And now I’ve participated in the hijacking of my own thread… *sigh*.

So I guess you will be voting for one of those Republicans who will wholeheartedly support homosexuals (but not the gay people). Say, Willard Romney? He’s got a new ad out I hear…..

naw – not good enough – i think using the term homophobe in your post was unnecessary – the effect of using such tactics is to dismiss any point you were trying to make – for me, anyway

While people may differ on the definition of what makes someone a homophobe, I think that if a person is basically willing to cut five figure checks to write a segment of a population out of the constitution, then I think its fair to say that that person has a ‘phobia’ or fear with that segment

Nobody is trying to “write you out of the constitution”. Holy cow. Have you ever read the thing? Federally recognized marriage isnt a right for anyone, not even straights. As far as the government is concerned its a set of incentives to encourage a specific type of behavior. The ignorant “equal treatment” arguement has been shot down by court after court after court including in some of the most liberal states in the union. Its anaologous to arguing that the equal protection clause requires a company that pollutes without restraint to get the same tax credits given to companies that work to reduce pollution.

The fact that people think marriage performs a vital function in society and think it would be bad for society to change that focus doesnt mean they fear or hate you. And that you think it does only shows you dont understand their argument.

By the same definition, you’d have to say that a person who is willing to cut five figure checks to candidates, congressmen and governors who gave us DADT, DOMA and the Texas anti-sodomy law is a homophobe, right?

Furthermore, the marriage ammendment would not have written “a segment of a population out of the constitution” and you know it (or at least I hope you’re that smart).

Unless, of course, you’re actively trying to mislead as many people as possible.

#23
Yes, I know and He still loves you.

Rather, I am explaining and asserting – and with rather more evidence to support it than you have deigned to offer, thus far – that IN FACT, the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth were MULTI-partisan. (not “bi”)

…if there were the case, there would be donors that supported the Swifties while at the same time predominantly donating to Democrats in contested Congressional or Presidential elections. I would be very very very surprised if there was…

Kindly offer some evidence or proof that there weren’t any, Tom, other than your subjective feeling of “surprise”.

Some of the Swift Boat Vets were Democrats. Some were Independents. Some were Republicans. And, some were from other parties. I know this from forum comments I have read on their site, and various interviews and articles, a very very few of which I did take care to cite in my main post.

Finally, I might ask: Why is this point so important to you? That is, of all the many different points I made, why is this alone the point you are focusing on?

The Swifties may have had some Zell Miller Democrat…

Ah, I think I see where this is going. The incontrovertible facts that (a) some Democrats agreed with the Swifties, and (b) some Swifties were Democrats, in your world means that (c) both should be dismissed as not ‘true’ Democrats, and hence (d) anything else they had to say – e.g., about Kerry – can and should be discounted or ignored, regardless of facts.

Am I right? (I.e, that that’s where you’re headed?)

I have been inspired by the courage you exemplified in coming out of the closet as a “gay homophobe,” so here goes:

I’m a gay homophobe too! I too fear the gay left’s agenda to chain all gays to their manufactured pedestal of hysterical victimization and feigned outrage! I too fear being enslaved on the Democrats’ plantation of militant diversity and fanatical multi-culturalism!

Where’s our parade?!

Several posters in here have tried to paint the Swift Boaters as bipartisan. My point is if there were the case, there would be donors that supported the Swifties while at the same time predominantly donating to Democrats in contested Congressional or Presidential elections. I would be very very very surprised if there was so much as ONE donor to the swifties for which that was the case.

There is a difference between legally being ‘non-partisan’ like MoveOn.org or The Swifties and being bipartisan. Non-partisan can mean that you don’t take direct direction from any particular candidate or party. But it doesn’t make you bipartisan. The Swifties may have had some Zell Miller Democrat support (people like Ft Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle who claim to be Democrats but don’t support any candidates or policies that are advocated/nominated by the larger party), but that doesn’t mean that they have Democratic support.

While people may differ on the definition of what makes someone a homophobe, I think that if a person is basically willing to cut five figure checks to write a segment of a population out of the constitution, then I think its fair to say that that person has a ‘phobia’ or fear with that segment. Hence homophobe. Good enough?