Gay conservatives/Republicans

[palemale]

Additonally, The idea that I would forgo all issues to support a candidate is ignorant. if you place yourself and your needs as the only issue, then your a selfish brat and a poor citizen. The only thing that made most of the community jump immediately into Obama or Hillary's camp is the Gay issue. The funny thing about that? Obama will not move on it. There are too many other things that will take higher priority. SO the vote was wasted if it was for that issue.

If you vote for a candidate and party that would deny you your basic civil rights because you agree with them on other political issues, you are a fool. If you place yourself and your needs as the only issue above the basic rights of minorities and the good of the people, then you're a selfish brat and a poor citizen.

 

[JayHawk]

^ your two staement do not support one another. If you vote for one issue because it is your civil right then you are doing so for yourself and selfish interest.

I agree however if you vote for a party because it denies your rights then you are a fool.

 

[palemale]

They do not. Recognizing every person's basic civil rights is in the public's interest. Read my second sentence carefully. There, I said placing your interests above the basic rights of minorities or the good of society when you vote is selfish and bad citizenship. Voting against a candidate or party that would deny one their civil rights does neither.

 

[JayHawk]

It is still a single issue regardless of how you wish to type it. Voting for one issue that changes your world is not genuine...it is selfish. To do so while disagreeing with damn near every other issue is moral suicide. You may freely choose to rationalize your votes however you wish. You may very well like all of the Democrat platform stances on issues. Most conservatives do not. Whats more, knowing that no action would occur on the one issue (equal rights) is cheating yourself. Anyone who voted singularly for Obama to grant them the right to get married or some form voted in ignorance of what would occur and in selfishness for their own needs.

 

[palemale]

This is all speculation. Very few people vote on a single issue. Abortion is probably about the only issue that sparks this type of voting. I have known some Catholics who were democrats, agreed with democrats are nearly everything except abortion, and voted Republican as a result.

Since gay voters were probably about the only, identifiable group in exit polls for whom Obama received a smaller percentage of the vote than Kerry, I suspect that self-interest got trumped by race, i.e. some gays could not bring themselves to vote for a black president.

 

[JayHawk]

I constructed a reply last night. Somehow it never made it.

Not at all speculation. Many JUBbers exposed their belief that the only way to vote is to do so for being gay. Regardless of any other belief. I realize only a small chunk of gay America resides here.

The anti abortionist were just as foolish to vote for an enitre platform off one issue.

Finally, It remains true to me that Obama has no hope of completing his gay intentions with policy. He can say the congress has to pursue this or that and they can say he needs to lead the issue. Fact is that there are too many things going on right now for a singular issue that effects so few Americans to become priority. It was clearly evident prior to the economic downfall and even more pronounced after. So if a person voted for Obama based soley on his desire to free the gays or against republican desire to allow such rights then they are selfish.

I like the health care push for a national solution and I like the gay lip service. I also knew Obama would do nothing to change Bush's terror policy no matter what he spouted on the trail. The last thing the Democratic party in general and Obama in particular can afford is an attack due to changes in policy. it would remove them from power for the next decade.

 

[01solara]

This is the quote of the week. I would be interested in your definition of cleaner, professional and higher standards. This is coming from a white supremacist. Modern day Republicans are the biggest bunch of lying, cheating, sleazy hypocrates ever.

What exactly is a hypocrates is something like Socrates?

 

[Kulindahr]

What exactly is a hypocrates is something like Socrates?

Yes, and they're pronounced with a long "o": hippo-crates, and so-crates.

Then there are the not-so crates...

 

[TX-Beau]

Mods can we move the above quotes into the "Closed Threads and Troll Words" thread. They are perfect examples. No substance on topic, just drips as they pull out the tampon. (Sorry about the graphic image if your eating)..

Why do you need Mods to intervene? Are you incapable of ignoring them and moving on?

 

[JayHawk]

^ no i simply felt they were great examples for the thread called TROLL WORDS. I had no desire to remove them or take action against the posters. As stated in black and white I ask that they do what I am unable to do as a mere participant. Move them to the associated thread that has a title which reflects their intent.

Hrrmph! Indignant feels just oh so good. lol

On topic:

It would be nice if we could dis-associate party platforms and just have candidates represent what is good for America without pretense. Obama had a certain path but had to campaign otherwise or he would get the whacko vote. Too bad we dont have a party of the people...and people not in the socialist sense.

 

[TX-Beau]

^ no i simply felt they were great examples for the thread called TROLL WORDS. I had no desire to remove them or take action against the posters. As stated in black and white I ask that they do what I am unable to do as a mere participant. Move them to the associated thread that has a title which reflects their intent.

Hrrmph! Indignant feels just oh so good. lol

So what? What need do you have to call on mods to do anything at all?

How do you know what their "intent" is? Do you read minds?

If you had no desire for any action to be taken, why did you call on Mods to remove them to a thread calling them "troll words?"

That's an action. And a value judgment.

 

[JayHawk]

Because I dont have the ability to do that.

Why are you so freaking indignant? Have you anything to contribute to the discussion or just being Alfie and Gomr's White Knight is enough for you?

In any event I am perfectly capable of deciding what and where I express my opinion of other members postings.

Go ahead and tell me how their two sentences help or augment the discussion in this thread. then feel free to let me know how your contribution helps the conversation.

Or hell be silly and say something about the content in this thread

 

[TX-Beau]

Because I dont have the ability to do that.

What, tell other people where their posts should go? Why should you have the ability to do that?

Or is it you don't have the ability to ignore them and move on?

Calling on the mods to remove other people is extremely pertinent to any discussion. They didn't call for your removal, why should you call for theirs?

Considering the discussion in the thread you wanted to remove them to I'd say this is pretty relevant.

 

[JayHawk]

Well I would say your simply itching to argue an irrelevant point. Again I ask of what value does insult and acrimony have to the discussion?

In fact what value have you added?

Please stay on topic. I read thru to determine what your point of discussion is in this thread. I am still at a loss to see what you contribute.

I however do not have to ignore or just put up with anything I dont desire to ignore or put up with. Has turning the other cheek served you well?

Finally HOW pray tell does telling them to move trollish comments to a troll named thread have any connection with the discussion of Gay Republicans or conservatives and why they vote in such ways?

You have added nothing of value nor stated why it is that two members insulting another is okie dokie with you. Please feel free

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm a Republican, though the only reason I'm not a Libertarian is that that party is all about political extremism rather than reason.

So join the party, go to meetings, and kick some ivory-tower theorist ass.

The car companies had multiple unions. None of the workers made out particularly well. Only the workers in the UAW will come out all right. The workers in all of the other unions will get screwed, losing their jobs, retiree health benefits, etc.

That just demonstrates that the unions are "for" workers, they're for selfishness.

Being against gay marriage means you're anti-gay. Period.

If you don't like gay marriage, you must not like gay people.

I'm tired of the "I'm against gay marriage but I'm not a homophobe!" excuse....

False, and false.

I'm against "gay marriage" because I'm in favor of human rights: the government shouldn't make any rules at all about who can get married; people should just walk in and inform the government that they're married, and that should be it. If that's two guys, a guy and a gal, a gal and three guys, or whatever, the government should say "Yes, sir!" and/or "Yes, ma'am!", and like a good servant, write it down.