Gay Group "Log Cabin" Throws Fit

[007]

ah, republicans. the party of inclusion.

I don't recall Republicans EVER including fags... in ANYTHING. Being a faggot is NOT something that Republicans back. Never will.

Being a queer is a sick and perverted lifestyle choice. You liberals keep the bastards.

 

[007]

which goes back to some earlier posts I made last week......If a person or group has 5 of the 6 beliefs of the party, but that last one is a total opposite, they aren't true conservatives or republicans.

That's correct. The Governor of California to be an example.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I'd have to say then that Bush, and the republican party in general, should be classified as hypocrites.

Log Cabin Republicans supports free markets, less government, individual responsibility and individual rights for all Americans, including gay Americans. Paradoxically, we find ourselves more aligned to those crucial swing voters at the political center than President Bush today. Moderate Republican and independent swing voters share our socially inclusive and fiscally conservative values, and they too find themselves more often in the position of having to constantly explain why they decide to support Republicans in election campaigns.

So what should all this tell us about George W. Bush? His handling of the Log Cabin issue has illuminated many of the flaws in his campaign, which may have an impact on our party's chances in November. Among gay Republicans, his campaign demands loyalty before "considering" a meeting despite the chronology of its behavior. That's no way to win converts, which Bush needs to do for the sake of the GOP's chances at winning elections.

It's hypocrisy like this that proves to me I want very little to do with the republican party, but I guess you don't need my vote either so I, and my beliefs, don't count either. :finger:

 

[freeandfun1]

I'd have to say then that Bush, and the republican party in general, should be classified as hypocrites.

Log Cabin Republicans supports free markets, less government, individual responsibility and individual rights for all Americans, including gay Americans. Paradoxically, we find ourselves more aligned to those crucial swing voters at the political center than President Bush today. Moderate Republican and independent swing voters share our socially inclusive and fiscally conservative values, and they too find themselves more often in the position of having to constantly explain why they decide to support Republicans in election campaigns.

So what should all this tell us about George W. Bush? His handling of the Log Cabin issue has illuminated many of the flaws in his campaign, which may have an impact on our party's chances in November. Among gay Republicans, his campaign demands loyalty before "considering" a meeting despite the chronology of its behavior. That's no way to win converts, which Bush needs to do for the sake of the GOP's chances at winning elections.

It's hypocrisy like this that proves to me I want very little to do with the republican party, but I guess you don't need my vote either so I, and my beliefs, don't count either. :finger:

Everybody is a hypocrite at one time or another. There is no group where you will have 100% agreement on anything. DK, why are you such an angry person? Why do you ignore the hypocrisy within the Democratic party?

You are always looking for something to get upset or angry about. Why?



After re-reading your post, I don't quite see the hypocrisy you are referring to, please point it out.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I'd have to say then that Bush, and the republican party in general, should be classified as hypocrites.

Log Cabin Republicans supports free markets, less government, individual responsibility and individual rights for all Americans, including gay Americans. Paradoxically, we find ourselves more aligned to those crucial swing voters at the political center than President Bush today. Moderate Republican and independent swing voters share our socially inclusive and fiscally conservative values, and they too find themselves more often in the position of having to constantly explain why they decide to support Republicans in election campaigns.

So what should all this tell us about George W. Bush? His handling of the Log Cabin issue has illuminated many of the flaws in his campaign, which may have an impact on our party's chances in November. Among gay Republicans, his campaign demands loyalty before "considering" a meeting despite the chronology of its behavior. That's no way to win converts, which Bush needs to do for the sake of the GOP's chances at winning elections.

It's hypocrisy like this that proves to me I want very little to do with the republican party, but I guess you don't need my vote either so I, and my beliefs, don't count either. :finger:

So the LCR believes in MANY right wing things but they decide to trash Bush because he doesn't believe in ONE thing they're pushing for? I think that exposes the real agenda of their organization, don't you? Just because Bush supports gays in the Party does not mean that he believes in everything they believe in.

Who's the REAL hypocrite here?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Everybody is a hypocrite at one time or another. There is no group where you will have 100% agreement on anything. DK, why are you such an angry person? Why do you ignore the hypocrisy within the Democratic party?

You are always looking for something to get upset or angry about. Why?



After re-reading your post, I don't quite see the hypocrisy you are referring to, please point it out.

I'm not ignoring the hypocrisy of the dem party, do you see me supporting kerry/edwards? you see me supporting zell miller though, don't you?

I can understand not having 100% agreement on everything, what I currently see though is when the support and votes are needed, the republican party whores itself out of its principles just as much as the dems do when they need the votes, but when those votes are no longer 'necessary' then any particular group can be expelled. You may call it politics, I call it hypocrisy.

I see very little honor in either party when it comes to loyalty and commitment anymore. THATS why I'm angry.

 

[DKSuddeth]

So the LCR believes in MANY right wing things but they decide to trash Bush because he doesn't believe in ONE thing they're pushing for? I think that exposes the real agenda of their organization, don't you? Just because Bush supports gays in the Party does not mean that he believes in everything they believe in.

Who's the REAL hypocrite here?

