how can u b gay and a right wing supporter?

[smelter]

Feeling close to a political party and isnt just about being gay.

It is about recognising that they most closely speak your view on a whole host of issues. From taxation, to war, to eco-friendly economic growth, to legal developments on all fronts.

Being gay is just a small part of who a person is - and politics is about a whole lot more than homosexuality.

THAT'S how someone can be right wing and gay.... .they actually understand politics fully.

I would agree with you, if being homosexual was viewed as a minor difference. But when the base of the party wants legislation passed to deny you civil liberties and condemns your soul to eternal hellfire, save a deathbed 'conversion', that elevates the dialogue a bit beyond whats acceptable .... at least to me!

 

[Centexfarmer]

But what if that party also agreed with your views on the remaining 99.9% of issues out there... would you still go and vote for a party that you disagreed with on 99.9% of the issues, just because they were pro gay for that 0.1%?

My answer that question is no!

We're talking about a party that will not even allow you to serve openly as a delegate. IOW, you're not allowed to have a voice in the process. If you want to be say, a Log Cabin Republican, then get out there and prove to us that you can elect anti-gay candidates!

No some people may be into that type of kinky stuff, but not me.

Which brings up back to on topic.

To me it's akin to a Jew supporting the Nazis, because they like Hitler's foreign policies.

Sorry Maltese!

Uh....

It would be like being a Texican fighting in Santa Anna's Army in 1836, because you supported his domestic policies, even though your interests truly laid with Texas Independence.



How was that?



</IMG></IMG></IMG></IMG></IMG>

 

[NickCole]

But what if that party also agreed with your views on the remaining 99.9% of issues out there... would you still go and vote for a party that you disagreed with on 99.9% of the issues, just because they were pro gay for that 0.1%?

Position on issues tends to be interconnected.

For instance, it's not by chance that today's Republicans are in favor of changing the U.S. Constitution to include discrimination against gays, and also support torture, and also oppose a woman's right to choose abortion, and also want to diminish the safety-net element of Social Security, and also are in favor of tax cuts but increase spending so our nation is hurtling into bankruptcy, etc etc etc. Like the thigh bone being connected to the hip bone, here IS a connection from one issue to another.

 

[MarkSex]

Originally, right-wing has not synonymous with conservative.

And honestly, both Republicans and Democrats are right-wing parties when viewed on a global scale.

 

[NickCole]

Originally, right-wing has not synonymous with conservative.

BushRepublicans are not conservative.

Starting a war is not conservative.

The government interferring in people's private lives is not conservative.

Wasting the environment is not conservative.

Racking up debt is not conservative.

Ignoring laws is not conservative.

Bigger government is not conservative.

 

[smelter]

But what if that party also agreed with your views on the remaining 99.9% of issues out there... would you still go and vote for a party that you disagreed with on 99.9% of the issues, just because they were pro gay for that 0.1%?

See Centexfarmer's post #54, he answered this question better than I could.

 

[JayHawk]

York I couldn't say it better. It bothers me that any party desires to use what I do in bed and fear to guide my vote in their direction. Wouldn't it be nice if this political blog focused on politics including the equal right issue instead of every issue revolving back to the ONLY issue. Politicians would have to alter their views and platforms if we all werent so easily marginalized.

 

[iman]

BushRepublicans are not conservative.

Starting a war is not conservative.

The government interferring in people's private lives is not conservative.

Wasting the environment is not conservative.

Racking up debt is not conservative.

Ignoring laws is not conservative.

Bigger government is not conservative.

As John Mitchell used to say "Don't pay attention to what we say, pay attention to what we do". The above is the very definition of Republican "conservatism". I know that there are many conservatives who believe the propaganda, believe the cliches and buzz words, but the truth of what conservatives are is the performance of the administration and Congress in the past six years.

The Republicans that post on these boards need to wake up and realize that their party is just a coalition of goofy Christians, greedy lobbyist servers, cynics, and a few poor souls that are still waxing romantic about whacky old Barry Goldwater.

Wether it be in Washington, New Orleans, or The Imperial Life in the Emerald City, the "Conservative Revolution" has been an utter failure and catastrophe. This ain't the 19th century.

 

[JayHawk]

Just stand by, lack of power to be influenced is the only reason the Liberal intelligent better way for everyone dems havent been in the corruption and failure spotlight. The failure is our purchased lobbyist government those who belive otherwise are simply asleep at the wheel on a different road.

Get the money out and set terms and then maybe Politicians will have to accomplish something while in office.

 

[Andreus]

the puchased lobbyist govrernment that delay and army created and mcCain couldnt get the republicans to change?

that governement?

the one that the democrats have set as their number one priority to change with a host of bills already being written so that they will pass within the first one hundred hours of the new congress?

 

[RICBOUND2004]

Big fuckin' deal. Barry Goldwater came out as pro-gay. That's the problem with Conservatives. Until one of YOUR OWN family is affected (I'm looking at you Dick Cheney) you could give a rats ass.
It's called empathy. Most of 'em ain't got it.
Fuck 'em.

You fail to realize however, that sometimes it takes personal experience to realize your own faults of opinion, and correct them. I think it's admirable that the Vice President is accepting of his daughter and her relationship, as well as the prospect of her bringing a child into an alternative household. It reveals that the man's predjudices do not run as deep as ones would like you to believe. The more telling story of Dick's character would've been if he continued to disassociate and shun his daughter once he learned of her homosexuality. There's a large gap/difference between Dick Cheney (who accepts his daughters lifestyle) and Alan Keyes (who continues his estrangment, as well as states that his daughter is hell-bound for her lesbianism).

Regarding how an individual can be gay and a "right wing supporter", I think the answer is easy, you can't. This is of course if your definition of a right wing supporter is that of an individual who would cast a vote for Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson in a Presidential election. Assuming your definition of right wing supporter is that of an individual who would legislate exclusion.

I would not include the entirety of the GOP in this case. It can be argued that at this moment the GOP is run by the nut-right, but the fundamentals of the GOP and conservatism can still be believed and supported by homosexual and heterosexuals alike. When I cast a vote, I rarely cast one for a political party, more so for the individual who is running, Democrat or Republican (or Libertarian). I consider myself a fairly conservative homosexual individual, but I hold very progressive opinions on social issues. I'm just more inclined to vote Republican because personally I'm more concerned with my wallet than marriage.

Bottomline: Can you be a right-winger and a homosexual, no. Can you be conservative and a homosexual, absolutely. Can you be a Republican and a homosexual, depends on the Republican you're voting for...but that one goes for Democrats too (it's funny how Dems who oppose gay rights and such never really get the flack GOPers do, whats so special about them?)

 

[NickCole]

You fail to realize however, that sometimes it takes personal experience to realize your own faults of opinion, and correct them. I think it's admirable that the Vice President is accepting of his daughter and her relationship, as well as the prospect of her bringing a child into an alternative household. It reveals that the man's predjudices do not run as deep as ones would like you to believe. The more telling story of Dick's character would've been if he continued to disassociate and shun his daughter once he learned of her homosexuality. There's a large gap/difference between Dick Cheney (who accepts his daughters lifestyle) and Alan Keyes (who continues his estrangment, as well as states that his daughter is hell-bound for her lesbianism).

Alan Keyes is consistent in his principles. That's integrity.

Dick Cheney is a hypocritical pig.

I'm just more inclined to vote Republican because personally I'm more concerned with my wallet than marriage.

If you're concerned with your wallet then you ought to be concerned about what Republican control of Congress and the White House the past several years has meant and will mean in the future.

Taxes are going up, my fellow American. And they're going up a lot. Somebody has to pay for the excessive spending by Republicans that they failed to pay for. Except now we also are going to owe trillions of dollars in interest on their debt.

 

[Kulindahr]

BushRepublicans are not conservative.

Starting a war is not conservative.

The government interferring in people's private lives is not conservative.

Wasting the environment is not conservative.

Racking up debt is not conservative.

Ignoring laws is not conservative.

Bigger government is not conservative.

That's a very nice summation!

I'll add one:

Mixing church and state is not conservative.

 

[Kulindahr]

If I was required to choose between the Democrats and Republicans right now, I hold my nose and choose Republican. For all that they are not conservative on so much, they are conservative on one thing that as far as I'm concerned is a bigger issue than the plank about gays. And it's an issue where the Democrats are pushing toward totalitarianism by undermining the ultimate defense against that,
Republicans understand what the Second Amendment is about, and want to conserve that, to keep what it has always been (at least to a major extent). Democrats on the whole want to kill it.
Aiming toward crippling the Second Amendment is aiming toward the ultimate groundwork for despotism. It would be handing the police-statists in the Republican party the one tool they really need to take the U.S. the last step into true Facism.

