Jim Crow laws for LGBT

[MisterB]

Thanks for the replies rareboy and the wiz.

The Wiz said "I've gone to a number of their functions in DC and I always have to ask them how they can participate with a group that hates them; that seeks to undermine their existence; that seeks to deny them rights; and relegates them to a "table in the back" if at all?"

I would be curious to hear from the Wiz exactly what type of replies he gets to such direct questions quoted above? How do these gay repubs defend/justify/dance around the fact that they are pretty much considered abominations by most "straight" republicans yet still want to be part of that party?

I ask because the only two gay republicans I know of are two lesbians that before I ever knew their politics never made much sense to me.

 

[jbrown329]

It's an absurdly broad and ridiculous statement. A lot of conservatives support equal rights and marriage equality these days. It's mainly the GOP party leadership where no support exists.

Nondiscrimination in housing and employment has consistently polled in the 70-80% range over the past few years, that obviously includes a lot of conservatives and Republicans.

Not quite sure on the number (I think it's about 30) states where someone can be fired because of their sexuality. They can also be kicked out of their housing. The Republicans refuse to pass ENDA.

Then there's Huckabee. Who publicly stated that gays should be rounded up and put into camps (internment anyone?). I have dealt with homophobes for decades. Once was run off the freeway by teenagers. One leaning out the passenger window screaming every obscenity he could think of. All because of a rainbow sticker on the back of my car. I was doing 60mph, it's a wonder I didn't roll my car.

I've been told online and to my face that I should be put to death. How's that for 'christian' values?

 

[frankfrank]

These judgments and pronouncements ALMOST INVARIABLY come from people who are "devout" in one of another of the Abrahamic religions, or perhaps in one of the newfangled cults. Among religions, Abrahamic religions are definitely the "Alpha Male" 800-pound gorilla in the room. (How many Buddhists, Hindus, pagans, etc. are running around trying to tell others to CONVERT...OR DIE?)

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

Nondiscrimination in housing and employment has consistently polled in the 70-80% range over the past few years, that obviously includes a lot of conservatives and Republicans.

Yet in 2015 there are no legal protections for these examples in 31 states. Why are there no legislation? If there is what party are submitting the bills?

 

[jbrown329]

Yet in 2015 there are no legal protections for these examples in 31 states. Why are there no legislation? If there is what party are submitting the bills?

Thankfully I live in a state were LGBTs have the protection of the the law. It wasn't the Republicans in the state house that did it.

 

[Mitchymo]

Gay Oppression Party at it again eh. Pathetic.

I think every politician in every country should complete a political compass quiz, and if any are outside of a centralist square space in the middle, they should be banned from politics. The world will reach peace a hell of a lot quicker.

 

[jbrown329]

IMHO, the last decent Republican that held high office was Ike.

 

[thewiz]

Thanks for the replies rareboy and the wiz.

The Wiz said "I've gone to a number of their functions in DC and I always have to ask them how they can participate with a group that hates them; that seeks to undermine their existence; that seeks to deny them rights; and relegates them to a "table in the back" if at all?"

I would be curious to hear from the Wiz exactly what type of replies he gets to such direct questions quoted above? How do these gay repubs defend/justify/dance around the fact that they are pretty much considered abominations by most "straight" republicans yet still want to be part of that party?

I ask because the only two gay republicans I know of are two lesbians that before I ever knew their politics never made much sense to me.

Some do actually come out of their brain coma; usually prompted by a personal or financial crisis. They find that their "party" that is so conservative really doesn't give a rats ass about them or their problem and they are thrown to the side. They also find that there is a "safety net" for a reason; sometimes bad things happen that can't be controlled.

However, most fall back on the "I am fiscally conservative." Well, I am, too. I never raised a millage in 16 years as a city manager and actually cut it in half while setting our city on a path of rebuilding every road, water main, sewer collection line, storm sewer, and the treatment plants. They'll finish all of the work laid out in the asset management plan I left them with when I retired 10 years ago. Yes, utility prices increased but they are now enjoying no flooded streets after rainstorms, no sewer back-ups, no broken water mains (we had 60 in the winter I started), and every street has curb, gutter and is paved with no potholes.

Fiscally conservative should not equate to stupid; one has to be responsible and the current crop of Republicons is not. Taking pledges to a guy who has never (and likely will never) be elected is not just stupid by treasonous.

 

[TX-Beau]

The biggest like about "fiscal conservative" as proposed by the right is that somehow the right is opposed to spending money irresponsibly. They are spending untold billions on cronyism and the military, corporate handouts of taxpayer money, tax cuts for the rich, and accept huge amounts of deficit spending while whining that welfare is irresponsible. There is nothing "fiscally responsible" on the right.

If we stopped all of their spending, and fully funded education, infrastructure and safety nets, health care etc. we'd STILL be a thousand times more "fiscally responsible" on the left - because however you feel about any of that, it's still FAR cheaper.

 

[thewiz]

The biggest like about "fiscal conservative" as proposed by the right is that somehow the right is opposed to spending money irresponsibly. They are spending untold billions on cronyism and the military, corporate handouts of taxpayer money, tax cuts for the rich, and accept huge amounts of deficit spending while whining that welfare is irresponsible. There is nothing "fiscally responsible" on the right.

If we stopped all of their spending, and fully funded education, infrastructure and safety nets, health care etc. we'd STILL be a thousand times more "fiscally responsible" on the left - because however you feel about any of that, it's still FAR cheaper.

And we would actually see a change in outcomes. The problem I have with defense -- and our son is in the military -- is that the people in the military get shit on. They make lower wages, they often struggle with reassignments and repeated deployments and when they leave, the VA is a great Trump talking point but has never been fixed for decades (apparently we can spend $5 trillion to fight illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but can't spend a few million taking care of those returning). The ones making the money are the military-industrial contractors who engage people like Tom Cotton and ply him with millions so he can have the balls (which he otherwise lacks) to propose starting yet another war in Iran.

Maybe if we invested $5 trillion in this country on roads, infrastructure, education, and housing we might be surprised at the results. I don't think we'd see our people blowing up the bridges, roads, and schools as fast as we would build them (which is what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan). We also might see the minority employment rates fall to something akin to that of whites now. Of course, that would not be in the Republican interests.....

 

[TX-Beau]

And we would actually see a change in outcomes. The problem I have with defense -- and our son is in the military -- is that the people in the military get shit on. They make lower wages, they often struggle with reassignments and repeated deployments and when they leave, the VA is a great Trump talking point but has never been fixed for decades (apparently we can spend $5 trillion to fight illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but can't spend a few million taking care of those returning). The ones making the money are the military-industrial contractors who engage people like Tom Cotton and ply him with millions so he can have the balls (which he otherwise lacks) to propose starting yet another war in Iran.

Maybe if we invested $5 trillion in this country on roads, infrastructure, education, and housing we might be surprised at the results. I don't think we'd see our people blowing up the bridges, roads, and schools as fast as we would build them (which is what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan). We also might see the minority employment rates fall to something akin to that of whites now. Of course, that would not be in the Republican interests.....

One of my Grandpas was a WW2 vet who was blown up on a beach in France - his substantial medical care was absolutely free and competent and immediate, and when he recovered they paid for his education. I would like to ask Republicans what happened to that.

 

[TX-Beau]

One of my biggest peeves is the assertion that the left doesn't "support" the troops. It pisses me off that not wanting to needlessly risk the lives of our children is somehow "against" the troops.

 

[thewiz]

I think if one actually delves into what Michelle Obama and Dr. Biden have done with veterans -- they would be shocked. They don't seek endless news coverage but have been highly engaged with veterans' issues.

And the GI bill was a Democrat proposal; something the Republicans have tried to kill repeatedly. As our son says, "why would anyone vote for a Republican given what they do to us?"

 

[jbrown329]

Several months back I was visiting my friend in a convalescent home. I happened to drive buy the Vet's hospital. When I saw that new (probably $200K) fence, I about shit myself. Money to spend on that and no money to spend on vets. I remember when Bush and Republicans weren't going to fund the VA. My Senator, is a pitbull when it comes to vets. She rose a major stink and got the VA funded to the tune of $3,000,000,000

 

[frankfrank]

I think every politician in every country should complete a political compass quiz, and if any are outside of a centralist square space in the middle, they should be banned from politics.

Trouble is, WHO defines the center? If Repukes got that task handed to them, some of their candidates (such as Rubio and Christie) would be banned, because they're too libeeral to be in the "centralist square."

That square would extend as far to the right as needed, to accommodate Trump, Huckabee, Santorum, etc.

IMHO, the last decent Republican that held high office was Ike.

Yes. He was a REPUBLICAN. And, as I often say, I feel that he was the best President in my lifetime. [BUT: McCarthyism under his watch! Still on top, in spite of that shit.]

Obama, though, is close behind. I'm too old to be directly affected by Obamacare, but if I wasn't, my health insurance opportunities would have escalated in a huge way. I was on the way to paying $10,000 a year for a JUNK policy with a very high deductible (and no coverage of prescriptions or routine testing), but then I turned 65, though I briefly had a taste of a better policy that cost far less. Some companies were starting to do some compliances with the ACA rules before they needed to be in place fully, and my premiums suddenly dropped to LESS THAN ONE-HALF with better coverage!

Would there be gay marriage under the first and second terms of McCain (or, possibly, Palin)? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Taking pledges to a guy who has never (and likely will never) be elected is not just stupid by treasonous.

QFT. Yeah, most of the states or congressional districts aren't represented very well at all...but GROVER NORDQUIST - one man - has hundreds of elected "agents" representing him directly and absolutely. Even if not treasonous, it should clearly be illegal.

 

[chrisrobin]

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy."
-- U.S. Representative Christopher Shays, R-CT, (New York Times, March 23, 2005)

This signifies the droppings of the bull. Today's "Republicans" would not free the slaves, let alone pass the Thirteenth Amendment.

 

[chrisrobin]

Trouble is, WHO defines the center? If Repukes got that task handed to them, some of their candidates (such as Rubio and Christie) would be banned, because they're too libeeral to be in the "centralist square."

That square would extend as far to the right as needed, to accommodate Trump, Huckabee, Santorum, etc.

Yes. He was a REPUBLICAN. And, as I often say, I feel that he was the best President in my lifetime. [BUT: McCarthyism under his watch! Still on top, in spite of that shit.]

Obama, though, is close behind. I'm too old to be directly affected by Obamacare, but if I wasn't, my health insurance opportunities would have escalated in a huge way. I was on the way to paying $10,000 a year for a JUNK policy with a very high deductible (and no coverage of prescriptions or routine testing), but then I turned 65, though I briefly had a taste of a better policy that cost far less. Some companies were starting to do some compliances with the ACA rules before they needed to be in place fully, and my premiums suddenly dropped to LESS THAN ONE-HALF with better coverage!

Would there be gay marriage under the first and second terms of McCain (or, possibly, Palin)? ABSOLUTELY NOT.


QFT. Yeah, most of the states or congressional districts aren't represented very well at all...but GROVER NORDQUIST - one man - has hundreds of elected "agents" representing him directly and absolutely. Even if not treasonous, it should clearly be illegal.

In most Republicon circles, Grover Nordquist is God.

 

[jbrown329]

In most Republicon circles, Grover Nordquist is God.

Strap him on a Saturn 5 rocket and send him to Mars on a one way trip.

 

[hotatlboi]

Yet in 2015 there are no legal protections for these examples in 31 states. Why are there no legislation? If there is what party are submitting the bills?

As I said, the GOP party leadership does not support it, even though the majority of the public does. The GOP controls Congress and almost all of those 31 state legislatures. That's why there are no bills.

Public support does not necessarily equate to changes in law because of how much money and special interest groups pulls the strings. 90% of the public was for universal background checks on gun sales but that went nowhere just because the NRA was opposed.