Your Solutions on....

Not all republicans are 'anti-gay'. I most certainly am not against homosexuals.

Briana Dawson

I have to take the blame for "seeding" the discussion with the Lynn (Mary) Cheney mistake. I edited my previous post to reflect the change.

It's just much easier to toss in all conservatives with anti-gay wacko facist republicans.

Never in all my life did I ever think I would be posting an Op-Ed piece from the LA Times as a *good* thing, but here goes:

Max Boot: Forget privacy, we need to spy more
Electronic surveillance is a key weapon in the war on terror. Don't handcuff the president and the NSA.
May 17, 2006

PRETTY MUCH everyone agrees that our human-spy capacity is missing in action. The chances that a CIA agent will be in the same cave as Osama bin Laden when the next 9/11 is being plotted are vanishingly small. The chances that our porous border security or transportation security will stop the next gang of Islamist cutthroats aren't much better. It's simply impossible to protect every inviting target in a continent-sized nation of almost 300 million people.

When it comes to the war on terror, the biggest advantage we have comes from our electronic wizardry. The National Security Agency has its share of problems, but it has long been the best in the business at intercepting and deciphering enemy communications. Until now. If civil liberties agitators, grandstanding politicians and self-righteous newspaper editorialists have their way, we will have to give up our most potent line of defense because of largely hypothetical concerns about privacy violations.


Assorted critics, taking a break from castigating the Bush administration for doing too little to protect the homeland, are now castigating it for doing too much. How dare the NSA receive without benefit of a court order telephone logs from AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon? Even though the records were anonymous and did not include the contents of any calls (Verizon and BellSouth have now denied offering any information at all), hyperventilating worrywarts fret that fascism has descended.

Qwest is supposed to be the hero of this drama for having, in USA Today's words, "the integrity to resist government pressure." That is not a compliment often paid to a company that has been accused of massive fraud and whose former chief executive is charged with 42 counts of insider trading. Maybe Qwest should celebrate by launching an advertising campaign touting itself as the preferred telecom provider of Al Qaeda.

All this concern with privacy would be touching if it weren't so selective. With a few keystrokes, Google will display anything posted by or about you. A few more keystrokes can in all probability uncover the date of your birth, your address and telephone number and every place you have lived, along with satellite photos of the houses and how much you paid for them, any court actions you have been involved in and much, much more.

It is only a little more work to obtain your full credit history and Social Security number. Or details of your shopping, traveling and Web-browsing habits. Such information is routinely gathered and sold by myriad marketing outfits. So it's OK to violate your privacy to sell you something — but not to protect you from being blown up.



HOW FAR DO the civil-liberties absolutists want to take their logic? Will troops in Afghanistan and Iraq soon have to read Miranda warnings to captured suspects and apply for a court's permission before searching a terrorist safe house? Or do such niceties stop at our borders, thereby giving Al Qaeda and its ilk the freedom to operate unhindered only in the U.S.?

Much of this silliness can be traced to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which for the first time made judges the overseers of our spymasters. This was an understandable reaction to such abuses as the FBI's wiretapping of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. But FISA is a luxury we can no longer afford. Were it not for FISA's high standard of "probable cause," the FBI could have examined Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop in August 2001 and perhaps saved 3,000 lives. The Patriot Act scaled back some FISA provisions, such as the "wall" between intelligence and law enforcement agents, but enough remain intact to raise unnecessary questions about the legality of some much-needed homeland security measures.

This archaic law should be euthanized. Replace it with legislation that gives the president permission to order any surveillance deemed necessary, subject to only one proviso: If it is later determined that an intelligence-gathering operation was not ordered for legitimate national security objectives — if, for instance, it was designed to gather dirt on political opponents — then the culprits would be punished with lengthy prison sentences. Given that our intelligence bureaucracy leaks like a sinking ship, it is a safe bet that any hanky-panky would become front-page news faster than you can say "Pulitzer Prize."

So far there has been no suggestion that the NSA has done anything with disreputable motives. The administration has nothing to be ashamed of. The only scandal here is that some people favor unilateral disarmament in our struggle against the suicide bombers.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot17may17,1,1950023.column?coll=la-util-op-ed&ctrack=1&cset=true

-Kiamat Dusk

The Republican national platform calls for an amendment to the US Constitution to ban people like me from marrying. If you are a Republican, that's your platform. The state platforms are even worse. Texas, for example, calls for the Americans With Disabilities Act to be amended to exclude people who become disabled due to HIV/AIDS and for the reinstatement of sodomy laws.

I'm not tossing all conservatives in with the anti-gay, wacko, fascist republicans. If you are a member of the Republican Party, you threw yourself in. Take some responsibility for your own actions. Isn't that what Republicans are supposed to be for? LOL, that and fiscal responsibility....

All Republicans belong to a party that advocates anti-gay legislation. So, no, of course YOU'RE not against homosexuals. You just belong to a party that is. It doesn't make YOU a bad person. It just makes you somebody who goes along with people who are. That's not so bad, is it?

No, you just elect people who are. It is a fine line.

Michal and Turbo

You all need to chill the fuck out on the anti-gay shit.

How fucking ignorant are you if you think that a single person can vote for a candidate or party that meets all the criteria they want them to meet?

I'm sorry that Gay Marriage isn't my #1 priority when I go to the ballot box. I can't believe you have the nerve to suggest that we are guilty by association when all of us have clearly stated our views are contrary to the anti-gay position you try to attach to us.

**edited**

First off, I'm not acting indignant, I am indignant. I am sick of hearing from Republicans who tell me they're not anti-gay. If I belonged to a party that advocated racial segregation how would you react if I told you I wasn't racist, but racial segregation wasn't my #1 priority when I go to the ballot box? How would you feel if I told you that another person's civil rights weren't important enough for me to change my vote over? What would you think of me? That's how I think of Republicans. You choose who you associate with. You choose which party you join, who you vote for. If Republicans didn't go along with the "anti-gay shit", the party wouldn't have it in its platform.

No, not every party or candidate can meet all your criteria. But don't tell me you can't be criticized for how you select which criteria you find important and which you're willing to overlook. For me, this isn't some arcane discussion of policy, this is my life. Sorry if I take it seriously.

Honestly, most people don't give a shit about what you want. You should be more careful about the people you attack. I understand this is a deeply personal issue for you, so I want to make an effort to cool the rhetoric down. I'm not against you.

I know most people don't give a shit. But why should I be more careful about who I "attack"? Are the Republicans going to suddenly start being nice to me? Are you all going to cut the homophobia from your party platform and suddenly recognize the 14th Amendment? Or am I just going to hear that you and you and you don't agree with all that, but well, you know, you all still belong to the party 'cause it's not #1 or #2 or #5 on your list of concerns. You'll all wring your hands and tell me there's nothing you can really do. Then you'll go out and vote for yet another gay-baiting hate monger. But at least you said you weren't anti-gay. And that's what's really important. It's not what you do, after all, it's what you say.

Ok, you be angry. Take care.

*sigh* This is precisely the type of off topic tangent that I was hoping to avoid. This is why thread starters should be able to moderate their own threads. So let's try and nip this in the bud, shall we?

Republicans vs. Homosexuals
http://online.logcabin.org/

Democrats vs. Anti-Abortion
http://www.democratsforlife.org/


There are plenty of other examples of party members who do not advocate every party talking point.

Can we get back to the topic now, please?

-Kiamat Dusk

One example:

Judy Baar Topinka, Republican and State Treasure of Illinois, has marched in gay parades, and support gay rights. Your guilty by association argument is nothing but misplaced anger.

Briana Dawson

Kiamat the simplest answer here is why people have a problem with the current administration. They started up a war that was really meaningless, sent countless people in a kill or be killed situation, stired up more hatred towards the U.S, caused gas prices to sky rocket, have wanted to make ways to tap people's phones that they feel may be potential terrorists, skewed the seperation between church and state even more then it was already, and many other things. I could write a 10 page list for you if you'd like lol. There is alot of logical reasoning behind them naysaying this administration.

Another bit I'd like to point out is Chip is perfectly rational. I'd also like to state 9/11 happened because of just what Chip said. The U.S tends to poke its nose into quite a bit of things it shouldnt and leads to hatred of the american people. Notice the attack wasnt against members of the free world or western culture just us. There was also a lapse in intelligence in the CIA who treated what they knew b4 this happened as nothing. Its the point that it could of been prevented that pisses alot of people off.

This administration Has caused alot of problems Kiamat sugar coating it or not. And these nay sayers are probably the more intelligent people in the U.S that actually think logically about the situation. This administration getting into office a 2nd time proves some things i wont state here but people didnt get the point after the first few years in office or so it would seem. Back throughout history this president most likely would of been impeached. If i had some say i'd put this administration up for treason against the united states.

They have lead to so many problems and deaths over the past few years and its really time people start realizing how bad it really is.

we are the leaders of the free world and western culture and if you are going to attack your enemy you always go after their leadership, every army in the world teaches that. oh and London and Madrid were just "three's companyesque" misunderstandings?

Now also in all honesty what is the difference between us and these "terrorists" hmmm? Arnt we doing the same thing they did in reality just sugar coating it and saying its the right thing because its us doing it? Look at it this way we went to iraq and did what? Attacked them hoping to set up our own form of government or setting up a democracy there. If we wanna get into history lessons with it look at the cold war and the fight against communism as an example. The U.S proved time and time again that it was afraid of other forms of government and its pretty logical that this is some of the reasoning behind us being in iraq.

Another point Saddam and weapons of mass destruction. WMD's were not found in fact the weapons Saddam does have were provided by the U.S during war time. We essentially gave Saddam his power. I could relatively go on here for hours and hours and hours and explain why things happened but it'd be pointless. It's not about being a left wing radicals or anything its to do with the fact this was uneccessary.

Also on the history lesson part fighting in the middle east has been going on for over 2000 some odd years. Like we are going to just stop it really come on. As i have told numerous people that unless the u.s stays over there and controls the government itself there is no way in hell things are going to stay the same. Think of this as tant amount to me walking into your house and murdering you because you simply own a poodle and i like shi tzus. And i know this may sound harsh but it is the U.S that causes most of the problems in the World as of late by getting involved in them.

We can compare iraq to vietnam which was really the same thing. A totally pointless war. Look at all the people still suffering from having gone over there, mentally, physically, etc. The security of your friends wouldnt be in danger if the U.S government actually took its Intelligence reports seriously. It was 1 attack on the U.S and i think it opened alot of people's eyes!

Ok lets go with this for a sec. I laugh in all honesty at calling us the leaders of the free world. What freedoms do we really have in the U.S they wanna do phone taps etc. And western culture is just getting into trouble as really the U.K is far more beyond freedoms and culture then the U.S is. I could get into the immigration laws here and racism in the u.s to back it all up.

First off immigration. Remember 1 thing your ancestors were immigrants at one point (except those of pure indian blood which we cant really claim they werent at one point to) yet we wanna filter them because they are "stealing" jobs from U.S citizens. Most of these jobs are things people dont wanna do anyways. While we say we are the leaders of the free world the statement itself is kinda a joke.

When cultures get beyond us and understand our own laws better then we do there is something wrong with the people leading that culture. Go after the leadership of the enemy is attacking the group responsible not the people of that culture so shut it lol. We got after the man or the "group" leading a culture but attacking the people in the culture is rather well .... illegal if you wanna get into it.

Look at what we did to the Nazi party for it thats a perfect example. Look at what happened in vietnam. Look at alot of it and honestly tell me we are actually a free world. The U.S would covert and control every single country in the world if they could. Its a fear of other forms of government that we simply feel is morally wrong but thats how that culture is. Its been that way for over 2000 years and we plan to change it in mabye a decade. Really now come on. We will be at war forever over there if we really want to change how things work.

Ok lets get into republican views here lol. First off Republican's are governmental theory is seriously flawed and hurts the population more then it helps them. Only a small majority of the population earn over 200,000 dollars a year and that is the only real group that gets helped by the republicans. The trickle down job platform is bogus and the anti-gay things step over constitunal claims of a seperation between church and state. The democratic party are more for the people but at the same time it still some rich prick in office that doesnt actually know what we need. As long as the country is controlled in the manner it is it is going to be a problem.

Lets compare the U.S and the U.K for a minute here yet again. U.K passed laws making gay marriage legal, U.S is passing laws to make it illegal, U.S racially is quite unaccepting even if they claim they are tolerant, U.K is very tolerant of other races, U.S is quite controlled by religious groups and use it as a platform for presidential campaigns, The U.K does not. Quite funny to compare it yet we claim freedom. I think the U.K is a perfect example of what the U.S should be and what the constitution itself claims we are.

sure the UK is tolerant of races unless your Irish. the Brits did the exact same thing in Ireland as we are in Iraq, and they are better than us? no don't think so equal maybe but better, no. Oh and fearful of governments, the US wasn't the only one in the Cold War. Oh and one of the main teachings of Lenin was to spread communism to the whole world. so i think there was a decent reason to be fearful of the commie's.

Currently yes the u.k is better then us. They may of done the same thing or so you claim but there was actual terrorism brought on by the irish against people from britan etc. Now iraq never attacked the U.S in fact they have been allies in the past. We gave saddam weapons. Afghanistan attacked the U.S yet we put almost all our efforts into attacking iraq not looking for the purpitrators behind the attacks. Have you seen news reports of iraq asking what the people think of the U.S troops being there? Most of them hate us. Its growing hatred like this that causes things like 9/11 to happen.

Sure the british attacked ireland and sure it was alot like this but they dont have the same history nor claim alot of the things we do about many freedoms of which we really dont have. They are more honest with their people and the things in ireland werent protested as much due to it. We are in the dark with the situation in iraq and thats something that needs to be reconsidered the people have the right to know what their government is doing.

And for the Stalin/Lenin thing ill get into it not really being communism again because it isnt. It was just facism disgused with a different name but the U.S reaction to it was quite worse then the russian people's reaction to it. Sure the berlin wall was made and things from the west were banished. It gave rise to new art forms and stuff mind you. We discriminated much like we did after pearl harbor was attacked and it is really kind of unfair to say Lenin and Stalin were communists because they were not. The real vision of communism is blurred by the flaws of man. Human nature wont allow communism to work ever. People get greedy be it for money or power and its seen time and time again.

Its kind sad to see the state of this country at the moment with the people that are currently in power ruining it. But its been defiled over history by corruption. The U.K in its current state was how this country was written in the constitution and its pretty bad that our own leaders understand it less then another country!

have you seen the accounts by veterans from the campaign on this forum talking about how they are actually welcomed by the majority of Iraqis, yet this is never mentioned in the news because the news is out to sell paper's/commercial slots/etc and sadly the best selling news is always bad news. you ever watch the local news programs on TV? they will have 5 negative stories to each positive story (actual numbers may vary, but you get the point). its alot easier to write about soldiers being killed, then about them building schools and giving medical aid and other good things. the government doesn't usually hide something unless it is say protecting a military capability or intelligence sources and things that obviously need to be kept secret, the fact that you don't get the whole story isn't usually the governments fault. its the corporate nature of the news agencies. you know whats ironic about using the UK as an example, there is no constitutionally protected rights of any kind, they don't actually have a constitution. thats why Israel has such liberty with its citizens, that and having a cold war of its own. now you say we aren't free, what have you ever tried to do and where turned down? (aside from gay marriage)

But ... but ... 9/11 was nothing to do with Iraq. *boggling*

Britain's troops entered Northern Ireland initially to protect the catholics, who were the subject of persecution by the protestants. This, I might add, was at a time when IRA bombings became commonplace in the UK. Most people at the time had been involved in a bomb scare or a controlled explosion or an actual bomb. I experienced a controlled explosion in my town, and somebody I know had her boyfriend killed by an IRA bomb.

Unfortunately it's a fact that power corrupts, and despite their training the British troops began to crack under the pressure. Which was extreme, btw. The culmination of this was Bloody Sunday, in which British troops killed 13 Irish civilians. A horrible thing, about which many of us still feel shame.

Interestingly at that time much of the IRA's funds came from America, and also your country refused extradition of two terrorists, which I believe you regard as a serious crime now, when you are not committing it.

i stand corrected, thank you