Howard Dean - Intolerant of Gays?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Having read the article, I can't see any basis for labelling Howard Dean as "intolerant of gays" any more than I can label George Bush as being "intolerant of a secure homeland" because he got a new Homeland Security Dept Inspector General.
 
IglooDude said:
Having read the article, I can't see any basis for labelling Howard Dean as "intolerant of gays" any more than I can label George Bush as being "intolerant of a secure homeland" because he got a new Homeland Security Dept Inspector General.

Agreed. It's a pretty weak charge. It would be nice to see a party like the Democrats embrace LGBTQ issues a little more, but if you're looking to regain the HoR, the senate and the whitehouse, its probably not a good idea to start drawing lines in the sand
 
Che Guava said:
Agreed. It's a pretty weak charge. It would be nice to see a party like the Democrats embrace LGBTQ issues a little more, but if you're looking to regain the HoR, the senate and the whitehouse, its probably not a good idea to start drawing lines in the sand
LGBTQ? What is that?
 
"Queer": A blanket non-straight term
 
Wouldn't change my voting habits anyway.

I decided a couple of years ago that I didn't like the guy much.
 
Well, I can tell Howard Dean is certanly not a Catholic. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches Catholics to accept Gays as regular people and that any unjust discrimination against them is wrong.

Makes me wonder if there is a middle ground party for my views since I do have stances some from the Republican Party as well as the Democratic party :ack:.
 
There's not a shred of evidence Dean's actions were motivated by any anti-gay bias. Furthermore, there's no evidence the person in question was replaced for anything other than job performance issues. There is a general consensus of those "in the know" that the replacement (who is also gay, after all) is simply more qualified and will be better at the job.

This was started by a hot head at Americablog who was a personal friend of the person who got fired. His accusations are baseless and he's been getting called on it (and has responded by mass bannings of anyone criticizing him over it).
 
CivGeneral said:
Well, I can tell Howard Dean is certanly not a Catholic. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches Catholics to accept Gays as regular people and that any unjust discrimination against them is wrong.

Makes me wonder if there is a middle ground party for my views since I do have stances some from the Republican Party as well as the Democratic party :ack:.

Dean's LBGT credentials are superb. He is, after all, the former Vermont Governor who gladly signed the country's first Civil Unions bill into law.

Again, these charges are baseless.
 
From the article

Dean immediately hired gay former Democratic Party operative Brian Bond to replace Hitchcock as executive director of the party's Gay Lesbian Leadership Council, according to DNC spokesperson Karen Finney, who called Bond a "proven leader."

case closed.
 
Only if they are republicans.
 
capslock said:
Only if they are republicans.
That is true. Both parties are hunting down phonies. Democrats hunting down Democrats in Name Only and Republicans hunting down Republicans in Name Only.

This is why I am starting to feel uncomfortable in being eather parties because I do hold Moderate Catholic views, Pro-life and against abortions and the death penalty, against same-gender marrages (I hold a libertarian view on this one), am for worker's rights as well as a minumum living wage.
 
Neomega said:
From the article
"Dean immediately hired gay former Democratic Party operative Brian Bond to replace Hitchcock as executive director of the party's Gay Lesbian Leadership Council, according to DNC spokesperson Karen Finney, who called Bond a "proven leader."

case closed.

:lol:

MobBoss, did you read the entire article or just the headline and then decided to post this?
 
adog said:
Umm, that's the same thing.
Umm, its not the same thing. One can be pro-life on abortions but still support the death penalty and vice-versa. Pro-life does not have to be restricted to just abortions why, even a pro-lifer can be against the death penalty and for abortions.

Pro-life, in my definition, is an umbrella term for the respect and preservation of human life from conception to grave.
 
CivGeneral said:
Umm, its not the same thing. One can be pro-life on abortions but still support the death penalty and vice-versa. Pro-life does not have to be restricted to just abortions why, even a pro-lifer can be against the death penalty and for abortions.

Pro-life, in my definition, is an umbrella term for the respect and preservation of human life from conception to grave.

You're second paragraph just contradicted you're first one.
 
adog said:
You're second paragraph just contradicted you're first one.
Whatever :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom