Quantcast

Currently: Fair and 54° F

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Gay rights needed to protect equality

Rob Hunter

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

by Rob Hunter
Thursday, May 5, 2005

Two weeks ago, Spain’s national legislature passed a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry, adopt, inherit from one another and receive spousal retirement benefits. When it goes into effect, it will be the most comprehensive law of its kind in all of Europe.

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to review a law requiring universities receiving federal funding to allow military recruiters on campus, despite military policies that discriminate against gays and lesbians, which violate many universities’ discrimination policies.

The struggle for equal opportunity and treatment for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals stands at a crossroads. In a very real sense, the gay rights movement’s fortunes have never been higher; just ten years ago, few would have dreamed that the discussions and debates about gay rights being held today would have been possible.

Yet legislation of the kind recently passed in Spain (and supported by two thirds of Spaniards, despite vehement clerical condemnation) is still politically unfeasible in the United States, and in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence decision (which found anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional) several states experienced an anti-gay-rights backlash during the 2004 elections.

Opponents of the normalization of gay rights claim that the debate over gay marriage, adoption and benefits is one in which values should prevail. Those in favor of securing such rights would be wrong to disagree with such a claim. Instead, they should ask exactly what values should come first: the religious and political values of particular groups, or the more fundamental values that maintain the functioning of American democracy?

The most frequent justification given for legal discrimination against same-sex couples (other than, it sometimes seems, mere disgust and animosity) is that such relationships are religiously proscribed. This is a claim that should not be dismissed lightly, and it is one that many religious same-sex couples and their families often find difficult to grapple with.

However, it seems exceedingly odd to say that one group’s views should be allowed to intrude upon the lives of the members of another group. Religious opponents of gay rights are essentially calling upon the government to bring about a state of affairs that would better satisfy their own religious views at the expense of others’. That does not appear to be a function of government that the drafters of the Establishment Clause had in mind.

To argue, as many do, that to legalize same-sex marriage would open the door for legalized polygamy is to engage in some rather spurious logic. What should trouble us about polygamy is not that is a nontraditional form of marriage, but that it is an inherently unbalanced and unequal relationship, in which a sole spouse of one sex enjoys disproportionate power over several spouses of another. Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples do not have this problem.

Perhaps the most frequently used argument against granting adoption rights to homosexual couples is that children in such families would become homosexual themselves. The available social science data do not appear to support this claim, but that is irrelevant — even if children raised in such families invariably turned out to be homosexual, what reason would we have to prevent that from taking place? I suggest that a majority of Americans would be shocked by a law preventing Muslim couples from adopting out of the fear that their children would someday become terrorists, or by a law preventing deaf couples from adopting because their children would learn sign language before they learn spoken English (if they learn it at all). Why, then, should we treat same-sex couples any differently?

A law allowing same-sex couples to marry and to adopt would not compel Americans to approve of their homosexuality, but merely to acknowledge their fellow citizens’ freedom to love each other and raise children as they see fit. To deny them that freedom is untenable in a diverse and pluralistic democracy. A vigorous national discussion about the religious morality of homosexuality is entirely appropriate in a healthy democracy, but making the members of a particular group into second-class citizens by prohibiting them from enjoying some of the most basic privileges of citizenship is not.

The battle for equal treatment, opportunity and recognition for same-sex couples is the defining moral battle of our generation, and it can be won before we pass leadership on to the next. All that needs to happen is for us to acknowledge our fellow Americans’ basic human dignity, to respect their freedom, and to celebrate their love.

Rob Hunter (jameshunter@wisc.edu) is graduating Phi Beta Kappa in political science and philosophy. He will be enter the Ph.D. program in the Department of Politics at Princeton University in the fall. This is his final column for The Badger Herald.


Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 4:15am):

I'ts been my, perhaps mistaken understanding, that homosexuals come from the union of two hetereosexuals. Even more remarkable is, much more often than not, both the male and female of said union(s), are avowedly straight; having of course, at one point during their sexual development, chosesn to adopt the 'straight' lifestyle over the 'queer' lifestyle.

Makes one wonder what sort of example is being set by parents whose children 'choose' to be queer over straight? Given all the benefits to be had by straights in our society, those particular families must be horrific to live in, when the children eschew the wonders and glories that are straightdom and opt for the fear and worry of being queer.

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 4:23am):

lol @ gay marriage

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 6:33am):

Yeah because homosexuals choose to be gay and heterosexuals choose not to.
You obviously do not know anyone who is gay. Furthermore, it is people like you who do not deserve to raise children. Passing along your ignorance is far worse than anything two people with alternate lifestyles could ever do.

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 6:43am):

Marriage was started by churches. Who are you to define it for them?

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 6:56am):

"Marriage was started by churches. Who are you to define it for them?"

And some churches recognize gay marriage. What's your point aside from showing your ignorance? What do you not understand about equal rights? Nobody is saying that they want to force any church to perform a marriage that they do not sanction. Get a clue.

Thanks for the article, Rob. Best of luck to you!

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 8:08am):

I don't remember choosing to be straight, it never crossed my mind. I think all these people who believe homosexuality is a choice have themselves made a choice to remain in the closet. For us straight folks the issue doesn't seem to come up, you self-hating closet-cases.

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 8:17am):

Gay marriage is coming, hide your precious babies!!! They might meet a leather daddy, which we would all be forced to marry if activist judges get their way!!!

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 9:43am):

"Religious opponents of gay rights are essentially calling upon the government to bring about a state of affairs that would better satisfy their own religious views at the expense of others'. That does not appear to be a function of government that the drafters of the Establishment Clause had in mind."

So Polygamy is also ok right? the one man one woman thing is largely religious, so don't force your religion on me and say I can't practice polygamy. Since a lot of our criminal law is based on the ten commandments killing, stealing...I think we need to get rid of that too. Don't force your religion on me rob.

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 9:45am):

Rob, no matter how thoughtful you think your articles may be, you'll never be as cute as Rob Deters. Give it up, guy.

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 9:46am):

Rob, your hairstyle ain't makin' it. You belong on the next episode of Queer Eye. Yes, Rob, you do need help in that area ASAP!

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 9:48am):

OK, Rob, maybe I was a little harsh about your hairstyle, but seriously, you can do better! Whaddaya say?

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 10:08am):

I think Rob's hair makes him look hot. rarrrr!

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 10:29am):

don't talk to gay people.. you'll get AIDS.. (blatant ignorance bitches lol)

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 10:31am):

"So Polygamy is also ok right? the one man one woman thing is largely religious, so don't force your religion on me and say I can't practice polygamy"

I don't think anyone has ever argued that there is a distinct group who for biological reasons are compelled to marry multiple partners (though it may be a biological impulse in all of us). Again, this goes back to whether you think homosexuality is a choice. If you do, then I agree with the poster above in guessing that you are simply fighting your own gay urges because straight people don't face a "choice".

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 10:36am):

"Don't force your religion on me"

Umm the stealing and killing rules do have their roots in the 10 commandments, but if you are interested in the survival of humans, its a good thing to let genetic defects kill off the bad humans while the better ones slowly evolve..

In addition, without those 10 commandments.. you would have probably been dead by now.. since most activists, anarchists, protesters, etc.. are weaklings.. and extremely annoying.. kind of like cockroaches that most would love to step on..

as for actual religion, Bible, Koran, etc- based.. that's another thing which you don't have to adhere to..

as for gays, they'll probably go to heaven but all their protesting and activism just makes them in the top 5 annoying classes of people.. wish i could just kick 'em in the balls.. lol

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 10:39am):

Lesbians are HOT! Except those with short hair! And Any Traces of Hair. And Those That Play Rugby. But Porn Lesbians Are H.O.T! So is Paris Hilton Though, Tira Banks -> HOT, Trangender -> NOT.

LGBT should have a civil war between L G B & T.

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 12:42pm):

But Porn Lesbians Are H.O.T!

Not necessarily. Many of the those "lesbians" are actually straight girls who are willing to do something they really don't enjoy doing to make some cash. In fact, many of them are teenage runaways, in case you haven't noticed how underage a lot of them seem to be.

Hey, no guilt trip on ya, I just want to help correct your perception. I'm a lez and I look at porn too, but having learned the truth about how the porn industry works, I'd feel extremely awkward pinching my poozle while clicking through galleries of underage girls who may be trying to earn cash to survive and not just to buy a new iPod.

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 2:41pm):

The issue is whether the governement should be in the business of telling people who they can and can't marry. I don't beleive in big government as a true conservative, and therfore I am for gay marraige. It is not the government's place to tell people who they can and can't marry.

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 3:17pm):

great article rob. some really ignorant comments but we're all used to it. don't question the validity of peoples' sexualities people. you don't make any logical arguments. you've lost and bigotry will eventually fail.

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 3:53pm):

Wait until they get married and then later find out there's no divorce - LOL.

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 5:28pm):

What's next? Marriage between men and horses?

But seriously, just stop sticking things where they don't belong and the world will be a better place.

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 5:44pm):

"What's next? Marriage between men and horses?"

Yer thinking of Sweden:

Animal sex is not illegal in Sweden, and every year between 200 and 300 pets are injured because of sexual assaults.

The estimate was presented by Svenska Veterinärforbundet, the Swedish veterinary organization, and it is now trying to make the authorities and the public more aware of animals' suffering. The organization claim the problem has increased during the last couple of years, even if most people are unaware of it.

"We have seen an increase since 1999 when child pornography became illegal," said Johan Beck-Friis. "It appears, in other words, as there are some people who have replaced children with animals. In both circumstances, it is sex with defenceless individuals."

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article177749.ece

Anonymous (May 5, 2005 @ 9:06pm):

Saying gay marriage would allow for marriage to animals is a logical fallacy:the slippery slope.

Why hasn't hetero-marraige led to marraige to animals? Is there something about hetero marriage that makes this slippery slope impossible which same-sex marriage makes possible?

The answer of course is no. And besides who gives a fuck if people marry animals? I'd rather marry a mollusk than most conservatives here.

Anonymous (May 6, 2005 @ 5:21pm):

"Why hasn't hetero-marraige led to marraige to animals?"

Marraige between man and woman is primarily predicated on sex for the purpose of procreation.

Sex between humans and animals does not lead to progeny (except possibly in your case).

