Kansas legislature

Kansas Legislature

Panel considers sexual-orientation discrimination ban

Current state law leaves victims without recourse

February 7, 2007

Advertisement

— Jeff Potter of Horton said everything seemed to be going well at his job as a machinist in a tool-and-die shop.

He was even being groomed to buy the business. Then, the owner asked if he was homosexual, Potter told the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee on Tuesday.

Potter said he answered that he was.

Then, he said, he was fired.

That left Potter without a job and health insurance.

Because state law doesn't ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, Potter said he also was left without any legal recourse.

"Never before have I felt so alone, abandoned and vulnerable," he said.

Potter and others testified Tuesday in favor of Senate Bill 163, which would prohibit discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations based on sexual orientation. State law already prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, color, sex, disability, family status and national origin or ancestry.

The committee took no action on the measure, which is similar to an ordinance adopted in 1995 in Lawrence.

Chairman Pete Brungardt, R-Salina, said he would confer with other committee members in private to determine if they wanted to work on the legislation.

Personally, Brungardt said, he supported banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.

"It's a fairness thing. I've had concerns that people are being discriminated against for no good reason," he said.

Only one person spoke against the bill: state Rep. Janice Pauls, D-Hutchinson.

She said Kansans with strong religious beliefs against homosexuality shouldn't be forced to hire a homosexual.

State Sen. Roger Reitz, R-Manhattan, disagreed, saying it was wrong for people to be denied work because of their sexual orientation.






State policies

A breakdown of states' laws and policies banning discrimination because of sexual orientation:¢ Nine states prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity: California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Washington.¢ Eight states prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation: Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Wisconsin.¢ Eight states have an executive or administrative order, or personnel regulations banning discrimination against public employees based on sexual orientation: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Virginia.¢ Two states have executive orders prohibiting discrimination against public employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity: Indiana, Pennsylvania.Source: Human Rights Campaign

"It is incredibly unfair and offends my sense of justice," he said.

Pauls also said homosexuals should not be a protected class, such as blacks, because blacks have no choice in their color.

"Those of a different sexual orientation are not visible in our society unless they choose to be," she said.

But Thomas Witt, chairman of the Kansas Equality Coalition, said courts have ruled that sexual orientation is unchangeable.

And, he said, although the history of discrimination against blacks is different from that of gays and lesbians, "it does not mean that one group is 'more deserving' of not being discriminated against than another."

Witt said 27 states have adopted some level of protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Bonnie Cuevas of Topeka said her gay son lives out of state because of the lack of protections in Kansas.

"It does not make sense that we are now fighting a war in Iraq to establish democracy and freedom for its citizens, while in the United States our gay and lesbian citizens have not yet been granted full equality under the law," she said.

The Kansas Human Rights Commission, which is responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws, took no stand on the bill.

The commission noted that the city of Lawrence has the only ordinance in the state that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Lawrence officials now are considering whether to establish a domestic partnership registry, but legislation filed last week at the Statehouse would prevent the city from doing that.

Comments

busymom 8 years, 1 month ago

True that people have no choice on what race they are. Has it been proven that people aren't biologically homosexual? Homosexuals are people. People have rights. I am sure proud that we have come such a long way in non-discrimination. Yeah right. There are over 150 species of animals that have homosexual tendencies, I learned that in a class I was in. Do the animals have a choice in thier sexual tendencies?

DaREEKKU 8 years, 1 month ago

No, they are comparing PEOPLE to animals. People try to use the weak dilusional argument that Homosexuality isn't "natural" and that it is a choice (something that can be changed). The fact of the matter is that we have no 100% definite answer but we have a very good idea that homosexual tendencies are genetic at the very least AND that in fact homosexuality DOES occur quite frequently in nature. Kudos to you busymom. I hope the Hutch Rep realizes what a weak disgusting argument she has made.

KS 8 years, 1 month ago

I didn't know that "blacks were a protected class"? What the heck does that mean? Do we now have a class system in this state?

antikoolaiddrinker 8 years, 1 month ago

To explain this abnormal sexual behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.

Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.

Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.