The LCR isn't wanting the republican party to validate gay marriage, they are wanting the bush administration to stop the push for a constitutional amendment banning it. It's nationally sponsored discrimination.

 

[freeandfun1]

The LCR isn't wanting the republican party to validate gay marriage, they are wanting the bush administration to stop the push for a constitutional amendment banning it. It's nationally sponsored discrimination.

Frankly, I think it should be left up to the states. Bush has said so too. However, he changed his stance on this matter because of people like the mayors of SF and Portland, the Massachusetts court, etc. The left continually shows that the will of the people, when it goes against the liberal beliefs, do not matter. Therefore, Bush has no choice but to amend the Constitution as the courts have already proved they are not going to protect constitutional amendments to the state constitutions that the people have already voted for and approved.

But I do get your drift.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The LCR isn't wanting the republican party to validate gay marriage, they are wanting the bush administration to stop the push for a constitutional amendment banning it. It's nationally sponsored discrimination.

No it isn't. ANYBODY can get married if they want to. It just has to be with the opposite sex.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Frankly, I think it should be left up to the states. Bush has said so too. However, he changed his stance on this matter because of people like the mayors of SF and Portland, the Massachusetts court, etc. The left continually shows that the will of the people, when it goes against the liberal beliefs, do not matter. Therefore, Bush has no choice but to amend the Constitution as the courts have already proved they are not going to protect constitutional amendments to the state constitutions that the people have already voted for and approved.

But I do get your drift.

isn't mass. in the process of writing that ban in their state constitution?

as for SF and portland, are they not doing the same, like missouri and others? I thought I read thats what was happening. could be wrong there.

 

[DKSuddeth]

No it isn't. ANYBODY can get married if they want to. It just has to be with the opposite sex.

but a us constitution amendment prohibiting something IS discrimination. If they had made an amendment in 1962 banning interracial marriages, wouldn't THAT be discrimination?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

but a us constitution amendment prohibiting something IS discrimination. If they had made an amendment in 1962 banning interracial marriages, wouldn't THAT be discrimination?

eXCUSE me but that's not how I interpret the Constitution....

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'd have to say then that Bush, and the republican party in general, should be classified as hypocrites.

Woah. Hold on a minute, mr. Look at john kerry pretending he's tough on terrorism and has a clue about economics. He's blatantly misrepresenting everything he has done in the past and everything the Democratic party has become: A bunch of reality denying wacko leftist, antiamerican socialist loony fringe types.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Woah. Hold on a minute, mr. Look at john kerry pretending he's tough on terrorism and has a clue about economics. He's blatantly misrepresenting everything he has done in the past and everything the Democratic party has become: A bunch of reality denying wacko leftist, antiamerican socialist loony fringe types.

but I've already SAID and still maintain that the dems are hypocrites. does that make ME a hypocrite?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

but I've already SAID and still maintain that the dems are hypocrites. does that make ME a hypocrite?

You still need to decide which are more harmful for the nation: homophobes, or libs who believe america is inherently evil and actively work to undermine our defense, because they truly feel our capitalistic system is evil?

Homophobes may say the word faggot a lot, but that damage pales in comparison to the damage the Antiamerican left does.

When are you going to decide?

 

[DKSuddeth]

You still need to decide which are more harmful for the nation: homophobes, or libs who believe america is inherently evil and actively work to undermine our defense, because they truly feel our capitalistic system is evil?

Homophobes may say the word faggot a lot, but that damage pales in comparison to the damage the Antiamerican left does.

When are you going to decide?

depends on which party(s) stop being hypocritical. If I find that neither party can stop being hypocritical, I'll find one thats not or start my own.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

depends on which party(s) stop being hypocritical. If I find that neither party can stop being hypocritical, I'll find one thats not or start my own.

In lieu of that happening, which party is less harmful as it stands to day, the party of people who say faggot? or the party of people who believe the war on terror is a ruse and AMerica is evil? Who do you trust with national security?

 

[DKSuddeth]

In lieu of that happening, which party is less harmful as it stands to day, the party of people who say faggot? or the party of people who believe the war on terror is a ruse and AMerica is evil? Who do you trust with national security?

tough choice, destroy america from the inside or the outside..........

 

[rtwngAvngr]

tough choice, destroy america from the inside or the outside..........

Not even comparable. How can homophobes destroy america? They are still not entitled to do anything with their hatred. Battery is still illegal. They cannot touch a hair on a person's gay head. Let's say this constitutional amendement banning gay marriage goes through. How wil that destroy america? This comparison is so outlandish as to be laughable.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Not even comparable. How can homophobes destroy america? They are still not entitled to do anything with their hatred. Battery is still illegal. They cannot touch a hair on a person's gay head. Let's say this constitutional amendement banning gay marriage goes through. How wil that destroy america? This comparison is so outlandish as to be laughable.

not comparable? laughable? assault and battery may still be illegal, but does that stop it from happening? not hardly. Look at the issue today in both political and domestic terms. It's polarizing to the point of gays vs. straight, homo's vs. homophobes, and the infighting is only increasing. When it tears us apart domestically, we're still destroyed, just not in a physical sense like an outside attack would.