David Koch Supports Gay Marriage, Pot Legalization, And Ending Wars...

[nhjeff]

Leftatalbuquerque wrote:

Q: What do you call a community of Libertarians?
A: You don't.

Actually, you call them Free Staters.

[nhjeff]

Leftatalbuquerque wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, no, dear xenophobe - there isn't. Gays get married every day, the weather is giving us a bumper crop of wheat, barley and oats this season, and so far, no one has shot up a public place, murdering bystanders.
Those are your problems.
Perhaps you should pray more.

Glad ot know your agricultural sector is doing well. American will be needing some of your food as well as your oil this fall.

[nhjeff]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

The real good news is the anti-gays have raised a meager $500,000 in Washington state, while the pro-equality side has raised over $6 million. Of course it's yet to be seen how effective our ads will be compared to their scare tactics.
Also, the state is warning the anti-gays & the catholic church that their attempts to bundle donations violates the state's public disclosure laws.
Things are looking good in Washington.

Those fund-raising amounts mean nothing. The anti-gay have access to unlimited funds, but they don't want people to know that nor who the contributors are. Weeks before the election, funds will appear from nowhere, and the traditional marriage organizations will refuse to disclose anything.

Waiting until the last minute has the dual benefits of giving our side little time to debunk the lies and precluding action by the courts to invoke disclosure. That's why we should have been confronting the now-totally-predictable lies they will tell head on for months. We know what they'll do because they've done it 32 times before.

Yet we rely on our advertisements that are designed to sit right inside the audiences comfort zone. Our opponents will smash through that comfort zone with all they've got.

[WeTheSheeple]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Those fund-raising amounts mean nothing. The anti-gay have access to unlimited funds, but they don't want people to know that nor who the contributors are. Weeks before the election, funds will appear from nowhere, and the traditional marriage organizations will refuse to disclose anything.
Waiting until the last minute has the dual benefits of giving our side little time to debunk the lies and precluding action by the courts to invoke disclosure. That's why we should have been confronting the now-totally-predictable lies they will tell head on for months. We know what they'll do because they've done it 32 times before.
Yet we rely on our advertisements that are designed to sit right inside the audiences comfort zone. Our opponents will smash through that comfort zone with all they've got.

All valid points, but I think this time things may be different. The state officials seem prepared for the public disclosure nonsense. NOM is having to fight in 4 different states this year, and the pro-equality side is well funded in all 4 states.

I don't think the anti-gays have "unlimited funds" to tap. Many rich people who may not agree with marriage equality are smart enough to realize that at some point they will just be throwing their money down the drain for nothing. Like the Koch brothers, they didn't get rich by being stupid. So at some point I think their funding will eventually dry up.

In addition, the pro-equality side in Washington state is beginning a $5 million ad campaign this month. Obviously there is no guarantee it will be effective, but the more our message is out there without significant counter claims from the anti-gays, the better for us.

I hope we're prepared for the lies we all know will be coming in late October. We've seen the ads before in California & Maine, so hopefully we have response ads prepared to run immediately after every negative ad shows up.

If we don't win at least one state this November, then I think we stand a chance of repealing any existing state constitutional bans. IF that happens, then we should probably just save our money & efforts and focus on the courts & legislatures in states where we can be effective- i.e. Illinois, Hawaii, Deleware, Nevada, etc, where a popular vote isn't necessary or even allowed.

[WeTheSheeple]

Obviously I meant to say if we don't win at least one state this Nov, then I think we DON'T stand a change of repealing any existing state constitutional bans.

If we can't do that, then we're stuck with waiting for the SCOTUS to act, and I think that is a decade away at least.

[Curteese]

FaFoxy wrote:

<quoted text>
You're a liberal, huh ?

Rather be liberal than a raging bitch, you self loathing punk.

[nhjeff]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
All valid points, but I think this time things may be different. The state officials seem prepared for the public disclosure nonsense. NOM is having to fight in 4 different states this year, and the pro-equality side is well funded in all 4 states.
I don't think the anti-gays have "unlimited funds" to tap. Many rich people who may not agree with marriage equality are smart enough to realize that at some point they will just be throwing their money down the drain for nothing. Like the Koch brothers, they didn't get rich by being stupid. So at some point I think their funding will eventually dry up.
In addition, the pro-equality side in Washington state is beginning a $5 million ad campaign this month. Obviously there is no guarantee it will be effective, but the more our message is out there without significant counter claims from the anti-gays, the better for us.
I hope we're prepared for the lies we all know will be coming in late October. We've seen the ads before in California & Maine, so hopefully we have response ads prepared to run immediately after every negative ad shows up.
If we don't win at least one state this November, then I think we stand a chance of repealing any existing state constitutional bans. IF that happens, then we should probably just save our money & efforts and focus on the courts & legislatures in states where we can be effective- i.e. Illinois, Hawaii, Deleware, Nevada, etc, where a popular vote isn't necessary or even allowed.

Well, I'm surprised how well marriage equality is polling in Maryland. They've actually got the best poll numbers. But I'm not convinced they're indicative of the results on election day. I'm wary. But Obama's support seems to have been a real game-changer.

The advantage we have in Maine is that this is the second-time around. The negative ads won't have the impact they had before. And Mainer's United has done the hard work of door-to-door person-to-person conversations.[BTW: I'll be taking a week's vacation to canvass in Maine at the end of the month. Want to come? We could use you and your husband!] Just as important, our side has taken the offense--something that has never happened before.

Also note that Maine's GLBT community has had its mettle tested before. They went to the ballot box over non-discrimination in employment and accommodations three times before winning. I'm sure that's why they did so well on Question 1 in 2009. I'm very optimistic on the prospects in Maine for 2012. But even if Mainers lose, they'll be back to win soon enough.

And Washington has some of the same advantages as Maine, having been through the battle over civil unions. I have always guessed that 90% of the people who vote against marriage equality will also vote against civil unions. So I guesstimate that Question 71--if it had been about marriage--would have lost 47%- 53 %, the same as Maine Question 1. So we need bring 3% more to YES--about half of the people who are okay with civil unions but uncomfortable with marriage.

The fact that Washingtonians have lived with civil unions for three years will make it much easier for many to make the decision to grant real equality. On the other hand, some will think existing law is fine. In the end, I think the fact that Washingtonians have already seen all the arguments they'll see this fall will lessen their impact enough for Question 74 to prevail.

Even with none of those factors, the polls show that sentiment has shifted enough in three years for our side to prevail. Except in Minnesota whose gay community--as far as I can tell--is out of the closet and hiding behind the panel screen.

[snyper]

The Koch's bought their way to the table by funding the Tea Party to the tune of many millions of dollars. They effectively bought a voting block of shock troops and Congressional obstructionists.

Remember this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

In this light, what is the purpose of Koch's seemingly self-effacing statement?

I suggest that it is an attempt to split support for the Obama Campaign.

[Curteese]

snyper wrote:

The Koch's bought their way to the table by funding the Tea Party to the tune of many millions of dollars. They effectively bought a voting block of shock troops and Congressional obstructionists.
Remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
In this light, what is the purpose of Koch's seemingly self-effacing statement?
I suggest that it is an attempt to split support for the Obama Campaign.

I wish there WAS a world where there was a newscaster like him....just as I used to wish for a President Bartlett.

[FaFoxy]

snyper wrote:

The Koch's bought their way to the table by funding the Tea Party to the tune of many millions of dollars. They effectively bought a voting block of shock troops and Congressional obstructionists.
Remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
In this light, what is the purpose of Koch's seemingly self-effacing statement?
I suggest that it is an attempt to split support for the Obama Campaign.

I SUPPORT the Tea Party !

I SUPPORT SHOCK TROOPS !

I SUPPORT CONGRESSIONAL OBSTRUCTIONISTS !

WOO-HOO ! CHANGE you can believe in !

RUN, OBAMMY, RUN !

:)

[snyper]

Curteese wrote:

<quoted text>I wish there WAS a world where there was a newscaster like him....just as I used to wish for a President Bartlett.

"We just decided to"