Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Good move, will.
|
TY. I felt like this conversation was important, but I didn't want to threadjack.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
You're claiming that those votes are evidence of homophobia. They aren't. At least not alone. I'd vote the same way and I'm not homophobic. You need more evidence, the burden is on you.
|
And my evidence is circumstantial, but very, very, very coincidental if I'm wrong. Really, this is as much evidence as we'll get without actually speaking to the guy. It it had been just one of those votes, I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. This is 4 separate votes, with 3 separate meanings.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
It's a major wedge issue, but not necessarily a major issue in any personal sense. Which brings up a third motive: there's bigotry, there's laziness, and there's political posturing. He might vote that way for the primary/sole purpose of getting votes/funding. Certainly not admirable if true, but not bigotry either.
|
That reminds me of the politician (the name is on the tip of my tongue) who is gay, but voted against gay interests. The thing is, he's not always a party line guy. The campaign finance reforms he's all about are very un-Republican. They're downright brave, frankly. I'm left wondering why someone who took over after Al Gore (LIBERAL) left would have the balls to fight campaign finance reform, but couldn't fight on gay rights.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Not much coincidence or variance is needed here. Just a weakness in unthinkingly towing the party line, or an opposition to hate crime legislation and business regulation coupled with a cursory glance at Webster's and Scandinavia. It's really not that outlandish, and you really haven't made your case yet, unless you were shooting for nothing more than 'plausible'. I'd conceed the word 'plausible' to your assertions.
|
I'm not saying it's a certainty. I'm saying it's likely. I'll admit my language in my first post on the subject didn't make that clear, but I guess I figured people would pick up on the meaning.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
I wouldn't defend their position, I'd only argue that 'bigoted' isn't an accurate way to describe their position, even if the political outcome is the same as a bigoted position.
|
I'll agree there. Actually, this supports my other argument about hate crimes being about motive. We're arguing about the motives, while the voting record remains the same no matter what. That gives us a great deal of knowledge about the man. If he towes the party line, then he's likely to go hard line when in office. If he's a bigot, he may try to reverse some of the pro-homosexual legislation that's managed to squeak by.