Recommended Posts
Andy9o8 2
QuoteI'm curious, what injustices do gay people going to Virginia colleges need to be protected from?
Not looking for an argument, just wondering if there is a legitimate concern or if it's likely just partisan bickering.
Thanks to Nightingale; she gave my answer before I did, so I won't be repetitive. So, I'll examine this from a political standpoint.
Yes, it's partisan bickering by the A.G. - partly partisanship and pandering to the "base", and partly personal aggrandizement. From a standpoint of politics and public relations, I compare it to Sen. Jim Bunning's recent lone dissenting voice in holding up extended unemployment comp benefits. In each case, the "policy" reasons have enough teflon plausibility to pass muster, but everyone knows the real reason is just to exert some personal influence and generate some headlines about oneself. Now this guy has put himself on the national radar screen. Good for him.
As if it's really any skin off this AG's ass if public universities have anti-discrimination policies without asking Massa's permission first.
In this case, just as in Bunning's case, if I was a mainstream Republican hoping my team does well in the next elections, I'd be pissed at the dumb, selfish public relations gaffe: once again, this gives plenty of ammunition to persuade the crucial "swing voters" that the Republicans are the Party of Mean. Stupid move.
NewGuy2005 53
[reply
You have to wonder how long it will be before one of his boyfriends comes forward to have another one of those embarrasing repubiclown moments and gnashing of teeth over letting down his family, constituents, etc etc.
You have to wonder how long it will be before one of his boyfriends comes forward to have another one of those embarrasing repubiclown moments and gnashing of teeth over letting down his family, constituents, etc etc.
Come on, we haven't had one of those in days!
billvon 3,008
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Conservative values = oxymoron.
Both sides have values; both sides violate them regularly, and with about the same regularity. Conservatives just do so in a more dramatic fashion because of the greater distance between their words and actions.
Both sides have values; both sides violate them regularly, and with about the same regularity. Conservatives just do so in a more dramatic fashion because of the greater distance between their words and actions.
RonD1120 62
Quote>Conservative values = oxymoron.
Both sides have values; both sides violate them regularly, and with about the same regularity. Conservatives just do so in a more dramatic fashion because of the greater distance between their words and actions.
In my view, Conservative Republican is an oxymoron.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
funjumper101 15
Quote
You are absolutely correct. I suppose the bottom line is that the OP and the first responder, as well as I, have an ax to grind, else we would not be here.
I interpreted the issue to be, conservative values are no good and Republicans are the most dishonest.
You have a correct interpretation.
Conservative values are no good.
100% correct. No positive social or ethical change has ever come about from conservative values.
and Republicans are the most dishonest
100% correct again. The republicans in the Senate are especially un-embarrassed about their hypocritical lies. Take a look at Rachel Maddow's show from 3/8/10. She does a fine job of documenting how the scumbags are against their own political positions and LIE like rugs.
Ron, it is nice to see that an old guy like you can still become less ignorant by doing a bit of reading and review of the FACTS. Marc, take a lesson from Ron. Ignorance IS curable.
billvon 3,008
>Ignorance IS curable.
Your one warning. Cut it out.
Your one warning. Cut it out.
mnealtx 0
Quote100% correct. No positive social or ethical change has ever come about from conservative values.
Remind me again - WHICH party was it that filibustered the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964?
Oh, that's right - it was the DEMOCRATS.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuote100% correct. No positive social or ethical change has ever come about from conservative values.
Remind me again - WHICH party was it that filibustered the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964?
Oh, that's right - it was the DEMOCRATS.
Do you really think we know nothing of history?
Civil rights legislation were filibustered by racist, segregationist Southerners who were old-style, Northern-hating, liberal hating, Lincoln-hating, LBJ-hating, poll-taxing, pining-for-the-Confederacy Democrats. Their move was opposed by virtually the entirety of the party outside the Deep South. By that time, they were virtually a separate party in all but name. This was the group of "Dixiecrats" who walked out of the 1948 Democratic Convention over racial issues. Civil rights hallmarked the break-off of that wing of the party which was to be capitalized by Richard Nixon's 1968 "Southern Strategy" (which helped win Nixon the 1968 election), as well as by George Wallace. They only stayed Democrats as long as they did (before becoming Republicans) because US politics is designed to hamstring truly viable 3rd parties from forming, especially at the national level. They were to add to the Southern Conservative base that split between the parties in the 1976 election, and then went over in droves for Reagan in 1980 and 84.
Revisionist history is best done when the audience doesn't know any better.
kallend 2,030
QuoteQuote100% correct. No positive social or ethical change has ever come about from conservative values.
Remind me again - WHICH party was it that filibustered the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964?
Oh, that's right - it was the DEMOCRATS.
He didn't write "Democrat", he wrote "conservative". I guess you payed as little attention then as you do now.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
funjumper101 15
QuoteQuote100% correct. No positive social or ethical change has ever come about from conservative values.
Remind me again - WHICH party was it that filibustered the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964?
Oh, that's right - it was the DEMOCRATS.
Remind me again why right wing followers simply can't read and comprehend simple written words?
The challenge still stands for all the right wing followers -
What positive social change has come about due to conservative philosophy? Conservative politics? Conservative ANYTHING?
The honest answer is - Not a god damn thing.
Every single postive social change in the USA, starting with the Declaration of Independence, came about because of Progressive philosophy and ideas. Deal with it.
If it was up to the right wingnuts, women would still not be able to vote or own property. If it was up to right wingnuts, Plessy v Ferguson would still be law. If it was up to the right wingnuts, deed restrictions regarding race and religion would still be enforceable. The list is really has no end. Every positive social change has been adamantly opposed the conservatives.
mnealtx 0
QuoteEvery positive social change has been adamantly opposed the conservatives.
Which, of course, is why the DEMOCRATS were the ones filibustering the Equal Rights Act.
MMMMMMMMmmmmmm, koolaid.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,030
QuoteQuoteEvery positive social change has been adamantly opposed the conservatives.
Which, of course, is why the DEMOCRATS were the ones filibustering the Equal Rights Act.
MMMMMMMMmmmmmm, koolaid.
The word was "conservatives", not "Democrats". Misrepresenting another's words yet again!
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
It's a legitimate concern... Without protections, it would be okay to deny people admission to or refuse to hire them at Virginia colleges on the basis of sexual orientation alone. While something like that may not actively be happening, putting it down on paper to be sure it doesn't happen is probably a good idea. Otherwise, there's nothing to stop a human resources or admission department from instituting a "no homosexuals allowed" policy if they wanted to, and sometimes all it takes is one person with a lot of power to make something like that happen.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites