Ugandan 'Kill The Gays' bill sponsor & his GOP ties

All things outside of Burning Man.
User avatar
neon tetra
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:49 pm

Ugandan 'Kill The Gays' bill sponsor & his GOP ties

Post by neon tetra » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:42 pm

Not sure how many people are familiar with the secretive Washington, DC based group called 'The Family' or the C Street house, but this is just the latest in a long line of shady involvement by them.

Rachel Maddow covered this story over the past 2 days.


Day 1:

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]


Day 2:

[youtube][/youtube]
[img]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c336/earthfragments2/bug.gif[/img]

User avatar
Dr. Pyro
Posts: 4621
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:11 am
Burning Since: 1999
Camp Name: Barbie Death Camp & Wine Bistro
Location: Newcastle, CA
Contact:

Post by Dr. Pyro » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:39 pm

You realize of course that Rachel Maddow has a strong leftist bias, right? How can anything she reports be taken seriously? Her credability leaves something to be desired.

User avatar
neon tetra
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:49 pm

Post by neon tetra » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:43 pm

Yes, her personal views are mainly progressive. Everyone has their opinions.

However, is anything in this interview dishonest or skewed because of her views? In fact, can you provide me with any examples of her personal views getting in the way of her journalism?

(Did you even watch the videos?)
[img]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c336/earthfragments2/bug.gif[/img]

User avatar
Dr. Pyro
Posts: 4621
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:11 am
Burning Since: 1999
Camp Name: Barbie Death Camp & Wine Bistro
Location: Newcastle, CA
Contact:

Post by Dr. Pyro » Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:04 pm

Believe it or not, our filters at work (where I am right now) will not allow YouTube videos, Facebook, etc. so I have not seen them. But would it really matter? I mean, Rachel Maddow? Please. I'm not entirely sure Rachel is even a female.

User avatar
neon tetra
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:49 pm

Post by neon tetra » Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:07 pm

Dr. Pyro wrote:Believe it or not, our filters at work (where I am right now) will not allow YouTube videos, Facebook, etc. so I have not seen them. But would it really matter? I mean, Rachel Maddow? Please. I'm not entirely sure Rachel is even a female.
So you're commenting on something you haven't even seen yet, and now you're making fun of someone's sexuality... on a Burning Man messageboard?? lol

Seriously...you might want to re-think that one. ;)


And again, please cite me one example of her personal views getting in the way of her journalism. Because, unlike most pundits, she knows how to separate the two.
[img]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c336/earthfragments2/bug.gif[/img]

User avatar
Deb Prothero
Posts: 1998
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: St. Thomas, ON, Canada
Contact:

Post by Deb Prothero » Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:35 pm

wow, this is enlightening.

User avatar
gaminwench
Posts: 2787
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:57 am
Burning Since: 1999
Camp Name: DOTA, EoD, OBOP, Destiny Lounge
Location: Shangri-la

Post by gaminwench » Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:47 pm

Now, seriously, Doc...
Rachel Maddow is one smart WOMAN... she may not be 'femme', but that surely does not affect her ability to process political information...
She's definitely progressive; but, isn't it good when intelligent folks put the hard questions to the close-minded??

I'd suggest that you actually watch some of her interviews (or maybe just listen, if you can't deal with a short-haired female in a suit), then make value judgements...
I give her big props for even having a discussion with a man who thinks she should be KILLED because her long-term, committed relationship is with another woman... could you do as much??

... and watch out for DPW 'chicks' - those 'girls' will certainly challenge your delicate gender balance...

User avatar
ygmir
Posts: 29179
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq
Location: nevada county

Post by ygmir » Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:56 pm

why do people, on the "left" refer to themselves as "progressives"?
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan

User avatar
neon tetra
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:49 pm

Post by neon tetra » Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:58 pm

gaminwench wrote:Now, seriously, Doc...
Rachel Maddow is one smart WOMAN... she may not be 'femme', but that surely does not affect her ability to process political information...
She's definitely progressive; but, isn't it good when intelligent folks put the hard questions to the close-minded??

I'd suggest that you actually watch some of her interviews (or maybe just listen, if you can't deal with a short-haired female in a suit), then make value judgements...
I give her big props for even having a discussion with a man who thinks she should be KILLED because her long-term, committed relationship is with another woman... could you do as much??

... and watch out for DPW 'chicks' - those 'girls' will certainly challenge your delicate gender balance...
Thank you. I'm glad at least one person can stick to the topic.
[img]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c336/earthfragments2/bug.gif[/img]

User avatar
Deb Prothero
Posts: 1998
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: St. Thomas, ON, Canada
Contact:

Post by Deb Prothero » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:05 pm

ygmir wrote:why do people, on the "left" refer to themselves as "progressives"?
good question, ygmir. My impression is that conservatives prefer to resist change and stick with what they believe is the tried and true.

Possibly the left refer to themselves as progressives to differentiate themselves from that aspect of conservative thought. Given that the term "liberal" has been denigrated so much as to become an ineffective term, some other word needed to be found as an identifier.

User avatar
neon tetra
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:49 pm

Post by neon tetra » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Deb Prothero wrote:wow, this is enlightening.
It really is. 'The Family'/C Street is a topic that Rachel has done some amazing journalism on. She's also done some great work on exposing Blackwater/Xe.
[img]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c336/earthfragments2/bug.gif[/img]

User avatar
ygmir
Posts: 29179
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq
Location: nevada county

Post by ygmir » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:10 pm

Thanks Deb.

I guess I can see that.
So,
left and right, are still ok.
but,
Leftists want to replace "liberal" with "progressive"?
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan

User avatar
Dr. Pyro
Posts: 4621
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:11 am
Burning Since: 1999
Camp Name: Barbie Death Camp & Wine Bistro
Location: Newcastle, CA
Contact:

Post by Dr. Pyro » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:13 pm

The best response I can give (and please Neon Tetra, you don't know me but I try and have a sense of humor over here, m'kay?) is that taking what Maddow says at face value would be like me asking you to listen to Rush Limbaugh for his enlightening commentary. You, I am willing to bet, never listen to him because you dismiss him out of hand because his political agenda is different than yours. That's how I feel about Maddow. She is kind of cute when she has her make-up on, but I digress.

User avatar
neon tetra
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:49 pm

Post by neon tetra » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:15 pm

ygmir, watch the interview. It's pretty crazy, not only that this is going on in this day & age... but that it's essentially being pushed by U.S. politicians.


But, they HAVE TO kill the gays, "to protect the children". :?
[img]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c336/earthfragments2/bug.gif[/img]

User avatar
Deb Prothero
Posts: 1998
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: St. Thomas, ON, Canada
Contact:

Post by Deb Prothero » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:16 pm

Dr. Pyro wrote:The best response I can give (and please Neon Tetra, you don't know me but I try and have a sense of humor over here, m'kay?) is that taking what Maddow says at face value would be like me asking you to listen to Rush Limbaugh for his enlightening commentary. You, I am willing to bet, never listen to him because you dismiss him out of hand because his political agenda is different than yours. That's how I feel about Maddow. She is kind of cute when she has her make-up on, but I digress.
It's unfortunate to watch the polarization of information gathering by US voters. Surely it is wise to listen to both sides of an issue prior to defining one's own position. And yes, I have listened to Rush Limbaugh but since he is not a news broadcaster I take his words in the context in which they are broadcast: entertainment.

User avatar
neon tetra
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:49 pm

Post by neon tetra » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:20 pm

Dr. Pyro wrote:The best response I can give (and please Neon Tetra, you don't know me but I try and have a sense of humor over here, m'kay?) is that taking what Maddow says at face value would be like me asking you to listen to Rush Limbaugh for his enlightening commentary.
But I'm not asking you to "take what Maddow says at face value".
In fact, don't listen to her at all.
How about listening to the man she's interviewing; the man who is sponsoring a bill that would make homosexuality an offense punishable by AT LEAST life in prison, and perhaps death. Even knowing a homosexual will get you thrown in jail. He doesn't even deny this; he just says it's "to protect the children" and that Uganda "has different values".
And then, as if this wasn't bad enough, he's actually a member of 'The Family', which is a Washington, DC based group, whose membership includes several U.S. congresspeople.

And, no. Your analogy of her & Limbaugh isn't accurate. He continually makes up his own facts to push his agenda. She, in contrast, is an actual journalist. She doesn't hide her personal views, but they also don't get in the way of her journalism. And when she is in error, she humbly admits it and offers a retraction.
[img]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c336/earthfragments2/bug.gif[/img]

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Posts: 9305
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 9:45 pm
Burning Since: 2003
Camp Name: BRC Weekly
Contact:

Post by Eric » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:24 pm

ygmir wrote:why do people, on the "left" refer to themselves as "progressives"?
It's a historical term: "Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action.".

It's not something new & modern, its been used in its current meaning in the US for well over 100 years, it's just that our lousy education system barely touches on it.

There were once Progressive Republican's (like Teddy Roosevelt) as well as Democrat's, just like there were once Liberal Republicans (like Nelson Rockefeller). It's only been since Nixon & the calcification of the political parties that they've been cleaved to one side (though there are still Conservative Democrats).
It's a camping trip in the desert, not the redemption of the fallen world - Cryptofishist

Regarding Scammers & Scalpers
Please read above link for all official information.

Eric ShutterSlut
Ass't Editor, BRC Weekly

User avatar
Deb Prothero
Posts: 1998
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: St. Thomas, ON, Canada
Contact:

Post by Deb Prothero » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:29 pm

Homosexuality remains an issue that divides people. Since it is a fact of nature, there is nothing any of us can do to determine in advance what our sexuality will be.

To prosecute and sentence people to life in jail or death for a function of nature seems a harsh elucidation of homophobia.

User avatar
Deb Prothero
Posts: 1998
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: St. Thomas, ON, Canada
Contact:

Post by Deb Prothero » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:30 pm

Thanks for clarifying, Eric. I wasn't aware of the historical context of the US example.

User avatar
ygmir
Posts: 29179
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq
Location: nevada county

Post by ygmir » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:38 pm

dang, that's some crazy stuff alright.
and, IIRC, it's not confined to Uganda? Is/was it not that way in much of the mid-east, as well?
foogin people.
yeah, there's perverts, from both sides of the fence.
if they screw with kids, I'm ok with hanging them.
but, there are mostly good folks, on each side of the fence.
look at the person, not where they're standing.

But, that's just me.

Eric:
yeah, I get that.
And, agree.........Part of why, it's so hard, to pigeon hole people, depending on what label they choose,or, you choose for them.
If I understand, a "progressive republican" might be called a "liberal"?
But, a leftist, might also be called a "liberal"?
and, vice versa for conservative democrat, etc.

shit heels, are just that.
People so often, want to paint the whole place with a very wide brush.

I think Maddow, is cute.

so, one might wonder:
what, if anything, is to be done about Uganda, and this person?
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan

User avatar
Deb Prothero
Posts: 1998
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: St. Thomas, ON, Canada
Contact:

Post by Deb Prothero » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:49 pm

ygmir wrote: dang, that's some crazy stuff alright.
and, IIRC, it's not confined to Uganda? Is/was it not that way in much of the mid-east, as well?
Some middle eastern countries still criminalize homosexuality. Iran is one that I know of, for sure.
ygmir wrote: foogin people.
yeah, there's perverts, from both sides of the fence.
if they screw with kids, I'm ok with hanging them.
Abuse of children, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is criminal. Prosecution of offenders has started to happen but for a long, long time, abuse was underreported, ignored and not dealt with.
ygmir wrote: but, there are mostly good folks, on each side of the fence.
look at the person, not where they're standing.

But, that's just me.
me, too.
ygmir wrote: I think Maddow, is cute.
I thought she was a journalist?
ygmir wrote: so, one might wonder:
what, if anything, is to be done about Uganda, and this person?
Not sure what people can DO except to be aware. I suppose we could all write to representatives and ask them to censure Uganda at the UN for holding this view. We could accept that homosexuals from these countries truly are refugees since they are running from likely death if they stay where they are. We can open our countries' borders as a safe haven.

User avatar
geekster
Posts: 4867
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
Contact:

Re: Ugandan 'Kill The Gays' bill sponsor & his GOP ties

Post by geekster » Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:17 pm

neon tetra wrote:Not sure how many people are familiar with the secretive Washington, DC based group called 'The Family' or the C Street house, but this is just the latest in a long line of shady involvement by them.

Rachel Maddow covered this story over the past 2 days.

If Maddow covered it then it *must* be true.

/sarc
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.

User avatar
neon tetra
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:49 pm

Re: Ugandan 'Kill The Gays' bill sponsor & his GOP ties

Post by neon tetra » Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:22 pm

geekster wrote:
If Maddow covered it then it *must* be true.

/sarc
We already addressed this topic, genius.

You can watch the interview & completely ignore her. Just listen to the man she is interviewing; the man that is sponsoring the bill that would make homosexuality punishable by AT LEAST life in prison, and possibly death.
[img]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c336/earthfragments2/bug.gif[/img]

User avatar
neon tetra
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:49 pm

Post by neon tetra » Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:27 pm

The ignorance on this messageboard is truly astonishing.
[img]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c336/earthfragments2/bug.gif[/img]

User avatar
Deb Prothero
Posts: 1998
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: St. Thomas, ON, Canada
Contact:

Post by Deb Prothero » Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:38 pm

neon tetra wrote:The ignorance on this messageboard is truly astonishing.
kinda like knocking your head on a brick wall...wish it were different but it is what it is. I participate sporadically 'cause I can't be bothered to deal with the ones who attack the messenger instead of debating the topic.

Debate is a topic which is taught in most civilized countries. Not sure how long it's been off the curriculum in the US but the effects are evident.

User avatar
geekster
Posts: 4867
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
Contact:

Post by geekster » Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:06 pm

Actually the entire thread is ridiculous. To make a headline that says a US political party is in any way tied to this ... ANY US political party, is pure hyperbole.

And to answer someone else's question, the modern or neo-progressive is really about placing more control into the hands of unelected lifetime bureaucrats and removing the elected officials from responsibility. So we see things like CARB in California where they write and vet their own regulations and are their own appeal path. None of their regulations must be approved by elected officials and the people can not throw out the leadership of the organization. They are basically responsible to nobody but themselves. Same with things like EPA at the federal level. The idea is to extract the elected officials from the process so they can't be held responsible and stack the bureaucracies with members of the apparatchik.

So when a Democrat fires all appointees in a department (such as when Clinton did in the DoJ when he fired every single US Attorney), that is seen as a good thing, yet if a Republican fires even one, (such as when Bush in his entire two terms fired eight US Attorneys) it is some sort of huge scandal. The idea is for the left to stack the deck and to scream bloody murder if the Republicans remove even one of their appointees.

The modern "progressive" has nothing to do with the classical "progressive" of the US Progressive era (turn of the century). Modern progressives use the term as used by late Soviet propaganda where a leftist government was described as "progressive" while a government based more on principles of individual liberty was described as "reactionary".

Individual liberty makes a neo-progressive's head explode. They are not the least bit comfortable with individuals deciding for themselves what to do with their own resources and such things a free markets. They need to control and regulate everything. One interesting feature of the neo-progressive is their absolute phobia of anyone who has "too much" of anything. They often position themselves to be some sort of advocate for the poor and set out to create as many poor as possible. They are also set on "punishing" "the rich" or anyone who has been successful on their own without the assistance, guidance, and approval of the regulatory apparatus. In short, they are basically tyrants who would have your entire life regulated from central authority and who would decide how much of anything is "too much" and how much of your stuff should be taken to be given away.

There are always, in any society, more "have nots" than "haves". It is *always* politically easier to create a class of people dependent on the bureaucrat than it is to create an independent population who does not rely on the bureaucrat. And so we have the destruction of private insurance, people living their entire lives on food stamps, and various other "programs", while the government does what it can to make sure that things never get so good that people don't need those programs.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.

User avatar
geekster
Posts: 4867
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
Contact:

Post by geekster » Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:08 pm

neon tetra wrote:The ignorance on this messageboard is truly astonishing.
Actually, I find your condescension and patronizing truly astonishing.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.

User avatar
neon tetra
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:49 pm

Post by neon tetra » Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:10 pm

geekster wrote:Actually the entire thread is ridiculous. To make a headline that says a US political party is in any way tied to this ... ANY US political party, is pure hyperbole.
Actually, it's a fact. The pseudo-religious-organization known as 'The Family' has several members that are GOP congresspeople, and they push their disgusting agenda on various issues around the world.
Do a bit of research before you spew your ignorance.
[img]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c336/earthfragments2/bug.gif[/img]

User avatar
ygmir
Posts: 29179
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq
Location: nevada county

Post by ygmir » Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:23 pm

Deb Prothero wrote:
neon tetra wrote:The ignorance on this messageboard is truly astonishing.
kinda like knocking your head on a brick wall...wish it were different but it is what it is. I participate sporadically 'cause I can't be bothered to deal with the ones who attack the messenger instead of debating the topic.

Debate is a topic which is taught in most civilized countries. Not sure how long it's been off the curriculum in the US but the effects are evident.

edit, because, what I wrote is probably not so nice, and, the above sort of makes my point, anyway.

NT:

you can't seriously, expect to paint the entire right wing/rep./conservative/"notprogressive", side of the isle with that brush, even if a couple are associated, as you say.
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan

User avatar
neon tetra
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:49 pm

Post by neon tetra » Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:31 pm

I think it's more about people not even reading through a thread, but still adding their sliver of ignorance.

As for the U.S./Canadian thing... having spent time in both countries, I honestly think the Canadians are generally at least a *bit* better when it comes to discussing political issues. Even with complete strangers. Same goes for folks in many European countries.
The U.S. seems to have much more of a sports-like mentality when it comes to politics; my team vs. yours. I guess the 24 hour cable news channels are at least partly to blame for this.
[img]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c336/earthfragments2/bug.gif[/img]

Post Reply

Return to “Open Discussion”