glad that evangelical got busted?

[djbomberto]

WOW, my eyes hurt from reading so much :shock:

[Scalliwag]

[quote name='jonny_lech'][quote name='Scalliwag']
They can "decry" all they want but when they trample the constitution I say cut off their heads and be done with that shit.  [/quote]

How was this guy trampling on the Constitution? Because he supports anti-gay marriage amendments? Dispicable as it may be, I don't think there's any basis to say it's unconstitutional.

[b] no, the trampling of the constitution I had to sit back and watch was with the detainee bill that could label even U.S. citizens as enemy combatants and be controlled by just a prez and his henchmen. Good article here [url="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/30/MNGNKLFO3P1.DTL"]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGNKLFO3P1.DTL[/url] [/b]




[quote]a whole lot of things that were not illegal such as not agreeing with a president seemed to chap a whole lot of ass yet the majority made those of us out to be unpatriotic was fair game so I have NO mercy on any of the former persecutors.  [/quote]Which in turn just makes them vindictive against you, when they don't all disappear from the face of the earth. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

[b] take a knife to a gunfight and test that theory [/b]

[quote]Santayana said "those that forget history are condemned to repeat it" and we repeated the McCarthy era through a lot of people that had to relive it because they were clueless.  [/quote]

Are you referring to Gitmo?

[b] no, I am talking about republicans calling anyone that was not lockstep with Dubya obstructionists and they gave aid and comfort to the enemy, i.e. anyone that did not give him a full dictatorship was smeared as traitors. Do a google search for Max Cleland and read what was said by republicans about the war hero that came back with two less legs and one arm.
During the McCarthy era they labelled political enemies communists. That is what I mean be reliving history. Maybe you don't remember any of this? "You're either with us or against us"? [/b]

[quote]History teaches me to have mercy on some and none on others. And the party of Joe McCarthy should receive exactly no mercy.  [/quote]Be careful about going back to party history of the 50s. Democrats had quite a few things to not be proud of back then too. In fact, just about no one back then was enviable, on either side! But that's also ancient history, and should the sins of the father carry on to the son?

[b] well, that is true in the 50's. LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and turned to Bill Moyers and said he just handed the South to the republicans for a generation. Well, it was a lot longer than he thought. The KKK and all the white supremecists went republican. I say good riddance!!!! Now they are the GOP's problem now. [/b]

If we only showed compassion to those who deserve it, we would all be screwed...[/quote]

[b] Well if we would have gave compassion to the Nazi party I doubt they would have changed their ways on their own. [/b][/b]

[jonny_lech]

[quote name='Scalliwag'][b] no, the trampling of the constitution I had to sit back and watch was with the detainee bill that could label even U.S. citizens as enemy combatants and be controlled by just a prez and his henchmen. Good article here [url="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/30/MNGNKLFO3P1.DTL"]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGNKLFO3P1.DTL[/url] [/b][/quote]

That has nothing to do with this evangelist being closeted.
He may have even supported this bill, but the sort of sweeping generalization your making is beyond scary and intellectually irresponsible.


[quote][b]take a knife to a gunfight and test that theory [/b][/quote]

So what are you going to do? Bring a gun and kill them all first? What exactly are you advocating here?

[quote][b]Maybe you don't remember any of this? "You're either with us or against us"? [/b][/quote]

With us or against us sounds alot like what you're advocating!
"You're either with us (allowing gay marriage) or against us (and subject to being utterly ostracized, minimized and rejected from society for all time)"
Why is one bad and the other one ok?

[quote][b]well, that is true in the 50's. LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and turned to Bill Moyers and said he just handed the South to the republicans for a generation. Well, it was a lot longer than he thought. The KKK and all the white supremecists went republican. I say good riddance!!!! Now they are the GOP's problem now. [/b][/quote]

Except until '94 it was the Solid South and it was solidly...Democrat.

[quote][b]Well if we would have gave compassion to the Nazi party I doubt they would have changed their ways on their own. [/b][/b][/quote]

Actually, we did. After we beat them, we helped the German people rebuild their country. THAT is mercy. THAT is compassion. If giving no sympathy for this man who is broken by this hyporacy has an analogy, its' the Treaty of Versailles

[Scalliwag]

well not enough time at work to line by line but you are on dope if you think the South was solid democrat until 1994. That I will gladly disprove with voting demographics from the last 40 years when I get home. On that one comment alone you speak volumes.
The gun and knife fight what am I advocating? I am advocating fight fire with fire, make sure yours is a little hotter and better strategically placed under your opponents ass.
Oh and Shiner was talking last night and I thought I was in the voting thread, so not everything I said applied to the dopehead fudgepackin preacher

And we helped the German people build their country. We tried, convicted and in most cases executed those responsible for the war though. Even prison guards were punished. They were called Nazi War Criminals, you should read about them sometime. Some killed themselves before the Nuremburg trials and saved us the trouble.
Some of the roaches that fled were tracked down no matter how old and brought to trial and imprisoned.

[Sonthert]

[quote name='jonny_lech'][quote name='Sonthert']Republican Party...don't forget the party who opposed integration and ending "separate facilities" for African Americans...don't say its ancient history, either. Strom Thurmond, loyal republican, didn't retire more than six years ago or so and he was segregationist and separatist.[/quote]

Yea, but what you're leaving out is that he was a DEMOCRAT when he fillibustered the Civil Rights Act.

What bothers me is that because Bush is raising such a stink, is that people will get the idea that Democrat shit doesn't.

But what can I say? I live here in DC and believe me, they are ALL crooks and bigots.[/quote]

Thats some fallacious thinking there...the entire south was democrat for years...it was the only way to get elected. People used to vote all party tickets and the law was set up to protect party tickets. You voted for R or D and the votes went accordingly. An excerpt from Wikipedia (I know, its short notice): about Strom Thurmond:

"On September 16, 1964; Thurmond, increasingly at odds with the national Democratic party over racial integration switched his party affiliation, becoming a Republican. In South Carolina and other states of the Deep South, white segregationists supported Goldwater in 1964 instead of Johnson, whose support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and integration rankled the segregationists.

Thurmond played an important role in South Carolina's support for Republican presidential candidates Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Richard Nixon in 1968.

South Carolina had supported Democrats in every national election from the end of Reconstruction through 1960. Goldwater, running against the Democrats' support of the Civil Rights Acts, won the state by a large margin in 1964. In 1968, despite the presence of George Wallace on the ballot, Richard Nixon, running the first GOP "Southern Strategy" campaign appealing to disaffected southern white voters, was able to garner South Carolina's electoral votes, running slightly ahead of Wallace. Due to the antagonism of South Carolina whites towards the national Democratic Party, Hubert Humphrey received less than 30% of the total vote, carrying only black areas."

Sounds like the Democrats were opposed to segregation and Thurmond was not, so he switched to the party whom he got along better with (now that republicans could win seats in the South), the Republicans. It is rumored that the democrats told him to get the hell out, seat or no seat in the Senate. If you are really standing there and trying to tell me that the republican party wasn't the supporter of segregation, you really should pick up an impartial history book. Rosa Parks and Martin Luthur King Jr worked to get Lyndon Johnson elected. Sure the old time 1890s democrats supported segregation...everyone did including the rebuplicans more or less...when people began to oppose it, the democrats were the first to oppose it, and the republicans whined and made noise for years trying to keep segregation together. What party did racist David Duke run with? Democrat in 1975, but then switched to the republicans where he found alot more support. All these racist whackos leave the democratic party for the republican party...huh. Seems like the party of racists. Pat Robertson? One of the ones that's been republican all along.

[jonny_lech]

Sonthert I don't REALLY want to get into a deep political debate here, but I'm just gonna run this down real quick and if you something to shoot back at it, that's cool.

You brought up wikipedia. It says right there about Strom:

[quote]In particular, he gained notoriety for conducting the longest filibuster ever conducted by a United States Senator in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957[/quote]Click on Civil Rights Act of 1957.

[quote]The Civil Rights Act of 1957, primarily a voting rights bill, was the first civil rights legislation enacted in the United States since Reconstruction. It was proposed to Congress by President Dwight Eisenhower.[/quote]

Eisenhower was a Republican. What does Wikipedia also say about him?

[quote]isenhower supported the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka U.S. Supreme Court decision, in which segregated ("separate but equal") schools were ruled to be unconstitutional. The very next day he told District of Columbia officials to make Washington a model for the rest of the country in integrating Negro and white public school children.[5]Liberal critics complained Eisenhower was never enthusiastic about civil rights, but he did propose to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. They constituted the first significant civil rights acts since the 1870s. He also sent soldiers to Little Rock to integrate their schools, and admitted multi-racial Hawaii as a state in 1959.

The Little Rock Central High School crisis of 1957 involved state refusal to honor a federal court order to integrate the schools. Eisenhower placed the Arkansas National Guard under federal control and sent Army troops to escort nine black students into the all-white school; this incident did not occur without violence. Eisenhower and Arkansas governor Orval Faubus engaged in tense arguments during this tumultuous period in history.[/quote]

I'm sorry man, but this simply does not jive with
[quote]If you are really standing there and trying to tell me that the republican party wasn't the supporter of segregation, you really should pick up an impartial history book.[/quote]

When the source you quoted to me shows that he introduced and signed civil rights legistlation and was a supporter and enforcer of the landmark Supreme Court case that's generally considered to be the beginning of the end of segregation.

These two things are contradictory. Sure there were (and are) bigots in the Republican party, but to say that it's the segregation party is just wrong.

[jonny_lech]

[quote name='Scalliwag']The gun and knife fight what am I advocating? I am advocating fight fire with fire, make sure yours is a little hotter and better strategically placed under your opponents ass.[/quote]

Well, I'm just asking, given your fire with fire strategy, how do you think the anti-gay activists should be dealt with?

[Scalliwag]

[quote name='jonny_lech'][quote name='Scalliwag']
The gun and knife fight what am I advocating? I am advocating fight fire with fire, make sure yours is a little hotter and better strategically placed under your opponents ass.[/quote]

Well, I'm just asking, given your fire with fire strategy, how do you think the anti-gay activists should be dealt with?[/quote]

I think what happened to this envangelist is the way they should be dealt with if I was gay. I don't have a dog in that fight but I think that you have a dopehead closet gay living a double life and promoting something you feel harmed by that you should handle it exactly like that.
This talk about hurting his family and all is pretty much a joke to me.
Bill Clinton was forced under oath to testify about getting a BJ in a consensual relationship that may have been immoral, but definately not illegal so it should not have even been allowed to be asked. His family was not considered. Most evangelicals supported that witch-hunt.

Well, if you support something you better not have skeletons in your own closet and all arguments about how it should have been handled etc. do not matter. All of their arguments get turned back against them and rightfully so.
When Larry Flynt went after repubs that supported this and came up with evidence that Bob Livingston, Bob Barr, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Helen Chenoweth, Burton (had a child with another woman) and other "family values" conservatives had done the same thing the repubs cried foul. That is the amazing thing about hypocrites, when they are outed for doing the same things and/or worse they get bent all out of shape.
Larry Flynt was contacted by the wife of a congressman he would never name and she pleaded with him because she said he would kill himself.
So Larry Flynt did not out him. There is a big difference between Larry and I.
I think it would have driven home the point to hypocrites to be damned careful the wars they get started. Whoever the guy was had no idea if maybe Hillary or Chelsea may take their life when he was playing the holier than though bullshit and attacking them so I would have told the lady that he will do what he feels he has to do but he should have thought about things before he pulled that shit. He was probably too big a coward to kill himself anyways.

Sorry, I just have no sympathy for hypocrites. I don't remember Clinton ever outing anybody do you? I do not like seeing bad things happen to good people. But bad things happening to bad people I don't lose sleep over.
I remember when Jeffrey Dahmer was beat to death in prison. To me it was pretty damn funny and to the families of his victims I heard several of them felt a sense of justice and for the pain he caused I understand.

I'm not saying that everyone that makes mistakes deserve horrible things, just let the punishment fit the crime. People that come forward out of remorse should be treated differently than those that get caught and have their sudden remorse.
If the male prostitute did not out the evangelist would he be showing remorse today or would it just be another day on the church's payroll?

[jonny_lech]

Wow...well, that congressman, he didn't kill anyone, he didn't rape anyone...I value human life too much to gamble with someone's life like that.

[Scalliwag]

[quote name='jonny_lech']Wow...well, that congressman, he didn't kill anyone, he didn't rape anyone...I value human life too much to gamble with someone's life like that.[/quote]

it would be his call to take his life. He would just be getting a dose of his own medicine. Seems fair enough. He did not worry about Clinton or his family.

[jonny_lech]

[quote name='Scalliwag'][quote name='jonny_lech']Wow...well, that congressman, he didn't kill anyone, he didn't rape anyone...I value human life too much to gamble with someone's life like that.[/quote]

it would be his call to take his life. He would just be getting a dose of his own medicine. Seems fair enough. He did not worry about Clinton or his family.[/quote]

IMHO, two wrongs don't make a right.

[DarthHookah]

ah, but three rights make a left.

[Krautle87]

[quote name='DarthHookah']ah, but three rights make a left.[/quote]

Sean Hannity + Ann Coulter + Fred Barnes = Michael Moore? :?

[Scalliwag]

[quote name='jonny_lech']IMHO, two wrongs don't make a right.[/quote]

IMHO, retaliation does not neccesarily always make a wrong. Let's say that the guy that drove his truck into the Luby's in Texas years back and got out and shot and killed all of those people would have had a different ending. If someone there had a gun I think they should have put a bullet between the bastard's eyes. Some may think that would be "wrong" because by your argument I would be doing the same thing he was doing.

Same with hack job hypocrites that make a lifestyle of going around causing grief for other people. To me, outing the sorry bastards and putting an end to their insanity is no more a wrong than putting a bullet in the killer at Luby's head would have been.

Besides even if you thought I was wrong you would forgive me anyways right? Since that whole wrong does not make a right and all?
You can be an enabler to these people or a disabler.
You can ask anyone here at the party if I am a fun loving hospitable guy and I am pretty sure they will say yes. But anybody that goes out of their way to piss me off I have no problem giving them their moneys worth. I mean if they want to see me pissed I would not want to disappoint them ya know? Nothing [b]wrong[/b] with that [b]right[/b]?

[jonny_lech]

[quote name='Scalliwag']You can ask anyone here at the party if I am a fun loving hospitable guy and I am pretty sure they will say yes. But anybody that goes out of their way to piss me off I have no problem giving them their moneys worth. I mean if they want to see me pissed I would not want to disappoint them ya know? Nothing [b]wrong[/b] with that [b]right[/b]?[/quote]

To a certain degree, I totally agree with the 'don't tread on me' sort of response.

Anyway, this discussion is kinda academic in a way and I hate getting involved in these things...hope you haven't taken too much of what I've said personally.

[Scalliwag]

I understand. Normally I am never even in the serious section but Mushy stuck my Shinerbock thread over here (so it's Mushy's fault!!! ) But hypocrites have a special place in my heart. My sister-in-law's ex was a rightwing holier than though POS that used to gimme shit about checking out womans asses even if it was discreet.
It would get ugly at times and it was pretty mutual when I bitchslapped him at a family gathering for popping off to my father-in-law that we did not need to be in the same room.
Well as fate would have it he had trouble with his laptop and my sister-in-law took it upon herself to bring it to me. It would not power up. I pulled the battery out and was able to get it to boot with just the AC adaptor.
So here I was on Mr. Holyroller's laptop and out of curiosity I decided to click start, then search, and put *.jpg and what the hell do you know? He had one of the best porn collections I ever saw! My sister-in-law freaked!!! She called him and he said I muct have out it on there. Unfortunately for him she was there yacking with me the whole time and she knew I didn't.

So I am a little less than compassionate towards hypocrites I guess. I knew you did not mean anything personal bro and nothing was meant badly towards you either. Shiner could have said something tacky as hell though!!! Don't listen to him!

[PersianPride]

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mohandas Gandhi

No offence to any christians here.

[speel]

Well this thread has kind of a bias against christianity. And honestly its not fair. Everyone is human every one does bad things some time or another in their lives wheather it being priests, evangalists, buddahists and what not. Thats like me blaming all muslims that they're terrorists. The problem in this world is we can't love another and thats whats going on here. Just because hes a christian evangalist and he had gay sex that makes him a bad person and that this incident proves christianity as a bad religion. SO love your neighbor as you would love your mother.

[HAHkoo]

[quote name='speel']Well this thread has kind of a bias against christianity. And honestly its not fair. Everyone is human every one does bad things some time or another in their lives wheather it being priests, evangalists, buddahists and what not. Thats like me blaming all muslims that they're terrorists. The problem in this world is we can't love another and thats whats going on here. Just because hes a christian evangalist and he had gay sex that makes him a bad person and that this incident proves christianity as a bad religion. SO love your neighbor as you would love your mother. [/quote]
i have to agree with you speel. i read the whole thread and it seems like christianity is being put down.
...meanwhile



(hahkoo waits for ghostofdavid to make and appearance in this thread...)

[Scalliwag]

not from me they haven't. I said early on that my problem is with hypocrites. I don't know many Muslims so I really don't know any of them that are hypocrites. So I am not anti-Christian at all, just anti-hypocrite. Just because the KKK considers themselves Christians does not make me associate all Christians with those idiots. But I do know a lot of supposed Christians that think all Muslims are terrorists.

I am quick to remind them that the first terrorist to bring a building down in the U.S. was white that thought he was doing it in the name of Christianity. So any Christian that wants to label all Muslims as terrorists I label them as terrorists as well. For some strange reason people like Jerry Falwell think they can make broad anti-Muslim remarks and think they do not deserve the same treatment.
So unless him and others like being compared to the KKK and Tim McVeigh they ought to shutup all their anti-Muslim crap.
I do not think they are Christians though. Christians are good people to me. You can call yourself one all day but if you are a hypocritical asshole I am more than happy to say it and I think people that do that need to have that pointed out. They make a lot of good people look bad.

[critterchops]

[quote name='speel']Well this thread has kind of a bias against christianity. And honestly its not fair. Everyone is human every one does bad things some time or another in their lives wheather it being priests, evangalists, buddahists and what not. Thats like me blaming all muslims that they're terrorists. The problem in this world is we can't love another and thats whats going on here. Just because hes a christian evangalist and he had gay sex that makes him a bad person and that this incident proves christianity as a bad religion. SO love your neighbor as you would love your mother. [/quote]

Not all muslims are terrorists. But most terrorists are muslim. This story is like a kkk member being caught having a black girlfriend.An evangelical having gay sex. It's what evangelicals hate are gays (not all evangelicals but most) and now his ass is busted (pun intended)

evangelicals are domestic terrorists I worry more about evangelicals more than foreign terrorists because they destroy america from the inside :cry:

[Sonthert]

[quote name='jonny_lech']The Civil Rights Act of 1957, primarily a voting rights bill, was the first civil rights legislation enacted in the United States since Reconstruction. It was proposed to Congress by President Dwight Eisenhower.

I'm sorry man, but this simply does not jive with  
[quote]If you are really standing there and trying to tell me that the republican party wasn't the supporter of segregation, you really should pick up an impartial history book.[/quote]

When the source you quoted to me shows that he introduced and signed civil rights legistlation and was a supporter and enforcer of the landmark Supreme Court case that's generally considered to be the beginning of the end of segregation.

These two things are contradictory. Sure there were (and are) bigots in the Republican party, but to say that it's the segregation party is just wrong.[/quote]

Read that article again. Strom Thurmond opposed it:

"Senator Strom Thurmond remained a stronghold against the bill."

He was opposed to expanding civil rights for blacks. He was opposed to desegregation. He left the republican party in 1964 to continue his support of segregation because presumably the republicans were more receptive to his politics than the democrats...right?

Moreover, "The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was largely ineffective in its enforcement and its scope."

Again ,the quote that I dredged up from the incredibly reliable Wikipedia [sarcastic tone], as I stated before, a little distilled...

"On September 16, 1964; Thurmond, increasingly at odds with the national Democratic party over racial integration switched his party affiliation, becoming a Republican. In South Carolina and other states of the Deep South, white segregationists supported Goldwater in 1964 instead of Johnson, whose support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and integration rankled the segregationists."

Goldwater-Republican-segregationist
Johnson-Democrat-desegregationist
Dwight D. Eisenhower-fine American-fine president...one of the greatest of the 20th century. His legislation was a pacifier, not effective and probably intended to stall the tide of equality that was breaking at the doors of every statehouse in the Union.

Thurmond was indeed in favor of segregation, which I arguably connect to racism and he continued to be elected until he retired in Jan. 2003. How does that not equate with Thurmond and the modern republican party connected to racism?

[Joey32b]

The Democrats still have a former KKK member in the Senate today: Robert Byrd.

[Scalliwag]

The Democrats still have a former KKK member in the Senate today: Robert Byrd.

I do believe the key word there is "former". Democrats are far from saints. At best they are the lesser of the two evils. But that can be the diffence between being asked if you want the shot in the arm or in the eyeball IMHO. Both are going to hurt, but one is gonna hurt a lot less and get you well. One may even blind you.
Parties as a whole can be that way. The most popular are by far not always the least evil. There were many political parties in Germany when Hitler came to power but most people (outside Europe) could not even name one of them. But odds are damn good any of them were less evil than Nazi's.

People can change. Byrd was not forced to change. He could have became a republican like the rest of them. He was persuaded by reality. A backwoods hick that needed time to reprogram from all the crazy shit his family and community had fed him.
Former Nazi's are abundant. Most people that calloused only change because of circumstances but that is not always the case. People can always change for better or for worse and usually do many times in their lives but in far less dramatic fashion.

[Sonthert]

The Democrats still have a former KKK member in the Senate today: Robert Byrd.

Much better counter. Scalli summed it up well. The democratic party indeed was the home of Thurmond and Duke, but they switched to the republican party OR abandoned their racist platforms, like Byrd. Duke was a democrat until 1975. The democratic party cleaned house of racism and racists...some of those people who truly believed the platform went over to the republican party where the republican voters are more sympathetic to racist/segregationist values.