Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mind

[Spensed]

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

^ Might have something to do with five "I"'s in two lines. LOL.

 

[JayHawk]

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

I can not claim anyone but I.

I am what I am.

I AM ME

In all the world,
there is no one else exactly like me -
everything that comes out of me is authentically mine,
because I alone choose it - I own everything about me -
my body, my feelings, my mouth, my voice, all my actions,
whether they be to others or to myself -
I own my fantasies, my dreams, my hopes, my fears -
I own all my triumphs and successes, all my failures and mistakes. Because I own all of me, I can become intimately acquainted with me - by so doing I can love me and be friendly with me in all my parts -
I know there are aspects about myself that puzzle me,
and other aspects that I do not know -
but as long as I am friendly and loving to myself,
I can courageously and hopefully look for solutions to the puzzles and for ways to find out more about me -
However I look and sound, whatever I say and do,
and whatever I think and feel at a given moment in time is authentically me - If later some parts of how I looked, sounded, thought and felt turned out to be unfitting, I can discard that which I feel is unfitting, keep the rest, and invent something new for that which I discarded -
I can see, hear, feel, think, say, and do.
I have the tools to survive, to be close to others, to be productive,
and to make sense and order out of the world of people and things outside of me -
I own me, and therefore I can engineer me -
I am me &

I AM OKAY

by Virginia Satir​

 

[Letterbomb]

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

Perhaps gay republicans follow GOP idelogies for reasons other than LGBT issus, let's say they're mostly socially conservative and fiscally liberal. e.g. I'm not a democrat just because of my homosexuality, there are many, many things which make me a dem.

 

[LaloGS]

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

Okay, so let's give you that the elected blacks post-civil war were to punish the racist Confederates of the South. You still feel that Thomas is a token and that Colin Powell and Condi Rice aren't black enough. Tolerance is a wonderful thing to share if you're the right kind of gay and the right kind of black.

First, let me address the first part of your statement. The blacks in post Civil War southern states were not elected, because the defeated south was not allowed to vote. They were appointed by northern interests history refers to as carpetbaggers. They were not appointed to punish racists, but to help the carpetbaggers fleece the south of just about everything worth anything. The real animosity for the north held by many southerners after the war stems from the carpetbagger period rather than the war itself.

If John Wilkes Booth hadn't assassinated Lincoln, The Carpetbagger period would not have occurred. It's one of the ironies of that period because had Lincoln lived, the south would have been reconstructed with a kinder more forgiving hand. And history shows us that most Southerners understood this and were appalled at the news of Booth's act.

To the second part of your statement. I firmly believe that Thomas is a token, since he contributes almost nothing. His seat on the bench is a "conservative" rubber stamp for Scalea. Thomas' appointment was sorely fought, but at the time the Repugs were in the majority, and they rammed him down our throats.

Likewise, Rice acts like a "yeowser boss" token. She makes appearances around the world, but accomplishes nothing. She's way above her Peter Principal cut off.

Colin Powell was also brought into the cabinet as another token to make the administration appear to be unbiased, but when he started to make sense and speak up against some of the things the administration was doing, they booted his ass. He's a smart man, and I respect him a great deal all the more for standing up to the rest of the idiots in the Bush Administration when they to used him to sell the WMDs to the UN. Had Powell had the guts to run for the oval office, he would have had my vote in a second. I'm sorry he didn't, because even if he'd run as a Republican, he would have been a thousand times better than Obama, and I'm a Democrat if you didn't suspect it.

I don't have a problem with skin color. But I do have a problem with stupidity and thoughtlessness, which is Condi Rice's stock in trade. You can see her shake and hesitate when she spouts what she knows are Bush/Cheney lies, but spout them she does. She's an embarrassment. I suspect she's actually very intelligent, but she's no politician, and can't stand up when she should.

