Gays Vote GOP in Record Numbers

[JeffreyLebowski]

Agreed, this would be a winner every time - except in Republican primaries. There's a name for people holding their breath waiting for Republicans to live up to their philosophy of limited government - dead people. (Luckily in Chicago and Philly they can still vote!) Pubbies know they merely have to be more fiscally conservative than the Dems because there is little choice for fiscal conservatism.

Well to be fair to your statement, the dead people keep voting for Dems.

 

[Patranus]

... Because it was not anti-gay enough, and they wanted to ban gays more strongly, IIRC.

Try again.

Gay Republicans brought the law suit. The Log Cabin Republicans.

 

[werepossum]

Well to be fair to your statement, the dead people keep voting for Dems.

Because they know that soon, Democrats will define death as a disability that needs a gubmit check!

 

[Amused]

Try again.

Gay Republicans brought the law suit. The Log Cabin Republicans.

LOL!!! Craig... poor little bastard

 

[GoPackGo]

Obama has done nothing for Gays.

 

[her209]

Gates wants the Congress to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell during the lame duck session. I wonder why?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dont...s-repeal-policy-lame/story?id=12087415&page=1

:hmm:

 

[Craig234]

Try again.

Gay Republicans brought the law suit. The Log Cabin Republicans.

OK - and most Republicans are very different from them on gay issues. Most Republican opposition to DADT was as I said, because DADT isn't anti-gay enough for them.

 

[IBMer]

Obama has done nothing for Gays.

This is very true, but also in the converse he also hasn't passed anything to take away more rights either. Thats whats scary about fundies.

 

[Amused]

OK - and most Republicans are very different from them on gay issues. Most Republican opposition to DADT was as I said, because DADT isn't anti-gay enough for them.

Wow...

 

[Amused]

This is very true, but also in the converse he also hasn't passed anything to take away more rights either. Thats whats scary about fundies.

The religious right have been able to pass NOTHING anti-gay that hurts gays. About the only thing some rightwing groups have been able to do is stop new laws from passing on a state and local level.

The religious right is impotent for the most part. Their agenda has been dead in the water for years on a national level. On local levels, what has passed gets quickly overturned.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

OK - and most Republicans are very different from them on gay issues. Most Republican opposition to DADT was as I said, because DADT isn't anti-gay enough for them.

Wow x 2...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Wow...

Funny thing here is that he doesn't see it and he's truly incapable of seeing it.

 

[Amused]

Funny thing here is that he doesn't see it and he's incapable of seeing it.

I know. The only real fundie in these parts is Craig. A true believer who drank the koolade if I ever saw one.

 

[IBMer]

The religious right is impotent for the most part. Their agenda has been dead in the water for years on a national level. On local levels, what has passed gets quickly overturned.

How many states now have constitutional amendments banning Gay marriage? 30

How many republicans are still against repealing DADT?

Its still very much alive and kicking.

 

[PJABBER]

Gates wants the Congress to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell during the lame duck session. I wonder why?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dont...s-repeal-policy-lame/story?id=12087415&page=1

:hmm:

The DADT provision needs to be stripped from that bill and then offered up as a separate piece of legislation if need be, maybe as part of a bill that specifically addresses sexual orientation discrimination.

One of the promises being made by the Republicans is that legislation will be broken down into component parts that can be evaluated on their merits, rather than as a mishmash that people vote for while objecting to irrelevant or tangential components.

 

[fskimospy]

The DADT provision needs to be stripped from that bill and then offered up as a separate piece of legislation if need be, maybe as part of a bill that specifically addresses sexual orientation discrimination.

One of the promises being made by the Republicans is that legislation will be broken down into component parts that can be evaluated on their merits, rather than as a mishmash that people vote for while objecting to irrelevant or tangential components.

In other news, Republicans make hilarious and impossible to implement promises that would eliminate legislative deal making and render the US Congress effectively unable to function.

