Reply #30: Three points. [View All]

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1) Even Kinsey estimates only 10% of the population is gay, and that's probably a bit high too. More around 7%. But I'm really just splitting hairs for the sake of accuracy there. It hurts your debate to be wrong.

2) So, when given a choice of only two candidates that have a chance to actually win the election and neither of them are pro-gay, you're just going to toss away every other issue on your agenda AND the opportunity to put pro-gay legislators into positions of power for what amounts to a temper tantrum? Don't get me wrong, I do understand the sentiment behind your actions, but it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't have any problem with anyone voting against Lieberman in the primaries. In fact, I hope lots of people do and I hope the fucking jackass has the common sense to not run as a third-party candidate. However, if the choice is between putting Lieberman (whom supports Boxer and Kennedy) into office or a Republican (whom support box-turtle lovin' Rick Santorum), how in the fucking world can you possibly see no discernible difference between the two? Even if Lieberman is a fucking jackass, he still puts you MILES closer to your objective than ANY Republican would.

3) Quite frankly, with your "You want a war right here right now? I'm up for it." is exactly what she's talking about. YOU are far more harmful to progressive issues than any DINO could hope to be because you want to fight your brethren instead of fighting the enemy. How are any of us getting closer to our sacred issues by participating in the circular firing squad? Or do you just expect all of our candidates to be exact clones of your political point-of-view?