The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    Turn off your VPN to register and your email must be a working email to join and login.

GAY GOPers: Winners to become LOSERS?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OtterJoq
  • Start date Start date
O

OtterJoq

Guest
As long as the Radical Right has a chokehold on the party, it'll never happen. The GOP first needs to bid farewell to the fundamentalist "Christians" (whose behavior, by the way, is anything BUT Christian!) who gained control of the Republicans during the Reagan years and made it damn clear that "Jeezus hates fags."

Until then, they can start expecting to lose more and more elections. They'll probably still steal them anyway...they're quite good at it, actually...but the people will know the truth.

I plan on giggling a lot over the next few years as I watch the fun from the other side of the ideological tracks.
 
Not in the GOP you don't!


Gunderson had an unhappy and ultimately disastrous affair with the Republicans and for his loyalty to that party, he got outed on the floor of the House:



You see, the GOP really is the party with a "big tent" where EVERYONE is welcome, provided you're white, Christian, and heterosexual.


You forgot 'rich', thank you very much.
 
Gunderson had an unhappy and ultimately disastrous affair with the Republicans and for his loyalty to that party, he got outed on the floor of the House

Wow, I never knew about the whole thing w/Gunderson and Dornan. I wonder if that contributed to Dornan's defeat a few years later at the hands of Loretta Sanchez?
 
IMO gays will never find acceptance within the Republican party, simply because the Repubs are overrun with theocrats and conserative bigots. While the Dems do have it's slimy conseravties (Zell Miller being one of them), it has way more moderate and liberal people within it.

What I'm saying is, liberals and most moderates support the gay community, and since they are mostly in the Dem party then most gay people are democrats. Seriously, to be gay and conservative is a contridiction and just plain sad.
The Log Cabinites are just as full of shit as the GOP themselves because they give excuses as to why republicans are bigotted. LCRs say they want to change the GOP to be more acceptable, but to me they have'nt done a thing to change anything, and therefore they come off as a bunch of closet cases that hate themselves.
 
Ds-Writr

Garry Studds, Barney Frank, Jim McGreevey.....

Are you sure elected gay Republican's have the lock on not comming out until AFTER being outed?

Au contraire, Mon 'Ami'. Barney Frank came out on his own.

Also McGreevey came out before that manipulative scumbag, Golan Cipel could blackmail him by outing him {and then there was that other stuff, which was the real reason, but sly politican that he was, McGreevey tried to make the 'Gay American' crap overshadow everything}.
Trust me, McGreevey wasn't outed 'fore he came out. Because as, me and my fellow NJians can tell you, there were a *whole lot of us* who wanted to out that fucker for opposing equal marriage rights. Some of us still cringe when we see him now being welcomed, at first only across the river, but now in a hell of a lot of places. He has *no business* being called the poster boy for out elected officials fighting for gay rights. Yes, he came out before being outed, but just barely, and only because it was a cold, calculating, political manuever that managed to save him from being a total disgrace. Maybe he's less slimy now, but you can never completely escape the trail once you walk in it for too long, and he walked in it quite a while.

Studds is the only one on your list that you can point out as a Democratic example, and one whose scandal comes anywhere close to the various examples of Republican closet cases. Close... but no cigar. At least Studds affair w/a male page was consensual, which you can argue that Jim West really took some boys against their will, whether or not they knew it at the time...
 
And Barney Frank has been out for ages now and the dems have re-elected him - and have for a quarter of a century (20 yrs of it being OUT)!

Yeah, and no one would ever have outed him, because he was a very likeable guy, and he most definitely came out on his own, no matter what the highly misinformed (possibly because they're following Log Cabin Republican talking points) say...
 
As long as the party is influenced by the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson the GOP is Gods party only according to these two prophets of the Religious Right.
 
Right back at cha...

Mr. Frank revealed his simultaneous with his "friend" operating a prostitution ring out of Mr. Frank's home and the press getting wind of it

That is absolute bullshit. Barney Frank has been out since 1987. The incident you're referring to happened in 1989.

You are either lying, or completely misinformed. Either way, you should quit while you're not too far behind.

seapuppy said:
Mr. McGreevey did as you indicate "beat" by a hair the man who was about to out him to the press.

Wow, I believe we have a winner! It seems you, yourself admit that McGreevey came out before being outed. BTW, if you know anything about NJ, you know that everyone in 'the press' knew McGreevey was gay long before the incident w/Cipel.
 
Right back at cha...

Mr. Studds revealed his orientation after being found buggering the page boys. Mr. Frank revealed his simultaneous with his "friend" operating a prostitution ring out of Mr. Frank's home and the press getting wind of it and Mr. McGreevey did as you indicate "beat" by a hair the man who was about to out him to the press.

<snip>

Maybe that's where this joke originated:



Q: Why Don't Congressman use book marks?



A: Because they like their pages bent over.



:lol:
 
Yes, I was misinformed. He did come out in 87. Studds was outed and McGreevey only did when he knew he was about to be exposed.

So in other words, you were right on exatly one single example that was being discussed. Is that it? Thats your argument?

No. That's yours. You were right about only one example. Studds was the only one you were right on. McGreevey didn't classify, by your argument.

Better luck next time, 'sweetheart'. :p
 
Yes, I was misinformed.

No. It's not that you were 'mis'informed. You knew about the incident with Frank and someone he trusted betraying his trust, and making him look bad in the process. But you went ahead and made the assumption that no one knew just because you felt that the scandal must have been combined w/an 'outing'. You made the deliberate assumption that Frank didn't have the courage, honesty and integrity to come out on his own and be the first Congressman to do so. You assumed the worst. And you tried to use your assumption to paint Democrats in a bad light. Now why on earth would you do that?

If anything, you were underinformed, but that didn't stop you from running with it.



p.s. Are you always this nasty and ungentlmanly in your dealings with people, or is it just the courage of the anonymous internet?

It's not 'people', and it's certainly nothing to do w/the internet. It's only towards conservatives, and believe me I've done the same thing plenty of times w/people face-to-face, and they know who I am, so there's nothing 'anonymous' about it. Ask Imran Ahmed. I'll give you his phone # if you want; if you're interested, send me a PM. Social conservatives deserve to be treated nastily, for all the nasty hateful things they say to anyone who doesn't meet their 'standards'. A lot of people say 'it'll make it worse' but if your priorities these days are supporting Bush, Republicans or discriminating against homoaffectionals, then honestly, it can't get much worse...
 
Caught on a long time ago, Alfie, baby...

I'm so glad that people are catching on to the ruthless, wicked, evil and utterly despicable immorality of the authoritarian right.

Alfie, I've actually been the sort of 'you' at another forum similar to yours, at another website. It's called the 'Butch' Board, and like here, we have our own Uncle Tom gay Republicans. Can't say we ever had a 'straight' Republican troll us yet, but we are much smaller and more insular. Our M/Bs don't show up in a Google search engine (although the website itself does).

As I said, I've sort of been like the 'Alfie' of our forum. The only difference is, I've never been banned from it (even temporarily), although I've had a couple of my posts deleted -- but only rarely, because whenever I'm accused of being a 'troll' or whatever, I simply take the offending remark I made, and juxtapose it w/something quite similar someone on the Konservative side said. Plus, I have some friends pretty high up the chain among the moderator crowd. ;)

Feel free to stop by. My user ID over there is UnRepublicanStraightActor (Because the website itself is called 'StraightActing'.com). This invitation extends to anyone who posts on these boards who isn't a right wing troll. The Butch Board is located at http://www.straightacting.net/phpbb .
 
Back to the premise of the thread - that the GOP needs to appeal to gay voters to win elections.

First, if polling data is accurate, the percentage of the population calling themselves gay is about 5%. Now I will grant you that many do not admit to being gay even in private - but even if you stretch this to saying 10% of the population is gay, that does not represent such a large block of voters to prohibit Republicans from winning without courting the gay vote.

Second, you are assuming that as a population, the only values we care about from a politician are that they are in favor of gay themed ideas. That could not be farther from the truth. As with any demographic group, gays are not homogeneous in their political beliefs and what is important to them. For instance, if you had a Democrat that was virulently anti-war but also anti-gay marriage, would someone like Alfie not vote for him? At the same time, if you had a virulently pro-war Republican who also was pro gay marriage and on the gay side of all issues, would you expect someone like Alfie to vote for him? (Sorry Alfie, you're not a target, just a convenient example).

I believe and I hope that the answer is as gay voters we look at candidates on a range of issues. We each assign values based on our life situations and what is most important to us.

I vote for politicians with ideals and values that come closest to mine. Have I ever found a politician that I agree with 100%? Hell no, and frankly I don't ever expect to.

According to several studies I've read, gay men are among the best educated and most financially secure members of our country. We don't need candidates to be single issue gay supporters for us to judge them. We're better than that.
 
Re: Caught on a long time ago, Alfie, baby...

I will say, though, that wingers here enjoy a certain "protected status," the status of holding a minority view. In some perverse twisting of liberals' sense of fair play, the threshold for getting points if one is left is not the same as it is if one is extremist. Not complaining, not whining, I'm not questioning the integrity of our moderators -- I'm simply stating my personal view. Though, I will say, there are some board members who are quite able in expressing pretty much what I do, yet they have that ability to do so with a scalpel, not a hatchet. I admire that.
Actually, you'd be amazed. There was quite a similar situation a few years ago on our forum. In fact, some of the moderators themselves were unabashed, extreme reich wingers. That was before I helped do a little house cleaning. I felt horrendously bad that so many leftists simply left the board because of the abuse they took, and the double standards of the moderators. These days, the moderators are afraid of me, and would rather just let things slide. Meanwhile, the reich wingers are completely in hiding from the Butch Board, and not because I scared them away, per se; it's simply that every time, I borrow a phrase a certain president once said -- "If the Republicans stop telling lies about us, we'll stop telling the truth about them"; our pansy reich wingers simply can't handle the truth :p . If you want to be inspired by a locale where the political winds have completely shifted, as I said, please come visit StraightActing.com and check out our board. It will inspire you to try the same thing here.
 
have been blown away by the venomous, hate filled, character assasination I have read

Guess now you know what your fellow Republicans, on the national level, do to anyone they don't like. Do the Shit Boat Bitterans Against Truth (I'm sorry, that's '''''Swift Boat Veterans '''for''' ''Truth'' '''' to you) ring a bell?

The icon assigned to this post, FYI, refers to what I'm responding to; not what I just posted.
 
What I'm saying is, liberals and most moderates support the gay community, and since they are mostly in the Dem party then most gay people are democrats. Seriously, to be gay and conservative is a contridiction and just plain sad.
The Log Cabinites are just as full of shit as the GOP themselves because they give excuses as to why republicans are bigotted. LCRs say they want to change the GOP to be more acceptable, but to me they have'nt done a thing to change anything, and therefore they come off as a bunch of closet cases that hate themselves.

I have a bit of a problem with this argument because:

1. Conservatism is an ideology, not a party. Homosexuals can be just as conservative as heterosexuals. It is a belief in limited government and fiscal constraint. True conservatives simply leave things like sexual orientation up to the individual. Religious wing-nuts do not hold a monopoly on this ideology, and I refuse to allow that to happen.

2. Gays within the Republican Party are the only bridge between the two groups. Acceptance will only come from within, it's wrong to lambaste Gay Republicans for being traitors because they believe in what the Republican Party was founded upon. It's the same way blacks and liberal Democrats were a part of the Democratic Party during the early 20th century while Southern racist Dems were in control of the Party. Parties will have factions, but the umbrella of common root ideology always held these opposing factions together under one Party banner.

True: Radical Religious wing-nuts are now the prominent faction within the GOP.

True: The Republican Party has not been the kindest of Parties toward the homosexual community.

False: Conservative homosexuals should give up on their politically and ideologically congruent Party simply because the fight will be hard.
 
Re: Caught on a long time ago, Alfie, baby...

Actually, you'd be amazed. There was quite a similar situation a few years ago on our forum. In fact, some of the moderators themselves were unabashed, extreme reich wingers. That was before I helped do a little house cleaning. I felt horrendously bad that so many leftists simply left the board because of the abuse they took, and the double standards of the moderators. These days, the moderators are afraid of me, and would rather just let things slide.


Oh dear! I bet the JUB mods are shaking in their boots that a new gunslinger is in town. Homo(affectation)al, it's quite obvious you have not met the moderators here. **All Alfie wannabees form a line to the left.
 
Re: Caught on a long time ago, Alfie, baby...

Actually, you'd be amazed. There was quite a similar situation a few years ago on our forum. In fact, some of the moderators themselves were unabashed, extreme reich wingers. That was before I helped do a little house cleaning. I felt horrendously bad that so many leftists simply left the board because of the abuse they took, and the double standards of the moderators. These days, the moderators are afraid of me, and would rather just let things slide. Meanwhile, the reich wingers are completely in hiding from the Butch Board, and not because I scared them away, per se; it's simply that every time, I borrow a phrase a certain president once said -- "If the Republicans stop telling lies about us, we'll stop telling the truth about them"; our pansy reich wingers simply can't handle the truth :p . If you want to be inspired by a locale where the political winds have completely shifted, as I said, please come visit StraightActing.com and check out our board. It will inspire you to try the same thing here.

So let me see if I understand you - anyone that doesn't agree with your narrow left-wing leanings should be banned, silenced or voluntarily shrink into the background?

Is that the new mantra of the left-wing: suppress discussion, the first amendment only applies to those we agree with? Somehow I think other left-wing posters on this blog would take offense with that. How sad that you may have stifled discussion on another board, and to think you actually take pride in that!

This forum like many other forums allows the free exchange of ideas. While some on the left and right might go off the deep end from time to time, we enjoy the debate(at least I do), and can actually learn from each other.

I'm sorry that you are so closed minded that you can not stomach reading ideas you disagree with - but maybe it says more about the insecurity you have in your own beliefs than it says about what is posted.
 
Back
Top