Early reports indicate that the Republicans have done this as part of a series of rhetorical arguments they put forth that will have zero effect on any significant legislation that they wish to pass. Sources close to the Republicans state that they will continue to attempt to do this for all legislation they oppose, while conveniently ignoring it on legislation they support.

 

[Amused]

How many states now have constitutional amendments banning Gay marriage? 30

How many republicans are still against repealing DADT?

Its still very much alive and kicking.

Bullshit. It is, for the most part, impotent.

Gay marriage bans span parties, and beliefs. Hell, the vast majority of the black community support the bans and they vote democrat.

And, finally, gay marriage bans are meaningless. Gays can't lose a right they didn't have in the first place. All the bans do is send a silly message that will, eventually, be over turned in the courts.

So my point stands, the religious right is impotent. They can't get any of their agenda through on a national level, and the things they do is states are either pointless, or quickly over turned.

 

[PJABBER]

In other news, Republicans make hilarious and impossible to implement promises that would eliminate legislative deal making and render the US Congress effectively unable to function.

You mean you want them to continue to do business as usual. Why?

Broad, throw the kitchen sink in there, legislation additionally characterized by thousands of earmarks is an extraordinarily corrupting device.

It hides what should be open to discussion and it allows what should be put on record to be hidden in votes for something of an entirely different topic.

Early reports indicate that the Republicans have done this as part of a series of rhetorical arguments they put forth that will have zero effect on any significant legislation that they wish to pass. Sources close to the Republicans state that they will continue to attempt to do this for all legislation they oppose, while conveniently ignoring it on legislation they support.

What early reports? Post a link that is not partisan propaganda from the Left that is seeing its favorite way of hiding societally unacceptable radical "change" in otherwise innocuous legislation going the way of the dodo bird.

We need a lot more openness and accountability in the Congress. Having bills just about a specific issue and not immaterial items will bring us a lot closer to that goal.

As will the elimination of earmarks, another favorite of backroom dealing. How many would like have those on the table for an up or down vote?

 

[fskimospy]

You mean you want them to continue to do business as usual. Why?

Broad, throw the kitchen sink in there, legislation additionally characterized by thousands of earmarks is an extraordinarily corrupting device.

It hides what should be open to discussion and it allows what should be put on record to be hidden in votes for something of an entirely different topic.

What early reports? Post a link that is not partisan propaganda from the Left that is seeing its favorite way of hiding societally unacceptable radical "change" in otherwise innocuous legislation going the way of the dodo bird.

We need a lot more openness and accountability in the Congress. Having bills just about a specific issue and not immaterial items will bring us a lot closer to that goal.

As will the elimination of earmarks, another favorite of backroom dealing. How many would like have those on the table for an up or down vote?

Whoa there captain insane-o, my post was a joke, meant to be a sort of pseudo news story. Maybe it wasn't funny, but jesus christ man, it wasn't that hard to figure out.

Because I actually know something about how legislation works I know that not only will the Republican promise not happen on any significant piece of legislation they support, but that anyone who actually believes that crap is ignorant or a fool. Those things all sound good as rhetorical devices until you figure out that you're eliminating the ability of people to make binding deals. You can think whatever you want about the process, but I'm here to teach you the cold hard truths of reality, that it's not going anywhere.

Earmarks are an insignificant portion of the budget, they are also a rhetorical device only.

I will have to take a moment and note the extreme irony in you of all people demanding nonpartisan sources from someone, considering your posts are almost exclusively populated with links from the lunatic fringe of the Republican party. It's not like your total lack of self awareness or shame is something new, but I want others to be able to laugh at you with me.

 

[PJABBER]

Whoa there captain insane-o, my post was a joke, meant to be a sort of pseudo news story. Maybe it wasn't funny, but jesus christ man, it wasn't that hard to figure out.

Because I actually know something about how legislation works I know that not only will the Republican promise not happen on any significant piece of legislation they support, but that anyone who actually believes that crap is ignorant or a fool. Those things all sound good as rhetorical devices until you figure out that you're eliminating the ability of people to make binding deals. You can think whatever you want about the process, but I'm here to teach you the cold hard truths of reality, that it's not going anywhere.

Earmarks are an insignificant portion of the budget, they are also a rhetorical device only.

I will have to take a moment and note the extreme irony in you of all people demanding nonpartisan sources from someone, considering your posts are almost exclusively populated with links from the lunatic fringe of the Republican party. It's not like your total lack of self awareness or shame is something new, but I want others to be able to laugh at you with me.

I understand the utility of throwing in unrelated sweeteners. I am arguing that we should hold the Republicans to their promise to eliminate such aspects of deal making.

Why should we accept the status quo on this aspect of the legislative process? Why not hold people accountable for their votes on specific issues? Why not eliminate one of the mechanisms for corruption, even if we cannot eliminate corruption itself?

Earmarks can have utility. Many are worthwhile in and of themselves, but of too small a scale to take up separate consideration. If you think an airport is needed, then make it part of a comprehensive plan for airports and not a line in some health insurance bill.

The greater issue is that we need to see government enter a sustained period of austerity. The best way of doing that is by evaluating each law, each proposal, each budget on a line by line basis and then force each to stand on their own merits, not the merit of tangential or completely unrelated add-ons that satisfy the pork barreling of individual Congressmen.

I suggest that ALL social engineering projects like DADT be put way back on the back burner. The Congress can consider these in 1012 after they address our national debt, taxation and economic productivity issues.

PS. I still would like to see your links. I want to hold the Repubs' feet to the fire as much as the Dems'.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand the utility of throwing in unrelated sweeteners. I am arguing that we should hold the Republicans to their promise to eliminate such aspects of deal making.

Why should we accept the status quo on this aspect of the legislative process? Why not hold people accountable for their votes on specific issues? Why not eliminate one of the mechanisms for corruption, even if we cannot eliminate corruption itself?

Earmarks can have utility. Many are worthwhile in and of themselves, but of too small a scale to take up separate consideration. If you think an airport is needed, then make it part of a comprehensive plan for airports and not a line in some health insurance bill.

The greater issue is that we need to see government enter a sustained period of austerity. The best way of doing that is by evaluating each law, each proposal, each budget on a line by line basis and then force each to stand on their own merits, not the merit of tangential or completely unrelated add-ons that satisfy the pork barreling of individual Congressmen.

I suggest that ALL social engineering projects like DADT be put way back on the back burner. The Congress can consider these in 1012 after they address our national debt, taxation and economic productivity issues.

PS. I still would like to see your links. I want to hold the Repubs' feet to the fire as much as the Dems'.

Because that's how legislating works, in this country and in all others. It's not going anywhere. I disagree that we need to enter into a period of austerity, as do most economists.

I don't have any links, it was a joke where I attempted to make my opinion sound like a news report. I figured that was pretty clear, but I guess not. My point was that you shouldn't be surprised when the Republicans throw that idea overboard immediately upon being confronted with important legislation they want to pass.

 

[JSt0rm]

Just think about what would happen if the GOP was for gay marriage and a repeal of DADT. Retarded social issue stances like this often submarine the party.

Let people do what they want with their bodies and their sex lives, and focus on the economy and the Constitution. Win Win.

Agreed. Tell the fundies to go off and form their own wingnut party.

Social liberal/fiscal conservative is what I would love to see.

 

[Amused]

Social liberal/fiscal conservative is what I would love to see.

Wouldn't we all?

But then, you guys seem to shit all over the ones who are in this forum.

 

[dmcowen674]

this is a FOX news poll we are discussing...it could be just complete bullshit.

There you go

 

[JSt0rm]

Wouldn't we all?

But then, you guys seem to shit all over the ones who are in this forum.

Who is on this forum? All the neocons on this forum LOVE their social programs (war machines and shit) They just hate Laquanda from the east sides social programs.