counter statistics

Wednesday, May 07, 2003

Bennett on Consensual Crimes via Coldfury...

But this is the critical point, which most people haven't focused on: with regard to drugs, homosexuality and certain other private conduct, Bennett openly advocates using the force of government to impose his views of what is "correct" and "desirable" behavior on others. To put it the other way, Bennett approves of the criminalization of those activities he views as "wrong" or "dangerous." For Bennett, there is no principled recognition of individual rights -- no recognition that, as long as a person is not violating the rights of others (defined objectively and narrowly -- and not with dubious and amorphous appeals to dangers to "society in general"), an individual has the right to consume as many drugs as he wishes, to engage in sex with other consenting adults in any manner he wishes, to hire a prostitute, and the like.

Tuesday, May 06, 2003

Bill Bennett: Gambler

from Chuck Muth's News and Views, quoting from Newsweek:

Morality Czar a Hypocrite?

"In his best-selling anthology, 'The Book of Virtues,' William J. Bennett
writes: 'We should know that too much of anything, even a good thing, may
prove to be our undoing . [We] need to set definite boundaries on our

"Does Bennett? The popular author, lecturer and Republican Party activist speaks out, often indignantly, about almost every moral issue except one-gambling. It's not hard to see why.

"According to casino documents, Bennett is a 'preferred customer' in at least four venues in Atlantic City and Las Vegas, betting millions of dollars over the last decade. His games of choice: video poker and slot machines, some at $500 a pull. With a revolving line of credit of at least $200,000 at each casino, Bennett, former drug czar and secretary of Education under Presidents Reagan and Bush, doesn't have to bring money when he shows up at a casino."

- Newsweek, 5/2/03

EY: Where is Gays and Lesbians Against Immoral Lifestyles when you need them. Andrew Sullivan is commenting on this extensively.

Monday, May 05, 2003

Well Duhh!

Commentary from a Gay Republican friend of mine.....

Eva quotes some right-wing meemer as saying: "I can't figure out why any
Republican Party members allow them [Log Cabin Republicans] in. What do we
need 3% of the population for, when they have proven that they are immoral,
they are perverted, they will lie, cheat and deceive to obtain their
Putting aside the morality issue, let's look at the other 3 percent slice
of America that the parties bend over backwards to have on their side: Jews.
Anything wrong with needing a 3 percent slice of the American electorate when
cast in that light?
Let's also look at the mathematics of elections these days. The GOP had a
special campaign project during the last presidential election called
"Project 72" which involved special attention to GOTV efforts during the last
three days of the campaign. The party spent a lot of money and time on this
effort and will do so again in the next election. But the
goals of Project 72 are expressed in vote gains in the 1%, 2%, and 3%
ranges, depending on the demographic being discussed. Again, is there
anything wrong with outreach to a 3 percent slice of the American electorate
when cast in that light?
More on mathematics. The last election shows this country to be virtually
evenly split between Democrats and Republicans (with a few moronic splinter
groups screwing things up in between the two major parties, e.g., naderites
and buchannanites (commies and nazis) and the Libertarians: always wrong and
always there). In the first place, the naderites were a tiny percentage of
the electorate but look how badly they distorted the results.
So, the question is: Do any of the freeper simpletons understand simple
mathematics? Obviously not! But beyond being so intellectually challenged
as to fail grammar school level math, they insist on broadcasting the true
basis for their backwardness. And mind you, they would say the same things
about Jews (that "they are immoral, ... will lie, cheat and deceive to obtain
their objectives.") if they could get away with it. From a coldly
objectivist point of view, with winning elections as the only goal, it ought
to be obvious to these simpletons that their moralistic babblings are
worthless make weight arguments.
And then there are the people who use idiotic terms like "RINO." These
are usually the same fools as the freepers but, again, these are people who
cannot count, cannot add, and cannot recognize the cold, objective need to
win elections.
So, does the Republican party need to include gay Republicans and the 70
percent of the population which supports the de-criminalization of sexual
acts engaged in within the privacy of a home?
Why, of course. Or, put another way, well DUUUHHHHH!

Sunday, May 04, 2003

Jacob Sullum of Reason comments an Santorum's idiotic statements.

Free Republic discusses the Worldnet Daily Hit Piece

I am glad to see this "come out". This whole "Log Cabin Republican" scam is unbelieveable. I can't figure out why any Republican Party members allow them in. What do we need 3% of the population for, when they have proven that they are immoral, they are perverted, they will lie, cheat and deceive to obtain their objectives.

The whole concept that they based their name upon, "Lincoln was a homo" is a pile of crap. Even if he was, he was smart enough not to make it a public issue. If I was living then, and he did such a thing, I would have wanted his ass out of office in a heartbeat. As it is, I doubt their claims.

All that aside, I have seen their work within the Republican Party. In California last year, a Log Cabin Republican filled out a pro-homo survey and claimed that it was made by Bill Simon, the conservative Republican running for Governor. The homo sent it to the SanFran Chronicle which then played it like a violin with the objective of alienating the conservative base away from the Republican Candidate. The slease that did this was INSIDE the Republican campaign. He was one of Richard Riordan's guys who joined Simon's campaign when Riordan lost.

This is why the homos are in the Republican Party. To sabotage it, and ultimately disable it from stopping their agenda.

We should kick their sorry asses out.

Another poster responds: This perfervid tract seems to indulge in a bit of guilt by association to the extent it is any interest at all. But this bit does interest me:

"a Log Cabin Republican filled out a pro-homo survey and claimed that it was made by Bill Simon,"

Do you have any evidence to that? Didn't Simon sign off on it, and then maybe claim he didn't read it or something? And didn't he say the same thing in some speech or interview with gays before the shit hit the fan? Isn't Simon incompetent and disingenuous?

And someone identifying themselves as a gay republican says: We (gay republicans) have no desire to 'infiltrate' the republican party, because we don't have to. Part of the beauty of this political system is that everyone can affiliate themselves with a party no matter what mentally unstable fellow citizens may think.

The reason many of us (again, gay republicans) choose to be republican is because we hold traditional conservative opinions on a host of issues (though not all of them, obviously). The only problem with the RNC mission statement is it's blatant exclusion of homosexuals as citizens who deserve to right to pursue life, liberty and happiness in the way that they see fit.

If all citizens are garaunteed equal protection under the laws, how can you prevent me or anyone from entering into a contract with another sentient adult? That is what a marriage contract is right, a legal agreement between two sentient adults? If you can at least provide a solid arguement that it's not, I'd be interested in reading your response. Now, let's clarify what a solid arguement.

Thanks to the seperation of church and state, religous arguements on the basic immorality of homosexuality are worthless. So now that we've removed the religous zealot arguements, we can at least have a civil discussion about the issue.

And for the record, no one knows if Lincoln was a homosexual, though there are those people that love to speculate. The reason that the Log Cabin Republicans chose Lincoln as the figure head of their organization is because he made the single largest move to include all people within our borders as members of society. I'm sure that the potential of Lincoln's sexuality drew them to him, but he was the man that signed the Immancipation Proclamation (his reasons aside) inviting untold numbers of "2nd class citizens" into the fold of our wonderful country.

And finally, dream on about "kicking our asses out" of the republican party, because no matter how much hate you have in your heart, it's still a free country.

Peace and Love to all mankind (Even Rev. Phelps)

I don't think that people who promote man-boy "love", kindergarden "fisting" classes, and teenage barnyard sex should be allowed any standing in the Republican Party. These kinds of things represent Democrat Party values, and that's where these people should stay. Just my 2 cents.

45 posted on 05/04/2003 12:33 AM PDT by Lancey Howard