Fortunately, one doesn't have to belong to one or the other!

 

[smelter]

^using the second amendment as the only filter through which your vote must pass is myopic. The Republican party with Bush at the helm is systematically stripping you of all other 'freedoms'. Your 'right to bear arms' will be the final one to go and probably the easiest of the lot. When you have been wiretapped and jailed without due process, your arsenal of automatic and semi-automatic weapons won't save you. They will be the reason given for your imprisonment.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Or you can be a 'log cabin Republican' and issue voter guides telling people you can't support the candidate of your party
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

News Flash:

A man has barricaded himself inside his house.

It's reported that he's alone and heavily armed.











Wait, an update on that last story....No one cares.



*tips hat to George Carlin, and leaves room*



That's about as much clout as Log Cabin Republican's have in a right-wing controlled party. IMHOHAIMB.

 

[Centexfarmer]

^using the second amendment as the only filter through which your vote must pass is myopic. The Republican party with Bush at the helm is systematically stripping you of all other 'freedoms'. Your 'right to bear arms' will be the final one to go and probably the easiest of the lot. When you have been wiretapped and jailed without due process, your arsenal of automatic and semi-automatic weapons won't save you. They will be the reason given for your imprisonment.

Hee hee!

Now that's the type of debate that I'm talking about!



Speak the Truth and Shame the Devil, there smelter!

 

[NickCole]

... And it's an issue where the Democrats are pushing toward totalitarianism by undermining the ultimate defense against that,
Republicans understand what the Second Amendment is about, and want to conserve that, to keep what it has always been (at least to a major extent). Democrats on the whole want to kill it.
Aiming toward crippling the Second Amendment is aiming toward the ultimate groundwork for despotism. It would be handing the police-statists in the Republican party the one tool they really need to take the U.S. the last step into true Facism.

Fortunately, one doesn't have to belong to one or the other!

This sounds like a hysterical response to regulation of fire arms. And a not particularly well informed one.

The difference of opinion is, increasingly, not political party so much as geographical location. Some Republicans are in favor of gun control (including Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki, who both want to be POTUS) while some Democrats are opposed to gun regulation -- most recently demonstrated by Democrats Marc Dann and Ted Strickland who were instrumental last week in overriding a Republican Governor's veto of a bill that eliminates more than 80 local "anti-gun" ordinances in Ohio.

 

[Kulindahr]

This sounds like a hysterical response to regulation of fire arms. And a not particularly well informed one.

The difference of opinion is, increasingly, not political party so much as geographical location. Some Republicans are in favor of gun control (including Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki, who both want to be POTUS) while some Democrats are opposed to gun regulation -- most recently demonstrated by Democrats Marc Dann and Ted Strickland who were instrumental last week in overriding a Republican Governor's veto of a bill that eliminates more than 80 local "anti-gun" ordinances in Ohio.

Actually, a "hysterical reaction" to taking away firearms would be getting the folks together and marching out to stop the government forces from confiscating your weapons, including your artillery.

Get the reference?



And so there are a few non-conformists on both sides. I said "in general", and in general it is true: Democrats want Americans to rely on police, Republicans want them to rely on themselves.
While in much of the country, you can call and get a pizza faster than you can call and get a cop.

 

[NickCole]

And so there are a few non-conformists on both sides. I said "in general", and in general it is true: Democrats want Americans to rely on police, Republicans want them to rely on themselves.

I'm not sure that's a true characterization of the reason Republicans, in general, are opposed to gun regulation. But if it is true, it's only more evidence that today's Republicans are not conservatives but rather a bunch of radical extremists.

A conservative believes in law and order, and would advocate calling the police rather than taking the law into one's own hands.

And I know your characterization of the Democratic position on gun control is disingenuous. The Democratic position has nothing to do with whether or not to rely on police. Nothing. The Democratic position is that guns should be licensed and registered. That's it. The Democratic Party supports a law abiding citizen's right to own handguns.

While in much of the country, you can call and get a pizza faster than you can call and get a cop.

Oh please.

Do you have any credible data at all that supports your assertion?

Your whole post is a fine example of the kind of BushRepublican-style anti-Democratic propaganda that's just flat-out dishonest.