Federal employee found hanged...

know1

Jasunmark wrote:

know1 wrote:

Does the government come to anyone's house and makes sure they're not having gay sex? I wasn't aware that was happening.

Actually... they are. Or.. they were until just recently.

In 1998, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested for having gay sex in the privacy of Lawrence's home in Houston, Texas.

Republican Congressman Rick Santorum said that gay sex in the privacy of your own home should be illegal and that the men should be thrown in jail. He then said that "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

Here's a link to the Wiki Page on the case.

One idiot saying something that's stupid does not mean the whole right wing is in favor of the government going door-to-door checking for gay sex.

cincybearcat

know1 wrote:

One idiot saying something that's stupid does not mean the whole right wing is in favor of the government going door-to-door checking for gay sex.

But of course it does...just like one crazy bastard in Kentucky killing a census worker shows that all republicans and right-wingers are murdering bastards...and Fox News is to blame.

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

I don't know how the government can provide health care and stay out of anyone's private life.

Does the government come to anyone's house and makes sure they're not having gay sex? I wasn't aware that was happening.

I guess my only answer to that is that the "right" is not just a single person. It's a spectrum. Some on the right may be calling for those things and others might be calling for smaller government. I think the trap is that we pick and choose examples to paint the picture however we want it to be.

Personally, I'm against all of those things...but then again I don't consider myself truly on the right. I just want the government to be smaller.

I'm not informed enough to make the correlation between political killings and Obama's presidency or death threats. Are you sure there weren't any political killings during Bush's reign? How do you count the death threats, do you have a source for that.

Because if there's a public health insurance option, your private life is still between your doctor and you. All the government does is foot the bill the way private insurers do now.

And yes, up until very recently, many states had anti-sodomy laws that allowed the government to arrest you if they thought you were having gay sex in private in your home. It was struck down by the supreme court only a few years ago, much to the dismay of many on the right.

Since we're talking hypocrisy, how is it that I need to acknowledge the "spectrum" of people on the right and not make generalizations about differences between right and left while it is ok for you to say that liberals make less sense than conservatives and are more hypocritical? There are many on the left arguing for smaller government too, like the Blue Dog democrats.

No, I'm not SURE there were no political killings during Bush's admin, which is why I keep asking you and others to point me to examples of left wing whackos being as violent as right wing whackos. I am sure that I've never heard of such a thing, but it's possible I missed something. But when you come down to it, this is the only key difference I notice... both sides have contradictions and lies and spin, but only one side is killing people over it. A dem gets in office and the right goes fucking nuts, even when the democrat is (like Clinton say) a very moderate democrat. They just can't stand to see anyone but their guys in power. Under Clinton there were 2-3 abortion doctor shooting, and Oklahoma City. Under Obama in 9 months, there's been an abortion clinic shooting, a shooting at the Holocaust musem, and now a census worker carved up by hicks for being part of the evil fed. Under Bush... the only thing I can think of that even comes close is when one environmentalist set fire to a hummer or two in the middle of the night when no one was there. Not exactly comparable.

Prince Of Dorkness

know1 wrote:

One idiot saying something that's stupid does not mean the whole right wing is in favor of the government going door-to-door checking for gay sex.

Um.. the entire state of Texas took them to the US Supreme Court. That's not "One Idiot."

There are still laws on the books outlawing gay sex in 43 states... that's not "One Idiot."

Prince Of Dorkness

cincybearcat wrote:

But of course it does...just like one crazy bastard in Kentucky killing a census worker shows that all republicans and right-wingers are murdering bastards...and Fox News is to blame.

Nobody said that "all" republicans are murdering bastards. But we DID say that whomever did this was probably encouraged by Michelle Bachman's Census Panic speech where she suggested that the Census was about the Government controlling people and putting them in re-education camps.

soulsinging

cincybearcat wrote:

know1 wrote:

One idiot saying something that's stupid does not mean the whole right wing is in favor of the government going door-to-door checking for gay sex.

But of course it does...just like one crazy bastard in Kentucky killing a census worker shows that all republicans and right-wingers are murdering bastards...and Fox News is to blame.

There's more than one crazy bastard. There are 3, in 9 months. And those are only the ones killing people. Maybe you believe it's just coincidence that since Limbaugh and Beck have ramped up their inflammatory statements, dead threats to Obama skyrocketed past anything Bush ever saw and people have started killing people over the 'values' espoused by these talking heads... but the talking heads did the same thing to Bush and nobody on the left started killing people that I recall. Can you steer me to any remotely similar acts of violence from the left under Bush? I'm being very serious here. I can think of nothing. And I don't know how you can claim there's not a difference between right and left on this. One side is basically calling for armed resistance and then trying to act like they have nothing to do with it when their listeners respond to and act on those calls, the other was organizing lame marches and whining all the time.

know1

cincybearcat wrote:

know1 wrote:

One idiot saying something that's stupid does not mean the whole right wing is in favor of the government going door-to-door checking for gay sex.

But of course it does...just like one crazy bastard in Kentucky killing a census worker shows that all republicans and right-wingers are murdering bastards...and Fox News is to blame.

And the ironic thing is that the example cited as evidence that the government was coming into people's homes checking for gay sex actually occurred under Clinton's watch.

Surely if we can equate EVERYTHING that went on when Bush was president as his fault, then the above example is Clinton's fault, right?

know1

Jasunmark wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

But of course it does...just like one crazy bastard in Kentucky killing a census worker shows that all republicans and right-wingers are murdering bastards...and Fox News is to blame.

Nobody said that "all" republicans are murdering bastards. But we DID say that whomever did this was probably encouraged by Michelle Bachman's Census Panic speech where she suggested that the Census was about the Government controlling people and putting them in re-education camps.

If you've ever been to Manchester, KY, you'd know that the likelihood that person heard Michelle Bachman's speech is pretty low (not saying it's impossible).

That being said, I've never heard of her or her speech either.

cincybearcat

Jasunmark wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

But of course it does...just like one crazy bastard in Kentucky killing a census worker shows that all republicans and right-wingers are murdering bastards...and Fox News is to blame.

Nobody said that "all" republicans are murdering bastards. But we DID say that whomever did this was probably encouraged by Michelle Bachman's Census Panic speech where she suggested that the Census was about the Government controlling people and putting them in re-education camps.

DO you have text of that speech...I couldn't find it.

I do know that she said she would only fill out 1 question on the census..."How many people live in the house"...not sure that sounds too bad.

Prince Of Dorkness

know1 wrote:

And the ironic thing is that the example cited as evidence that the government was coming into people's homes checking for gay sex actually occurred under Clinton's watch.

Clinton was the president of the USA. Not Governor of Texas.

know1

Jasunmark wrote:

know1 wrote:

And the ironic thing is that the example cited as evidence that the government was coming into people's homes checking for gay sex actually occurred under Clinton's watch.

Clinton was the president of the USA. Not Governor of Texas.

And? So you basically point the responsibility at whichever level of government is run by someone from the other side?

soulsinging

Jasunmark wrote:

know1 wrote:

And the ironic thing is that the example cited as evidence that the government was coming into people's homes checking for gay sex actually occurred under Clinton's watch.

Clinton was the president of the USA. Not Governor of Texas.

Interesting side note... guess who WAS governer of Texas at the time. And the laws were in place when Clinton took office... it was on his watch that they finally started to get struck down. Of course, once Bush took over, they shifted tactics and started opting to pursue gay marriage bans since they knew sodomy laws were gone for good.

Prince Of Dorkness

cincybearcat wrote:

I do know that she said she would only fill out 1 question on the census..."How many people live in the house"...not sure that sounds too bad.

Here's a link to the YouTube video in which she lays it out best...

She suggests that the Census will lead to Interment Camps.

Quote to look for..

"Take this into consideration. If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the Census Bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations at the request of President Roosevelt, and that's how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps"

Prince Of Dorkness

know1 wrote:

And? So you basically point the responsibility at whichever level of government is run by someone from the other side?

and the Governor of Texas at the time - the guy who supported taking the law to the Supreme court.. was George W Bush.

But even if it was Diane Fienstein... Bill Clinton had no power in Texas and their laws... Sounds more like YOU are trying to point the responsibility at whichever level of government is run by someone from the other side.

cincybearcat

Jasunmark wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I do know that she said she would only fill out 1 question on the census..."How many people live in the house"...not sure that sounds too bad.

Here's a link to the YouTube video in which she lays it out best...

She suggests that the Census will lead to Interment Camps.

Quote to look for..

"Take this into consideration. If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the Census Bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations at the request of President Roosevelt, and that's how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps"

Thanks, I'll have to watch it later.

know1

soulsinging wrote:

Because if there's a public health insurance option, your private life is still between your doctor and you. All the government does is foot the bill the way private insurers do now.

And yes, up until very recently, many states had anti-sodomy laws that allowed the government to arrest you if they thought you were having gay sex in private in your home. It was struck down by the supreme court only a few years ago, much to the dismay of many on the right.

Since we're talking hypocrisy, how is it that I need to acknowledge the "spectrum" of people on the right and not make generalizations about differences between right and left while it is ok for you to say that liberals make less sense than conservatives and are more hypocritical? There are many on the left arguing for smaller government too, like the Blue Dog democrats.

No, I'm not SURE there were no political killings during Bush's admin, which is why I keep asking you and others to point me to examples of left wing whackos being as violent as right wing whackos. I am sure that I've never heard of such a thing, but it's possible I missed something. But when you come down to it, this is the only key difference I notice... both sides have contradictions and lies and spin, but only one side is killing people over it. A dem gets in office and the right goes fucking nuts, even when the democrat is (like Clinton say) a very moderate democrat. They just can't stand to see anyone but their guys in power. Under Clinton there were 2-3 abortion doctor shooting, and Oklahoma City. Under Obama in 9 months, there's been an abortion clinic shooting, a shooting at the Holocaust musem, and now a census worker carved up by hicks for being part of the evil fed. Under Bush... the only thing I can think of that even comes close is when one environmentalist set fire to a hummer or two in the middle of the night when no one was there. Not exactly comparable.

This has really gone down some tangents since my first comment.

I never claimed that left wing whackos were as violent as right wing whackos.

I just said the left wing people who have issues with the government still tend to turn to government for solutions. The right wing ones seem to turn away from government when they have issues. And I do realize those are generalizations.

I think the health insurance companies now do intrude on our private lives and that's why I think government funded health care will do the same thing. When you apply for insurance, don't you answer health questions, for example?

know1

Jasunmark wrote:

know1 wrote:

And? So you basically point the responsibility at whichever level of government is run by someone from the other side?

and the Governor of Texas at the time - the guy who supported taking the law to the Supreme court.. was George W Bush.

But even if it was Diane Fienstein... Bill Clinton had no power in Texas and their laws... Sounds more like YOU are trying to point the responsibility at whichever level of government is run by someone from the other side.

Ok - you win. I can't compete with all the subtle twists and turns that take the original comment that I had and get to this point...which by the way still doesn't equate to a statement that the government is going door to door and searching for gay sex. This was one incident 10 years ago. The government has apparently gotten smaller on this issue since then and for that I'm thankful. The left-wing likely pushed for these changes and I support them on that. Getting back to my original point I just don't understand why the left-wing wants the government out of their private lives on one issue and then back in on another.

know1

By the way, here is the latest from the Washington post. If you read carefully, they say he died of asphyxiation, he was hanging from a tree but his feet were touching the ground, they won't confirm he had the word "Fed" on his chest and they won't confirm he was even working on Census business at the time or that he was targeted because he was a federal employee.

Maybe this is a bunch of fuss over something that has nothing to do with government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04690.html

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

Ok - you win. I can't compete with all the subtle twists and turns that take the original comment that I had and get to this point...which by the way still doesn't equate to a statement that the government is going door to door and searching for gay sex. This was one incident 10 years ago. The government has apparently gotten smaller on this issue since then and for that I'm thankful. The left-wing likely pushed for these changes and I support them on that. Getting back to my original point I just don't understand why the left-wing wants the government out of their private lives on one issue and then back in on another.

For the exact same reasons the right-wing wants the government out of their private lives on one inssue and then back in on another.

The left criticizes the government but recognizes its value in certain areas. They feel the government is equipped to administer a large program like health care, even if they don't trust its intrusions into what they do in their home. The right feels the government would bungle a big program like health care, even if they think the government is perfectly able to regulate our private lifestyle decisions for public safety (or whatever they fear will happen if gay people start getting married and so on). They're not the different or incredible.

know1

soulsinging wrote:

know1 wrote:

Ok - you win. I can't compete with all the subtle twists and turns that take the original comment that I had and get to this point...which by the way still doesn't equate to a statement that the government is going door to door and searching for gay sex. This was one incident 10 years ago. The government has apparently gotten smaller on this issue since then and for that I'm thankful. The left-wing likely pushed for these changes and I support them on that. Getting back to my original point I just don't understand why the left-wing wants the government out of their private lives on one issue and then back in on another.

For the exact same reasons the right-wing wants the government out of their private lives on one inssue and then back in on another.

The left criticizes the government but recognizes its value in certain areas. They feel the government is equipped to administer a large program like health care, even if they don't trust its intrusions into what they do in their home. The right feels the government would bungle a big program like health care, even if they think the government is perfectly able to regulate our private lifestyle decisions for public safety (or whatever they fear will happen if gay people start getting married and so on). They're not the different or incredible.

OK - so now we're back on track. I see your points and there is some truth to them in my opinion.

Where we differ is that the example you mentioned of the right wanting bigger government regarding people's private lives don't really seem like bigger government to me in some cases, nor do they feel like government regulation in others.

Here were some I remember:
Abstinence Education - That's not regulation
10 Commandments in buildings - Is government calling for that, or is it individuals? In either case, it doesn't make government bigger
Gay Marriage Ban - I disagree with it, but it's not creating a government agency to regulate anything. It's a law that was passed. Furthermore, in the states in which it passed, it was far more than just the right voting for it.
Creationism - Haven't really seen the government doing lots of teaching that, but even if they are it doesn't make the government bigger. It's also not regulating people's lives.
Anti-Sodomy laws - Apparently those are still on the books sadly. Are they being enforced, though?
Drug Laws - one area where the government is bigger and regulating. The right is hypocritical to some degree on those, but then again the reason a lot of those laws are in place is to prevent one person's drug use from hurting or killing someone else i.e. driving under the influence.

I'll agree that there is a lot of hypocrisy on both sides, though.