Uh, no way, Al - Democrats have enough good people!  We're full!

I kid, I kid!!

Because after the lies and mindless following of most republicans of the current president and his mob of crooks

This goes back to what I responded to earlier -- sorry I didn't address this in sequence but as I reflected on it I felt I needed to respond to this more fully.  I appreciate that you call me out as a Republican shill for George Bush, tarring me (and all Republicans) as "mindlessly following" the current administration.  And if I do critize George W. Bush (my "dumbass" comment) you dismiss it because of my party affiliation and you assume that I must have voted a certain way. 

If you read any of my posts on this board you would have read: (1) I vote for the person not the party;  (2)  I believe in general republican political ideology not all planks on the GOP platform; and (3) that I have a real appreciation for Senator Obama as a man and the change in culture he may be able to affect which is why I am even considering someone whose policies I do not 100% with --particularly his tax policies and the way he has proposed to "grow" government.  But as an American first I vote for the person I believe will make the best leader for all of America -- not just my party.

I can respect your dislike of McCain, I can respect your disagreeing with republican ideology, or positions taken on those issues.  But I do not appreciate how you disrepect me with your divisive comments based not on what I have written or said but based on your assumptions of my beliefs based on my political affiliation. 

Geoff is a good dude, Jodi - Speaking as a life-long Democrat - I vouch for his goodness, his decency and his character!  We need more republicans like that guy.

Aw Mike!

Republicans/Democrats be dammned - we need more people like
Geoff.

Aw, Al!

I'm getting all weepy.  I need to go club a baby seal now . . .

 But I do not appreciate how you disrepect me with your divisive comments based not on what I have written or said but based on your assumptions of my beliefs based on my political affiliation. 

Geoff you say this after what you did to me a few pages back on this thread?  

Jodi, Geoff - you guys are both really cool and add a lot to this thread, and the board - things are said in the heat of political debate, but in the end, you guys are both decent chaps.

Just my two cents, anyway.

I'm really excited about how civil this election thread has been - 4 years ago it was all anger and personal threats and insults and insinuations that have lasting effects to this day - I'm just as guilty as anyone about it, by the way - so I'm glad to see this year's is going so well, and I hope to live up to the resonsibilty to keep it going.

Geoff you say this after what you did to me a few pages back on this thread?  

What did I do to you other than take you at your words and draw inferences from you based on your stated positions.  I disagreed with your position and asked for clarification.  As I said then, if you don't like the inference I drew maybe you should consider what you said and how it could lead me to that draw that inference.  You labeled me as complicit with antics of the Bush Administration not based on any words of support on my part but based solely on my political affiliation.  I debated you on your words, you did not do that with me. 

As I said some pages back -- you seem like a nice lady and what I have seen of you in other threads I kinda like you.  But I take issue with people when they challenge me not based on my words but on my political affiliation, or gender or faith, etc.  Like your assumptions on men in general (discussed earlier) I think you are letting your assumption on all Republicans color your argument and the position you take.  And I think thats wrong.  Want to call me out or draw inferences on what I have written -- God Bless -- I'll welcome it.  Thats the conversation.

You think its strange that men enjoy playing with kids or children's company?  I guess you think the big brother program is for the birds, huh?

I am simply stating that default prejudice against men is unfair and indistinguishable from other kinds of profiling.

By your standard that justifies racial profiling

You both said you don't generally trust men around kids with whom they are not related.  So I'll ask this -- how can I blanketly accept that you support gay men adopting? Its inconsistent with your prejudice.

Based on the articulated gender specific bias you have articulated why would I assume you would support any man adopting

I will take you at your word that you support gay men becoming fathers.  But if you didn't say that I would draw the inference from your statement that no single men, gay or otherwise, should be allowed to adopt.  To protect children.  When we articulate support for prejudices we allow people to draw inferences from our words based on those prejudices.

You made a blanket statement about men around kids.  You are judging based on gender.  You are using a subset of a group to tar the whole group.  So you would find it acceptable if I said: Black people are thiefs, because one black kid stole my bike when I was ten?  Because thats what you are doing but instead of race you are using gender.

See Geoff, I said I don't trust unrelated men around my child and you leaped to I was a profiling, gay bashing, racist. And you don't appreciate what I said. PLEASE!!!!!!!!

See Geoff, I said I don't trust unrelated men around my child and you leaped to I was a profiling, gay bashing, racist. And you don't appreciate what I said. PLEASE!!!!!!!!

You didn't say that.  You said you didn't trust any man (with out relation) around any kids.  Not your own -- as stated more times than I can remember no one ever said to not be cautious about your own children.  But a gender specific bias is what you articulated.  Don't change what the discussion was about.  If you misremember go back and read the thread again.

Jodi:

For what its worth if you feel I was unreasonable to you, I am sorry.  It was never my intent.