(09-27-2023 05:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 01:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 01:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Unclear to me who spouts more BS, the D's or the R's.

Keep looking.

Neither side is lily pure but it's clear which side supports the most inane legislation.

It’s impressive that we can find common ground here. I too believe that the Republican Party supports the most inane legislation.

I cant even point to any specific legislation the Republican Party has moved on in the last 3 years, mind you.

I would have to vote on D supporting the most inane legislation, since the Rs really dont support much of anything that I can see these days in terms of legislation.

Or positions for that matter.

I think it depends on which R’s and D’s you’re talking about.

R’s at the state level across the country have been passing inane legislation in the forms of abortion bans, book bans, and removal of local control in many facets.

Off the top of my head, at the House level there was an attempt to ban ESG considerations in investments. But it’s a bit harder to remember things here because of the divided government.

My response should have been clearly tongue in cheek. I’d agree that, in general, one of my biggest criticisms of the Republican Party has been what you pointed out - they don’t seem to have a clear stance on many topics besides being against whatever the Democratic Party supports. So you have a point that, effectively, the process of elimination points to the D’s since they are the ones more actively pushing legislation out to the masses. Then it really is just one’s opinion on what is inane.

I'd add the huge attention paid to drag queens in legislation.

(09-27-2023 08:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 05:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 01:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 01:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Keep looking.

Neither side is lily pure but it's clear which side supports the most inane legislation.

It’s impressive that we can find common ground here. I too believe that the Republican Party supports the most inane legislation.

I cant even point to any specific legislation the Republican Party has moved on in the last 3 years, mind you.

I would have to vote on D supporting the most inane legislation, since the Rs really dont support much of anything that I can see these days in terms of legislation.

Or positions for that matter.

I think it depends on which R’s and D’s you’re talking about.

R’s at the state level across the country have been passing inane legislation in the forms of abortion bans, book bans, and removal of local control in many facets.

Off the top of my head, at the House level there was an attempt to ban ESG considerations in investments. But it’s a bit harder to remember things here because of the divided government.

My response should have been clearly tongue in cheek. I’d agree that, in general, one of my biggest criticisms of the Republican Party has been what you pointed out - they don’t seem to have a clear stance on many topics besides being against whatever the Democratic Party supports. So you have a point that, effectively, the process of elimination points to the D’s since they are the ones more actively pushing legislation out to the masses. Then it really is just one’s opinion on what is inane.

I'd add the huge attention paid to drag queens in legislation.

The fascination with people in drag from the Republican party over the past decade is... something.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks?

(09-27-2023 05:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 02:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 01:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Unclear to me who spouts more BS, the D's or the R's.

Keep looking.

Neither side is lily pure but it's clear which side supports the most inane legislation.

It’s impressive that we can find common ground here. I too believe that the Republican Party supports the most inane legislation.

I guess it's not clear to those who keep their eyes shut.

You’re right. It’s impressive that you can type so well with your eyes closed. I don’t think I could be so error free.

I apologize for not taking your gibe in the spirit in which it was intended. Although you are the bluest of the blue here, you are also one of the most open minded blues I know of. I appreciate you being here.

My only excuse is that things have not been going well on this side of the monitor. Among other things, I had a serious fall over the weekend and was in considerable pain when I responded. Maybe it blunted my sense of humor. Not really an excuse, but perhaps a reason.

My response was really pointed at all the things you are not - the ones who follow blindly, not caring where the path goes or what might be at the end of it.. I will detail a few things in my reply to another post.

(09-27-2023 08:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The fascination with people in drag from the Republican party over the past decade is... something.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks?

Obviously it is a little... but I don't know how much 'tongue in cheek' this is.... for the purposes of this response, I am assuming 'only a little'.... so please disregard if a lot was intended.

iirc, though... this is one of Saul Alinsky's strategies....
You 'normalize' something that is not (at the time) normal... and then when people protest about you trying to make something 'normal' that is not... you turn it on them as being 'overly concerned' about it.

