Gay Patriot » SC…

Gay Patriot » SC…

Gay Patriot » SC…

Dallas board of adjustment member/ex-city plan comm. Sharon Boyd who says she is a “close” friend of Miers, appeared on Michelangelo Signorile’s radio show on Sirius OutQ channel, said that while Miers is certainly pro-life, “social issues are not her primary expertise or concern.” Boyd: “She told me: the more she read about it, the more she learned about the procedures, she just could no longer be pro-choice.” Boyd said that if Miers were asked to revisit Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned state sodomy laws, she doubted Miers would vote to allow states to regulate the conduct. Boyd: “She believes in equal rights for everyone.” Boyd said Miers had many gay friends and “was not uncomfortable with gay people.” When she spoke before a group in 1989, “it was pretty brave for a conservative like Harriet”.
(end)

N35, we have a winner: FAG HAG!

May God bless her and bring her back to choice.

I’m curious about your assertion that Goldwater would have been happier with the current liberals on the Court than with the conservatives. The two big cases I’ve spent time thinking about from last term were Kelo and Raich — in both, the four liberals you name came down on the side of greater government power at the direct expense of personal liberties.

When you say Goldwater would have considered them (Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens and Breyer) ideal justices on “most issues” — what cases are you thinking of?

Dan in Baltimore

There is nothing to smear the afformentioned nominee by calling her a fag hag. I would LOVE it if she actually were. Now, as to what your problem is, I haven’t a clue. If on the other hand she is a closet drinking, withered old cunt that hates children, now that may be another story and one I find no foundation for.

There is absolutely no hate in my original hypothetical.

Like a dirty mind, you will read into things, things that aren’t there.

The stink of shame is back on your hands, little boi.

By the way, are you glisteny under an actual real persona?
Your personal digs are identical and equally insipid.

H@@@

Ms. Miers is a very pleasant person to be around, well-spoken, with an excellent mind and sharp wit. I’ve never had issue with her, although we have disagreed on several points; I’ve always found her willing to listen and to consider.

Absolutely.

After being in the LCR, I learned that there are many repubs in congress and in state legislatures that privately support us, but feel that they can’t vote in our favor because of the backlash at the next election. So, are these people “lying bastards”? Well, yes, because they tell us one thing, then vote another. In fact, they may well be doing exactly the same thing you accuse Dems of doing.

I’ve dealt with that myself, Randy.

However, the difference between Democrats and Republicans in that situation is very simple — Republicans tell you up front that, while they may privately support you, they feel that their constituency would not tolerate their vote as such. That’s why, as I outlined in my link, you come armed with what IS important to their constituency, and help them frame the message that way.

In contrast, when I’ve dealt with Democrats, they treat gays like they do other minorities — complete support when you’re in their office, bashing you elsewhere, then following up with an apologetic phone call and a promise for pandering elsewhere — only to renege on the latter and repeat the process two weeks later. I have never felt such an combination of rage and amusement as when a prominent Dallas Democrat told me in a meeting that he supported gays, then was caught on tape a few hours later applauding as Bishop T.D. Jakes stood up and blamed “effeminate men” and homosexuality for the problems of the black community. Rage because I was pissed that he had lied to me; amusement because he honestly thought he’d gotten away with it.

In short, be honest about your reasons and motivations, and I’m OK with that. Be two-faced, and you get “lying bastard”. Ted Kennedy and others fall well into that category; Kennedy has said publicly that he would never support or endorse anyone who supported stripping gays of rights, and then along came Bill Clinton and John Kerry. He doesn’t get a free pass because of his last name.

And then you did. Bravo, script-boi, you are officially in the gutter. On second thought, with your last comment, you skipped the street gutter and landed squarely in the sewer hole.

Shame on you. And please, no artifical restoration by a claim you spoke with hyperbole or sarcasm.

I think it’s disgusting that there’s even speculation that Ms. Miers might be a lesbian. We don’t know and, if she is, it isn’t any of our business. I know she isn’t the only 60-year-old woman who’s made such a commitment to her career she never had time to develop a relationship that would lead to marriage.

She would appear to have sufficient experience to serve on the Supreme Court. Two chief justices as diverse as William Rehnquist and Earl Warren were not judges; their experience was primarily in politics. Earl Warren, one of history’s great chief justices, was named chief justice mainly as a reward for delivering California to President Eisenhower in 1952. Sandra Day O’Connor, who’s only judicial experience was as a state judge, might not have been appointed had President Reagan not been enthralled by her talk of ranch life when they met.

I certainly hope Chief Justice John Roberts and Harriet Miers aren’t clones of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — the justices George W. Bush supposedly admires the most. We know they don’t believe in the 14th Amendment and at times I suspect they don’t really believe in the Bill of Rights. For god’s sake, that Vatican stooge Scalia even believes government has the right to ban masturbation.

It might be years before we know where Roberts and Miers stand. But I’m hoping Bush 43’s appointee Roberts turns out to be just like Bush 41’s appointee David Souter. I would have preferred naming Alberto Gonzales to replace O’Connor but I’m keeping my fingers crossed Miers is in the mold of O’Connor or Justice Anthony Kennedy.

And Chandler in Hollywood, regarding #51. You’re correct that that rightwing bigot James Dobson seldom opposes Bush. But he has done so, including campaigning in Pennsylvania’s 2004 GOP primary against Senator Arlen Spector at the same time President Bush and Senator Rick Santorum were working their butts off to get Spector nominated.

When I think about my political hero, Barry M. Goldwater, I wonder where he’d stand on these Supreme Court nominees. I’m guessing that if he were alive today, because he was so committed to individual liberty and freedom from government intrusion into our private lives, his ideal justices would be John Paul Stevens. David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer on most issues, as well as Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy on many issues. He wouldn’t agree with every decision, such as the eminent domain ruling this year, but the “iberal” and “moderate” justices would probably please him most.

And to those of you who’ve been debating the importance of party platforms, forget it. Only ideologues on the right or left pay any attention to their respective parties’ platforms. On several occasions I helped write my state GOP’s platform and never ran into a voter who knew what it said or who really cared what it said. At the 1968 GOP National Convention, which I attended as a very young Nixon loyalist, I joined the majority in adopting a platform but, beside myself, the only other members of our state delegation who knew what was in it were the man and woman who represented our state on the platform committee. The real “platform” is what the presidential nominee spells out in his Acceptance Address. And to this day, 37 years later, I have yet to meet a voter who remembers that Richard Nixon clearly hinted in his Acceptance Address that he would open the door to relations with Red China.

1] I have never met a plain looking single heterosexual careerwoman of a certain age that didn’t have plenty of gay male friends.

&

2] She became a christian a little after Bush “gave up drinking”, which means, as an old old friend, she probably drank with him during the wonder years.

My conclusion of Cocktails and Cocksuckers: FAG HAG.

This would explain everything. One of those drink with the sinner, forgive the sin types. She probably hangs with GayPatriot types.

Yeah, I was talking about performance on the bench. I think the Senate ‘Confederacy of Dunces’ — Kennedy, Schumer, Leahy, Feinstein — pretty much make it impossible for someone as outspoken as Newt to be confirmed.

Although I am a Dem, I was a member of the Log Cabin Repubs here in DC for quite some time. Why? Because when we speak of gay rights, the kit ‘n kaboodle, we are basically talking about a large grand social movement. We simply cannot achieve all that we seek by supporting only one party. On this I disagree with many of the more liberal gay rights groups, but even the HRC supported a NY Repub senator over a Dem a number of years ago (Name escapes me right now — he was a bald Italian guy from Long Island). And when you advance a broad social movement such as ours, you are going to find people who are too afraid to make the progressive choices. After being in the LCR, I learned that there are many repubs in congress and in state legislatures that privately support us, but feel that they can’t vote in our favor because of the backlash at the next election. So, are these people “lying bastards”? Well, yes, because they tell us one thing, then vote another. In fact, they may well be doing exactly the same thing you accuse Dems of doing. But to me, that isn’t a very productive process, to just call them names. Rather, I would like to work with them, and hopefully show them that people generall don’t vote out of office officials who vote for gay rights. in other words, their seat will remain safe. And there are enough gay repubs to make that happen, fortunately.

We need the support of people from both sides of the aisles. Right now, most of the support — at least in US Congress and the Senate — comes from the Dems. Does the party support us? Sometimes yes, but as you correctly point out, sometimes no. But what about the republican party? Ken Mehlman is gay, but refuses to admit to it publically, and he supports the entire Bush agenda, including FMA. Can you perhaps see why that drives liberals up the wall?. But the larger point is that we can and do develop support from the Repubs and the right-wingers.

Can we at least agree there are members in both parties who are sympathic to our cause, and actually do support us with legislative votes as well as rhetoric, and that the best way to advance our rights is to continue to cultivate broad support from members of both parties?

I just wouldn’t want to be counsel before a bench Justice Newt’s on… he’d eat up all my time for response and with clarifiers.