I'm a gay conservative?

[HoodedRat]

'I'm a gay conservative'.

Oh no, how appallingly awful for you.

Have you ever considered some sort of psycho-therapy, or other pseudo-scientific bullshitterry as a potential 'cure' for your terrible affliction?

 

[FoxMulder]

Ok, so I just went to my History of Civilization class and we went through chapter 23, it's about "ism."

That's when I really learn about conservatism vs. liberalism
marxism
nationalism
socialism
fascism, etc

The teacher spread out platform agenda for today's political conservative and liberal. I realize, I do have a lot of similarity in conservative issue except that I'm gay, I don't believe in religion and pro choice. I agree with the rest of issue in conservative choice.

A gay with military uniform, that's me and I embrace myself thoroughly because I like what society had been set on stone before. I wish we don't change it.
I'm not a hypocrite or kissing someone's ass like many of you might think, but why many gays are totally out there liberal and crush everyone who's not support hippie way of life?

That's why my masculinity role also fix in conservative way, I think being conservative is the best way of life, Idk...

Firstly my sympathies.

But in all seriousness, you aren't alone. One of my closest friends is a conservative gay (non-Libertarian but non-Republican).

I myself believe in Social Democracy (Left of Democrats). I don't understand the whole masculine aspect. No one believes I'm gay and I'm not really into the scene, and that doesn't make me "conservative".

The "idk" statement suggests to me that you aren't entirely comfortable with this idea. Hopefully, like with your sexuality, you will come to a happy place with your beliefs.

 

[koontzfanwv]

Ok, so I just went to my History of Civilization class and we went through chapter 23, it's about "ism."

That's when I really learn about conservatism vs. liberalism
marxism
nationalism
socialism
fascism, etc

The teacher spread out platform agenda for today's political conservative and liberal. I realize, I do have a lot of similarity in conservative issue except that I'm gay, I don't believe in religion and pro choice. I agree with the rest of issue in conservative choice.

A gay with military uniform, that's me and I embrace myself thoroughly because I like what society had been set on stone before. I wish we don't change it.
I'm not a hypocrite or kissing someone's ass like many of you might think, but why many gays are totally out there liberal and crush everyone who's not support hippie way of life?

That's why my masculinity role also fix in conservative way, I think being conservative is the best way of life, Idk...

Don't let anyone tell you that you're a sell-out because you have some conservative values.You didn't post anything that was ant-gay. Gay men whoembrace the Democrat party as their Lord and Savior are the true sell-outs. They embrace a party that first banned gays from the military under FDR then pretended to fix things but Don't ask Don't tell under Clinton.Perhaps they should come to the solid Democrat state of West V a and see how members of their party talk about gays.Maybe it would enlighten them of their ignorance.We as gays are not sheep. We think along conservative and/or liberal lines on many different issues that don't involve gay rights and you shouldn't as long as you remain true to yourself as a gay man,ever let anyone demean you for being yourself and not part of a flock.I f a gay Republican does something anti gay don't vote for him or her,vote for the best man/woman but always remember thatignorance towards gays doesn't come in political parties.After all,you think Isiah Washington or Tracy Morgan are Republicans?nope,but Laura Bush,Dick Cheney,Elizabeth Hasselbeck-all who support gay marriage-are Republicans. In short,just be yourself,love yourself and vote with your heart not as a sheep in a flock.

 

[TX-Beau]

The idea that Democrats and Republicans are the same on gay rights is ridiculous in the extreme.

 

[Kulindahr]

Don't let anyone tell you that you're a sell-out because you have some conservative values.You didn't post anything that was ant-gay. Gay men whoembrace the Democrat party as their Lord and Savior are the true sell-outs. They embrace a party that first banned gays from the military under FDR then pretended to fix things but Don't ask Don't tell under Clinton.Perhaps they should come to the solid Democrat state of West V a and see how members of their party talk about gays.Maybe it would enlighten them of their ignorance.We as gays are not sheep. We think along conservative and/or liberal lines on many different issues that don't involve gay rights and you shouldn't as long as you remain true to yourself as a gay man,ever let anyone demean you for being yourself and not part of a flock.I f a gay Republican does something anti gay don't vote for him or her,vote for the best man/woman but always remember thatignorance towards gays doesn't come in political parties.After all,you think Isiah Washington or Tracy Morgan are Republicans?nope,but Laura Bush,Dick Cheney,Elizabeth Hasselbeck-all who support gay marriage-are Republicans. In short,just be yourself,love yourself and vote with your heart not as a sheep in a flock.

"Vote with your heart"?

Well, that rules out the present-day Republican party. They've demonstrated over the last generation that they believe in an ever-increasing national debt, doing less and less to care for the needy, dumping the elderly out on their own, and handing the vast wealth of the country over to fewer and fewer people. Those aren't emotional statements, they aren't opinions, they're a summary of the observable results of Republican policy. In the non-domestic, those results include thousands of body bags being shipped back from overseas due to involvement in unnecessary wars that usually result in the transfer of even more wealthy to the few.

In short, the Republican party of today is the party of unearned wealth due to wealth transfers -- not sharing (oh, no, NEVER share!), but using government to move it from people who work their asses off to increase material wealth into the pockets of the few who give us the best politicians money can buy.

And along the way, they devote large amounts of that wealth to trying to turn gays back into non-persons subject to whatever treatment some bigot(s) might wish to dish out -- but only enough wealth to entice poorer people to donate as well, dumping that money into a system rigged for trickle-up economics.

 

[bankside]

I'd vote with my heart but my ventricle and the aorta get into the worst fights about who to pick.

 

[koontzfanwv]

"Vote with your heart"?

Well, that rules out the present-day Republican party. They've demonstrated over the last generation that they believe in an ever-increasing national debt, doing less and less to care for the needy, dumping the elderly out on their own, and handing the vast wealth of the country over to fewer and fewer people. Those aren't emotional statements, they aren't opinions, they're a summary of the observable results of Republican policy. In the non-domestic, those results include thousands of body bags being shipped back from overseas due to involvement in unnecessary wars that usually result in the transfer of even more wealthy to the few.

In short, the Republican party of today is the party of unearned wealth due to wealth transfers -- not sharing (oh, no, NEVER share!), but using government to move it from people who work their asses off to increase material wealth into the pockets of the few who give us the best politicians money can buy.

And along the way, they devote large amounts of that wealth to trying to turn gays back into non-persons subject to whatever treatment some bigot(s) might wish to dish out -- but only enough wealth to entice poorer people to donate as well, dumping that money into a system rigged for trickle-up economics.

By vote with your heart i wasn't speaking of voting for parties but voting for individuals with one's heart. Pople like you are pawns to the Democrat party that uses them,and the sad part is you let yourselves be used.We need to look at candidates as individuals and try not voting the party line. I see leftwing puppets constantly crucifying Republicans with liberal stances on gay marriage and hypocriticallly sticking their heads up their asses at Democrats with conservative stances on gay marriages-trying to pretend it doesn't exist because it's ruins the faux utopic world they live in. By vote with your heart i was telling him not to fall into the trap others fall into.I personally am not a Republican or a Democrat but registered non partisan.Some of us gay men are socially liberal yet fiscally conservative and we shouldn't be ashamed of it because it makes the puppets insecure. And by the way,sharing the wealth describes Socialism and i'm not sure which candidates you're referring to.

 

[TX-Beau]

Careful with the pointless screed and uniformed leaps to conclusions. Kuli isn't a Democrat, he's a libertarian.

 

[koontzfanwv]

Careful with the pointless screed and uniformed leaps to conclusions. Kuli isn't a Democrat, he's a libertarian.

I never said he was a Democrat. Yes,he's a libertarian. So is Bill Maher who also lives on the banks of denial. And be careful? i'm shaking in my boots.

 

[Kulindahr]

Pople like you are pawns to the Democrat party that uses them,....

Thanks -- I haven't had that good a laugh in a long time.

Probably not since I was called an ignorant tool of the Republican party.

 

[koontzfanwv]

Thanks -- I haven't had that good a laugh in a long time.

