Social Peach and other random Discussion (Social Thread)

[Teczer0]

Ok, its not like I actually wanted to hear about pichu vs puff.

I want chicken fingers =(

 

[hemlock]

hello fellow Peach playerz

 

[The Irish Mafia]

sup hemlock

 

[Rain(ame)]

Yo, what's good? How's the weather?

 

[john!]

hemlock why didn't i see you this summer? you should've gone to the vro zones

 

[Rain(ame)]

Hmm...question...am I the only one not seeing the indicators that you've subscribed to/posted in this thread?

 

[Teczer0]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=289753

Combo video nominations everyone should join in =D

 

[SSJ6SephirothGogeta]

come to find out...

i'm actually still the best.

DoH whea u at?!

 

[pockeystick]

I have a peach tree in my backyard.

 

[Teczer0]

I have a peach tree in my backyard.

This is just....

Awesome.

LOL

 

[MacD]

i had an orange tree back home

is that still awesome?

 

[Teczer0]

i had an orange tree back home

is that still awesome?

Definitely is +rep.

I like oranges more than I like peaches so yes.

<3

 

[thesage]

somewhat related: im eating an apple now

 

[Cia]

.. man I have had a caramel apple in YEARS

 

[john!]

omg... i wanted something to eat a few minutes ago and completely forgot about the caramel apple in my fridge. i might need to microwave it tho, and my roommate's asleep. hmmmmm what to do

 

[Composeur]

omg... i wanted something to eat a few minutes ago and completely forgot about the caramel apple in my fridge. i might need to microwave it tho, and my roommate's asleep. hmmmmm what to do

That's what your inner thighs are for lol

I prefer apples with peanut butter.

 

[Composeur]

Btw is anyone else depressed about the election results?

 

[thesage]

I'm so happy. Party shift should happen every two years from now on. Maybe we'll finally get independent parties to win more often once they figure out what americans want to support.

 

[Silly Kyle]

I'm very sad about the Republican blowout yesterday At least we have control of the Senate still... but ****. We lost a lot of Governorships to Republicans too and that's going to hurt the Democratic Party. I just hope we can now start blaming Republicans for things going wrong now. Everyone expects things to be fixed immediately and it's just not going to happen. It takes time.

 

[john!]

either way, it was a landslide victory for the Institutional Democratic-Republican Party, Inc. so things should remain roughly the same

 

[DoH]

I'm so happy. Party shift should happen every two years from now on. Maybe we'll finally get independent parties to win more often once they figure out what americans want to support.

For being in the DC metro you are surprisingly unsavvy about American politics. The Democrats spent all of their political capital to ram through health care which won't have any impact for most Americans for a while. Then Scott Brown won the MA senate race and they lost their filibuster-proof majority, and because of it the Republicans cowed them into submission and they weren't able to get anything passed. The Dems needed a bigger majority to actually enact and effectuate change; they were too scared to pursue a repeal of DADT which about 85% of Americans actually support because the Republican opposition was so staunch; they even vetoed the defense bill because there was a provision that would authorize the military to rescind DADT. It didn't even rescind it, it just allowed it to happen, and the Republicans threatened to fillibuster it and the Dems kowtowed to their threat instead of calling their bluff. Now that the Republicans control the house and the Dems have only a slim majority in the Senate all us gays can forget about getting a bone thrown our way. The Obama administration had a roadmap of the Clinton era to not follow and they pursued it anyway, they essentially blew their load getting health care passed.

The next two years are going to be mindnumbingly stupid. Obama can veto any Republican agenda coming down the pipe if it somehow made it through the Senate, which probably won't. If the past two years are any reflection the Republicans will simply try and block any presidential agenda, even if its good for the country to make the president look bad so they can have a chance to win the presidency in 2012, which they probably won't because they lack a candidate to oppose Obama. I hope Clinton runs with Obama this time to set up a Clinton run in 2016. Hopefully the Republicans inefficacy will cause Americans to realize that they don't really have a good plan for them, and really only want to make rich people richer at the expense of the middle class. No real legislation is going to get passed in the next two years that will make a difference, it's just political gridlock from here on out. Parties need to stay in power to build majority coalitions to actually get **** done.

