Gore says Homosexuality is Abnormal and Wrong

[Ramlick]

Damn Lasher,

That was a fucking long post. I did read it though.

That was the first time I ever witnessed someone handicapping the Supreme Court "race" as if it were the Superebowl. You're in depth analysis puts John Madden to shame. Interesting job, however.

One point you missed:

During the Reagan administration the Republicans controlled the Senate for six years. That's a little-known fact that Republicans like to conveniently forget about when making the "let's blame all of the country's problems during the Reagan years on Congress." For the novices who read this, the Senate and the House of Representaitives constitute "Congress." So from 1980-88 the GOP controlled the Executive Branch, and half of Congress.

Those years, of course, pale in comparison to the years 1992-2000, when Bill Clinton was president. Not only are the numbers for unemployement, crime, inflation, interest rates and the rest better than ever before in my lifetime, but it's happening while the government is running surpluses. And at peacetime to boot! This can all be traced back to the 1993 Budget package in which taxes were raised on upper income earners. The GOP fought it tooth and nail claiming it would wreck the economy. Of course the real reason they fought it is to protect their wealthy constituents.

I do give some credit for the surpluses to the GOP congress that did curb some spending. But there's no way we'd have surpluses today without the 1993 budget.

[Edited by Ramlick on 10-17-2000 at 01:45 PM]

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Yeah Laurel.....

It's tough to get behind GWB - given his position on sodomy laws and all.

And Lasher - thanks - amazing how much time you must have on your to do all that rather thorough research and thinking. Very informative. And logical. Waiting to hear on your issues.

 

[Lasher]

Ramlick, the Democrats gained control of the Senate in 1986, not '88. Only two years, but still just a little bit of difference. And throughout that time the Democrats had a stranglehold on the House of Representatives. Anyone familiar with Article I. Section 7 of the US Constitution will understand just how important that is.

Oh, and didn't miss it, just failed to mention it. Although I should have mentioned that a divided Congress is the best form of divided government. That is Gridlock at it's finest.

And I think to point to one thing as being the reason that anything happens in this world is slightly naive. The world is far too dynamic for anything to happen that way. When I said that what we are seeing now is the result of the way our government has been run and behaved over the past 20 years, I meant exactly what I said. The seeds for our current economic well-being were planted 20 years ago. Many of the initiatives of the Reagan era didn't have immediate fruition, but we are definitely reaping the benefits of a world in which geopolitical and world wide economic policies are no longer dictated by the tip of a nuclear missle. Ending the Cold War was the first step in returning balance to the worldwide economy.

Oh, and don't forget the tax deal that Bush Sr. made in '91 that cost him the '92 election, but did get the economy moving in the right direction. People forget that the Recession was over before George Bush left office, and that there had been several months of slow, non-inflationary growth in the final months of Bush's presidency. It was just a case of too little, too late. And, btw, had it not been for Ross Perot, Bush wins the '92 election.

There's much more, but I think you get the gist.

I've got too much going on at the moment to give this the time it deserves. And I'm still building up to the economic details of this years presidential race, Sparky. Unfortunately, that is something that I need to do a little research on. Surprisingly enough, the research for the Supreme Court post only took a couple minutes, mostly to double check some dates. The rest of it was gravy. It's nice to see I'm finally getting some use out of my History degree, though.

 

[Ramlick]

Lasher,

I made an error on my last post when I said "So from 1980-88 the GOP controlled the Executive Branch, and half of Congress." That was a slip.

I made the point, however, that the GOP controlled the Senate for six years during the Reagan administration. That's a fact. You're wrong on that. You see, the GOP control of the Senate for six years between 1980-88 was not continuous. When Reagan was first elected, he brought with him a GOP Senate. Then the GOP lost control, and later won it back.

I'm not surprised this very important detail escaped you. It seems to escape most people. We are constantly bombarded with the propoganda from radio, TV, internet, etc...and we begin to believe fallacies.

I agree that Bush Sr. did the right thing when he raised taxes. He paid a political price for it just as the democratic congress did after passing the 1993 budget. In my opinion, Bush was a better president than Reagan, although Reagan will always be a more dominant figure simply because he was there for eight years vs. Bush's four. Reagan also did a lot more damage.

To say that today's prosperity can be traced back to the Reagan years is a perverse over-simplification. If one were to accept the argument that today's prosperity is due in large part to the fall of communism and the opening of world markets (which I do happen to agree with), then you can give credit to every administration back to Truman's, who helped establish the Marshall plan and the policy of containing the Soviet Union. The fantasy that certain naive Republicans have that Reagan singlehandedly defeated communism is absurd. Reagan was but one in a long line of presidents who helped fight the "cold war." Reagan deserves no more credit than Truman, Ike, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. Therefore, today's prosperity can be traced all the way back to WWII.

 

[Ramlick]

By the way, the argument that Perot cost Bush the election is another excuse that Republicans tell themselves to make them feel good.

Without Perot in that race, I believe Clinton would have won by a greater margin. The evidence I have (and I encourage you to verify this) is that if you recall Ross Perot suddenly dropped out of the race back in '91. Do you remember that? Then a few weeks later, he re-entered the race. Ring a bell? Okay, so here's my point:

When Perot dropped out of the race, Clinton's lead over Bush widened significantly.

Let me repeat that:

When Perot dropped out of the race, Clinton's lead over Bush widened significantly.

Now I don't have the exact figures, but if you doubt me, I encourage you to do a little homework on this and check it out. I wouldn't shit you.

This whole "Perot is the reason Clinton won" is nothing more than a big excuse and lie that the GOP has been telling for years hoping to discredit Clinton and validate themselves as being the "majority."

 

[Lasher]

Therefore, today's prosperity can be traced all the way back to WWII.

I would absolutely agree with that statement. And I like the way your thinking on this. I've always been distressed in the past to see that most people think that Historical Events occur in a vaccuum. I'm pleased to see that you understand that History does not occur as isolated points, but in a continuous line.

I would also say that today's prosperity would not exist if the Cold War had not ended.

I think it's very safe to draw a distinct line between where this country was headed during the Carter years, and what happened after. I also think that the military build up that occurred in Reagan's first term is a major (but certainly not the only) cause of the stresses that led to the break up of the former Soviet Union.

It's difficult to compare presidents and say this one was good and this one was bad. It's too difficult for most people to get past ideology to be truly objective in their opinions. Reagan happened to be the right man for that time. I shudder to think what would have happened to this country if Ted Kennedy would've been elected in 1980. It's only the incumbent favoring primary rules that prevented him from being the Democratic nominee that year.

History may also show that Clinton turned out to be the right man for the job in the '90s. When you get past the scandals and look at the economy and the role that the US is playing throughout the world, it will be interesting to see just how History views him. But that's always the tricky part. Which Nixon do you talk about? The one that opened the door to China, or the one that nearly destroyed the power of the presidency? Or which Carter? The one who brought human rights to the forefront of international diplomacy, or the one who nearly destroyed the military power of the United States? Unfortunately, that's the same type of hole that Clinton has dug for himself.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Lasher]

Now I don't have the exact figures, but if you doubt me, I encourage you to do a little homework on this and check it out. I wouldn't shit you.

Well, I'm not gonna do your research for you. If you want to make a claim, your best bet is to make sure that you can back it up.

But I do have some information from Gallup exit polling for the 1992 presidential election. The question Gallup asked of Perot voters was which of the other major candidates they would have voted for if Perot were not on the ballot. Perot voters participating in the exit poll responded with a 62% Bush, 38% Clinton vote. Interestingly enough, this projected to 50.4% to 49.6% Clinton victory based on the popular vote. However, Gallup took this a step further and projected this on a state by state basis which, because of huge wins by Clinton in New York, California, and Illinois, showed a 276 to 262 edge for Bush in the Electoral College.

The major gains for Bush came in the South and West - traditionally Republican strongholds where Perot attracted over 30% of the vote in some states. Gallup projected narrow Bush victories in the following states that had actually been narrow Clinton victories in the actual election...

CO, GA, KY, ME, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, OH, TN, WI.

Also intriguing (to me), is that I would not be surprised to see this same dynamic at work in the upcoming election. Because of the huge margins of victory expected of Gore in California and New York, and the closeness of the race in other major states such as PA, FL, IL, OH and MI, I think George Dubbayah could probably lose the popular vote by as much as 1 to 1.5% and still win the Electoral College vote.

It's certainly something to think about...

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Ramlick]

Lasher

Both Nixon and Carter were tough on communism, and that is what I was speaking to. The popular myth that Carter destroyed the military is outlandish. The fall of the Soviet Union was inevitable, and Reagan deserves no more credit than any other president since Truman. Bush, by the way, was president when the Soviet Union actually crumbled.

Gorbachev will be credited in history as being the person who had the most to do with bringing democracy to Russia during the last 20 years.

 

[Samuari]

Doncha just love Matt Drudge? Now everyone will have to cover this interesting tidbit tomorrow on the legitimate news sources. lol

Do you mean that Matt isn't legit?

 

[Lasher]

...Carter were tough on communism

I never thought I'd live to see the day that "Carter" and "tough" were in the same sentence. I'd love to see you back that up, but I know you have difficulty providing us with facts to back up anything you say.

That's the end of this discussion.

 

[Cheyenne]

Wow, thanks guys. Excellent discussion of political history.

 

[Ramlick]

...Carter were tough on communism

I never thought I'd live to see the day that "Carter" and "tough" were in the same sentence. I'd love to see you back that up, but I know you have difficulty providing us with facts to back up anything you say.

That's the end of this discussion.

Lasher,

Seeing as how you didn't even know that the GOP controlled the Senate for six years during the Reagan administration, I'd be careful of accusing others of not having the "facts."

 

[Expertise]

Ramlick, saying that Carter wasn't tough on anything INCLUDING communism is spot on.

And big fucking deal that Bush (not that he was a bad Pres.) was in the Whitehouse when communism actualy "fell" in eastern Europe and the USSR. Do you think you bring down a belief system/edifice like that in a couple of years? Everyone with an ounce of insight realizes that the massive military build up during the Reagan administration forced the Soviet Union to try and keep up with the jones's and in doing so bankrupted their country and belief system.

Good god man try to stay with the tour.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

What also scares me is that, by all accounts, the man is a raging homophobe and a bigot.

He refused to sign a hate crime bill supported by the family of James Byrd - the guy who was dragged behind a truck by racists -

I don't believe one is necessarily a "bigot" because he opposes hate crime legislation. If you watched the 2nd presidential debate, you heard GWB address the issue of the Bird case. His response was very common-sensical:

What's point of prosecuting murder as a hate crime when it already carries the most severe possible punishment? 2 of the 3 men convicted in the Bird murder were sentenced to death. What additional justice could have been done?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, but as I understand it, the argument for specifically prohibiting hate crimes is that by punishing crimes motivated by intolerance towards gays, minorities, et cetera, we may discourage the unacceptable hatred that caused them.

I'm by no means a legal expert, but isn't objective of laws to punish behaviors? On an individual case-by-case basis, the existence of a "hate crime" law doesn't mean a whit: would you mind any less if you were shot and killed during a robbery by a man with complete indifference for whether you lived or died or by a man who shot you because he hated the color of your skin?

On a societal level, though, I understand the argument for the laws. Hate crimes extend far beyond the individual victims and their families. They inflame communities and increase racial tensions, making it even harder to make progress eliminating racism and hate.

Ideally, I would support such laws. Again, though, in states that already dole out the death penalty to murderers, what's the point to prosecute a hate crime on top of ordinary murder already being prosecuted? It seems utterly cosmetic to me, as if only to convince ourselves that we're doing something to battle intolerance, when in fact, we're just prosecuting another murder/rape/etc.

I see this same problem again and again in "progressive" (notice the quotation marks) social legislation. They're little more than legal window-dressing: great intentions and goals, but more symbol than substance.

To bring this long-winded post back to the topic of GWB, Laurel, this is why I think you're wrong. It's possible to oppose the prosecution of "hate crimes" for reasons other than bigotry. The same goes for opposition to other social legislation.

The common fallacy is that opposition to social legislation equates to opposition to social change.

It just isn't so.





[Edited by Oliver Clozoff on 10-18-2000 at 11:26 AM]

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Laurel]

I don't believe one is necessarily a "bigot" because he opposes hate crime legislation.

No, but one IS a bigot when the reason that they oppose said hate crime legislation is the inclusion of gays. They are also a bigot when they refuse to overturn an anti-sodomy law in their state on the grounds that it stands as "a symbolic gesture of traditional values." (re: http://salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/16/byrds/index.html ).

I don't care if on a personal level if the Presidency is offended by the idea of gay sex. It does bother me when he won't make steps - such as signing a hate crimes bill and overturning something as ridiculously antiquated as an anti-sodomy law - towards the promotion of a free and equal society.

There's two views on homosexuality - that it's genetically predetermined, or that it's a lifestyle choice. If it's physiological, as is race or skin color, then they deserve equal rights and protection. If it is a choice, as is religion, then again they deserve equal rights and protection. Period.

GWB supports an anti-sodomy law on the grounds that it's a "symbolic gesture" - it sends a specific moral message. He's clearly not against legislation that is ineffectual except to set an example of morality - I doubt he intends to march into the bedrooms of married couples and arrest them for having oral or anal sex. However, he does not support a hate crimes bill. It's quite obvious, from the symbolic gestures he chooses to support, what his opinion is of gays.

 

[Lasher]

The fall of the Soviet Union has more to do with Gorbachev's policies than anything.

I thought I made this clear in one of my responses to Ramlick, but I'll reiterate again to make this more clear.

The trap most people fall into when studying History is to try and make everything into a causal relationship. The fall of the Soviet Union didn't come about because of Gorbachev's policies anymore than it came about because of Reagan's military build up. The fact is that History is a linear progression with each event hanging on the event before it. You could not have the Berlin Wall fall without Glasnost and Perestroika. You could not have Glasnost and Perestroika without Gorbachev. You could not have Gorbachev without Reagan. An infinite number of things taking place in a given order is how History is made. Some of these things are very large and easily noticeable. Others are minute and go unnoticed for decades and even centuries.

That being said, there are still events in History that mark an absolute change in the way the world does business. And when you look back into history these events are easy to spot and it's how we delineate the study of History. The Fall of the Roman Empire marks the beginning of the Dark Ages. The publishing of Dante's "Inferno" marks the beginning of the Renaissance. Martin Luther nailing his Theses on the church door marks the beginning of the Reformation and on and on...

While Ramlick was twisting my every word to invent a difference of opinion, it may have slipped by everyone that I did not say that Reagan was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. What I said was:

I also think that the military build up that occurred in Reagan's first term is a major (but certainly not the only) cause of the stresses that led to the break up of the former Soviet Union.

There's no doubt that about the veracity of that statement. But what I think is being missed is that the election of Reagan in 1980 marked such a dynamic change in policy from previous administrations that when the History of the Cold War and the 20th Century is written, that's the date that will mark the beginning of our current modern era of prosperity.

I've have tried from the beginning to keep this particular debate non-partisan and objective. That's the reason I stopped responding to Ramlick. His only interest was to descredit anything previous Republican administrations had accomplished for the glory of his beloved Democratic party. So be it, but that's not what I was discussing.

I'm still trying to figure out how I got from handicapping the Supreme Court to a discourse on Historiography...

Oh, while on the subject of the election (sort of), I found a site that's posting odds on the election for those of you who like to gamble on such things. The site claims that on 498 races it posted odds on in 1998 it was over 98% correct. Right now they've got the election as a dead heat.... Here's the link:

http://www.campaignline.com/odds/index.cfm

 

[SimplySouthern]

Just a little info "on the legal tip" for Ollie.