Probably not since I was called an ignorant tool of the Republican party.

Believe me,i'd never confuse leftwingers who hide behind third party banners as pawns of the Republican party.Jessee Venturra is probably the funniest tho.The man doesn't realize how ignorant his remarks are.Reform Party in his case. I don't feel the need to belong to a party but i'm sure as hell not fooled by ppl that hidebehind third party security blankets. As for funny,i kinda snickered too when you claimed that Republicans were throwing out old ppl to be out on their own.Funny because i've been hearing bad Democrat scare tactics on tv ads that share your sentiments for years.But being the third party free thinker that you are,i'm sure it was a coincidence.

 

[Kulindahr]

Believe me,i'd never confuse leftwingers who hide behind third party banners as pawns of the Republican party.Jessee Venturra is probably the funniest tho.The man doesn't realize how ignorant his remarks are.Reform Party in his case. I don't feel the need to belong to a party but i'm sure as hell not fooled by ppl that hidebehind third party security blankets. As for funny,i kinda snickered too when you claimed that Republicans were throwing out old ppl to be out on their own.Funny because i've been hearing bad Democrat scare tactics on tv ads that share your sentiments for years.But being the third party free thinker that you are,i'm sure it was a coincidence.

The only things I watch on TV are MythBusters and Top Gear. Haven't seen a political ad there yet.

All I have to do to tell what the Republicans are up to is pay attention to the House of Representatives.

That they will throw out old people is evident from their games with the debt ceiling. Or aren't you paying that much attention?


Because it's plain from your two posts about me that you're big about jumping to conclusions and stereotyping. That doesn't speak well for your actually knowing what's going on.

 

[koontzfanwv]

The only things I watch on TV are MythBusters and Top Gear. Haven't seen a political ad there yet.

All I have to do to tell what the Republicans are up to is pay attention to the House of Representatives.

That they will throw out old people is evident from their games with the debt ceiling. Or aren't you paying that much attention?


Because it's plain from your two posts about me that you're big about jumping to conclusions and stereotyping. That doesn't speak well for your actually knowing what's going on.

Kulin,i hate stereotyping and i constantly preach against it. I've read posts of yours in the past and i've actually thought you were pretty fair compared to so many of the haters i see in here but people in this thread and others seem to thrive on hating Republicans when if gay rights are their main issue,Republicans are not the enemy.The enemy is Fundamentalists in all relgions. I get irritated when i see this hatred because i feel it's taking us away from an issue i'm sure both of us care about. In any regard,if i offended you,i apologize.I'm sure you're a good guy. All of us in the gay comminity will be a healthier and stronger group only when we realize not only are we not going to agree on every issue but we shouldn't. And when this gentleman in this thread said he may be conservative he should have respect.There are many reasons he may be conservative.My guess is that both of us are fiscal conservatives. He may be too.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulin,i hate stereotyping and i constantly preach against it. I've read posts of yours in the past and i've actually thought you were pretty fair compared to so many of the haters i see in here but people in this thread and others seem to thrive on hating Republicans when if gay rights are their main issue,Republicans are not the enemy.The enemy is Fundamentalists in all relgions. I get irritated when i see this hatred because i feel it's taking us away from an issue i'm sure both of us care about. In any regard,if i offended you,i apologize.I'm sure you're a good guy. All of us in the gay comminity will be a healthier and stronger group only when we realize not only are we not going to agree on every issue but we shouldn't. And when this gentleman in this thread said he may be conservative he should have respect.There are many reasons he may be conservative.My guess is that both of us are fiscal conservatives. He may be too.

It would be hard to find a real conservative getting anywhere in the Republican party these days -- they're reactionaries.

The religious angle is why I invented the term "ReligioPublican", and others have coined "Elephangelical" and "Talibangelical" -- not interchangeable; the first is most 'mild' and the last most rabid.

I'm a fiscal conservative, but over the last two years, especially through discussions on this board and research in conjunction with that, I've learned a lot about our economy, lessons which break really into two things: one, that the economics being preached by so many claimants to conservatism are those of a frontier era, something we no longer have; the other, that thanks to government collusion with business, we in actuality have a trickle-up economy that shunts unearned wealth toward those with an overabundance already.

In absence of truly fundamental correctives to deal with both of those, the only remedy is social programs to take care of some basic needs.

Another problem is concentration of wealth. Historically, concentration of wealth ALWAYS means loss of liberty. The concentration of wealth in the U.S., fostered almost entirely by Republicans, is such that to do away with social programs at this point would be a step toward bondage for many. To drop the federal government to the size it really ought to be, and do so overnite, would not give us a country more free, but less.

Typical libertarians see government as the disease masquerading as its own cure, but it is not the only such entity: any entity which holds sufficient power to reduce our liberties in a way that leaves us without recourse but arms is the same. Today's megacorporations qualify, as do those five hundred families with a net worth greater than the combined worth of the bottom fifty million. So we have two options: we make use of government to be a check on the corporations and the wealthy, or... we employ a Second Amendment remedy.

At the moment, I'd prefer to make use of government as a check. The biggest reason? I believe that an insufficient number of Americans have a solid enough grasp of what liberty is to trust in a violent revolution resulting in anything resembling an improvement.

 

[ZmercTheDuke]

Way too de-rail a thread....

 

[TX-Beau]

There are two issues going on here, one the easy one, is that the OP didn't have a good grasp of "Conservatism," and tied it in to some kind of issues he had with gayness and masculinity. Which is neither here nor there in the bigger issue, which is about - once again, nomenclature.

We do not have conservatives as defined 40 years ago abandoning the neo-cons in large numbers as of yet. Mostly they still support - financially and at the ballot box, the Republican party. Which means they defacto endorse it's policies.

So what really is a Conservative, now, in the real world? Frankly, I don't think that people calling themselves "Conservative," are all that up in arms, whether because they're lazy, or duped, or what have you.

The Goldwater Conservative who still votes Republican has surrendered everything he thinks Conservatism's supposed to mean, and until those people take that term back - Conservatives are defined as jingoistic, religious, reactionary, fiscally irresponsible, neo-cons.

Without that, this whole argument between liberal and conservative boils down to how much the government should help people, and where to spend the money.

Frankly, fiscal responsibility and small government IS NOT incompatible with Liberalism.

So why do the neo-con politicians and power brokers pursue fear, division, and war-mongering? Because it distracts people from the massive theft they're carrying on behind our backs.

 

[Queerwitch]

"Vote with your heart"?

Well, that rules out the present-day Republican party. They've demonstrated over the last generation that they believe in an ever-increasing national debt, doing less and less to care for the needy, dumping the elderly out on their own, and handing the vast wealth of the country over to fewer and fewer people. Those aren't emotional statements, they aren't opinions, they're a summary of the observable results of Republican policy. In the non-domestic, those results include thousands of body bags being shipped back from overseas due to involvement in unnecessary wars that usually result in the transfer of even more wealthy to the few.

In short, the Republican party of today is the party of unearned wealth due to wealth transfers -- not sharing (oh, no, NEVER share!), but using government to move it from people who work their asses off to increase material wealth into the pockets of the few who give us the best politicians money can buy.

And along the way, they devote large amounts of that wealth to trying to turn gays back into non-persons subject to whatever treatment some bigot(s) might wish to dish out -- but only enough wealth to entice poorer people to donate as well, dumping that money into a system rigged for trickle-up economics.

I am in total agreement with this. I'm neither Rep. nor a faithful Dem., have suspected I'm a Libertarian for some time.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am in total agreement with this. I'm neither Rep. nor a faithful Dem., have suspected I'm a Libertarian for some time.

I just hope you're a real libertarian and not a propertarian like most of the claimants to being libertarian in the GOP are. There's a fairly easy test: propertarians believe that corporations have political rights, while libertarians believe only people have rights.

 

[GhostMost]

or deny libertarianism and go for objectivism

 

[Kulindahr]

or deny libertarianism and go for objectivism

That's a well-named philosophy: it sees people as objects.