You either miss or misstate my points:
Land of the free eh?
Some people exercise their right to democracy, and vote according to their belief system. Now you want them all identified. Not to be nasty to them of course, thats for lesser people, but just to boycott them and call them ignorant bigots. Thats all.
I guess I am a neutral in this. I dont give a rats ass about American politics. This was a vote that does not and will not ever affect me in any way, but for some reason some of the responses in this thread leave a bitter taste in my mouth.
Posting maps showing who donated to unpopular causes? Why would you do that? Really? Why?
I say publish the vote as well.
I don’t have a point?
This thread-- you have 15 posts as I’m writing this. The next most prolific poster is faithfool with 7.
Gay marriage opponents, listen up: I’ve got a secret to tell you: You had 115 posts. The next most prolific poster was levdrakon with 50.
Prop 8 (CA): You have a whopping 125 posts, and the next prolific poster, again levdrakon, a measly 34.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Again, you are the #1 poster with 18, edging out Miller.
You don’t just post in these threads-- you dominate them. So, you can see why people would think that you have, as my dad would say, a wild hair across your ass about gay marriage. For someone who will not actually be personally affected in any demonstrable way by gay marriage, and who gets very offended by the suggestion that he’s homophobic, you have a disproportionate amount of bile to spew on the subject. And I still think your motives are less that idealistic and pure. Something to consider, based on the evidence above.
Agreed on the goodness we should thank. 
As to why, again, if I’m fighting for or against something that affects people publically, than I’d like to so publically. Otherwise I wouldn’t consider myself much better than those who did their fighting behind something (another person, a mask, anonymity… you get the picture). I think that answers your other remaining comment to me.
And I see I’m not the only person who got the feeling you showed up in a lot of these threads. If that perception is indeed inaccurate, I apologize and now I’ll leave you alone to fight your crusade.
No sarcasm what-so-ever. Since I’ve seen this argument made, I’ve always wondered about the claims to back it up. I thank you for what you’ve linked to and here’s what I personally think.
As to what’s in the OP, the relevants parts for me are: All those people claim something that was unsubstantiated. Link 2: The claim is unsubstantiated. Link 3: Is talking about both sides clashing at a rally. That reads like mob behavior to me, not necessarily intolerant Prop. 8 supporters. Link 4: The claim is unsubstantiated.
I’m sorry, but in the time following the antics of the several folks who claimed assault and harassment during the presidential campaign that proved to be bogus, I’m more than a little skeptical. Anyone can call the newspapers and accuse anyone of anything or shallowly carve a backwards B into their face. As unfair as that may be for the ones that are legitimate, I’m much more inclined to believe bias when it’s actually proven. Until then, not so much.
Except this grocer is not just someone the people in the neighborhood disagree with. He is someone who exercised his power to help take away their personal liberties. There is a difference.
The people who gave money to Prop 8 weren’t merely in error. They actively took steps to deny rights to others.
So, money should be the same as a vote. Despite the fact that each individual (as has been pointed out) gets but one vote, but can contribute several times to campaigns? And you think this not only should be the way of the world, but that anyone who feels the desire to spend their own money where they want is wrong? That’s not the opposite of mob rule, it’s the opposite of sensible.
Well, why shouldn’t they? Doing so doesn’t harm anything that isn’t in your fervid imagination. And why does it have to serve society? What you’re advocating doesn’t do a damned thing to serve society. Unless in your world “serve society” is analogous to “cover one’s ass when convenient”.
A thousand pardons. Allow me to attempt to dispel your inability to understand: According to your statement:
Thereby leading me to believe that you are saying that if someone has the testicular fortitude to stand up for what he or she believes and erects a sign, then he should willingly accept bags of dog shit, freelance spray artists, &c, but that if someone is too cowardly to stand up for what he believes and instead chooses to write a check only, he should be protected by keeping his check and it’s intended target private. If so, then your premise is, indeed, laughable. And foolish. If not, please feel free to explain whatever it is that you’re attempting to say.
I didn’t think you’d believe it. Considering that what’s in the link in the OP would probably have to be proven for the case to go forward probably won’t sway you. I wondered why you asked for proof of some of those behaviors multiple times. It was obvious that you wanted to believe what you wanted to believe and no amount of reading about it for yourself brought by others would convince you.
It’s like giving evidence to a Christian that their beliefs are not rational. . . they believe what they want to believe. What’s the point of showing evidence?
Okay, you know what Roo, I’m going to go back another time and re-read the article linked to in the OP because I have no doubt that I could’ve been swayed by over-emotionalism. That said, would you care to re-address my point with regards to unsubstantiation and the fact that anyone can indeed make up anything? I’ll report back shortly.
You must have missed this:
faithfool, you want unbiased, reliable cites from a dispassionate, objective source. That’s a reasonable request. Heffalump and Roo has not provided them. Here’s a quick rundown of why
1st source: Look at the bottom of the article. Its source is protectmarriage.com, hardly a bastion of objectivity about the No on 8 folks.
#2: A gay politics blog. He says people are being arrested for violence, but he doesn’t say which side they’re on. Likely both, but this is hardly proof that gays are propagating a one-sided wave of incredible violence.
#3: Michelle freakin’ Malkin Enough said.
So, H&R, when you can come up with reputable news sources with verifiable information to back up your claims, please post them with the appropriate cites and we will give them all the attention they deserve.
ETA: to magellan01, rationalize it however you want. You are not willing to reflect on your own motivations in posting many magnitudes more than any other poster on the topic of gay marriage and why you’re against it. Fine. I expected nothing different.
It’s the same as a vote, in that it’s an action to affect public policy. And the fact that you view them to be “in error” is precisely the point. They did what they felt was best. so, do you favor making the vote public? That would be consistent. but I don’t see how you can desire to protect one action and not the other.
Actually, no. Not nearly enough. Is everything she writes a lie? Suspect? Why?
Of course they can. . . about anything. And there’s no way to 100% prove that anyone is telling the truth about anything. If someone came in here to say that their gay friend got beat up, do you believe them? Why? How would they prove it to you? If you saw that there was violence against gays reported in the newspaper in the past? Would you believe it? Why?
Whatever standard you use to determine one side should be the same standard you use for the other side. If you don’t believe anyone about anything, fine. But then it would be pretty hard to take a stand on anything.
So, you would then be in favor of making the vote public?
Thanks for the assist Ruby. And I started to mention the possible slant, but figured I’d simply base my opinions on the content of the accusations themselves. Now that said, here’s what I got out of the first article again, quoted for veracity…
The lawsuit filed Wednesday cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support Proposition 8 received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman claims she was told: “If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter.”
I’m sorry, but has this been followed up on with the police? This sounds like a serious threat and she doesn’t mention it taking any form outside of ‘in person.’ I mean, if that one had been via phone call, email or postcard, I believe they’d have something to track, right? If not, then there might be even more to go on. However, if it was just some random Schmoe on the street that vanished into thin air, then I agree there’d be something to that.
Of course, if that was the case, it might also have been some goofy kid playing a prank. But the main point there is, how does one ascertain that from what little information is given?
Another donor reported a broken window,
Unless they saw who did it, I can’t imagine this would go very far no matter which side of a debate (custody battle / pissed off next-door neighbor / MIL / whatever) you are on. Since that’s what happened when my spouse had his tires slashed once and we thought it was his ex-wife, I know of what the police told us.
one said a flier calling him a bigot was distributed around his hometown
Now this one might give us something to work with. You’d think someone somewhere would know something, thus making it easier for the police to find the culprit and follow up with information about either a “person of interest” or actually having a charge (if that’s indeed a crime committed) levied.
and others received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit.
Federal tampering there, prosecution should be forthcoming and one I’d support no matter what. That’s wrong, period and there should be headlines about this. I’ll go a-Googling to see if there’s been any further information on that.
Businesses employing people who contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign have been threatened with boycotts, the suit said.
See, this may be my own bias showing, but as something very tiny but kinda similar has happened to me, I still see it as the right of the people and distinctly not harassment. Ya see, I have pro-gay bumper stickers on my vehicle and when I was still waitressing, I learned after I left my last job that there’d been at least one complaint lodged against me because of it. If those folks had decided not to frequent our establishment because of it, I feel that’s their right. Further, if my employer still had no problem with me over it, well then we’d all dealt with our own conclusions and consequences. Also, I still sought out future jobs with them on there, so I took that into consideration and still forged ahead. What else can one do?
*Supporters of the gay marriage ban fear the donor backlash will hurt their efforts to raise money in the future, perhaps to fight an initiative seeking to overturn the ban.
“Several donors have indicated that they will not contribute to committee plaintiffs or similar organizations in the future because of the threats and harassment directed at them as a result of their contributions … and the public disclosure of that fact,” the lawsuit said.
The suit said courts have held that laws requiring disclosure of campaign contributions can be overturned or restricted if a group can make “an uncontroverted showing” that identifying its members can result in economic reprisals or threats of physical coercion.*
Again, it seems you can either put your livelyhood as your priority or your beliefs and whichever comes first you deal with that decision. For ultimately, you gotta do what you gotta do and to hell with the rest. You can’t have it both ways. Don’t know what else to say about that.
*He said Proposition 8 supporters used campaign finance records during the campaign to threaten gay rights supporters.
“They’ve used these records to attack corporations, to attack individuals,” Kors said.*
Now see, this sounds like the other group is saying the same thing. To which I respond… show me the proof. Otherwise, it could all be so much bullshit and regardless, what’s fair for one is fair for all.
See the last sentence of my last post. I believe stuff when it’s substantiated, no matter who makes the claim. As to what happens on here, you’ve only got the person’s posting history to go by. What else is there?
I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Fair enough. At least that’s a consistent position. But let me ask you: would you prefer that the vote be made public? In other words, is your position exactly the same? or do you see any difference? would you argue for a public vote the same way you’ve been arguing for public disclosure of donations?
Perhaps not a lie, but she is a very biased source. For example, she is a regular contributing writer to the American Family Association. A heavily anti-gay biased group if you weren’t already aware of that.
faithfool, one more thing on substantiation. You’re right to question quotes. People generally have reasons to say things on one side or the other. So when you click on a quote, also click their cite. For instance, for the Michelle Malkin quote, there’s a link to the news report that she’s basing her quote on. It’s a report that has a picture of the graffiti on the church. Now you may question the police report that it was about Prop. 8. In order to do that, you’d need to find a quote on the other side. I didn’t find one, but I wasn’t looking either. I just pulled the most handy cites for the question you asked.
As for your longer post, I don’t know how they’re planning to prove those incidents in court and I’m not claiming them, so if you’d like to disbelieve them, feel free. But if you disbelieve all things written in the paper about a claim that will be going to court, you can’t have much to say on either side.