Also the Dems need to grow a backbone and some balls and actually confront the Republicans and call them on their bull****. Russ Feingold tried to take the high road and lost. Before Congress goes on break for the winter, the Dems should try and shove through legislation that would counter the recent Supreme Court decision that considers corporations "people" for the purposes of campaign donations. Otherwise we will be headed for more Republican and corporate control of government. Hopefully the Tea Party will get frustrated with its Republican cohorts and splinter both parties, allowing a Democratic majority to return and actually enact a progressive agenda.

This is a really good article on the situation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob...erson/giving-the-keys-back-to-t_b_778419.html

 

[Teczer0]

.. man I have had a caramel apple in YEARS

MAN

I haven't either.

And god that sounds amazing right now >___<

 

[MacD]

If the past two years are any reflection the Republicans will simply try and block any presidential agenda, even if its good for the country to make the president look bad so they can have a chance to win the presidency in 2012, which they probably won't because they lack a candidate to oppose Obama.

but... but... Sarah Palin 2012!!!!

 

[Silly Kyle]

I want Sarah Palin to run in 2012, become the GOP's presidential nominee, and then lose in the general election lol.

 

[Rubyiris]

Politics are stupid.

 

[V3ctorMan]

Silly Kyle's Peach is amazing!

He gon take over!

Watch out!

<3

 

[thesage]

The Democrats spent all of their political capital to ram through health care which won't have any impact for most Americans for a while.

Agreed

Then Scott Brown won the MA senate race and they lost their filibuster-proof majority, and because of it the Republicans cowed them into submission and they weren't able to get anything passed.

That was the dems fault though. They focused on healthcare when everybody was worried about the economy. The economy is why Obama gained so many votes at the end of the presidential election. It was clear as day that that's what america was voting on. The fact that MA, of all states, elected a republican should've alerted the dems to change the focus on their agenda. Now public healthcare has an even worse rep than it did before and it can be repealed if republicans make further gains, effectively meaning the last two years of the democratic party was ineffectual.

The Dems needed a bigger majority to actually enact and effectuate change; they were too scared to pursue a repeal of DADT which about 85% of Americans actually support because the Republican opposition was so staunch; they even vetoed the defense bill because there was a provision that would authorize the military to rescind DADT. It didn't even rescind it, it just allowed it to happen, and the Republicans threatened to fillibuster it and the Dems kowtowed to their threat instead of calling their bluff. Now that the Republicans control the house and the Dems have only a slim majority in the Senate all us gays can forget about getting a bone thrown our way. The Obama administration had a roadmap of the Clinton era to not follow and they pursued it anyway, they essentially blew their load getting health care passed.

You are assuming that the majority of americans care strongly enough on DADT to vote on it. Sure they'd support it, but would you care about somebody else's rights if you were afraid you might end up in a trailer park the next couple of years? This is the situation for a lot of americans right now. I personally would like DADT to not exist anymore but it's not an issue I would vote on. It doesn't affect me. The ability to get a job does and a party that doesn't see my point of view is not getting my vote.

I honestly think the gay community is going about the whole equal rights thing the wrong way. I'm not going to comment much on that though since it's doesn't affect me nor do I have a whole understanding of the situation. Reading over this, I'm not making my point clear and I come across as offensive. I do support gay rights, but the gay community is going about it the wrong way.

The next two years are going to be mindnumbingly stupid. Obama can veto any Republican agenda coming down the pipe if it somehow made it through the Senate, which probably won't. If the past two years are any reflection the Republicans will simply try and block any presidential agenda, even if its good for the country to make the president look bad so they can have a chance to win the presidency in 2012, which they probably won't because they lack a candidate to oppose Obama.

The parties will compromise or they will both lose as people are starting to dislike incumbents more and more. There are a lot of people who don't vote and when somebody figures out a way to get those people to vote that person's party will win. Both parties are not in comfortable situations right now. And who heard of Obama in 2008?

I hope Clinton runs with Obama this time to set up a Clinton run in 2016.

*vomits* I DO NOT WANT TO TELL MY KIDS HISTORY WENT BUSH CLINTON BUSH JR Obama MRS. CLINTON. That's just obvious corruption at the highest levels of government... While Bush 1 was a decent president, god was bush 2 awful. I don't understand why liberals hate him, outside of social issues he was extremely liberal. I basically disagreed with every stance he had on every political issue... No more repeated last names. It's clear that Clinton wants to be president. I can see the boner in her pants for it wtf.

Hopefully the Republicans inefficacy will cause Americans to realize that they don't really have a good plan for them, and really only want to make rich people richer at the expense of the middle class.

It depends on how the americans view the situation. Saying nothing will happen is a bit of an extreme though. Clinton lost both houses (I think) after his first two years and got things done. I think Obama will just end up being Clinton 2.0. The parties have to work together or else the republicans risk what happened to democrats happening to them. There's a large dislike to incumbents now.

No real legislation is going to get passed in the next two years that will make a difference, it's just political gridlock from here on out. Parties need to stay in power to build majority coalitions to actually get **** done.

There can be cross party coalitions... Look at the british parliament now. Look at the US in the 90s. The dems got in trouble for controlling congress the last four years. If the republicans think they can fall asleep at the helm they will simply get creamed.

Also the Dems need to grow a backbone and some balls and actually confront the Republicans and call them on their bull****. Russ Feingold tried to take the high road and lost.

I didn't really follow that race so I can't comment. I looked it up and the only thing I noticed was the coincidence of the guy being on some catholic board and saying that some sexual predator law was bad because it would allow victims to sue their employers. While I do have a personal vendetta against the catholic church (family member tried to force religion on me bleh) I do think that that law is crazy. What does a sexual predator's employers have to do with the crime that was committed? It should only be an issue if they tried to cover it up (which they did... but that's another issue entirely...).

Before Congress goes on break for the winter, the Dems should try and shove through legislation that would counter the recent Supreme Court decision that considers corporations "people" for the purposes of campaign donations. Otherwise we will be headed for more Republican and corporate control of government.

http://209.190.229.99/orgs/list.php
Why do unions count as people then? IMO it should be either both or neither.

Hopefully the Tea Party will get frustrated with its Republican cohorts and splinter both parties

Would be ineffectual. Nobody votes for third parties. Right now it's just an undercurrent in the GOP. It's been around for a long time actually (it's what bush campaigned on in his first election that wasn't religious) and has been intensified recently due to the fact that after 9/11 no policies they support have been supported.

Democratic majority to return and actually enact a progressive agenda.

Healthcare wasn't a progressive agenda?

This is a really good article on the situation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob...erson/giving-the-keys-back-to-t_b_778419.html

You basically restated what's in that article. Nothing to really comment on.

There is going to be a lot of political turmoil the next couple of years. The economic slump we're experiencing is the same one from the carter era. It's just been covered up by government spending (to end the cold war), a technology bubble, and then a housing market bubble, among other things.

Does this post count as off topic? If so I will write that Peach is a gigantic **** but I'd do her anyways lol.

If Sarah Palin ran for president she would lose. Not enough mainstream americans would support her and she's simply crazy. Look a O'Donnell.

What happened is that the democrats threw all their eggs in the basket of nationalized healthcare and the basket went off of a cliff. I honestly was not expecting them to be that dumb. Everytime the republicans and democrats get too extreme it always switches up so that's good. It'll be viewed as one of the biggest political blunders in history. Imagine if FDR was elected and he did nothing about the economy? Sure there were bailouts which sure were good for public image (they weren't). That's another reason why McCain lost lol.

blegh reading through this post is horrible and i'm half asleep and just locked myself out of my apartment i'm pissed and tired. Don't do ad hominem attacks. You may just call somebody who watches C-Span for fun politically unsavvy.

 

[Silly Kyle]

You are assuming that the majority of americans care strongly enough on DADT to vote on it. Sure they'd support it, but would you care about somebody else's rights if you were afraid you might end up in a trailer park the next couple of years? This is the situation for a lot of americans right now. I personally would like DADT to not exist anymore but it's not an issue I would vote on. It doesn't affect me. The ability to get a job does and a party that doesn't see my point of view is not getting my vote.

I honestly think the gay community is going about the whole equal rights thing the wrong way. I'm not going to comment much on that though since it's doesn't affect me nor do I have a whole understanding of the situation. Reading over this, I'm not making my point clear and I come across as offensive. I do support gay rights, but the gay community is going about it the wrong way.

Sure, people are worried about the economy, but it's not like people can only focus on one issue at a time.

Please enlighten me how the gay community should approach this equal rights issue. When you say this issue doesn't effect you, it is slightly insulting and offensive. Sure, you may be straight, but it doesn't mean you can't care. How do you think black people would feel back in the 60's if you didn't care about their civil rights (assuming you're white) because it doesn't effect you? Do you not have any gay friends? Relatives?

