• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriage

Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Paschendale said:
I would imagine that very few people express affection to each other merely to anger others around them. Gay pride parades aren't about angering people. They're about visibility. Showing that there are many homosexuals in a community and that they're a part of it, and cannot be ignored or marginalized. Overt displays of sexuality or affection might indeed offend some people, but overt displays of religiousness do, too. That's some of the things that we all need to tolerate to live together in one country. But if you don't like looking at them, by all means look at something else.
Click to expand...

Perhaps thats the thing. I don't like the term "gay community" because in my mind it sort of legitimizes the division and therefore marginalization of homosexuals vs. heterosexuals. It goes against the "we are not so much different then you" by saying look at us and how different we are.

In all fairness, I get equally pissed off at overt displays of religious zealotry. I see it as pretentious and strictly attention seeking.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Visbek said:
Gays don't "put on circuses in public to piss people off." Gay Pride Parades are ultimately political in nature, both as a celebration of their culture and a display that they are an oppressed minority, who will not be ashamed of their sexual preferences.

And it's not that there is "no difference." It's that they want to be afforded protections against discrimination in order to receive the same rights as everyone else.



They don't. They have different norms.



If you were harassed on a daily basis because of your sexual preferences, you might feel a little defiant about it.

I.e. you're putting the cart before the horse. The political stridence of some members of the gay community is a reaction against discrimination, not the cause of their sexual preferences.

This has had an impact on gay culture, but not on the underlying nature of homosexuality itself. You don't become gay because you want to be defiant; you are gay if you're sexually attracted to someone of the same sex.
Click to expand...

Discrimination in what form? I don't think you should be allowed to discriminate solely based on if one identifies as homosexual or not. But, at the same time, if someone is non-compliant with policies of dress-code, productivity, behavior etc. etc., they should not be afforded extra protections strictly based on their sexuality.

Also, cool. You can be proud to be gay, just don't hold me up at lunch hour in Downtown Orlando to show me how "proud you are."

My parents always taught me that pride is from within, and one does not need to boast of it to be proud. Boasting, is artificial pride and a sign of insecurity. But those are my values.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

madman said:
Well, then you are anti-gay marriage which makes you a homophobe. Religion does this to a person. There are many male/female people that cant reproduce, should we prevent them from getting married? Hell, im willing to bet that there may be a bit more male/females that cant reproduce due to infertility problems than homosexuals.
This question is always dodged.

If you are gonna be bigoted against homosexuals then i expect you to feel the same towards those with fertility issues.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHHHHH

I'm an atheist = failed attack.

I wasn't even talking about marriage, marriage is a social construct and can be whatever the hell society wants it to be.

I was talking about biology. Sorry if nature offends you.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

TheNextEra said:
Well if the right would stop arguing those things, then we can move on to more important issues. But alas, the right wants this distraction and they themselves focus on it by trying to stop it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, yeah....I'd say that the liberal left perpetuates this argument as a distraction to the larger destruction they are up to....
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

j-mac said:
Yeah, yeah, yeah....I'd say that the liberal left perpetuates this argument as a distraction to the larger destruction they are up to....
Click to expand...

Yeah, because the right is innocent correct? Gimme a break, the victim mentality from the right is getting a little old. Fact is if the right stopped arguing these things, they would be done and can move onto bigger things. Since the right wants to fight it, they themselves have chosen to make this the top priority over anything else.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

ReformCollege said:
Perhaps thats the thing. I don't like the term "gay community" because in my mind it sort of legitimizes the division and therefore marginalization of homosexuals vs. heterosexuals. It goes against the "we are not so much different then you" by saying look at us and how different we are.

In all fairness, I get equally pissed off at overt displays of religious zealotry. I see it as pretentious and strictly attention seeking.
Click to expand...

Well, any group that shares something in common, especially if it is something outside the mainstream, is going to form a community. And that such a group is marginalized makes a difference in how that community operates. Jews have a community. Star Trek fans have a community. Gays have a community. In each case, being oppressed in some form makes up part of that community's mentality. It's unavoidable. The way to bridge that gap is to not oppress them. I think you're mixing cause and effect here.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Paschendale said:
Well, any group that shares something in common, especially if it is something outside the mainstream, is going to form a community. And that such a group is marginalized makes a difference in how that community operates. Jews have a community. Star Trek fans have a community. Gays have a community. In each case, being oppressed in some form makes up part of that community's mentality. It's unavoidable. The way to bridge that gap is to not oppress them. I think you're mixing cause and effect here.
Click to expand...

Hell, I belong to a community and have my entire life, just because we've been so isolated from mainstream society. Of course we're going to group together and potentially develop a group consciousness.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

TheNextEra said:
Yeah, because the right is innocent correct? Gimme a break, the victim mentality from the right is getting a little old. Fact is if the right stopped arguing these things, they would be done and can move onto bigger things. Since the right wants to fight it, they themselves have chosen to make this the top priority over anything else.
Click to expand...

"Top priority"? I don't think so...So let's not be melodramatic k? I never said "the right was innocent", but you are certainly trying your hardest to place all the blame of this on the 'right', so I'd say that is classic projection on your part...You say, "if the right would stop arguing", well, wouldn't that just be the perfect world for you progressives, eh? One with no opposition to any of your ideas....Probably because liberal progressives think that 'compromise' means to see things their way. As for bigger things, you don't want to solve any of those either, because it takes away your ability to bash....So....Yeah....try again. :lamo
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Paschendale said:
Well, any group that shares something in common, especially if it is something outside the mainstream, is going to form a community. And that such a group is marginalized makes a difference in how that community operates. Jews have a community. Star Trek fans have a community. Gays have a community. In each case, being oppressed in some form makes up part of that community's mentality. It's unavoidable. The way to bridge that gap is to not oppress them. I think you're mixing cause and effect here.
Click to expand...


To use terms such as "oppression" for something like this I think diminishes those that were truly oppressed....
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Muddy Creek said:
Seems ol' Karl is trying to come back. Sorry. He's so crooked even his fingers don't point straight.
Click to expand...

"Crooked" in what way?
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

j-mac said:
"Crooked" in what way?
Click to expand...

For Whom the Bell Polls: Karl Rove's Jig is Up | Crooks and Liars

A study Wednesday by the Sunlight Foundation, which tracks political spending, concluded that Rove's super PAC, American Crossroads, had a success rate of just 1 percent on $103 million in attack ads -- one of the lowest "returns on investment" (ROIs) of any outside spending group in this year's elections.

. . .

The super donors didn't get much for their money. Six of the eight GOP Senate candidates that American Crossroads spent money to try to elect – Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, George Allen in Virginia, Josh Mandel in Ohio, Richard Mourdock in Indiana, Denny Rehberg in Montana and Todd Akin in Missouri – lost their races, along with Romney. The group did, on the other hand, help to elect Deb Fischer in Nebraska and Dean Heller in Nevada.
Click to expand...

Perhaps con-artist is best expressed in this example.

The Eclectic Radical: In Today's News: Karl Rove is a Crook...

. . .
To quote the Associated Press:

"The documents show that staffers in Rove's office were actively seeking to have Iglesias removed after Republican figures in New Mexico complained that he was not pursuing voter fraud cases they wanted. In 2005, Rove aide Scott Jennings sent an e-mail to another Rove aide saying, "I would really like to move forward with getting rid of NM US ATTY.""



Republicans in New Mexico wanted David Iglesias fired for not pursuing the cases they wanted pursued. They complained to Rove's office. Rove's staffers were eager to fire Iglesias. Rove spoke to White House Counsel Harriet Miers on the topic. Iglesias was fired. The circumstantial evidence in question is damning enough, and Miers careful choice of the words 'I don't recall' brings to mind the quasi-senile testimony of Ronald Reagan at the Iran-Contra hearings. As it turned out, President Reagan had a legitimate medical excuse. To the best of my knowledge, Miers does not. Remember that, in a court of law, the issue is whether a charge can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. To my mind, the Republican responses to the facts are not 'reasonable' by any stretch of the words.

. . .
Click to expand...

Then we can go to the Iraq war lies.

The Lies of Karl Rove

oseph Goebbels, the leading propagandist of the Third Reich, believed in the power of the lie; the greater the lie, the greater the power. Goebbels would have loved Karl Rove's "Courage and Consequences: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight," a pastiche of lies, fabrications and distortions designed to rehabilitate the record of the Bush-Cheney years. There are too many lies to treat in this one column, but his greatest lie is that the Bush administration would not have invaded Iraq if it had known there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) there. Its corollary is that the administration did not lie about the presence of such weapons in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

In fact, the Bush administration mounted an intense six-month campaign to make sure that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) produced "evidence" of WMD, and then made sure that such players as National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell parroted the administration's big lie to the American public and to the international community. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and their acolytes Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Karl Rove desperately wanted to go to war against Iraq for reasons that have never been explained. As a result, they created and employed a strategic disinformation campaign to convince Congress and the American people of the need for war. Goebbels would have beamed.
Click to expand...

The crook.......IMHO.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Muddy Creek said:
For Whom the Bell Polls: Karl Rove's Jig is Up | Crooks and Liars



Perhaps con-artist is best expressed in this example.

The Eclectic Radical: In Today's News: Karl Rove is a Crook...



Then we can go to the Iraq war lies.

The Lies of Karl Rove



The crook.......IMHO.
Click to expand...

Showing opinions of other left wing sites that absolutely hated anything to do with the Bush administration really doesn't impress me, nor does it show that the man is "crooked" as you claim. IF we are to believe your first site, it doesn't show corruption, it does however show that since starting a PAC, Rove's instincts in GOP prediction, or policy, suck. But, that isn't 'crooked', that is just being piss poor at his job...:shrug:
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

j-mac said:
Showing opinions of other left wing sites that absolutely hated anything to do with the Bush administration really doesn't impress me, nor does it show that the man is "crooked" as you claim. IF we are to believe your first site, it doesn't show corruption, it does however show that since starting a PAC, Rove's instincts in GOP prediction, or policy, suck. But, that isn't 'crooked', that is just being piss poor at his job...:shrug:
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that old argument of "liberal media" doesn't wash as a rebuttal to facts. These are facts. You have something that shows differently, feel free to post it. But these remain as facts presented by me to show how Karl Rove is a crook. Your opinion doesn't matter.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Muddy Creek said:
Sorry, but that old argument of "liberal media" doesn't wash as a rebuttal to facts. These are facts. You have something that shows differently, feel free to post it. But these remain as facts presented by me to show how Karl Rove is a crook. Your opinion doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Dude, your sites go far beyond "liberal media"... Sorry, it isn't my obligation to go on a wild goose chase to try and educate you why a site like 'crooks and liars' is just not credible in serious circles...It would be different if we were talking about the LAtimes, or NYTimes or something, but the sites you are basing your opinion on are just as whacky as if I used Alex Jones to claim that Obama wanted to imprison his opposition and their families in concentration style FEMA camps....It's just laughable.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

j-mac said:
Dude, your sites go far beyond "liberal media"... Sorry, it isn't my obligation to go on a wild goose chase to try and educate you why a site like 'crooks and liars' is just not credible in serious circles...It would be different if we were talking about the LAtimes, or NYTimes or something, but the sites you are basing your opinion on are just as whacky as if I used Alex Jones to claim that Obama wanted to imprison his opposition and their families in concentration style FEMA camps....It's just laughable.
Click to expand...



So in otherwords, you can't disprove what I posted from the source I posted and instead are making an argument that the source is bad.

So weak. And lacking in any real information on this subject. That's what you get for paying attention to FOx misinformation channel.

Ad By Crossroads, Karl Rove's Outfit, Yanked Off Air For Being False (UPDATE)

An ad by Karl Rove-backed Crossroads GPS was yanked from rotation on a Montana cable show because it made claims that the network deemed false.

Recently a number of ads by the well-funded conservative outfit have been declared misleading and false, but the spot targeting Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) is apparently the first pulled from the air. The Associated Press reported that other outlets are still running the ad.
Click to expand...

More of the same crookedness of Rove
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Good grief...I don't know why I bother responding to posters like you MC....


Muddy Creek said:
So in otherwords, you can't disprove what I posted....
Click to expand...

Stop right there...Where did you learn debate? From an 8 year old?

Hint: You made the claim, it is up to you to prove it using mutually agreeable sources....Which means your hyper partisan, leftist sources don't mean ****, and I don't have to disprove any of it, because you haven't proven anything other than you are a partisan hack.

Now, when you want to debate something let me know, but acting smug, and being a child is not debate, so I am not interested. Good day.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

j-mac said:
Good grief...I don't know why I bother responding to posters like you MC....




Stop right there...Where did you learn debate? From an 8 year old?

Hint: You made the claim, it is up to you to prove it using mutually agreeable sources....Which means your hyper partisan, leftist sources don't mean ****, and I don't have to disprove any of it, because you haven't proven anything other than you are a partisan hack.

Now, when you want to debate something let me know, but acting smug, and being a child is not debate, so I am not interested. Good day.
Click to expand...

Criticizing the source is NOT a rebuttal. Where did you learn it was? The evidence is what needs to be refuted and if it can't, then it stands as evidence.

Someone getting huffy about a source and not being able to refute it is handling it like a child. Either demonstrate knowledge in an area, or post where you have gained some knowledge. That's not being smug...it's being adult.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Paschendale said:
Well, any group that shares something in common, especially if it is something outside the mainstream, is going to form a community. And that such a group is marginalized makes a difference in how that community operates. Jews have a community. Star Trek fans have a community. Gays have a community. In each case, being oppressed in some form makes up part of that community's mentality. It's unavoidable. The way to bridge that gap is to not oppress them. I think you're mixing cause and effect here.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that gays have seen a level of oppression similar to Star Trek fans? /sarcasm

But on a serious note now.

You're missing my point here. When that community takes on an attitude of oppression and victimization it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. You will always be looking to blame others for your problems. What happens when SS couples do get the right to marry? Do you think they are just going to suddenly the issue? Fat chance.

Also it looks to get others to conform to that commmunity's ideology. I have already seen the primitive form of this with my sociology teacher's rantings about heteronormativity. Suddenly gays cannot just be homosexual, they have to conform to the gay sub-culture lest they be attacked for being "giving into heteronormativity." It's dangerous and its devisive and I may still be okay with SSM but I don't like where I see this going.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Muddy Creek said:
Criticizing the source is NOT a rebuttal. Where did you learn it was? The evidence is what needs to be refuted and if it can't, then it stands as evidence.

Someone getting huffy about a source and not being able to refute it is handling it like a child. Either demonstrate knowledge in an area, or post where you have gained some knowledge. That's not being smug...it's being adult.
Click to expand...

When you have some evidence to provide, I'll be happy to consider it. Until then, hyper partisan opinion is not evidence....
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

j-mac said:
When you have some evidence to provide, I'll be happy to consider it. Until then, hyper partisan opinion is not evidence....
Click to expand...

Sure it is. And I offered several facts on the issue. What you do with it is a reflection of you. Not me.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Muddy Creek said:
Sure it is. And I offered several facts on the issue. What you do with it is a reflection of you. Not me.
Click to expand...

Let's recap shall we?

I just said:

j-mac said:
...hyper partisan opinion is not evidence....
Click to expand...

You replied:

MuddyCreek said:
Sure it is.
Click to expand...

I think that is all anyone needs to know about how you approach topics...We're done here. :2wave:
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

ReformCollege said:
You're missing my point here. When that community takes on an attitude of oppression and victimization it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. You will always be looking to blame others for your problems. What happens when SS couples do get the right to marry? Do you think they are just going to suddenly the issue? Fat chance.
Click to expand...

It's not a prophecy. People don't band together in the expectation of oppression. They band together to overcome it. You're mixing cause and effect. I see your point that holding on to that element when oppression ends could be a problem, but that's a hypothetical future that is not today. There is still plenty of oppression to be overcome before anyone risks holding grudges when they shouldn't. What's going to happen when same sex couples can legally marry? They'll marry, and enjoy the same rights and privileges as everyone else, and it will be one more step towards a future where no one is judged or ostracized for being gay.

Also it looks to get others to conform to that commmunity's ideology. I have already seen the primitive form of this with my sociology teacher's rantings about heteronormativity. Suddenly gays cannot just be homosexual, they have to conform to the gay sub-culture lest they be attacked for being "giving into heteronormativity." It's dangerous and its devisive and I may still be okay with SSM but I don't like where I see this going.
Click to expand...

There are some people who try to keep a community insular, but they are few and far between. It's the same as Tevyeh in Fiddler on the Roof who cannot accept his daughter marrying outside the faith. In the modern world, a lot of people don't cling to that kind of exclusive membership to a community like that. The way to break out of that mold is through coexistence and cooperation. As the barriers that keep people in a minority community isolated break down, everyone intermingles more. Equality between people is the cure for the problems that trouble you. Truly equal people won't have cause for friction, and won't need to distance themselves from each other.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

ReformCollege said:
So you're saying that gays have seen a level of oppression similar to Star Trek fans? /sarcasm

But on a serious note now.

You're missing my point here. When that community takes on an attitude of oppression and victimization it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. You will always be looking to blame others for your problems. What happens when SS couples do get the right to marry? Do you think they are just going to suddenly the issue? Fat chance.

Also it looks to get others to conform to that commmunity's ideology. I have already seen the primitive form of this with my sociology teacher's rantings about heteronormativity. Suddenly gays cannot just be homosexual, they have to conform to the gay sub-culture lest they be attacked for being "giving into heteronormativity." It's dangerous and its devisive and I may still be okay with SSM but I don't like where I see this going.
Click to expand...

You don't know many of your gay acquaintances are gay, do you? Just this idea that one has to be a flamboyant mary or else be ousted by the community shows you have no clue. There are some reasons to act in an identifiable way in a hostile society. Unlike people of different nationalities or colors there is no way to actually tell someone is gay by looking at them unless they give off some form of signal. This is why many straight people think all gay people give off that "signal." In fact many don't for a number of reasons. When you see gay people in a predominantly gay environment where you would expect such a prejudice, you will notice many gay men don't act gay. They are not ostracized for not doing it. The only place i have ever seen something like that occurring is in youth. That is more of an issue of being young and stupid rather than being gay.

So please, stop trying to spread fear that gays are going to force american men into some wussy stereotype. I don't care if some college professor told you about it. If college professors knew anything about life they would be living it and not teaching it wrong. There is a diversity in the gay community that runs through every personality type you can think of. Maybe if you actually went out and saw it instead of taking someone else's word on it you would not be so ignorant of it. Oh, and yes there is a lot of prejudice against gays that goes on in silent forms.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

tererun said:
You don't know many of your gay acquaintances are gay, do you? Just this idea that one has to be a flamboyant mary or else be ousted by the community shows you have no clue. There are some reasons to act in an identifiable way in a hostile society. Unlike people of different nationalities or colors there is no way to actually tell someone is gay by looking at them unless they give off some form of signal. This is why many straight people think all gay people give off that "signal." In fact many don't for a number of reasons. When you see gay people in a predominantly gay environment where you would expect such a prejudice, you will notice many gay men don't act gay. They are not ostracized for not doing it. The only place i have ever seen something like that occurring is in youth. That is more of an issue of being young and stupid rather than being gay.

So please, stop trying to spread fear that gays are going to force american men into some wussy stereotype. I don't care if some college professor told you about it. If college professors knew anything about life they would be living it and not teaching it wrong. There is a diversity in the gay community that runs through every personality type you can think of. Maybe if you actually went out and saw it instead of taking someone else's word on it you would not be so ignorant of it. Oh, and yes there is a lot of prejudice against gays that goes on in silent forms.
Click to expand...

I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. I know plenty of gay people who are not flamboyant etc. etc. I'm not saying that is what is going on right now. I am saying that is possibly a dangerous direction we could be headed in if we start seeing gays criticizing other gays for not "conforming to the community." It's not about "oh all gays act a certain way." I don't think even most blacks act a certain way, yet you still see routine friction between people like Jalen Rose and Chris Webber on how "legitimately black" one or the other is based on how they grew up. That is what I am talking about when I say divisive.

Also, my college professor was homosexual. He was talking about "heteronormative bias," in saying that "heterosexual culture" has seeped into the gay culture and basically saying that gays accepting "heterosexuality as normal," whatever the hell that means. It was sort of a shocker for me, to hear him basically criticizing gays who participate in mainstream culture, i.e. people like you talked about. It is clear that you did not understand my argument the first time, so I hope that this post clears up any misconceptions about what I was attempting to establish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom