Gays To The DNC: "Kiss My Ass"

• metta
  
  Posts: 44175
  
  
  Jan 11, 2010 9:55 PM GMT

  Gays vs. Democratic Party
  
  They’re fond of your checkbooks — and deaf to your demands for equal rights. What will it take for the Democratic Party to step up?
  
  http://advocate.com/Politics/Politicians/Gays_vs_Democratic_Party/

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• offshore
  
  Posts: 1294
  
  
  Jan 11, 2010 10:09 PM GMT

  But what is the alternative?
  
  Surely not the Republicans... Casting no vote is not a solution either because the Republic may win.
  
  Support a decent independant is the only semi-viable solution.
  
  It's like a case of supporting the less of evils.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jan 11, 2010 10:44 PM GMT

  I really find myself pulling away from the Democratic party more and more, I have a much more Libertarian stance on things...and I'm starting to take it much more seriously.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• coolarmydude
  
  Posts: 9191
  
  
  Jan 11, 2010 10:47 PM GMT

  Over the last few days, I have been getting phone calls listed as PRIVATE and I always ignore them. Friday, I answered out of curiosity and it was the DSCC. I will not be donating until some things change and I don't mind them repeatedly calling me because it will stymie and frustrate the status quo.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• coolarmydude
  
  Posts: 9191
  
  
  Jan 11, 2010 10:57 PM GMT

  From the article:
  
  "Several years later, AIDS pushed homosexuality to the forefront of the American consciousness and revitalized gay activism as a life-or-death proposition. In 1992, Bill Clinton was the first major-party presidential nominee to openly court gays as a political constituency, raising millions of dollars from them in the process. While his administration saw remarkable progress in terms of gay political visibility, it also led to a series of disastrous setbacks, from the enactment of DADT to the passage of DOMA. "
  
  
  The part I put in bold is completely misconstrued in the historical context! DADT legally allowed gays to serve in the military for the first time in US history. Bill Clinton wanted gays to openly serve in the military, but because of Congress, he had to settle on DADT. What became of DADT over the years has become a disaster and is a long time coming for full open military service of gays. I just wanted to clear the air on this common misconception.
  
  

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jan 11, 2010 11:38 PM GMT

  I will continue to vote Democratic. If another party shows up with better ideas than the Repubs, then so be it. The Republican image is so tarnished in my mind it might take decades to repair.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jan 12, 2010 2:37 AM GMT

  When Obama's organizational state tour came to my town, I had the pleasure of telling the whole lot of them that they deserved to lose. It made their little meeting damn uncomfortable for them. Altho some of those there understood and agreed. After 40 years of supporting them with my vote and donations, now with the House, the Senate, and the White House under Democratic control, they still couldnt do a damn thing for gays. If they couldnt remember who supported and elected them, then they deserved to lose. Their goal is to get elected. They forget they are supposed to perform after the election.
  
  Oh and they did lose the gubernatorial election in Virginia, after the Dems have held it easily for the past two terms (a Governor in VA only get one term).

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jan 12, 2010 2:39 AM GMT

  ParkourPump saidWhy should the DNC change since the gays will continue to vote for them even if they end up mirroring the GOP in their votes and stances - because "there is no other choice".

  
  Sure there is another choice. DONT VOTE FOR THEM. Let them lose. After they get thrown out of office and lose their jobs...including all their staff, they will remember the next time they get in who puts them there.
  
  See my posting above.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jan 12, 2010 3:01 AM GMT

  I agree wholeheartedly - Democrats are merely interested in propogating the party and its influence, towards the end of using the most productive and creative members of our society as "The Giving Tree" for wrongheaded policy.
  
  At least the Libertarians, as a matter of core principle, stand up for gay people. They don't have to be threatened with the only thing Democrats seem to care about - checkbooks.
  
  

  ScottCLE saidI really find myself pulling away from the Democratic party more and more, I have a much more Libertarian stance on things...and I'm starting to take it much more seriously.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jan 12, 2010 3:11 AM GMT

  jprichva said Maybe I'll go back to being a Trotskyist.

  
  Well at least Trotsky was practical enough to have a good line to use on dogmatic pacifists: "You may not be interested in war but war is interested in you."

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• coolarmydude
  
  Posts: 9191
  
  
  Jan 12, 2010 3:14 AM GMT

  abelian0 saidAt least the Libertarians, as a matter of core principle, stand up for gay people. They don't have to be threatened with the only thing Democrats seem to care about - checkbooks.

  
  
  
  Libertarians only support gays in words. They haven't done anything in deeds. Your point mirrors the Democratic Party and the whole point of this thread.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jan 12, 2010 4:52 AM GMT

  Your agenda may not be theirs, and or not as high a priority, you don't write the list. Mr Obama may well won't another term in the White House, and giving in to the gay vote may well impede with that, also he has the the one eyed gay vote anyways.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• jlly_rnchr
  
  Posts: 1759
  
  
  Jan 12, 2010 5:00 AM GMT

  I think I am just as disenchanted with Obama and the DNC as anyone. But I am still anticipating his second term. With no political capitol at stake, hopefully he will be a little riskier with what he gets behind.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• metta
  
  Posts: 44175
  
  
  Jan 12, 2010 8:48 AM GMT

  I have never been a Democrat. I have voted for them and have contributed to a few campaigns but I have never been one. I was brought up to be a Sagebrush Republican (keep the government out of peoples personal lives and minimize unnecessary expenses). But I don't fit in that one either of the current 2 major parties. None of them are perfect but I'm comfortable in the Green Party. They have openly supported gay marriage and civil rights for over 15 years. They have no real power in this country but at least I can relate to many for their basic values. (And no, I have never voted for Nader.)
  
  
  green party platform: http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php See under Human Rights and Social Justice.
  
  Values:
  http://www.greenparty.org/values.php
  
  Marriage Equality:
  http://www.gp.org/issue/marriageequality.pdf
  
  Facebook Page for Lavender Greens
  http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=...id=24195597256
  
  
  The Green Party has strongly supported gay marriage for more than 15 years:
  http://www.gp.org/press/pr-state.php?ID=62

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jan 12, 2010 9:48 AM GMT

  jlly_rnchr saidI think I am just as disenchanted with Obama and the DNC as anyone. But I am still anticipating his second term. With no political capitol at stake, hopefully he will be a little riskier with what he gets behind.

  
  
  He had better straighten up his act or he won't make a second term. Democrats will continue to become so disenfranchised that it's likely we won't go out in droves to vote like we did in 2008, which will be more than enough to get a Republican back in the office.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jan 12, 2010 12:14 PM GMT

  I'm not sure about the "American Greens", but we too have a greens party. Where the head is an out homosexual, Bob Brown. Now neither Bob nor the greens would be good for Oz, so we won't see them in power anytime soon; thank god.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jan 12, 2010 12:24 PM GMT

  
  
  Maybe we should revive the Wig party.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• coolarmydude
  
  Posts: 9191
  
  
  Jan 12, 2010 12:30 PM GMT

  ...or the Blue Moose Party.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jan 12, 2010 12:49 PM GMT

  [quote][cite]coolarmydude said[/cite]

  abelian0 saidAt least the Libertarians, as a matter of core principle, stand up for gay people. They don't have to be threatened with the only thing Democrats seem to care about - checkbooks.

  
  Libertarians only support gays in words. They haven't done anything in deeds. [quote]
  
  
  They can't do anything because no libertarian has ever been elected to anything.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jan 12, 2010 12:54 PM GMT

  coolarmydude said...or the Blue Moose Party.

  
  That's BULL Moose Party, although there is a Blue Moose Restaurant in East Grand Forks, Minnesota, where some people have parties.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• coolarmydude
  
  Posts: 9191
  
  
  Jan 12, 2010 1:19 PM GMT

  TexDef07 said[quote][cite]coolarmydude said[/cite]

  abelian0 saidAt least the Libertarians, as a matter of core principle, stand up for gay people. They don't have to be threatened with the only thing Democrats seem to care about - checkbooks.

  
  Libertarians only support gays in words. They haven't done anything in deeds. [quote]
  
  
  They can't do anything because no libertarian has ever been elected to anything.

  
  
  
  
  
  So they can't join in the grass roots efforts involving gay rights? That's more of what I had in mind.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• coolarmydude
  
  Posts: 9191
  
  
  Jan 12, 2010 1:20 PM GMT

  Red_Vespa said

  coolarmydude said...or the Blue Moose Party.

  
  That's BULL Moose Party, although there is a Blue Moose Restaurant in East Grand Forks, Minnesota, where some people have parties.

  
  
  
  LOL. I didn't catch that. I was thinking of blue balls when I wrote that though. Ooooppsss! HAHAHAA!

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jan 12, 2010 1:23 PM GMT

  Can't I just join a group of rebel fighters on Hoth?
  
  

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jan 15, 2010 12:25 AM GMT

  Uh, actually they frequently do. And the Libertarians have supported gay rights as a platform issue since 1972.
  
  

  coolarmydude said

  TexDef07 said[quote][cite]coolarmydude said[/cite]

  abelian0 saidAt least the Libertarians, as a matter of core principle, stand up for gay people. They don't have to be threatened with the only thing Democrats seem to care about - checkbooks.

  
  Libertarians only support gays in words. They haven't done anything in deeds. [quote]
  
  
  They can't do anything because no libertarian has ever been elected to anything.

  
  
  
  
  
  So they can't join in the grass roots efforts involving gay rights? That's more of what I had in mind.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jan 15, 2010 12:57 AM GMT

  studboyindy saidCan't I just join a group of rebel fighters on Hoth?
  
  

  
  
  Mon Mothma 2012!

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM