Just in his last comments, raj baby takes the Porter Goss resignation and spins it into three wild-assed pure speculative conjectures: 1) Goss was fired; 2) the WH didn’t have a replacement for him furthering the notion that the WH is in a state of confusion; and 3) the firing was due to a direct, incontrovertible link of Goss to his aide and prostitutes for Duke Cunningham’s frat parties ala Wilbur Mills’ spirit (1970′s era disgraced Democrat Chair of House Ways & Means).

The point raj baby missed was his last spew and vent was pegged line-and-verse to a series of radical Democrat spin websites… taking items verbatim from those blogs of partisan hate; raj use to try and cover the sources, but now he just cuts and paste. It’s a shame to waste anyone’s mind, but really a shame when it’s a BlameAmericaFirster.

Let’s recap raj baby’s latest lie-time:

Lie #1 Goss was fired. No he resigned after making it clear 2 months earlier in a speech at the RR Library he wanted out.

Lie #2 Goss is linked to scandal and that’s why he was fired. No –he resigned and the “scandal” link is pure wishful thinking and fantasy conjecture on raj’s part as mouth for the radical Democrat left.

Lie #3 The WH was caught unaware and doesn’t have a replacement. No, the WH has a replacement and it’s someone who will be able to look Chuckie Schummer and others in the face and stop their lying horsesh*t about “domestic spying by the NSA”.

Raj baby is reality-challenged, just like others here who would rather take the radical Democrat spin and cultivate it, rather than use independent, critical thinking to sort out life’s social and political issues. It’s a tired old game of the GayLeft that’s left them discredited with American voters and increasingly schreeeeeechy when it comes to all things Bush.

You’re cover is blown, raj baby. Have fun in Germany.

Of course not. You’re still explaining how DOMA, DADT, state constitutional amendments, and the FMA are all “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when Democrats support them, and that gays should give Democrats their money and support for doing so.

To you, reality DOES appear to be fantasy.

It is well known that, by gerrymandering various districts for House seats and for the state legislatures, it is very possible to get a bare majority of voters in states that elect 2/3 of the House members and the members of the 3/4 of the state legislatures, while at the same time huge majorities of voters in the other states elect the rest of the House members and the members of the legislatures of the other states.

Unfortunately, Raj, as any graduate student learns, “it is well-known”, “various”, and “very possible” are not sufficient grounds for an absolute theory, especially not a mathematical theory. You are substituting conjecture for reference and thought.

Meanwhile, your continued rationalization of your hate and contempt for voters merely confirms my previous statements.

The cases of Maya Keyes and Phyllis Schlafly’s son etc. are totally different cases. Alan Keyes is a nutjob – as is Schlafly.

I think there’s some fair criticism of Cheney if you oppose the Administration position on the war in Iraq – but the hits he’s taking for “betraying his daughter” are totally off base.

The military isn’t civilian life and there are reasons to have very strict rules about personal relationships. Many the career of a heterosexual has been destroyed by events in their personal life. (And considering the level of responsibility involved, I approve.)

And Erik, I’m not surprised that the Republican party has that as a platform plank. Do you know how those are determined and what they are for? The majority of people in the whole country believe, for one reason or another, that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. I could be for no other reason than the lack of privacy available to recruits. People react the same way as they would if basic training was co-ed with co-ed showers.

Now the Democrats, who don’t have such a statement, believe it as well. They just aren’t going to say so because it will ruin their reputation as being “for” the gay community. They are also “for” the black community and the hispanic community (way *way* tolerant of homosexuality, huh? All those Catholics and Southern Baptists.) and for *labor*, and you *know* those auto workers throw a party if their boy announces that his new girlfriend’s name is Brad.

The gymnastics aren’t done by gay Republicans, who know where they stand with people, but by gay Democrats who have to find a way to continue to believe that being gay defines their economic, domestic and foreign policy opinions.

It is not in the Democratic Party platform.

I just don’t get you people. You believe whatever you want, even if it isn’t true. You live in a fantasy world.

The mental gymnastics that you general 30%, and smaller gay%, go through are absolutely astounding. But then again, a good bondage bottom or masochist does the same with their top.

