John Kerry was the wrong choice... he sucks!

[Ben Kenobi]

Geocities?

Merely because the word "gay" was in one of my America Online profiles.

That's a little different than what you just said. He's right that he should not be dismissed, but for completely different reasons. It has nothing to do with discrimination, but everything to do with freedom of speech.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I see now why he destroyed the Republican party.

The Religious Right destroyed the Republican party.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Geocities?

And the problem is...?

That's a little different than what you just said. He's right that he should not be dismissed, but for completely different reasons. It has nothing to do with discrimination, but everything to do with freedom of speech.

Nothing to do with discrimination?

Would someone with a profile of "straight" be treated the same way? No. So it's discriminatory, because there isn't an equality of treatment wrt sexual orientation.

Regardless, he's one example of many. DADT has been used to dismiss 10,000 people from the armed services since 1993. It specifically addresses homosexuality, singling it out for special treatment. That's the very definition of dicriminatory!

[Joseph]

I a Conservative who don't like Bush all that much, will not vote for Kerry at all. I think he injury his self to get those P. Hearts.

[Kuciwalker]

A CBH DL?

[Boris Godunov]

No, Joseph's been around for a while. We tend just to smile and nod.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
No, Joseph's been around for a while. We tend just to smile and nod.

Well, Well, Boris thank you.

[Kuciwalker]

It's the grammar that clued me in

[Ben Kenobi]

The Religious Right destroyed the Republican party.

So that's why when they jumped back in things worked again for the Republican party?

I'm inclined to blame Goldwater. I know all the Democrats loved it when Goldwater ran.

[Ben Kenobi]

Would someone with a profile of "straight" be treated the same way? No. So it's discriminatory, because there isn't an equality of treatment wrt sexual orientation.

Right, but the way to correct this example is to protect this fellow's right to freedom of speech. That way he won't be dismissed for having an AOL account where he calls himself gay. Seems clear to me.

Regardless, he's one example of many. DADT has been used to dismiss 10,000 people from the armed services since 1993. It specifically addresses homosexuality, singling it out for special treatment. That's the very definition of dicriminatory!

But it is not always wrong to discriminate. There are plenty of cases where people receive special treatment, and you would allow this type of discrimination.

My criteria is this. Can people who are gay, serve on the armed forces without this being an issue? Yes. I also think that people who are not gay who's conduct becomes a problem should also be dismissed. Your preferences should not become an issue. If it does, then it's a problem, regardless of who brings it up.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So that's why when they jumped back in things worked again for the Republican party?

Which has what to do with the notion that the RR destroyed the party ideologically?

[Ben Kenobi]

Which has what to do with the notion that the RR destroyed the party ideologically?

How can one destroy a party ideologically, if people who are republican vote for the party? Those who are republican rejected Goldwater overwhelmingly.

The only way to destroy a party ideologically is to completely sever all connections with the previous versions of the republican party. This never happened with the religious right.

Part of the republican party is the religious right, and part of their ideology supports things the religious right believes. This is why folks like Goldwater do not succeed.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So that's why when they jumped back in things worked again for the Republican party?

When they jumped back in, it no longer was the Republican party

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Right, but the way to correct this example is to protect this fellow's right to freedom of speech. That way he won't be dismissed for having an AOL account where he calls himself gay. Seems clear to me.

Why not just cut the bull and not make an issue of him calling himself "gay" because there's no issue with gay people? It seems you often want to go out of your way to avoid making sure people don't discriminate against people because they are gay...

Your preferences should not become an issue. If it does, then it's a problem, regardless of who brings it up.

Fine, great, swell. So why single out preference at all? By having DADT, the military is the one making preference an issue, not gay people. That all soldiers should be held accountable to a certain standard of conduct isn't a question, so singling out "preference" as an issue is superfluous unless it's being used specifically to target homosexual behavior.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How can one destroy a party ideologically, if people who are republican vote for the party? Those who are republican rejected Goldwater overwhelmingly.

The only way to destroy a party ideologically is to completely sever all connections with the previous versions of the republican party. This never happened with the religious right.

Many people who were Republican aren't anymore, because they feel the RR has idealogically debased the party.

And no, a complete severance is NOT necessary. Only enough of a divergence to change the core values of the party. To many, that's exactly what the RR has done to the party. The focus on "moral values" and intrusive government to do so is something many Republicans find regnant, as is the loss of fiscal discipline.