Two Thoughts on Unrelated Topics
Due to a number of obligations, I may not be able to blog until later in the day (as in early evening GayPatriot blog time), but before I get to other pressing matters, wanted to throw out two thoughts on unrelated topics.
First, under what authorization is the President spending taxpayer money to invest in/bailout GM? Doesn’t the Constitution mandate that Congress must approve all federal expenditures? I recall that back in 1979, Jimmy Carter couldn’t unilaterally bailout Chrysler and had to go through Congress, though I recall that ill-fated Democrat asked for far less than his latest incarnation is requesting.
Second, American Elephant offers a great comment to my post wondering if gay Republicans should boycott gay confabs (until they start including us in the program):
One expects, from their name, a group seeking some sort of middle ground. But of course its nothing of the sort, its a group that has no intention of budging an inch from their position.
Not that there’s anything wrong with forming a group to push a political agenda, but its important to note how consistently dishonest they are about everything.
Yeah, how can they expect to “meet in the middle” if they’re not willing to budge one inch from their left-wing rhetoric and with a speakers’ roster that tilts to the left, left even of the left-wing “center” of today’s Democratic party.
11 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
We all need to write or call our Senators and representatives and ask them how they allowed this to happen. And it’s not just investing taxpayer funds. Since when did the President of the US have the right to remove a corporate executive duly elected by shareholders? If we don’t start speaking up we will find ourselves steamrolled on many other issues as well.
Comment by Nimblecat — June 1, 2009 @ 3:48 pm - June 1, 2009
One expects, from their name, a group seeking some sort of middle ground. But of course its nothing of the sort, its a group that has no intention of budging an inch from their position.
So we should open a dialogue and be open to to the position that we shouldn’t be able to get married? Perhaps we can discuss the issue with the Christianists and be convinced that we don’t deserve the right to marry? What middle ground on the position of equality should we be asking for? Separate but equal – oh wait, we’ve already got that in a few states; should that be open to renegotiation as well?
GPW: Do you know of any Republicans or right-wing activists, etc who would be willing to appear at such an event? Has anyone asked to join and been turned away? Activism for an issue is usally a matter of joining; has anyone from the right tried?
Comment by torrentprime — June 1, 2009 @ 3:58 pm - June 1, 2009
First, under what authorization is the President spending taxpayer money to invest in/bailout GM? Doesn’t the Constitution mandate that Congress must approve all federal expenditures?
Good question. I went digging and found an answer on the WH fact sheet. The Treasury is spending the money, not the President directly.
Comment by torrentprime — June 1, 2009 @ 4:13 pm - June 1, 2009
And the Treasury is part of what branch, tp?
And if marriage was a right, then you might have a point.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 1, 2009 @ 5:04 pm - June 1, 2009
So we should open a dialogue and be open to to the position that we shouldn’t be able to get married?
Why not? You’re demanding that people come over to your viewpoint. The fact that you dismiss their viewpoint as wrong automatically demonstrates that you’re not negotiating in good faith; you’re simply trying to browbeat.
That truly is the lie of these leftist organizations. They’re not interested in “meeting in the middle”. They are trying to force, whine, cajole, browbeat, and otherwise push people into giving them what they want like the spoiled children they are.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 1, 2009 @ 6:10 pm - June 1, 2009
Torrent,
Separate but equal does NOT exist, because homosexuality is NOT equal to heterosexuality. Every child on the face of the Earth throughout the history of the world has come from heterosexuality.
NO same sex couple on the face of the Earth has EVER or can EVER produce a single child.
Thats not equal. That’s very, very different. That’s fundamentally different. Its different in a way that is very meaningful and consequential to society.
Deal with your sexuality for crying out loud! Embrace your difference! Love yourself for what you are, not what you pretend to be!
That said, there absolutely is a middle ground. Allowing same sex couples to make legal arrangements, even encouraging them to enter committed, monogamous relationships (although its important to note that the gay community shows absolutely NO interest in THAT aspect of marriage, they just want the benefits and recognition without the responsibility) while still emphasizing that marriage is special because reproduction matters! because mothers and fathers matter!
But of course you will never be able to approach any sort of middle ground because you haven’t dealt with your own sexuality, you haven’t accepted yourself for what you are. You still insist there is no difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality. You are still raging against basic biology.
Comment by American Elephant — June 1, 2009 @ 6:41 pm - June 1, 2009
Oh, and Torrent;
My original point was the serial dishonesty in liberal marketing. The point you missed: Why name the group “meet in the middle” when, as you reaffirm, there is no intention of meeting in the middle?
But its a rhetorical question, because we all know the answer already: because liberals have to lie to Americans in order to win — as Obama, the Democrat congress and their shills in the media have proven over and over again since taking office.
Comment by American Elephant — June 1, 2009 @ 7:04 pm - June 1, 2009
In re the government’s involvement with GM, I was dismayed today listening to the chairman of GM, who indicated that the government now “owns” GM and will place five directors on the board. When asked if he or an independent search firm would have any input, he said he would hope so, but “owners”, namely the government had the right to name whomever they want.
I cannot remember any other time when our country has taken such a socialist step. What is happening to our country?
Comment by man — June 1, 2009 @ 7:44 pm - June 1, 2009
Why name the group “meet in the middle” when, as you reaffirm, there is no intention of meeting in the middle?
American Elephant, because sometimes groups will name themselves something which doesn’t stand for what the name of the group means. See: Moral Majority.
As for Meet in the Middle, I wonder what the object of the group is. Do they just want people who support same sex marriage, and that’s it. If so, they probably should have named themselves something different. If this group wanted to have conservative persons in their group, but they don’t, then Torrentprime has a good question. Were they asked, but declined?
Comment by Pat — June 2, 2009 @ 6:56 am - June 2, 2009
So, since when is nationalizing industry and redistributing wealth not socialism?
By the way, when Dear Leader says, “I’m not running General Motors,” what he really means is, “Yeah, I’m running General Motors.”
Comment by V the K — June 2, 2009 @ 10:34 am - June 2, 2009
I just shot an e-mail to Bill Nelson (D,FL) asking for an explanation.
How’s that for newspeak? No doubt the State Run Media will tout his bravery for doing what he doesn’t want to do.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 2, 2009 @ 4:25 pm - June 2, 2009