"If the Muslims get their way, gays will have no rights and women will have no rights."
-Newt Gingrich.
-Newt Gingrich.
Irony defined
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
Is that incorrect?
I've never understood the left defending Islam and arguing for individual liberty in the same breath. Christianity is very liberal compared with Islam
Why don't you just accept victory, that gays are now accepted fully by Republicans? There is a speaker tomorrow that is going to stand on the podium and announce he's gay.
And I expected to come here to see the Lib's talking about a Pence speech comment. "You can't fake good kids".
Did I miss that somewhere? Seems non party affiliated to me, and true.
But I'm sure it's racist, somehow.
Did I miss that somewhere? Seems non party affiliated to me, and true.
But I'm sure it's racist, somehow.
I was wondering the same thing. I'd say it's pretty spot on accurate.
Is the "irony" that Newt Gingrich doesn't support rights for women or gays? If so, somebody needs a reality check.
Because the nominee for VP was the architect behind the bill to deny rights for LGBT in Indiana. So I wouldn't say they are fully accepted yet. Glad they found a gay speaker, they've found a few minorities too!
The RFRA bill in Indiana did not deny rights for gay people. That's a complete load of hooey.
So the irony is just taking a victory lap? Gay rights have won. So much so that they aren't even discussed.
You know I'm anti Trump and anti Pence. That they are on the same ticket is awesome fo me, as I only have to go against my party once, instead of twice.
But you've won EVERYONE over on gay rights. Even the GOP platform.
Stop with the hooey. RFRA was an anti gay bill to make social conservatives happy. You are too smart to say otherwise.
What rights did it take away exactly? Saying it took their rights away is a vague comment to make. Is it ironic that for the last 8 years Obama has said he fights for middle and lower class families but yet the middle class has shrunk under his presidency, income for African American families hasn't risen, neither has minimum wage. Also the unemployment rate like Bernie Sanders has stated numerous times is closer to 10% than the 5% most of the media wants you to believe.
I was happy to see Gingrich say the things he did. It is ironic that he went on almost right before Oence came on to speak. Because the RFRA bill was almost Pence's undoing. After several decades of being in the party, and in leadership for several of those years. Watching Pence trying to defend it after the backlash was amazing. He was completely lost. If you can't defend what you've not only endorsed but pushed, you're gonna be exposed later.
Who knew Gingrich (& also Pence to be fair) would be the sane one tonight? Oh my how the party has changed this time around.
Oh, and Cruz likely destroyed any chance he had in 2020, if Hillary is elected. You simply can't throw bombs, and not expect and schrapnel to come back at you. The folks in DC already knew it- which explains why no one mobilized when it was pretty clear he was the last great hope to take down Trump bone the rest of the country knows it also.
Considering the desperate last grab at anti-gay policy planks in this year's convention by social conservatives, win or no, the bad guys are still trying to score.
The irony was listening to Newt make these comments to a party that was so actively trying to deny this victory you (rightfully) claim has been won.
Republicans are all homophobes, bigots, islamophobes, all other phobes and anti women and oh I forgot racists.
Democrats tolerant of everything.
VBG
The Republican platform clearly rejects the Supreme Court decisions that enabled gay marriage. Gay members of the Republican platform committee acknowledge that they had about 25% of the vote when they attempted to get that language removed. To say "gays are now fully accepted by Republicans" is not true. Sure, a gay speaker who supports Trump (and probably wants Hillary in jail, and maybe wants Hillary stood in front of a firing line and shot) will speak. Woot! Aren't we all so cool and accepting. Just don't let "those people" get married, nor use my retail establishment, nor pee in the wrong bathroom.
You want to back off the fully accepted?
Or, flip this on it's head. Some Muslims are anti-gay and anti-woman. Therefore all Muslims are anti-gay and anti-woman. Sure, that makes sense. Our handful of exceptions exonerates all of us, and their group of extremists condemns all of them. It's very logical you see.
FWIW, I think the logic goes the other way somewhat appropriately. The GOP is a group with self-will and it establishes a set of positions on relevant issues. Many individuals who vote Republican do so because they support some, but not all of the positions. Or because they actually abhor the other side so much that will drive their personal decision. So it's logical to say that the party is anti-LGBT (based upon the consensus position) while many individuals are not. I don't think this drives much when folks vote, but to me it's relevant.
On the other hand, there are extremists in both parties and among Muslims. There is no "extremist platform" nor consensus. They are pretty much individuals, although some group together (ISIS, various white supremacist groups, etc.). We all condemn the behavior of extremist individuals and groups, but we all need to avoid attributing the extremist behavior to the whole.
What gay rights would you support? (since you seem to think Newt's statement is wrong)
In other words, you're drawing a parallel between opposing the right of gay people to marry and opposing the right of gay people to live.
Mmmm-kay.
There is a easy and quick way to fix this poblano, Give the single people the same rights as married people including insurance benefits and tax credits and this all goes away!
You don't expect these posters to actually READ the legislation, do you? They read the Star - which always has an agenda - and believe what's in the newspaper. The General Assembly does not vote on newspaper articles. It votes on black words on white paper legislation. Some posters apparently don't bother reading bills they discuss.
How so? Given that is the reality of what's being discussed here -- many Muslims think gays should be executed, many Republicans (and even plenty of Democrats, for that matter) think gays shouldn't be allowed to marry each other -- how is it that you're not drawing a parallel?
I know that you didn't explicitly specify that. But it has to be inferred -- since those are the two realities.
Well, notice that nobody's even tried to offer up a right that the Indiana RFRA legislation denied anybody. That's telling enough, innit?
It's just the typical groundless hyperbole.
As somebody who had long supported equal marriage (and adoption) rights for gay couples, I see pieces of legislation like that as nothing more than a consolation prize for those who have moral or religious qualms about same-sex marriage from being compelled against their will, and by law, to be party to them (such as the proverbial cake-baker).
One of the core arguments in favor of equal marriage rights is that, if it's something that violates your moral code, then you don't have to have the first thing to do with it...just don't stand in the way of those who simply want to have the same rights as straight couples.
The point of having equal marriage rights is about gay couples having access to all the same legal benefits and privileges of marriage...not about shoving it down the throats of others who take moral exception to it.
RFRA is simply a way to codify that principle.
This scares Democrats because they have had a monopoly on the LGBT vote up to this point. As being gay has become fully acceptable, that will be a voting bloc that will erode for Democrats. They're likely to be frothing at the mouth tonite. Meanwhile Hillary is taking money from countries that execute people suspected of being gay.
On your Islam comments, I couldn't agree more. I've never understood how a party could have a platform of civil rights and political correctness, yet waive all that when dealing with a particular subset of people?
Last edited:
RFRA was a giant failure and national embarrassment pushed through by the extremist wing of the party, entirely backed by anti gay bigots. It was a fix looking for a problem that didn't exist. We can't actually pass legislation to fix real problems, but we can make up imaginary ones to resolve?
Pence was going to lose his governorship over it (rightly), so he took the Trump life raft and sold his soul.
You guys realize that the impetus for the "bathroom bill" in NC was the city of Charlotte passing a non-discrimination ordinance,right? The bathroom part was to draw the mouth breathers in,but the main focus of the people who drew up and passed the bill (in what amounted to a secret session) was to keep individual communities in NC (like Charlotte) from passing anti-discrimination ordinances that include the LGBT community.
NC is a hugely divided state and the gerrymandered GA did not want individual cities giving gay folks the right to not be fired.And other "basic rights" that the less progressive elements did not want them to have...
Does this sound like EVERYONE has been won over on "gay rights"?
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=78&f=1414&t=14810055&p=1
Last edited:
This is only true if you believe the real reason for the "bathroom bill" in NC was the issue of transgendered people and what bathroom they use.That was the smoke screen to make the bill "defendable",but the real reason was to punish Charlotte for daring to include LGBT in a non-discrimination ordinance,and to (by law) prevent other locales from doing so.This topic has been dissected very thoroughly on the ZZL (off topic forum) of the UNC Scout board.
Yes I realize that...and I also realize it was a publicity disaster, to the extent I don't think you'll see another state attempt it. That's why I said the issue is (mostly) settled. Gay marriage is national and that isn't ever going to change. The mouth breathers got their last flail in last year, and were rightly ridiculed.
Indiana's bill did much the same, suppressing locales from including sexual orientation as a protected class. A very hypocritical stance from a party that always champions local governance. Fortunately the "fix" removed that.
It may be settled legally, but not in the hearts and minds of many and there's the irony, because if you use Newt's exact wording, you get the truth:
"If the __________ get their way, gays will have no rights and women will have no rights."
Just fill in the blank and say, "if they get their way," and the statement becomes true. At least insofar as gays are concerned.
Those here feigning confusion and indignance are being disingenuous, as usual.
Ah, lets shut down debate in yet another topic
Just talking about gay rights is the functional equivalent of throwing people in prison or even the death penalty? Why do liberals believe that the only way to do politics is to have people you disagree with shut up?
But notice that you still can't name a right that it deprived anybody of. In fact, you're not even attempting to.
I called zeke's charge that it deprived gay people of rights "hooey" -- which is precisely what it was. You took issue with that. So, anytime you or zeke or anybody else wants to explain how the RFRA bill deprived anybody of any rights, I'm all ears.
As for the bill itself, I actually think that it's something that shouldn't be necessary -- if, anyway, the free exercise clause and freedom of contract were properly applied and enforced. Of course cake-bakers, photographers, and such should have the right to decline participation in a same-sex wedding without penalty from the government. Frankly, I don't even think they should need to cite a religious exception (to me, it is more relevant to freedom of contract). But , if they do cite religious exception, that ought to be protected.
Moreover, I don't think that wedding cake baking should qualify as a public accommodation under Title II. But, even if it did, as of today sexual orientation is not a protected class under that statute (not that I'd necessarily have a problem with it becoming a protected class -- but only if properly balanced with other people being able to uphold their religious beliefs).
Some American conservatives and others are against gays having the right to marry and don't want women to have abortions. This is a far cry from wanting gays and women to have no rights as in Newt's statement, "If the Muslims get their way, gays will have no rights and women will have no rights."
By the way, Newt should have said, If [some] Muslims get their way, gays will have no rights and women will have no rights.
By the way, Newt should have said, If [some] Muslims get their way, gays will have no rights and women will have no rights.
Oh I'm not saying that it did, didn't intend to imply that. It was a pretty worthless law that wouldn't do much of anything in practice. But it was terrible politics,
OK, fair enough. But keep in mind that it was this claim (from zeke) that I called "hooey" -- and which elicited your response to me.
I have mixed feelings about the law itself, as I've said. I would say that one thing I always admired about Mitch Daniels as governor -- and which stands in stark contrast with Pence -- is that he wisely shied away from getting entangled in messy social policy foodfights. He even floated the idea of doing the same thing nationally (he termed it a "temporary truce"), for which he took all kinds of heat from social conservatives.
That said, I don't think that would've been avoided even if Daniels still had been in office -- as it came about because of Obergfell.
Also, a lot of people here are treating my OP as an actual quote. It was not. I was paraphrasing. If you didn't actually listen to his speech, why are you diving into this discussion?
Changing irony for a moment. Some people love Trump because he says what is on his mind. He isn't one to be PC, or say something only because he is supposed to.
This morning those exact same people are mad at Ted Cruz for not saying exactly what he was supposed. Look, I don't like Cruz. But after Trump made fun of his wife's looks and accused his dad of killing Kennedy, I don't blame Cruz for not backing Trump. I'm not sure why he didn't get credit for speaking his mind from the crowd that loves someone speaking their mind.
This morning those exact same people are mad at Ted Cruz for not saying exactly what he was supposed. Look, I don't like Cruz. But after Trump made fun of his wife's looks and accused his dad of killing Kennedy, I don't blame Cruz for not backing Trump. I'm not sure why he didn't get credit for speaking his mind from the crowd that loves someone speaking their mind.
Read the fine print. They only approve when the minds speak the same language.
