Donald Trump Quotes Dolo
Rockadelic
Out Digging 13,993 Posts
In his decision to allow Miss California to retain her title the Donald said "It's the same answer that the president of the United States gave.??? Which is exactly what the hated Dolo said here a few days ago.The difference is Miss California has no influence on any damn one while the President does.Still gonna hate on the store bought boob(s) from Cali?
Comments
She is just some conservative dipsy doodle from Dego. She most likely cost herself the Miss USA crown for her answer, so who cares.
I'm far more concerned with the president's stance, which I find indefensible.
Nice for him too I suppose.
No... it's not. I've lost a bit of respect for him over it.
Unfortunately, the Republicans are so beyond the pale it really doesn't matter politically. Obama's decided (rightly, I think) that there's just no credible opposition and so he can afford to piss off the base a little bit.
And by "beyond the pale," you must mean "doing what they actually say and saying what they actually believe"?
"we believe in NOSSING."
"Beyond the pale" Unacceptable; outside agreed standards of decency.
Firstly, let's get get clear what word we are talking about here. It's pale, and certainly not pail, - the phrase has nothing to do with buckets. The everyday use of the word pale is as the adjective meaning whitish and light in colour (and used to that effect by Procol Harum and countless paint adverts). This pale is the noun meaning 'a stake or pointed piece of wood'. It is virtually obsolete now except in this phrase, but is still in use in the associated words paling (as in paling fence) and impale (as in Dracula movies).
The paling fence is significant as the term pale became to mean the area enclosed by such a fence and later just the figurative meaning of 'the area that is enclosed and safe'. So, to be 'beyond the pale' was to be outside the area accepted as 'home'.
Catherine the Great created a 'Pale of Settlement' in Russia in 1791. This was a western border region of the country in which Jews were allowed to live. The motivation behind this was to restrict trade between Jews and native Russians. Some Jews were allowed to live, as a concession, beyond the pale.
Pales were enforced in various other European countries for similar political reasons, notably in Ireland (the Pale of Dublin) and France (the Pale of Calais, which was formed as early as 1360).
The phrase itself comes later than that. The first printed reference comes from 1657 in John Harington's lyric poem The History of Polindor and Flostella.
In that work, the character Ortheris withdraws with his beloved to a country lodge for 'quiet, calm and ease', but later venture further - 'Both Dove-like roved forth beyond the pale to planted Myrtle-walk'. Such recklessness rarely meets with a good end in 17th century verse and before long they are attacked by armed men with 'many a dire killing thrust'. The message is clearly, 'if there is a pale, you should stay inside it', which conveys exactly the meaning of the phrase as it is used today.
First of all it is not the same answer the president of the united states gave.
He has said, whenever asked, that he believes that same sex couples should have all the rights and privileges afford straight couples.
Last time this came up I cut and pasted a detailed paper from whitehouse.gov on the presidents position.
I just went back there and the statement has been greatly shortened.
At first I thought that was to his discredit, he must be back pedaling.
But now I realize that it was shortened because people are too lazy to read the whole thing.
Here is the presidents position:
"He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage."
But wait, he says civil unions, not marriage, he must oppose marriage!
No, marriage is a religious institution. Any religion can choose to marry, or not marry any couple and there is nothing the federal government can do about it. I know many gay couples who have been married in religious ceremonies.
Civil unions is what the government has power over. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
Is he parsing words by failing to say marriage. Yes.
Should we call it on him. Yes.
Is his position 100% different from Miss Cali and the Republican party. Yes.
Truth
b/w
I've said this here before, EVERY marriage in this country is a civil union. If you choose to have your ceremony take place at a religious building, that's your business, but ultimately irrelevant. Without a government issued marriage license, you're not married.
The so-called Edwards Argument*- "I don't personally believe in gay marriage but I am not opposed to civil unions"- has been extremely effective in helping the Democrats dodge the gay marriage bullet.
*This is my coinage as he was the first Democrat I can remember, parsing the gay marriage question.
There was a good article in the NYT two weekends again about this very subject.
NYT Article
Why the hell should they be spared the headaches?
Don't they both say(paraphrased) "I'm against gay marriage as a Christian but support the rights given via civil unions"???
Because, as a conservative and a Republican, you have to line up; "doing what they actually say and saying what they actually believe".
Thus, you are against same sex marriage, civil unions, hate crime legislation, work place protections...
And now you understand the genius of the Edwards Argument. Nobody can call you on it without getting tagged as a bigot.
They have the same sound bite, completely different public policies.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Please provide a link to said Obama public policy on gay marriage.
Thank You.
Is there a secret handshake involved?
To be honest I doubt whether Cheney (he of the gay daughter) or Bush is too terribly hung up on queers. They been around too much. Pure speculation I know but I'd bet dollars.
wide-stance related
Sorry, I cut and pasted the public policy on LGBT rights in a post above.
It is from the web site I mentioned, whitehouse.gov.
You must have missed it.
Here is the direct link to the civil rights page.
I hope this helps.
1. a definite course of action adopted for the sake of expediency, facility, etc.: We have a new company policy.
2. a course of action adopted and pursued by a government, ruler, political party, etc.: our nation's foreign policy.
3. action or procedure conforming to or considered with reference to prudence or expediency: It was good policy to consent.
What you linked and pasted is a "stance"...a policy, by definition, requires action as you can see above.
Or as my American Heritage Dictionary (desk edition) states:
2)A guiding principle or procedure.
But your definitions are good. So I will change my response to better address your original question.
They have the same sound bite, completely different stances[/b].
I was just trying to avoid wide stance jokes.
Can we agree that what is listed in the issue section of whitehouse.gov represents the presidents stance?
So here again is Obama's stance, or guiding principle, what some might call a policy.
"President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity."
As I recall Bush's stance as both president and governor was to oppose extending protection based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
"He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage."
As I recall Bush opposed full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
"He supports repealing Don???t Ask Don???t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation."
As I recall Bush supported Don't Ask Don't Tell. I don't recall any Bush stance on adoption rights.
Back to your question.
I agree, they had the same sound bites, but very different stances.
What actions would you like to see Obama take in the next 100 days?
I'd like to see him focus on getting the economy up and running by enforcing strict guidelines for those companies who benefitted from government "bail-outs".
By making sure his stimulus money is distributed and used correctly for the good of the country as a whole and not special interest groups. Thus far only 6% of that money has been distributed.
I'd like to see a detailed tax plan that pays for his recent spending plan which amounted to $11,000+ for every American citizen.
I'd like to see a detailed plan for the end of the war including committments from our allies to help reshape the Middle East into a place that enforces civil rights for All it's citizens.
I'd like to see a POLICY put into place to create new forms of energy that will sustain us into the future.
That seems like a good 100 days worth of work....if half of that gets accomplished he'll be the greatest president of my lifetime.
You may have different priorities and that's great too.....any/all accomplishments will help move us forward and I'm all for that.
That sounds good. I was thinking along the line of civil rights and gay marriage.