What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Geek Squad employee sings for Best Buy in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Valerie DeAngelo explains the moment she got the casting call.
483 Comments
- ReasonWinsOut, on 04/13/2009, -19/+322An excellent piece.
One of my favorite parts FTA: "Lest we forget, our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, grants the same rights to everyone in this country—'All men are created equal.' If you think certain rights should not apply to certain people, then you are saying those people are not equal. People may always have a difference of opinion on certain lifestyles, but championing a position that wants to treat people unequally isn't just un-Republican. At its fundamental core, it's un-American."
THANK YOU, Megan McCain, for saying exactly what I've been saying for many years. I was once a Republican (in high school). But when I started to realize how un-Republican and, in some ways, un-American the party has become--particularly when I realized what a dangerously strong stranglehold religious zealots have on the party--I had no choice but to seek answers elsewhere. - ironhide, on 04/13/2009, -23/+228"President Obama, for instance, is also against gay marriage—a dirty little secret many of my gay friends were shocked to discover during the presidential campaign. But you’d never know it because he always "sounds" so inclusive."
Partially accurate. He is personally against it but he is also not allowing his beliefs to interfere. - clvngodess, on 04/13/2009, -5/+179Actually, this wasn't a dirty secret. He was quite open about it.
- AgeofMastery, on 04/13/2009, -7/+160The leaders of the Republican Party must be as scared of the next generation of Republicans as they are of the Democrats.
- novenator, on 04/13/2009, -6/+106Megan McCain started speaking out against the extremists who run the Republican Party a month or two ago. Of course, they immediately started attacking her, following the goose-stepping tradition typical of their party: attack any and all dissent on a personal level.
- Thorthewhore, on 04/14/2009, -6/+104Obama was actually against Proposition 8 unlike John McCain who endorsed it. Funny Meg forgot to mention it in memo.
- HookmasterCH47, on 04/14/2009, -1/+76All men are created equal, even if they are super fabulous.
- freedomjoe, on 04/13/2009, -15/+89The problem with her suggestion (and this doesn't surprise me since Megan is a new Republican) is that conservatism strives to maintain the status quo, whereas liberalism strives for equality and pragmatic solutions.
She's basically trying to urge the GOP to be something which is can't be. I applaud her efforts, but were they to adopt her platform suggestions, they would have to start from scratch. They would lose the conservatives and the religious right. In the long run, if they went back to being the party of ideas, they could pull this off, but this would never be a conservative platform. She's using logic with them about the constitution, but by definition, conservatism is less interested in facts and pragmatic solutions than it is in maintaining the status quo. that's why it's run by the rich white men of this country. - Anomaly100, on 04/13/2009, -8/+63FTA:
"Personal freedoms are what makes this country the greatest country in the world. And just like the civil-rights and feminist movements before this, the movement toward gay equality and gay marriage is one I have absolute faith will triumph over prejudices. Moreover, I believe the Republican Party has, at this moment, the opportunity to come forward and play an instrumental role in securing gay rights. That's why I'm speaking at the Log Cabin convention and couldn't be prouder to be doing so. And yes, I'm still a Republican. Get used to it."
It's so rare that I find myself agreeing with a Repub these days, but Ms McCain at least doesn't sound antiquated in her beliefs. Personally, I don't want a one party system. Three would be nice, but the GOP need to step up, or they'll be left behind. - seltaeb4, on 04/14/2009, -12/+60The GOP has always been gay. Getting them to come out of the closet has been another story.
- Anomaly100, on 04/13/2009, -4/+48Yeah, The Declaration of Independence: "all men are created equal", however in the world of the Repubs, some are created equaler. (I can make up words! Equalerer, the most equalest!) :-)
- normlsparky, on 04/14/2009, -4/+48"And yes, I'm still a Republican. Get used to it."
I think a lot of Republicans will be struggling with that. - dmbchris, on 04/14/2009, -3/+41the GOP in a nutshell: Government is bad, unless it's telling you how to have sex or putting you in jail.
- Zong, on 04/13/2009, -2/+38yah my Gay friends knew about it when they voted for him, weirdly enough they voted for Obama because Biden was on the ticket.
- inactive, on 04/14/2009, -3/+38Well, she's kinda right. Except forgot to add that MOST Republican beliefs today go against "conservative" values.
Conservatism traditionally doesn't mean some uptight religious dick who hates abortions and loves to attack other countries. It basically means... small government, following the constitution very closely, and support for smaller business (read: non-corporate). It means conservative in terms of political influence, not "oh, that girl won't give me a BJ, she's too conservative." The reason they have traditionally held lenient terms of guns is because... *drum roll* 2nd amendment allows it. Which is odd since that's pretty much the only right of ours they seem to support anymore.
Now, all of those traditional values are out the window on pretty much 99% of all "Republicans" in office today. The reason Ron Paul stood out (and I'm not a Ron Paul fanboy by any means) is because his views are what Republicans SHOULD be, although he has a slight lean to the libertarian side.
Many now pander to the religious right, or pretend to be highly religious. Or if they are, they blindly let their faith intervene in their political decisions "Abortions are bad, it goes against god", instead of "Right to personal liberty, happiness, privacy, etc" (aka: mind your own business if it doesn't remotely affect you, and no, your religious beliefs aren't covered in that) which is how it should be.
The government grew beyond imaginable bounds while Bush was in office, primarily because of 9/11. We have a lot of BS in place as a result, for example, Department of Homeland Security. Give me a breaaaak. ATF, formed under Nixon, another pointless department. Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms? Really? Why do we need a department for ANY of those, especially alcohol/tobacco?!
Then there was the odd switch that happened in this century. Lincoln was Republican, the proper kind of Republican. Trust me, no Republican today would end slavery if it were up to them. In fact, they probably would've called those trying to rebel and free the slaves "terrorists" of some sort.
Basically, the whole reason this country was founded was to get away from ridiculous rules and pointless forms of control. To have a place where people just live and let live.
TL;DR
"Republicans" in office today aren't Republicans. - theaceoffire, on 04/14/2009, -1/+35Hell, I don't consider most "Republicans" to be Republican. Most don't actually want conservative spending policies, they just want the massive spending to be in fields that *they* approve... Controlling children, sex lives, building the military, etc.
- xerocorrupt, on 04/14/2009, -0/+33Conservatives stand for as much individual liberty as possible and the least amount of government intervention. Then why do they oppose gay marriage and the right for a women to choose? I've always thought those are some of the biggest hypocritical stances in politics today. So, conservatives are against government regulation in the private sector, unless it is regarding issues that annoy the religious zealots who have their party in a stranglehold? Doesn't make any sense.
Hats off to Megan for showing some common sense. - JigoroKano, on 04/14/2009, -0/+32It could be more accurate. Obama is against gay marriage, but for civil unions. Hillary was the same way.
Only Richardson (among the Dems) was against civil unions. Kucinich and Gravel were the most for gay rights.
Interestingly enough, even Bush came to be against gay marriage, but for civil unions for the 2004 election.
That seems to be the most politically tenable position for people without balls. - dOOBiEx213, on 04/14/2009, -1/+32Four legs good, two legs better.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. - Chicken2nite, on 04/14/2009, -2/+33I dugg this, but now I must bury you to hell for having not only submitted a dirty dupe (3 hours after the original submission) but you submitted a link to the second page of the article, which is just annoying.
http://digg.com/politics/Memo_to_the_GOP_Go_Gay_Th ...
You even spelled her name wrong. - nightsweat, on 04/14/2009, -4/+34The next generation of Republicans? What, all 12 of them?
- neilschelly, on 04/14/2009, -3/+33Your paragraph makes perfect sense if you assume that "conservative" has something to do with social values. It's supposed to have to do with limited "conservative" government. She's not asking the GOP to be something it's not meant to be. She's looking for it to stop being something it was never meant to be. Religious and social intolerance is actually quite at odds with a party that says it supports personal freedom and limited government intervention in lives.
I support any and all efforts to make the GOP return to its roots. It's the single best way to get an actual choice in the next election(s).
-N - Hetman, on 04/13/2009, -5/+30I dunno it can go both ways. I know there are plenty of fiscal conservatives out there who hate all the social conservatism of there party. However the last 8 years there has been many republicans who vote basically on social conservatism idea's. The question is are they going to gain more voters if they start being more open to gay marriage, or are they going to lose moer voters.
- charm803, on 04/14/2009, -5/+30Someone sent me a friend request about a GNP starting. Guess they are anxious to get rid of the bigots and outdated croonies running their party.
It's unAMERICAN to treat Americans as second class and unCHRISTIAN to be judging others.
Good for Megan McCain. Looks like she thinks before she talks, glad she put her party in their place. - clvngodess, on 04/13/2009, -3/+28We have to remember that the faction that has essentially destroyed the Repubs is a radical faction. There are decent people who have some good values that happen to be Republican. Those other folks, like Tea Bag Pinkies Up Fetishists are radicals. They do not represent Republican values or mores. I don't know what they are, but I do know that when I see crazy walking down the sidewalk at me, to cross the street.
- Treason, on 04/14/2009, -5/+29You don't have to follow suit, I never considered the Bush Administration Republican. True Republicans are for limited constitutional government and free markets. Not mass government spending and occupying countries which are in civil wars (Iraq).
- malex, on 04/14/2009, -0/+23I don't think anyone, anywhere, has suggested that same-sex marriage would force conservative churches to perform gay weddings.
- Loonacy, on 04/14/2009, -0/+22You might not like it, but "True Republicans" right now are the neocons. True Conservatives need to either take back their party or find another one, because the Republican party has been taken over.
- sciencelovesyou, on 04/14/2009, -3/+24I like the use of dogs and children to illustrate a point involving consenting adults.
The problem is that the people against these things think the world revolves around them.
"Oh, someone, somewhere, who ISN'T ME, wants to get gay married! Gadzooks, my marriage just fell apart, I lost my job and, oh *****, now I AM GAY."
If this was really a matter of just wanting to preserve marriage, but not wanting to make it seem like it was "about the gays" perhaps those folks should just consider, gasp, NOT GETTING GAY-HITCHED! - secrity, on 04/14/2009, -1/+21Myself, and all of the other gay people I know, simply voted against the Republicans. Biden being on the ticket was a Good Thing because he has a lot of international relations experience, and at the time it seemed that international relations would be the one overriding issue facing Obama.
- inactive, on 04/13/2009, -10/+30I love Megan McCain. If there were more people like her in charge of the Republican party, maybe they could gain more traction and take back the government!
The government really should just have a civil union contracts for whoever wants it, in my opinion. It should be up to specific churches if they want to conduct their own marriage ceremonies. - paidhima, on 04/14/2009, -2/+21Obama was against redefining the religious meaning of marriage, as it violates freedom of speech. In other words, he would not force churches to perform or acknowledge gay marriage. He was for civil unions as, legally speaking, homosexuals are entitled to the same rights and privileges enjoyed by the rest of the population.
While I would have loved to see Obama come out and say straight up that yes, he is for gay marriage, I can respect his opinion. - c010rb1indusa, on 04/14/2009, -1/+201.Tradition is not a reason to keep gays from marrying because not everyone has to adopt your "tradition" of marriage.
2.Tradition of marriage changes every 50 years or so. Pre 1900 almost all marriages were arranged, people didn't get married because they were in love with each other and usually the woman had no say. Pre 1950, interracial couples were not "traditional" either and illegal. So you can't play the tradition argument unless you want to go back to what marriage was for the last 2000 years instead of the last 50.
3. Gays weren't even allowed to be part of society yet alone get married 50 years ago. So to say that gays can't get married because marriage has always been between a man and a woman is like saying in 1865 that blacks can't be CEOs because they've been farmworkers for the last 200 years. - deathandtaverns, on 04/14/2009, -1/+20the problem is that fake republicans outnumber real republicans. As a progressive who gets frustrated with Obama on a regular basis I can sympathize with you guys. The biggest problem is that as long as the republican party needs the evangelicals, guys like Bush and McCain are going to win the primaries and if the right got rid of the social aspects of their platform all they'd have left is guns and there is a good chance that the evangelicals would run their own candidate.
- bluezombie, on 04/14/2009, -0/+19What I support: The Constitution, Individual Freedom, Pursuit of Happiness, Stable and Loving Relationships
What I oppose: Government Interference in our lives, More Laws, Restriction of Freedoms
What I find irrelevant: What churchs say, My personal gender preferences
So when you do the math, I end up opposing those who wish to prevent gay marriage.
That isn't quite the same as supporting it, but it effectively ends up being that.
I would guess that some similar equation holds true for Obama and many others. - secrity, on 04/14/2009, -1/+19Goldwater was a conservative AND a a gay rights activist.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/dail ...
"At 85, after a life in politics spanning five decades (he retired from the Senate in 1987), Mr. Conservative has found himself an unlikely new career: as a gay rights activist. While that's not his sole pursuit – he returned to Capitol Hill yesterday to testify in favor of scenic overflights of the Grand Canyon – in recent years he's championed homosexuals serving in the military and has worked locally to stop businesses in Phoenix from hiring on the basis of sexual orientation. This month he signed on as honorary co-chairman of a drive to pass a federal law preventing job discrimination against homosexuals. The effort, dubbed Americans Against Discrimination, is being spearheaded by the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the influential gay lobbying organization.
"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay," Goldwater asserts. "You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it." - jknevitt, on 04/14/2009, -1/+19Dogs and children can't consent to marriage, so your argument is pretty much useless.
- Samueul, on 04/14/2009, -2/+19Oh that's such a ***** cop-out...! I'm legally MARRIED in the state of PA and I've never stepped foot in a church to do it. I have a MARRIAGE license and everything to prove it... Why cannot two PEOPLE regardless of sex, have the same damn piece of paper that I have?.... By your explanation any homosexual couple should be able to go to their county courthouse, pay the damn marriage license fee and then get hitched at a jp or whatever..... They CANNOT DO THAT, so they are not being acknowledged on a civil or religious level which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
If Obama truly cared about this issue, he'd ***** push it.. He pushes every other agenda HE cares about..... - Jektal, on 04/14/2009, -1/+18The leaders, or the clowns sitting on the sidelines making a career out of stirring the embers?
- arbulus, on 04/14/2009, -0/+17I absolutely agree. The religious zealots have taken control of the GOP and now basically the GOP platform is just whatever agrees with the Southern Baptist Convention, even though they say they are for individual liberty and equality. I blame Jerry Falwell and the "Moral Majority" for this. Their actions have stuck with people long after their relevance in society has passed. If the GOP could break free from the control of the religious bloc, I would have a great deal more respect for the party as a whole.
- inactive, on 04/14/2009, -0/+16Civil unions are a good solution, imo, as long as *every* marriage becomes legally recognized as a civil union. Leave 'marriage', and all the baggage that it entails, to the churches, since the government can't tell churches who they can or can't marry anyways. As long as everyone is regarded the same way legally (civil union), that ought to work.
OTOH, giving gays all of the rights of a straight couple, but calling it something else to avoid offending the sensibilities of a bunch of angry bigots is just just a cop-out. - Anomaly100, on 04/13/2009, -4/+20Didn't Daddy McCain (sounds like a rapper) also get pissed at his daughter? They don't like that, "having your own mind thing".
- MikeFromAmerica, on 04/14/2009, -2/+18***** civil unions. I thought we discarded "Separate but Equal" in 1964.
- theaceoffire, on 04/14/2009, -1/+17He didn't get pissed as far as I know, but he didn't support her either.
"Today, in his “Twitterview” with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) shied away from condemning Ingraham’s gratuitous attacks on his daughter. Stephanopoulos asked McCain, “What do you think of Meghan’s feud with Coulter and Ingraham?” McCain first said, “I’m proud of my daughter and she has a right to her opinions.” When asked if he agrees with his daughter, McCain did not say, simply stating, “like any family we agree on some things and disagree on others.”" - bitORlogic, on 04/14/2009, -1/+17The traditional definition of marriage doesn't exist. It's a myth. "Marriage" has varied in myriad ways in countless cultures since humanity began. Polygamy was common in some cultures. Arranged "marriages" were common in others. The idea that marriage has always meant "one man and one woman of adult age who both choose to live together as a couple" is completely absurd.
- DankBuddz, on 04/14/2009, -2/+18Yes, it is about time a Republican openly suggests that issues like homosexuality shouldn't be an issue fought over between political parties.
- Grazzit, on 04/14/2009, -0/+16The Republican party in it's current form should rename itself the Christian Funadmentalist party.
- Suricou, on 04/14/2009, -2/+17Or invading another country.
- Paranor01, on 04/14/2009, -1/+16Trouble is, Marriage was not created by religion, it was created as a legal contract to merge families and their resources. Religion claims they have the ownership of marriage, but they never did. They hi-jacked it like most things they claim is theirs, especially Christianity (ie: Christmas = Yule, Easter = Ostara).
- arbulus, on 04/14/2009, -0/+14Churches wouldn't be forced to perform weddings. Right now, as a straight couple, if you aren't Catholic, or if you are excommunicated, a Catholic priest will not perform a wedding for you. I do not have a problem with this. It's his right to refuse or to accept it based on his beliefs. I don't expect a church to perform outside the scope of their doctrine.
HOWEVER, the justice of the peace cannot refuse anyone who wants to get married and has followed the letter of the law to do so. Marriage is not a religious institution in this country, it is a civil one. What makes you "married" is a license, and official of the state and two witnesses to watch the couple sign a contract. If gay marriage were legal, I don't expect every Baptist church to perform ceremonies. I will however expect the justice of the peace to do it without question. -
Show 51 - 100 of 494 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is