• 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!

Lt. gov. nominee Jackson says ‘no apologies’ for past comments on gays, abortion

Fisher said:
Seriously, how dare a black man be a christian and seek political office when he should keep his mouth shut and take the welfare check the democrats want him to live on. Somebody needs to give him his comeuppance. Uncle Tom been reading too many books and we can't have that :roll:
Click to expand...

And there I was.

Thinking only liberals pull the race card.
 
Jetboogieman said:
And there I was.

Thinking only liberals pull the race card.
Click to expand...

I am a white guy too :) (and an anti-federalist who is quite liberal on many issues but sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend)
 
Amadeus said:
What's my attitude towards women? This should be interesting.
Click to expand...

See your own Post #36: "No, but she's a woman, and therefore immune to criticism..."
 
Amadeus said:
Lets hear your solution to lifting blacks out of poverty.
Click to expand...

Not my job to lift anyone out of poverty other than myself. See how easy it is to let people stand on their own two feet :2wave:
 
Texmex said:
Quit supporting and feeding the lazy ones!
Click to expand...

Interesting read.

Welfare in America: Myths and Facts | Pat O'Malley

First, many critics believe that the “welfare rolls” are overflowing with public assistance recipients. Actually, the average monthly participation was only 4,375,022 in 2010. That’s an average of 1,393 people for each of the 3,141 counties in the United States each month. The 1,118,588 adult recipients compose less than four-tenths of one percent of the U.S. population at any given time.

Critics claim that “welfare queens” give birth to many children in order to get more money. In fact, the average family size is less than 2 ½ people.* There were 3,323,369 children in those families in the average month.

TANF rolls are very fluid. Most families collect benefits for only a few months at a time. They move in and out of poverty as their circumstances change. Nearly all adult TANF recipients have a work history. But let’s look at who gets to be poor in the United States.

People who are so physically or mentally disabled that they can’t hold a job,

People who are capable of learning, but for one reason or another are uneducated – functionally or financially illiterate,

People who are just not capable of learning how to do complicated jobs that pay well,

People who have incredibly bad luck. Yes, they do exist. I’ve known many. One thing after another keeps happening to them, interfering with their ability to get and keep a job.

People with drug, alcohol, and mental health problems.

These are the adults who receive TANF benefits.

That brings us to my favorite myth – that families collect welfare benefits for their entire lives, and for multiple generations. That is not, and has never been, true. Families headed by able-bodied adults can collect TANF benefits for only 60 months –a total of five years – in their lifetimes. Yes, really. Nationwide, only about two percent of TANF families reach that limit and lose their benefits each year.*
Click to expand...
 
Texmex said:
What you posted has nothing to do with what I said. Nice try.
Click to expand...

You said stop supporting the lazy ones. It's a myth that the most welfare recipients are lazy. Many work and attempt to get off welfare. Some are incapable of working due to mental or physical illness. Finally, whites are fairly comparable with blacks in terms of receiving welfare -- the difference being a 1 or 2 percentage points.

Seems rather racist to be singling out blacks in the first place.
 
Amadeus said:
You said stop supporting the lazy ones. It's a myth that the most welfare recipients are lazy. Many work and attempt to get off welfare. Some are incapable of working due to mental or physical illness. Finally, whites are fairly comparable with blacks in terms of receiving welfare -- the difference being a 1 or 2 percentage points.

Seems rather racist to be singling out blacks in the first place.
Click to expand...

Let me type more slowly. I never said that EVERYBODY on welfare is lazy. I said get rid of the LAZY ones. By saying "ones" I am showing that the LAZY are a subset of the whole.

Oh and, the post I responded to mentioned blacks, I was merely responding. Let me attempt to head you off at the pass. I never said that everyone on welfare is black, again a subset of the whole.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Did I ever say that what he said was OK? No I didn't. But what perhaps you and others are doing is doing the very same thing that you are criticizing him for. That is hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Its not insulting to call a bigot a bigot, because apparently they don't think that bigotry is bad thing. They have no right to be offended.
 
Last edited:
Texmex said:
Let me type more slowly. I never said that EVERYBODY on welfare is lazy. I said get rid of the LAZY ones. By saying "ones" I am showing that the LAZY are a subset of the whole.
Click to expand...

So the problem is actually very minimal is what you're saying, since we've established that lazy make up a small portion of welfare recipients.
 
Amadeus said:
So the problem is actually very minimal is what you're saying, since we've established that lazy make up a small portion of welfare recipients.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is he has no solution for poverty.

Not even the hard working poor
 
Amadeus said:
So the problem is actually very minimal is what you're saying, since we've established that lazy make up a small portion of welfare recipients.
Click to expand...

No, you established this "small portion" not me. Let me ask you, should someone who is able to work but is too lazy to actually do it be fed and cared for by those who do?
 
Texmex said:
No, you established this "small portion" not me. Let me ask you, should someone who is able to work but is too lazy to actually do it be fed and cared for by those who do?
Click to expand...

