Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-10-2006, 02:01 AM   #1 (permalink)
Addict
 
hiredgun's Avatar
 
Maher to out gay Republicans; and CNN censorship

On CNN's Larry King Live, Bill Maher promised that on his show Friday night, he will name members of the Republican leadership who are closeted homosexuals.

Live on the air, Maher mentioned RNC Chair Ken Mehlman as one of them. Larry King claimed to be completely surprised.

Quote:
BM: A lot of the chiefs of staff, the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party, are gay. I don't want to mention names, but I will Friday night...

LK:You will Friday night?

BM: Well, there's a couple of big people who I think everyone in Washington knows who run the Republican...

LK: You will name them?

BM: Well, I wouldn't be the first. I'd get sued if I was the first. Ken Mehlman. Ok, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it when he's been, people have suggested, he doesn't say...

LK: I never heard that. I'm walking around in a fog. I never...Ken Mehlman? I never heard that. But the question is...

BM: Maybe you don't go to the same bathhouse I do, Larry.
Even more interesting is that CNN censored the mention of Mehlman from subsequent airings of the show, and is now sending out cease-and-desist letters to have it pulled from the internet. Link: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006...own-video.html

Link of the videos and transcripts (live and taped versions): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/1...h_n_33701.html

So the long line of staunchly anti-gay homosexuals in the GOP has at least one more member; from the sound of it, Maher will announce a few more tomorrow night. I find the timing interesting in that at least this can't be seen as an attempt by Maher to influence the elections. At the same time, I'm not sure a witch hunt should be the first thing on the progressive agenda at the moment, when there is so much to be done.

I find it even more interesting that CNN is scrambling to keep a lid on this thing. They can't possibly believe they will really contain the information; in the age of TiVo and blogs, it's far too late for that. Perhaps it is just a measure to minimize their own liability in the matter, if Maher draws fire for Mehlman's outing. I'm sure they also don't want to be seen as a venue for some 'left-wing agenda', and would rather let Maher take the inevitable flak.

I'm also left to question the wisdom of this revelation when Mehlman is soon stepping down anyway (or so I think I've heard... someone want to confirm that?)

Some questions:

This has been done recently, but what is your take on the propriety of outing public figures? Is it more legitimate to do so if that figure's public position on homosexuality is hypocritical?

What is CNN's proper role here? They are obviously within their legal rights to alter a broadcast or control the use of their copyrighted material, but do you see a problem with journalistic ethics here?

What implications might this have for the social policies of the Republican party?
hiredgun is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 07:26 AM   #2 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
CNN is covering their ass. Libel lawyers are a tenacious lot.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 08:08 AM   #3 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
ANd here I thought the election was the reason he stepped down...
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 08:44 AM   #4 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Sounds like Bill Maher's trying to stir up some controvercy so when the season starts again people will watch.

Hope he enjoys libel lawsuits.

Seriously though, who cares? I thought Dems were supposed to be accepting of everyone. Yet so far every gay republican has been treated worse by them then terrorists.
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas
Seaver is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 08:52 AM   #5 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver
Seriously though, who cares? I thought Dems were supposed to be accepting of everyone. Yet so far every gay republican has been treated worse by them then terrorists.
Let's say that a Republican leader is pushing legislation that brings more christianity into government....then he's outed as a Muslim.

It's not the fact that these people are gay, it's the fact that they are hypocrites.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 08:52 AM   #6 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
How is it libel if he can find a source to go on record about personal relationships? It becomes a he said/he said thing.

Seaver, which gay Republicans are you talking about? The only one that's been in office recently villified himself.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 08:52 AM   #7 (permalink)
Unencapsulated
 
JustJess's Avatar
 
Location: Kittyville
The reasoning behind that is because those very gay Republicans are the ones espousing the worst anti-gay rhetoric and gay marriage bans, etc. So the hypocrisy is what's awful about them. No one I know cares that they're gay, it's that they're hypocrites affecting policy.
__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.
JustJess is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 09:12 AM   #8 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Like I said in the general discussion thread, outing people due to their politics is petty, vindictive, and useless at best.

Maher's scum.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 09:30 AM   #9 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Like I said in the general discussion thread, outing people due to their politics is petty, vindictive, and useless at best.

Maher's scum.
...and turning your own self loathing due to your inability to come to terms with your homosexuality into anti-gay legislation is a sign of severe depression disorder, and anyone in that state of melancholia has no business in any office, let alone poltiical office. Maher is doing us all a big favor by pointing out who, in political office, has an emotional disorder.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 09:41 AM   #10 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJess
The reasoning behind that is because those very gay Republicans are the ones espousing the worst anti-gay rhetoric and gay marriage bans, etc. So the hypocrisy is what's awful about them. No one I know cares that they're gay, it's that they're hypocrites affecting policy.
aren't ALL politicians hypocrites affecting policy?
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 09:47 AM   #11 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
...and turning your own self loathing due to your inability to come to terms with your homosexuality into anti-gay legislation is a sign of severe depression disorder, and anyone in that state of melancholia has no business in any office, let alone poltiical office.
Assuming that they haven't "come to terms" with their homosexuality privately.

Assuming that a lack of "coming to terms" could only lead to depression.

Assuming that their homosexuality and their politics couldn't possibly be reconciled.

Assuming that a depressed politician can't function well enough to fulfill the duties and wishes of his constituents.

Whole lotta not necessarily warranted assumptions here.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 09:56 AM   #12 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Assuming that they haven't "come to terms" with their homosexuality privately.

Assuming that a lack of "coming to terms" could only lead to depression.

Assuming that their homosexuality and their politics couldn't possibly be reconciled.

Assuming that a depressed politician can't function well enough to fulfill the duties and wishes of his constituents.

Whole lotta not necessarily warranted assumptions here.
I'm not assuming anything. It's the truth. They haven't come to terms with their sexuality if they can't stand up for themselves. Not coming to terms with, and more importantly striking out at other because you haven't come to terms with latent homosexuality is a textbook sign of severe depression disorder. Clinical diagnosis is basically the "if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck," with the DSM. It's pretty obvious most of them suffer from severe depression disorder, and someone with that disorder can be dangerous is a position where they can take out their rage and depression on a lot of other people.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 10:02 AM   #13 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
I'm not assuming anything. It's the truth. They haven't come to terms with their sexuality if they can't stand up for themselves. Not coming to terms with, and more importantly striking out at other because you haven't come to terms with latent homosexuality is a textbook sign of severe depression disorder. Clinical diagnosis is basically the "if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck," with the DSM. It's pretty obvious most of them suffer from severe depression disorder, and someone with that disorder can be dangerous is a position where they can take out their rage and depression on a lot of other people.
Assuming that they aren't standing up for themselves.

Assuming (again) that they haven't come to terms with it.

Assuming that there's any rage in what they do.

You're assuming nearly everything.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 10:04 AM   #14 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Assuming that they aren't standing up for themselves.

Assuming (again) that they haven't come to terms with it.

Assuming that there's any rage in what they do.

You're assuming nearly everything.
That's the difference between trained psychologists and laymen. I have all the information I need. Give me a few 1 hour sessions with these men, and I can prove it.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 10:19 AM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
sapiens's Avatar
 
Location: Some place windy
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
That's the difference between trained psychologists and laymen. I have all the information I need. Give me a few 1 hour sessions with these men, and I can prove it.
You don't have sufficient information about these men to diagnose them. You say as much in the post above. Yet, in earlier posts, you claim that it is a textbook example of severe depression disorder. FoolThemAll is right. You are making assumptions even if you are a "trained psychologist". Even if you had a PhD in clinical psychology, which I doubt, I would question your conclusions. With the present information we don't have enough information to demonstrate that the people meet DSM criteria for a depressive disorder.
sapiens is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 10:19 AM   #16 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
That's the difference between trained psychologists and laymen. I have all the information I need. Give me a few 1 hour sessions with these men, and I can prove it.
Generally, psychologists carefully observe the subject before making any claims about them. But hey, you're innovative or something. You just make up characteristics and then make a diagnosis from those fantasy qualities.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 11:07 AM   #17 (permalink)
pig
pigglet pigglet
 
pig's Avatar
 
Location: Locash
Yeah, already covered in general in the other thread on Craig. If there is hard evidence, and if the public figures credibility is directly affected by the hypocritical details of their private life, I have no problem with it. You can't compartmentalize like that, then run on personal integrity. That's what all these guys do. "Biff Bifferson, he's a good old guy, just like you. He stands up for traditional marriage values, and fights the terrorists. Not like his opponent, who gay-fucks dead babies while wearing a turban..." if you run on heterosexual "traditional" family values and you don't live by them, you can pretty much expect that its going to come out.

do i suspect maher has ulterior motives? of course. but in this day and age, how stupid do you have to be to run on anti-homosexual legislation...if you're a closeted homosexual? they know if jennifer aniston and vince vaughn had a fight on friday because the toppings on their pizza were fucked up, and they're not going to find out you've been shaft deep in your raquetball partner's ass? i don't think so. where's all this personal accountability and standing up for what you think is right crap i keep hearing every politician talk about? you want a private life? good, don't run for national political offices if you live a seriously hypocritical lifestyle. the homosexuality thing is just the big one right now because its the huge social pariah issue going down right now, but it could be the same thing if strom thurmond had been busted back in the day for impregnating a black chick when he was running on segregation. you think that wouldn't have been useful information to his constiuency?
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
pig is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 11:20 AM   #18 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by pigglet
if you run on heterosexual "traditional" family values and you don't live by them, you can pretty much expect that its going to come out.
Yeah, it's a reasonable expectation. That's not exactly a justification of the outing, though.

Quote:
do i suspect maher has ulterior motives? of course.
Me too. But I also suspect that he has no decent, sensible motives.

Quote:
you think that wouldn't have been useful information to his constiuency?
No, it's not actually useful.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Last edited by FoolThemAll; 11-10-2006 at 11:22 AM.. Reason: misread question
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 11:26 AM   #19 (permalink)
pig
pigglet pigglet
 
pig's Avatar
 
Location: Locash
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
No, it's not actually useful.
that's incomprehensible to me. you don't care if the things your elected officials tell you about themselves are true or not? makes no difference? no trust issues for you in this thing?
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
pig is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 11:29 AM   #20 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
In regards to their personal life? As long as it doesn't affect their political life?

No, I don't care.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 11:33 AM   #21 (permalink)
pig
pigglet pigglet
 
pig's Avatar
 
Location: Locash
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
In regards to their personal life? As long as it doesn't affect their political life?

No, I don't care.
yeah, but how do you think that's possible? you don't think it speaks to their judgement? their trustworthiness? you think i can be an "x" in my private life, and totally disassociate that with my public decisions? i can't, can you? i mean, that's why people try to tell the voters who they are, and what they stand for, etc.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
pig is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 11:43 AM   #22 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
I don't understand - what's stopping you or me or anyone else from acting differently in different contexts? Even inconsistently?
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 12:00 PM   #23 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
That's the difference between trained psychologists and laymen. I have all the information I need. Give me a few 1 hour sessions with these men, and I can prove it.
What are you channelling one of the other members here who makes similar claims?
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 12:21 PM   #24 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
In regards to their personal life? As long as it doesn't affect their political life?

No, I don't care.
What about religon? Religon is a personal thing. Do you think that effects political decisions? The thing is, it IS effecting their political decisions. Letent homosexuality leading to self loathing leading to decisions to punish other homosexuals is a prime example of letting somthing very personal become very political.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 12:38 PM   #25 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
What about religon? Religon is a personal thing. Do you think that effects political decisions? The thing is, it IS effecting their political decisions.
But not in any way that wasn't visible to the voters who elected them. You get what you vote for. The source of their aims isn't relevant.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 12:45 PM   #26 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
But not in any way that wasn't visible to the voters who elected them. You get what you vote for. The source of their aims isn't relevant.
Republicans aren't likely to vote for homosexuals. They hid the truth from their bigoted voters. How can one "get what you vote for", when the politician is blatently misrepresenting himself? You can't. Poltiicans should be heald accountable for misleading voters.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 01:13 PM   #27 (permalink)
Unencapsulated
 
JustJess's Avatar
 
Location: Kittyville
Holy shit.
I just changed my mind... I think.

These gay yet anti-gay platform guys are assholes, and hypocritical, and wrong. But they're just like the rest of the politicians. Why should they vote the way they believe... they should be voting the way their constituents believe (wrong to me or not). If I were a Representative, I'd be voting the way my constituents wanted me to for the most part. They are supporting a platform - you don't have to be straight to think gay marriage is wrong. Not that I think that's what they're doing so much as making sure they stay in power by any means necessary.

But in all honesty... there's nothing to say that a gay man has to love being gay and support all gay rights.

Are they wrong to lie? Absolutely. But it's not all that different from all the other lies. The only thing they really should be doing... is to vote and make policy in the way they promised during their campaign. And if they promised to vote against gay marriage etc, then they are upholding their word... as fucked up as that is.

I just don't want them to be right because I believe in equal rights for all (as equal as we can make 'em!).
__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

Last edited by JustJess; 11-10-2006 at 01:16 PM..
JustJess is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 03:06 PM   #28 (permalink)
Addict
 
hiredgun's Avatar
 
While I'm glad this has sparked some discussion, I'd love to hear more about the newsmedia angle, which I thought was really the more interesting part of the story (as 'outings' in themselves are becoming a commonplace in our political landscape.)

I am disappointed by CNN's handling of the situation. I don't think the situation warranted censorship on the scale of rooting out copies of the video on the internet.
hiredgun is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 04:34 PM   #29 (permalink)
pig
pigglet pigglet
 
pig's Avatar
 
Location: Locash
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
I don't understand - what's stopping you or me or anyone else from acting differently in different contexts? Even inconsistently?
i can understand inconsistency. i can understand lying about your private life. but i think when you do it, you're basically opening yourself up to being called on it. of course we act differently in different situations; i curse to myself constantly at work. i don't curse to my boss, much. but this is a question of fundamental character misrepresentation. i don't think you can compartmentalize fundamental aspects of who you are, and then think it doesn't affect the decisions you make.

when you're acting differently in different situations...do you think your overall behavior, and your awareness of the way you act in different situations, affects the way you act in each specific one? do you over-compensate? do you keep quiet about things?

as far as the argument put forth by jess, i agree that once in office, their vote should be affected by their constituency, but it has to also be tempered by their character and what they know to be right. i think a part of that representative is to act as a filter of his constituency. there are obvious examples, which i won't go into because its almost like godwining a thread, where the desires of a constituency are far from correct.

that aside, this is also based on the image they projected when being elected, and that they continue to project in office. if some guy was gay, or muslim, or had a purple tail growing out of his taint, i wouldn't care if they voted "anti-gay", or "anti-muslim," or "anti-purple-taint-tail." what i do think is relevant is the misrepresentation. if the gay, muslim, purple taint tailed guy said, "i'm a gay muslim with a purple taint tail, but i promise to vote the will of my district," i wouldn't have as many problems with it. however, i also think we elect our representatives to be leaders, not just followers. no?
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
pig is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 05:17 PM   #30 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Republicans aren't likely to vote for homosexuals. They hid the truth from their bigoted voters. How can one "get what you vote for", when the politician is blatently misrepresenting himself? You can't. Poltiicans should be heald accountable for misleading voters.
They are getting what they vote for, whether they see it that way or not.

Or is there a material difference between a heterosexual who supports anti-gay legislation and a closet case who does the same? Politically speaking?

I don't see one.

Thus, I don't see any value in the outing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pigglet
i can understand inconsistency. i can understand lying about your private life. but i think when you do it, you're basically opening yourself up to being called on it.
Closet cases who make themselves public figures, hypocrites or not, open themselves up to outings. That doesn't justify it in either case. Pointing out hypocrisy is only useful when you're trying to coax the hypocrite into improving himself - and that's pretty clearly not the aim of people like Maher.

Quote:
but this is a question of fundamental character misrepresentation.
Fundamental how? What does this mean?

Quote:
what i do think is relevant is the misrepresentation.
But it's not political misrepresentation. It's not relevant to his status as a politician.

Even if fundamentalist Christians are convinced it is.

He's still doing the job he was hired to do.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Last edited by FoolThemAll; 11-11-2006 at 05:23 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 06:10 PM   #31 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
They are getting what they vote for, whether they see it that way or not.

Or is there a material difference between a heterosexual who supports anti-gay legislation and a closet case who does the same? Politically speaking?

I don't see one.

Thus, I don't see any value in the outing.
Politically speaking? If someone is a hypocrite, they are a hypocrite...politically speaking or otherwise. If you knew that your rep was willing to sell his or her soul, and your vote, at the drop of a hat, would you really vote for him/her? The bottom line is trustworthyness. The bottom line is a wolf wearing sheep's clothing is leading the heard. It's dangerous, and revealing the wolf is a good thing. Maher should be commended, not insulted.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 06:22 PM   #32 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Politically speaking? If someone is a hypocrite, they are a hypocrite...politically speaking or otherwise.
Nah. If one's hypocrisy doesn't effect political promises made, then it's simply not political.

Quote:
If you knew that your rep was willing to sell his or her soul, and your vote, at the drop of a hat, would you really vote for him/her? The bottom line is trustworthyness.
And as far as carrying out the wishes of their constituents, they appear to be completely trustworthy.

Quote:
The bottom line is a wolf wearing sheep's clothing is leading the heard. It's dangerous
But not any more dangerous than an actual sheep, in this case. Or - to get out of that imagery of yours that I just screwed up - a closet anti-gay is no more dangerous than a hetero anti-gay.

Quote:
and revealing the wolf is a good thing. Maher should be commended, not insulted.
No, it's pointless and petty. Like Maher. He accomplishes nothing positive with these outings. The wolf in sheep's clothing will just be replaced by another of his kind or by - gasp! - a straight homophobe.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 06:44 PM   #33 (permalink)
pig
pigglet pigglet
 
pig's Avatar
 
Location: Locash
foolthemall,

how do you feel about someone lying on their resume?
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
pig is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 08:14 PM   #34 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Set aside the whole "is it right or wrong" thing for a second. A closeted anti-gay politician is an easy target for a politically-motivated take-down, and it's just bad politics to be that vulnerable to attack. If your political tent is pitched on such shifty sand, I think you deserve what you have coming to you.

I feel the same way about politicians who are on the take, collecting lobbyist handouts or money from business or organized crime. In that case, it might actually be illegal, too, but my point is, it's just a bad idea to have a public and political life that's predicated on such a vulnerable position.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 10:32 PM   #35 (permalink)
Junkie
 
I watched Real Time Friday night, i guess he decided not to out the gay republicans.
Rekna is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 11:39 PM   #36 (permalink)
32 flavors and then some
 
Gilda's Avatar
 
Location: Out on a wire.
Hmmm. If you can sue someone for saying you're gay, does that mean I can sue people for implying that I'm straight? I teach a class in GLBT lit; I might lose some of my street cred, so to speak.
__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert
Gilda is offline  
Old 11-12-2006, 12:17 AM   #37 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Intense1's Avatar
 
Location: Music City burbs
It all goes back to this: liberals say that they believe that everyone has the right to live as they wish, but not when it comes to those who are not yet ready to out themselves, especially if they are republicans. Gay republicans are in jeopardy of being outted if they do not believe in the gay marriage agenda - and there are many.

Many gays do not support the whole "gay marriage" agenda - check out Tammy Bruce, for an example http://www.tammybruce.com/.

Liberals want to give people privacy, all right. Until it cuts across their own agenda....
__________________
(none yet, still thinkin')
Intense1 is offline  
Old 11-12-2006, 04:03 AM   #38 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Let's say that a Republican leader is pushing legislation that brings more christianity into government....then he's outed as a Muslim.

It's not the fact that these people are gay, it's the fact that they are hypocrites.
What might be best for the country is not always what is best for the individual. Maybe these "hypocrites" are merely putting what they believe to be the country's best interests ahead of their own personal interests.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 11-12-2006, 06:00 AM   #39 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: rural Indiana
Imo, closeting yourself is not good. Being gay is nothing to be ashamed of. If people make you feel that your homosexuality is wrong, then you should show them that it isn't....by being upfront, honest, and unapoligetic about it. In the end, honesty is the best policy.....not for furthering political/power mongering agendas perhaps....but for a healthy world.....yes.
I think Maher is all right. Hypocrites go home.
__________________
Happy atheist
Lizra is offline  
Old 11-12-2006, 06:45 AM   #40 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilda
Hmmm. If you can sue someone for saying you're gay, does that mean I can sue people for implying that I'm straight? I teach a class in GLBT lit; I might lose some of my street cred, so to speak.
That'd be EXCELLENT. I'd love to see that happen!
ratbastid is offline  
 

Tags
censorship, cnn, gay, maher, republicans

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:44 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360