2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[kurai]

Judge not, lest ye not be judged.

[Roy Karrde]

I think you misunderstand. The 'special rights' remark made by Perry, in the foreign aid example, is the right to not be arrested/tortured/executed by the state, or to be openly discriminated against and assaulted in civil society. This is the aid contingency generated by the new Obama approach which Perry so happily rejects.

This is not "just stop[ping] with homosexuals". It is focusing on a mortal necessity. Living is not a special right. Equality under the law is not special. Perry's remarks thus define homosexuals as inhuman.

Ahh okay that makes sense thanks for straightening it up.

I am fairly confident that you can take one instance of vicious anti-gay rhetoric and use this to justify an anti-gay interpretation of a second, slightly more ambiguous statement.

Except as you say, it is a interpretation nothing more. It is no where close to being definitive. And can be read in more than one ways.

People, there's no point. Roy won't give up. He's the same as any Republican. He will not let anybody but himself have the last word, and won't admit that he's wrong. Just let him have it so we won't have to listen to him anymore.

Yeah not only have I let you and others have the final word, but I have asked you before on commenting on where YOU were wrong, and you refused. Stop with the personal attacks and actually debate.

When all the GOP's faults cause them to suffer a disaster next year, he'll finally shut up.

And will you shut up if Obama loses next year?

[Dark Sage]

Only if you agree right now to shut up if he wins. Deal?

[Roy Karrde]

Only if you agree right now to shut up if he wins. Deal?

I probably wont but then again I am not the one who claimed the other will quiet down when the other loses.

[kurai]

I'm not following you.

You accept the premise that Perry characterizes human rights in such a negative manner on one occasion, but reject it out of hand on another? What is the benefit to such naivete? If one is able to interpret multiple statements in the same manner, should we dismiss this because it is distasteful? Which set of words must be uttered before Perry's anti-homosexual rights approach is a plank of his political platform?

This is the discourse which Perry himself has provided - these quotes are not out of context, but part of his campaign structure. There is no accidental continuity between his remarks. It is not coincidental - in fact, it is an intentional abuse of the fact that public interpretation will occur - you personally contend that such rhetoric will provide a beneficial outcome in the Iowa primaries.

If we are not to accept the remarks at face-value, Perry is a liar and intends to deceive the populace for his own gain. If we do accept that he believes what he is presenting, he is opposed to the liberty on which America was founded.

In neither case is he a respectable candidate for the office.

[Roy Karrde]

I'm not following you.

You accept the premise that Perry characterizes human rights in such a negative manner on one occasion, but reject it out of hand on another? What is the benefit to such naivete? If one is able to interpret multiple statements in the same manner, should we dismiss this because it is distasteful? Which set of words must be uttered before Perry's anti-homosexual rights approach is a plank of his political platform?

This is the discourse which Perry himself has provided - these quotes are not out of context, but part of his campaign structure. There is no accidental continuity between his remarks. It is not coincidental - in fact, it is an intentional abuse of the fact that public interpretation will occur - you personally contend that such rhetoric will provide a beneficial outcome in the Iowa primaries.

If we are not to accept the remarks at face-value, Perry is a liar and intends to deceive the populace for his own gain. If we do accept that he believes what he is presenting, he is opposed to the liberty on which America was founded.

In neither case is he a respectable candidate for the office.

I am willing to accept that he has made anti homosexual remarks before, but I am not going to automatically accept that every time he compares Gays, the Gay Movement, or Gay Rights to absolutely anything, he is doing it in a negative context. In this case it is one of creating a simple comparison of the advancement of rights of one group and not the other. There is nothing inherently negative of that, and one could argue the only reason that DADT was even used was because it was the most recent social rights advancement that one could pick from. If say Perry had used any different thing else as a comparison, would you and others automatically snap at it being negative, or just one making a comparison of the President's Priorities or lack there of when it comes to members of faith?

[Dark Sage]

Perry's not going to win the nomination anyway. Not only are Gingrich and Romney both ahead of him, he's made so many gaffes, he's starting to look stupid.

I'm not even going to comment on the others. Bachmann's bigotry is even more obvious. She actually wants to reinstate DADT. The rest are jokes.

And if Gingrich is nominated... May God have mercy on us all.

[kurai]

He has not retrieved himself from the most abhorrent position possible - homosexuals should not be considered to have human rights: their right to live is "special". There is no reason to interpret any of his remarks in a dispassionate fashion. He has said these words without apology.

He is not the candidate providing for liberty and the equality of humanity.

[Roy Karrde]

And if Gingrich is nominated... May God have mercy on us all.

And yet Gingrich right now is running a mostly positive campaign much like Obama did in 2008, and would utterly school Obama in the debates. If Gingrich continues the upbeat enthusiastic message, and does not dive deep into the dirt as Obama will have to do in this upcoming election. He has a good chance of winning.

He has not retrieved himself from the most abhorrent position possible - homosexuals should not be considered to have human rights: their right to live is "special". There is no reason to interpret any of his remarks in a dispassionate fashion. He has said these words without apology.

He is not the candidate providing for liberty and the equality of humanity.

And yet that has absolutely nothing to do with the Ad or the fact that it was merely a comparison being made.

[kurai]

Ok. Will you continue to support Rick Perry now that he has publicly denounced homosexuals as unworthy of human rights and equal consideration under the law?

Even if he did not do so in "Strong" (and it can be interpreted this way), he did so elsewhere.

[Roy Karrde]

Ok. Will you continue to support Rick Perry now that he has publicly denounced homosexuals as unworthy of human rights and equal consideration under the law?

Even if he did not do so in "Strong" (and it can be interpreted this way), he did so elsewhere.

I dont currently support Rick Perry, like I said I am not a Social Conservative and hold the same views as he does. I do like what he has done with the economy in Texas and would welcome him in a cabinet post but I do not have the same Social Conservative views.

[kurai]

You "would welcome him in a cabinet post"? What possible economic benefit weighs against the dehumanization of an entire category of people? Is this not the road back to fascist eugenics?

[Roy Karrde]

You "would welcome him in a cabinet post"? What possible economic benefit weighs against the dehumanization of an entire category of people? Is this not the road back to fascist eugenics?

A Cabinet post would focus squarely on providing information to the President on say the domestic economy. A place in which he can suggest reforms and such that have made the Texas economy thrive, while not going anywhere near social issues.

[kurai]

I am fairly sure that I know what a Cabinet post is. A two-part question arises from your following remark:

1) How does one reform economics without approaching 'social issues'? They are inextricably embedded in one another. You can not reform tax policy without reforming spending policy. You can not change the approach to foreign aid without changing the social incentives on which it is based (see Perry's direct remarks as above).

2) A high-level Cabinet post necessarily means an entrance to the line of succession. Even if merely a consultant, should one not meet Presidential standards to also be in Cabinet, especially given the dramatic environment that would be present alongside the necessity of such succession?

[Roy Karrde]

1) How does one reform economics without approaching 'social issues'? They are inextricably embedded in one another. You can not reform tax policy without reforming spending policy. You can not change the approach to foreign aid without changing the social incentives on which it is based (see Perry's direct remarks as above).

Reforming spending by and large would be the focus of Congress. For the President it would mainly be appointments to the NLRB and repeal of overburdening regulations.

2) A high-level Cabinet post necessarily means an entrance to the line of succession. Even if merely a consultant, should one not meet Presidential standards to also be in Cabinet, especially given the dramatic environment that would be present alongside the necessity of such succession?

That is true, but the chance is so fairly remote, that it should not be something to keep the appointment from happening. Or if to satisfy you, he could be appointed to a Czar role, which has no chance of succession.

[kurai]

Reforming spending by and large would be the focus of Congress. For the President it would mainly be appointments to the NLRB and repeal of overburdening regulations.

-

That is true, but the chance is so fairly remote, that it should not be something to keep the appointment from happening. Or if to satisfy you, he could be appointed to a Czar role, which has no chance of succession.

You forget that the executive's foremost role in reform is as the unifying stage on which the direction of policy is set (the voice of the nation; the bully pulpit). You also set aside the notion that economics and social intention are inseparable - choices will have to be made, social values have an input on these choices. Rick Perry's social values are repugnant, but you seek to include them in the policy process.

-

Rick Perry is not qualified to participate as a Czar-level economic adviser - he has no relevant academic credentials? If combined with his social approach (as above), I do not see value to his inclusion in the governing process.

[Roy Karrde]

You forget that the executive's foremost role in reform is as the unifying stage on which the direction of policy is set. You also set aside the notion that economics and social intention are inseparable - choices will have to be made, social values have an input on these choices. Rick Perry's social values are repugnant, but you seek to include them in the policy process.

His social values toward Gays is wrong, does that mean all of his social values are wrong? No of course not. But to think that Perry would have any guiding role in social issues in a cabnet position is inane. The reforms that we need right now, mainly in terms of regulations to create job opportunities have very little to no social impact what so ever. Not to mention his position would be to advise, not to set actual policy.

Rick Perry is not qualified to participate as a Czar-level economic adviser - he has no relevant academic credentials? If combined with his social approach (as above), I do not see value in his inclusion to the governing process.

There is no need for him to have any academic credentials for the Czar position, only to be able to inform the President on a specific policy. The growth of the Texas economy in and of itself is more than relevant for that.

[kurai]

His social values toward Gays is wrong, does that mean all of his social values are wrong? No of course not. But to think that Perry would have any guiding role in social issues in a cabnet position is inane. The reforms that we need right now, mainly in terms of regulations to create job opportunities have very little to no social impact what so ever. Not to mention his position would be to advise, not to set actual policy.

-

There is no need for him to have any academic credentials for the Czar position, only to be able to inform the President on a specific policy. The growth of the Texas economy in and of itself is more than relevant for that.

You can not conduct economic policy which has no social impact - this claim does not even make sense.

As an advisor, Rick Perry would contend that foreign aid should not be contingent on LGBT treatment in a given country's legal system (he has said so publicly!). This is the kind of advice he would provide to an economic end which relies on a social values basis. As for his other values, the specifics are uncertain, but they do not need to be otherwise: one instance of repugnancy ought to be enough for disqualification.

-

Sorry, can you point to any current Czar which has been appointed towards economic oversight based purely on political credentials? They all have advanced degrees in economics or law. What would be the point of appointing Rick Perry rather than the qualified economic advisors which he personally used?

[Roy Karrde]

You can not conduct economic policy which has no social impact - this claim does not even make sense.

As an advisor, Rick Perry would contend that foreign aid should not be contingent on LGBT treatment in a given country's legal system (he has said so publicly!). This is the kind of advice he would provide to an economic end which relies on a social values basis. As for his other values, the specifics are uncertain, but they do not need to be otherwise: one instance of repugnancy ought to be enough for disqualification.

And why would a President place him in a Czar or Cabinet position to handle foreign aid? His experience is on domestic economic issues. Hell the Secretary of Labor would be a fitting position.

Sorry, can you point to any current Czar which has been appointed towards economic oversight based purely on political credentials? They all have advanced degrees in economics or law. What would be the point of appointing Rick Perry rather than the qualified economic advisors which he personally used?

You mean such as say the Bank Bailout Czar and TARP Czar who previously had a role in the Treasury Department and graduated from college with a degree in "aeronautical engineering". I wonder what does Aeronautical engineering have to do with TARP or Bank Bailouts? Nothing, he had prior experience at the treasury and before that Goldman Sacks. The appointment, like many was purely based on political experience.

Or there is the next person who took over the role of Bank Bailout Czar and TARP czar, who held the previous position as CEO of Fannie Mae, Chairman, President, and CEO of TIAA-CREF, and various positions at Merrill Lynch.

[kurai]

And why would a President place him in a Czar or Cabinet position to handle foreign aid? His experience is on domestic economic issues. Hell the Secretary of Labor would be a fitting position.

-

You mean such as say the Bank Bailout Czar and TARP Czar who previously had a role in the Treasury Department and graduated from college with a degree in "aeronautical engineering". I wonder what does Aeronautical engineering have to do with TARP or Bank Bailouts? Nothing, he had prior experience at the treasury and before that Goldman Sacks. The appointment, like many was purely based on political experience.

Or there is the next person who took over the role of Bank Bailout Czar and TARP czar, who held the previous position as CEO of Fannie Mae, Chairman, President, and CEO of TIAA-CREF, and various positions at Merrill Lynch.

The Secretary of Labor would return him to the line of succession. Foreign aid is connected to domestic economic issues - it is all out of the same federal budget. What exact role do you propose for Perry? What is the current analogue to this position?

-

I think you can do better than this. Neel Kashkari earned an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 2002. Combine this with financial sector and treasury experience - how is this a solely political appointment?

As for Herbert M. Allison, he "earned a B.A. in philosophy from Yale University. Following four years as an officer in the U.S. Navy, including one year in Vietnam, he received an M.B.A. from Stanford University." Then we see decades of financial sector and policy consultation experience.

This is a wide berth from a B.S. in animal science and experience in the political executive. You seek to appoint an executive as an advisor instead of putting an advisor in that role, despite the anti-American rhetoric which should disqualify them altogether.

[Roy Karrde]

The Secretary of Labor would return him to the line of succession. Foreign aid is connected to domestic economic issues - it is all out of the same federal budget. What exact role do you propose for Perry? What is the current analogue to this position?

My current suggestion would be either Secretary of Labor or Secretary of Commerce, as his experience again in Texas fits that position.

I think you can do better than this. Neel Kashkari earned an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 2002. Combine this with financial sector and treasury experience - how is this a political appointment?

Other than the fact that he was placed in the position for his experience? Not for his MBA?

As for Herbert M. Allison, he "earned a B.A. in philosophy from Yale University. Following four years as an officer in the U.S. Navy, including one year in Vietnam, he received an M.B.A. from Stanford University." Then we see decades of financial sector and policy consultation experience.

And Perry has over a decade of experience running one of the largest states in the country.

This is a wide berth from a B.S. in animal science and experience in the political executive.

A political executive running one of the largest economies of the nation and making up for a sizeable amount of this nation's economic growth.

You seek to appoint an executive as an advisor instead of putting an advisor in that role, despite the anti-American rhetoric which should disqualify them altogether.

So having anti American rhetoric disqualifies a person as a adviser? Goodie this should be fun, should we begin going down the list of some of the advisers that Obama has appointed? By the way I consider some one who has ran a state as well as Perry as being a adviser in that role.

[kurai]

I will reiterate that "you seek to appoint an executive as an advisor instead of putting an advisor in that role, despite the anti-American rhetoric which should disqualify them altogether."

Yes, he ran things in Texas. He is not going to run things in the proposed situation - why not pick from the pool of his advisors? He did not form economic policy himself (you can tell this by the fact that he is not qualified to have done so), and thus all you have provided is evidence that he can select good advisors for himself. Use those; Perry is not personally fit on any level.

Since you have placed Perry back into a high position in the presidential line of succession, I would suggest reapproaching my two-part question. Why is an intolerant man fit for the highest executive?

[Roy Karrde]

I will reiterate that "you seek to appoint an executive as an advisor instead of putting an advisor in that role, despite the anti-American rhetoric which should disqualify them altogether."

And I will reiterate "So having anti American rhetoric disqualifies a person as a adviser? Goodie this should be fun, should we begin going down the list of some of the advisers that Obama has appointed? By the way I consider some one who has ran a state as well as Perry as being a adviser in that role."

Yes, he ran things in Texas. He is not going to run things in the proposed situation - why not pick from the pool of his advisors? He did not form economic policy himself (you can tell this by the fact that he is not qualified to have done so), and thus all you have provided is evidence that he can select good advisors for himself. Use those; Perry is not personally fit on any level.

Perry has the needed experience of what went well in Texas, and how that can translate to a national level. Mind you Governors serving as Advisers and Positions for the President is not unheard of, just ask Janet Napolitano.

Since you have placed Perry back into a high position in the presidential line of succession, I would suggest reapproaching my two-part question. Why is an intolerant man fit for the highest executive?

Because as I said before, the chance of actually becoming President ranks so low, that it should not disqualify him to the role. If we are to suddenly become concerned as to intolerant people holding areas of high position on the off chance that they are to become President. Then we should take steps to ensure that Nancy Pelosi never becomes Speaker of the House shouldnt we?

[kurai]

Janet Napolitano studied at one of the top schools for economics in the world. She has an advanced law degree. She also has experience in the political executive. Rick Perry is not equivalent. An executive is not an advisor - that does not even make sense, their role is to select from the advice given. The relative merits of experience in that selection process are up for debate, but not relevant to the discussion at hand (and certainly not in favor of Perry).

-

The chance of succession is rather inconsequential to the principle of the matter. The legitimacy of the whole process relies on vigilance in selecting one's representatives - this can not be avoided.

Certainly, you can feel free to point out anyone in the public sphere who sees fit to discard the human rights of a group of people at a whim. Why wouldn't you? I will criticize them, in turn.

If this applies to Nancy Pelosi (or any politician, political advisor, public commentator...), it is worth criticizing. Feel free to list and document the instances which I have overlooked.

[Roy Karrde]

Janet Napolitano studied at one of the top schools for economics in the world. She has an advanced law degree. She also has experience in the political executive. Rick Perry is not equivalent. An executive is not an advisor - that does not even make sense, their role is to select from the advice given. The relative merits of experience in that selection process are up for debate, but not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Which was the reason why she was selected, a popular border governor who had supported Obama. Do you honestly believe she was selected because of her law degree? One that would be relatively useless running Homeland Security, or because she studied at a economic school? No of course not that would be stupid. Her experience was because she was a Governor.

The chance of succession is rather inconsequential to the principle of the matter. The legitimacy of the whole process relies on vigilance in selecting one's representatives - this can not be avoided.

The legitimacy relies on the ability of the Cabinet holder to provide the best possible advice to the President. They are not a set of people who are supposed to sit around waiting for the people ahead of them to die.

Certainly, you can feel free to point out anyone in the public sphere who sees fit to discard the human rights of a group of people at a whim. Why wouldn't you? I will criticize them, in turn.

If this applies to Nancy Pelosi (or any politician, political advisor, public commentator...), it is worth criticizing. Feel free to list and document the instances which I have overlooked.

OHHH So it is only human rights that matters to you. Nothing else could be considered Anti American? Say support of Socialist or Communist policies? Or the belief that 9/11 was a inside job?

[kurai]

The best possible advice is not going to be provided by someone with merely political experience in hearing the advice of others (plus experience in animal science). You point out various other advisors for their having been selected based on political incentive, but neglect to acknowledge that they have experience beyond this. Rick Perry's successes in executive oversight can be appreciated, but he unavoidably lacks this secondary set of qualifications.

It is incoherent to suggest that an advanced understanding of law or economics would not help in the federal executive - you are trying to argue that a law degree is of no use to someone heading the Department of Homeland Security. It is not a qualification by itself, but it is a step towards being able to provide the best possible advice when combined with other aspects of one's experience.

-

Were we not talking about one candidate's denial of human rights this entire time? Is the foundation and soul of America not the self-evident truth of inalienable rights? Rick Perry feels that the right to life is alien from a homosexual person.

If you have other examples tantamount to such a pure opposition of American values, I will agree that they are also not qualified for its highest office.

[Roy Karrde]

The best possible advice is not going to be provided by someone with merely political experience in hearing the advice of others (plus experience in animal science). You point out various other advisors for their having been selected based on political incentive, but neglect to acknowledge that they have experience beyond this. Rick Perry's successes in executive oversight can be appreciated, but he unavoidably lacks this secondary set of qualifications.

You seem to believe that what ever advice he heard, what ever judgement he made in those situations did not help shape his future decisions, his own economic policy in the future, or that he did not retain it in any sort of way or fashion. Or that the plans he enacted were not based on his own political beliefs or experience in the past before he was Governor.

It is incoherent to suggest that an advanced understanding of law or economics would not help in the federal executive - you are trying to argue that a law degree is of no use to someone heading the Department of Homeland Security. It is not a qualification by itself, but it is a step towards being able to provide the best possible advice when combined with other aspects of one's experience.

Except she is going to have lawyers on hand that would be able to tell her what is and is not possible underneath the law. A Department head as she is, would not have the time or talent to go through and research every single law, case file, and brief on a subject to be able to make a decision. You seem to be unable or unwilling to admit that the reason she was hired was based purely on the fact that she supported Obama and because she was a popular Governor.

Were we not talking about one candidate's denial of human rights this entire time? Is the foundation and soul of America not the self-evident truth of inalienable rights? Rick Perry feels that the right to life is alien from a homosexual person.

There is more to this country, and its heritage beyond human rights. For example believing in psychotic conspiracy theories about the Government attacking its own people goes against the very core of the American Government. It is wrong if not ignorant to suggest that a only a candidate's views on human rights define if they are or are not Anti American.

If you have other examples tantamount to such a pure opposition of American values, I will agree that they are also not qualified for its highest office.

Again I point out those that have supported Socialist if not Communist policies, that would go against American values as well.

[kurai]

If the economic plans he enacted were based on "his own political beliefs or experience in the past", you have conceded your earlier notion that values can be separated from policy.

Certainly, I have said that it can be claimed that Perry is able to act on the advice he has been given - but he is not himself an expert at anything more than acting on advice. None of his experience suggests otherwise: this is good, if you are running for President, but of little consequence if your role is going to be merely advisory. Rick Perry is underqualified compared to present and historical cabinet officials. The point is merely that if he is not the absolute best, his reprehensible comments should disqualify him.

-

Who has suggested that only the denouncement of human rights can be considered anti-American? Consider that it is a sufficient, but not necessary condition for being labeled so. Consequently, other aspects of "American values" are a strawman argument, apparently presented only to distract from the fact that Rick Perry has advocated one such an anti-American directive, and thus has lost moral worth in his candidacy.

[Roy Karrde]

If the economic plans he enacted were based on "his own political beliefs or experience in the past", you have conceded your earlier notion that values can be separated from policy.

Depends on the situation, a person can see the facts and determine that their views are incorrect in this situation when enacting a policy. For example George W Bush during the bailouts. On the other hand past experience can and will shape a person's political beliefs and help define policy in many situations. Perry's past experience as to what will worked in Texas in turn would define the policies and beliefs he gives to the President.

Certainly, I have said that it can be claimed that Perry is able to act on the advice he has been given - but he is not himself an expert at anything more than acting on advice. None of his experience suggests otherwise: this is good, if you are running for President, but of little consequence if your role is going to be merely advisory. Rick Perry is underqualified compared to present and historical cabinet officials. The point is merely that if he is not the absolute best, his reprehensible comments should disqualify him.

Anyone when looking at a Government post would place a high amount of experience on the positions they have held in the past, be it executive or not. A degree you have from some college several decade prior means very little compared to the experience you have racked up. If not the President would be hiring directly out of Harvard's Graduating Class.

Who has suggested that only the denouncement of human rights can be considered anti-American? Consider that it is a sufficient, but not necessary condition for being labeled so. Consequently, other aspects of "American values" are a strawman argument, apparently presented only to distract from the fact that Rick Perry has advocated one such an anti-American directive, and thus has lost moral worth in his candidacy.

When I pointed out that there were others who have engaged in Anti American rhetoric who have taken up a adviser position, your reply consisted of "anyone in the public sphere who sees fit to discard the human rights of a group of people at a whim."

As such I am to infer that you hold the belief that "discarding human rights" is the only qualification for Anti American rhetoric. The fact is that "Anti American Rhetoric" comes in many shapes and forms, and as such if you wish to hold that as a disqualifier for any kind of cabnet position you must accept it in all forms, if not you must concede the point.

[kurai]

Your inference is neither required nor accepted. I will, of course, discuss human rights when the subject at hand is human rights. I have already stated that "if you have other examples tantamount to such a pure opposition of American values, I will agree that they are also not qualified for its highest office". At this point, one should infer that there are other tantamount examples (as that is what was said...). You are arguing against a position solely of your own imagination.

However, I'm not really sure what you're driving at with your attempted invocation of McCarthyism. Is there supposed to be some positive connection between the denouncement of freedom of speech and belief in one area with the persecution of homosexuals (at home and abroad)? Certainly, the denial of human rights takes many forms.

Interestingly, the Senator himself can be used to bring this all full circle:

At last, on April 27, Welch saw an opening. That morning, Ray Jenkins introduced as evidence a photo taken in late November 1953, shortly after David Schine had begun basic training at Fort Dix. McCarthy, Roy Cohn, and Frank Carr had met Secretary Stevens in New York to discuss the ongoing Fort Monmouth investigation. Afterward, Cohn had said he'd like to visit David Schine at nearby Fort Dix, and Stevens quickly arranged the trip. When they arrived, a photograph was taken of the group with Colonel David Bradley, a key office at the base. In the picture, Schine stood between Stevens and Bradley.

Roy Cohn remembered the photo when he was gathering evidence for the hearing. He thought it would indicate that Stevens and Schine had been on good terms, since both men were smiling. Ray Jenkins agreed and asked a subcommittee staff member to obtain a copy of the "picture of Stevens with Schine." The man promptly did so, but then he had the picture altered so that it showed only Stevens and Schine. He said later he thought that was what Jenkins wanted.

During the hearing on April 27, Ray Jenkins displayed the picture to everyone present, unaware that it had been changed. Jenkins went on to allege that Secretary Stevens had specifically asked to have his picture taken alone with Schine. This, Jenkins said, proved there were no ill feelings between Stevens and Schine at the very time the Army claimed Roy Cohn had begun harassing the Army secretary.

It so happened that Joseph Welch, in preparing for the hearings, had seen the original photograph and remembered it. Now he charged that Ray Jenkins had presented as evidence "a doctored or altered photograph ... as if it were honest." He went on to content that, in the original, "Stevens was photographed in a group" and that he was smiling at Col. Bradley, not at Schine.

Welch's revelation created a tremendous stir in the hearing room and in the media. The subcommittee spent long hours trying to find out who had done the doctoring and for what purpose - or purposes. Reporters and columnists remembered how Joe had used an altered photograph to help defeat Senator Millard Tydings, and they speculated that he was behind this attempt to sway public opinion in favor of David Schine.

As for Welch, he had achieved his goal of swinging the spotlight away from Secretary Stevens's inept testimony. He had also beaten McCarthy at his own game. Joe long ago had learned that unproved charges (and doctored photos) had a far greater effect on public opinion than lengthy recitals of the facts later on. Now, before the facts were in, Welch had used the altered photo of Stevens and Schine to cast doubt on the subcommittee's case.

McCarthy protested that he had nothing to do with the doctoring. In this instance he was probably telling the truth, but the American people had already formed their opinion, and most of them did not believe him. Joe wasn't about to give in, however. His frustration and anger rose to the surface when Welch had James Juliana, an aide to Roy Cohn, on the witness stand. Welch was questioning Juliana about the photo, which, before it was altered, had hung on the wall of David Schine's New York office." You did know what hung on Schine's wall when that was handed to you, sir."

"I did not know what hung on Schine's wall," Juliana said.

Welch held up the picture, which had been introduced as evidence. "Did you think this game from a pixie? Where did you think this picture that I hold in my hand came from?"

Joe interrupted the proceedings to say, "Will counsel for my benefit define - I think he might be an expert on that - what a pixie is?"

McCarthy probably thought his question would fluster Welch and shift the gathering's focus away from the photo, but it had the opposite effect. Welch quickly replied, "Yes. I should say, Mr. Senator, that a pixie is close relative to a fairy."

Laughter broke out in the hearing room. Everyone present knew that James Juliana worked for Roy Cohn. They also knew that "fairy" was a slang word for homosexual. They inferred that the Army's counsel was calling Cohn a fairy - and they laughed.

"Shall I proceed, sir?" Welch asked Joe. "Have I enlightened you?"

There was no way McCarthy could top Welch, so he merely repeated himself. "As I said, I think you may be an authority on what a pixie is."

So, you know, discrimination against homosexuals can readily be found to be coordinate with discrimination on the basis of political belief. But they are not the same thing. If you seek to imply that Rick Perry might be more intolerant than is apparent presently, please present it as such.

[Roy Karrde]

Your inference is neither required nor accepted. I will, of course, discuss human rights when the subject at hand is human rights. I have already stated that "if you have other examples tantamount to such a pure opposition of American values, I will agree that they are also not qualified for its highest office". At this point, one should infer that there are other tantamount examples (as that is what was said...). You are arguing against a position solely of your own imagination.

I have offered you several beliefs that would be considered opposing American values, beliefs you have chosen to ignore. The discussion here has gone beyond human rights and directly into what is Anti American rhetoric by your own interjection of it being. As such the scope has broaden to include all Anti American Rhetoric.

Anyway while this has been fun we have gotten far off course, I will let you have the last word.

[kurai]

Behold! The ally of McCarthy and Perry.

We are presented, as McCarthy was eager to do, with the notion that free belief ought to be suppressed as an anti-American threat: for it to be held openly by a socialist or communist would be the height of "special rights". Such freedom is the embodiment of America! You have implicated that such repression is appropriate: of course, this would be the opposite of personal liberty.

In turn, we see that rights in general should not be held by homosexuals, per Governor Perry: such would be a "special" dispensation, personal liberties for those who do not match "traditional American values". Given such a strong correlation between these two approaches, it should be no surprise that McCarthy himself went out of his way to persecute homosexuals in the middle of a Senate session, as provided in the above text. Perry would not object - this is the tradition he inherits, after all.

Indeed, the denouncement of liberty by both parties are prime examples of anti-American values put into practice. No argument has been provided on my part which claims this is the only instance in which one could be anti-American - but this avenue is one which strikes directly at the founding principles.

[Gavin Luper]

Oh sure Perry has made mistakes no doubt, and personally if I were running I would never run the ad as I am not a social conservative. But that does not mean one cannot appreciate the political calculus in it.

Just like that clever political calculus good ol' Adolf Hitler used, right? He thought the rights of Jews were special rights that needed to be redressed. Just like Perry thinks homosexual rights are special rights that need to be redressed. Your mate is in good company, isn't he? Just appealing to the social conservatives, right? Just arguing that a random group of people is less-deserving of human rights than the rest, right? It's totally worth supporting. Look at all that political calculus!

How you cannot denounce Perry for holding such a position is abhorrent. You might like everything else about him and those credentials might be great, but his position on human rights for homosexuals is immoral and completely untenable.

So Obama not reauthorizing the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom while at the same time basing U.S. Foreign Aid dollars on how well countries treat Homosexuality is not putting one over the other, or contributing to the suppression of religious freedom abroad?

"The United States has put the fight against gay and lesbian discrimination at the heart of its foreign policy, but stopped short of warning transgressor nations they could be stripped of US aid."

[Taken from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-0...ional/3717162]

That's what the news reported ... that the US stopped short of withholding foreign aid on this matter. So where are you pulling your facts from? If something further has taken place, let me know, please, because I'd like to see the US follow the UK's lead on this.

Again I have no doubt that he is not the biggest Gay supporter, but it is ignorant to take the video and try to peace it together with a quote to try and make the video any thing more than it is.

You are being ignorant on this topic. Unless he makes a public reversal and says "actually, I support gay rights now" we can reasonably assume that someone who repeatedly makes public remarks that denounce gay rights clearly holds a position against gay rights. When he makes a future comment on gay rights, it is quite easy to understand the context of that comment, knowing his very clear and very public position on it. This is called reasoning, not ignorance. You yourself have stated he is courting the social conservatives. I don't understand your feeble attempts to deny or defend Perry's bigotry.

Is it wrong? Of course, and I completely disapprove of it, but then again I am open to having rights for all sexualities, and not just stop with homosexuals. If we begin to pick and choose who gets rights, it does in a way extend to being special rights.

That being said however, you cannot take one statement, place it against another, and automatically infer the second statement is anti gay.

Homosexual rights are NOT special rights! There are no special rights. They are all HUMAN rights. The right to not be murdered by your government just for existing is not "special".

I think you misunderstand. The 'special rights' remark made by Perry, in the foreign aid example, is the right to not be arrested/tortured/executed by the state, or to be openly discriminated against and assaulted in civil society. This is the aid contingency generated by the new Obama approach which Perry so happily rejects.

This is not "just stop[ping] with homosexuals". It is focusing on a mortal necessity. Living is not a special right. Equality under the law is not special. Perry's remarks thus define homosexuals as inhuman.

I am fairly confident that you can take one instance of vicious anti-gay rhetoric and use this to justify an anti-gay interpretation of a second, slightly more ambiguous statement.

Well said.

[Roy Karrde]

Just like that clever political calculus good ol' Adolf Hitler used, right? He thought the rights of Jews were special rights that needed to be redressed. Just like Perry thinks homosexual rights are special rights that need to be redressed. Your mate is in good company, isn't he? Just appealing to the social conservatives, right? Just arguing that a random group of people is less-deserving of human rights than the rest, right? It's totally worth supporting. Look at all that political calculus!

How you cannot denounce Perry for holding such a position is abhorrent. You might like everything else about him and those credentials might be great, but his position on human rights for homosexuals is immoral and completely untenable.

Ahh I see Godwin's law rears its ugly head.

"The United States has put the fight against gay and lesbian discrimination at the heart of its foreign policy, but stopped short of warning transgressor nations they could be stripped of US aid."

[Taken from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-0...ional/3717162]

That's what the news reported ... that the US stopped short of withholding foreign aid on this matter. So where are you pulling your facts from? If something further has taken place, let me know, please, because I'd like to see the US follow the UK's lead on this.

It seems the reports have varied as there are no real concrete details, from what I can gather they are separating foreign aid to give to the embassies to help fight for Gay and Transgender rights. Which is good no doubt, but doesn't stop my originally point of him putting the rights of one over the other.

You are being ignorant on this topic. Unless he makes a public reversal and says "actually, I support gay rights now" we can reasonably assume that someone who repeatedly makes public remarks that denounce gay rights clearly holds a position against gay rights. When he makes a future comment on gay rights, it is quite easy to understand the context of that comment, knowing his very clear and very public position on it. This is called reasoning, not ignorance. You yourself have stated he is courting the social conservatives. I don't understand your feeble attempts to deny or defend Perry's bigotry.

He is courting Social Conservatives in the context that he is making it feel that Christians are under attack in that ad. Now while I have maintained that Perry does not like Gays, that does not automatically mean that every time he links something to Gays it is automatically to be taken in a negative context.

Homosexual rights are NOT special rights! There are no special rights. They are all HUMAN rights. The right to not be murdered by your government just for existing is not "special".

They are special rights when you focus on one class of Sexualities but not others, including making those sexualities illegal.

[ChobiChibi]

How are they special rights? Not really sure how you can argue that, when the basic human right of being able to marry freely is not available to most homosexuals across America. Why? Because the majority of states don't permit it.

Those who are asexual aren't discriminated against, nor bisexual, pansexual, or all those other random -sexuals out there. Nor are heterosexuals. Even if it is just in one area (which I doubt), the right to marry should not be considered a "special right" when the couple is homosexual.

[Roy Karrde]

How are they special rights? Not really sure how you can argue that, when the basic human right of being able to marry freely is not available to most homosexuals across America. Why? Because the majority of states don't permit it.

Those who are asexual aren't discriminated against, nor bisexual, pansexual, or all those other random -sexuals out there. Nor are heterosexuals. Even if it is just in one area (which I doubt), the right to marry should not be considered a "special right" when the couple is homosexual.

Of all the views I have the one that is the most progressive is that I consider a sexuality to be anything or anyone a person is sexually attracted to. In which case, I do consider Gay rights, special rights as long as we do not extend those rights in some form to all sexual attractions.

[kurai]

What a nonsensical turn. The "special rights" are not those which are specifically for homosexuals. They are the general and absolute rights which homosexuals are being excluded from. You can not set aside such human rights as special without dehumanizing the entire target group.

The issue is not a mandate for affirmative action above and beyond the general marker, which you appear to be arguing against. The discussion begins with an action intended to motivate other jurisdictions to provide equality under the law - a diplomatic approach to persuade other states to actually prevent lynch mob attacks on homosexuals, to change their codified policy and end government-sponsored indefinite detention and torture.

You write, in response to "The right to not be murdered by your government just for existing is not "special", that "They are special rights when you focus on one class of Sexualities but not others". This is incoherent. An anti-discrimination project must focus on one group when it is the group being denied rights through the process of discrimination. The diplomatic action is intended to develop equality for LGBT individuals, its hegemonic opposite being... heterosexuality. This is not a group being systematically denied the most basic rights to life and free association on the basis of their sexuality. Consider a conceptual continuum of access to equality under the law: for LGBT individuals, they are working their way up from 0, not seeking something beyond 1.

The issue the entire time has been the extension of the most basic human rights to a group which has been denied them. This is only special if they are not worthy of human rights - if they are not human. Other groups may also be discriminated against: they would also be at zero, but that has no bearing on whether or not their rights are special, just that their rights must be actualized as well. Any instance of a group (or individual) being excluded from full access to equality under the law is a clear injustice. It is far more disgraceful when performed systematically on the basis of unchangeable personal characteristics.

Human rights are for all humans.

[Roy Karrde]

What a nonsensical turn. The "special rights" are not those which are specifically for homosexuals. They are the general and absolute rights which homosexuals are being excluded from. You can not set aside such human rights as special without dehumanizing the entire target group.

The issue is not a mandate for affirmative action above and beyond the general marker, which you appear to be arguing against. The discussion begins with an action intended to motivate other jurisdictions to provide equality under the law - a diplomatic approach to persuade other states to actually prevent lynch mob attacks on homosexuals, to change their codified policy and end government-sponsored indefinite detention and torture.

You write, in response to "The right to not be murdered by your government just for existing is not "special", that "They are special rights when you focus on one class of Sexualities but not others". This is incoherent. An anti-discrimination project must focus on one group when it is the group being denied rights through the process of discrimination. The diplomatic action is intended to develop equality for LGBT individuals, its hegemonic opposite being... heterosexuality. This is not a group being systematically denied the most basic rights to life and free association on the basis of their sexuality. Consider a conceptual continuum of access to equality under the law: for LGBT individuals, they are working their way up from 0, not seeking something beyond 1.

The issue the entire time has been the extension of the most basic human rights to a group which has been denied them. This is only special if they are not worthy of human rights - if they are not human. Other groups may also be discriminated against: they would also be at zero, but that has no bearing on whether or not their rights are special, just that their rights must be actualized as well. Any instance of a group (or individual) being excluded from full access to equality under the law is a clear injustice. It is far more disgraceful when performed systematically on the basis of unchangeable personal characteristics.

Human rights are for all humans.

You seem to be missing my argument, for those who suffer from Beastiality, or Pedophilia, or Zoophilia, any number of sexualities, the rights given to homosexuals are in many ways "Special Rights" as they are not persecuted for just having sexual urges while others are. Mind you for those outside Homosexuals, Transgender, Bisexuals, and Heterosexuals, they are persecuted not for the act, but merely to have a urge. For those on the outside looking in, it is a special right.

[ChobiChibi]

I can't believe you're putting pedophilia (or the others, but this just struck me the most) in the same ballpark as homosexuality. There's a distinct difference: the three that you mentioned are a crime. Those sexual urges are inappropriate by most people's standards, where as homosexuality is generally not. So there may be cases where someone flirts with someone of the same sex and it's not wanted, but that's not committing a crime.

Rape, on the other hand, regardless of sexuality, is a crime.

[kurai]

You seem to be missing my argument, for those who suffer from Beastiality, or Pedophilia, or Zoophilia, any number of sexualities, the rights given to homosexuals are in many ways "Special Rights" as they are not persecuted for just having sexual urges while others are. Mind you for those outside Homosexuals, Transgender, Bisexuals, and Heterosexuals, they are persecuted not for the act, but merely to have a urge. For those on the outside looking in, it is a special right.

You are pushing wildly off-topic. The issue is that remarks were made which classify the promotion of basic human rights as something special. The recognition of basic rights is not a special provision. It is not exceptional when they are provided for any one group. They must be respected for all such groups to attain a just society.

Homosexuals are persecuted for both act and intention (how could they be prosecuted otherwise?). Are you not aware that homosexuality remains punishable by the death penalty in many states? Open discrimination is par for the course in still more. To say that they are not persecuted for their sexuality is uninformed.

Are you attempting to point out that some forms of sexuality would remain criminalized even if LGBT identities and practices were fully accepted? As they are not presently, this is beside the point, and has nothing to do with the event which initiated this discussion. One injustice is being fought against - this is progress. Unfortunately, even if the argument that any injustice disqualifies all other attempts, your examples do not add up: the criminal acts around pedophilia would be sourced in the fact that they violate the human rights of another: the child, unable to consent due to a lack of agency. Bestiality is not even a crime in most jurisdictions - all of this still has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Certainly, it is a concern if other sexualities are persecuted through systematic means beyond the justice system, or if capital punishment is deployed otherwise (this would mean the absence of equality under the law and basic human rights). None of this has anything to do with "special rights", or with the approach that some societies take to LGBT identity at present.

If you contend that the allocation of human rights for any given group is "special", you need to propose an alternative definition of "human right" - your argument appears either naive or monstrous otherwise, denying the basic humanity of some. I suggest you contemplate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What does it mean to have "the right to life, liberty and security of person"? What about "the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law"?