What the gay community needs is for more people in the straight community to support them! We're a ****ing minority!! We need all the help we can get, especially from our straight allies.

 

[thesage]

Sure, people are worried about the economy, but it's not like people can only focus on one issue at a time.

But I care about the economy because if I don't get a job when I graduate then I won't be able to support my family. Even though my degree is in engineering and I'm doing pre-med, if there aren't enough scholarships out there to help me pay through my way in medical school and there are no jobs in my field. This affects you as well so you should be worried about that as well.

It's not like I'm only voting on the economy though it is the most important issue right now IMO. I'm pro privatizing social security/medicare/medicaid, shrinking back the reach of the federal government massively (i.e. I don't think that the federal department of education should exist outside of allowing interstate communication in relation to education and stuff like that), giving states more control, and other things that I don't want to get into or debate. These are things that could only possibly come from the republican party (if they finally put the bite with their bark instead of just being half democrat half republican hybrid they became during the bush years, come on patriot act, massively increasing federal spending... and don't get me started on the religious things).

Please enlighten me how the gay community should approach this equal rights issue. When you say this issue doesn't effect you, it is slightly insulting and offensive. Sure, you may be straight, but it doesn't mean you can't care.

Emphasize how you're just like other people instead of emphasizing how different you are. Things like gay pride parades and emphasizing weird *** things like guys acting like... well I don't know... I'd say feminine but I don't even like girls acting like that... I know that there are gay people out there that are just normal human beings. I've met a couple of them.

There's a lot of other things I care about that I disagree with the democratic party on (teachers unions and education in general needs to be entirely reformed), expansion of the federal government, pulling out of Iraq immediately (we shouldn't be there in the first place).

I care but I care more for myself than others. If I could vote directly on the issue I'd be pro-gay marriage and for repeal of DADT. The government should not limit anybody's rights in any way possible in areas that could not do harm to other people.

I have to admit though I don't have many gay friends. Just doll really... And he's a girl so I don't think that counts... My mom has a couple of gay co-workers and one of them gave me a bike and a bed (yes I know how this sounds...) when I moved into my apartment. He's a really cool smart guy. Probably one of the smartest people I'll ever meet in my life.

How do you think black people would feel back in the 60's if you didn't care about their civil rights (assuming you're white) because it doesn't effect you? Do you not have any gay friends? Relatives?

Black people didn't get equal rights from nice feelings or starting a war. They got it from showing how much they can hurt people in their wallets. Things like boycotts and voting. If the democrats don't push your issues, stop voting blindly for them. You know those crazy religious people that vote republican? They voted for democratically until the civil rights bill was passed. Black people, seeing the republicans not doing anything got behind the democrats. they traditionally voted republicans (party of Lincoln, whole civil war thing...).

I'm also not saying I don't care. I do care. I do care for myself more than others though. Sorry. I'm pretty sure you care more about yourself more than you care about me. If you try arguing I should care about a great good, well I think that putting food on the table and having a job is more important than being able to marry somebody. I wish I could give my ability to marry to a gay person. I don't want to ever marry. Even if it means tax breaks... 50% chance of losing half of what I own isn't worth it.

I'm not saying start voting republican, but it's clear to me democrats are not really interested in pushing forward gay rights. I mean according to D'oH 85% of americans support removing DADT (that assumes that they don't want something more strict in place though, wasn't clear on how the question was raised) and yet the democrats pushed something through congress that 58% do not support now. What was preventing them from passing pro gay legislation? It would not have been a big deal to push through and it wouldn't be committing political suicide. The majority of voters that are anti-gay on the democratic side are the religious african-american and latino voters that can deal with voting for people who generally support abortion (I'm pro-abortion btw, but unrelated...).

What the gay community needs is for more people in the straight community to support them! We're a ****ing minority!! We need all the help we can get, especially from our straight allies.

This may sound harsh, but I have my own problems to worry about. You have to galvanize the politicians to pass the legislation. Stop worrying about day-to-day americans, since it seems that they support you. They care about themselves. Make it a big deal that they are not supporting your legislation instead of doing absolutely nothing about it. Seriously with 50% of the population not voting, 10% adds up. African Americans are only like 18% of the population.

Boycott companies that spread pro gay messages or discriminate against homosexuals. IDK think of something. YOUR rights are being violated, not mine.

Like I'm pretty sure if I changed my vote to democrat and a democrat was my governor, gay marriage would still not be legal in my state. 3 states that elected republican governors this election have legal unions in some way according to wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

If the republican party does the same thing that they did during the majority of the bush administration, I just won't vote anymore and wait for a party that agrees with at least 40% of my opinions and vote for them. Otherwise I guess libertarian, though they are kinda crazy lol.

 

[Queen]

"Emphasize how you're just like other people instead of emphasizing how different you are. Things like gay pride parades and emphasizing weird *** things like guys acting like... well I don't know... I'd say feminine but I don't even like girls acting like that... I know that there are gay people out there that are just normal human beings. I've met a couple of them."

And this would be where you started speaking nonsense. You're perilously close to advocating assimilation. Of course, I don't believe that is what you're after. We can act like whatever we'd like. Our rights, as per the government, ought not be dependent on our behaviors within the social scene, barring, of course, lawbreaking. We are free to experience the consequences of our behavior within the social scene. This is not to be reflected in law.

Beyond that, I know there are many people who don't see the use of Pride, and that's fine. The problem really comes out of the desire some people have to antiquate and do away with things such as Pride. Having done some slight reading on the Stonewall Riots in 1969, I have to say, I always see a reason for Pride. Those first drag queens and transpersons and good ol'-fashioned homos walking down the street, refusing to be cowed and demanding acknowledgement is always inspiring and is always the progenitor of Pride, no matter what happens.

Also, beware the slight thread of misogyny. This country has a track record for associating negative qualities with the feminine in ways that might be considered unjust.

Just some thoughts...

Also...this is intensely depressing, interesting, and illuminating.
http://nodesignation.com/?p=59

 

[thesage]

I'm not fine with guys or girls acting *****y or "queeny" (is that a word lol). That's the face the gay community has to the majority of straight people. Fix that image. It's seen as a joke by the majority of people. Just because I don't like people like that doesn't make me misogynistic. Do I also hate guys because I don't like people who just go around beating the **** out of innocents and committing violent crimes or go around pounding their chests?

You have to convince others to vote for your rights. You can argue about it all you like, but just because it's right doesn't mean it's law. Some people might disagree with you or not care enough.

Besides that's not even the issue. Apparently the majority of Americans already support gay rights you guys have to start convincing the politicians to vote for you. Only half of Americans are voting now. The republican-democrat vote split is usually around 50-50 (which means 25% vs. 25%). Gay people represent 10% of the population. Get your politicians to do what you want or don't vote for them.

I'm fine with transgendered people. Those weren't the people I was referring to when I said guys acting like girls. I view those people as the gender they desire to be or not be or both or what have you. Different situation entirely as right now I was under the impression we were discussing making gay marriage legal...

 

[Composeur]

I'm not fine with guys or girls acting *****y or "queeny" (is that a word lol).

So let me guess: you're fine with black people as long as they act like white people do?

Thanks for deigning "us guys" your advice. Because you so obviously have any concern for our social welfare or legal equality.

I honestly can't believe you're lionizing the way blacks had to induce social upheaval to have their rights recognized. Some Americans--generally the freer-thinking--actually endorse social progress and would like live in a society that betters itself voluntarily, without progressives needing to ram change down the throats of the ignorant and complacent, of which you clearly are one.

 

[thesage]

So let me guess: you're fine with black people as long as they act like white people do?

Thanks for deigning "us guys" your advice. Because you so obviously have any concern for our social welfare or legal equality.

I honestly can't believe you're lionizing the way blacks had to induce social upheaval to have their rights recognized. Some Americans--generally the freer-thinking--actually endorse social progress and would like live in a society that betters itself voluntarily, without progressives needing to ram change down the throats of the ignorant and complacent, of which you clearly are one.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lionizing

I'm a science person so I had to look up that word. Still not sure what you're trying to get across so could you explain?

I'm pro gay marriage and I'm ignorant? Wat. I'm just saying that you have to convince politicians to take you seriously. They don't right now. Neither party is really pushing for gay rights on a national level.

Way to ignore the majority of my points.

I'm fine with anybody as long as they act as a normal relatively sane person. The terms black and white, gay or straight do not come to mind when I try to describe how somebody acts. There are *****y straight guys too (I recently had a run in with one last week). I'm sorry I judge people based on how they act in public. That's what the majority of people in general do.

 

[john!]

So let me guess: you're fine with black people as long as they act like white people do?

Thanks for deigning "us guys" your advice. Because you so obviously have any concern for our social welfare or legal equality.

I honestly can't believe you're lionizing the way blacks had to induce social upheaval to have their rights recognized. Some Americans--generally the freer-thinking--actually endorse social progress and would like live in a society that betters itself voluntarily, without progressives needing to ram change down the throats of the ignorant and complacent, of which you clearly are one.

it seems to me that sage is trying to help the gay community by giving his opinion about how they can have a better chance of being accepted by mainstream society. when people label you as "gay", if you act like any other person would normally, that label begins to lose negative connotations and people begin to accept you more. it's just how human psychology works.

i know a few openly gay people, and the less they make "being gay" a key part of their personality, the more fun they are to be around. i also know a few people who aren't openly gay, but act gay and almost certainly are. this pisses me off the most.

 

[DoH]

That was the dems fault though. They focused on healthcare when everybody was worried about the economy. The economy is why Obama gained so many votes at the end of the presidential election. It was clear as day that that's what america was voting on. The fact that MA, of all states, elected a republican should've alerted the dems to change the focus on their agenda. Now public healthcare has an even worse rep than it did before and it can be repealed if republicans make further gains, effectively meaning the last two years of the democratic party was ineffectual.

Their efforts on heath care were supposed to be framed as both an economic strategy and about health care, because it would lower costs and save families money, etc. But the republicans framed it as more government control and death panels, and because the democrats have no spine they lost the tone of the debate. MA electing a Republican isn't as big of a deal as you make it out to be; Coakley wasn't that engaging and committed a number of gaffes during her campaign, while Scott Brown is charming and a social moderate. An electable Republican in Massachusetts is quite different from one in Texas.

You are assuming that the majority of americans care strongly enough on DADT to vote on it. Sure they'd support it, but would you care about somebody else's rights if you were afraid you might end up in a trailer park the next couple of years? This is the situation for a lot of americans right now. I personally would like DADT to not exist anymore but it's not an issue I would vote on. It doesn't affect me. The ability to get a job does and a party that doesn't see my point of view is not getting my vote.

\

The idea that DADT doesn't affect you just shows how poorly the Democrats have done in framing the issue; not only is DADT a national security issue, as we have discharged hundreds of Arab linguists in the past decade - linguists that we need when combating global terrorism as well as in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan - but it's also a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars, as the military has wasted all that money in training and providing for these discharged soldiers, but also has to train the new recruits to replace them. Considering how much of our federal budget and deficit is made up of the defense budget, I think most Americans would support anything that is a rational costcutting measure that doesn't weaken our armed forces. The dems just aren't smart enough to frame it as such.

The parties will compromise or they will both lose as people are starting to dislike incumbents more and more. There are a lot of people who don't vote and when somebody figures out a way to get those people to vote that person's party will win. Both parties are not in comfortable situations right now. And who heard of Obama in 2008?

Third parties aren't really viable in American politics; the last time a third party came into prominence was the Republican party in the mid 1800s. There's too much outside influence that's bent on maintaining the status quo for any party change to be enacted. And I had heard of Obama in 2008...considering how he rose to national prominence in 04 with his speech at the DNC.

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama/Clinton would not be corruption at the highest level...the Clinton family is still very popular among democrats and they are extremely intelligent and personable and have an ability to connect with American voters in a way that other Democratic leaders can't.

It depends on how the americans view the situation. Saying nothing will happen is a bit of an extreme though. Clinton lost both houses (I think) after his first two years and got things done. I think Obama will just end up being Clinton 2.0. The parties have to work together or else the republicans risk what happened to democrats happening to them. There's a large dislike to incumbents now.

That's not how it worked for Clinton. Instead of being able to work towards bipartisan and middle ground efforts, the big issues get pushed aside in favor of inane things; for Clinton, bipartisan social security reform was pushed away in favor of finding out what Clinton did with an intern.

There can be cross party coalitions... Look at the british parliament now. Look at the US in the 90s. The dems got in trouble for controlling congress the last four years. If the republicans think they can fall asleep at the helm they will simply get creamed.

British politics and American politics are so different that argument doesn't hold water. Britain is much more civil and less polarized than America; they did away with slavery with a vote 50 years or so before we kicked off our war to end it.

Healthcare wasn't a progressive agenda?

No, it wasn't an agenda. It was an all consuming issue that allowed for nothing else to get done; it sucked up all the oxygen in the room and went on for far too long, and once it was started the Dems couldn't back out of it. It was stupid to go for it first, they should have gone for something easier.

Also, let's just let black people in the South convince people to vote for their right to attend school. The rights of minorities should NEVER be voted on because the minorities always get trampled by the tyranny of the majority; we saw it with Prop 8 in California, even though the amendment is unconstitutional on the basis of both the state constitution and the 14th Amendment.

Additionally your argument is heteronormative and disgusting, frankly. It essentializes gay people to stereotypes and caricatures and ignores all the normal gay people out there; just like not all Republicans are Palins, not all gays are Carson from Queer Eye. It's the most outspoken and most outrageous people who get attention in our culture.

The strategy for the gays should be that we should just keep suing until we get our way, because the law and the courts are on our side. That's where most of our legal success has come from because our elected representatives are spineless.

 

[Silly Kyle]

Additionally your argument is heteronormative and disgusting, frankly. It essentializes gay people to stereotypes and caricatures and ignores all the normal gay people out there; just like not all Republicans are Palins, not all gays are Carson from Queer Eye. It's the most outspoken and most outrageous people who get attention in our culture.

^This is exactly how I feel

 

[Queen]

I'm not fine with guys or girls acting *****y or "queeny" (is that a word lol). That's the face the gay community has to the majority of straight people. Fix that image. It's seen as a joke by the majority of people. Just because I don't like people like that doesn't make me misogynistic. Do I also hate guys because I don't like people who just go around beating the **** out of innocents and committing violent crimes or go around pounding their chests?

I never claimed it made you misogynistic. I am merely saying that our society and culture is pervaded with misogyny. We frequently denigrate women and anything feminine. I am merely pointing out the possibility of a link.

As for our face to the world at large, we must strive to make ourselves and any of us that do not "belong" a part by addressing those things which we have in common, like being alive. Certain behaviors are not the same, but they are not a valid rubric from which to judge and parcel out rights.

Also, analogy such as the one you have used is rhetorically dishonorable as it implies a relationship that isn't necessarily true and is, in fact, harmful. The relationship that you have drawn, unwittingly or not, is that we as GLBT persons act in a way that is harmful to the general populace.

You have to convince others to vote for your rights. You can argue about it all you like, but just because it's right doesn't mean it's law. Some people might disagree with you or not care enough.

And I agree with you to an extent. I will not sacrifice aspects of my humanity to get the things which I am owed by law. I don't know as there's more I can say on this.

Besides that's not even the issue. Apparently the majority of Americans already support gay rights you guys have to start convincing the politicians to vote for you. Only half of Americans are voting now. The republican-democrat vote split is usually around 50-50 (which means 25% vs. 25%). Gay people represent 10% of the population. Get your politicians to do what you want or don't vote for them.

Of course, this is an important aspect to the entire ordeal.

I'm fine with transgendered people. Those weren't the people I was referring to when I said guys acting like girls. I view those people as the gender they desire to be or not be or both or what have you. Different situation entirely as right now I was under the impression we were discussing making gay marriage legal...

I will say I was not actually talking about making gay marriage legal per se, merely certain perceptions surrounding gay persons.

 

[mers]

Additionally your argument is heteronormative and disgusting, frankly. It essentializes gay people to stereotypes and caricatures and ignores all the normal gay people out there; just like not all Republicans are Palins, not all gays are Carson from Queer Eye. It's the most outspoken and most outrageous people who get attention in our culture.

I agree so hard I don't even know how to express it.

sage: You seem very solidly in favor of people's rights to do what they want. If so, how can you not be OK with gay people expressing themselves in the way that they choose?

 

[DoH]

We should not have to become stepford ***s to have our rights recognized. That is ridiculous, and that mentality is what relegates gay people to the archetypes of either the sassy gay friend (the must have accessory for straight women) or the sexless castrados of Wisteria Lane, who are allowed to be seen and not heard, whose affections are deemed too risqué for prime-time while heteros can have simulated and implied sex. There's a clear double standard, and your mentality only serves to keep gays in their place - as second place citizens - until we learn how to act from the heterosexual white man and his definition of what constitutes normal gender behavior

 

[stingers]

man this thread sometimes...