Fred Karger, Anti-LGBT Rights, and Irony.

[Trilobitia]

Fred Karger is running to be the Presidential nominee for the Republican Party. He never planned on actually winning, but like Randal Terry running for the Democratic Party nomination, he just wants to promote an issue. Randal Terry wanted to promote his pro-life ideology, and in the case of Fred Karger, he is fighting for LGBT rights.

In his visit to Utah, he met with Washington County Republican Party Chairman Willie Billings to discuss ballot access. During this meeting, they had a conversation that Karger described as ''welcoming'' and ''friendly''. At the conclusion of the meeting, Karger gave him some campaign merchandise, which included a frisby and a t-shirt. Mr. Billings went home, and after his wife saw it, she threw it in the trash. Livid, she sent the following e-mail to Fred Karger:

From: nanette Billings
Subject: running for president

Message Body:
you are an idiot. You met with my husband Willie Billings today about being on the Utah ballot. He brought your frisby and tshirt home and it is now out in the trash. I never want to hear from such a radical idiot again. you think you are conseritave? conseritave means you beleive in the values of foudning fathers and God. Do you know you cant procreate right? Well thank goodness for that. Nanette Billings.

Hopefully, you've realized the complete irony of the e-mail, and the notion that Mrs. Billings is in any position to call Fred Karger an idiot. I've made an entire list, for your convenience, of the errors in her e-mail. This is only a collection of errors based on a quick proofreading, and if you find any, let me know, and I'll put them in.

1: The first sentence in her e-mail should start with a capital letter, and while not grammatically incorrect, should probably use ''you're'' instead of ''you are''.

2: The second sentence should be ''Today, you met with my husband...'', instead of ''You met with my husband today''.

3: Every instance of ''conseritave'' should be spelt as ''conservative''. There is a lot of irony in lecturing somebody about what a ''true'' conservative is, when you can't even spell it correctly.

4: Mrs. Billings does not seem to understand what an ad hominem attack is. Calling Fred Karger an idiot does not disprove his ideas. While you may call his ideas radical, that is only a condition of his ideas, and does not prove them wrong.

5: Mrs. Billings asserts that Fred Karger cannot procreate. This is incorrect. Based on accounts I have read, when a homosexual man tries to have heterosexual sex with a woman, there isn't some invisible force field stopping them. It just feels extremely awkward for that man. If Mr.Karger wanted to, he could force himself to procreate.

Mrs. Billings also fails to realize that her logic would require infertile people to be deprived of their rights as well.

The topic of the discussion is this: In 2012, is the GOP capable of accepting LGBT rights? It seems that there is a growing faction in the GOP that does, but it's still controversial in the party. Richard Tisei is a gay Republican who has managed to become the nominee for the sixth district in Massachusetts. However, it could be said that Massachusetts is more liberal than the rest of the nation. The presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, Mitt Romney, supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. However, he is flakey, and it wouldn't be surprising if he changed that view once he got into office.

Personally, I think that the current trend indicates that their is growing support for LGBT rights in the GOP. What's yours?

[A Republican Empire State]

There is a idiot in the Republican party, therefore all Republicans are bigots.

[Trilobitia]

There is a idiot in the Republican party, therefore all Republicans are bigots.

If you had actually read my OP, you would find that I never asserted that all Republicans were bigots.

[Cannot think of a name]

How slow is the news day that we're jumping on a state chair's wife's e-mail?

[Wamitoria]

Holy crap. Utah schools must suck if she's that terrible at spelling.

EDIT: I do believe that they will inevitably be able to accept LGBT rights. But not until they abandon the "Guns, God, and Gays" strategy.

There is a idiot in the Republican party, therefore all Republicans are bigots.

He never actually said that. Defensive much?

[Trilobitia]

How slow is the news day that we're jumping on a state chair's wife's e-mail?

If you find that the subject we are discussing is inane, then I advise you not to participate in it. But no, you have to post here just to tell everybody how little you care. If you actually read the conclusion of my OP, you would find that the subject was about whether or not the mainstream GOP would accept LGBT rights. It had nothing to do with the e-mail.

[Cannot think of a name]

How slow is the news day that we're jumping on a state chair's wife's e-mail?

If you find that the subject we are discussing is inane, then I advise you not to participate in it. But no, you have to post here just to tell everybody how little you care.

Ease up there, salty. I'm not posting so much that I don't care, but that it is in fact a small news story and pretty petty. As I favor LGBT rights I would argue that there is perhaps a better vehicle than a little bit of petty schadenfreude over a poorly worded e-mail sent by a state chair's wife. In the grand scale of significance, it lands squarely in the camp of "pretty in-".

But you chose to make it the centerpiece of your post. And now you want to have a little cry because we have decided to call it out as small and petty. Sorry champ, but I'm not going to pat your butt just because you are nominally on the same side of an argument.

If you actually read the conclusion of my OP, you would find that the subject was about whether or not the mainstread GOP would accept LGBT rights. It had nothing to do with the e-mail.

Pro-Tip: You want to avoid spending most of the thread trying to tell people something has nothing to do with your thread? Do not include an irrelevant story as the title and bulk of your post. If you didn't want anyone to comment on the e-mail teacup-bound tempest, you should not have included it. (also, if you're going to nitpick someone's e-mail, you might want to run your own posts through a spell check so we don't have to translate 'mainstread'.)

[Trilobitia]

Ease up there, salty. I'm not posting so much that I don't care, but that it is in fact a small news story and pretty petty. As I favor LGBT rights I would argue that there is perhaps a better vehicle than a little bit of petty schadenfreude over a poorly worded e-mail sent by a state chair's wife. In the grand scale of significance, it lands squarely in the camp of "pretty in-".

The insignificance of the e-mail is exactly why it wasn't the subject of the OP. Rather, it was just there to provide some context to the discussion about the GOP's view on LGBT rights. A way of explaining how the topic came into my mind.

But you chose to make it the centerpiece of your post.

That's not true. I clearly stated in the OP that the topic of the discussion was something different. I had to write a lot about the e-mail for the purposes stated above.

And now you want to have a little cry because we have decided to call it out as small and petty.

''We''? Do you consist of more than one person? I'm not trying to be pedantic and argue by correcting your grammar, but trying to point out that you're falsely acting as if there's some consensus on it being ''small'' and ''petty''. Those two terms are subjective, I might add.

Sorry champ, but I'm not going to pat your butt just because you are nominally on the same side of an argument.

I would prefer that you didn't touch me anywhere, thank you.

Pro-Tip: You want to avoid spending most of the thread trying to tell people something has nothing to do with your thread?

Pro-Tip: Don't force me to clarify what the topic of my thread was and then criticize me for doing so. Remember, I only had to post that because of your remarks.

Do not include an irrelevant story as the title and bulk of your post.

It wasn't the subject, but it wasn't irrelevant. I included it to provide context.

If you didn't want anyone to comment on the e-mail teacup-bound tempest, you should not have included it.

And then have some out of the blue topic with no context to it? I included the story to have a pretty funny example of irony, and to show how some people in the GOP reacted to LGBT rights.

(also, if you're going to nitpick someone's e-mail, you might want to run your own posts through a spell check so we don't have to translate 'mainstread'.)

So now you're going to go down the grammar path? It was a typo that I fixed after posting, thanks. I know how to spell ''mainstream''. Three paragraphs? Fuck that, you spelled a word wrong on accident!

[Tmutarakhan]

There is a idiot in the Republican party, therefore all Republicans are bigots.

The Republican Party is completely controlled by its idiots and bigots, and has been for years now. I am aware that some people who are neither idiots nor bigots do vote for Republicans, although I have difficulty understanding the reasons why. But it is necessary that the Republican Party be destroyed, because it is occupying the space where a conservative opposition party ought to be.

[Cannot think of a name]

So now you're going to go down the grammar path? It was a typo that I fixed after posting, thanks. I know how to spell ''mainstream''. Three paragraphs? Fuck that, you spelled a word wrong on accident!

You prefaced your entire subject picking on the grammar and text of someone's email, but you want us to cut you a break...

Look, slugger, you included the story. You didn't want people to comment on the story, don't include it. It ain't rocket science.

[Trilobitia]

So now you're going to go down the grammar path? It was a typo that I fixed after posting, thanks. I know how to spell ''mainstream''. Three paragraphs? Fuck that, you spelled a word wrong on accident!

You prefaced your entire subject picking on the grammar and text of someone's email, but you want us to cut you a break...

Look, slugger, you included the story. You didn't want people to comment on the story, don't include it. It ain't rocket science.

The purpose of picking on her grammar was to show the irony. It's her fault if she chooses to call other people idiots, and then spell like one. I haven't done anything like that. Besides, my post had intellectual arguments in it, and not just an argument from the fact she had poor grammar. You? Not so much. And if you're going to compare an accidental misspelling of mainstream with her type of grammar, then I just don't know what to say.

I don't care that you commented on the story. Just that you've decided to focus on that, and not the actual topic of discussion.

[Cannot think of a name]

You prefaced your entire subject picking on the grammar and text of someone's email, but you want us to cut you a break...

Look, slugger, you included the story. You didn't want people to comment on the story, don't include it. It ain't rocket science.

The purpose of picking on her grammar was to show the irony. It's her fault if she chooses to call other people idiots, and then spell like one.

And you don't see any irony in you making a mistake in the process? Really? Not even a little, teensy tiny bit?

I haven't done anything like that.

You kinda did.

Besides, my post had intellectual arguments in it, and not just an argument from the fact she had poor grammar. You? Not so much.

Oh! I am slain!

And if you're going to compare an accidental misspelling of mainstream with her type of grammar, then I just don't know what to say.

You're doing a bang up job of coming up with stuff, don't be so hard on yourself.

I don't care that you commented on the story.

Evidence to the contrary.

Just that you've decided to focus on that, and not the actual topic of discussion.

Part of a good topic is a good set up, one that lets people launch into it without being scolded by the OP because they constructed their post on a flimsy, weak anecdote and would like us all to over look.

If you want to move on, fucking do it. Or, hell, we can go back and forth on what you 'intended' for a few pages...

[Trilobitia]

And you don't see any irony in you making a mistake in the process? Really? Not even a little, teensy tiny bit?

Not when the mistake took place on a different post than the one I criticized her spelling on. Besides, there's a huge difference between us two. I am capable of spelling mainstream, but I was dealing with two threads, and missed my error. She didn't even begin her sentence with a capital letter. The contrast is obvious.

You kinda did.

Wait, since when did I call her an idiot? I said her spelling was idiotic, but not her personally.

Oh! I am slain!

Yet you're still here? Your invulnerability is irritating.

Yes, I understand you were being sarcastic.

You're doing a bang up job of coming up with stuff, don't be so hard on yourself.

You could say that about anything. Your argument doesn't have any substance.

Evidence to the contrary.

Yes, what I stated was that I didn't have a problem with you commenting, but what you commented on.

[Cannot think of a name]

Alright man, unless we're gonna make out...

[Trilobitia]

Alright man, unless we're gonna make out...

I thought somebody who's been on here for so long would have something better than this to say. Glad to see you've decided to leave, though.

[Milks Empire]

What a bitch. That's really all there is to say.

[Gauthier]

There is a idiot in the Republican party, therefore all Republicans are bigots.

If you had actually read my OP, you would find that I never asserted that all Republicans were bigots.

Reflexive Republican Persecution Complex is up, Captain!

[The Reasonable]

Ever heard of the Log Cabin Republicans? There is a faction within the GOP that accepts gays, it just gets drowned out by the radicals who now hold center stage in party politics.

[JuNii]

Fred Karger is running to be the Presidential nominee for the Republican Party. He never planned on actually winning, but like Randal Terry running for the Democratic Party nomination, he just wants to promote an issue. Randal Terry wanted to promote his pro-life ideology, and in the case of Fred Karger, he is fighting for LGBT rights.

In his visit to Utah, he met with Washington County Republican Party Chairman Willie Billings to discuss ballot access. During this meeting, they had a conversation that Karger described as ''welcoming'' and ''friendly''. At the conclusion of the meeting, Karger gave him some campaign merchandise, which included a frisby and a t-shirt. Mr. Billings went home, and after his wife saw it, she threw it in the trash. Livid, she sent the following e-mail to Fred Karger:

From: nanette Billings
Subject: running for president

Message Body:
you are an idiot. You met with my husband Willie Billings today about being on the Utah ballot. He brought your frisby and tshirt home and it is now out in the trash. I never want to hear from such a radical idiot again. you think you are conseritave? conseritave means you beleive in the values of foudning fathers and God. Do you know you cant procreate right? Well thank goodness for that. Nanette Billings.

Hopefully, you've realized the complete irony of the e-mail, and the notion that Mrs. Billings is in any position to call Fred Karger an idiot. I've made an entire list, for your convenience, of the errors in her e-mail. This is only a collection of errors based on a quick proofreading, and if you find any, let me know, and I'll put them in.

1: The first sentence in her e-mail should start with a capital letter, and while not grammatically incorrect, should probably use ''you're'' instead of ''you are''.

2: The second sentence should be ''Today, you met with my husband...'', instead of ''You met with my husband today''.

3: Every instance of ''conseritave'' should be spelt as ''conservative''. There is a lot of irony in lecturing somebody about what a ''true'' conservative is, when you can't even spell it correctly.

4: Mrs. Billings does not seem to understand what an ad hominem attack is. Calling Fred Karger an idiot does not disprove his ideas. While you may call his ideas radical, that is only a condition of his ideas, and does not prove them wrong.

5: Mrs. Billings asserts that Fred Karger cannot procreate. This is incorrect. Based on accounts I have read, when a homosexual man tries to have heterosexual sex with a woman, there isn't some invisible force field stopping them. It just feels extremely awkward for that man. If Mr.Karger wanted to, he could force himself to procreate.

Mrs. Billings also fails to realize that her logic would require infertile people to be deprived of their rights as well.

The topic of the discussion is this: In 2012, is the GOP capable of accepting LGBT rights? It seems that there is a growing faction in the GOP that does, but it's still controversial in the party. Richard Tisei is a gay Republican who has managed to become the nominee for the sixth district in Massachusetts. However, it could be said that Massachusetts is more liberal than the rest of the nation. The presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, Mitt Romney, supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. However, he is flakey, and it wouldn't be surprising if he changed that view once he got into office.

Personally, I think that the current trend indicates that their is growing support for LGBT rights in the GOP. What's yours?

you owe me for treatment on that whiplash...

first your post talks about the woman's grammar and then you do a sharp turn to discuss LGBT rights? ow...

The Trend is changing... remember that little over 50 years ago... Republicans were supporting the end of segregation and discrimination... and in most cases... many view women and being human... so give it another decade or three... and they will start viewing LGBT persons as humans with rights.

[David Williams]

Fred Karger is running to be the Presidential nominee for the Republican Party. He never planned on actually winning, but like Randal Terry running for the Democratic Party nomination, he just wants to promote an issue. Randal Terry wanted to promote his pro-life ideology, and in the case of Fred Karger, he is fighting for LGBT rights.

In his visit to Utah, he met with Washington County Republican Party Chairman Willie Billings to discuss ballot access. During this meeting, they had a conversation that Karger described as ''welcoming'' and ''friendly''. At the conclusion of the meeting, Karger gave him some campaign merchandise, which included a frisby and a t-shirt. Mr. Billings went home, and after his wife saw it, she threw it in the trash. Livid, she sent the following e-mail to Fred Karger:

From: nanette Billings
Subject: running for president

Message Body:
you are an idiot. You met with my husband Willie Billings today about being on the Utah ballot. He brought your frisby and tshirt home and it is now out in the trash. I never want to hear from such a radical idiot again. you think you are conseritave? conseritave means you beleive in the values of foudning fathers and God. Do you know you cant procreate right? Well thank goodness for that. Nanette Billings.

Hopefully, you've realized the complete irony of the e-mail, and the notion that Mrs. Billings is in any position to call Fred Karger an idiot. I've made an entire list, for your convenience, of the errors in her e-mail. This is only a collection of errors based on a quick proofreading, and if you find any, let me know, and I'll put them in.

1: The first sentence in her e-mail should start with a capital letter, and while not grammatically incorrect, should probably use ''you're'' instead of ''you are''.

2: The second sentence should be ''Today, you met with my husband...'', instead of ''You met with my husband today''.

3: Every instance of ''conseritave'' should be spelt as ''conservative''. There is a lot of irony in lecturing somebody about what a ''true'' conservative is, when you can't even spell it correctly.

4: Mrs. Billings does not seem to understand what an ad hominem attack is. Calling Fred Karger an idiot does not disprove his ideas. While you may call his ideas radical, that is only a condition of his ideas, and does not prove them wrong.

5: Mrs. Billings asserts that Fred Karger cannot procreate. This is incorrect. Based on accounts I have read, when a homosexual man tries to have heterosexual sex with a woman, there isn't some invisible force field stopping them. It just feels extremely awkward for that man. If Mr.Karger wanted to, he could force himself to procreate.

Mrs. Billings also fails to realize that her logic would require infertile people to be deprived of their rights as well.

The topic of the discussion is this: In 2012, is the GOP capable of accepting LGBT rights? It seems that there is a growing faction in the GOP that does, but it's still controversial in the party. Richard Tisei is a gay Republican who has managed to become the nominee for the sixth district in Massachusetts. However, it could be said that Massachusetts is more liberal than the rest of the nation. The presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, Mitt Romney, supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. However, he is flakey, and it wouldn't be surprising if he changed that view once he got into office.

Personally, I think that the current trend indicates that their is growing support for LGBT rights in the GOP. What's yours?

you owe me for treatment on that whiplash...

first your post talks about the woman's grammar and then you do a sharp turn to discuss LGBT rights? ow...

The Trend is changing... remember that little over 50 years ago... Republicans were supporting the end of segregation and discrimination... and in most cases... many view women and being human... so give it another decade or three... and they will start viewing LGBT persons as humans with rights.

???
Since when did Republicans want to take away the rights of LGBT persons?
Now of course, banning marriage for gays but allowing it for straight couples is a violation of Equality under law, but since when was marriage a Human right?

[JuNii]

you owe me for treatment on that whiplash...

first your post talks about the woman's grammar and then you do a sharp turn to discuss LGBT rights? ow...

The Trend is changing... remember that little over 50 years ago... Republicans were supporting the end of segregation and discrimination... and in most cases... many view women and being human... so give it another decade or three... and they will start viewing LGBT persons as humans with rights.

???
Since when did Republicans want to take away the rights of LGBT persons?
Now of course, banning marriage for gays but allowing it for straight couples is a violation of Equality under law, but since when was marriage a Human right?

I've heard it argued that it was a Human Right at some rallies here. and it's not so much 'taking away' but preventing their inclusion to have such rights.

[David Williams]

???
Since when did Republicans want to take away the rights of LGBT persons?
Now of course, banning marriage for gays but allowing it for straight couples is a violation of Equality under law, but since when was marriage a Human right?

I've heard it argued that it was a Human Right at some rallies here. and it's not so much 'taking away' but preventing their inclusion to have such rights.

Oh, so a right to equality?
sounds good to me, and it means that by taking away marriage from straight people gays don't get automatically privileged.

[Trilobitia]

???Since when did Republicans want to take away the rights of LGBT persons?

First things first. They don't want to take away the rights of LGBT people, but they want to prevent those rights from being given in the first place.

I think it's very clear that the GOP is mostly against LGBT rights, as evidenced by the past five or so nominees.

Now of course, banning marriage for gays but allowing it for straight couples is a violation of Equality under law, but since when was marriage a Human right?

Article 16 of the UDHR has a non-discrimination clause. Even if it's not a human right, it's still a constitutional one, and that's all that that matters.

[Blouman Empire]

Aren't the Log Cabin Republicans still around?

[David Williams]

???Since when did Republicans want to take away the rights of LGBT persons?

First things first. They don't want to take away the rights of LGBT people, but they want to prevent those rights from being given in the first place.

I think it's very clear that the GOP is mostly against LGBT rights, as evidenced by the past five or so nominees.

Now of course, banning marriage for gays but allowing it for straight couples is a violation of Equality under law, but since when was marriage a Human right?

Article 16 of the UDHR has a non-discrimination clause. Even if it's not a human right, it's still a constitutional one, and that's all that that matters.

I already know the constitution supports equality under the law, but i thought it's a legal thing, not a Human rights thing.

And yes, republicans are famous for saying blunt things like "traditional", "family", and "values".