Man.

Post #183,491 by bepatient 11/8/04 1:26:09 PM Reply	Man. I suppose I should spell it out for you. Its simple phrasing. The left doesn't even know how to ask the question without doing it in a condescending, devisive manner. That was my point in the retort above. Clear now? And if you ACTUALLY think that the entire voting block are "faggot hating bigots"...then be glad that you aren't among those trying to win the next election. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,512 by Silverlock 11/8/04 2:06:09 PM Reply	Bill accuses others of condescention, divisivness The projection is quite amusing. All that was missing was accusing them of being dismissive and sarcastic. ----------------------------------------- How do you convince a Washington Journalist that you're not slapping him in the face? Tell him you're not.
Post #183,523 by bepatient 11/8/04 2:40:02 PM Reply	Nope. But it wouldn't be the same unless you rolled out at least one ad hominem. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,549 by tuberculosis 11/8/04 3:52:29 PM Reply	Bill provides valuable counterpoint although he sometimes leaves the actual statement of his point as an exercise for the reader. Kind of like a fortune cookie. "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
Post #183,551 by bepatient 11/8/04 3:56:19 PM Reply	Sometimes that's on purpose. and sometimes I spend a couple dozen posts paying the price for it ;-) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,624 by ben_tilly 11/8/04 8:35:46 PM Reply	Where to begin? First of all in your retort you introduced a ton of negative assumptions that were not justified in what you replied to. Those assumptions fueled statements that came out of the blue. Statements like, They only started hating them when they weren't allowed to hate black people anymore. You're the one who introduced the word "hate" to the conversation. Furthermore when Todd restated his exact statement to lay out why he thought it applied, you thought that it was better, and you're inclined to agree. The only differences were that he laid out the case for applying his description to those people, and he laid out the mindset from which he was working. What differed between [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=183480\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=183480] and [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=183490\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=183490] in your view? I really don't know except that you took objection to one but not the other. Finally as I tried to make clear, I don't think that most Americans would recognize themselves in the description, "hate gays." But I think that most gays would recognize most Americans in that description. And I described some of the reasons for that discrepancy. Please read that and tell me whether you think my described position is true. (Not whether it is a convenient thing to say politically, just true.) Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,640 by bepatient 11/8/04 9:13:08 PM Reply	Yes and no. I think your position is largely true. I think your description of their "perception" is probably true. I think that perception is incorrect. And if you can't figure out why I'm charging the speech like this (even after I've told you why) then I can't help you. No...going that far off the deep-end likely wasn't justified in response to that single post. In the additive, though, it should be more understandable >if< you are beginning to understand what drove voters this election. If you are no nearer that understanding let me know...I'll gladly keep this up. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,648 by drewk 11/8/04 10:13:44 PM Reply	Can I play? Let's see. Bill makes a statement that is plausibly true. A strict reading of the words he used can't be said to be horribly out of line with reality. But "everyone" on the other side of the debate "knows" what he "really means" by it, and gets really worked up by it. Now in this case, he's using the code words designed to get liberals all worked up, to the point they really want to participate. Whether it's really his position doesn't matter. Whether his position is strictly defsensible doesn't matter. What matters is that by using the right buzzwords and playing the right tune, he's got people worked up and interested in expressing an opinion. What might happen if someone who really does this for a living decides to play the same tune, but in a minor key, and using their opponents' words for lyrics? Do I win the kewpie doll, Bill? === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #183,670 by bepatient 11/8/04 11:51:57 PM Reply	"Code words" Gotta love those neo-con code words ;-) My training in this posting methodology came at the hands of a former member and nemesis. But if you really want a kewpie doll.... If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,907 by Ashton 11/12/04 12:29:24 AM Reply	Yup, Brandioch would nail you at the outset.. stead o' in dribbles. I prefer the nibbling to death by ducks.. as antidote to your nibbling to death by scripted imprecision. (Especially in your seeing no major distinction between Kerry and Shrub - now There's a Rorschak if there ever were one, sans inkblots: ab=ba; digital Laffer Curve R'Us)
Post #183,652 by ben_tilly 11/8/04 10:47:50 PM Reply	We part company at the third sentence At least in part. I believe that a lot of people who say that they don't hate gays, but will admit to being uncomfortable around them, really are homophobic but won't admit it to themselves. Not all. But enough that I'd guess that over 50% of the population is homophobic. Note that I consider you homophobic if you claim to love gays but think that it is wrong to allow them to have gay sex. Which the position that many evangelicals take. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,669 by bepatient 11/8/04 11:48:19 PM Reply	And I think you overestimate... ...the numbers. Because I think the majority don't care >up to a point<. That point is where it becomes an open issue..at which point they become uncomfortable just as they would a discussion of any other sexual issue in public. Liken the above to the simple statement "you can do whatever you want, I don't need to know about it". But thats generally not good enough for the activist..who will push and push until they get to the point where the person says "enough". Then we get to your point...where that cry of "enough" is all that is need to bring about the... "See, I told you you >really do< hate gays". I'm not denying that homophobes exist...or that evagelical folks consider the behavior unnatural...they certainly are there...but I don't think they are there in the numbers you think...and I don't think that it had as much to do with the election results as is being made of it. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,767 by ben_tilly 11/9/04 12:17:26 PM Reply	And here's my belief I agree with you about sexuality. And to me the point where it is inappropriate for a homosexual should be the same as the point where it is inappropriate for a heterosexual. Neither should be fucking in public. Therefore if heterosexuals get to say that they are married, then homosexuals should as well. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,816 by bepatient 11/9/04 5:59:47 PM Reply	To what end? Therefore if heterosexuals get to say that they are married, then homosexuals should as well. So they can then say they're divorced? So they can pay more taxes? Go after the specifics...what is it about "marriage" that is being sought? Go after those benefits/curses/whatever. You see, I don't think these are the only objectives. I don't think its just equal rights being sought. It if is, then the movement does itself a disservice by attacking "the traditional" head on. I think there's a baser level acceptance being sought...and simply the act of seeking that "approval" creates a backlash. Look, I hate to be the one to say that a group needs to be more PC to accomplish its objectives....(but I just did). If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,833 by ben_tilly 11/9/04 7:59:43 PM Reply	Benefits and obligations go hand in hand If you can get married, then you can get divorced. Under the same terms as heterosexuals. The law should give equal treatment. I don't disagree that gays really would like equal treatment from everyone. However doing that through the government means regulating expressions of personal opinion. I'm a lot more leery of that. I also agree with you that any attempt by a disliked minority to assert themselves will result in a backlash. However I disagree that it is a useless endeavour, some will prove sympathetic who otherwise would never have thought about it. Whether that is worthwhile though, is harder to say. But giving them equal treatment from the government is a no-brainer for me. While I understand that some object, and I intellectually understand why, at a gut level I can't even begin to sympathize with that position. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,842 by bepatient 11/10/04 2:26:19 PM Reply	We both agree... ...that equal treatment under the law is a no brainer. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!