Chuck Hagel for Sect. of Defense ? what say you ?

[TX-Beau]

That's some kinda twister you've got going there. You can stretch all you want - fact remains that people who wear pillowcases and "light" crosses are never considered for public office no matter their skill set, yet you seem fine with calling gay people hypocrites for expecting the same consideration.

Anti-Semites don't get to be secretary of the interior, people who hate Asians - can't run the FBI.

Because being a bigot is a disqualifier for every other minority, and NO ONE would nominate said bigot, then you say UNLESS you are a homophobe - then somehow it's peachy keen so long as it "doesn't affect" your job?

Please.

[tigerfan482]

That's some kinda twister you've got going there. You can stretch all you want - fact remains that people who wear pillowcases and "light" crosses are never considered for public office no matter their skill set, yet you seem fine with calling gay people hypocrites for expecting the same consideration.

Anti-Semites don't get to be secretary of the interior, people who hate Asians - can't run the FBI.

Because being a bigot is a disqualifier for every other minority, and NO ONE would nominate said bigot, then you say UNLESS you are a homophobe - then somehow it's peachy keen so long as it "doesn't affect" your job?

Please.

I can bet you there have been plenty of prejudiced people who have served at high levels of the government. For example, J. Edgar Hoover was believed by many to be racist, but he ran the FBI quite successfully. Everyone has a set of beliefs in terms of who and what they like and don't like. You may not know their about their beliefs because they didn't say anything, but that doesn't change the fact that they were prejudiced. You, for instance, have a problem with people that are anti-gay. As long as peoples' prejudices, whatever they may be, don't interfere with their official capacities, then they have a right to have those prejudices. I simply realize that this is the real world and people have their set of beliefs. I don't have to agree with those beliefs, but unless those beliefs translate into actions that take away my or others' rights, then I'm not going to punish people for having them.

And no, it's not a stretch. You being against Chuck Hagel because he is anti-gay is the same as him being against you because you're gay. And I extend that to all other prejudices as well. A person has the right to be a racist and not be punished for it as long as their racism doesn't affect others' rights. If Chuck Hagel hated black people but was able to be Secretary of Defense without his beliefs translating into actions against black people in the Department of Defense, then I'd be making the same argument.

[TX-Beau]

Give me a fucking break. In 1850 it was perfectly fine to be a ginromous racist and still be a President - so NOW that's fine so long as it doesn't interfere with your "duties?" In No fucking universe is that true.

You know it, I know it - no one who said the same things about black people Hagel said about us would EVER have even been considered. Being a bigot would have disqualified him immediately and there would have been outrage in the black community if the White House pursued it.

Evidently being a black person against the KKK is the same as being a cross burning Grand Dragon in the strange universe you seem to inhabit.

I suspect you took a position without thinking it through and now are just being obstinate because claiming that people who oppose bigotry are just really bigots themselves is frankly stupid.

[Kulindahr]

Okay -- how about Obama assigns him a flamer for an executive assistant?

[palbert]

I question that 20 years ago many of us entertained the equality agenda we hold now. Long past remarks are being judged by a modern standard. No matter what the extent of his conversion the equality train has left the station and he will be sworn to uphold it.

[tigerfan482]

Give me a fucking break. In 1850 it was perfectly fine to be a ginromous racist and still be a President - so NOW that's fine so long as it doesn't interfere with your "duties?" In No fucking universe is that true.

You know it, I know it - no one who said the same things about black people Hagel said about us would EVER have even been considered. Being a bigot would have disqualified him immediately and there would have been outrage in the black community if the White House pursued it.

Evidently being a black person against the KKK is the same as being a cross burning Grand Dragon in the strange universe you seem to inhabit.

I suspect you took a position without thinking it through and now are just being obstinate because claiming that people who oppose bigotry are just really bigots themselves is frankly stupid.

I thought hard about my position and realized that something the guy said back when it was ok to say it in no way reflects his ability to perform the job he is being nominated for. The right of people to hold and speak whatever beliefs they have, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, and not be punished for those views is what America was founded on. And I don't care if it's homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. If they execute the duties without their personal beliefs interfering, then those personal beliefs don't matter in regards to the job.

And yes, a black man denying a KKK member a job he is qualified for is the same as a KKK member denying a black man a job that he is qualified for. They are both being denied a job because of the prejudices that the person doing the hiring has.