There is absolutely nothing at all inconsistent or hypocritical or 'un-Republican' and certainly not Fascist or any other sort of 'authoritarian' claim about someone who thinks that what people do in the privacy of their own homes is nobody else's business or concern... but when you put that on display in public, that is an entirely different matter. That is in fact, a Constitutional protection. People (especially people who are 'progressive' on an issue) LOVE to find out that someone who believes in individual liberty and privacy does something 'untoward' in their private lives that they do not want shown in public.

THAT is IMO what is hypocritical... for someone who supports people's right to 'be who they are'... but to then 'out' and 'shame' someone who chooses to keep their private life, private. That's beyond hypocritical and if the roles were reversed, those people would likely be claiming some sort of 'attack' or 'crime'.

The issue that some men like to dress in women's clothing is certainly an issue for some... but the much bigger and certainly the more concerning issue for MORE on the right is that 'they' now want that to be accepted in public.... especially in front of children who may or may not be intellectually prepared to process it.... as some say... involving especially young children in adult matters.

Again, if you were making a funny comment, I get it.... I hops you also understand that SOME people make the same comment, and they are serious about it. This response is intended to respond to those people.

(09-27-2023 08:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Among other things, I had a serious fall over the weekend and was in considerable pain when I responded.

Brother.... I hope you're feeling better/recovering. Please be well and safe.

(09-27-2023 08:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My only excuse is that things have not been going well on this side of the monitor. Among other things, I had a serious fall over the weekend and was in considerable pain when I responded.

Hope you are doing better, and hope you will recover speedily.

(09-27-2023 09:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 08:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My only excuse is that things have not been going well on this side of the monitor. Among other things, I had a serious fall over the weekend and was in considerable pain when I responded.

Hope you are doing better, and hope you will recover speedily.

Seconded (thirded?)

(09-27-2023 05:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 01:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 01:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Unclear to me who spouts more BS, the D's or the R's.

Keep looking.

Neither side is lily pure but it's clear which side supports the most inane legislation.

It’s impressive that we can find common ground here. I too believe that the Republican Party supports the most inane legislation.

I cant even point to any specific legislation the Republican Party has moved on in the last 3 years, mind you.

I would have to vote on D supporting the most inane legislation, since the Rs really dont support much of anything that I can see these days in terms of legislation.

Or positions for that matter.

I think it depends on which R’s and D’s you’re talking about.

R’s at the state level across the country have been passing inane legislation in the forms of abortion bans, book bans, and removal of local control in many facets.

Off the top of my head, at the House level there was an attempt to ban ESG considerations in investments. But it’s a bit harder to remember things here because of the divided government.

My response should have been clearly tongue in cheek. I’d agree that, in general, one of my biggest criticisms of the Republican Party has been what you pointed out - they don’t seem to have a clear stance on many topics besides being against whatever the Democratic Party supports. So you have a point that, effectively, the process of elimination points to the D’s since they are the ones more actively pushing legislation out to the masses. Then it really is just one’s opinion on what is inane.

Yes, lately it is more the left that passes stupid stuff because since 1-20-21, they have had the power. And yes, of course opinions vary on what is stupid. Some people even think the GND is a compendium of good ideas. Some people think it is important to rename schools.

I think the Republicans suppress their extremists better that the D's. In fact, the D's seem to support and encourage legislation that sounds good but leads nowhere. And I don't mean just legislation but also policies, passed and suggested, that are inane.

Biden's environmental push is one. The falsely named Inflation Reduction Act, the push to sell EVs, the drilling curtailments and regulations that have not only taken from us our self-sufficiency, but ignited inflation...how can a rational person not see these as inane?

Is the push to name oneself as a sanctuary city or state rooted in reason? Is the ignoring of the border crisis a demonstration of thoughtful policy? We can see the result nightly.

My criticism of the Dems has long been that they don't look past the first domino, to both expected and unexpected consequences of their feel policies. Crime is on the increase in a lot of blue states. Did nobody blue foresee this would be a result of Defund The Police? Of electing DAs who revised who can be prosecuted or held in a manner that puts arrested criminals back on the street? The R's could.

Of course, no political side is without its crackpots. I agree, those who want to ban abortion completely are inane. That ship has sailed. But the true debate is is not if, but when. The more extreme - in either direction - the more inane. But the ones who insist that a fetus is not a human are the most inane.

The current leftist campaign against parental control of their children is inane, IMO. Legislation to keep major life decisions a secret from parents is inane, IMO, as is the attempt to label involved parents as terrorists.

Responding to every usage of a gun with demands for more of the same legislation that failed is inane. Stricter background checks and longer waiting periods do not prevent violence any better than releasing criminals.

(09-27-2023 09:03 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 08:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The fascination with people in drag from the Republican party over the past decade is... something.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks?

Obviously it is a little... but I don't know how much 'tongue in cheek' this is.... for the purposes of this response, I am assuming 'only a little'.... so please disregard if a lot was intended.

iirc, though... this is one of Saul Alinsky's strategies....
You 'normalize' something that is not (at the time) normal... and then when people protest about you trying to make something 'normal' that is not... you turn it on them as being 'overly concerned' about it.

There is absolutely nothing at all inconsistent or hypocritical or 'un-Republican' and certainly not Fascist or any other sort of 'authoritarian' claim about someone who thinks that what people do in the privacy of their own homes is nobody else's business or concern... but when you put that on display in public, that is an entirely different matter. That is in fact, a Constitutional protection. People (especially people who are 'progressive' on an issue) LOVE to find out that someone who believes in individual liberty and privacy does something 'untoward' in their private lives that they do not want shown in public.

THAT is IMO what is hypocritical... for someone who supports people's right to 'be who they are'... but to then 'out' and 'shame' someone who chooses to keep their private life, private. That's beyond hypocritical and if the roles were reversed, those people would likely be claiming some sort of 'attack' or 'crime'.

The issue that some men like to dress in women's clothing is certainly an issue for some... but the much bigger and certainly the more concerning issue for MORE on the right is that 'they' now want that to be accepted in public.... especially in front of children who may or may not be intellectually prepared to process it.... as some say... involving especially young children in adult matters.

Again, if you were making a funny comment, I get it.... I hops you also understand that SOME people make the same comment, and they are serious about it. This response is intended to respond to those people.

The issue is that most of the legislation pushed by the Rs for 'drag shows' is properly dealt with in existing obscenity laws.

Many of the laws being pushed could easily be read onto stuff that is *not* in any way, shape, or form 'obscenity'.

Another aspect from those who support those wide and expansive laws is of the form 'I dont care that a play based on "Victor, Victoria" could be unconstitutional, let them be arrested and challenge it.' Coupled with the vociferous antagonism at literally 'reading to children while in a blue gingham dress'.

I see those attitudes in the Hill Country --- they are not limited to the Spin Room folks.

I guess that it is good that the Rs have found *some* issue to toss to their flock to gather them in. Back in my 30s, the issues used to be of the form of states rights federalism, tax rates, encumbrance of business by the EPA and OSHA, and an actual support of law and order -- that support even aimed at people of their own political stripe when it occurred. You know, the all-star hits of the Reagan era.

Those main planks have been supplanted by drag queen issue, trans athlete issues, and weaponization of the justice system. Interestingly on the most latter issue, I havent seen any clamoring over any rank injustice re: the indictment of Bob Menendez.

The fuel of 'the injustice to Paxton' clamor to 'Menendez injustice' -- that ratio seems to be as close to infinite as I can ascertain.

The Republican party has seriously lost their way, imo. I think it will be a long path towards a Republican Party that addresses serious matters as issues instead of the smorgasbord of hot button issues that seemingly presently exists.

Too bad folks like Will Hurd are the small voices in the party at present.

The biggest voices in the party seemingly from my perspective focus on victimization, retribution for the steal of 2020, and persecution complex -- not a long term winning formula in my opinion. And the voices are increasingly shrill in a Maoist-style 'purity' sense. Take a look at Buzbee's closing argument in the Paxton case, or Kari Lake's message to non MAGA in her race.

(09-27-2023 09:03 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 08:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The fascination with people in drag from the Republican party over the past decade is... something.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks?

Obviously it is a little... but I don't know how much 'tongue in cheek' this is.... for the purposes of this response, I am assuming 'only a little'.... so please disregard if a lot was intended.

iirc, though... this is one of Saul Alinsky's strategies....
You 'normalize' something that is not (at the time) normal... and then when people protest about you trying to make something 'normal' that is not... you turn it on them as being 'overly concerned' about it.

There is absolutely nothing at all inconsistent or hypocritical or 'un-Republican' and certainly not Fascist or any other sort of 'authoritarian' claim about someone who thinks that what people do in the privacy of their own homes is nobody else's business or concern... but when you put that on display in public, that is an entirely different matter. That is in fact, a Constitutional protection. People (especially people who are 'progressive' on an issue) LOVE to find out that someone who believes in individual liberty and privacy does something 'untoward' in their private lives that they do not want shown in public.

THAT is IMO what is hypocritical... for someone who supports people's right to 'be who they are'... but to then 'out' and 'shame' someone who chooses to keep their private life, private.

Sure... but there are plenty of examples of R's/conservatives/religious right folks who seem to have a massive issue with homosexuals in general (like and over-the-top animosity/fascination) that are found out to be absolutely going to town in their private life. THAT is also beyond hypocritical.

Quote: That's beyond hypocritical and if the roles were reversed, those people would likely be claiming some sort of 'attack' or 'crime'.

The issue that some men like to dress in women's clothing is certainly an issue for some... but the much bigger and certainly the more concerning issue for MORE on the right is that 'they' now want that to be accepted in public.... especially in front of children who may or may not be intellectually prepared to process it.... as some say... involving especially young children in adult matters.

Again, if you were making a funny comment, I get it.... I hops you also understand that SOME people make the same comment, and they are serious about it. This response is intended to respond to those people.

Yeah... it was basically tongue-in-cheek.

(09-27-2023 09:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 09:03 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 08:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The fascination with people in drag from the Republican party over the past decade is... something.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks?

Obviously it is a little... but I don't know how much 'tongue in cheek' this is.... for the purposes of this response, I am assuming 'only a little'.... so please disregard if a lot was intended.

iirc, though... this is one of Saul Alinsky's strategies....
You 'normalize' something that is not (at the time) normal... and then when people protest about you trying to make something 'normal' that is not... you turn it on them as being 'overly concerned' about it.

There is absolutely nothing at all inconsistent or hypocritical or 'un-Republican' and certainly not Fascist or any other sort of 'authoritarian' claim about someone who thinks that what people do in the privacy of their own homes is nobody else's business or concern... but when you put that on display in public, that is an entirely different matter. That is in fact, a Constitutional protection. People (especially people who are 'progressive' on an issue) LOVE to find out that someone who believes in individual liberty and privacy does something 'untoward' in their private lives that they do not want shown in public.

THAT is IMO what is hypocritical... for someone who supports people's right to 'be who they are'... but to then 'out' and 'shame' someone who chooses to keep their private life, private. That's beyond hypocritical and if the roles were reversed, those people would likely be claiming some sort of 'attack' or 'crime'.

The issue that some men like to dress in women's clothing is certainly an issue for some... but the much bigger and certainly the more concerning issue for MORE on the right is that 'they' now want that to be accepted in public.... especially in front of children who may or may not be intellectually prepared to process it.... as some say... involving especially young children in adult matters.

Again, if you were making a funny comment, I get it.... I hops you also understand that SOME people make the same comment, and they are serious about it. This response is intended to respond to those people.

The issue is that most of the legislation pushed by the Rs for 'drag shows' is properly dealt with in existing obscenity laws.

Many of the laws being pushed could easily be read onto stuff that is *not* in any way, shape, or form 'obscenity'.

Another aspect from those who support those wide and expansive laws is of the form 'I dont care that a play based on "Victor, Victoria" could be unconstitutional, let them be arrested and challenge it.' Coupled with the vociferous antagonism at literally 'reading to children while in a blue gingham dress'.

I see those attitudes in the Hill Country --- they are not limited to the Spin Room folks.

I guess that it is good that the Rs have found *some* issue to toss to their flock to gather them in. Back in my 30s, the issues used to be of the form of states rights federalism, tax rates, encumbrance of business by the EPA and OSHA, and an actual support of law and order -- that support even aimed at people of their own political stripe when it occurred. You know, the all-star hits of the Reagan era.

Those main planks have been supplanted by drag queen issue, trans athlete issues, and weaponization of the justice system. Interestingly on the most latter issue, I havent seen any clamoring over any rank injustice re: the indictment of Bob Menendez.

The fuel of 'the injustice to Paxton' clamor to 'Menendez injustice' -- that ratio seems to be as close to infinite as I can ascertain.

The Republican party has seriously lost their way, imo. I think it will be a long path towards a Republican Party that addresses serious matters as issues instead of the smorgasbord of hot button issues that seemingly presently exists.

Too bad folks like Will Hurd are the small voices in the party at present.

The biggest voices in the party seemingly from my perspective focus on victimization, retribution for the steal of 2020, and persecution complex -- not a long term winning formula in my opinion. And the voices are increasingly shrill in a Maoist-style 'purity' sense. Take a look at Buzbee's closing argument in the Paxton case, or Kari Lake's message to non MAGA in her race.

Speaking of Will Hurd - he was recently a co-host of the Pivot Podcast. He joined Kara Swisher when her usual co-host stepped out for the month of August.

Talk about the type of Republican who could unite a lot of people that are near the ideological middle of the road. I very much enjoyed listening to him speak about policy issues and his stance on some of them in a way that felt very measured, reasonable, and most importantly, pragmatic!

(09-27-2023 09:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 09:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 09:03 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 08:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The fascination with people in drag from the Republican party over the past decade is... something.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks?

Obviously it is a little... but I don't know how much 'tongue in cheek' this is.... for the purposes of this response, I am assuming 'only a little'.... so please disregard if a lot was intended.

iirc, though... this is one of Saul Alinsky's strategies....
You 'normalize' something that is not (at the time) normal... and then when people protest about you trying to make something 'normal' that is not... you turn it on them as being 'overly concerned' about it.

There is absolutely nothing at all inconsistent or hypocritical or 'un-Republican' and certainly not Fascist or any other sort of 'authoritarian' claim about someone who thinks that what people do in the privacy of their own homes is nobody else's business or concern... but when you put that on display in public, that is an entirely different matter. That is in fact, a Constitutional protection. People (especially people who are 'progressive' on an issue) LOVE to find out that someone who believes in individual liberty and privacy does something 'untoward' in their private lives that they do not want shown in public.

THAT is IMO what is hypocritical... for someone who supports people's right to 'be who they are'... but to then 'out' and 'shame' someone who chooses to keep their private life, private. That's beyond hypocritical and if the roles were reversed, those people would likely be claiming some sort of 'attack' or 'crime'.

The issue that some men like to dress in women's clothing is certainly an issue for some... but the much bigger and certainly the more concerning issue for MORE on the right is that 'they' now want that to be accepted in public.... especially in front of children who may or may not be intellectually prepared to process it.... as some say... involving especially young children in adult matters.

Again, if you were making a funny comment, I get it.... I hops you also understand that SOME people make the same comment, and they are serious about it. This response is intended to respond to those people.

The issue is that most of the legislation pushed by the Rs for 'drag shows' is properly dealt with in existing obscenity laws.

Many of the laws being pushed could easily be read onto stuff that is *not* in any way, shape, or form 'obscenity'.

Another aspect from those who support those wide and expansive laws is of the form 'I dont care that a play based on "Victor, Victoria" could be unconstitutional, let them be arrested and challenge it.' Coupled with the vociferous antagonism at literally 'reading to children while in a blue gingham dress'.

I see those attitudes in the Hill Country --- they are not limited to the Spin Room folks.

I guess that it is good that the Rs have found *some* issue to toss to their flock to gather them in. Back in my 30s, the issues used to be of the form of states rights federalism, tax rates, encumbrance of business by the EPA and OSHA, and an actual support of law and order -- that support even aimed at people of their own political stripe when it occurred. You know, the all-star hits of the Reagan era.

Those main planks have been supplanted by drag queen issue, trans athlete issues, and weaponization of the justice system. Interestingly on the most latter issue, I havent seen any clamoring over any rank injustice re: the indictment of Bob Menendez.

The fuel of 'the injustice to Paxton' clamor to 'Menendez injustice' -- that ratio seems to be as close to infinite as I can ascertain.

The Republican party has seriously lost their way, imo. I think it will be a long path towards a Republican Party that addresses serious matters as issues instead of the smorgasbord of hot button issues that seemingly presently exists.

Too bad folks like Will Hurd are the small voices in the party at present.

The biggest voices in the party seemingly from my perspective focus on victimization, retribution for the steal of 2020, and persecution complex -- not a long term winning formula in my opinion. And the voices are increasingly shrill in a Maoist-style 'purity' sense. Take a look at Buzbee's closing argument in the Paxton case, or Kari Lake's message to non MAGA in her race.

Speaking of Will Hurd - he was recently a co-host of the Pivot Podcast. He joined Kara Swisher when her usual co-host stepped out for the month of August.

Talk about the type of Republican who could unite a lot of people that are near the ideological middle of the road. I very much enjoyed listening to him speak about policy issues and his stance on some of them in a way that felt very measured, reasonable, and most importantly, pragmatic!

I've met him a number of times. I am fairly tight with a group of tech money people who have supported him in his Congressional races, and they tend to invite me to his stuff as their guest. Last few times he actually greeted me by name.

Great guy. Great view on things. If I could do more to help him out I would.

I will say I do *not* agree with Will on his *very* extreme stance on Trump. Will makes my stance look like an appeasement to MAGA, mind you.

Biden's border

"Salinas lamented that Biden was willing to stand alongside United Auto Workers recently but has left people in Eagle Pass on their own."

Seems kind of inane to me.

DC murders

"MPD has lost 1,400 officers since 2020. The police union has blamed the city council's actions for the rise in crime."

Seems kind of inane to defund the police, but...

(09-27-2023 09:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Sure... but there are plenty of examples of R's/conservatives/religious right folks who seem to have a massive issue with homosexuals in general (like and over-the-top animosity/fascination) that are found out to be absolutely going to town in their private life. THAT is also beyond hypocritical.

Yeah... we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

I'm not saying there aren't any hypocrites on this side... by any measure... I'm simply saying that there is a massive difference between (an obvious example) a guy getting a bj from another man in his bedroom and on a parade float or at a children's party. The 'sin' to me (and most Christians I know, but yes not all of them... just a huge majority of the ones I know or have heard of) is really immaterial. The guy who drinks too much at home is just as big a sinner as the guy who drinks too much at a bar... but when the guy who drinks too much at the bar drives himself home, he becomes a much bigger sinner than the one who passes out at home.... and ALL of us are sinners.

I suspect even most of the Christians you know would fall into that category... where they are upset with 'whatever' not because of the sinfulness of the act... but because of the context of the sinful act. Yes, I'm a sinner too... but I'm not corrupting anyone else with my sin.

This again to me is an example of Alinsky... Where there have always been gay people, but it was mostly in the closet. The left pushed to get it out of the closet, but not in order to end it. Now that it is out of the closet, the left (on the issue, not as a whole) is pushing to 'normalize' it, again not to end it.... and certainly not to 'hide' it.... but instead literally to celebrate it. To take PRIDE in it.

That to me and I believe, MOST of the right is the issue. Sure, if you ask a lot of them they will say they think being gay is a sin... and most people talking about it stop there... but they would list all sorts of other things... some that they themselves engage in as sins... as we are ALL sinners... but only one of us is seeking to celebrate it, especially in front of kids.

Let's put it in another context... I know plenty of parents who smoke and can't quit who want to keep their minor children from smoking. Are they hypocrites? I'd argue they were weak, but not hypocrites... especially in that once the kid turns 18 or 21, they can do whatever the heck they want. If you can't advertise the Marlboro man or Joe the Camel, how can you advertise the infantilized pseudo female that the bud light 'person' embodies? He quite literally impersonates an adolescent girl drinking beer.

(09-27-2023 01:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 09:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Sure... but there are plenty of examples of R's/conservatives/religious right folks who seem to have a massive issue with homosexuals in general (like and over-the-top animosity/fascination) that are found out to be absolutely going to town in their private life. THAT is also beyond hypocritical.

Yeah... we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

I'm not saying there aren't any hypocrites on this side... by any measure... I'm simply saying that there is a massive difference between (an obvious example) a guy getting a bj from another man in his bedroom and on a parade float or at a children's party. The 'sin' to me (and most Christians I know, but yes not all of them... just a huge majority of the ones I know or have heard of) is really immaterial. The guy who drinks too much at home is just as big a sinner as the guy who drinks too much at a bar... but when the guy who drinks too much at the bar drives himself home, he becomes a much bigger sinner than the one who passes out at home.... and ALL of us are sinners.

I suspect even most of the Christians you know would fall into that category... where they are upset with 'whatever' not because of the sinfulness of the act... but because of the context of the sinful act. Yes, I'm a sinner too... but I'm not corrupting anyone else with my sin.

This again to me is an example of Alinsky... Where there have always been gay people, but it was mostly in the closet. The left pushed to get it out of the closet, but not in order to end it. Now that it is out of the closet, the left (on the issue, not as a whole) is pushing to 'normalize' it, again not to end it.... and certainly not to 'hide' it.... but instead literally to celebrate it. To take PRIDE in it.

That to me and I believe, MOST of the right is the issue. Sure, if you ask a lot of them they will say they think being gay is a sin... and most people talking about it stop there... but they would list all sorts of other things... some that they themselves engage in as sins... as we are ALL sinners... but only one of us is seeking to celebrate it, especially in front of kids.

Let's put it in another context... I know plenty of parents who smoke and can't quit who want to keep their minor children from smoking. Are they hypocrites? I'd argue they were weak, but not hypocrites... especially in that once the kid turns 18 or 21, they can do whatever the heck they want. If you can't advertise the Marlboro man or Joe the Camel, how can you advertise the infantilized pseudo female that the bud light 'person' embodies? He quite literally impersonates an adolescent girl drinking beer.

I'm not sure that we have to disagree in that I think that we're discussing apples/oranges.

You are talking about a person who may be homosexual in his private life. Sure... he or she isn't hurting anybody and should certainly not be outed.

I'm talking about those people who participate in overtly hateful rhetoric towards gay people. Another example would be those evangelicals who advocate for gay conversion programs (something that, IIRC, have been shown to be quite harmful to gay people) but then turn out to be gay IRL. That would be the hypocrisy that I'm discussing.

In the 'hypocrite issue' -- I sure have gotten a lot of chuckles from Boebert who rails against drag shows as being obscene, then reaches down her date's pants in a public setting and (from the video) appears to do a bit more than just copping a feel of his rising interest.

You cant get much more mind numbingly fktard stupid than that.

Oh wait..... you can.

Boebert now blames her date for her one handed 'johnson jostle' in the theater -- the reason for the blame is that he is a Democrat.

JFC on cracker.

Anybody watch the GOP debate last night?

Total s***show.

Candidates took the approach of completely ignoring the questions and instead launching into a prepared speech on whatever the wanted to an entirely new level. At any given time there were 3-4 people constantly talking over each other so it was impossible to hear anything.

Moderators did a terrible job IMO.

(09-27-2023 09:04 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 08:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Among other things, I had a serious fall over the weekend and was in considerable pain when I responded.

Brother.... I hope you're feeling better/recovering. Please be well and safe.

Luckily no serious injuries - soreness, which is fading, and some minor cuts. Thanks for the concern. Today for the first time I had enough range of motion in my right arm to shave.

(09-28-2023 10:02 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Anybody watch the GOP debate last night?

Total s***show.

Candidates took the approach of completely ignoring the questions and instead launching into a prepared speech on whatever the wanted to an entirely new level. At any given time there were 3-4 people constantly talking over each other so it was impossible to hear anything.

Moderators did a terrible job IMO.

No, I had better things to do, but I note that it is standard political practice to change the topic to whatever the politician wants to talk about. Not standard debate practice, though, i would guess.