Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mind

[LaloGS]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

I agree with Dean. How must the Log Cabin Republicans feel after seven years of Bush/Cheney??

I've known a couple of Log Cabin Gays in California, and their issue was not gay rights at all. Both of these guys were racist to the core. Both coincidentally were teachers in the LA public school system, and were ranting against blacks and Hispanics at a party thrown by a couple of friends for the Super Bowl. They pissed me off, and I called them on their racist rant.

I was, and still am, surprised that of the 50 or so gay men at the party, I was the only one to speak out about what racists shits they were, and one of our hosts was a Mexican friend. So if these two jerks are examples, I suspect it is racism so built into the Repuglican party that attracts gays to the Log Cabins.

The very name they have chosen for themselves harks back to Abe Lincoln, who if anything should be a shining example against racism. But as always things like reason and intelligence gets twisted when Repugs get their hands on it regardless if they are gay or straight.

 

[JayHawk]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

The idea that someone would make a post claiming they dislike racism and that why an entire group of people flock to a cause based only on their own misguided experience is absolutely ridiculous.

The hate in your post based on one experience shows how easy it is to be a racist.

 

[LaloGS]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

You're right, we don't have anything to dance about and things aren't likely to change much under Obama or Clinton. But at least, unlike the Log Cabin Repubs, we haven't been supporting people who are actively working against us, esp in the form of the ban on gay marriage amendment. The Dems give meager lip service to supporting us and then do nothing, but the Repubs actively turn people against us which, in a best case scenario gives official sanction to hate and, in a worse case scenario, leads to hate crimes. When national civil unions are eventually allowed (whether it's in 2 years or 100) you can be sure it won't be Republicans leading the way.

Additionally Byro, even with Bill Clinton in office he had to work with a majority Repuglican Congress. And one of his first acts as president was to try to get the military to allow gays to serve openly but the Congress and the predominantly Repuglican military brass so opposed him that only a compromise was achieved. Don't ask Don't Tell. Which allowed the military to prosecute any gay who couldn't be quiet about his or her sexuality. And they have repeatedly done so, because the Repugs are a vindictive lot intent on punishing anything they don't like.

If either of the democrats running achieves the office and enough of the Repuglican scum in the Congress is deposed and their seats are filled by Dems, we could see some movement forward, should there be a Democratic majority in Congress this time around.

Once Reagan actively brought the extreme religious right into the Repuglican party, there has been a marked change in the party for the worse. You might recall the Republican Dwight Eisenhower, wrote a memo while he was a General in the field. He handed it to his female Wac secretary to type up for distribution. The memo told all his subordanent officers to identify any and all Homosexuals and have them mustered out of the military ASAP. The Wac typed up the memo and her resignation because she was a lesbian. Ike read both documents, looked at his secretary for a moment, and tore both documents to shreds and dropped them into his waste basket. Things have changed in the Repuglican party and the changes are not for the good. The party has become the voice and enforcer of hate in the US. They need to be criminalized for trying to create a police state where their disgusting philosophy can be penalized.

 

[LaloGS]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

No one has done more harm to gay people than William Jefferson Clinton. He instituted don't ask, don't tell. And he willingly signed DOMA. Yet many gays still foolishly think he's the bees knees. (I've always wanted to use that phrase!)

Man Jack, you don't seem to have much of a grasp on the political situation during Bill Clinton's time in office. You ought to start trying to educate yourself a little. He didn't institute Don't ask don't tell, it was the best compromise he was able to get out of a majority Repuglican Congress. He tried to get a law passed allowing gays to serve openly. And at least the compromise stopped the military from asking about sexual orientation of any volunteer recruit. He came under such hateful attacks from both the Repuglican Congress and the high military (mostly Repuglican) brass, that his goal to allow gays to serve openly had to be dropped. At least he tried to move forward for gay rights.

 

[LaloGS]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

Mattie...

I seldom agree with some of the things you write here.
But you got me smiling with this

That is me and , maybe , several others here.

Being Gay & Republican is a working lifestyle.
GAY is not an issue with me in politics. My heart is.

Thanks.

I can understand that being gay is not a political issue for you LetMe, but how do you live with the massive debt and futile wars your party has promoted these past 7 plus years. None of it is conservative. In fact between the stupidity of the wars and the massive debt this administration has achieved, it has already become the least conservative party in the history of the world. Explain please? Your position doesn't make any sense if you think about it for a nanosecond. You must be enthralled by the dogma of the Repuglican platform, and for some reason aren't able to see reality of the factual deeds of your party. It's called critical thinking.

 

[LaloGS]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

Talk about revisionist history! What a load of bullshit! BJ Clinton had he option of vetoing the legislation. Of course he did what he always did. He caved into public opinion just like he did on welfare. He signed legislation that harmed gay people far more than anything ever signed into law by Bush.

If BJ was had any core beliefs, he would have vetoed the bill and forced the pugs to override him. But gutless, pissy pantsed weenie that he was, and still is, he folded like a cheap tent.

That's the reality of history. Deal with it!

Again Jack, he was dealing with a majority Repuglican Congress. Any veto would have been over ridden. Clinton if anything (even for Monica) was at the effect of a hate filled congress that had power over anything he tried to do. Man you just don't want to see the reality. Clinton did a lot for the America we all love against all odds and opposition from the Repuglicans.

The facts are clear for anyone willing to see them. Once Bush II was elected with a majority Repuglican Congress, as a country, we were taken back into a hate filled time not forward into more rights and freedoms, and the Repuglican bastards have done everything in their power to oppress not just gays, but every American with their incompetence and dogma. How you can continue to support these idiots is not understandable. They've done nothing for America, and will do nothing for America and will do less than nothing for you Jack, because you are gay. They hate you, just to keep the religious right as a base of guaranteed supporters. They've attacked the Constitution, the basis of our Democracy, and you approve of everything they do. . . It remains incomprehensible.

 

[LaloGS]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

That's why I said I mostly agree. The Democrats are not actively trying to take away our rights...but they are not actively trying to give us our rights either.

Mattie, you aren't seeing the reality of politics during Bill Clinton's administration, and what happened under Bush II. Bill worked with a predominately vindictive Repuglican Congress, and Bush II inherited the same hate filled Repuglican Congress. Those despicable bastards gave Bush everything he wanted wanted.

Clinton tried immediately after he took office to do something for Gay rights, but the Congress opposed it, as did the military. But even with massive opposition and Clinton's impeachment for lying about his personal life, he still left office leaving the country in better shape than Bush will.

While I can't speak for Obama, because anti gay sentiments run deep in the black community, I think Hillary would do something for us if the country puts a majority of Democrats in Congress this time around.

 

[LaloGS]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

If you have bad credit you can not get a clearance. the logic is based on vulnerability. That logic of vulnerability has been tested out over and over again.

If something can be used to lever your life and career against your principles then it is a disqualifier for a clearance.

So how do you explain J. Edgar Hoover? What you say is bullshit and I suspect you know it. Not only was he a cocksucker, but had a heavy gambling problem, and liked to cross dress at parties with men who had no clearance at all, and every one of them could have been a Soviet plant because they were not vetted, but rather gathered up off the streets for a hot time, and there are others in the same position as well in high offices in our government even today. Most recently, found tapping their toes for sex in a toilet.

 

[JayHawk]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

What I say is fact. You may choose to believe it or not. I could honestly care less.

 

[Críostóir]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

exactly - to part one

as for part 2 - ur position is one issue voting

which is the really stupid thingy

Actually, even if the GOP and Dems had the same position on gay rights, I would vote for the party that doesn't stand for torture, hostility to all nations not slavishly obedient to our policy, and steady erosion of all civil rights (except the right to bear arms). Even if the Democratic Party didn't stand for equality under the law, a level playing field for all, and transparency in government (however certain members may fall short on any or all of those).

I would vote Democratic because the Democratic Party, with all its flaws, has not become a stinking midden where true conservatives suffocate in the effluvia of right-wing ideologues. The GOP has been taken over by people who are, frankly, insane, who believe in the Coming Apocalypse and want to bring it about as soon as possible.

Even if the Democratic Party did not stand for equality based on race and religion, I would not vote for a party that stands for thinly-veiled racism and open religious prejudice.

You call me a single-issue vote because I won't vote for a party that wants me dead. I don't think that's at all reasonable, but I have many other reasons for hating the Republicans.

 

[Críostóir]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

Rats. Single-issue voter, of course I meant, but I didn't notice until the Editing period had expired.

 

[chance1]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

Actually, even if the GOP and Dems had the same position on gay rights, I would vote for the party that doesn't stand for torture, hostility to all nations not slavishly obedient to our policy, and steady erosion of all civil rights (except the right to bear arms). Even if the Democratic Party didn't stand for equality under the law, a level playing field for all, and transparency in government (however certain members may fall short on any or all of those).

I would vote Democratic because the Democratic Party, with all its flaws, has not become a stinking midden where true conservatives suffocate in the effluvia of right-wing ideologues. The GOP has been taken over by people who are, frankly, insane, who believe in the Coming Apocalypse and want to bring it about as soon as possible.

Even if the Democratic Party did not stand for equality based on race and religion, I would not vote for a party that stands for thinly-veiled racism and open religious prejudice.

You call me a single-issue vote because I won't vote for a party that wants me dead. I don't think that's at all reasonable, but I have many other reasons for hating the Republicans.

i don't think conservatives rule the republican party

and i don't think anyone (reasonable) wants us "dead"

but i hear what u r saying and respect it

my issue is the expectation/statement by some that if ur xyz (fill in the minority) u CAN'T vote republican - and be of sound mind

no use for that kind of closed minded thinking

which is exactly what u excuse the republicans of having

u go to maxwells?

 

[Críostóir]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

I don't think conservatives rule the Republican Party either. It was a better party when they did. The people running it now are reactionary lunatics who want to bring about a CHINO police state.

I would estimate that 40% of self-identified Republican voters in this country would say "yes" if an anonymous survey asked them "Would you approve of rounding up homosexuals and gassing them to death?"

And 'reasonable' and 'Republican' are not particularly words that go well together IMO.

I think it's foolish to vote against your own interests. It may be foolish and brave, if your own interests are being overserved, but voting for a party that wants to deprive you of all civil rights is just plain foolish. It might be worthwhile to try to get them to change their policies...but in the voting booth, it's just you and the ballot.

Maxwell's used to be the home turf of the reform movement in Hoboken, but I haven't been there in years.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

And you know what? At the national level, we really only have two choices. Because of the two-party system (which isn't really something I'd call "democracy" or even "representative democracy") voting for any third party (Libertarian, Reform, or some mythical Gay Marriage for Everyone! party) is, unfortunately, the practical equivalent of not voting at all. And since politics is personal for all gay people (until all discrimination ends), the ethical equivalent as well.

Not true -- and history shows it.
The Socialist Party in America never got anyone into high office, but it pulled enough votes that both the Democrats and Republicans scrambled to put socialist programs into their platforms.

If just a third of the people who don't ordinarily vote cast their votes for some third party, the Democrats and Republicans would have to take notice. With luck, they'd both collapse and be replaced.

 

[Críostóir]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

If just a third of the people who don't ordinarily vote cast their votes for some third party, the Democrats and Republicans would have to take notice. With luck, they'd both collapse and be replaced.

Isn't it pretty to think so.

Nice vision for the very long term: the two parties being the Socialists and the Libertarians. That would be a better nation than we have now with the Democrats and Republicans!

But you don't redesign the kitchen when the house is on fire. Right now this country is in the most serious danger it's been in in at least four decades; constitutional rights are under severe threat.

Vote Democratic in November. It's our only hope in the short term, and if we don't do something quickly there won't BE a long term.

 

[byro]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

Vote Democratic in November. It's our only hope in the short term, and if we don't do something quickly there won't BE a long term.

Brilliantly said, Criostoir. Though, sadly, I often think it's too late to save the long term -- at least as regards climate change, which is to say, the planet.

 

[Spensed]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

my issue is the expectation/statement by some that if ur xyz (fill in the minority) u CAN'T vote republican - and be of sound mind

no use for that kind of closed minded thinking

That's kinda closed minded of you.

It's not as simple as you're making out.

You only need to use the whether-a-black-could-ever-vote-for-a-racist example to see that.

 

[Spensed]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

We will not see any great advances under either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton as President.

Well one advance that we would see is the appointment of new judges on the Supreme Court (and maybe even a majority) who believe that the Constitution protects sexual privacy.

That would ensure that Lawrence v. Texas isn't reversed.

So that, even if you think a Democratic Administration won't take gay civil rights forwards (which I don't agree with for one moment), at least, even on your own case, it wouldn't take them back.

 

[JayHawk]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

Brilliantly said, Criostoir. Though, sadly, I often think it's too late to save the long term -- at least as regards climate change, which is to say, the planet.

Don't forget that Wyoming brought us Dick Cheney and Yellowstone. One is Satan and one will rain brimstone down on all of us......

Scientists have revealed that Yellowstone Park has been on a regular eruption cycle of 600,000 years. The last eruption was 640,000 years ago…so the next is overdue. The next eruption could be 2,500 times the size of the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption. Volcanologists have been tracking the movement of magma under the park and have calculated that in parts of Yellowstone the ground has risen over seventy centimeters this century.

If another large caldera-forming eruption were to occur at Yellowstone, its effects would be worldwide. Thick ash deposits would bury vast areas of the United States, and injection of huge volumes of volcanic gases into the atmosphere could drastically affect global climate. ​

 

[JayHawk]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

Now why would John McCain nominate a judge with those ideologies?