First off, if you are the victim of a robbery...it isn't a hate crime. It's a money crime A hate crime, I would think, would be a crime that was perpetrated only for the reasons of harming someone beacause of their race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

Second, regarding hate crimes being "different" than regular murders, other crimes, etc: Often (in NC at least) if you are convicted of a crime that is racially (or hate) motivated, that adds to the aggravating factors in the case, which in turn garners you more jail/prison time. With the new laws and structured sentencing, this is a very big deal. It means the difference sometimes of years on a persons prison sentence.

I think the message we are trying to send is one not of acceptance, but of tolerance. You don't have to like everyone, but please play nice. I suppose it is true what they say...we could learn a lot as adults by revisiting a Kindergarten classroom.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Ramlick]

Lasher,

see you said itt again:

"There's no doubt that about the veracity of that statement. But what I think is being missed is that the election of Reagan in 1980 marked such a dynamic change in policy from previous administrations that when the History of the Cold War and the 20th Century is written, that's the date that will mark the beginning of our current modern era of prosperity."

This right here is where we differ. This is the statement that you're making that I have a problem with. I already made my case that Reagan deserves no more credit for today's properity than any other president since WWII. I thought you agreed with me, but I guess I misunderstood you, cause "there you go again."

I believe the Soviet Union would have fallen no matter who had been president between 1980-88. As I said, there hasn't been a president in this country since WWII who's been soft on communism. Not a single one. To try and give Reagan some special credit is absurd. The myth of Reagan has been created by frustrated Republicans who haven't had a political hero this century since Teddy Roosevelt, and who were deeply distressed that Nixon was taken down. The climate surrounding Clinton today can be traced back to Nixon and th GOP's desire for revenge.

Lasher, the only people I know giving special credit for today's prosperity to Reagan are partisans Republicans and talk radio hosts. Nobody wishing to be taken seriously pinpoints 1980 as any sort of "turning point" regarding the current wealth of America.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

He's clearly not against legislation that is ineffectual except to set an example of morality -

That's a good point, Laurel. If there was ever a good example of purely symbolic, insubstantial legislation it's anti-sodomy laws. I haven't ever heard of them being actually being enforced (at least in the last 30 years or so).

There's no justifiable reason to support them other than to pander to conservative religious voters. And guess who lives in Texas?

When it comes to politics, especially recently, what a politician believes and what he claims to believe seem to be only loosely associated.

It's a political reality that to be elected, one has to temper his idealism and try to make small, incremental changes while he waits for his electorate to catch up, rather than state his opposition plainly.

A couple of examples... Al Gore publicly opposed abortion early in his career because he had to play to his rural conservative Tennessee electorate. Today he supports abortion. It's possible that he changed his mind over the years, but isn't it more likely that he voiced false opposition to get elected in a place where an abortion advocate wouldn't stand a chance? (It's also possible that he was telling the truth back then and is lying now... whatdya think? )

Abraham Lincoln was a lifetime opponent of slavery, but softened his public position on the issue in order to get elected so he could attempt to abolish it. Lincoln didn't write the Emanicipation Proclamation until the middle of the civil war because he was afraid of dividing the north over slavery and threatening the war effort.

If you're too radical, you don't get elected/re-elected.

Does GWB hate gays? I have no idea. But as a resident of a southern state, I do know that overturning anti-sodomy statutes in a southern state is still a very unpopular position (embarrassed as I am to admit it).

But what ifGWB truly hates gays as much as you claim? Or even worse? What would the consequences be? He's not going to march into anyone's bedrooms (as you mentioned). Are there national hate crimes laws? If there are, could he repeal them? Would he even try?

In light of his new national consituency it would seem to be too much trouble for too little gain. He'll no longer need the religious right. And whatever his personal beliefs, he's too smart a politician to play to a small minority.

As chique as it is to say that we're picking between the lesser of two evils in this election, I believe the opposite. I believe both men are extremely capable and up to the task. We won't lose either way.

I want to see more than half of my future salary, though, so you can guess which handle I'll pull.





[Edited by Oliver Clozoff on 10-18-2000 at 03:38 PM]

 

[Laurel]

Off topic, I saw this on another board and had to share...

For those of you who didn't have time to watch the Presidential debates, here's a quick summary ....

Jim Lehrer: Welcome to the second presidential debate between Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush. The candidates have agreed on these rules: I will ask a question. The candidate will ignore the question and deliver rehearsed remarks designed to appeal to undecided women voters. The opponent will then have one minute to respond by trying to frighten senior citizens into voting for him. When a speaker's time has expired, I will whimper softly while he continues to spew incomprehensible statistics for three more minutes. Let's start with the vice president. Mr. Gore, can you give us the name of a downtrodden citizen and then tell us his or her story in a way that strains the bounds of common sense?

Gore: As I was saying to Tipper last night after we tenderly made love the way we have so often during the 30 years of our rock-solid marriage, the downtrodden have a clear choice in this election. My opponent wants to cut taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans. I, on the other hand, want to put the richest 1 percent in an iron clad lockbox so they can't hurt old people like Roberta Frampinhamper, who is here tonight. Mrs. Frampinhamper has been selling her internal organs, one by one, to pay for gas so that she can travel to these debates and personify problems for me. Also, her poodle has arthritis.

Lehrer: Gov. Bush, your rebuttal.

Bush: Governors are on the front lines every day, hugging people, crying with them, relieving suffering anywhere a photo opportunity exists. I want to empower those crying people to make their own decisions, unlike my opponent, whose mother is not Barbara Bush.

Lehrer: Let's turn to foreign affairs. Gov. Bush, if Slobodan Milosevic were to launch a bid to return to power in Yugoslavia, would you be able to pronounce his name?

Bush: The current administration had eight years to deal with that guy and didn't get it done. If I'm elected, the first thing I would do about that guy is have Dick Cheney confer with our allies. And then Dick would present me several options for dealing with that guy. And then Dick would tell me which one to choose. You know, as governor of Texas, I have to make tough foreign policy decisions every day about how we're going to deal with New Mexico.

Lehrer: Mr. Gore, your rebuttal.

Gore: Foreign policy is something I've always been keenly interested in. I served my country in Vietnam. I had an uncle who was a victim of poison gas in World War I. I myself lost a leg in the Franco-Prussian War. And when that war was over, I came home and tenderly made love to Tipper in a way that any undecided woman voter would find romantic. If I'm entrusted with the office of president, I pledge to deal knowledgeably with any threat, foreign or domestic, by putting it in an iron clad lockbox. Because the American people deserve a president who can comfort them with simple metaphors.

Lehrer: Vice President Gore, how would you reform the Social Security system?

Gore: It's a vital issue, Jim. That's why Joe Lieberman and I have proposed changing the laws of mathematics to allow us to give $50,000 to every senior citizen without having it cost the federal treasury a single penny until the year 2250. In addition, my budget commits $60 trillion over the next 10 years to guarantee that all senior citizens can have drugs delivered free to their homes every Monday by a federal employee who will also help them with the child-proof cap.

Lehrer: Gov. Bush?

Bush: That's fuzzy math. I know, because as governor of Texas, I have to do math every day. I have to add up the numbers and decide whether I'm going to fill potholes out on Rt. 36 east of Abilene or commit funds to reroof the sheep barn at the Texas state fairgrounds.

Lehrer: It's time for closing statements.

Gore: I'm my own man. I may not be the most exciting politician, but I will fight for the working families of America, in addition to turning the White House into a lusty pit of marital love for Tipper and me.

Bush: It's time to put aside the partisanship of the past by electing no one but Republicans.

 

[Thumper]

Hey Now!

That is a debate that I would love to see...

Sadly enough that kind of vague mish mash (sad because t was without the humor) is exactly what I thought transpired last night....

In my opinion...the real turning point was somewhere around the mid 70's when two brothers named Van Halen hooked up with a wild eyed screwball named Dave and turned rock'n roll on it's ass....

I'm votin for Gore...why?

Because all the truckdrivers I hear on the Cb and the "Truckin Bozo" are saying he's the downfall of the country. Of course they would all vote for Buchanan if he wasn't such a left leaning wimp.

They haven't been right about anything yet.