Anonymous (May 6, 2005 @ 10:53pm):

In the case of human cells' invading the germ line, the chimeric animals might then carry human eggs and sperm, and in mating could therefore generate a fertilized human egg. Hardly anyone would desire to be conceived by a pair of mice. To forestall such discomforting possibilities, the committee ruled that chimeric animals should not be allowed to mate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/03/science/03chim.html

Anonymous (May 8, 2005 @ 5:44pm):

"Marraige between man and woman is primarily predicated on sex for the purpose of procreation."

This is so obviously wrong I barely know where to begin.

1) There is no need to be married to have children as many people in our society have proven. Therefore, there is no link between procreation and marraige.

2) There is no reason that a man and a woman are inherently better parents than 2 men or two women and your statement blatantly ignores the many same sex couples with children and the many hetero couples who do not.

3) Marriage has nothing to do with biology. It is a social institution that was founded to guarantee the passage of property and wealth from generation to generation.

4) If we take your argument to be true than any marriage of people who do not have children or of people who cannot have children should also be dissolved or disallowed.

5)There is absolutely no reason to be against equality in marriage unless you hate gay people and think that they do not deserve the same rights that hetero people do. All of the arguments advanced above against gay marraige are simply justifications for your beleife that the "gay lifestyle" is immoral. Perhaps you should take a look at your own morality before you start casting aspersions on others.

Anonymous (May 9, 2005 @ 7:52am):

Right now I'm embedded in the deep south for my job and I can honestly say that their public school system is just atrocious, as evident by the undereducated people abound. It is really amazing how easy it is to tell the difference between somebody educated in the south and somebody educated in the north. It is not that the southerners are stupid, it just that their school systems and funding for education are just laughable. And what was the biggest issue in the bible belt this year? Gay marriage. Who cares if we are all a bunch of morons who can't speak, but we mustn't let the queers get married! It's truly amazing to me how people will vote against their own well being just to cock block someone else that has nothing to do with them but that they don't agree with.

Anonymous (May 9, 2005 @ 10:35am):

"Marriage has nothing to do with biology. It is a social institution that was founded to guarantee the passage of property and wealth from generation to generation."

How're those generations generated? Seems that "sex for the purpose of procreation" might be involved. Also, most of "passage of property and wealth from generation to generation" seems to involve a biological connection between those generations.

For me it's all about financial incentives for the breeding of future taxpayers. I'd limit the benefits of marriage to only those raising future taxpayers if I could - and I wouldn't care about their sexual orientation.

I'm also against off-shoring procreation as I don't think that the immigrants will be as predisposed to pay taxes to support SS for old people to whom they have no biological or cultural connection what-so-ever.

Canada seems to believe otherwise.

"Canada's low birth rate, about 1.61 children per couple, means the country needs immigrants to maintain its population of 33 million, Rosenblatt said. The United States is holding steady at 2.08 children per couple."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0503canada03.html

Anonymous (May 9, 2005 @ 1:47pm):

There is no need for marriage to procreate. End of argument. If you are against equal marriage then either you think that the government should be in the business of telling people who they can marry, or you think that gay "people" do not deserve the same rights as straight "people". Those are the two possibilites of the argument. Have fun with your stupidity asslicks.

Anonymous (May 9, 2005 @ 1:50pm):

Whether they are married or not has no effect on whether same sex couples have children or not. Therfore your above argument is logically flawed. This issue has nothing to do with children as gay people have children all the time-take a look at the cover of this week's Isthmus- when they are not married as do straight people.

This is a civil rights issue and being against it is a position that is irreconcilable with logic and ethics.

Anonymous (May 9, 2005 @ 5:20pm):

It's a financial issue. I'd like to see my mother marry my sister so that Mom would be covered by my sisters insurance. It would sure save the family money and they do love each other. If you object then you must think that the government should be in the business of telling people who they can marry.

Anonymous (May 9, 2005 @ 6:01pm):

LMFAO. Your argument is totally specious. I seriously hope you are kidding. It is an example of the slippery slope fallacy, and an example of the conservative simpistic tendency to think in black and white. We legislate gradations all the time.
Ex.
We allow someone to shoot someone in self-defense but not for whatever reason they wish. Allowing self-defense shooting doesn't mean that everyone is allowed to shoot anyone else willy nilly.

We allow only people over the age of 18 and who are citizens to vote. This doesn't mean that everyone has the right to vote or that no one has that right.

We allow for different punishments in murder cases.

and so on and so on and so on.

It is, as I said above, completely specious reasoning conjured to fit your preconceived bias of disliking gays.

We allow gay people to have sex, but we don't allow bestiality or incest. Why would allowing gay people to get married all of a sudden mean that we would sanction incestuous or bestial marriage? Completely specious and faulty reasoning.

Why don't you just admit that the real reason you don't want two people of the same sex to have equal rights in marriage is that you dislike gay people and are a homophobe?


Anonymous (May 9, 2005 @ 6:05pm):

With all the important issues in the world I can't beleive that conservatives think that the mst important one is gay marriage.

Hey our boys are getting slaughtered in a war that it is now proven Bush lied about, but hey! We can't let them fags marry! That would be bad for the country! Oh and let's approve another 80 billion fo reconstruction in Iraq so we can line Halliburton's pockets! But those gays getting healthcare is impinging on my pocketbook!

Sickening and really just pathetic. You must be really uncoomfortable with your own sexuality to be that up in arms about denying other people the right to live as they please.

Anonymous (May 9, 2005 @ 10:13pm):

"...but we don't allow bestiality or incest."

See the Sweden link up-thread for example of slippery slope been slid. And what's wrong about incest that isn't wrong about same-sex sex?

Anonymous (May 9, 2005 @ 11:11pm):

still beating that dead horse? What's wrong with same sex sex that isn't wrong with hetero-sex? Can you prove to me that homo-sex is in any way detrimental to our society when hetero sex is not? If anything it is the opposite. More people should be gay so we wouldn't have so many unplanned pregnancies and idiotic parents running around both of which add to our social and economic problems.

I refuse to engage your bestiality debate because it is completely specious. Marriage is not an institution that extends to animals or inanimate objects.

I will comment though, that your homophobia is really shining through. Why not let two people who love one another get married? Is there somoething so terribly wrong with that?

Anonymous (May 9, 2005 @ 11:12pm):

See this guy thinks that homosex is unnatural and therefore no matter what logic you use on him he will keep coming back to his stupid talking points.

Better to just ignore him and hope he comes out of the closet someday before he has to hire a dominant top behind his wife's back.

Anonymous (May 9, 2005 @ 11:14pm):

The sweden thread has nothing to do with this debate. It says that pedophiles have replaced children with animals.

Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. Just more of your ignorance,fear,and prejudice shining through.

Anonymous (May 10, 2005 @ 3:15am):

It's not about "living your life as you please"... you fags already do that....but demanding we accept and condone your fucked up lifestyles and diseases is a different matter

Anonymous (May 10, 2005 @ 10:54am):

I completely agree with the guy above me. It is one thing for homosexuals to be allowed to live their lives as they please, it is totally different to ask that society put a stamp of approval on that devient and disease-filled behavior.

1.) Same sex behavior is unnatural and a proven health risk. It is more of a health risk than smoking or using drugs. Society does not condone smoking, and using drugs is illegal because society cares about the health and welfare of its citizens. Why does the same not apply to same sex behavior? Has anyone ever wondered why gays and lesbians live shorter lives than heterosexuals? In the case of gays, the difference is significant.

2.) The is a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Gays are more likely to be child molesters. There exists research to back this up.

3.) This IS NOT a civil rights issue. Civil rights are based on INNATE and IMMUTABLE characteristics, such as race and gender. NO ONE has ever proven homosexuality to inborn... it is most likely a developmental condition. It does not make sense to make sexual feelings and sexual behavior a civil rights issue. Blacks were denied the right to vote and were once held as slaves. can the same be said of homosexuals? Don't think so.

Thank you.

Truthful

Anonymous (May 10, 2005 @ 5:01pm):

1) Wrong. The majorit of HIV cases are now among heterosexual women.

2)There is no connection. There is also research proving that the holocaust doesn't exist. Looking at a prebuscent child is just as disgusting for a normal gay person as it is for a normal heterosexual person. I would like to see these studies. A quick google serach showed that all of the studies I could find that "proved" this were all from Christian sites that are anti-gay. Less biased research done by universities finds "The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children."

3) Rights ARE based on "immutable"characteristics. One of those is that people are people. Your conclusion here assumes your premise that gay people are not equal to heteros otherwise as people hey should have the same rights. Equal marraige is a cicil rights issue. I bet you would ahve been arguing against blacks being allowed to vote as well? Afater all what would be next? Pigs voting? Sickening...

As I have said above numerous times. Your ignorance and homophobia are clear here. Why do you care so much? I can only conclude that you feel threatened in some way by gay people. I am sorry that you are so unsure of your own sexuality that you need society to tell you that it is wrong. As a straight man, that's right I am straight, I can't see why two guys getting married (or two women) could possibly bother you. All of your reasons are merely manufactured to fit your homphobic biases. Unlike you social conservatives, as a liberal, I am for giving MORE people freedoms not for denying people freedoms.

Conservatives are all about the government telling people what they can and can't do now. Whatever happened to your party/philosophy?

Anonymous (May 10, 2005 @ 9:37pm):

A simple question for those that think that being gay is a "lifestyle choice": Why would anyone choose a lifestyle that makes them the butt of jokes and slurs (the above usage of "you fags" for example), relegates them to second class citizenship where they do not have the same rights as other Americans, and where they are accused of having heinous criminal tendencies like "pedophilia" and "spreading disease"?

What a lifestyle! Where can I sign up? It sounds great!

Give me a fucking break. I bet you bumpkin- backwater homphobes also think that poor people choose to be poor and blacks and hispanics choose to go to jail in higher numbers. Pathetic.

Anonymous (May 10, 2005 @ 11:01pm):

"The is a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Gays are more likely to be child molesters. There exists research to back this up."

That's right! Let's lock up all the Catholic priests and throw away the key!

Anonymous (May 10, 2005 @ 11:05pm):

"There is also research proving that the holocaust doesn't exist."

Where the fuck did that come from? What does the Holocaust have to do with any of this, other than the Nazis wanted to kill all homosexuals?

Yeah, sure, there's research proving the Holocaust never happened. It's all been conducted by people who are so thoroughly discredited that only the most bigoted morons on the planet believe anything they have to say.

So why don't you take your Holocaust denial and go fuck yourself, you twisted piece of shit?

Anonymous (May 11, 2005 @ 7:52am):

Hey buddy, calm down. I think it was pretty obvious that the guy quoting the Holocaust "studies" only to prove how moronic it is to quote "scientific studies" when they are ran by conservative ideologues.

Anonymous (May 11, 2005 @ 9:10am):

Yeah, learn to read in context before lashing out jackass.

Anonymous (May 11, 2005 @ 9:45am):

So let me get what you are saying: Studies showing a link between homosexuality and pedophilia are inaccurate, because they are "conservative"? So by that "logic", are studies showing the opposite inaccurate, because they are liberal?

There is a difference between conservatives citing a study as proof of a certain point of view and conservatives (or liberals, or libertarians, etc) commissioning a study to prove their point of view. There is a huge difference.

Are you suggesting that gay groups are somehow honest and impartial? Can any serious person claim taht to be the case? Gay groups are the quite stealthy and manipulative (and good at it, judging from some of the comments here)and I am always skeptical of what they say.

Tell me this: Why has NAMBLA participated in gay parades? Why is a well-known NAMBLA member and activist now a writer (or until recently was)for the gay magazine "Guide"? Why was NAMBLA part of the international gay organization, which subsequently got kicked out of the UN after the revelation was made? Why have gay groups across the country and across the world asked for the lowering of age of consent laws (thereby aiding child molesters and pedophiles)? Could this all be a conservative plot to make gays look bad?

(Before someone jumps on that, I am NOT saying that all or most gays are pedophiles, but simply that gays are more likely that heterosexual males to be interested in children. There is an obvious homosexual tendency to be with young boys, while there is almost no corresponding heterosexual tendency to be with young girls).

Truthful

Anonymous (May 11, 2005 @ 10:04am):

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Before you claim that homosexuals are more likely to molest children look at this link. Most child molesters are neither gay nor straight. They do not have an adult sexual preference.

Also, continuing to spread the MYTH that gays molest children and will ruin society is just ignorant and makes you look like a horse's ass.

If you are going to call yourself "Truthful" try and look at all the facts.
And I would trust UC Davis over a religious group any day of the week.

Anonymous (May 11, 2005 @ 2:33pm):

"Are you suggesting that gay groups are somehow honest and impartial?"

Well if studies that contradicted the religious right "studies" were done by a group like Gay Men for America or something then you would have a valid point. Unfortunately for you all such studies are done by research universities that have, you know, qualifications to study science, unlike the privately funded religious right groups.

Anonymous (May 11, 2005 @ 2:35pm):

Is irony lost on these people? How can they dare have the audacity to accuse liberal gay activists of supporting pedophilia when it is their catholic priests who rape boy after little boy. You hypercritical conservatives can all go to hell, and take your pedophillia embrassing religion with you.

Anonymous (May 11, 2005 @ 2:55pm):

homosexuality is NOT an immutable characteristic, and is therefore NOT entitled to Constitutional protection

Anonymous (May 11, 2005 @ 3:51pm):

"Homosexuality is NOT an immutable characteristic, and is therefore NOT entitled to Constitutional protection"

This makes absolutely no sense. As I pointed out above, this assumes the premise that being homosexual makes you somehow inferior to straight people. If you start with that premise then you will end up with your conclusion because your premise already assumes it.

The equal protection clause is based on people not on sexuality, and therefore the question can only apply if you beleive that homosexuals are not people with equal rights needing protection.

You look really dumb here as you keep constructing house-of-cards arguments to support an insupportable position. Just admit that you are against eqality in marriage because of your personal beliefs and that is completely a bigoted opinion based on misperception and homphobia

Anonymous (May 11, 2005 @ 3:58pm):

There is a difference between a study done by a research institution conducted scientifically, and a study done by religious groups that think that gays are immoral. Oh what a surprise when their studies back-up their beliefs!

This is indicative with a larger problem that conservatives have. They ignore any facts or evidence that don't fit with their preconceived biases. Their justification for this is that if something doesn't agree with them it must be "liberal". So when a news story favors Bush in the media they agree with it and point to it as evidence, but when it talks about Bush's SS plan does nothing for solvency they scream "liberal media". It's a really twisted way of looking at the world, and makes arguing with them almost impossible.

Anonymous (May 11, 2005 @ 6:10pm):

"Why would anyone choose a lifestyle that makes them the butt of jokes and slurs"

There are a number of bad habits and addictions that one wonders why people choose. Many result in death, disease or disfigurement. Achoholics and crack addicts come to mind - why would anyone choose those lifestyles?

Anonymous (May 11, 2005 @ 6:31pm):

I think it's just mental people who need extra attention and were never loved by their parents.

Anonymous (May 11, 2005 @ 6:32pm):

oh and equal protection arguments for homos always fail and always will

Anonymous (May 11, 2005 @ 10:10pm):

But, alas, they won't fail for moronic small penised and angry because of it redneck pricks like you.

Anonymous (May 11, 2005 @ 10:12pm):

If it is possible to believe that a black man doesn't choose to be black, he only exists, then why can't you believe that somone is just gay? Someone might say a stupid person would only rely on shallow, superficial evidence of born traits, but I say if these rednecks place so much of their faith in an invisible man in the sky why can't they believe that there is something inside gay people that makes them the way they are?

Anonymous (May 11, 2005 @ 10:24pm):

because there is no credible scientific evidence to support your assertion

Anonymous (May 11, 2005 @ 10:50pm):

There isn't any scientific evidence to support a man in the sky who watches everything you do and loves you but will knowingly send you to burn for all eternity either.

Anonymous (May 11, 2005 @ 10:54pm):

There are a number of bad habits and addictions that one wonders why people choose.

And here folks, is the crux of it, as I said, you believe being gay is immoral, that is the same thing as a drug addiction and therefore when you start with that premise it is impossible to convince you otherwise.

No point in arguing anymore then, they don't listen to opinions that are different from what they already believe.

One last question though: Why should the state sanction marriage between men and women considering that it the number one scene of child abuse, child molestation, domestic abuse, murder, beating, robbery, domestic disturbances, theft and drug sales?

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 4:03am):

those are ridiculous assertions with no factual evidence

why does the state pay for your AIDS treatment when you could have prevented it by not sticking things where they don't belong?

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 4:37am):

http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/21/96/383/14637_pedophile.html

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 6:37am):

"why does the state pay for your AIDS treatment when you could have prevented it by not sticking things where they don't belong?"

I feel sorry for this poster and his general ignorance.

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 7:35am):

"those are ridiculous assertions with no factual evidence"

Wow, it's amazing how fast these people will resort to logical arguments when it is against their institutions. But when it comes to gay they can make all the ridiculous assertions they want. And by the way, they aren't assertions, they are actual fact. I mean just look at some of these things: of course heterosexual relationships have more domestic abuse because there are more heterosexual relationships, of course there is more molestation and abuse because they have greater access to children then a homosexual couple. The point is not that one lifestyle is better than the other. The point, moron, is that there are stupid assholes in ever catagory of humanity (like, for example, yourself), and you can make the same moronic arguments against heterosexual love just as much as homosexual love because anyone who is only out to prove their own belief correct will always find evidence to support their own close minded view.

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 8:30am):

Any guy who likes a woman's boobs is unnatural. Boobs have no place in procreation. Neither does the ass. If you look at a girl's ass and like it you are a deviant and should not be allowed to marry. Sex is only for procreation and if you like boobs and asses you are obviously immoral.

Also, since IV drug users spread diseases we shouldn't allow them to marry either. If anyone has ever had a common cold they shouldn't be allowed to marry either because they spread diseases with all their sneezing and nose blowing, and allowing them to marry would be the state sanctioning the spread of common colds. Actually, to make it line up with the case of gays better, we should ban anyone from getting married that has the POTENTIAL to spread the common cold and engages in risky behaviors like touching things in public or breathing in a common space.

Marriage should only be about penile insertion into vaginas preferrably through some sort of sterile plastic sheet. Sex is not meant to be enjoyed.

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 10:46am):

"Boobs have no place in procreation."

What would be the point of procreation if the procreated have nothing to eat?

"Neither does the ass."

Never did understand the whole "can't be to thin" thing - What would be the point of procreation if the procreated can't get out because the pelvis is too small?

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 10:48am):

"Also, since IV drug users spread diseases we shouldn't allow them to marry either."

I agree completely.

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 11:23am):

lmfao. Sarcasm is lost on these dolts.

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 12:41pm):

You never answered the question gay boy -- why should I have to pay for your sinful disease?

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 1:12pm):

As an independant, it is easy to see how both coservatives and liberals choose to believe whatever it is that backs up there point of view, so none of you should be suprised by the other sides bias. The biggest problem with have in this country is that neither side is willing to admit that they are actually all the same when it comes to dismissing the others points of view as biased. Case in point is Liberals who listen to Air America believe Rush is biased but air america isn't and Conservatives who listen to Rush but complain that air america is biased. Face it. Both air america and Rush ARE very biased and generally only present 1 side of every story, which is unfortunately the story behind almost ALL political info we receive.

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 2:22pm):

"You never answered the question gay boy -- why should I have to pay for your sinful disease?"

I am not a "gay boy" in fact I am not even gay. Yes, as hard as it might be for you to believe straight people hate ignorant homophobes like you too.

I will answer your question with another question "Why should gay people have to pay to educate you hickabilly children who you teach to hate them?"

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 2:38pm):

to the independent above: I appreciate you trying to weigh both sides. The problem is that the mainstream media is NOT liberal. It is not conservative either. It is corporate. In my opinion this makes it more conservative than liberal since the conservative party is more aligned toward corporate interests.

Take for instance this Blair memo that came out last week. Where is the outrage? The memo PROVES that Bush manufactured intelligence to get us into Iraq, yet the American media is completely silent on it.

What about the growing insurgensy in Iraq that experts are saying will lead to civil war? No coverage of that either.

The fact that a gay prostitute has unfetterd access to the White House? No coverage.

And the list goes on.

I agree with you that Air America nad the like are biased, but they are not journalism, neither is Rush. So I don't fault either of them for being biased. They are infotainement shows. The real problem is that an increasingly fewer number of mega-corporations run our media and are only going to cover stories that are in their best interest whether that helps liberals or conservatives. The problem is that when it comes to helping people or making money for corporations, the current media will side with corporate intersts every time until they are pushed into recognizing a story by the populace because if they didn't they would be exposed for the sham they are.

I suggest watching a film of Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent for more info on this. Like I said, independent poster, I appreciate your viewpoint. I just think it is being a bit navie to assume that the MSM is unbiased or equally biased toward liberal and conservative viewpoints. Mediamatters.org, run by a former republican turned liberal, can also shed more light on the conservative bias in the media.

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 2:38pm):

to the independent above: I appreciate you trying to weight both sides. The problem is that the mainstream media is NOT liberal. It is not conservative wither. It is corporate. In my opinion this makes it more conservative than liberal since the conservative party is more aligned toward corporate interests. Take for instance this Blair memo that came out last week. Where is the outrage? The memo PROVES that Bush manufactured intelligence to get us into Iraq, yet the American media is completely silent on it.

What about the growing insurgensy in Iraq that experts are saying will lead to civil war? No coverage of that either.

The fact that a gay prostitute has unfetterd access to the White House? No coverage.

And the list goes on.

I agree with you that Air America nad the like are biased, but they are not journalism, neither is Rush. So I don't fault either of them for being biased. They are infotainement shows. The real proble is that corporations run our media and are only going to cover stories that are in their best interest whether that helps liberals or conservatives. The problem is that when it comes to helping people or making money for corporations, the current media will side with corporate intersts every time until they are pushed into recognizing a story by the populace because if they didn't they would be exposed for the sham they are.

I suggest watching a film of Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent for more info on this. Like I said, independent poster, I appreciate your viewpoint. I just think it is being a bit navie to assume that the MSM is unbiased or equally biased toward liberal and conservative viewpoints. Mediamatters.org, run by a former republican turned liberal, can also shed more light onthe conservative bias in the media.

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 2:58pm):

"lmfao. Sarcasm is lost on these dolts."

Hmmmmm, never heard of the reverse-double sacasm?

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 3:07pm):

"Hmmmmm, never heard of the reverse-double sacasm?"

Never heard of the double reverse triple sarcasm?

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 3:50pm):

For every book or article you mention to try and show the MSM is conservative, i can throw out a book or article that also will show it is liberal. The problem is deciding where the middle is as a point of reference so one can try to determine where the MSM falls. To a ditto head the MSM will come across as liberal, where an avid Michael Moore fan the MSM will come across as conservative. I appreciate your suggestion of reading Chomsky and would suggest you read the book Bias, which is by Bernard Goldberg a liberal turned conservative who worked in the MSM. If your assumption that MSM is naturally conservative because most of it is corporate owned, how do you explain why then are Newspapers so liberal, considering most of them,like the networks are corporate owned?

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 4:41pm):

The more things change... Roughly ten years ago, I celebrated the criminal indictment of Elliott Abrams for lying to Congress by writing an Op-Ed in the New York Times on the increasing acceptance of official deception. (I was just starting my dissertation on the topic back then.) The piece got bogged down, however, when an editor refused to allow me even to imply that then-President Bush was also lying to the country. I noted that such reticence made the entire exercise feel a bit absurd. He did not dispute this point but explained that Times policy simply would not allow it. I asked for a compromise. I was offered the following: "Either take it out and a million people will read you tomorrow, or leave it in and send it around to your friends." (It was a better line before e-mail.) Anyway, I took it out, but I think it was the last time I've appeared on that page.

President Bush is a liar. There, I said it, but most of the mainstream media won't. Liberal pundits Michael Kinsley, Paul Krugman and Richard Cohen have addressed the issue on the Op-Ed pages, but almost all news pages and network broadcasts pretend not to notice. In the one significant effort by a national daily to deal with Bush's consistent pattern of mendacity, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank could not bring himself (or was not allowed) to utter the crucial words. Instead, readers were treated to such complicated linguistic circumlocutions as: Bush's statements represented "embroidering key assertions" and were clearly "dubious, if not wrong." The President's "rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy," he has "taken some liberties," "omitted qualifiers" and "simply outpace[d] the facts." But "Bush lied"? Never.

Ben Bradlee explains, "Even the very best newspapers have never learned how to handle public figures who lie with a straight face. No editor would dare print this version of Nixon's first comments on Watergate for instance. 'The Watergate break-in involved matters of national security, President Nixon told a national TV audience last night, and for that reason he would be unable to comment on the bizarre burglary. That is a lie.'"

CONTINUED BELOW
Part of the reason is deference to the office and the belief that the American public will not accept a mere reporter calling the President a liar. Part of the reason is the culture of Washington--where it is somehow worse to call a person a liar in public than to be one. A final reason is political. Some reporters are just political activists with columns who prefer useful lies to the truth. For instance, Robert Novak once told me that he "admired" Elliott Abrams for lying to him in a television interview about illegal US acts of war against Nicaragua because he agreed with the cause.

Let us note, moreover, that Bradlee's observation, offered in 1997, did not apply to President Clinton. Reporters were positively eager to call Clinton a liar, although his lies were about private matters about which many of us, including many reporters, lie all the time. "I'd like to be able to tell my children, 'You should tell the truth,'" Stuart Taylor Jr. of the National Journal said on Meet the Press. "I'd like to be able to tell them, 'You should respect the President.' And I'd like to be able to tell them both things at the same time." David Gergen, who had worked for both Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon as well as Clinton and therefore could not claim to be a stranger to official dishonesty, decried what he termed "the deep and searing violation [that] took place when he not only lied to the country, but co-opted his friends and lied to them." Chris Matthews kvetched, "Clinton lies knowing that you know he's lying. It's brutal and it subjugates the person who's being lied to. I resent deeply being constantly lied to." George Will, a frequent apologist for the lies of Reagan and now Bush, went so far as to insist that Clinton's "calculated, sustained lying has involved an extraordinarily corrupting assault on language, which is the uniquely human capacity that makes persuasion, and hence popular government, possible."

George W. Bush does not lie about sex, I suppose--merely about war and peace. Most particularly he has consistently lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities as well as its missile-delivery capabilities. Take a look at Milbank's gingerly worded page-one October 22 Post story if you doubt me. To cite just two particularly egregious examples, Bush tried to frighten Americans by claiming that Iraq possesses a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States." Previously he insisted that a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed the Iraqis to be "six months away from developing a weapon." Both of these statements are false, but they are working. Nearly three-quarters of Americans surveyed think that Saddam is currently helping Al Qaeda; 71 percent think it is likely he was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.

What I want to know is why this kind of lying is apparently OK. Isn't it worse to refer "repeatedly to intelligence...that remains largely unverified"--as the Wall Street Journal puts it--in order to trick the nation into war, as Bush and other top US officials have done, than to lie about a blowjob? Isn't it worse to put "pressure...on the intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates," as USA Today worded its report? Isn't it more damaging to offer "cooked information," in the words of the CIA's former chief of counterterrorism, when you are asking young men and women to die for your lies? Don't we revile Lyndon Johnson for having done just that with his dishonest Gulf of Tonkin resolution?

Here's Bradlee again: "Just think for a minute how history might have changed if Americans had known then that their leaders felt the war was going to hell in a handbasket. In the next seven years, thousands of American lives and more thousands of Asian lives would have been saved. The country might never have lost faith in its leaders."

Reporters and editors who "protect" their readers and viewers from the truth about Bush's lies are doing the nation--and ultimately George W. Bush--no favors. Take a look at the names at that long black wall on the Mall. Consider the tragic legacy of LBJ's failed presidency. Ask yourself just who is being served when the media allow Bush to lie, repeatedly, with impunity, in order to take the nation into war.

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 4:59pm):

Dude, don't post full articles. Its really annoying.

I think that thinking that bias is completely relative is an error. If the media were liberal, why did it turn Monica Lewinsky into a 4 year media spectacle? On the other hand there is a GAY PROSTITUTE in the Bush White House who was allowed to come and go as he pleased with no check out or check in times on occasions when there were no press conferences, and we have not heard a peep out of the media on that.

Anyone who thinks if Clinton had a female prostitute in the white house, let alone a gay one, the media wouldn't have been all over it is naive.

Whether you think the press SHOULD do this is not the point, (I personally don't) the point is that for the media the Bush administration is beyond repraoch. Name one critical story that the media has published on Bush? One. The Dan Rather memos (most of which were true and the 2 in question have never been proven forged) is the only case I can think of. The problem is that if the media reports that people died in Iraq conservatives scream "MEDIA BIAS! MEDIA BIAS!". This is not media bias, it is reporting a fact.

As I said, if you think that corporations like GE and VIACOM care moer about being unbiased than about their bottom line, you are willfully naive.

Every other country in the world understands what the US is doing right now in Iraq and that it is wrong. The only reason that more Americans don't realize this is that the media doesn't report stories that undermine the President's position.

The country is woefully unprepared for a terror attack almost 4 years later. A Cesna flew in the DC airspace yesterday and people were running around like headless chickens. The administration has done almost nothing to make us more secure at home, and by violating international law to invade Iraq has made Iraq a recruiting ground for terrorists for years to come. I didn't want Saddam there either, but we should have waitied for UN approval so that America wasn't sepcifically targeted. Now we have between 30 and 100 thousand ded civilians whose relatives will hate the Us for years to come. The media never reports any of this. When was the last time you heard a Iraqi casualty count on the news?

There is little discussion of issues of political importance, instead we get murders and runaway brides 24 hours a day.

You can claim that there are "sources on both sides". Well, as I said above, there are sources that claim the holocaust didn't happen and that Global warming is a myth as well. That doesn't make it so. There are sources and then there are sources.

I am intersted in a FREE press, one that is independent of finacial contributions from political sources. One that will report all the facts and allow us to make up our own minds. So I agree with you on that point, but to think that big business is not biased in the direction of big business is just willfully naive.

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 6:08pm):

Don't think that the media is conservative? Take a look at this article published by ABC itself today:

------------------------------
ABC NEWS SUMMARY
Brides gotta run, planes gotta stray, and cable news networks gotta find a way to fill a lot of programming hours as cheaply as possible. (CNBC gets to talk about the booming April retail sales numbers, and the NRA's television network will replay the Secretary of State on Larry King over and over.)

We say with all the genuine apolitical and non-partisan human concern that we can muster that the death and carnage in Iraq is truly staggering.

And/but we are sort of resigned to the Notion that it simply isn't going to break through to American news organizations, or, for the most part, Americans.

Democrats are so thoroughly spooked by John Kerry's loss --- and Republicans so inspired by their stay-the-course Commander in Chief --- that what is hands down the biggest story every day in the world will get almost no coverage. No conflict at home = no coverage.
-----------------------

And there you have it. They acknowledge that it is a humanitarian disaster, but they won't cover it because of profit reasons.

'nuff said.

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 7:32pm):

it's about time they open some treatment centers to cure these gays of their obvious mental disease

Anonymous (May 12, 2005 @ 11:33pm):

" Global warming is a myth "

We may not know for some time - science is more political than science on this issue:

***

"I don't have firm conclusions about the phenomenon of global warming (is it occuring in any sustained way?) or of the likely causes for it if it is occurring. I know just enough about modeling and simulation of weather and climate to know I'm way in over my head on that one. What increasingly appears to be the case, however, is that the public, scientific debate on these issues is deliberately being distorted."

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006762.php

On the temperature of the Earth:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view350.html#temperature

SATELLITES RECORD WEAKENING NORTH ATLANTIC CURRENT

Whether the trend is part of a natural cycle or the result of other factors related to global warming is unknown.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0415gyre.html

The most significant discrepancy with Oreskes' results concern abstracts that are undecided whether human activities are the dominant driving force of recent warming. My analysis shows that a significant number of abstracts reject what Oreskes calls the 'consensus view'. In fact, there are almost three times as many abstracts that are unconvinced of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail360.html#Saturday

Anonymous (May 13, 2005 @ 7:13am):

Gay rights are a myth.

Anonymous (May 13, 2005 @ 9:42am):

We may not know about global warming until it is too late!

Common sense dictates that you prepare for acatastrophe by doing your best to prevent it, not throwing up your hands and saying "Well some people disagree, so let's just keep pumping pollution into the atmosphere."

------------------------
lobal Warming: Fact vs. Myth

How do we know global warming is real? Who is responsible, and how can it be addressed? These pages summarize what is known - and some of the prevalent misconceptions - regarding this critical environmental problem.

MYTH: Even if the Earth is warming, we can't be sure how much, if any, of the warming is caused by human activities.

FACT: There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to human activities, not natural causes.

Over millions of years, animals and plants lived, died and were compressed to form huge deposits of oil, gas and coal. In little more than 300 years, however, we have burned a large amount of this storehouse of carbon to supply energy. Today, the by-products of fossil fuel use - billions of tons of carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide), methane, and other greenhouse gases - form a blanket around the Earth, trapping heat form the sun, unnaturally raising temperatures on the ground, and steadily changing our climate.

The impacts associated with this deceptively small change in temperature are evident in all corners of the globe. There is heavier rainfall in some areas, and droughts in others. Glaciers are melting, Spring is arriving earlier, oceans are warming, and coral reefs are dying.

[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Technical Summary.]

MYTH: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts an increase in the global average temperature of only 2.5

Anonymous (May 13, 2005 @ 10:50am):

All well and good if your blind faith in the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" is well placed. Maybe it's the one UN controlled organization that is always right and maybe not.

The IPCC has often been accused of being an implacable monolith and of having imposed a dogma of contrived consensus for politically motivated reasons. Some scientists, even within the climate community, have expressed reservations regarding the "consensus science" produced by the Panel. There are those who say that the IPCC should try to ensure a more balanced, informed and professional treatment of the economic and statistical aspects of its work.

Anonymous (May 13, 2005 @ 10:56am):

Is the IPCC promoting nuclear power plants, it's the only realistic means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the short term.

Anonymous (May 13, 2005 @ 12:10pm):

AWESOME! GOOD JOB!

Anonymous (May 13, 2005 @ 2:04pm):

Maybe you should look beyond the IPCC?

"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is supposed to act as the world's honest broker on global warming issues, is now hopelessly compromised. One prominent scientist resigned in protest at one of its lead authors associating himself with scientifically unsupported assertions. One of the world's most prominent economists judiciously terms the panel's handling of economic data as "at fault" and questions how representative of current economic thought the panel is."

"...the organization needs to reinvent itself free from the biases and self-affirmation exercises that currently plague it."

http://www.techcentralstation.com/013105E.html

Anonymous (May 13, 2005 @ 3:41pm):

Don't bother trying to reason with these conservatives. Consider this:

They think global warming is a myth even though there is an international scientific consensus on it existing.

BUT The bearded man in the sky whom there is absolutely no evidence for, exists 100% certainly.

These same people think that bombing hundreds of thousands of women and children and killing them is spreading freedom.

These same people think that poor people choose to be poor and blacks and hispanics choose to go to jail and live in pverty in higher numbers.

These same people see nothing wrong with ssending other people to die for a cause that they won't join up for.

These same people think that they shouldn't have to pay their fair share of taxes but should be allowed to use public resources whenever they need to.

So, please please please, liberals who come here: Just stop arguing with them. They are complete hypocritical imbeciles. There is no hope of ever reaching them with logic because they will never be convinced away from their backwater, hick, homophobic, priveleged, guns and god, corporations before people, me before everyone else, virulent strain of anger and greed.

So just stop arguing with them and go have a beer. They are unhappy souls whose parents obviously ever loved them and are just looking for attention by being the biggest assholes they can be.

Just ignore them and go have a beer.

Anonymous (May 13, 2005 @ 4:31pm):

Why do you assume all republicans/conservatives are religious fanatics and are selfish rich people? You complain about their arguments when your arguments are basically same.Argument being. My sources of news and information are more reliable than your sources of news and information.

Anonymous (May 13, 2005 @ 4:33pm):

Something you might find amazing is that all the examples the poster above made about the MSM not wanting to report stuff, all your examples WERE covered by Fox News. HMMM kinda makes you wonder doesnt it?

Anonymous (May 13, 2005 @ 5:53pm):

The Chicken Littles were sure we'd be gravely over-populated, starving and/or eating soylent green by now. Today they run the IPCC.

(PS. Im a confirmed athiest - not an agnostic, an athiest, a registered Bright. I don't believe in superstition, religious OR "scientific").

***

There are a great many more environmental romantics than there are scientists. That's fortunate, since their inspiration means that most people in developed socie

Anonymous (May 13, 2005 @ 6:32pm):

Ahh this beer tastes good doesn't it fellow libs?

Ignoring sure is the way to go when it comes to conservatrolls.

Anonymous (May 13, 2005 @ 6:35pm):

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/11/red_blue_world.html

The real mandate.

Anonymous (May 13, 2005 @ 9:22pm):

Sooooo, beer goggles aren't just for bar time anymore!

Anonymous (May 14, 2005 @ 3:39pm):

not if you are a liberal -- how else can a person so stupid make it through the day

Anonymous (May 14, 2005 @ 9:30pm):

Liberals drink your beeeeeeeers!

We deserve them! Look at who we have to breathe the same air as!

Anonymous (May 15, 2005 @ 6:29pm):

na na na na boo boo

Anonymous (May 16, 2005 @ 1:53am):

The beauty of it is that you are losers -- we have everything - Congress, the Presidency, the Supreme Court and the governorships......what do you stupid liberals have? Tammy Baldwin LOL

Anonymous (May 16, 2005 @ 10:02pm):

"The beauty of it is that you are losers -- we have everything - Congress, the Presidency, the Supreme Court and the governorships......what do you stupid liberals have? Tammy Baldwin LOL"

Remember that when the country goes to crap and the administration down in flames. Remember that when we invade Iran next month. Remember that Dems had nothing to do with it because they have no power. Here is your chance Republicans! Prove us wrong! Turn around the massive deicit! Make us safe from a terrorist attack! Clean up the environment!

If those 3 things happen in the next 4 years, I will become a Republican for life. Unlike you, I don't see this as a football game where I root for one team or another. I am for whichever party gets the job done. So far what I have seen on the Republican watch:

Massive deficit spending
Increased cost of living
Less job security
Fewer jobs and higher unemployment
The largest terrorist attack ever on our soil
Routine torture and detention of prisoners that have not been charged
Increased polution

So that is Bush Junior's track record so far. There shouldn't be any room for excuses since Republicans control every branch of government. Let's see what you can do.

Anonymous (May 17, 2005 @ 12:32am):

9-11 was Clinton's fault.

Anonymous (May 17, 2005 @ 9:49am):

" 9-11 was Clinton's fault."

Oh? Was this because he didn't have any time to prevent terrorism because he was busy defending himself against a ridiculous impeachment investigation that prevented him from doing his job?

Republicans: All for personal responsibility until it comes to them taking some.

If something happens on your watch it is your fault. Period. He had over a year in office to make any changes in National Security policy.

If 9-11 was anyone's "fault" it was Bush I's. He was the one that put the military bases in Saudi Arabia which was Bin Ladne's reasonfor attacking on 9-11.

Keep shifting the blame wacko. Your precious president could never have made a mistake, right? Despite the fact that he is best friends with the Bin Laden's and that he is an oil man, I bet that had no influence over our invasion either.

Keep on drinking the Kool-Aid you ignorant fucker.

Anonymous (May 17, 2005 @ 12:28pm):

We will just never know what notations were on those documents that Berger stuffed in his socks and then destroyed but they may have been harmful to the "Clinton didn't know" meme.

Anonymous (May 17, 2005 @ 5:09pm):

Put away your tinfoil hat buddy.

Anonymous (May 17, 2005 @ 10:09pm):

Berger plead guity - read the paper buddy.

Anonymous (May 17, 2005 @ 11:53pm):

It is a conspiracy that those documents had anything to do with 9-11. Where are the documents? The evidence? There is none.

You look good in that tinfoil hat. I hear it keeps the "liberal" media from brainwashing you into believing in science and due process.

Anonymous (May 18, 2005 @ 3:37am):

These idiot liberals have been watching too many michael moore videos

Anonymous (May 18, 2005 @ 8:14am):

"Where are the documents? The evidence? There is none."

Of course not, Berger confessed to shedding the documents. Why do you suppose he did that? The only reasonble explanation is that he wanted to eliminate the notations made by Clinton administration officials.

Anonymous (May 18, 2005 @ 9:45am):

Lmfao. So it was all Clinton's fault as usual. I suppose our record trade deficit is his fault as well? And the quagmire in Iraq?

Low recruiting? Clinton's fault.

Gay prostitute in the White House? Clinton did that as well.

The fact Bush didn't even read memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"? That was Clinton as well.

That evil Bill. He always seems to pop up everytime it would seem like the Bush administration utterly mishandled things.

Give it up. You take credit for anything good and anything bad blame on a guy who left office 5 years ago. Lmfao. Please stop. You are making my sides hurt. So silly...LMFAO

I guess "personal responsisiblity" is a fine mantra to scream at mothers whose husbands left them and need welfare to temporarily support their kids while they get back on their feet, but when it comes to Junior Bush the mantra is "The buck stops anywhere but here!"

Anonymous (May 18, 2005 @ 5:37pm):

#1 The story about the gay prostitute turned out to be false.
#2 Noone needed a memo to know that Bin Laden wanted to strike inside the US considering HE ALREADY HAD. And yes Clinton choose not to respond. The problem was'nt knowing he wated to attak us, it was knowing when and where. Unfortunately you cannot argue the fact that the Clinton years had a negative effect on intelligence gathering. But i know you'll try.
#3 Quagmire in Iraq? By who's definition? Let me guess YOURS(unbised of course.
#4 Please explain how Bush has anything to do with the trade deficit?
#5 Most replublicans have no problem helping those less fortunate, I work for a non-profit that is primarly funded by wealthy replublicans. And NO its not a political non-profit!
#6 I'm guessing that example of the women who's husband left her is the exception not the rule. Chances are that person was never married and KNEW the father was'nt going to stick around long before she ever opened her legs to him!!
#7 Not all conservatives/republicans are religious, so stop insuniating that. Thanks.
#8 Please tell me what you think Berger's agenda was?

Anonymous (May 18, 2005 @ 6:44pm):

1) Actually it was quite true. Look at the Secret Service notes for his visits. Here is the story that was never covered by the mainstream media: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html

2) If Bush was so aware and Clinton so incompetent, why didn't Bush take steps before 9-11? If Bush was aware that Osama might attack, why did he go into the school classromm AFTER the first plane struck the tower?

3) 1600 dead soldiers, deaths on the rise, 3 years and no exit strategy, 1000k civilians killed. The country still not rebuilt. 4 billion dollars missing. Sounds like a quagmire to me.

4)Lmfao. It is not the trade deficit, but the dudget deficit. Bush has increased spending while decreasing revenue. Therfore we now have a massive deficit.

5)By definition republicans do not want to help others. That is in your party platform.

6)Proves the above point.

7)Where did I insinuate that? There's no evidence for that in my post, but I guess since you like to make up conspiracy theories based on no evidence that is hardly surprising.

8) Please tell me what Cheney's agenda is in closed door meetings with energy companies that he won't allow the publiuc to access the minutes of? Maybe that we are going to give them the oil profits after we falsify info so we can invade Iraq?


Anonymous (May 18, 2005 @ 8:29pm):

"why didn't Bush take steps before 9-11?"

"Congressional leaders are scrambling to begin impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush following several unprecedented federal security measures that critics say constitute an unconscionable assault on American civil liberties."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20020522.shtml

No doubt it's now going too far with the "security measures" but the pendulum never stops in the middle and the government screws up anything it touches.

Never the less, the USA is at war with people that teach their children that everybody that does not believe EXACTLY what they believe should be killed to the last man, woman and child. As bad as you think of Bush and his crew, they are pretty mild compared to the evil fanatics that set out to kill innocent civilians.

Anonymous (May 18, 2005 @ 8:36pm):

"Maybe that we are going to give them the oil profits"

There was absolutely more money to be made by being a friend of Saddam. If oil was the objective we should have left him in Kuwait. He would have taken Saudi Arabia next and he'd be pumping all three counties dry to pay for more palaces and arms. He'd probably be marching on Iran (again) by now.

Anonymous (May 18, 2005 @ 8:48pm):

Please. C'mon. Who among us hasn't shoved classified documents into his pants and jacket by accident? It happens.

You're reviewing some notes -- OK, classified notes, but it's not like they're the secret formula for Coke or anything. Somehow they get in your clothing. Maybe you're the sort of person who's always putting things in your pants, and every night you empty out the contents -- a gallon of milk, some lawn statuary, some D-cell batteries, one shoe, loose rosary beads. And hey, what's this? Dang: classified documents.

Well, better do the right thing, and return them. But somehow they get cut up and thrown away. You're bad. But it's not like you were intending to sell them to the Chinese, or worse, Fox News.

***

Justice concluded that he didn't really mean to destroy or cover up evidence of Clinton administration failings that might come up in 9/11 hearings. But it seems somewhat inconsistent with Berger's own admission that he scissored the things to shreds, no? Ah, but they were copies, that's all. Nothing more. But were they copies with damning notes in the margins, perhaps? And that's why he took five, destroyed three and "misfiled" the other two?

We'll never know! The cement fist of Official Media Incuriosity has descended, and that's the end of that chapter.

But imagine the howls if a Bush administration official had admitted to stealing documents about terrorist threat warnings. Air America hosts would get nodes on their vocal cords the size of grapefruits from shouting about the crime and the sentence. And people would listen, for once: It would be news. Big news. Bad news, with all the hot juicy elements of a great political scandal: Stolen documents. A lying official. Suspect testimony. Terrorist warnings unheeded. Rumors of pants. But no: It's lost in the backwash of grief over the pope, never to be mentioned again.

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/lileks040605.html

Anonymous (May 19, 2005 @ 11:08am):

1600 Americans dead in Iraq. 15,000 injured. 100,000 civilians dead and this has what to do with Clinton?

I am no fan of Clinton either by the way...but blaming 9-11 on Clinton is like blaming it on Bush I. After all, if Reagan and Bush I hadn't trained Osama in tactical operations and supported him in Afghanistan making him into a hero, then he would never have had the popular base or training necessary to execute attacks. If Bush I hadn't placed military bases in the Muslim Holy land then Osama wouldn't have attacked. IfRumsfeld hadn't given Saddam weapons then he wouldn't have been a "threat" to his neighbors. etc etc. etc.

This line of reasoning is stupid. It could go all the way back to Adam and Eve. The buck has to stop somewhere and it SHOULD stop with Bush-though he is incapable of admitting a mistake. He should have come out after 9-11 and said "We were caught unaware. No one expected this, but we should have foreseen it based on intelligence gathered in the last 20 years (ie under both Dems and Reps). However, we are now aware of these terrorists and their intetions and we will go and get them in Afghanistan and then take precatuions to make sure it doenst happen again."

Instead he bungled it by getting us into a war in Iraq that was planned before 9-11 and in which "facts were fixed around policy" (Blair memo). This is incontrovertible.

Like many Dems. I was for invading Afghanistan, but Iraq was exploiting 9-11 for his own political agenda. He didn't listen to a slew of experts who told him that it would be a long unwinnable war-including his own Colin Powell who had first hand experience in Vietnam while Bush was shirking his National Guard duty.

Really, please Republicans, if you think Iraq is a success you are being blind. There is no winning that war. It is a war of attrition now and it was obvious it was going to be that way from the start. The Bush administration went in on evidence that was scanty at best, knowingly fabricated at worst and 1600 of our soldiers are dead.

You can't blame Iraq on Clinton altough you might try. At what point do things stop being Clinton's fault? The administration had plenty of time to do a national security review between when Bush took office and 9-11. Call it an oversight or an unexpected blindspot if you will, but trying to blame it on Clinton is just sheer nonsense and you know it.

Since Bush has taken office and invaded countries that cannot compete with our conventional military, he has escalated the nuclear arms race. Now NK and Iran are going to have nuclear capabilities. Invading Iraq was a bad idea and has made the world a more dangerous place than ever.

Meanwhile, Bush holds hands with the Saudi leaders when most of the terrorists were Saudis. If there is a country that should be scrutinized it is Suadi Arabia. Brutal dictators, no democracy, produced the hijackers of 9-11 and instead we have Bush HOLDING HANDS with them.

As far as it being cheaper to keep Saddam in power. That is absurd. The oil companies are NOT METERING the oil in Iraq. They are just atking it for free without a penny going to Iraq. Check for yourself Executive Order 13303 gives oil companies the right to all profits resulting from oil in Iraq. This is the money that was supposed to be going toward reconstruction. The Bushies are fleecing us by handing over no-bid contracts to personal friends and then giving them 70 billion dollar bonues because they didn't "screw up". Are you kidding me? i can't beleive you Repubs aren't pissed baout the way they are stealing "your" tax money. This is billions of dollars making the other things you rail against look like small change (bike path improvements, raises for state employees).

I just really can't understand how you can support EVERYTHING this administration does. I lean more liberal, but that doesn't mean that I support everything that Dems do. Come on! There are obviously problms here. The American people know it too despite the corporate stranglehold on our media that squashes an dissent. It's sad actually that you place your party before your country. YOu and I have more in common than you and Bush or Clinton and I. If we could just get past this ridiculous mentatility that parties are like football teams we might actually get something accomplished, but you seem utterly unwilling to admit that Iraq was a disaster and still is, and that Bush's policy of spending and getting us into debt very well might be ruining our economy. It's sad...

Anonymous (May 19, 2005 @ 4:28pm):

Based on your arguments, every war in history would have been bungled at one point during the war. I am not a replublican, in fact I have voted independent, democrat and replublican in presidential elections and every time i did'nt expect them to be perfect, nor did i need to agree with them on every issue. A few flaws in your argument are 100,000 civilians killed(where does that number come from? Ive heard 30,000 - 100,000 which is kinda a big span)
What is a slew of people? and what made them more beleivable than the people who did'nt say it is an unwinnable war?
I see dissent in the news everyday, so i'm not real sure what your point is about the media.
The GAO found that haliburton was the ONLY company that could do what was needed in Iraq.(by the way Clinton's administration also contracted with them)
My main point about Clinton is that if your going to put forth the theory that Bush LIED about WMD's then alot of other people apparently were lying as well.
Do you really believe that North Korea and Iran started trying to make Nuclear weapons after Bush was elected? My guess is had it not been for Bush, we wouldnt know anything about their plans until it was too late.

Your statement that there's no winning the war in Iraq, SAYS WHO? YOU...

Anonymous (May 20, 2005 @ 10:51am):

Iraq is unwinnable. It's simply a fact. As soon as we leave civil war is going to break out. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but kept the country together with his iron fist. We are not making any progress in Iraq as far as stopping the insurgency. This si because they are not going to recognize any government the US puts in place. Its an unwinnable situation. We can DECLARE victory, but Bush already did that, and we are still there. The administration doesn;t want a pullout, they want bases there. So there was never any endgame here other than setting up strategic military positions. The gov't used terror to justify invading a country that they wanted to invade before 9-11.

As far as Clinton lying-of course he lied! That's what politicians do! All we can do is attempt to minimize this. That's why we need a real third party that will get the corporate shills out of our government. Both the Dems and Reps are awash in corporate money. Until that ends there will never be democracy in this country again. The difference between the two is just who is bribing them and that controls their actions.

Halliburton can be contracted. I am fine with that. However, they should not be handed over a 70 billion dollar bonus simply for not screwing up! Especially not when we are already deficit spending at a higher rate thatn ever in our history.

What I said was thatBush bungled the so called "war on terror" by invading Iraq. Iraq created more terrorists rather than helping to solve the problem. Common sense tells you that you can't simply kill off all the terrorists. We can't apitualte to terrorists either. However, we can begin to recognize that the reason that they are supported by more than just an extreme fringe of Muslims is that the Middle East has some legtimate beefs with our foreign policy. That would be a start. Unilateral bombing and taking over of countries is exactly the reason theat we have been targeted in the first place. It simply increases the cycle of violence and hatred.

It is clear to most of the American people (57%) that Bush mishandled the war in Iraq. We were not adequately prepared. bush fired genreals that told him that they neeeded more troops and that this was not going to be an easy win. He willfully ignored any evidence that wasn't waht he wanted to hear. That is a problem with the current administration that seems endemic to me. If someone speaks against the radical neo-con agenda they are let go. Most Americans are not for what the neo-cons support: global empire, consolidation of power in the exec branch, less environmental and civil regulation, deficit spending, etc. They have managed to keep power becasue of their powerful corporate alllies in the media and in their treasury chests.

Let's be clear. I am not a conservative, but I would be okay with an old school conservative president who wanted less gov't spending, less world intervention, more freedom for states etc. That is a philosophy I can work with, and argue with. The current administration (and to a lesser exten Clinton before him and of course Bush I and Reagan before him) is not conservative fiscally or socially. They want to spend moeny we don't have, want to dismantle regulations that protect people from corporate polluters and unethical practices (like CC companies being able to raise your CC rate for any reason-and no I don't have a CC), and want to consolidate power in the executive branch effectively bypassing the checks and balance to the constitution.

I am actually concerned for our country's future. We are a debtor country and are still spending, but other nations are showing an unwillingness to buy our debt anymore (T-bill sales dropped 47% in March and can no longer cover our trade gap). We are meddling in countries and sending our troops to die without thinking it over carefully or haivng exit strategies. We are policing the lives of individuals and erdoing constitutional protected rights-warrants are no longer needed, privacy rights are no longer present, the free press has been eroded. This is what I mean. You and I can argue about the practicalities of conservatism or liberalism all day-and I am fine with that, but what we currently have is an administration that is neither. They are radical and do not represent the American people's beliefs or intersts. It genuinely makes me concerned.

Anonymous (May 20, 2005 @ 3:59pm):

This is an example of the kind of conservative I would like to see in charge of the republican party instead of the neocons:

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/roberts.cgi

Anonymous (May 20, 2005 @ 7:01pm):

Bush didn't win the elcetion. He stole it. That is enough evidence for me.

If you still think the 2004 election was legitimate, then here are some other things you must also believe if you really believe that George W. Bush won the election:

1. That the exit polls were WRONG.
2. That Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning OH and FL were WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.
3. That Harris' last minute polling for Kerry was WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.
4. That the Incumbent Rule (that undecideds break for the challenger) was WRONG.
5. That the 50% Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent doesn't do better than his final polling)
6. That the Approval Rating Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election)
7. That Greg Palast was WRONG when he said that even before the election, 1 million votes were stolen from Kerry. He was the ONLY reporter to break the fact that 90,000 Florida blacks were disenfranchised in 2000.
8. That it was just a COINCIDENCE that the exit polls were CORRECT where there WAS a PAPER TRAIL and INCORRECT (+5% for Bush) where there was NO PAPER TRAIL.
9. That the surge in new young voters had NO positive effect for Kerry.
10. That Bush BEAT 99-1 mathematical odds in winning the election.
11. That Kerry did WORSE than Gore against an opponent who LOST the support of SCORES of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000.
12. That Bush did better than an 18 national poll average which showed him tied with Kerry at 47. In other words, Bush got 80% of the undecided vote to end up with a 51-48 majority - when ALL professional pollsters agree that the undecided vote ALWAYS goes to the challenger.
13. That voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were NOT tampered with in this election.
14. That people who voted for Bush were not anxious to speak to exit pollsters in the states that Bush had to win (like Florida and Ohio) where the exit polls were off, but wanted to be polled in states that he had sewn up (like Arizona, Louisiana and Arkansas) where the exit polls were exactly correct.
15. That Democrats who voted for Kerry were very anxious to be exit-polled, especially in Florida and Ohio (and that this is what accounts for the discrepancy between the exit polls and the actual votes in these two critical states).
16. That women were much more likely to be polled early in the day in Florida and Ohio. That is another reason why the exit polls were wrong in those states. In those states in which the exit polls were correct to within one percent, women did not come out early.
17. That network newscasters who claim that those who consider the possibility of fraud are just wild conspiracy theorists do not have an agenda.
18. That it is just a coincidence that only since the 2000 presidential election have exit polls failed to agree with the actual vote - and that Bush won both disputed elections.
19. That exit polls are not to be trusted in the United States, even though they are used throughout the world to monitor elections for fraud.
20. That even though more votes were cast than there were eligible voters in many precincts of critical states, it is not an issue that needs to be covered in the media.
21. That the absence of a paper ballot trail for touch screen computers does not encourage fraud, even though they have been proven by hundreds of computer experts to be highly vulnerable to fraudulent attack.
22. That statistical tests which indicate a high probability of fraud are just conspiratorial junk science.
23. That Bush's vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentage in FL by 4%. Based on 2846 individuals exit polled, the polling margin of error was 1.84%. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 1667.
24. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentage in OH by 3%. Based on 1963 individuals exit polled, the polling margin of error was 2.21%. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 333.
25. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentages in 41 out of 51 states. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 135,000.
26. That his vote tallies could exceed the margin of error in 16 states. Not one state vote tally exceeded the MOE for Kerry. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 13.5 Trillion.
27. That his vote tallies could exceed a 2% exit poll margin of error in 23 states. The probability of this occurrence: as close to ZERO as you can get.
28. That of 88 documented touch screen incidents, 86 voters would see their vote for Kerry come up Bush - and only TWO from Bush to Kerry. The probability of this occurrence: as close to ZERO as you can get.
29. That Mitofsky (who ran the exit polls), with 25 years of experience, has lost his exit polling touch.
30. That by disputing the Ukrainian elections, the Bush administration would base its case on the accuracy of U.S. sponsored exit polling, while at the same time ignoring exit polls in the U.S. presidential election, which the media reported Kerry was winning handily.
31. That Bush could overcome Kerry's 50.8% - 48.2% lead in the National Exit Poll Sub-sample (13,047 polled) and win the popular vote: 51.2% - 48.4%, a 3.0% increase from the exit poll to the vote tally, far beyond the 0.86% margin of error. The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 282 Billion.
32. According to a London-based insurance actuary, the odds of all of these things happening in ONE election, let alone two elections in a row, are too astronomical to be calculated!

Anonymous (May 21, 2005 @ 10:22am):

WOW - what a long list of bullshit!

Anonymous (May 21, 2005 @ 12:17pm):

The mainstream media is just so in love with Bush and his policies that they have buried all these stories - yeah, that's the ticket.

Better make sure your tin-foil hat is on nice and tight - and watch out for those black helicopters!

Anonymous (May 21, 2005 @ 1:44pm):

FUCK YOUR THOUGHTS AND YOUR FEELINGS, YOU DON'T KNOW WARREN G. HARDING!

Anonymous (May 21, 2005 @ 2:49pm):


Please give me one valid reason for not wanting paper trails on voting machines? and explain why Republicans would vote against paper trails if they were planning on winning the election fair and square?

Anonymous (May 21, 2005 @ 2:51pm):

CAlling me a tinfoil hat wearer doesn't Disprove the facts above.

Deal with the facts.

Refute the facts.

Otherwise you are just slinging insults meant to illegitimize my position.

If it is so outrageous, and I asuch a wacko, then tell me why I am wrong.

Anonymous (May 21, 2005 @ 5:13pm):

Jim Lampley
The Biggest Story of Our Lives

At 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Election Day, I checked the sportsbook odds in Las Vegas and via the offshore bookmakers to see the odds as of that moment on the Presidential election. John Kerry was a two-to-one favorite. You can look it up.

People who have lived in the sports world as I have, bettors in particular, have a feel for what I am about to say about this: these people are extremely scientific in their assessments. These people understand which information to trust and which indicators to consult in determining where to place a dividing line to influence bets, and they are not in the business of being completely wrong. Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.

And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil.

Many of the participants in this blog have graduate school educations. It is damned near impossible to go to graduate school in any but the most artistic disciplines without having to learn about the basics of social research and its uncanny accuracy and validity. We know that professionally conceived samples simply do not yield results which vary six, eight, ten points from eventual data returns, thaty's why there are identifiable margins for error. We know that margins for error are valid, and that results have fallen within the error range for every Presidential election for the past fifty years prior to last fall. NEVER have exit polls varied by beyond-error margins in a single state, not since 1948 when this kind of polling began. In this past election it happened in ten states, all of them swing states, all of them in Bush's favor. Coincidence? Of course not.

Karl Rove isn't capable of conceiving and executing such a grandiose crime? Wake up. They did it. The silence of traditional media on this subject is enough to establish their newfound bankruptcy. The revolution will have to start here. I challenge every other thinker at the Huffington Post: is there any greater imperative than to reverse this crime and reestablish democracy in America? Why the mass silence? Let's go to work with the circumstantial evidence, begin to narrow from the outside in, and find some witnesses who will turn. That's how they cracked Watergate. This is bigger, and I never dreamed I would say that in my baby boomer lifetime.

Anonymous (May 21, 2005 @ 6:10pm):

"If it is so outrageous, and I asuch a wacko, then tell me why I am wrong."

When it doesn't seem to even have risen to the standards of 60 Minutes or NEWSWEEK then I gotta call bullshit.

Anonymous (May 21, 2005 @ 6:43pm):

For all it's faults, the electorial college at least limits these crazy stories to a couple of states. The recounts would still be going on today if the total popular vote was used.

Anonymous (May 21, 2005 @ 6:52pm):

http://www.huffingtonstoast.com/

MUCH tastier than Huffington Post!

Anonymous (May 21, 2005 @ 10:46pm):

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how Bush beat billion to one odds.

AND why Republicans would vote against paper trails for voting machines.

Anonymous (May 22, 2005 @ 12:12pm):

Wasn't it the democracts who pushed for electronic voting in the first place? Remember the infamous "butterfly ballot - it was designed by a dummycrat.

I myself would prefer paper ballots marked with pencils and counted by humans, as long as there were safeguards against fraud.

ps. Billion to one odds? Only in your fantasy world.

pps. What are the odds that Kerry will EVER allow his military records to become public? Now there's a true long-shot!

Anonymous (May 22, 2005 @ 12:19pm):

Final precinct-level data just released by the Ohio secretary of state illuminate surprising details about President Bush's victory in this battleground state. And campaign leaders for Bush and Sen. John Kerry are revealing for the first time how they struggled in the final hours to win Ohio.

http://election.redstate.org/story/2005/5/16/85110/7427

Anonymous (May 22, 2005 @ 12:26pm):

Contrary to the best efforts of conspiracy theorists across the country, the Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International or the National Election Pool (NEP), which was just released to the public, finds that exit polls do not support the allegations of fraud due to rigging of voting equipment.

This report validates most of the arguments that Republicans and statisticians made about why the exit polls were incorrect. It also laid bare the whining of the far left that cannot let the election result stand. Less exciting than the standard conspiracies, it looks like sampling error and other factors lead to more Kerry voters being interviewed and less Bush supporters. More from the report below.

On November 2, 2004, the Election System created by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool (NEP) produced election estimates and exit poll data for analysis in 120 races in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, between January and March 2004, Edison and Mitofsky conducted exit polls for 23 Democratic Primaries and Caucuses. For every election, the system delivered on its main goals: there were no incorrect NEP winner projections, and the exit poll data produced on election day were used on-air and in print by the six members of the NEP (AP, ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX and NBC) as well as several dozen media organizations who subscribed to that data. However, the estimates produced by the exit poll data on November 2nd were not as accurate as we have produced with previous exit polls. Our investigation of the differences between the exit poll estimates and the actual vote count point to one primary reason: in a number of precincts a higher than average Within Precinct Error most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters. There have been partisan overstatements in previous elections, more often overstating the Democrat, but occasionally overstating the Republican. While the size of the average exit poll error has varied, it was higher in 2004 than in previous years for which we have data. This report measures the errors in the exit poll estimates and attempts to identify the factors that contributed to these errors.

The exit poll estimates in the 2004 general election overstated John Kerry's share of the vote nationally and in many states. There were 26 states in which the estimates produced by the exit poll data overstated the vote for John Kerry by more than one standard error, and there were four states in which the exit poll estimates overstated the vote for George W. Bush by more than one standard error. The inaccuracies in the exit poll estimates were not due to the sample selection of the polling locations at which the exit polls were conducted. We have not discovered any systematic problem in how the exit poll data were collected and processed. Exit polls do not support the allegations of fraud due to rigging of voting equipment.

It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general, Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters. There were certainly motivational factors that are impossible to quantify, but which led to Kerry voters being less likely than Bush voters to refuse to take the survey. In addition there are interactions between respondents and interviewers that can contribute to differential non-response rates. We can identify some factors that appear to have contributed, even in a small way, to the discrepancy. These include:



Distance restrictions imposed upon our interviewers by election officials at the state and local level

Weather conditions which lowered completion rates at certain polling locations

Multiple precincts voting at the same location as the precinct in our sample

Polling locations with a large number of total voters where a smaller portion of voters was selected to be asked to fill out questionnaires

Interviewer characteristics such as age, which were more often related to precinct error this year than in past elections We plan further analysis on the following factors:

Interviewer training and election day procedures

Interviewing rate calculations

Interviewer characteristics

Precinct characteristics * Questionnaire length and design We also suggest the following changes for future exit polls:

Working to improve cooperation with state and local election officials Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System page 5 January 19, 2005

Improvements in interviewing training procedures

Changes in our procedures for hiring, recruiting and monitoring interviewers

Even with these improvements, differences in response rates between Democratic and Republican voters may still occur in future elections. However, we believe that these steps will help to minimize the discrepancies.

It is also important to note that the exit poll estimates did not lead to a single incorrect NEP winner projection on election night. The Election Night System does not rely solely on exit polls in its computations and estimates. After voting is completed, reported vote totals are entered into the system. Edison/Mitofsky and the NEP members do not project the outcome of close races until a significant number of actual votes are counted. As in past elections, the final exit poll data used for analysis in 2004 was adjusted to match the actual vote returns by geographic region within each state. Thus, the discrepancy due to differing response rates was minimized and did not significantly affect the analysis of the vote. The exit polls reliably describe the composition of the electorate and how certain demographic subgroups voted.

http://election.redstate.org/story/2005/1/19/14112/5589

Anonymous (May 22, 2005 @ 12:27pm):

Contrary to the best efforts of conspiracy theorists across the country, the Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International or the National Election Pool (NEP), which was just released to the public, finds that exit polls do not support the allegations of fraud due to rigging of voting equipment.

This report validates most of the arguments that Republicans and statisticians made about why the exit polls were incorrect. It also laid bare the whining of the far left that cannot let the election result stand. Less exciting than the standard conspiracies, it looks like sampling error and other factors lead to more Kerry voters being interviewed and less Bush supporters. More from the report below.

On November 2, 2004, the Election System created by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool (NEP) produced election estimates and exit poll data for analysis in 120 races in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, between January and March 2004, Edison and Mitofsky conducted exit polls for 23 Democratic Primaries and Caucuses. For every election, the system delivered on its main goals: there were no incorrect NEP winner projections, and the exit poll data produced on election day were used on-air and in print by the six members of the NEP (AP, ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX and NBC) as well as several dozen media organizations who subscribed to that data. However, the estimates produced by the exit poll data on November 2nd were not as accurate as we have produced with previous exit polls. Our investigation of the differences between the exit poll estimates and the actual vote count point to one primary reason: in a number of precincts a higher than average Within Precinct Error most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters. There have been partisan overstatements in previous elections, more often overstating the Democrat, but occasionally overstating the Republican. While the size of the average exit poll error has varied, it was higher in 2004 than in previous years for which we have data. This report measures the errors in the exit poll estimates and attempts to identify the factors that contributed to these errors.

The exit poll estimates in the 2004 general election overstated John Kerry's share of the vote nationally and in many states. There were 26 states in which the estimates produced by the exit poll data overstated the vote for John Kerry by more than one standard error, and there were four states in which the exit poll estimates overstated the vote for George W. Bush by more than one standard error. The inaccuracies in the exit poll estimates were not due to the sample selection of the polling locations at which the exit polls were conducted. We have not discovered any systematic problem in how the exit poll data were collected and processed. Exit polls do not support the allegations of fraud due to rigging of voting equipment.

It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general, Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters. There were certainly motivational factors that are impossible to quantify, but which led to Kerry voters being less likely than Bush voters to refuse to take the survey. In addition there are interactions between respondents and interviewers that can contribute to differential non-response rates. We can identify some factors that appear to have contributed, even in a small way, to the discrepancy. These include:



Distance restrictions imposed upon our interviewers by election officials at the state and local level

Weather conditions which lowered completion rates at certain polling locations

Multiple precincts voting at the same location as the precinct in our sample

Polling locations with a large number of total voters where a smaller portion of voters was selected to be asked to fill out questionnaires

Interviewer characteristics such as age, which were more often related to precinct error this year than in past elections We plan further analysis on the following factors:

Interviewer training and election day procedures

Interviewing rate calculations

Interviewer characteristics

Precinct characteristics * Questionnaire length and design We also suggest the following changes for future exit polls:

Working to improve cooperation with state and local election officials Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System page 5 January 19, 2005

Improvements in interviewing training procedures

Changes in our procedures for hiring, recruiting and monitoring interviewers

Even with these improvements, differences in response rates between Democratic and Republican voters may still occur in future elections. However, we believe that these steps will help to minimize the discrepancies.

It is also important to note that the exit poll estimates did not lead to a single incorrect NEP winner projection on election night. The Election Night System does not rely solely on exit polls in its computations and estimates. After voting is completed, reported vote totals are entered into the system. Edison/Mitofsky and the NEP members do not project the outcome of close races until a significant number of actual votes are counted. As in past elections, the final exit poll data used for analysis in 2004 was adjusted to match the actual vote returns by geographic region within each state. Thus, the discrepancy due to differing response rates was minimized and did not significantly affect the analysis of the vote. The exit polls reliably describe the composition of the electorate and how certain demographic subgroups voted.

http://election.redstate.org/story/2005/1/19/14112/5589

Anonymous (May 22, 2005 @ 12:34pm):

I suppose you think this guy is a shill for Bush? Somehow I think NOT!

Steve Rosenthal is the chief executive officer of America Coming Together. He was the political director of the AFL-CIO from 1996 to 2002.

Okay, We Lost Ohio. The Question Is, Why?

By Steve Rosenthal
Sunday, December 5, 2004; Page B03

When it came to getting out the Democratic vote in Ohio during the presidential election, we hit our target numbers. My organization, America Coming Together, along with our 32 America Votes partner organizations, the Democratic National Committee and the Kerry-Edwards campaign not only exceeded our turnout goals for the Buckeye State, but far exceeded anything the Democrats have done in the past.

And we still lost. President Bush won the election by fewer than 130,000 votes out of 5.6 million cast in Ohio, according to the state's latest figures. We added 554,000 votes to our totals, but the Republicans countered with 508,000, enough to keep the state in their column.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34157-2004Dec3.html

Anonymous (May 22, 2005 @ 12:49pm):

Sorry to introduce something on topic but...

Q. When is it politically correct to beat gays and kill women?

A. When the beaters and killers are "oppressed Muslims"!

http://www.reason.com/cy/cy051705.shtml

On April 30, American journalist Chris Crain became the victim of a hate crime in Amsterdam. While walking in the street holding hands with his partner, he was savagely beaten by seven men shouting antigay slurs. A few days later, Scott Long, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Program at the Human Rights Watch, expressed some sympathy for the gay-bashers. Crain's attackers were reportedly Moroccan immigrants.

Anonymous (May 22, 2005 @ 12:50pm):

Do Muslims support the normalization of gay rights?

Anonymous (May 22, 2005 @ 2:00pm):

The election was stolen, but it doesn't matter. The faster the country goes to crap, the faster we can seced from the Southern states that are screwing the rest of the country over.

Republicnas: How does it feel to know that the only reason your party is in power is because of a bunch of brain-dead hicks that think Dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark?