Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

CA State Senator DUI (with bonus gay nightclub hijinks)Follow

#52 Mar 05 2010 at 5:17 PM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Wait, hold the phone, if Samira's Science is correct, and Catwho is an Anti-varus, if they touch, we could be rid of Varus forever?

Time for a Road Trip!


That is too icky to contemplate.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#53 Mar 05 2010 at 5:19 PM Rating: Good
Timelordwho wrote:
Wait, hold the phone, if Samira's Science is correct, and Catwho is an Anti-varus, if they touch, we could be rid of Varus forever?

Time for a Road Trip!


Well, it's the only way Varrus'll ever be bright.
#54 Mar 05 2010 at 9:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Why defend him Gbaji?


It's not so much about defending him, as disagreeing with the yardstick you're using to judge him by in the first place. As Moe points out, there's a double standard to these sorts of things.

Even beyond that though, I simply do not agree with your assumption as to why a republican politician might oppose any of a set of bills labeled as "gay rights bills". You assume he opposes them out of some kind of hatred for homosexuality. Thus, the idea that he might himself be a closet homosexual is followed by accusations of hypocrisy and/or self-hatred.

If you accept that there are other reasons to oppose said legislation which have nothing to do with liking or disliking the group in question, you'll see that your assumption is unfounded, and his own personal life is irrelevant in that context.

Quote:
I don't get it.


I know you don't. Despite the fact that I've explained this dozens of times in a whole slew of various gay marriage threads (among others in which I espouse the same "government shouldn't pick favorites" idea). I hold out hope that one day you might indeed "get it".

Quote:
It just makes you look like a partisan hack. Regardless of how loud he was, he's opposed it, voted against it, and then Real life got in the way.


In what way does his "real life" affect his position on gay marriage? Do you see how you are proceeding from an assumption that everyone makes political decisions based on the same criteria you use? You pick sides. You like certain groups, so you support them and support legislation which benefits them. Conservatives largely don't believe that process should be used at all. Thus, they'll oppose a liberal movement to provide something to a group that the liberals like, not because the conservatives "dislike" that group, but because they believe that is the wrong criteria to use.

The very fact that you assume that someone who is gay (closeted or not) is automatically a hypocrite if he opposes gay marriage shows the degree to which that "pick a side" mentality pervades your political thinking. It just can't occur to you that not everyone makes political decisions that way. thus, you constantly run around ascribing false motives to others, based on why you would do what they are doing, rather than considering that they might do it for a completely different reason...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Mar 05 2010 at 10:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Quote:
If you accept that there are other reasons to oppose said legislation which have nothing to do with liking or disliking the group in question, you'll see that your assumption is unfounded, and his own personal life is irrelevant in that context.


If we were talking about bills that included massive legislature changes, you could POSSIBLY have a point. But are we REALLY supposed to believe that EVERY SINGLE one of those votes was done for reasons that considered the "gay" issue to be a positive, rather than a negative, that just wasn't good enough to outweigh the negatives?

No, we shouldn't. Because that's stupid. No one in their right mind would try and put through a gay marriage prohibition along with OTHER traits that Republicans would dislike. There would be no reason to put the bill out there in the first place--you just eliminate the entire other party, instead of just some (and hopefully, not enough to fail the bill).

Logic tells us that this guy had a very specific grudge against homosexuals. We know this because of the extremely steady rate at which he opposes these bills, along a very wide range of topics--everything from Prop8 to voting to make a certain date a specific holiday.

Add in the fact that he's divorced and was just arrested after leaving a gay bar, and my gaydar is screaming that he's a closet case. The guy was there for a cheap **** with the first guy that would have him. He's, at the very best, bi. And I'd be surprised if it turned out that he had any sexual feelings for women. But, his sexuality isn't what is in question here.

Quote:
I know you don't. Despite the fact that I've explained this dozens of times in a whole slew of various gay marriage threads (among others in which I espouse the same "government shouldn't pick favorites" idea). I hold out hope that one day you might indeed "get it".


Your arguments are consistently stupid. So bad, that most political advocates against gay marriage don't even use them. Because the math tells us the exact opposite. You like to pretend that gay marriage would cost the state, when both predictive analyses AND economic studies done in areas where it has been approved prove the opposite. The economic revenue in Washington D.C. as a result of the recent approval is predicted to be $5 million and is expected to create 700 jobs in the next 3 years. In ONE city. Not one country. Not one state. One city. A city that isn't particularly known for its gay scene nonetheless.

And your "showing special consideration" idea is not only ********* but there's plenty basis for the opposite. In terms of anti-discriminatory laws, they are in place for most minorities (as well as at least one majority--women). If we consider marriage, it is not at all a request for special consideration but rather equal consideration, so your argument continues not to apply.

Now, if the gays were asking for tax breaks just for checking the box that says they're a banana crammer, I'd agree with you-- that law shouldn't go through (and I'M gay). If we were talking about getting tax incentives (as women do) for being business owners, I would vote against it. And if I thought gays should get a special weight on their admissions to universities just for wanting to suck the occasional ****, I still wouldn't vote for it.

But that's because my definition of equal consideration is just that--equal consideration. I don't think that being a minority should give you greater rights so as to balance the field. I think the government should give you equal rights, and let you try to make up the difference in the social realm yourself (which we have made HUGE strides in during the last four decades).

Quote:
The very fact that you assume that someone who is gay (closeted or not) is automatically a hypocrite if he opposes gay marriage shows the degree to which that "pick a side" mentality pervades your political thinking. It just can't occur to you that not everyone makes political decisions that way. thus, you constantly run around ascribing false motives to others, based on why you would do what they are doing, rather than considering that they might do it for a completely different reason...


Actually, the evidence for him being a hypocrite is overflowing. So much so, that I can label him a reason for MANY reasons.

1. He has been married and has 4 daughters, yet tells the public he's straight and speaks out against gays. Yet he tries to sneak of to gay bars for a one night stand with the first dumb *** that'll have him. I don't care WHAT job you work, that's enough to be a hypocrite.

2. As I said above, he consistently votes against gay rights bills, even if they have no significant legal impact. Hell, even if they have minor legal impact. And contrary to your staunch idea that he MUST be voting for these for reasons having nothing to do with gays, research tells us nothing but the opposite. In his career, he has literally voted on so few (and potentially no) bills regarding gay rights that organizations across the state had considered him one of their main blocks for years.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/05/BAF01CBFRT.DTL&type=gaylesbian wrote:
Charles Moran, spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans, a national gay Republican organization, said it is common for conservatives who are not out about their sexual orientation to vote against expanding gay rights.

"A lot of people who are closeted homosexuals think it will give them cover, but instead it increases the heat," Moran said.


How about, before you spout out crap, YOU do research. You know, before you start screaming at others for not doing theirs.

Hypocrite.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#56 Mar 06 2010 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
I see someone was bored and went on a red arrow spending spree in the thread. Ah well, I deserved it.
#57 Mar 06 2010 at 2:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Eh, you know, it's just the fUCkin' Bettys who feel so impotent they have to act out or die.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#58 Mar 06 2010 at 3:16 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Quote:
I see someone was bored and went on a red arrow spending spree in the thread. Ah well, I deserved it.


Let's just hope they can sleep better at night. It will help us get through our own pain.^^
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#59 Mar 06 2010 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Well, you completely missed my point, for someone who rants about assumptions so much, you certainly make a lot of them. that being said, a good point was brought up.

Quote:
The math tells us the exact opposite. You like to pretend that gay marriage would cost the state, when both predictive analyses AND economic studies done in areas where it has been approved prove the opposite. The economic revenue in Washington D.C. as a result of the recent approval is predicted to be $5 million and is expected to create 700 jobs in the next 3 years. In ONE city. Not one country. Not one state. One city. A city that isn't particularly known for its gay scene nonetheless.
How do you respond to this point Gbaji. If allowing gay marriage creates an industry and the benefits are higher then the "cost" in tax breaks or whatever would you support gay marriage? Maybe you disagree that there is this benefit, if you do, assume for the moment the benefit is there, would you support it then?

Edited, Mar 6th 2010 4:58pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#60 Mar 07 2010 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,735 posts
You aren't just gunna let this idiggory guy out word count you, gabji, right? Don't be a punk like that! Step it up.
#61 Mar 08 2010 at 9:04 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
My only comment is that just because Ashburn opposed gay stuff and might or might not be gay himself does not negate what could be his opinion on gay issues. He may well despise what he is (assuming for argument's sake he is gay) and opposes gay rights on principle or recognises he is gay, embraces that lifestyle, but does not believe that his condition/orientation necessitates political action.

But I will agree with Catho that gay **** *is* funny-- just as it was back in grade school. Homosexuals are, by their very nature, scatalogically focused, and thus is in the tried-and-true arena of earthy humor, worthy of being the butt of untold numbers of jokes. Ahhhh-hahahah, I crack myself up.

Totem
#62 Mar 08 2010 at 10:07 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
My only comment is that just because Ashburn opposed gay stuff and might or might not be gay himself does not negate what could be his opinion on gay issues. He may well despise what he is (assuming for argument's sake he is gay) and opposes gay rights on principle or recognises he is gay, embraces that lifestyle, but does not believe that his condition/orientation necessitates political action.

Go fly something and leave political implications to people working above your pay grade, cheese pilot.
#63 Mar 08 2010 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
My only comment is that just because Ashburn opposed gay stuff and might or might not be gay himself does not negate what could be his opinion on gay issues. He may well despise what he is (assuming for argument's sake he is gay) and opposes gay rights on principle or recognises he is gay, embraces that lifestyle, but does not believe that his condition/orientation necessitates political action.

Go fly something and leave political implications to people working above your pay grade, cheese pilot.


Not many of those anymore. You wouldn't believe how much a body full of organs fetches on the black market.
#64 Mar 08 2010 at 10:39 AM Rating: Good
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
My only comment is that just because Ashburn opposed gay stuff and might or might not be gay himself does not negate what could be his opinion on gay issues. He may well despise what he is (assuming for argument's sake he is gay) and opposes gay rights on principle or recognises he is gay, embraces that lifestyle, but does not believe that his condition/orientation necessitates political action.

Go fly something and leave political implications to people working above your pay grade, cheese pilot.


Not many of those anymore. You wouldn't believe how much a body full of organs fetches on the black market.

Pay Grade =/= Pay.

Nice attempt at a funny, though. Mandingo up there probably got at least a good snicker out of it.
#65 Mar 08 2010 at 11:26 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Totem wrote:
Ahhhh-hahahah, I crack myself up.
I see what you did there.
#66 Mar 08 2010 at 11:33 AM Rating: Good
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
My only comment is that just because Ashburn opposed gay stuff and might or might not be gay himself does not negate what could be his opinion on gay issues. He may well despise what he is (assuming for argument's sake he is gay) and opposes gay rights on principle or recognises he is gay, embraces that lifestyle, but does not believe that his condition/orientation necessitates political action.

Go fly something and leave political implications to people working above your pay grade, cheese pilot.


Not many of those anymore. You wouldn't believe how much a body full of organs fetches on the black market.

Pay Grade =/= Pay.

Nice attempt at a funny, though. Mandingo up there probably got at least a good snicker out of it.


I bet he laughed so hard he had a heart attack.

Luckily, he's got spares.
#67REDACTED, Posted: Mar 08 2010 at 11:45 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You Democrats are absolutely 100% right.
#68 Mar 08 2010 at 11:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We did our part!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#69 Mar 08 2010 at 3:18 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
You Democrats are absolutely 100% right.

We need to combine our efforts to see to it that a bi-partisan effort to keep closeted homosexual congressmen out of office is achieved.

Lead on.
I want all my leaders to own their fabulousness.

Here I go, here I go, here I go again
Girls, what's my weakness? MEN!
Okay, then.
#70 Mar 08 2010 at 4:38 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
You Democrats are absolutely 100% right.

We need to combine our efforts to see to it that a bi-partisan effort to keep closeted homosexual congressmen out of office is achieved.

Lead on.
I want all my leaders to own their fabulousness.

Here I go, here I go, here I go again
Girls, what's my weakness? MEN!
Okay, then.


salt n pepa?

really?

oh, alright.
#71 Mar 08 2010 at 4:48 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Well, it is a thread about gay hijinks.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#72 Mar 08 2010 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
idiggory wrote:
Well, it is a thread about gay hijinks.
Damn straight.
#73 Mar 08 2010 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good
Speaking of gay hijinks, Senator Ashburn officially came out today.

Quote:
Republican Sen. Roy Ashburn, who has been on leave from the Senate since his DUI arrest last week, confirmed today that he is gay.

"I'm gay," Ashburn told KERN radio host Inga Barks in an interview this morning. "Those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long."

Ashburn's announcement follows reports that Ashburn was leaving a gay club before he was arrested for driving under the influence last week.

The Bakersfield Republican, who has consistently voted against gay-rights measures, said his votes were a reflection of how the majority of voters in his conservative district would have wanted him to vote.

Ashburn, who is divorced, has been on personal leave in the Senate since last week's arrest. He is expected to return today.

Benjamin Lopez, lobbyist for the Traditional Values Coalition, said, "I don't know why Roy strayed. But he said that the Rev. Louis Sheldon, founder of the coalition, was open to help Ashburn with counseling.

Lopez stood with Ashburn at a rally in Bakersfield in 2005 to support a state proposal to block gay marriage as well as to get rid of domestic partnerships with any benefits of marriage.

"I think it's sad more than hypocritical," Lopez said. "We're not in Roy's head. We don't know what is he thinking. We hope he comes to terms with whatever is making him make a choice to be a gay man."

Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, a gay rights group that sponsors many state bills, called Ashburn's comments about his voting record "a lame excuse."

"He's blaming his constituents," Kors said. "There are legislators in the Central Valley who have voted for LBGT (lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender) rights."

In a press released midday Monday, Equality California said: "We can empathize with Senator Ashburn's long and difficult journey to admit that he is gay. Equality California looks forward to working with the Senator to use his experience to educate the people in his district on why he deserves the same rights and privileges as a gay man as any other Californian.

Ashburn said on the radio show: "My votes reflect the wishes of the people in my district. I have always felt that my faith and allegiance was to the people, there, in the district, my constituents. And so as each of these individual measures came before the Legislature I cast 'no' votes, usually 'no' votes, because the measures were . . . almost always acknowledging rights or assigning identification to homosexual persons."

Kors said: "People elected him to lead. I would be shocked to see if there is any polling that shows that most people in his district believe that anyone should be fired from their job because of their sexual orientation or kicked out of public accommodations because of their sexual orientation. And yet he voted against bills to prevent that."

Kors said that former Assemblyman Simon Salinas, D-Salinas, voted for a bill to legalize gay marriage "and then was told he could never run for anything again. But he went on to win a county supervisor race by 70 percent of the vote."

Kors said: "It seems that there have been a number of politicians who seem so concerned that it (being gay) will impact their careers that they not only hide, they vote against LBGT rights to squash rumors about their sexual orientation."

Lopez said Ashburn will have to "take a back seat" on the cause against same-sex marriage. But he said if Ashburn continues in the Senate, as he suggested during his radio interview, he should continue to cast votes "consistent with his district."

"We thank Roy for all his votes on social issues," Lopez said.


Well, at least he had the guts to admit it, unlike Larry "Wide Stance" Craig.

And hey, nothing wrong with being gay. Maybe he'll join the Log Cabin Republicans now?
#74 Mar 08 2010 at 7:07 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
18,463 posts
Totem wrote:
My only comment is that just because Ashburn opposed gay stuff and might or might not be gay himself does not negate what could be his opinion on gay issues. He may well despise what he is (assuming for argument's sake he is gay) and opposes gay rights on principle or recognises he is gay, embraces that lifestyle, but does not believe that his condition/orientation necessitates political action.

Well, he came out today and apparently his rationalization is that a pro-gay stance doesn't reflect the majority views of his district, not his "own internal conflict".

I guess I would believe this ******** if some of the bills he voted down didn't push 'gay' rights so much as ensure basic human rights.
Quote:
Ashburn has voted on the wrong side of 30 to 40 gay rights-related bills, including no on Assembly Bill 14 in 2007, which Kors said prohibited discrimination against gays in public places including bars, and no on Assembly Bill 394 in 2007, which Equality California says helped ensure full implementation of school safety standards regarding harassment and discrimination.
#75 Mar 09 2010 at 9:00 AM Rating: Excellent
I actually feel a little pity for the guy. It's got to be hard to be so opposed to homosexual rights, and be a homosexual yourself.
#76 Mar 09 2010 at 9:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I actually feel a little pity for the guy. It's got to be hard to be so opposed to homosexual rights, and be a homosexual yourself.


Do you not think he voted the way he voted in order to divert suspicion? The lady, as it were, protested too much.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 277 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (277)