So to your question about degrees of blackness. Do you mean culturally or just skin color? Your question lacks focus, because it immediately implies my objections to the three people named presupposes that I object because they are black, and that is not the case. I would be comfortable in a room full of blacks, and have lived both in Harlem and the Lower East side and Bogota, Colombia with people people of color compared to me, without ever once being called a racist. I have long term friends of all colors, and we do not have these kinds of discussions about skin color, because I as a pale skinned person see no difference in skin color related to intelligence. Now a stupid white man is just as bad to me as a stupid Black or Hispanic person, and I probably wouldn't elect to spend much time around stupidity coming from any color of skin. I consider racial bias to be the height of ignorance and stupidity.

 

[kasumato]

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

I know of two instances where signs like that were posted in restaurants. The most famous being Barney's Beanery in West Hollywood. It nearly went out of business before they took down the sign and put up an apology. The other was in Houston, and did go out of business before they realized it was gay money that kept them afloat. It really always comes down to the dollar in capitalism. Shit, they'd serve Aardvarks if it made money. The Crest Cafe serves dogs in Silverlake LA.

But keep in mind that it doesn't always work like that. If there's a restaurant where gays are the minority, and everyone is discriminatory against them, they won't lose a dime.

And it definitely wasn't like that in the 20th century.

 

[Spensed]

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

I can not claim anyone but I.

I am what I am.

No one's asserting that you aren't you, just that your egocentrity (as evidenced by your repetitions of "I", "I", "I"....) might be one reason why, as you had posted, you just can't let insults pass. Use that comment as a test. LOL.

Back to topic. Can someone remind me what the Republicans have ever done for gay or for gay civil rights, such that gays would be in their right minds to support them? No cheating by using non-gay issues.

Don't worry, I won't be holding my breath.

 

[LaloGS]

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

The suject of clearance was mentioned in a post by spensed from a post by someone entirely not on this board (as far as i know)

The conversation evolved from an idiotic saying by Dean to Libs defending it with oh so smooth comment like "Gay republicans make me sick" to very eloquent examples given by spensed on what the Clintons and Democrats have given the gay Community. On from there to Hate legislation. Then on even further to why people vote the way they do. Like I said Spensed made the comment about clearance based on someone elses blog you then took up the same line with a comment on J Edgar Hoover and used the same post to tell me I was full of shit and knew it and whats more I should know that because of Craig. Poor comprehension skills. Read it again. Maybe you'll get my point.

I responded that my knowledge of how and what is checked for a clearance is not bullshit but fact. All I asked is you prove it. My point about J. Edgar Hoover was that he was head of the agency who vettes clearances, for many many years, and the methods he used were leaky as a sieve.

Meantime you entered the entire conversation with one of the most biggoted viewpoints I have ever observed. Being disgusted by racism is not bigoted standing up for bigots might make you a fellow bigot. Those two LCs were so full of bigoted bile, I couldn't take it anymore. I usually don't react like that in public, I just discount the person or persons as the assholes they are, and go somewhere else. The fact that these two were forcing their views on the rest of us at that party, made my blood boil. I'd venture to say that if you don't agree with their POV, you would have reacted as I did.I called you on it. You cannot judge all by two. From what those two idiots were trying to do with their hate speech and promoting the Log Cabins, you would think you were being recruted for the KKK. If that organization isn't biased, then why haven't there been any LCs on JUB weighing in on this issue. I know there are some LCs here. Maybe they don't because the group is as racist as those two creeps implied it was. You responded that I obviously don't know LCR because only then would I say such an ignorant thing. Then you try to appeal to my squeamish side saying they dont love me. No, I said Repuglicans don't love you. I know that. Neither do the Dems. Thats what you dont understand. I never said the Dems do either. Your inference. But the Repuglicans are actively trying to divest you of what little rights you do have as a gay person. That is like being a Judas goat that leads the rest of the flock to slaughter. Don't you get that? They mean you harm and yet you support them. That is just inconceivable to me and apparently to Dean as well.

I called you on that statement immediately in this post and you failed to respond. I addressed your blatant bigotry in this post since the requirements in your life didnt allow you to respond to the initial volley. I'm sorry if you didn't understand my responses. But I have responded to every post of yours that has addressed me directly. There have been a couple in which you fail to indicate who you are addressing, and it wasn't clear to me if they were to me so I didn't respond.

SO then finally you respond to say that because of polling where they take a sample and form a opinion that racism, sexism and political party-ism are okie dokie. Never said that. I believe all polls are flawed.Just take the two you have met and cast your net of hate. How is attacking hate speech hate? Again you confuse me with your lack of reason/ You would have done well in the south in 1960 as a klansman. You mean I wasted a year of my life signing up black voters in Mississippi and Missouri, and marching against poll taxes? Shit. You think I was on the wrong side? I should have been out shooting at me instead. Where do you get this from ? because I called out two white racist Repuglican gays? That makes me a member of the KKK in your eyes? Man you have stepped of into the deep end of the ocean with that one. They used the same arguments. SO then you go on to assume that it was because of their party affiliation that "trained" or "brainwashed" hate against blacks and latinos. I never said they were trained or brainwashed. That is another example of your lack of understanding of what you read. I said you, that's You were reacting to my posts as if you were trained and brainwashed by the military. All based on two people. No it was all based on your posts in this thread. I've been civil within my POV here, and none of my comments have been deleted by the Mods as your's have. Never been to a party meeting, never listened to a word but you simply assume. And you have? Then how do you assume so much about my thought processes? My dad was a member of the KKK at one time, and I got my gut full of hatred and bigotry when I was young. I don't have any use for it, and never have. I know ignorance and bigotry when I see it, and I wouldn't dream of subjecting myself willingly to a meeting of which the only two members I ever met were promoting white supremacy under the guise of the Repuglican party.

I then took great offense at your inferrence of ideology on a whole group of people and your applying that bigotry to me because I value conservative ideas. So . . .You can take offense when I attack two racists, but I can't take offense when you defend the bigotry? Talk about double standards Mazda. I work in wuite possibly the most diverse major industry in America and I have placed my life in the hands of people you would view at the end of your nose because they have different ideas than you. Seems you are describing yourself, not me. I oppose bigotry, and I look down on bigots, I'll grant you that. I don't see your point, unless you are a bigot, and don't like me looking down my nose at you.

You then go on with how statistics justifies racism. No I didn't. What I said is: it was iffy to do that, but then I guess you didn't catch that. So I'll tell you again: All polls are based on weak numbers and their results are always suspect. Since you smugly responded to only the sound bite of where I claim to know the facts of how to get a clearance but choose to take it out of context I then provided an article and some facts that are current. I've had clearance to enter nuclear power plants to do safety assessment studies with seven of my former employees, and we were all vetted within a week, because the government wanted the job done, and my company was the only one to bid on the job. We could have all been terrorists as far as the government was concerned. We just filled out a questionnaire and had telephone interviews for about 10 minutes each. Our badges were delivered in two days after the interviews. The whole process took less than a full week. However the new article has more to do with ideology vice cash reward for spies.I guess I don't know what a vice cash reward is. Sounds like getting paid for fucking up. Still you refuse to respond to that with nothing more than insults.

SO somehow your next response is completely out of context from any of the conversation. You choose to attack Bush Lies instead of responding to the clearance conversation i was continuing. As I said, it was you who changed the subject, and because you have a poor reading comprehension level, you failed to understand that I was not attacking Bush and his lies but saying to you that you apparently continue your perception of reality by continuing to support a man who has been shown to lie to you repeatedly. I used Judge Judy as an example of the right way to approach Bush. "Lie to me once, and I'll never believe a word you say again." That is the real way to think about Bush, that is of course unless you choose to believe his lies in the face of proof that that is exactly what they are. Then that's just sad. You still have failed to give any credible proof as to why you can impose a bigoted view on all conservative gay men based on two. I didn't say all conservative gay men. I said Log Cabin gays. I'm a conservative gay man, and I wouldn't touch the Log Cabins or the Repuglican party with a 20 foot pole. Then your argument winner and end of story is Guantanamo.More evidence of your poor reading skills.

You incessantly want to discuss everything in the world you can find abhorent to disguise the fact that you made and obvioulsy believe the extremely bigoted statements you make. Bigotry is positive if it is aimed at bigotry. I'm beginning to think you doth protest too much. sort of like a closeted gay protesting against gays. Are you a bigot Mazda?I think it is you sir that needs to focus. Put away the name calling. I've not called you names, I have called organizations and parties names, but only if they deserve them. Calling a spade a spade, is telling the truth, not alluding to some one's skin color. You need not spend three paragraphs singing the sarcastic praises on me. You need to answer for your own "mis-spoken" statements. You fail to provide examples of my miss-spoken statements. I beg to use your skills to point them out to me. Likely, they are statements you disagree with, and not miss-spoken at all. We hashed that nut out earlier.

Throughout all of this you claim that you look for sources in your post but no where ......no where in this thread is one single source provided. Because my statements are my opinions. I don't have to provide links to my opinions since I'm sourcing them as I type. If I was saying I know all about the vetting problems of spies, then I might consider a source link to prove I know all about it.

I realize you pad your link statement with when I post a thread but that really is apples and oranges is it not? Not at all. An apple is a red fruit and oranges are a. . .well. . . orange fruit. An opinion is an opinion. A link to a source is just a link to someone else' opinion. To claim I supply no links just opinion and then do the same yourself is pretty self assuming is it not? I'm not attacking you for not supplying links, I believe you are posting your opinion just as I am.

I really feel like I am arguing with a playmate on the playground. These simple to see through tactics were blown up and disgarded when I was 7. Was that the last time you used logic in your thinking processes? I would hope you can do better. And better in your mind is? I'll certainly never become a Repuglican or a Log Cabin racist, if that's what you mean.


So now to hear exactly why it is you may view an entire group based on two:

We're waiting.I said, that like all % polls it was iffy. What more do you want? A confession that the two were just playing at being bad boys? These two guys were both teachers in the LA public school system, and their racist bile was overwhelming. The LA school system is so racially diverse that it bordered on criminal that these two were teaching students they hated to the degree the were espousing. I taught at the college level in LA, and I dealt with the same racially diverse group of students, and I found them earnest and yearning to better themselves through education, not just Spicks and niggers that those two saw in their classrooms. I loved my students and to a person they were bright and shining examples to me. To the Log Cabin guys they were despised and lower than dirt. So how was it that my opinion of those kids was so positive while their opinions were so negative? From the words vomiting out of their mouths, it was pure racial hatred, which is nothing more than pure ignorance.

p.s. The difference between polls inferring an opinion and you inferring an ideology to an entire group is epic. I am sorry you can not see that.

Explain how it is epic if you can Mazda. An epic is a long story usually revolving around a family or a cohesive group. I don't understand your use of the word. And when did racism become ideology? Not in my book. Racism is ignorance turned to hatred of what is not understood.

So going back to the very beginning of our exchange here, I alluded to these two as promoting the example of what it meant to be a Log Cabin gay Repuglican. They were the ones telling the rest of us at the party that that was what Log Cabin was about. Like the KKK in the 1960s, they were trying to recruit for their cause. That they chose to exhibit their racism to do it, what else would I infer from their bile? That I was in the presence of two intelligent and understanding men? Hardly. That I'm not enthralled with hate speech of any kind, I don't defend it as you are seeming to do with your long rant about my posts.

 

[JayHawk]

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

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.

So from what you know, why do you think they chose to spout such racism at a gay party? I still think they were racists, and as much as they were promoting Log Cabin, they certainly made it pretty clear that they at least felt comfortable in a group of gay guys to be racists. By inference, their Log Cabin meetings must be comfortable with that level of racism.

Those two speak directly to you using the actions of two to identify an entire group. That is biggotry. Plain and simple. It is inexcusable. It is also quite a stretch to claim so much and demonstrate so little.

Step back for two seconds and don't be you, read all of your post and ask yourself why it is ninety percent of what you say is either a direct insult or a thinly veiled insult at the person you are responding to?

Not just me but throughout with whomever you disagree. Whether your insulting some group or the poster with a different opinion, you never fail to display hate. Doesn't that feel fairly petty? I mean does the substance of what you have to say consist of so little that you can only fill paragragh after paragragh with insult?

 

[JayHawk]

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

Explain how it is epic if you can Mazda. An epic is a long story usually revolving around a family or a cohesive group. I don't understand your use of the word.

ep·ic

/ˈɛp

ɪk/
–adjective Also, ep·i·cal.
1.noting or pertaining to a long poetic composition, usually centered upon a hero, in which a series of great achievements or events is narrated in elevated style: Homer's Iliad is an epic poem.
2.resembling or suggesting such poetry: an epic novel on the founding of the country.
3.heroic; majestic; impressively great: the epic events of the war.
4.of unusually great size or extent: a crime wave of epic proportions. –noun
5.an epic poem.
6.epic poetry.
7.any composition resembling an epic.
8.something worthy to form the subject of an epic: The defense of the Alamo is an American epic.
9.(initial capital letter

) Also called Old Ionic. the Greek dialect represented in the Iliad and the Odyssey, apparently Aeolic modified by Ionic.


I use dictionary.com when I get confused by the words some of our contemporaries here at JUB use daily. Believe me I use it a lot. I am no english major but I do enjoy learning.

SO when I come across a word I don't know or that I think is used inaccurately I check it against a known source vice my own opinion. Why would one do that? Because to be fair none of us know everything about any one thing. So we must read several sources so as to develope a fully rounded opinion. We could almost eliminate half of the posted threads on CEP&IA were we to all use comparative analysis prior to posting.

 

[JayHawk]

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

And when did racism become ideology? Not in my book. Racism is ignorance turned to hatred of what is not understood.

i·de·ol·o·gy /ˌaɪ

diˈɒl

ə

dʒi, ˌɪd

i-/
–noun, plural -gies.
1.the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2.such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
3.Philosophy.
a.the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
b.a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
4.theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.

 

[LaloGS]

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

Those two speak directly to you using the actions of two to identify an entire group. That is biggotry. Plain and simple. It is inexcusable. It is also quite a stretch to claim so much and demonstrate so little.

Step back for two seconds and don't be you, read all of your post and ask yourself why it is ninety percent of what you say is either a direct insult or a thinly veiled insult at the person you are responding to?

Not just me but throughout with whomever you disagree. Whether your insulting some group or the poster with a different opinion, you never fail to display hate. Doesn't that feel fairly petty? I mean does the substance of what you have to say consist of so little that you can only fill paragragh after paragragh with insult?

How old are you Mazda? I'm 64, and I've lived in many places in the US and abroad, and I've sometimes found my self in the midst of Republican enclaves, and when I lived in Manhattan, I knew several big Republican politicians personally, including Jacob Javits and Nelson Rockerfeller, both of whom were considered "moderate" Republicans, but they were both secretly racists. In private, they spoke in racist terms. Ronald Reagan was a secret racist. The fact that blacks and Hispanics don't generally support Republicans should tell you something about how they perceive the undercurrent in Republican politics. One only has to look at how this administration has handled the Katrina mess to understand how callused and uncaring Republicans are in general toward people of color. With all the money and effort poured into helping New Orleans recover, it is the predominately poor black neighborhoods that are still suffering There hasn't even been any substantial clean up in those neighborhoods. So much so, that the racist Bush administration is comfortable to let a TV show raise money to help poor Katrina victims, when FEMA and subcontractors are trying to make them pay back money given to them supposedly by mistake. Last night we saw all three candidates make statements supporting what American Idol Gives Back is doing, and both Democrats forsook campaigning and spoke about the good the raised money would do. John McCain gave a snide campaign speech, indicating to me at least that he doesn't care either.

Since the time of Grant's presidency, Republicans have let their racism rule their party. The blacks have known all along that Republicans were not going to help them, and in fact, were more likely to do them harm. Republicans have been arm in arm with the racist mindset of right wing religious fundamentalists and rednecks and that intensified in the Republican party after Ronald Reagan made the worst possible attack on the Bill of Rights by creating a coalition with Christian fundamentalists in direct violation of the Bill of Rights forbidding government and religion combining. He did it to insure the Republican party would have an unassailable voter base of hate. That alone is racism taken to the inth degree.

So when I hear two lowlife Log Cabin fags spouting racism openly I have good reason to believe they and their organization are racist. The fact that you have been so adamant defending them and their organization leaves me to believe you believe as they believe, which is that all men are NOT created equal.

Only a racist would interpret that simple phrase from the Bill of Rights to mean other than all men are born with the same chance in life. Because of America's racist history, the phrase in the bill of Rights has never and I mean NEVER has been in actual practice here in this country. By saying all this I am not excluding any party from my accusations. Although I will say it has been Democrats in office that have done the most to help level the playing field for people of color in America, to great opposition from Republicans. Southern Republicans and the religious right can always be counted on to vote from their racism rather than on reality of the issues we face. I suppose that will be Ronald Reagan's legacy to the Republican party. It is a retrograde philosophy to the point, there have been Republicans who have openly said if not thought America would be better off today if Lincoln hadn't freed the slaves.

So the strange birds in the Republican party are the Rices, the Thomases, the Powells, the Gonzales, and the Log Cabin gays. Rare birds indeed like gays who support this repressive and oppressive party. I agree with Dean that it is mind boggling that any gays, blacks, or Hispanics would be supportive of such a regime. What ties them to the party, certainly it can't be that long dispelled idea of conservativeism, because the Republicans have proven time and again to not be conservative, and the current Republican administration is leaving all of us the largest national debt in the history of the world. So conservatism doesn't fly. So we have to look somewhere else for why these strange bird Republicans exist. What else could it be???

 

[LaloGS]

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

i·de·ol·o·gy /ˌaɪ

diˈɒl

ə

dʒi, ˌɪd

i-/
–noun, plural -gies.
1.the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2.such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
3.Philosophy.
a.the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
b.a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
4.theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.

Just another instance of your failure to comprehend the meaning of the words you read. Racism is none of those definitions. Racism is ignorance, not a doctrine or social movement. or any other of the dictionary definitions you post.

 

[LaloGS]

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

Regardless of why they appointed those blacks, they put them in positions of power. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. Are you suggesting the Northern troops didn't want to free the slaves?As many northern soldiers and civilians opposed freeing the slaves as did southerners. If you don't want to read about it check out the movie "Glory" which did a very good job of portraying the general northern attitudes toward blacks. I don't see that is matters here. I didn't bring up the period of the Civil War, you did. So it is relevant to your claim that Republicans have always done more for blacks. Not mine.

As for Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, and Colin Powell the truth is you disagree with their politics so they are "tokens." Democrats have done little for the black community but continue to provide them with social programs in exchange for votes. When a black is conservative and promotes the idea that you can do whatever ever you want to in life DESPITE the government they're a token. So I'd say culturally. They're not the right kind of black.

This is going no where. Your post has little to do with discussion. You use words like "stupidity" and throw out diatribes. You must harbor a lot of fear yourself. You, Sir, are bigoted and intolerant. If you disagree you do so vehemently with no interest in discussing anything. You spout party line and have no interest in opening your mind.

Can you take a moment JAV, and define conservatism for me, and then point out in your own words how that concept relates to Republicans? I'll bet dollars to donuts you won't be able to make it apply if you stick to the facts. Republicans are not, and have not been "conservative" since Eisenhower. What they have been is repressive, and oppressive, being opposed to social advances to help the poor regardless of color, being opposed to better education programs for people living below the poverty line regardless of color, and when they have been in power, they have cut taxes to the rich, and thereby landed more onerous taxation onto the shoulders of the middle class and working poor.

And as far as not wanting to discuss anything, all I can say to that, is you must be like Mazda and are having a serious lack of comprehension of my posts. I'm sorry you don't understand. You seem to, like Mazda, to be misunderstanding my discussion points perhaps because you read them through a scrim of misguided thinking about reality.

The Republican party has learned to manipulate the American public with smoke and mirrors, and there is a vast Right Wing Conspiracy that is beginning to collapse much to the chagrin of the true believers that they are conservative, while they look away from the facts of their history. I've lived through it, and I see it. Republican leadership has forsaken what America stands for, and they don't deserve respect because of that. They are destroying America with greed and callousness toward humanity.

So when you have the entire Republican political body in office including the congress, and the only dark skins in positions are appointed instead of elected, of course they are tokens. The way their opinions are treated by the white party plantation overseers, of course they are tokens. The fact that Mr. Powell left their ranks indicates he realized he was just a token and that he deserved more than that for his hard work and service to the country. I view Colin Powell as an Eisenhower conservative which I totally respect. I do not respect Rice, Thomas, and Gonzales, and neither do the men at the top of the Repuglican heap. So you see, I am not condemning them for their politics, but for the fact that they aren't standing up to the despotic programs the Republican party stands for. That "I got mine, and fuck the rest of you" mentality Repuglicans practice. And As I said in a previous post, I respect Colin Powell so much I was praying he would run for office, because America needs men of integrity like him. I'd have voted for him in an instant. He's a man I believe we all could trust to do the right thing for the country. He is a true patriot and not at all like the men who tried to use his prestige to attract blacks to vote for them.

 

[LaloGS]

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

i·de·ol·o·gy /ˌaɪ

diˈɒl

ə

dʒi, ˌɪd

i-/
–noun, plural -gies.
1.the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2.such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
3.Philosophy.
a.the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
b.a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
4.theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.

Stop already. I have a dictionary. Posting definitions is no guarantee you understand what I'm saying. The problem is comprehension and the problem is not mine.

 

[LaloGS]

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

The phrase "all men are created equal" is not in the Bill of Rights.

And what did Grant's administration/Republican contemporaries do to which you are referring?

Sorry ICO I miss-typed. I was thinking about the point I was trying to make and typed the name of the wrong document. I meant to type the Declaration of Independence. Mea Culpa, and slap my hands and beat my head with my fists.

 

[JayHawk]

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

Stop already. I have a dictionary. Posting definitions is no guarantee you understand what I'm saying. The problem is comprehension and the problem is not mine.

If it is not yours then why did you say:

Explain how it is epic if you can Mazda. An epic is a long story usually revolving around a family or a cohesive group. I don't understand your use of the word. And when did racism become ideology?

I am very benevolent when ask to help but I fear I may have to move to a much more salubrious conversation.

Good Day

 

[LaloGS]

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

If it is not yours then why did you say:



I am very benevolent when ask to help but I fear I may have to move to a much more salubrious conversation.

Good Day

Because the way you used the word epic did not apply to what I've been saying in my posts. You have been trying to paint me as racist, by defending racism yourself. I don't buy it. None of your dictionary definitions have been relevant, to the discussion and only serve to illustrate my contention that you haven't been able to grasp the meaning of what I said. I've been a published writer for over 30 years now, and from the feedback I get from readers, I don't think my words are that difficult to understand. What I do think, is that some people are not able to read with an open mind, and view everything they read through a scrim of bias.

The fact that you have been supporting two obvious racists and attempting to make me out the racist, is ABSOLUTE PROOF that you aren't understanding what you are reading.