In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.[

jafs 8 years, 1 month ago

It was a surprising argument for a Democrat to make!

mom_of_three 8 years, 1 month ago

It should be discrimination to fire or not hire someone based on sexual orientation.
But I thought the state was okay with that since they have the gay marriage ban. Is that not discrimination, too?

Jamesaust 8 years, 1 month ago

"In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow..."

What an arrogant argument, insisting that mankind controls its existential existence. Mankind is an animal, driven by the same influences as any other animal, and reguarly demonstrates this to all who will bother to look. Nor are all animals simplistic 'stimuli recipient' devices - they lack the DEGREE of human intellectual perception but they do not lack intellectual perception itself. A dog does not eat out of a bowl she's been trained not to eat out of for the same reasons that a human doesn't steal money from a bank - (a) they've been told not to with reinforcement for good/bad behavior, and (b) both are afraid of the consequences if caught. While the human evaluation is most likely more complex, it is no more noble or remarkable.

I also note the immorality of Rep. Pauls statement: "Those of a different sexual orientation are not visible in our society unless they choose to be."

She does NOT say that she believes that homosexuals choose their nature but that rather they choose NOT TO LIE about it to others. Hmmm....how dare they not lie and preserve Rep. Pauls warped but "pretty" view of how she wishes the world was.

In contradiction, it seems that a considerable amount of social progress has been made by such persons not lying but rather being open. Gone are the days where the likes of Rep. Pauls could paint a picture of hidden evil upon such persons with a public no wiser from their own observation and experience to the falseness of that portrayal.

dirkleisure 8 years, 1 month ago

Religious beliefs are protected on an equal level with race and gender, as are your family status and your nationality.

The argument that race and gender are "not a choice," then, is ridiculous.

Isn't religion a choice? Isn't family status a choice? Even national origin is, in fact, a choice.

Arguments about whether sexual orientation is or is not a choice, then, are specious.

As long as religion, family status, or national origin are grounds for protection against discrimination, the door is open for sexual orientation.

dirkleisure 8 years, 1 month ago

Posted by consumer1 (anonymous) on February 7, 2007 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dang ! Rock on antikoolaidrinker !!!

Rock on? For what - cutting and pasting from this website?

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

Dang! Rock on, cut and paste dude!

Linda Endicott 8 years, 1 month ago

I don't know that nation origin is a choice, dirk...I sure didn't choose who my parents would be or where they would be from.

Whether I remain in that nation as an adult is a choice...but not the origin.

But I agree with the rest of your post. Religion is certainly a choice, yet people cannot be discriminated against because of what religion they belong to.

In fact, a woman in MO recently won a lawsuit for that very reason. Her job suddenly required her to work on Sun., and she objected to it for religious reasons. They fired her. Since the court found that working Sun. was not part of her original employment, and it was thrust on her suddenly many years later, it was ordered that she be reinstated. And not forced to work on Sun.

Whether or not you are single or married is also a choice. Whether or not you have children is a choice. Whether you drive a truck or an SUV or a small car is a choice. Whether or not you have pets is a choice. Do people lose their jobs over these choices?

Although I disagree with the notion that homosexuality is a choice. But even if it was, it shouldn't make any difference.

mick 8 years, 1 month ago

We are obviously in some sort of time warp.

Linda Endicott 8 years, 1 month ago

Now that's interesting...my post now appears before the one I was responding to...lol.

theemotleycrude 8 years, 1 month ago

And we foolishly think the Democrats are going to save the world...

There are clearly Christian-Conservative Democrats at work as well (Pauls).

JoRight 8 years, 1 month ago

lol @ "cut and paste dude." That kind of stuff goes on a ton on this board. Whether homosexuality is a choice or not, dirk does have a point.

KS 8 years, 1 month ago

I don't know if I have ever seen an employment application that asks the sexual preference of an applicant! What somebody does behind closed doors is their own business. Sexual preference should not be a factor in hiring. Should not be discussed, period. You can't ask a question regarding sexual preference, etc., but if the applicant brings it up in an interview, well........?, that can make it open season. The employer ought to be able to hire anyone they choose. An employer can refuse to hire someone because they have tatoos and body piercings too. Is that going to be the next "protected class"?

gr 8 years, 1 month ago

How about short people.

We don't want no short people.

mom_of_three 8 years, 1 month ago

Then Parkay, you better start seeing what other kind of perverts are being hired - you can't just single out one particle "pervert" - your word, NOT mine.

ksmoderate 8 years, 1 month ago

Parkay,

What does a person's sexual orientation have to do with job performance? The person in the article was a machinist; how would being gay hinder that guy's ability to be a machinist?

That's the point of the idea. Stop thumping your Bible for a minute and use your brain, maybe?

EXks 8 years, 1 month ago

Thanks dirkleisure for exposing cut and past FRAUDS!! (http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.htm)

Just goes to show you that some who post on here have absolutely no original THOUGHT process or guts. I've read that same CRAP before.

oldgoof 8 years, 1 month ago

marion, your 10:41 post. You are reading things into the constitutional amendment that simply do not exist.

Rationalanimal 8 years, 1 month ago

"What an arrogant argument, insisting that mankind controls its existential existence. Mankind is an animal, driven by the same influences as any other animal, and reguarly demonstrates this to all who will bother to look. Nor are all animals simplistic 'stimuli recipient' devices - they lack the DEGREE of human intellectual perception but they do not lack intellectual perception itself. "

The gall to say humans are above animals. That's nice to know b/c now I can start kicking teeth in b/c that is my stimuli instead of argument (no I'm not being serious). But, before you start throwing around this sophist argument that humans are just base animals, sit and contemplate a moment about the consequences of such a statement. It is absolute anarchy and chaos determined by brute force.

Homosexuals are not a protected class. We've been through this before. They are not protected or suspect, they are unprotected. Whether you agree with that or not, I'm just informing some on hear that that is the current view taken by the Supreme Court of the United States of America (God save the Court). Now, the Surpreme Court of the United States of the City of Lawrence has adopted a different view.

Finally, if one believes in natural selection and that the human race is an animal species, they cannot also believe (rationally, which I know is a tough concept for many on here to grasp) that homosexuality is supported in nature. The primary objective a species thriving in a natural selection environment is to perpetuate the species, which strict homosexuality does not. So, if homosexuality is genetically based, strict homosexuality would naturally eliminate such genes from the pool as it would not be passed on through procreation. This also implies that such a gene is a defect rather than a desireable trait. Now you're all going to call me a bigot. Great, that's the only word most of you that you don't know the true meaning of. If bigot means examining life through the mode of logic, then, I accept the title. But, please, I defy you to contradict this in logic. Bottom line, you can't have your cake and eat it to. If man is above animals, then must contemplate the basis and virtue of the way we conduct our lives. If man is not above animals, then we are subject to the laws of natural selection.

storm 8 years, 1 month ago

Excellent strategy from the homosexual front! It's working. I agree - get the government out of all marriage definations - it's a religious sacrament.

Claire Williams 8 years, 1 month ago

Posted by dirkleisure (anonymous) on February 7, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Religious beliefs are protected on an equal level with race and gender, as are your family status and your nationality.

The argument that race and gender are "not a choice," then, is ridiculous.

Isn't religion a choice? Isn't family status a choice? Even national origin is, in fact, a choice.

Arguments about whether sexual orientation is or is not a choice, then, are specious.

As long as religion, family status, or national origin are grounds for protection against discrimination, the door is open for sexual orientation."


Amen to that. It is hypocritical to protect things like religion and family status and then refuse to protect the rights of those who are not heterosexual.

And from the article: "Only one person spoke against the bill: state Rep. Janice Pauls, D-Hutchinson.

She said Kansans with strong religious beliefs against homosexuality shouldn't be forced to hire a homosexual."


When the country was being desegregated, I am sure there was a legislator against banning racial discrimination because "Whites with strong racist beliefs against Blacks shouldn't be forced to hire a Black."

Different decade, different topic. Same hypocrisy.

If this passes, then the employer wouldn't even know if their employee was homosexual unless that person volunteered the information.

I had to go through management classes teaching me what questions I could and could not ask an employee either in the interview process or after they are hired. Guess what? Asking somebody if they are pregnant, have children, their ethnic heritage, etc...is ILLEGAL.

Even if you are simply making conversation, it is against the law.

So Pauls has made an absolutely moot point. Employers wouldn't even know if they had a homosexual employee, because they would be open to lawsuit for even asking in the first place.

All that aside, I hope this bill passes. It is time that we realize that failure to protect sexual orientation from discrimination will set a precedent that will be hard to overcome.

gr 8 years, 1 month ago

I still ask, what about short people.

Or fat people.

Or short fat people.

Or people with rings in their nose, barbed wire in their lips, and elsewhere.

It seems to me the gays are saying it's ok to discriminate against some people - just not them. A selfish promotion.

When is it legal to discriminate against people in the workplace? If you or your choice of behavior isn't on "the list", you can be fired with no "legal recourse"?

'You wore purple on Thursday. You're fired. It's not on the list, so you can't do anything about it.'

Linda Endicott 8 years, 1 month ago

It isn't okay to discriminate against anyone, for any reason, gr. Got that?

If a person comes in for the interview with a lip ring, a nose ring, and purple hair, it shouldn't matter a bit, as long as they are qualified for the job.

Of course, we all know it still happens. We all know that married women or pregnant women are still overlooked for jobs, all the time. Illegal as hell, but it still happens.

That doesn't make it right.

Firing someone because they're gay isn't right, either.

This man had done his job efficiently for years. They evidently had no problem with his work performance during all that time. Being gay had nothing to do with whether or not he could do the job.

gr 8 years, 1 month ago

"Can you offer any proof of this?

Agnostick"

I believe I just did right above your post.

crazyks: "It isn't okay to discriminate against anyone, for any reason, gr. Got that?" "Being gay had nothing to do with whether or not he could do the job."

I'm sorry, but I must have missed what your point was.

Dambudzo: "Your analogy is just silly."

So, if something is "silly", then that's ok to discriminate against them and fire them? Those with "silly" behaviors, or just with silly analogies?

gr 8 years, 1 month ago

"It definitely isn't under the common sense umbrella."

If something isn't "common sense" it shouldn't be allowed?

ksmoderate 8 years, 1 month ago

If a machinist is good a being a machinist, then it doesn't matter if he is gay, short, tattooed, pierced, fat, anorexic, or into beastiality (I saw a movie this week where that is comically referred to as "interspecies erotica"!).

Period.

Linda Endicott 8 years, 1 month ago

As long as he isn't being intimate with the sheep while on the job, RT, why should it be any of his employer's business?

Would it be appropriate for an employer to tell an employee that he can't have sex with his wife on Sun. night, because he has to work on Mon.? And if he doesn't comply, he gets fired?

Would it be okay for an employer to tell his employee that everything's ok as long as he's single, but if he ever gets married he'll be fired?

It's all the same thing. The man being gay has absolutely nothing to do with him being able to do his job.

Linda Endicott 8 years, 1 month ago

My company discourages fraternizing between employees, but they don't enforce it. There have been a few marriages.

Unfortunately, some people don't have any common sense, and people who used to date and no longer get along still have to work with each other. Makes for a tense situation all the way around. I can understand the reasoning behind employers wanting to put restrictions on this, but I don't even know if that's legal.

Can anyone tell us if it's legal for an employer to dictate who you can and can't date? (this includes heterosexual employees)

gr 8 years, 1 month ago

Ok, so it's not any of the employer's business concerning an employees sexual escapades.

So....if it's not ok to discriminate against employees, why the need to add gays to the list? Especially if you aren't adding sheep lovers?

werekoala 8 years, 1 month ago

Rebutting RT, part I

"1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand."


Like most Americans, I'm in the middle -- I think you ought to be able to rectify a mistake before the fetus has developed, but after the 2nd trimeste, it really ought to be case-by-case. I'm also not against capital punishment per se, but believe the ways it has been carried out are heavily tinged by racism, and poor functioning of the judicial system. I wouldn't claim that either is a main plank of the Democratic Party.

"2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity. (This one is really important)"


Nope. Either institution can create either condition. But I'd argue that well-regulated industries funtion for better public good than poorly-regulated ones. And a government watched over by an active and informed electorate does better than one governed by apathy and bumper-sticker slogans.

=====

"3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists."


Hardly. I like guns, and there are many Democrats that do. But when the NRA, etc. keep arguing against the most common-sensical of provisions for public safety, it makes them seem like extreme radicals (not that there aren't PLENTY of liberals who do ythe same on their end.) I'll agree with you that deciding which guns should be regulated on the basis of appearance is assinine, but the basic idea behind getting dangerous guns out of the arms of criminals is a good one. Plus, the best weapon for home defense isn't a handgun or automatic weapon -- it's a pump action 12 gauge, loaded for bear.

As far as China goes, you're about 40 years too late. As far as NK goes, we'd have better luck getting China to lean on them than we do on our own. And having the vast majority of our military personnel and equipment tied down in Iraq doesn't help us when we try to talk tough, either.

====

"4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding."


Eh? Not at all. The only politicians I EVER hear mention the NEA is Republicans. Put it this way -- you start actually holding military contractors accountable for the hundreds of millions they waste, and I'll start holding the NEA accountable for the millions that they do.

werekoala 8 years, 1 month ago

Rebutting RT, part II:

===

"5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's."


This is just a stupid fight -- you've lost, okay? Yes, there have been documented changes in the Earth's temperature before 6 billion humans came along. And maybe we were headed for a warming trend anyway, maybe we weren't. But the idea that somehow the waste generated by 6,000,000,0000 people doesn't have ANY effect on the global equilibrium is just ludicrous. Hell, look at CO2 concentrations in the last 100 years - they're off the charts of any previous global climate change.

The point is, while it may be a combination of anthropogenic and natural effects that are causing climate change -- WE are the ones who have to live with it, and spend literally billions in accomodating to the new world balance. It only makes sense to do as much as we can to minimize our own effects into an already chaotic system. Especially when such an effort would revitalize a stagnant US R&D and manufacturing sector, and eliminate dependence on 3rd World hellholes for our energy needs.

====

"6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural."


Please, homosexuality is a naturally-occurring phenomenon, that has been part of humanity for as long as we've been human. So have gender roles. Militant feminists aside, not many will argue that. The only argument is that whil social trends may lead one way, each individual is entitled to be treated based on his/her own merits, regardless of what's between their legs, or what they prefer between their partners' legs. i don't see how such a mindset is so hard for such an apparently individulaistic philosophy.

=====

"7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding."


No, but as long as the federal government dispenses the majority of sex education funding, and mandates what will be taught with that funding, failures to address common-sense precautions are failres of that money to adequately do its job. ANd as much as we might wish that our children behave a certain way, it's time to be pragmatic and admit that like it or not, 95% of people DO NOT behave that way, and the more informatin they are guven, the less likely they are to breed another generation of poverty-stricken inbred idjits sucking on the federal teat for their whole lives.

werekoala 8 years, 1 month ago

Rebutting RT, part III:

====

"8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex."


Most teachers I've met are incredibly dedicated -- most other jobs with the same qualifications pay far more, and also don't require you to pay for your own job supplies and continuing training. Yes, summers off are nice, but that's about the only benefit they have, and most would trade it in a cold second for the chance to have a class where every single child comes from a home environment that is loving, supportive, disciplined, and takes interest in their child's education.

It's a symptom of a larger social ill - kids being born to parents who are unwilling or unable to provide a quality home environment for their children. Hence the reason that sex education and pregancy prevention are in the universal interest.

====

"9. You have to believe that outdoorsmen don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do."


Outdoorsmen can and do. Ducks Unlimited is a great organization, for instance. Massive corporations, not so much. Therein lies the problem. I don't think anyone is against outdoorsmen, what they are against is the short-sighted squandering of natural resources with no effort to replace them.

===

"10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it."

Again, this is where I part ways with whoever you've been speaking with. I think "social promotion" - passing kids through grades that can't meet the requirements -- is terrible. The thing is, what is a teacher to do when they get no support from home? I'd say that every child does deserve to feel loved and valuable -- and it's a sad farking day when the schools have to fill that role because mom and dad can't or won't. Again, see my point about pregnancy prevention.

====

"11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only."


O yeah? Where, exactly, is this in the DNC credo? You're just being retarded here. I saw Passion, and thought it was definately thought-provoking. I would say that most movies, along with most artistic endeavors in general are made with the combined motivation of making a statement and of making money to eat off of.

werekoala 8 years, 1 month ago

Rebutting RT, part IV:

=====

"12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution."


On the contrary, I like the NRA, think Eagle Eddie is a good gun safety program, and am glad that we have a strong group dedicated toward preserving 1/10th of the Bill of Rights. That said, I wish that their supporters could be a little less hostile toward the group that supports the other 9/10 of the Bill of Rights. I also wish they weren't quite so extreme -- I for one don't see a contradiction between requiring a license to drive a car that can be deadly if i mishandled, and for using a gun that can be the same way if misused.

====

"13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high."

Well, taxes are too low for our current spending. $500,000,000,000.00 in Iraq is actually a large amount of money that's been spent, and the tax cuts haven't come close to making up the difference. (Tax cut during a war? Are you serious?). ATM fees I don't really care about, and neither does the DNC. They do view extending massive lines of credit with massive hidden penalties and fees to folks who have already demonstrated poor financial skills as being a little predatory. So do I. Credit is a good thing, it helps create the middle class - unsustainable credit with virtually no risk to the credit companies is a bad thing.

===

"14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison."


I'd like a source on that, please. Each are important, in their own way. But more or less important? Please, you sound like a stupid demagauge, rilling up an even stupider base.

====

"15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not."


Nope, I don't. I'd say that standardized tests are only one way of measuring intelligence, though, and their outcomes are highly weighted toward previous exposure to the test maker's style. And I do believe that quotas are racist-- that's why they were struck down over a decade ago. Get with the times.

As far as affirmitive action goes, it's always puzzled me - why spend all this time and effort getting minorities into colleges that their underfunded schools have not prepared them for? A better use ofo the money/energy would be to spend it revitalizing inner city schools and education, so minorities actually had a fair education all the way through, and hence a fair shot of standing on their own merits. For as far as I can tell, it's class warfare in the extreme to deny the children of poor parents the same funding and support given to the children of rich parents.

werekoala 8 years, 1 month ago

Rebutting RT, Part V:

"16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person."


Do you think ANY politician is normal, or a nice person? Please, she is what she is -- the only reason she has your knickers in a twist is because she's the first woman to do what have been doing for centuries.

====

"17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people have not been in charge."


Um, socialism is working quite well in Germany, France, England, and Canada, as well as most of the rest of the industrialized world. As well as here in America. We have a socialized military, a socialized electrical company, a socialized police force, and a socialised fire/EMS service, among others. The point is, state control over some industries is good - especially those that everyone needs for life/liberty. For some industries it's bad -- such as consumer products and non-essentials. You're confusing communism with socialism, which is like confusing our system with CHile in the 80s.

====

"18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House."


Um, not sure exactly what you're referring to here. People who commit crimes belong in jail, people whose choices you don't agree with may live in the White House or down the block.

Reminds me of the old questiin passed around the internet -- would you rather have your country led by a philanderer, an alcoholic, or vegetarian faithful to his girlfriend/wife? If you were living in the 40s, the philanderer is FDr, the alcoholic is Churchill, and the faithful vegetarian is Hitler. The moral of the story is that we should pick leaders based on their public policies and actions, not on their private lives.

=====

"19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal."


wrong, Wrong, WRONG, WRONG!!!! ARGGGH -- why don't you people get it? It's unconstitutional to use public money to pay for either exhibit -- it's also unconstitutional to prevent private individuals/groups from presenting the same exhibit. Lack of state funding != prohibition!!!

===

"20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States."


Fark no, that pissed me off right proper. THAT'S what y'all should have impeached over, not a damn BJ! It's a bad idea to let any special interests inside WH decisions, be they the ChiComs or the Big Oil Boys.

werekoala 8 years, 1 month ago

Rebutting RT, Part VI:

====

"21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy."


Worse, you're probably a very nice guy who has bought the spin doctor's line that there's some vast liberal conspiracy to make you reject God, take all your money to give to a welfare queen, and wnats to turn your kids gay. We're all just people, trying to get along, while the media is dominated by the loudest and most extreme idiots from both sides. There is no side of "good guys" and "bad guys" ach party has its strengths and weakenesses, and each candidate should be judged based on his/her performance, not the letter behind their name.

====

In summary, it takes far more words to make a specious claim than to refute it -- this is why the creationist still have people paying attention to them.

Sorry, all.

drewdun 8 years, 1 month ago

rt: thanks for publishing that nice list above. It serves only to reinforce your reputation as a highly educated and intelligent contributor to these discussions.

BWWAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

But seriously, what is it with wingnuts and their obsession with other people's sex lives? Can one of the resident crypto-fascists here explain it to me? Its really pretty bizarre, in my humble opinion.

Claire Williams 8 years, 1 month ago

Posted by right_thinker (anonymous) on February 8, 2007 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I never would've wasted the time."- Agnostick

"My thoughts exactly----but werekoala, like a majority of this forum, is a committed SP and W hater----they take this extremely serious. Humor and fun is not welcome nor invited as SP's and W haters find this to be counter-productive to their agenda of hatred and intolerance. BTW, those were not my 21 points--I merely found them and thought they were kinda funny (and true).

You guys are terrific!"


First of all RT, where in your original post of those 21 items (not YOUR list, oh no...somebody ELSE'S list) did you say that you posted them out of humor or good fun? Backpedal much?

Don't take offense because somebody took the time to respond to the silly allegations on that list in an intelligent and thoughtful manner.

"Counter-productive to their agenda of hatred and intolerance...."

Oh ho! Somebody's getting their panties in a bunch because legitimate responses were posted to their trolling and they don't know what to do! You don't agree with them? Then man up and post some INTELLIGENT response yourself, nancy boy. Stop resorting to party-line rhetoric. It's getting old.

/SP?

Claire Williams 8 years, 1 month ago

Posted by right_thinker (anonymous) on February 8, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Claire, can't we just all get along and have some light-hearted, yet highly provocative discussion about secular-progressive agendas?

Holygrailale, a former SP mentor-guru sort of LJW poster always advised me to 'go find a conservative blog'....other far-left, W-hater secular-progressives have advised me to do the same.

Is that nice? Is that any way to get along? I don't want anybody to feel hurt or unwanted, do you?

You guys are just what I need. I would like to say thanks!

I'll be going to Mexico for 8 days on Monday, so you guys will be 'right thinker free' for ALL that time to discuss the important secular progressive agendas of the day without my interference--won't that be wonderful? It's my gift to you."

--

My point RT is that you responded to someone's obviously well-thought out post with derision and comments about agendas instead of "provocative discussion".

Call me an idealist but I like point and counterpoint discussions on forums like this. Nothing is more disappointing to me than when I spend time crafting a post, citing sources and choosing my language carefully...to no response. So forgive me for getting a bit annoyed when I see it happening to another poster.

Linda Endicott 8 years, 1 month ago

Make sure you've got that there passport handy now, RT, or they won't let you back in anymore...

And while you're there, try claiming that you're there to stay, that you want the same rights as their own citizens, wave the American flag and cry discrimination.

Let us all know how well that works in Mexico, huh?

Tychoman 8 years, 1 month ago

ducky just ignore RT. He's nothing but an a**-kissing troll who pushes people to their breaking point of patience and then sucks up to them to stop himself from getting bounced (which has happened before).

I look forward to these 8 days.

Tychoman 8 years, 1 month ago

There you go again, that's exactly what I thought you'd say, troll.

Linda Endicott 8 years, 1 month ago

Hurt? You, RT? Really now...we all know you have steel for skin...

A passport isn't merely a good thing to have anymore if you're going to Mexico or Canada. It's now required in order to get back in the U.S.

Law went into effect a couple weeks ago. Didn't you read about it?

jonas 8 years, 1 month ago

"He still has yet to answer my question of why one would choose to have sex with a sheep."

Yeah, and I've heard it's a new trend that they want their sheep totally sheared and shaved. No wool.

jonas 8 years, 1 month ago

"Posted by right_thinker (anonymous) on February 8, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Claire, can't we just all get along and have some light-hearted, yet highly provocative discussion about secular-progressive agendas?"

Grk.

. . . brain. . . hurts. . .

Emily Hadley 8 years, 1 month ago

Plain and simple, shouldn't people get hired and fired according to whether they can do their job??

gr 8 years, 1 month ago

"Plain and simple, shouldn't people get hired and fired according to whether they can do their job??"

Sounds good to me. So why all hubbub about adding gays to the discrimination list? As if it's ok to discriminate against some people but not others.

"He still has yet to answer my question of why one would choose to have sex with a sheep."

'Because it's who he is.'

Commenting has been disabled for this item.