I'm not making that argument, and it's not my place to decide who is eligible for welfare.
 
Amadeus said:
I'm not making that argument, and it's not my place to decide who is eligible for welfare.
Click to expand...

I bet you were a dodge ball camp back in school.
 
Texmex said:
No, you established this "small portion" not me. Let me ask you, should someone who is able to work but is too lazy to actually do it be fed and cared for by those who do?
Click to expand...

Welfare requires people who are able to work to work or they lose their benefits

Most people on welfare are children
 
nota bene said:
What it has to do with is daring to be both black and conservative. This cannot be allowed.
Click to expand...


Nothing wrong with being both black and conservative.
But neither of those gives him licence to be an jerk about gays.
That's some pretty mean things he's said about them.

I'm a black card carrying member of the G.O.P,and I find his remarks about gays to be unprofessional,and yes , reprehensible.
But that's just my opinion.
I have a gay daughter.
But I also understand that he has a right to his opinions.
But if I lived in Virginia I wouldn't probably would vote for the guy if I thought there were other better candidates.
I don't have to vote for a candidate just because he's black, now do I?

Jackson seems a little too conservative for for my tastes.
I prefer my candidates to be more concerned with fixing the economy the fixing the "gay problem".
Let them gays married so we can move on to creating jobs.
Maybe it's just my opinion,but I think is more important that people like Bob and Joe have good jobs and contribute to our economy,rather than preventing Bob and Joe from getting married.
 
Fisher said:
Sure, the op is constantly trying to denigrate the BLACK Va Lt. Governor nominee with slavery quotes because he a republican who doesn't tow the PC line and I am the one playing the race card; and nice to assume that all Christians would agree with him--that is so open-minded of you :roll:
Click to expand...

Really dude?

Just give up.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not to defend this guy or what he says but...why should he have to apologize? Those are his views and he has a right to stick to them. Just as you have your own views and you have a right to stick to them also. Would you apologize for something that you believed in? If not then why the hell should this guy? And whether they are right or wrong to you is of no consequence and irrelevent. I would hope that you would at least recognize that this person, and every other person on this planet has a right to their views and calling him a "demented fool" just shows that you are being no better than what you are trying to claim him as. Remember, whenever you point a finger at someone you have 3 more fingers pointing at you.
Click to expand...

I think he should not be Lt Governor is the point, and those who vote for him are no better. Sorry, but hate grounded in religion is still hate. No free pass.
 
Bronson said:
Homosexuality was diagnosed as a mental disorder and part of the DSM criteria until it was removed for political reasons
Click to expand...

This is completely untrue. I JUST posted the information that completely debunks this idiotic and untrue position less than 2 weeks ago. I suppose I will now need to do it again.

Dispelling the myth of Pro-Gay Politicizing of the APA
Reproduced, with permission from CaptainCourtesy

Part I

Homosexuality has been seen in a negative light for centuries. Early on, it was completely due to the interpretation of Bible passages and because of religious and moral beliefs. Genesis's description of "Sodom" coined the word "sodomy" which by the 18th century, came to describe an act that the Church saw as "unnatural' or "crimes against nature". Homosexuality, bestiality, masturbation, oral and anal sex were all included in this definition. There was zero research or evidence that any homosexual was disordered in any way. This was a moral stance, completely baseless in empirical evidence. No substance, just value judgements.

Karl Westphal, a German physician, was one of the first medical professionals to examine homosexuals, observationally. He concluded from these observations that homosexuality was a "condition "contrary sexual sensation" and claimed it was congenital. As such, he argued, it should come under psychiatric care rather then legal prosecution." He was the first, I believe, to argue that gays should be looked at as having a disorder. Note, this was based, purely on observation and his own theory and beliefs, probably based on the attitudes of the time (19th Century). No research was done. Jean-Martin Charcot, a teacher of Freud's and considered the founder of modern neurology, considered homosexuality to be a hysteric disorder, which, translated to 21st century vernacular, would be a psychiatric ailment. Charcot based this belief on the, at the time, widely accepted theory of "hereditary degeneration". This was a theory, expoused by Benedict Augustin Morel in the 19th Century. It is somewhat technical, but the essence of the theory is that any issue or disease that was deemed incurable, would be degenerative through heredity and damage future generations. Tuberculosis, hysteria, homosexuality, alcoholism, and cretinism were all issues that Morel determined were heredity based, untreatable, and those who had these issues should be placed in assylums and prevented from reproducing. Again, there was no research or evidence into any of these claims. Looking at the list of issue, we know now that this theory is ridiculous, but based on Morel's morals and the lack of knowledge about medicine and heredity at the time. Interestingly enough, the Nazi's used some of Morel's theories to justify placing Jews in concentration camps.

In the 20th Century,Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Havelock Ellis' theories of sexual inversion, the belief that "homosexuality was an inborn reversal of gender traits. Interestingly enough, early on, Krafft-Ebing saw homosexuality as a severe hereditary degeneration (see above), but as he met more homosexuals, he saw it as a normal sexual varient, and not a disorder. Ellis also felt this way.

No discussion of psychology can be conducted without discussing Sigmund Freud. Freud did not view homosexuality as an illness, but rather as the unconflicted expression of an innate instinct based on trauma. He believed that all of us had both hetero- and homosexual traits, but under normal and non-traumatic circumstances, one would act like one's anatomical sex. He also saw homosexuality as an immature, but not pathological expression of sexuality. As with all of Freud's theories, there was not empirical research done; his belief was based on theory and observation, and the tenor of the times.

Late in life, Freud wrote this to a mother, asking him to "cure" her son's homosexuality: "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness".

Continued in Part II...
 
Part II

In the mid-20th Century. two theorists/researchers theories propelled homosexuality far further into the realm of pathology. And both were based on flawed beliefs/research.

Sandor Rado argued that Freud's theory of homosexuality was based on a flawed 19th Century theory: embryonic hermaphroditism (the belief that all embryos had the potential to be either male or female). He was correct about this. His error in logic was to then assume that heteosexuality was the only non-pathological alternative. He did no reasearch or provided evidence of his theory.

The Bieber study is often used to prove the pathology of homosexuals, by showing that they could be "cured". The two major outcomes of his study was to show that 27% of homosexuals, treated, were "cured" and in identifying the familial traits of the families of homosexuals. Biber's study had major methodological flaws, and has been widely criticized and debunked. Firstly, he only used subjects that were already under psychiatric care. Secondly, no long term follow-up was done to determine if the result remained. Thirdly, Bieber was unable to produce even one of his subjects he claimed to have cured. Lastly, Biebers conclusions about the familial structure of a homosexual's family have been debunked by the 1981 study of a much larger, nonpatient gay population, a study that is methodologically sound. In essence, the Bieber study, often the cornerstone of the anti-gay agenda, has been shown to be completely flawed and invalid when studying this issue.

The Bieber study was a response to the Kinsey study. Alfred Kinsey, the well-known sex researcher, created the Kinsey scale, through extensive research. Kinsey was one of the first to do evidence based research on a nonpatient population. What he found was that people varied on a scale from "exclusive heterosexual" to "exclusive homosexual" and variations in between. His research showed that at any given time throughout history, 3%-7% of the population was gay. His theories showed that homosexuality was both natural and widespread. Though this had an impact on non-pathologizing homosexuality, as Kinsey's reasearch did not, specifically address this issue, it did not confirm it. The Hooker study, however, did.

Evelyn Hooker's study was published in 1956, and throughout the '60s gained more and more recognition, as more and more studies reproduced here findings, accurately. Here is a great brief description of Hooker's studyu and findings:

Psychologist Evelyn Hooker's groundbreaking study compared the projective test results from 30 nonpatient homosexual men with those of 30 nonpatient heterosexual men. The study found that experienced psychologists, unaware of whose test results they were interpreting, could not distinguish between the two groups. This study was a serious challenge to the view that homosexuality was always associated with psychopathology.
Click to expand...
This was the first study that examined, psychologically, nonpatients; the opposite was a serious methological flaw in past studies. Experienced psychologists saw NO difference.

When the first DSM came out in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a mental illness, not only matching with the societal attitudes of the time, and throughout the ages, but matching with the volume of research, all of which, as can be seen, above, was based on poor methodology, research based on observation only, morals, or opinions.

By 1973, the Hooker study, replicated studies showing the same results, and many other studies showing the non-pathology of homosexuality had been published. Yet, in spite of this evidence, the APA held onto it's position that homosexuality would remain a disorder, and many on committees had never seen much of the research proving this inaccurate. It was only when the gay activists, including gay psychiatrists/psychologists pressed the APA to review and examine the research, that they did. When the APA saw the volume of research that showed that homosexuality was not an illness, and examined the methological issues with the research that showed that it was, further discussions were had in order to determine whether homosexuality would be declassified or not.

When the APA voted, 58% voted to declassify homosexuality, which it was. Why only 58% if the research was so conclusive? For the same reason that we see here, at DP, that no matter how much conclusive research is presented that shows that homosexuality is not a disorder, some still hold onto that fallacious belief: bigotry, prejudice, inflexible thinking, morals over logic, and probably some other illogical reasons. Even Bieber, when presented with the evidence, and seeing his own study debunked because of methological reasons, refused to alter his belief. Why? Well, he was described as someone who would not admit he was wrong, even when proven so. Sounds like some folks around here. On this thread, even.

So, was the APA decision to declassify homosexuality as a disorder politically motivated? The politics involved was to force the APA to look at and examine, objectively, research showing that homosexuality was not a disorder, and that the research that showed it was, was flawed. As I said earlier, the concept of politicizing this issue has been misrepresented by the anti-gay side of this issue to appear as if it were something it was not. One can compare this, to some extent, to the black civil rights movement. Was that political? Yes, but not in the way a bigot would make it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom