PDA

View Full Version : Two Dr. no's ?




LinuxUser269
07-28-2008, 08:04 AM
heres an article i saw in my local paper but the link i found was Washington post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/11/AR2006021101024.html

SnappleLlama
07-28-2008, 08:10 AM
Coburn's like a gopher!

acptulsa
07-28-2008, 08:17 AM
Our junior senator is definitely an enigma. As McCain desperately tries to lay claim to being a maverick, Coburn just does it. He runs a little too far toward theocracy for my tastes, but as he grows into the job he stands a chance of becoming someone we could wholeheartedly support. His introduction of a senate version of Dr. Paul's check your bill against the Constitution bill was a nice surprise. I hope he makes a habit of pandering to us. Time will tell...

Anyway, I sure do like him better than Inhofe!

yongrel
07-28-2008, 08:23 AM
He's not terrible, but I wouldn't vote for the guy.

He has:
-endorsed Alan Keyes for President in 2000

-supported the V-Chip

-said that the "homosexual agenda" was the biggest threat to American Freedom.

-has said "Lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in Southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it."

-has said, "The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power... That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda."

-has described the airing of Schindler's List on television as "...irresponsible sexual behavior...I cringe when I realize that there were children all across this nation watching this program."

acptulsa
07-28-2008, 08:29 AM
He's not terrible, but I wouldn't vote for the guy.

Yeah, that's the kind of crap I'm talking about--and it's pretty much just the tip of the iceberg.

Me liking him better than Inhofe says more bad about Inhofe than good about Coburn. Damned with faint praise.

Barney
07-28-2008, 08:39 AM
Notice how George Will didn't think it necessary to explain the origins of the term "Dr No"? But somehow McCain was pertinent to the story.

Could it be any more obvious that this was just another shill piece for McCain?

torchbearer
07-28-2008, 09:01 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/content/images/2004/12/01/dr_who_colin_baker_470x353.jpg

yongrel
07-28-2008, 09:03 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/content/images/2004/12/01/dr_who_colin_baker_470x353.jpg

:D

acptulsa
07-28-2008, 09:03 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/content/images/2004/12/01/dr_who_colin_baker_470x353.jpg

LOL. What show is this and how did they manage to get Star Trek's set designer, Dr. Who's costumer and Star Wars' robot maker?

torchbearer
07-28-2008, 09:04 AM
LOL. What show is this and how did they manage to get Star Trek's set designer, Dr. Who's costumer and Star Wars' robot maker?

Dr. Who - episode 35.
Colin Baker (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0048346/)

yongrel
07-28-2008, 09:08 AM
LOL. What show is this and how did they manage to get Star Trek's set designer, Dr. Who's costumer and Star Wars' robot maker?

Shame on you for not recognizing the Doctor!

acptulsa
07-28-2008, 09:15 AM
Shame on you for not recognizing the Doctor!

Sorry, I kinda lost track after the first three or so...

Chiznaddy
07-28-2008, 09:49 AM
He has:
-said that the "homosexual agenda" was the biggest threat to American Freedom.

First, let me preface by saying I could give two shits whether a man wants to marry another man, have sex with another man, or whatever, as long as I don't have to see it.

Now, having said that, the gay political movement is one of, if not the biggest collectively influencial forces in politics. They are extremely active and influencial in the political sphere and whether you like it are not, should be credited with success in pushing their extremely liberal/socialist agenda (Obama, for example, would not be where he is without the gay movement behind him).

There are some issues I am actually in agreement with them, and there are many issues I am absolutely opposed to. And, I know there are a ton of gay people that don't agree with the agenda of the gay political movement at all. But, at any rate, they are a force, they are active, they have money, they lobby, and they push their agenda. Whether this should be considered "a threat to American Freedom" is up to you. That their goals are quite different than the liberty movement...that is indisputable.

Here is a paper written a few years ago by a UCLA professor regarding gays in the political process and the influence over parties and platforms:

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/6/3/4/4/pages63442/p63442-1.php

LinuxUser269
07-28-2008, 07:12 PM
did not know if anyone had seen this so i glad to bring it up!

SeanEdwards
07-28-2008, 07:26 PM
Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda."



I dunno about the rest of it, but why would abortion be a gay agenda thing? Seems like those folks are about the least likely people to need access to an abortion. I don't get it...

torchbearer
07-28-2008, 07:28 PM
I dunno about the rest of it, but why would abortion be a gay agenda thing? Seems like those folks are about the least likely people to need access to an abortion. I don't get it...

What is the gay agenda anyway? Seeking to be treated equally under the law?

SeanEdwards
07-28-2008, 10:13 PM
What is the gay agenda anyway? Seeking to be treated equally under the law?

As far as I can tell it amounts to using the power of government to force everyone to love homosexuals. It's not about equal treatment, it's about eradicating the thought crime of prejudice.

torchbearer
07-28-2008, 10:27 PM
As far as I can tell it amounts to using the power of government to force everyone to love homosexuals. It's not about equal treatment, it's about eradicating the thought crime of prejudice.

Silly me, i thought they wanted to be treated like human beings.

SeanEdwards
07-28-2008, 10:46 PM
Silly me, i thought they wanted to be treated like human beings.

If that's all it was, then who would object? No, the "agenda" term is all about securing a preferrential status and enlisting the government to punish anything remotely resembling prejudice. Not crazy about a big hairy cross-dressing transexual teaching at your kid's school? Well then you're just a close-minded bigot who needs re-education. Uncomfortable with the idea of men dressing up as women and then lying about their gender in order to trick heterosexual men into sex? Well that makes you a hater on par with rednecks who murder black people by dragging them behind a truck.

I grew up in the SF bay area, and have always worked and lived around gay people. They're just people. Some of them are fucking nasty, and some are alright. I really don't need the government up in my junk telling me who I have to love and respect. And certainly not on the basis of some bullshit collectivist group identity.

torchbearer
07-28-2008, 11:06 PM
If that's all it was, then who would object? No, the "agenda" term is all about securing a preferrential status and enlisting the government to punish anything remotely resembling prejudice. Not crazy about a big hairy cross-dressing transexual teaching at your kid's school? Well then you're just a close-minded bigot who needs re-education. Uncomfortable with the idea of men dressing up as women and then lying about their gender in order to trick heterosexual men into sex? Well that makes you a hater on par with rednecks who murder black people by dragging them behind a truck.

I grew up in the SF bay area, and have always worked and lived around gay people. They're just people. Some of them are fucking nasty, and some are alright. I really don't need the government up in my junk telling me who I have to love and respect. And certainly not on the basis of some bullshit collectivist group identity.

The only agenda in Louisiana is to be able to enter into contract with another person about inheritance and benefit sharing through a civil union.
I can speak for this state. The only agenda is to be treated equally under the law.
You may hate ****, but i don't share that bias.

SeanEdwards
07-28-2008, 11:21 PM
You may hate ****, but i don't share that bias.

I don't hate ****, but I do have a problem with people who resort to lame strawman attacks.

torchbearer
07-28-2008, 11:28 PM
I don't hate ****, but I do have a problem with people who resort to lame strawman attacks.

I don't see any strawmen. Just know that people are being treated as below human.
Especially in this state. Since they like to suck dick, they can't be equal in the law.
I don't care for hate crime laws, because that is not equal treatment under the law, but i wasn't talking about hate crimes.
I was talking about the main political push for "gay marriage", which really isn't about forcing churches to marry gays, but for the state to recognize their contract.
I work close with the Forum for Equality, and this is indeed a serious problem and shouldn't be dismissed because some **** want a special law against hate.
Now- where is your strawman in the above statement?

SeanEdwards
07-29-2008, 12:30 AM
I don't see any strawmen. Just know that people are being treated as below human.
Especially in this state. Since they like to suck dick, they can't be equal in the law.
I don't care for hate crime laws, because that is not equal treatment under the law, but i wasn't talking about hate crimes.
I was talking about the main political push for "gay marriage", which really isn't about forcing churches to marry gays, but for the state to recognize their contract.
I work close with the Forum for Equality, and this is indeed a serious problem and shouldn't be dismissed because some **** want a special law against hate.
Now- where is your strawman in the above statement?

Well obviously the strawman was the lame comment about me hating ****. That way it's easy for you to dismiss my opinion because I'm just a dumb bigoted bastard.

I don't object to gay marriage per se, but most people when discussing the matter neglect to address the only significant issue in my opinion, which is the subject of childrearing. Consider a hypothetical situation: man and woman get married and have kids, then man decides he'd rather play for the pink team. Should the courts, when deciding custody of their minor age children, consider the now gay man and his partner to be 100% equivalent to the heterosexual union between mom and her new partner? Personally, I don't think the courts should treat those as equal childrearing environments. I think the ideal childrearing environment is a family with both male and female parental figures. I guess in your book that means I hate ****. Well I don't care. I have a right to my opinion just as much as gay activists have a right to theirs, and I've got like a bazillion years of evidence of the evolution of sexual reproduction supporting my side of the argument. But to express such a sentiment is becoming more and more politically unnacceptable, because god forbid, some homosexual parent may have their self-esteem damaged.

And then the whole hate law thing is just ludicrous collectivist guilt-tripping. It's more heinous to hurt a gay person than a straight person? Give me a break.