Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no conflict. If homosexuals hadn't made it clear that they want everyone to accept that the gay lifestyle is "normal" then it wouldn't be necessary for this lady to come out of the closet (if she is indeed in the closet). But now that you and your cohorts have made it abundently clear that you want everyone to accept your lifestyle, you don't get to pick and choose who, what, when, and where you want that lifestyle disclosed. Not for political purposes. Not for personal gain. You asked for it, now stand up like the proud homosexual you folks proclaim to be and demand that she come out of the closet and be vetted in the shadow of the lifestyle that you profess is completely normal.
That doesn't make any sense to me. Sorry.
And as I said, I don't believe in forcing anyone out of the closet. I guess you do, and that's where there's a conflict in your statements. You obviously do care about her sexual orientation if you think it's "necessary" for her to come out.
Yeah. I second that. Some ppl just don't get it and NEVER will. Best not to waste time on them.
No. I do get it. Very clearly, actually. If she's gay, you DON'T want her to come out because you know that her chances of being confirmed drop by half in a mere instant. So, for political purposes, you hope and pray that she's either 1) not gay, or 2) stays in the closet. And for political purposes, you conveniently and all of a sudden don't think homosexuality should be out in the forefront and that it should be a private matter, although the Page 1 of the Homosexual Agenda says otherwise.
"""""I stand by my statement - that for a position as important as a position on the supreme court actual experience as a judge would be important"""""
If other judges didn't have the experience but have done a good job why do you stick to your stance??? Doesn't make sense...
Is it because a BLACK man appointed a FEMALE, a lesbian no less!!!?????
Read->Comprehend->Post. I said her personal life doesn't matter at all. Seriously, you suck at playing the race card.
edit: what's a bit concerning IMO is that she seems to be a big proponent of a powerful president, and favors a more broad and empowering interpretation of the powers of POTUS to manage the executive branch, the various agencies, etc. If she were a judge earlier in her career there would at least be a record of rulings.
And as I said, I don't believe in forcing anyone out of the closet. I guess you do, and that's where there's a conflict in your statements. You obviously do care about her sexual orientation if you think it's "necessary" for her to come out.
So strange.
If you weren't scared that her chances of being confirmed were in question, you'd be wondering why she's not coming out of the closet (if she's gay). But since you know that her chances of being confirmed are questionable due to her sexuality, you all of a sudden advocate for the homosexual side of her to stay in the closet.
THAT'S what's strange.
(Actually, no it's not. It's call speaking out of both sides of your mouth, a phenomenon that political opportunists have leveraged since Day 1).
I don't understand why she is hiding the obvious. Shouldn't she be coming out as a proud, wise lesbian?
And why hasn't she been "outed" by the radical militant gays, who like to do such things.
I think you assume that there is only two choices - straight or gay - but there is another choice, she might be asexual - meaning she is not attracted to either gender. I've heard Lindsey Graham described this way, but it's nobody's business but his.
(Actually, no it's not. It's call speaking out of both sides of your mouth, a phenomenon that political opportunists have leveraged since Day 1).
So to recap:
In general "liberals" want to allow homosexuals to be open and free about their sexuality.
In general "conservatives" want people to keep their sexuality to themselves.
In this instance "liberals" want this individual's sexuality to be kept private.
In this instance "conservatives" want this individual's sexuality to be made public
In general "liberals" want to allow homosexuals to be open and free about their sexuality.
In general "conservatives" want people to keep their sexuality to themselves.
In this instance "liberals" want this individual's sexuality to be kept private.
In this instance "conservatives" want this individual's sexuality to be made public
Distilling it down to "conservtive" and "liberal" really does a disservice to both. More accurately we have:
Liberal (Fiscal)
Liberal (Social)
Conservative (Fiscal)
Conservative (Social)
The people making a big deal of it are Conservative (Social), but getting any more into the fiscal + social part is really a whole other thread.
We must oppose this woman and get Obama to nominate a true liberal.
A "true liberal"? For the love of Pete!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
