sure where you get the “control freaks” characterization. It isn’t like I can make you do anything. If you want to act like the inbred hicks who show up to party at state executions, it isn’t like I can stop you. All I can do is point out that such behavior only serves to diminish your stature, and makes you look small and petty.
Sure I did; one less homophobe and racist to contend with.
I do have more of a clue than you do because I’m agay and have actually been paying attention to the world inwhich I live. If the decision had goen the other way, my partner could be subject oarrest for doing what you and your wife do.
And no, you don’t have to be a gay person to understand, but it woild help if you were a thinking, compassionate person.
As has been pointed out, there is a difference between hating Strom for what he has done and Strom hating me for being who I am.
I’m going to suggest that people just ignore the party poopers. They’ve had their say and have apparently swayed few, if any. We obviously aren’t going to change their minds, so best to get on with the grave dancing. Hear that? It’s the Monster Mash playing in the graveyard! Let’s go twist and shout!
And if we had shown up at his funeral with signs celebrating his death, you’d be absolutely right. But expressions of relief at his death on a message board are not the same thing. That you do not understand this is perplexing.