#45. All you say is “bullshit”? So much ‘meaning’….

Love as a political virtue. ‘Gay’ ‘Patriot’ as 60s hippie… Still splits my gut!

And rightwingprof, the GOP’s platform does say being gay in incompatible with military service

Do you live in a constant fog of confusion? The Military Code of Justice states that HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT (not “being gay”) is incompatible with military service, as is adultery or sex outside marriage.

But see, the Cheney’s keep their tolerance in a closet and that is wrong. They’ve had a large platform from the past 6 years to change our society and they have nary raised a voice. Part of the reason i’m so proud of my parents is, it’s not that they just accept me, but they’ve taken on the mantle of basically, ‘my fight is their fight too’. The Cheney’s don’t do that. They don’t fight.

sorry prof, only one party’s official platform includes discrimination and bigotry

More bullshit.

“It would be the part where his party has an official platform of oppsing equal participation in society by gay and lesbian citizens.

Utter nonsense.”

sorry prof, only one party’s official platform includes discrimination and bigotry. it’s the gop fool.

I’d suggest honoring the Constitution.

Another non-responsive response. What specifically would you want changed? Cite chapter and verse. Those who bloviate over “honoring the Constitution” (actually, there are at least 51 constitutions, one for the federal gov’t and one for each of the states) don’t really provide a lot of insight as to what they really are objecting to.

BTW, let’s get something–er–straight. I don’t really care about you, either.

Porter Goss was never “Bush’s darling” as you try every so cutely to put it.

Oh, really? So why is it that Bush bothered to hire him–former CIA employee and former Representative from the state of Florida–in Sept 2004 to be the Director of Central Intelligence? After the embarrassing debacle with Tenet?

And why is it that Bush waited over a year after Negroponte had been appointed “Intelligence Czar” (Feb 2005) before he fired Goss? And why is it that Goss was fired only immediately after it began leaking out that Goss’s protege Foggo had been implicated in the Cunningham/Wilkes/Wade scandal?

What is most interesting in the Goss firing is that the Bush administration had no back-up to replace him with. That suggests damage control, not an orderly transition. Whatever–it should be obvious from the Vallerie Plame “outing” that the Bush administration really has no interest in “intelligence.” They are only interested in spin.

BTW, it is nice that you know how to do searches on google.com. I also have done searches on google.com, the most recent using keywords “cunningham goss foggo wilkes wade” I’m sure that you are familiar with the search terms. I found it odd that that search string didn’t turn up any hits to obviously “conservative” websites. Maybe “conservatives” aren’t interested in activities of their gov’t officials that might be–shall we say?–potentially subject to being blackmailed. No surprise there, either.

Yes, because, as you’ve claimed previously, Raj, Saddam Hussein absolutely did NOT imprison, torture, and murder thousands of gay people simply for being gay.

Oh, pray tell, where did I claim that previously?

What I have read is that Saddam, in the last few years leading to Bush’s invasion tried to cozy up to more fundamentalist Muslim regimes in an attempt to curry their support for him in an anticipation of an invasion by the Americans. That probably included a crack-down by Saddam against gay people, but it was in response to saber-rattling by the Americans.

This leads me to believe that you can’t do simple arithmetic. No surprise.

Let’s see. To get an amendment to the US constitution ratified, you would need approval of the amendment by 2/3 of the members of the US House and the US Senate, and ratification by 3/4 of the states. (There is another mechanism that essentially bypasses Congress, but that is largely irrelevant for this discussion.) It is well known that, by gerrymandering various districts for House seats and for the state legislatures, it is very possible to get a bare majority of voters in states that elect 2/3 of the House members and the members of the 3/4 of the state legislatures, while at the same time huge majorities of voters in the other states elect the rest of the House members and the members of the legislatures of the other states. Thus, with gerrymandering, a minority of voters can control enough House members and legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment

The only issue is the US Senate, which would require passage by 2/3 of the members of the Senate–that is, 68 senators. That means, senators from 34 states. Doing a little arithmetic with the statistics from http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population.shtml it should be obvious that a minority of voters can also control the US Senate.

Thought not.