GOP chooses gay man for state senate race

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=12261027

I found this interesting. On the one hand, I think it is good for the republicans to actually put up an openly gay candidate, especially here in the most conservative state in the nation. On the other hand, I think it is just politics as usual and they are only running him because it happens to be the most liberal senate district in the state and he is their best chance of taking it.

Thoughts?

After reading the article and googling Log Cabin Republicans. It appears to me to be just another case of politics..... That district appears to vote heavy on the democrat side and I'm guessing the GOP thinks that putting an openly gay candidate on the docket will give them a better shot............. still laughing about the whole log cabin republican thing.. guess its been around since 1977 and was named after president Lincoln but today is the first time I have heard of them.....

ScottyP wrote:

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=12261027

I found this interesting. On the one hand, I think it is good for the republicans to actually put up an openly gay candidate, especially here in the most conservative state in the nation. On the other hand, I think it is just politics as usual and they are only running him because it happens to be the most liberal senate district in the state and he is their best chance of taking it.

Thoughts?

Totally agree with ya here scotty, just like putting Palin on the ticket so that the Rep's could try and pull women voters into the block.

As for your first point, sexual preference should totally be a NON ISSUE when it comes to government, but unfortunately it is.

dubob wrote:

shotgunwill wrote:

As for your first point, sexual preference should totally be a NON ISSUE when it comes to government, but unfortunately it is.

I think you meant to end that sentence with ". . .it isn't"; as in sexual preference isn't a non issue.

Thanks buddy.

dubob wrote:

shotgunwill wrote:

As for your first point, sexual preference should totally be a NON ISSUE when it comes to government, but unfortunately it is.

I think you meant to end that sentence with ". . .it isn't"; as in sexual preference isn't a non issue.

This is cool — a topic hijacked off into a discussion on writing clarity.

Let's look at the sentence in question: "As for your first point, sexual preference should totally be a NON ISSUE when it comes to government, but unfortunately it is." Sentences like this one, that compare two elements, often lend themselves to being truncated — and in the process, the meaning becomes ambiguous.

The ambiguity occurs because the sentence can be interpreted in different ways depending on how the reader mentally extends the sentence. I'll explain: take the phrase "it is" that lies at the end of the sentence. It is... um, what? Does Shotgunwill mean, it is a non-issue or does he mean it is an issue? He doesn't say, leaving the reader to infer the correct meaning.

Dubob's suggestion that Shotgunwill change the end of the sentence from "it is" to "it isn't," unfortunately, doesn't clarify the sentence either. The change still fails to mention what, exactly, is or isn't.

When it comes right down to it, Shotgunwill could have avoided this whole problem, and the subsequent hijacking, by simply extending his sentence by two additional words. For example, instead of an ambiguous, truncated sentence, he could have written, "As for your first point, sexual preference should totally be a NON ISSUE when it comes to government, but unfortunately it is an issue." Alternatively, he could have written, "As for your first point, sexual preference should totally be a NON ISSUE when it comes to government, but unfortunately it isn't a NON ISSUE."

I might also mention that "NON ISSUE" is normally regarded as one word or as a hyphenated word. Then too, there's that problematic missing comma after the word "unnecessary," but these are both subjects for our next lesson on hijacking a thread with impertinent bullshit.

Holy crap that reply from Pete was hilarious!!!

Is this what this forum has turned into??? fetch!

Yonni wrote:

Holy crap that reply from Pete was hilarious!!!

I want to make clear that my pompous and weasely post was meant as a joke at my own expense. My apologies to both Dubob and Shotgunwill if it came across as anything else.

Pete wrote:

Yonni wrote:

Holy crap that reply from Pete was hilarious!!!

I want to make clear that my pompous and weasely post was meant as a joke at my own expense. My apologies to both Dubob and Shotgunwill if it came across as anything else.

No offense taken, we'll just have to add you to list of grammar police.

Pete wrote:

dubob wrote:

shotgunwill wrote:

As for your first point, sexual preference should totally be a NON ISSUE when it comes to government, but unfortunately it is.

I think you meant to end that sentence with ". . .it isn't"; as in sexual preference isn't a non issue.

This is cool — a topic hijacked off into a discussion on writing clarity.

Let's look at the sentence in question: "As for your first point, sexual preference should totally be a NON ISSUE when it comes to government, but unfortunately it is." Sentences like this one, that compare two elements, often lend themselves to being truncated — and in the process, the meaning becomes ambiguous.

The ambiguity occurs because the sentence can be interpreted in different ways depending on how the reader mentally extends the sentence. I'll explain: take the phrase "it is" that lies at the end of the sentence. It is... um, what? Does Shotgunwill mean, it is a non-issue or does he mean it is an issue? He doesn't say, leaving the reader to infer the correct meaning.

Dubob's suggestion that Shotgunwill change the end of the sentence from "it is" to "it isn't," unfortunately, doesn't clarify the sentence either. The change still fails to mention what, exactly, is or isn't.

When it comes right down to it, Shotgunwill could have avoided this whole problem, and the subsequent hijacking, by simply extending his sentence by two additional words. For example, instead of an ambiguous, truncated sentence, he could have written, "As for your first point, sexual preference should totally be a NON ISSUE when it comes to government, but unfortunately it is an issue." Alternatively, he could have written, "As for your first point, sexual preference should totally be a NON ISSUE when it comes to government, but unfortunately it isn't a NON ISSUE."

I might also mention that "NON ISSUE" is normally regarded as one word or as a hyphenated word. Then too, there's that problematic missing comma after the word "unnecessary," but these are both subjects for our next lesson on hijacking a thread with impertinent bullshit.

And it's that ambiguity that makes it easy to agree and/or disagree with the sentence!