Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS To Hear Case On Right To Know Anti-Gay Signers (198 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I couldn't agree with you more. (7+ / 0-)

    Honestly, if one makes a decision to affix their name to a document that will be used to affect PUBLIC policy, then why wouldn't that document be PUBLIC?

    "I hope they'll know that fools with megaphones or runny mouths just don't count." - Donal Og Cusack

    by Texas Blue Dot on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 07:37:54 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah I could understand (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clarknt67, ultraviolet uk

      if they signed the petition with the promise that no one would ever know they signed it, but that isn't the way petitions have ever worked in the history of petitions.

      I think that it's perfectly fine to advocate a position even if you're anonymous - I mean I'm typing this now behind a pseudonym - but we are talking about years of hundreds of policies and laws and court decisions affecting a small minority of the country and we are talking about petitions and fights that completely restrict our rights and these people want to do this and dehumanize us with the added benefit of remaining unconnected to whatever results from their campaign to dehumanize us.

      It doesn't work that way. They want this, they can fucking own it.

      "Everybody lies... except POLITICIANS? House, I do believe you are a romantic."

      by indiemcemopants on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 07:44:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site