From gay.com: How gays can save the Republican Party

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2011 1:45 PM GMT
    While the Republican Party has gay unfriendly elements, the RJ members emphasizing this and encouraging all to support the Democrats all have very left-leaning political and economic positions. While they express genuine concern, to me they are heavily using gay issues to support their political/economic agenda.

    It has become clear to an increasingly large number of gays that being gay and being fiscally conservative do not have to be mutually exclusive. Or said another way, being gay does not mean one has to support the ideology of this Administration. The very public role of GOProud illustrates this. Let there be no doubts, even though the Administration signed on to deleting the public option and extending tax cuts for business owners and other wealthy people, it was only because they had no other choice. Their heart is far left.

    A couple of excerpts from gay.com

    ... Gays often view the Republican party as, at best, the group seeking to take away their rights, and at worst, the group looking to lock us away in queer concentration camps. But that’s not really who the Republicans are. The true fundamental core of the Republican Party is fiscal conservatism and limited federal government, not so-called Christian “values.” That condition was adopted during the Reagan-era when party leaders discovered they could rally voters with the newly invented concept of a “moral majority.”

    ... Make no mistake, the winning strategy is centrism. From civil rights and tax cuts to small business benefits, this is a scenario where everybody wins—gay and straight alike. With skillful intervention we can have a stronger position at the table to debate LGBT issues. Even if you don’t agree with a particular position it is important to recognize the benefits of debating the pros and cons of public policy.

    This is our fight, and we double our chances if we play both sides.

    http://daily.gay.com/hot_topics/2011/01/how-gays-can-save-the-republican-party.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2011 3:53 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidWhile the Republican Party has gay unfriendly elements...


    ...and the surface of the sun is kinda toasty.

    Here's how to REALLY charge up the base of today's GOP:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusive-president-michele-bachmann/story?id=12542453
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2011 8:27 PM GMT
    The Repubs have spent the last 30 years hatemongering against gay Americans in an effort to try and win the votes of anti-gay religious right extremist voters, and yet now, when the public opinion polls are moving in our favor, we're supposed to "save" the Republican party?
    NO FUCKING WAY.

    When/IF the Republican party abandons it's explicitly anti-gay agenda and platform - THEN the Repubs will deserve a second chance.
    It's THEIR move, not ours.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2011 9:48 PM GMT
    rickrick91 saidThe Repubs have spent the last 30 years hatemongering against gay Americans in an effort to try and win the votes of anti-gay religious right extremist voters, and yet now, when the public opinion polls are moving in our favor, we're supposed to "save" the Republican party?
    NO FUCKING WAY.

    When/IF the Republican party abandons it's explicitly anti-gay agenda and platform - THEN the Repubs will deserve a second chance.
    It's THEIR move, not ours.

    Only issue is you don't speak for the gay community. Some support your position, some don't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2011 10:17 PM GMT
    well said, SoCal.

    Both parties are necessary to achieve a balance and a check against extremism on the fringes of both parties (On the Left: Socialists and eco-fascists and thpse who would seek to either end or severely curtail state sovereignty within the Republic, and national sovereignty under a single world government body... and on the Right, religious extremists who seek to restrict our liberties and neoconservative imperatives to remodel the planet after our image for corporate bottom lines)

    The Dance of the Donkey and the Pachyderm may seem to be a chaotic and annoying affair, but it tends to keep things from getting carried to far in one direction or another.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2011 10:23 PM GMT
    Which pachyderm are you talking about?
    Pachyderm may refer to one of the pachydermata, an obsolete order of mammals which included:

    * Elephants
    * Rhinoceroses
    * Hippopotami
    * Mammoths
    * Mastodons
    * Wild Boars
    * Pigs
    * Warthogs
    * Tapirs
    * Aardvarks
    * Hogs
    * Moeritheriums
    * Platybelodons
    * Deinotheriums

    Similarly, are you talking about the curiously left-leaning Republican of 1956 or the extreme right modern-day Republican?
    Which donkey? The racist donkey of Reconstruction and his cousin, the Dixie Southern Democrat, or their complete opposite, the modern day Massachussetts Democrat?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 2:24 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    rickrick91 saidThe Repubs have spent the last 30 years hatemongering against gay Americans in an effort to try and win the votes of anti-gay religious right extremist voters, and yet now, when the public opinion polls are moving in our favor, we're supposed to "save" the Republican party?
    NO FUCKING WAY.

    When/IF the Republican party abandons it's explicitly anti-gay agenda and platform - THEN the Repubs will deserve a second chance.
    It's THEIR move, not ours.

    Only issue is you don't speak for the gay community. Some support your position, some don't.




    HAHAHAHA!
    NOPE - that is NOT the "only issue".

    The only issue that matters is the TRUTH.
    And the facts very clearly show that the Repubs CONTINUE to support an anti-gay agenda.
    Just look at the recent debate among the candidates for the Republican National Committe chairman position.
    EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE for the position mouthed the same old shit Repub party line of advocating second class status for gay Americans.

    http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/all-five-rnc-chairman-candidates-reject-gay-marriage-video

    And even if it did come down to a popularity contest, it would be NO CONTEST.
    The vast majority of gay Americans agree with my viewpoint (the accurate and fact-based one) - and not with your right-wing-spun factually inaccurate viewpoint.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 2:31 AM GMT
    Pachyderm: As commonly understood to
    refer to Elephants.

    (D) & (R) : Any and all of them within their respective times.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 2:40 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    socalfitness said
    rickrick91 saidThe Repubs have spent the last 30 years hatemongering against gay Americans in an effort to try and win the votes of anti-gay religious right extremist voters, and yet now, when the public opinion polls are moving in our favor, we're supposed to "save" the Republican party?
    NO FUCKING WAY.

    When/IF the Republican party abandons it's explicitly anti-gay agenda and platform - THEN the Repubs will deserve a second chance.
    It's THEIR move, not ours.

    Only issue is you don't speak for the gay community. Some support your position, some don't.

    HAHAHAHA!
    NOPE - that is NOT the "only issue".

    The only issue that matters is the TRUTH.
    And the facts very clearly show that the Repubs CONTINUE to support an anti-gay agenda.
    Just look at the recent debate among the candidates for the Republican National Committe chairman position.
    EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE for the position mouthed the same old shit Repub party line of advocating second class status for gay Americans.

    http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/all-five-rnc-chairman-candidates-reject-gay-marriage-video

    And even if it did come down to a popularity contest, it would be NO CONTEST.
    The vast majority of gay Americans agree with my viewpoint (the accurate and fact-based one) - and not with your right-wing-spun factually inaccurate viewpoint.

    You haven't done a survey so you don't know. I suspect a majority currently shares your viewpoint, but I don't know that it is a vast majority. That gay.com would take a position that opposes your viewpoint is indicative that attitudes are changing. You can be gay without being afflicted by your left-wing ideology.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 2:54 AM GMT
    What makes this lame article a complete pile of BS, is the fact that the suggestion it makes - that gays could change the Republican party from within, to a pro-gay party (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!) - HAS BEEN TRIED ALREADY.
    And it FAILED MISERABLY.

    The Log Cabin gays have been trying for YEARS to change the Republican party from within, into a pro-gay party - with ZERO success.

    The idea that gays should give a shit about saving the Republican party is a JOKE.

    Not only do the Repubs advocate a platform that specifically seeks to deny gay Americans the same equal rights all other Americans enjoy - they also have a record of much GREATER fiscal irresponsibilty than the Democrats do.
    Since 1948, the Republican presidents have increased the National Debt THREE TIMES AS MUCH as the Democratic presidents have.

    There is just NO reason to support the modern day Republican party.

    Hopefully, some day they'll dump their failed economic policies and their anti-gay agenda, and become a party that merits some support.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 3:25 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    rickrick91 saidThe Repubs have spent the last 30 years hatemongering against gay Americans in an effort to try and win the votes of anti-gay religious right extremist voters, and yet now, when the public opinion polls are moving in our favor, we're supposed to "save" the Republican party?
    NO FUCKING WAY.

    When/IF the Republican party abandons it's explicitly anti-gay agenda and platform - THEN the Repubs will deserve a second chance.
    It's THEIR move, not ours.

    Only issue is you don't speak for the gay community. Some support your position, some don't.


    Most do. Deal.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3280

    Jan 08, 2011 3:31 AM GMT
    Someone saidAnd even if it did come down to a popularity contest, it would be NO CONTEST.
    The vast majority of gay Americans agree with my viewpoint (the accurate and fact-based one) - and not with your right-wing-spun factually inaccurate viewpoint.


    It depends on who is asking the questions and what the question is.

    I would argue yes if you asked about political party yes, but regarding issues you may find a surprising divergence.

    Gays are disproportionally taxed, and get back disproportionally less is services.

    There are a good deal of closet conservatives out there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 3:54 AM GMT
    yourname2000 said
    socalfitness said...being gay and being fiscally conservative do not have to be mutually exclusive.


    And being a Democrat and being fiscally conservative ARE mutually exclusive? icon_eek.gificon_eek.gif

    I suspect it would be easier to show Dem's the error in there fiscal ways than to convince Repubs that gay is a-okay. So join the Dems and change THEM from the inside to be 'fiscally conservative'.

    And being a Democrat and being fiscally conservative ARE mutually exclusive? Not theoretically. There were moderate ones, the blue dogs, but the party threw them under the bus. They're gone.

    The Democrats are being held hostage by left wing ideological zealots. Their problems are not only economic, but they are lousy on national security, pandering to public employee labor, etc. You can't change them, you can only make them irrelevant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 4:15 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    Someone saidAnd even if it did come down to a popularity contest, it would be NO CONTEST.
    The vast majority of gay Americans agree with my viewpoint (the accurate and fact-based one) - and not with your right-wing-spun factually inaccurate viewpoint.


    It depends on who is asking the questions and what the question is.

    I would argue yes if you asked about political party yes, but regarding issues you may find a surprising divergence.

    Gays are disproportionally taxed, and get back disproportionally less is services.

    There are a good deal of closet conservatives out there.




    Post PROOF that "gays are disproportionally taxed, and get back disproportionally is less services".
    Otherwise, that's just one more right-wing talking point that you've posted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 4:21 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    yourname2000 said
    socalfitness said...being gay and being fiscally conservative do not have to be mutually exclusive.


    And being a Democrat and being fiscally conservative ARE mutually exclusive? icon_eek.gificon_eek.gif

    I suspect it would be easier to show Dem's the error in there fiscal ways than to convince Repubs that gay is a-okay. So join the Dems and change THEM from the inside to be 'fiscally conservative'.

    And being a Democrat and being fiscally conservative ARE mutually exclusive? Not theoretically. There were moderate ones, the blue dogs, but the party threw them under the bus. They're gone.

    The Democrats are being held hostage by left wing ideological zealots. Their problems are not only economic, but they are lousy on national security, pandering to public employee labor, etc. You can't change them, you can only make them irrelevant.



    Democrats are "lousy on national security"?
    TOTAL FUCKING BS.

    9-11 happened when the REPUBLICANS were in complete charge of the government.

    If you have no credible PROOF to back up your BS right-wing propaganda, then you're guilty of spreading a lie.
    Which makes you someone who just repeats crap the Republican party made up for partisan political purposes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 4:28 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    socalfitness said
    yourname2000 said
    socalfitness said...being gay and being fiscally conservative do not have to be mutually exclusive.


    And being a Democrat and being fiscally conservative ARE mutually exclusive? icon_eek.gificon_eek.gif

    I suspect it would be easier to show Dem's the error in there fiscal ways than to convince Repubs that gay is a-okay. So join the Dems and change THEM from the inside to be 'fiscally conservative'.

    And being a Democrat and being fiscally conservative ARE mutually exclusive? Not theoretically. There were moderate ones, the blue dogs, but the party threw them under the bus. They're gone.

    The Democrats are being held hostage by left wing ideological zealots. Their problems are not only economic, but they are lousy on national security, pandering to public employee labor, etc. You can't change them, you can only make them irrelevant.



    Democrats are "lousy on national security"?
    TOTAL FUCKING BS.

    9-11 happened when the REPUBLICANS were in complete charge of the government.

    If you have no credible PROOF to back up your BS right-wing propaganda, then you're guilty of spreading a lie.
    Which makes you someone who just repeats crap the Republican party made up for partisan political purposes.


    And while we're at it what is the new thing about Republicans being fiscally conservative. The only time we had a balanced budget was when Clinton was in power. The republicans spend enormous amount of money supporting the military industrial complex then cut taxes. That is not fiscally conservative!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 4:44 AM GMT
    rickrick91 saidDemocrats are "lousy on national security"?
    TOTAL FUCKING BS.

    9-11 happened when the REPUBLICANS were in complete charge of the government.
    9-11 happened because of weak policies during the Clinton era. He missed chances to go after Al Qaeda.

    Obama pulling radar out of Eastern Europe without getting concessions from the Russians, e.g. limiting anti-aircraft missile sales to Iran, was totally lame. The foreigners do not respect him, and many consider him a total joke.

    BTW - your understanding of foreign affairs is pathetic. And I don't have to type it in caps.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3280

    Jan 08, 2011 4:48 AM GMT
    well guess who spearheaded the firewall between the CIA and FBI during the Clinton years. Who dropped the ball after 1993 world trade center bombing? it wasnt a Republican. It was democrats with the mindset our current Attorney General who would treat terrorists as simple criminals. You can start with looking back to Janet Reno and Jamie Gorelick,

    Funny how many things Jamie is involved with


    "Gorelick Wall" barred anti-terror investigators from accessing the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, already in custody on an immigration violation. Preventing the early connect the dots of 9-11.
    Jamie S. Gorelick (pronounced /ɡəˈrɛlɪk/; born May 6, 1950) is an American attorney, presently representing BP.[1] She was Deputy Attorney General of the United States during the Clinton administration. She was appointed by former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle to serve as a commissioner on the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, which sought to investigate the circumstances leading up to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and also served as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae. She has been involved with many scandals and tragedies, earning her the nickname "The Mistress of Disaster."[2]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 4:54 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    rickrick91 saidDemocrats are "lousy on national security"?
    TOTAL FUCKING BS.

    9-11 happened when the REPUBLICANS were in complete charge of the government.
    9-11 happened because of weak policies during the Clinton era. He missed chances to go after Al Qaeda.

    Obama pulling radar out of Eastern Europe without getting concessions from the Russians, e.g. limiting anti-aircraft missile sales to Iran, was totally lame. The foreigners do not respect him, and many consider him a total joke.

    BTW - your understanding of foreign affairs is pathetic. And I don't have to type it in caps.


    Ah you need to do some reading and stop watching faux news. Yes the Clinton administration was fully aware of Al Qaeda and transferred this information urgently to the Bush administration who totally ignored it. Have you read "Where Men Win Glory" (the Pat Tilman story) or "Three Cups of Tea" ? It might enlighten you a bit about foreign policy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 5:01 AM GMT
    friendormate said
    socalfitness said
    rickrick91 saidDemocrats are "lousy on national security"?
    TOTAL FUCKING BS.

    9-11 happened when the REPUBLICANS were in complete charge of the government.
    9-11 happened because of weak policies during the Clinton era. He missed chances to go after Al Qaeda.

    Obama pulling radar out of Eastern Europe without getting concessions from the Russians, e.g. limiting anti-aircraft missile sales to Iran, was totally lame. The foreigners do not respect him, and many consider him a total joke.

    BTW - your understanding of foreign affairs is pathetic. And I don't have to type it in caps.


    Ah you need to do some reading and stop watching faux news. Yes the Clinton administration was fully aware of Al Qaeda and transferred this information urgently to the Bush administration who totally ignored it. Have you read "Where Men Win Glory" (the Pat Tilman story) or "Three Cups of Tea" ? It might enlighten you a bit about foreign policy.

    I am referring to the activities that transpired during the 8 years of Clinton. The books you reference are compelling stories and there is bravery and tragedy, but you can't understand the complexities of foreign policies by extrapolating from a couple of biographies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 5:10 AM GMT
    rickrick91 saidNot only do the Repubs advocate a platform that specifically seeks to deny gay Americans the same equal rights all other Americans enjoy - they also have a record of much GREATER fiscal irresponsibilty than the Democrats do.
    Since 1948, the Republican presidents have increased the National Debt THREE TIMES AS MUCH as the Democratic presidents have.


    And considering that spending bills generate fron Congress (specifically the House of Representatives)... and that throughout most of the period from 1933-1994 Congress was owned by Democrats:

    The finanicial spendthriftery (9%+) deficit growth is as much a factor of Democrat robbery of the taxpayers for growth of government as the GOP if not more so.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 5:19 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    rickrick91 saidDemocrats are "lousy on national security"?
    TOTAL FUCKING BS.

    9-11 happened when the REPUBLICANS were in complete charge of the government.
    9-11 happened because of weak policies during the Clinton era. He missed chances to go after Al Qaeda.

    Obama pulling radar out of Eastern Europe without getting concessions from the Russians, e.g. limiting anti-aircraft missile sales to Iran, was totally lame. The foreigners do not respect him, and many consider him a total joke.

    BTW - your understanding of foreign affairs is pathetic. And I don't have to type it in caps.




    9-11 happened because BUSH - THE PRESIDENT WHEN 9-11 HAPPENED - was focused on planning how he could invade Iraq.
    Even though he was warned that al Qeada was planning on attacking on U.S. soil, he made no effort to prevent the attack.
    Instead Bush went to Crawford TX for a month of R&R.

    And FYI, after 9-11, Bush "missed chances" to kill bin Laden.

    POST PROOF that "foriegners" don't respect Obama.
    Otherwise YET AGAIN - you're just mouthing BS right-wing talking points.

    BTW, your understanding of right-wing BS is impressive.
    Too bad it's still all crap.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 5:24 AM GMT
    alphatrigger saidPachyderm: As commonly understood to
    refer to Elephants.

    (D) & (R) : Any and all of them within their respective times.


    If only we can mix and match them, we wouldn't be having so many problems with a gridlocked Congress. The 1956 Republican would work quite well with the modern day Democrat, while the Dixie Democrat would love to work with today's Republican. icon_twisted.gif

    And yes, gays are disproportionally taxed, simply by the fact that marriage is defined by DOMA and civil unions are hit-and-miss depending on your state of residency. The tax benefits of marriage should either be equally applied or eliminated.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 5:27 AM GMT
    alphatrigger said
    rickrick91 saidNot only do the Repubs advocate a platform that specifically seeks to deny gay Americans the same equal rights all other Americans enjoy - they also have a record of much GREATER fiscal irresponsibilty than the Democrats do.
    Since 1948, the Republican presidents have increased the National Debt THREE TIMES AS MUCH as the Democratic presidents have.


    And considering that spending bills generate fron Congress (specifically the House of Representatives)... and that throughout most of the period from 1933-1994 Congress was owned by Democrats:

    The finanicial spendthriftery (9%+) deficit growth is as much a factor of Democrat robbery of the taxpayers for growth of government as the GOP if not more so.




    What a shame that you don't even understand that the Preisdent of the United States can VETO any piece of legislation that he doesn't agree with.

    AND, FYI - the worst periods of time for Debt growth were the first 6 years of the REAGAN administration, when the Congress was NOT controlled by the Democrats - and the first six years of the BUSH JR. administration, when the Repubs were in complete control of the federal government.

    It's really shameful that you Repub apologists care more about defending the Republican party's record of gross fiscal incompetence than you do about the TRUTH and the FACTS.

    The Republican party's PARTY FIRST mentality is a cancer on our country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2011 5:36 AM GMT
    rickrick91 saidPOST PROOF that "foriegners" don't respect Obama.
    Otherwise YET AGAIN - you're just mouthing BS right-wing talking points.

    BTW, your understanding of right-wing BS is impressive.
    Too bad it's still all crap.

    In your naiveté you assume there would be links to specifc world leaders saying Obama is weak. It doesn't happen that way. It is more subtile. But this link describes the French interaction in the mid-east, and if you can absorb it, you will easily discern the weakness displayed by the US.
    Sarkozy pilots Middle East cease-fire talks, fills US power vacuum
    http://atlanticreview.org/archives/1229-Sarkozy-pilots-Middle-East-cease-fire-talks,-fills-US-power-vacuum.html
    Other impressions come from conversations I have with friends who are foreign nationals. In both cases, their Governments view Obama as weak and inexperienced. Sorry, no documents for you to see.

    And the example I mentioned before, his unilateral concession to the Russians on pulling out of missile defense came across as weak. I cannot quote you conversations I had, but I know this. If you knew anything about the Russians, you would understand that unilateral concessions don't impress them.