Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Dennis Black Update

A quick update on Dennis Black's use of Senate letterhead for campaign purposes appears necessary. The Real Sporer has now learned that Sen. Black didn't just use his Senate position to campaign in Jasper County but he is now making campaign communications with industry leaders in Des Moines with his official letterhead.

The use of the Senate letterhead is odd, everyone knows Dennis is the incumbant who voted for homosexual marriage rights, voting rights for felons, against the death penalty for child murderers-and for every kind of tax and regulatory increase imagineable. I wonder how the Maytag union members like Dennis' ideas about economic development right now?

Go get him Tim!

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Black's arrogance will never cease to amaze me. I hope Morgan can expose him for the out-of-touch senator that he is.

Erich Riesenberg said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Erich Riesenberg said...

My friend, you raise the issue of gay marriage.

Tell me, I have heard much of Nussle's failure to keep his marriage vows. Do you feel it is related in some way to gay folks getting married? Thank you.

The Real Sporer said...

Erich,

I'm sure you were a complete supporter of Bill Clinton so let's stop talking about Jim Nussle's divorce.

Homosexual marriage has to do witht a far broader and more general decline in public morality. Most people, as in 70-80% in surveys, find homosexuality morally objectionable. As a society we tolerate the behavior because, unlike the Islamofacsit states with whom we are at war, we are a tolerant society. But we certainly are not required to approve, or worse yet, encourage the behavior that so many find objectionable.

Erich Riesenberg said...

Oh Ted, I do apologize, but you may have misunderstood my question.

Jim Nussle, and apparently yourself, feel gay marriages threaten straight marriages. My question is simply about the basis for that claim. Did gay marriage cause Mr. Nussle to lie to his wife and break his marriage vows? In other words, is he speaking from personal experience?

Cheers, my friend!

Erich Riesenberg said...

And, of course, the question would be the same for you. Are you speaking from personal experience?

If not, what basis do you have for the claim?

Have a great day!

Anonymous said...

The logic you use to say one persons "marriage" affects anothers is of course ridiculously silly. Is this really what D's think is the issue? That simpleton logic as used by D's as a legitimate argument for their position is very enlightening as to what it tells us about their collective intelligence and ability to discuss important topics.

Just keep talking about Nussles divorce. Divorce is something that D's know much more about than R's.

Anonymous said...

why doesn't someone file ethics complaints against black?

Erich Riesenberg said...

If Nussle and Sporer are not claiming that gay marriage threatens families, please do explain their objection? Please tell me why they mock gay people who wish to be married with nary a criticism for a man like Nussle who lied to his spouse?

And you are wrong to imply that Democrats have higher divorce rates than Republicans.

Here are some facts which will repute both of these claims!

http://www.heartheissues.com/gaymarriage-divorce.html

Ciao, my friend!

Max Fischer said...

Erich, we are all so stupid and pathetic in our objection to homosexual marriage. Those of us who do object (79% of public, Bill Clinton, John Kerrey, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Chet Culver, Jim Nussle, the plethora of Iowa Democratic lawmakers) apologize to you for being such hillbilly bafoons. I had the silly notion that our legislature decided the legal parameters of marriage and our churches decided the religous parameters. I know, judges from Massachussetts get to decide what is best for Iowa. Thanks for educating me Erich. Perhaps, you could spend some more one on one time with your Democrat friends about this, they are not getting your message.

Cheers, Ciao, OUT!

Erich Riesenberg said...

Are you really not at all capable of explaining your position?

Max Fischer said...

Testy testy. What, no "Cheers" or "Ciao" now that you know who shares our opinion? I will settle for Hillary and Chet's explanation, won't you?

Max Fischer said...

IA-Gov: Thoughts on the IPTV debate
Published by Chris Woods May 20th, 2006 in Democrats, Iowa politics, 2006 Governor's Race, Culver, Chet, Blouin, Mike, Fallon, Ed, Yepsen, David, Gay marriage, GLBT issues and Debates.
For the most part, I think David Yepsen is actually correct in calling the debate a ‘tame affair.’ It never got heated between the candidates (though it might have afterwards) and most of the questioning from the candidates to each other was tame as well. I do, however, think he didn’t give Ed Fallon a fair chance in the piece. Fallon is legit and should be considered that way, even by Iowa’s worst political pundit. For more of a detailed review of what happened during the debate, see these articles from the Register and Radio Iowa. If you missed the debate, it will be rebroadcast on your local IPTV station tomorrow evening at 6 PM.

Say what you want about the issues in the comments sections below, I want to hear your thoughts particularly on the lightning round answers which seem to have generated a lot of comments. I think some — if not all — of the lightning round questions would’ve been much better discussed in more than a yes or no answer (but I do admit that getting candidates to answer yes or no to a question is always nice).

There’s going to be a lot of discussion about Chet’s stance on civil unions in the coming days, as already evidenced by the piece from the Register and from Radio Iowa. Blouin’s campaign is calling his answer in today’s debate a flip-flop, but to the best of my knowledge and my recollection, it isn’t. Here’s how Radio Iowa records part of the exchange after the debate:

“Toward the end of the debate, the candidates were asked to simply respond “yes” or “no” to several questions, including whether they support a state law that would allow for “civil unions” that give legal recognition to gay or lesbian relationships. Both Ed Fallon and Mike Blouin said they backed civil unions, while Chet Culver said he opposed civil unions.

[…]Culver opposes civil unions for homosexual couples. “I don’t think we need to change the marriage laws at this time in Iowa,” Culver said. “I do think we need to add sexual orientation to the civil rights code.” That move would bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Culver’s opposition to civil unions for homosexuals is a flip-flop, according to the Blouin campaign. “I’m not going to be distracted by negative attacks,” Culver told reporters after the debate. “Mike Blouin has decided to go negative in this campaign.”

But organizers of a gay rights conference held this spring in Des Moines say they believe Culver told them he backed civil unions. Culver disputes that. “I do not think we need to change the marriage laws of Iowa,” Culver said. “I’ve said that throughout the course of this campaign.”

I was the GLBT Conference forum with the gubernatorial candidates and even live-blogged the event here. Culver consistently kept a position of protecting those in the GLBT community from discrimination and bullying, as well as offering partner benefits and other rights. To the best of my recollection Culver never said anything about changing what Iowa law says. While I personally favor changing state law to allow for gay marriage, Culver’s position has been consistent, contrary to what Blouin staffers will argue.

Anyway, those are my thoughts for now. Engage me in the comments because I love a good debate.

Erich Riesenberg said...

I am sorry, you want me to engage you in debate over a transcript? Or poll results? I am sorry, my good friend, but those are basic facts which do not lend themselves to debate. I think the facts you presented are probably accurate, and, in any case, irrelevant to me as to whether I should find gay marriage to be a threat.

If you care to explain the danger posed by gay marriage, and why it is more dangerous to society than men like Jim Nussle who lie and abandon their spouses, then we might have something to debate.

I am sorry, but the lack of intelligent discussion on this blog is disappointing, and it is becoming tedious.

Please, ask Ted to cite a source, any source, which can identify Chet as proposing 100% of IPERS' assets be invested in venture capital. That is such a nonsensical idea. $20 billion could not be invested in Iowa venture capital, and certainly would not be wise, as they are illiquid investments for several years. The fact that Ted can't admit a simple misunderstanding on his part makes it clear he is not interested in true, honest debate. Where are the great conservatives of the past, who cared more about solving social problems than getting elected?

Max Fischer said...

The line about a "debate" was taken directly from Chris Woods website. I am not interested in debating you Erich. Clearly no one in your Democratic party wants to debate you on gay marriage, they all agree with me. You are the one that is tiresome because you cannot accept the fact that your position is unpopular and will fail at the ballot box. So please spare me your indignation and psuedo intellectual attempts at making a coherant argument for your position. The only people that support your position are unelected judges from another state.

Erich Riesenberg said...

Ah Max, I am sorry, but not surprised, you are unable to state a basis for your opinion.

The Real Sporer said...

Erich again demonstrates a very immature level of reasoning.

Homosexual marriage isn't illegal because it merely devalues the institution of marriage but because it is a per se undesireable social unit. In the same vein marriage between parents and children, siblings and first cousins is illegal. Polygamy is illegal. They are all illegal because they are social units of which we, as a society, strongly disapprove and do not wish to encourage.

Its that democracy thing that troubles you Erich, isn't it. How dare 70-80% of the people in a given country shouldn't be able to define the primary legal/social unit of that country.

Erich Riesenberg said...

Dear Ted -

I am asking you why you, Ted Sporer, are opposed to gay marriage. Why do you find it undesirable.

What troubles me is that you have opinions without being able to explain how you formed them. That is sad for any adult, especially a political leader.

The hunter said...

Erich,
What is the purpose of marriage? It is to have and to raise children. No gay couple in the history of the species has had a child without outside help.

No one should question a parent's love for their child- whether married, single, straight or gay. And every individual deserves respect, dignity, and equal rights under the law. But marriage is NOT a civil right. It is a family-building institution given special recognition due to the unique benefits it brings to society, especially children.

Since the dawn of man no other social structure provides the building blocks for a stable, civilized society other than marriage. In economic terms look how much we spend out of the federal budget on the problems created by broken homes. Occurences of violent crime, teen pregnacy and drug abuse are less in a traditional 2 parent household. All the money and federal programs cannot compensate for the presence of a loving Mother and Father, and no other family model comes close. It deserves the protection and sanction of the state.

Personally I don't give a rip who or what you choose to sleep with. But I am not in favor of redefining this institution to suit your personal lusts (or anyone elses for that matter). Redefining marriage will not only change its meaning, but its purpose and its significance for future generations. Marriage needs to be strengthened not devalued to suit a sexual preference.

Labels

Amazon Bookstore