[Rolyo85]

I thought hard about my position and realized that something the guy said back when it was ok to say it in no way reflects his ability to perform the job he is being nominated for. The right of people to hold and speak whatever beliefs they have, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, and not be punished for those views is what America was founded on. And I don't care if it's homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. If they execute the duties without their personal beliefs interfering, then those personal beliefs don't matter in regards to the job.

And yes, a black man denying a KKK member a job he is qualified for is the same as a KKK member denying a black man a job that he is qualified for. They are both being denied a job because of the prejudices that the person doing the hiring has.

That's absolute and utter bullshit. Persecution of discrimination is NOT discrimination, it's a response, and always has been. And the rest of your argument is what people were saying about Romney - "yeah, he's gonna fist gay people with a chainsaw, but he'll be ever so good for the economy!"

[loki81]

I don't really get how his feelings towards gays are even relevant... he's not going to be in a position of setting policy, he's just going to be there to execute whatever the President directs him to.

[Rolyo85]

And yet we don't allow open racists in these positions, or xenophobes. Because it sends the wrong message.

[xbuzzerx]

I thought hard about my position and realized that something the guy said back when it was ok to say it in no way reflects his ability to perform the job he is being nominated for. The right of people to hold and speak whatever beliefs they have, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, and not be punished for those views is what America was founded on. And I don't care if it's homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. If they execute the duties without their personal beliefs interfering, then those personal beliefs don't matter in regards to the job.

And yes, a black man denying a KKK member a job he is qualified for is the same as a KKK member denying a black man a job that he is qualified for. They are both being denied a job because of the prejudices that the person doing the hiring has.

Well... I understand the principle of what you're saying.

Let's suppose there's a man who says that if a woman is raped while out at night or while wearing a short skirt, she brought it on herself. Would you hire him into an office environment or workplace populated with women? Would you expect it to go well? Would you expect his views to get in the way of being able to do his job? Jobs are never done in a vaccuum, they're done with all the people you work with.

[maxpowr9]

And yet we don't allow open racists in these positions, or xenophobes. Because it sends the wrong message.

At least now we are wising up to hegemonic men.

[JayHawk]

Ok so I think Hagel will be confirmed after a lengthy process so the Senate can claim they did due diligence. Many gay activist groups have accepted this fact and accepted his apology (however weak) and many have not accepted it and don't like his nomination. However He is nominated and I think he will be confirmed. SO I suppose the outrage can move on to ethics classrooms because I doubt it has sway on Capitol Hill. That aside I read an excellent opinion piece today from David Brooks on the selection of Hagel and the WHY of the selection which is quite shrewd of Obama.

Why Hagel Was Picked

Some of the parts I particularly agree with:

Americans don’t particularly like government, but they do want government to subsidize their health care.

Americans opposed any cuts to Medicare by a margin of 70 percent to 25 percent.

This is the crucial element driving all federal spending over the next few decades and pushing federal debt to about 250 percent of G.D.P. in 30 years

So far, defense budgets have not been squeezed by the Medicare vise. But that is about to change.

Europeans, who are ahead of us in confronting that decision, have chosen welfare over global power.

According to the Government Accountability Office, if we act on entitlements today, we will still have to cut federal spending by 32 percent and raise taxes by 46 percent over the next 75 years to meet current obligations.

How, in short, will Hagel supervise the beginning of America’s military decline? If members of Congress don’t want America to decline militarily, well, they have no one to blame but the voters and themselves.

We will experience decline in Military efficacy and plenty of folks here and elsewhere agree we should. The military saw this a few years back when, for instance, we focused on building coalitions of navies to expand our reach in a soft instead of hard manner. While I am a proponent of national healthcare, the writing is on the wall and Europe offers an excellent demonstration of what capabilities you can lose without the appropriate focus.

SO anyways give the article a read... it is a very big picture that our congress is turning into a Picasso sans talent.

[maxpowr9]

^I think the other problem that is related to Hagel is that Israel is about to elect its "Romney" for PM which will posit disastrous results.

[tigerfan482]

That's absolute and utter bullshit. Persecution of discrimination is NOT discrimination, it's a response, and always has been. And the rest of your argument is what people were saying about Romney - "yeah, he's gonna fist gay people with a chainsaw, but he'll be ever so good for the economy!"

But we're not arguing discrimination. Discrimination is translating thoughts or ideas into actions against people, and as I've said in almost every other post I've made, that's not cool. But answering what you view to be discriminatory ideas (him saying he was against the nomination of someone to an ambassador post because he was aggressively gay) with discrimination (saying because of his beliefs which are unrelated to the post he is being nominated for is reason for him not to be nominated) is discrimination. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not protest racism by displaying racism towards white people that were racist. He fought to lift up those that were discriminated against, not drag down those that were discriminating. Granted, as you lift up those that are being discriminated against, it almost always follows that those doing the discriminating are marginalized, but the goal should be the former and not the latter.

Romney's views on the gay community were valid because the office he was running for would have a direct effect on us. Thus, his personal views could very easily translate into discrimination that gets codified into law or practice via pushed legislation or executive orders.

But you are going to have your beliefs and I am going to have mine. I don't view Chuck Hagel as a proponent of gay rights and I don't think he is necessarily the best friend of the gay community. We'll have to see what he says in his confirmation hearings when this issue is brought up to see if he can put aside his personal beliefs in order to execute the duties of the office within the law. If he can't do that, then I don't view him as an acceptable candidate for the position. But aside from that, I don't think his personal views on gays have anything to do with the job he has been nominated for.

[TX-Beau]

But we're not arguing discrimination. Discrimination is translating thoughts or ideas into actions against people, and as I've said in almost every other post I've made, that's not cool. But answering what you view to be discriminatory ideas (him saying he was against the nomination of someone to an ambassador post because he was aggressively gay) with discrimination (saying because of his beliefs which are unrelated to the post he is being nominated for is reason for him not to be nominated) is discrimination. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not protest racism by displaying racism towards white people that were racist. He fought to lift up those that were discriminated against, not drag down those that were discriminating. Granted, as you lift up those that are being discriminated against, it almost always follows that those doing the discriminating are marginalized, but the goal should be the former and not the latter.

Romney's views on the gay community were valid because the office he was running for would have a direct effect on us. Thus, his personal views could very easily translate into discrimination that gets codified into law or practice via pushed legislation or executive orders.

But you are going to have your beliefs and I am going to have mine. I don't view Chuck Hagel as a proponent of gay rights and I don't think he is necessarily the best friend of the gay community. We'll have to see what he says in his confirmation hearings when this issue is brought up to see if he can put aside his personal beliefs in order to execute the duties of the office within the law. If he can't do that, then I don't view him as an acceptable candidate for the position. But aside from that, I don't think his personal views on gays have anything to do with the job he has been nominated for.

(emphasis mine)

Well how about voting to say we can't get married, voting to ensure employers EVERYWHERE could FIRE ALL of us just for being gay? You are still conveniently ignoring the man's ACTUAL record as a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL.

Is that just some unfortunate turn of phrase? Fuck no that meets even your precious definition of "discrimination."

What you are trying to do is push the fallacy of fuzzy moral relativism. I'll admit, that nonsense came from the left - but even leaving aside that high government officials have ample opportunity to be hateful bigots no matter what the law says or their job description - it's still very different to OBJECT to a man whose ACTIONS in another high government office were DIRECTLY discriminatory WITH INTENT of bigotry - that he NEVER apologized for or indeed even said was unfortunate.

Tolerance DOES NOT mean accept anything - tolerance is accepting that people are different, it does not mean that any old kind of behavior is to be supported - and BTW they DID call MLK a racist, and frankly aimed the very argument you are trying to push AT the civil rights movement.

You are trying to equate the blanket contempt he had for ALL OF US AS A GROUP that he went into government AND TRIED TO MAKE THE LAW OF THE LAND - with some of us disliking PUTTING BACK IN PUBLIC OFFICE ONE SPECIFIC BIGOT.

No, they are not the same, they never have been, if you think that's just like what he tried to do, point out to me where I said all Hagels everywhere don't deserve equality before the law, then marched off to congress and tried to make it happen.

Right.

[tigerfan482]

(emphasis mine)

Well how about voting to say we can't get married, voting to ensure employers EVERYWHERE could FIRE ALL of us just for being gay? You are still conveniently ignoring the man's ACTUAL record as a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL.

Is that just some unfortunate turn of phrase? Fuck no that meets even your precious definition of "discrimination."

What you are trying to do is push the fallacy of fuzzy moral relativism. I'll admit, that nonsense came from the left - but even leaving aside that high government officials have ample opportunity to be hateful bigots no matter what the law says or their job description - it's still very different to OBJECT to a man whose ACTIONS in another high government office were DIRECTLY discriminatory WITH INTENT of bigotry - that he NEVER apologized for or indeed even said was unfortunate.

Tolerance DOES NOT mean accept anything - tolerance is accepting that people are different, it does not mean that any old kind of behavior is to be supported - and BTW they DID call MLK a racist, and frankly aimed the very argument you are trying to push AT the civil rights movement.

You are trying to equate the blanket contempt he had for ALL OF US AS A GROUP that he went into government AND TRIED TO MAKE THE LAW OF THE LAND - with some of us disliking PUTTING BACK IN PUBLIC OFFICE ONE SPECIFIC BIGOT.

No, they are not the same, they never have been, if you think that's just like what he tried to do, point out to me where I said all Hagels everywhere don't deserve equality before the law, then marched off to congress and tried to make it happen.

Right.

I would like you to show me the voting record you're going off of. Hagel never voted on anything related to gay marriage. In fact, he was on record as being opposed to a federal amendment defining marriage. This was in light of the fact he was personally against gay marriage. As far as any other voting he has done in relation to anything gay-related, the only two votes he made were basically the same vote when he voted against adding homosexuality to the considerations for federal hate crime prosecution in 2000 and 2002. There were no votes made by him for federal anti-disrimination laws in the workplace. In fact, there are no other votes he took while in office that related at all to homosexuals. (Here is a link to his voting record. I haven't been through all votes yet, but I have yet to find anything other than the two above mentioned votes that relate to the gay community.)

It's this lack of a trail of official acts that makes me wonder why people are portraying this guy as being some extreme homophobe when all it seems like is this guy pandering to his constituency. You haven't heard a single word out of him on any gay issues since he left office, save an apology for the remarks he made and said that he was "fully supportive of "open service" and committed to LGBT military families." You haven't even waited to hear his confirmation hearing testimony. Assuming that he was this gay-hating bigot that everyone is saying he is, he may have had a change of attitude since he left office. He is not the first public figure to have done that.

As for everything else you mentioned:

- There is no fallacy of moral relativism as the fallacy of relativism applies only to objective facts, of which morals are not considered.
- Tolerance means accepting people have different views and that they are allowed to have those views even if they don't line up with what you believe is right.
- Yes, the racists did call MLK a racists, but I've seen no scholarly source ever that has presented MLK as racist.
- I don't see blanket contempt from him towards gay people. There is almost no voting record to back this claim up. I see a politician who stated his position on several issues in order to pander to his constituency but that never turned any of that into action. I have seen a situation in which Chuck Hagel seized on a person's perceived weakness of being gay and tried to use it to disqualify him from a position that it had nothing to do with (remind you of any other situations?) In fact, if you read what transpired in that confirmation hearing, Hagel was actually very reserved in his remarks.
- While not stated directly, I am sure that anyone who has taken any position or expressed any anti-gay sentiment wouldn't be qualified in your book to be the Secretary of Defense.

[rareboy]

Ultimately...after considering this over the last week and reading about the pros and cons to his nomination, I have come to the grudging conclusion that if no one like him...he probably will be the best person for the job.

[JayHawk]

^I think the other problem that is related to Hagel is that Israel is about to elect its "Romney" for PM which will posit disastrous results.

I honestly think that it can only be a positive for Israel to act against our wishes and for us to not rush the castle to defend our fair middle eastern maiden. I dont mean against invasion or such but a minor daily scuffle in that region, if we were to remain aloof then Israel would realize they cannot be so fucking belligerent always.

[JayHawk]

Ultimately...after considering this over the last week and reading about the pros and cons to his nomination, I have come to the grudging conclusion that if no one like him...he probably will be the best person for the job.

I concur to a degree. Although correct that he will make a shit ton of decisions related to how gays serve in the military, I believe it hardly matters. The bottom line is every ounce of objection to getting benefits is built upon DOMA. As soon as it falls so does the benefits obstruction in the military. It is hardly a Hagel decision anymore than desegregating the military is a decision he could make.

Bottom line is for the task at hand he is probably the only person for the job.

[chrisrobin]

^I think the other problem that is related to Hagel is that Israel is about to elect its "Romney" for PM which will posit disastrous results.

We need to give Israel more credit than that - electing its own Romney? All the trees are not the right size in Israel, my friend.

[chrisrobin]

.
I am in favor of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. I can't hold him responsible for something he said more than 15 years ago. The times have changed. The late Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK. He changed - for the better. Besides, Barney Frank favors Hagel.

[Kulindahr]

I question that 20 years ago many of us entertained the equality agenda we hold now. Long past remarks are being judged by a modern standard. No matter what the extent of his conversion the equality train has left the station and he will be sworn to uphold it.

Heck, twenty years ago I was still laboring under the conviction that sex was an unpleasant duty for procreation.

[Kulindahr]

- There is no fallacy of moral relativism

That's an interesting but unsettling argument. If there's no fallacy of moral relativism, then stoning women in the streets in Pakistan is just as moral as rescuing children from a fire in Portugal.

Which is patently implausible.

[Kulindahr]

Many of the hawks in DC are frantically against him, which is a good reason to be for him.

[xbuzzerx]

I honestly think that it can only be a positive for Israel to act against our wishes and for us to not rush the castle to defend our fair middle eastern maiden. I dont mean against invasion or such but a minor daily scuffle in that region, if we were to remain aloof then Israel would realize they cannot be so fucking belligerent always.

I agree. Nothing would calm them down faster than us pointedly not supporting them the next time they posture aggressively.

[tigerfan482]

That's an interesting but unsettling argument. If there's no fallacy of moral relativism, then stoning women in the streets in Pakistan is just as moral as rescuing children from a fire in Portugal.

Which is patently implausible.

The fallacy of relativism requires that something be an objective truth before you can subjectively (relatively) apply it to an argument. The fact of the matters is that morals are a product of the person or group of people to which they apply and from which they originate. Even in the cases where people attempt to attach objectivity to them by assigning quantitative measures of good versus bad outcomes, it still becomes subjective to the lens that you apply to it. For example, people can say Chuck Hagel calling someone aggressively gay is outside of an accepted morality because it can be quantitatively demonstrated that it does more harm than good to gay people. However, if you take the quantitative measurements of the good it does for Chuck Hagel from his perspective (keeps him in good graces with his constituents thus keeping him in office, boosts his standing in his political party which holds similar views, etc.) and compare it to the quantitative measurements of the bad it does for Chuck Hagel (makes gays like him less), then it would be considered a moral decision from that perspective.

You can't divorce subjectivity from the idea of something being moral or immoral and thus you can't force them into an objective bucket in order to apply the fallacy of relativism. It is unsettling from the view of someone with a certain set of morals, but it doesn't exist from the view of a logical argument.

[Kulindahr]

I agree. Nothing would calm them down faster than us pointedly not supporting them the next time they posture aggressively.

If Obama does it, the Republicans will scream about throwing Israel under the bus. But the record shows that if anyone has thrown Israel under the bus, it's been the Republicans.

[Kulindahr]

The fallacy of relativism requires that something be an objective truth before you can subjectively (relatively) apply it to an argument. The fact of the matters is that morals are a product of the person or group of people to which they apply and from which they originate. Even in the cases where people attempt to attach objectivity to them by assigning quantitative measures of good versus bad outcomes, it still becomes subjective to the lens that you apply to it. For example, people can say Chuck Hagel calling someone aggressively gay is outside of an accepted morality because it can be quantitatively demonstrated that it does more harm than good to gay people. However, if you take the quantitative measurements of the good it does for Chuck Hagel from his perspective (keeps him in good graces with his constituents thus keeping him in office, boosts his standing in his political party which holds similar views, etc.) and compare it to the quantitative measurements of the bad it does for Chuck Hagel (makes gays like him less), then it would be considered a moral decision from that perspective.

You can't divorce subjectivity from the idea of something being moral or immoral and thus you can't force them into an objective bucket in order to apply the fallacy of relativism. It is unsettling from the view of someone with a certain set of morals, but it doesn't exist from the view of a logical argument.

There is an objective foundation for morals; it rests on the fact of self-ownership. That most people found their morals subjectively does not negate the objective foundation.

[rareboy]

Heck, twenty years ago I was still laboring under the conviction that sex was an unpleasant duty for procreation.

Well thank Goodness you got that cleared up.

[tigerfan482]

There is an objective foundation for morals; it rests on the fact of self-ownership. That most people found their morals subjectively does not negate the objective foundation.

But the "objective fact" of self-ownership is actually subjective external to the individual for which that ownership is considered. So what I consider in reference to my self-ownership to be objective would be entirely subjective to you. Morals require the idea of good and bad to exist and the idea of good and bad is subjective based on the person evaluating the situation. Thus the very foundations of morals are subjective.

[Kulindahr]

But the "objective fact" of self-ownership is actually subjective external to the individual for which that ownership is considered. So what I consider in reference to my self-ownership to be objective would be entirely subjective to you. Morals require the idea of good and bad to exist and the idea of good and bad is subjective based on the person evaluating the situation. Thus the very foundations of morals are subjective.

"Good" and "bad" are not necessary concepts for establishing morals, only reason. Self-ownership leads directly to the "Golden Rule", which is a sufficient base for all moral values.

[tigerfan482]

"Good" and "bad" are not necessary concepts for establishing morals, only reason. Self-ownership leads directly to the "Golden Rule", which is a sufficient base for all moral values.

Good and bad are the very definition of morality. The premise underlying the "Golden Rule" is that I should treat others as I wish to be treated due to the fact that I wish to be treated in such a way that I benefit most (whether it be in money, feelings, property - all of the good) and not in a way in which I benefit the least, or not at all (the bad.)

[Kulindahr]

Good and bad are the very definition of morality. The premise underlying the "Golden Rule" is that I should treat others as I wish to be treated due to the fact that I wish to be treated in such a way that I benefit most (whether it be in money, feelings, property - all of the good) and not in a way in which I benefit the least, or not at all (the bad.)

In other words, the Golden Rule gives us an objective foundation, essentially a contract with others who recognize the same truth.

Morals need not be subjective.

[T-Rexx]

That's some kinda twister you've got going there. You can stretch all you want - fact remains that people who wear pillowcases and "light" crosses are never considered for public office no matter their skill set, yet you seem fine with calling gay people hypocrites for expecting the same consideration.

Anti-Semites don't get to be secretary of the interior, people who hate Asians - can't run the FBI.

Because being a bigot is a disqualifier for every other minority, and NO ONE would nominate said bigot, then you say UNLESS you are a homophobe - then somehow it's peachy keen so long as it "doesn't affect" your job?

Please.

Thank you for this brilliant post, Tex.

I'm sure Chuck Hagel is, in many ways, a fine person. I'm sure he has many excellent qualities that might make him an effective Secretary of Defense.

But, bigotry is a disqualifier. If he had said (even 50 years ago) that the holocaust had never happened or that blacks were not good at mathematics, he would never have been nominated for this position. Period. It wouldn't matter if he had apologized for his remarks. Such statements are career-ending gaffes because they hint at something deeply flawed within the speaker's reasoning process.

But, anti-gay bigots have always gotten a pass. Because, you know, gays don't really matter. Attacking gays is understandable, when you appreciate that faggots are sub-human mistakes who chose to hate America.

I think we deserve a little respect. Not because we are gay, but because we are human. Surely, the president can find some more enlightened individual who could do this job well.

[Rolyo85]

Well, to be fair, gay rights as a movement, and the perception of gay people have seen a drastic change in the last 30-40 years. I am not really excusing the guy, but he is a product of his time, the same way as plantation slave owners were a product of theirs. We live in a world where even developed countries thought homosexuality a crime and a psychological disorder until very recently, and where gay marriage is mostly not legal. To be racist even 50 years ago is unacceptable, but a 100? it's not the same. Howard Lovecraft was a raving racist, and yet he is revered by people of all colors and levels of society.

Which is to say, although homophobia is definitely as bad as racism, society is just now coming to this understanding, and it wasn't there 20 years ago. I don't believe everyone who has ever said something unflattering about gays is a homophobe. I mean, how many of us were the guy cracking gay jokes and making fun of more effeminate boys when we were growing up in the closet?

[xbuzzerx]

I agree with Rolyo... I don't think society should be as unforgiving as it is about someone changing their views and growing or getting with the times. Do any of us with parents who are accepting of our sexuality have parents who were ALWAYS supportive of gay people? I know mine weren't.

However I make the great exception of people who seem to have abruptly switched their view only to match the winds of political advantage. If someone changes their view conveniently right after winning re-election or retiring and are therefore "safe", I have a lot less respect.

[Kulindahr]

I think we deserve a little respect. Not because we are gay, but because we are human. Surely, the president can find some more enlightened individual who could do this job well.

I say it this way to bonehead 'evangelicals':

We are all made in the image of God.

The image of God is due immense respect.

Therefore we are all due immense respect.

[chance1]

Well, to be fair, gay rights as a movement, and the perception of gay people have seen a drastic change in the last 30-40 years. I am not really excusing the guy, but he is a product of his time, the same way as plantation slave owners were a product of theirs. We live in a world where even developed countries thought homosexuality a crime and a psychological disorder until very recently, and where gay marriage is mostly not legal. To be racist even 50 years ago is unacceptable, but a 100? it's not the same. Howard Lovecraft was a raving racist, and yet he is revered by people of all colors and levels of society.

Which is to say, although homophobia is definitely as bad as racism, society is just now coming to this understanding, and it wasn't there 20 years ago. I don't believe everyone who has ever said something unflattering about gays is a homophobe. I mean, how many of us were the guy cracking gay jokes and making fun of more effeminate boys when we were growing up in the closet?

I agree with much of the sentiment here

but the sentiment is totally at odds with your posting history here - your entire personna

so u have made a 180 degree turn

which is it ? what happened ? and what should we expect tomorrow ?

Hagel is a shoo in

[Rolyo85]

You are saying that it's at odds. Doesn't mean that it is, and I don't see any proof or example to back it up. Therefore I don't owe you an explanation

[chance1]

You are saying that it's at odds. Doesn't mean that it is, and I don't see any proof or example to back it up. Therefore I don't owe you an explanation

at odds was understating it

180 nailed it

i will leave it to others to decide for themselves - that's the way it works generally

[Rolyo85]

at odds was understating it

180 nailed it

i will leave it to others to decide for themselves - that's the way it works generally

...for people with nothing but the desire for confrontation. Yes, totally. It's frustrating, isn't it?

[Kulindahr]

I agree with much of the sentiment here

but the sentiment is totally at odds with your posting history here - your entire personna

so u have made a 180 degree turn

which is it ? what happened ? and what should we expect tomorrow ?

Hagel is a shoo in

Sounds like you're fishing for an argument. What's "at odds"?

[chance1]

Sounds like you're fishing for an argument. What's "at odds"?

His live and let live for Hagel here - which I agree with - its an expired story IMO

Is at odds with his entire support gay positions or bust mantra

Which is the basis for all of his posting here

Is all

[Rolyo85]

False. See, unlike you and all the other righties on here, I see nuance, and I make judgments based on specific circumstance. If the guy had said something last month or a year, or five, or even ten ago, then sure, off with his head. But we're talking a time when some of the people arguing on this board were still learning to read, which is a different age as far as understanding of homosexuality is involved.

So you can try to get into a confrontation with me all you want. Does nothing but make you seem petty.

[xbuzzerx]

His live and let live for Hagel here - which I agree with - its an expired story IMO

Is at odds with his entire support gay positions or bust mantra

Which is the basis for all of his posting here

Is all

I believe you are drawing this false equivalency based off the stories you've posted of right wingers who did things like reversed their stance only after winning the safety of a re-election, like that guy in Pennsylvania-- and then we were more wary of our praise in their "change of heart" about an issue.

I don't see inconsistency with Rolyo's position.

[chance1]

So now you're nuanced ?

i suppose a nuanced litmus test is next ? LOL

Let the voters decide

Hahahahaha

Hagel should start picking drapes colors

[Rolyo85]

I'm always nuanced. It's just that you guys never give any nuance in your clown posts to work with ^_^

[Jack Springer]

^^

Does your ego ever take a break?

[Rolyo85]

Nope. Have you ever had one?

[JayHawk]

Give me a fucking break. In 1850 it was perfectly fine to be a ginromous racist and still be a President - so NOW that's fine so long as it doesn't interfere with your "duties?" In No fucking universe is that true.

You know it, I know it - no one who said the same things about black people Hagel said about us would EVER have even been considered. Being a bigot would have disqualified him immediately and there would have been outrage in the black community if the White House pursued it.

Evidently being a black person against the KKK is the same as being a cross burning Grand Dragon in the strange universe you seem to inhabit.

I suspect you took a position without thinking it through and now are just being obstinate because claiming that people who oppose bigotry are just really bigots themselves is frankly stupid.

Seeing as how we are just turning the page legislatively on bigotry against gays and we turned that corner legislatively aginst racism in the 1960's. It then make me wonder if ANY political appointees for cabinet offices in the Sixties had held or previously stated racist remarks.

If of course that is your comparison. If we are to time warp fifty years from now then I might agree with you. However many states have legislated formalize inequality for gays. SO we haven't even turned the page yet nationally.