So you're trying to use emotions to manipulate gay people into voting against Democrats. So, you're using gays. Once again. Thank you for treating us like we're too dumb to see that.
Aw, sugarbritches, you missed the point. The last thing I was using was emotion. I was using reason and logic. Also, I'm not dumb enough to think all gay people vote or think the same, but you keep on truckin'.
Yes, clearly one should prefer the lynch mob to the moderately-well-meaning-but-afraid-to-get-involved bystanders, if one happens to be black. Because, after all, the lynch mob is upfront about their position. barfo
No, but you are dumb enough to use this tactic multiple times. Like that thread where you and some others tried to get gays to focus on the POC voters in California who voted against gay marriage. Or that thread where you tried to tell us gays that Obama has done nothing for our kind (I understand maybe you think using Dan Savage logic will work, but not all gays will ignore how Obama has done more than any other sitting President for queer federal employees or the transgender community - which Savage and many others in and outside the community like to throw under the bus so they may convince the privileged hey, we deserve to be privileged too HAHA LOOK WE THREW THE TRANSGENDERS UNDER THE BUS). And thank you for saying you're using logic and reason, you're so kind, the great privileged one, to show us little non-logical gays the true way. We can't be logical on our own, it's far too complex for us. As if those of us who vote democratic do so because "OH MY LAWD AND SAVIOR NEIL PATRICK HARRIS, I bet if we vote for this democratic nominee they will just always stick to their word on gay marriage, or gay rights, or any gay matter. They will not, like most other politicians before them, bow down to the discriminatory masses of the United States of America to ensure they do not alienate any future voters." No. If you think gay people go in voting for a democratic nominee with that as their logic, or their primary concern, then this post is even more insulting. I don't recall you ever making a post here titled "Homophobic bigots used by Republicans once again" for our resident homophobes like *Deleted*. Then again, I mean, you have our well-meaning in mind, right? You're just trying to explain the idea of political nominees making promises to people and then breaking them as if this is some new and complex political process. I mean, it's in a long line of defending and watching out for the gays ideology you've exhibited here. Like that time when *Deleted* suggested all gay men and transgenders were pedophiles, a thread you participated in. ..oh, wait. No, you didn't. In fact, for as much as you want to make this thread look like you're looking out for gay people, pointing out how the mean democrats are using us and well, at least the republicans are honest that they want you to burn in hell.. you never do much to speak against the actual homophobes on this board. But thank you for teaching us about logic and reason in voting. You knew we were far too busy thinking about fashion than silly politics that help shape our quality of life. So kind! Gotta run now, absolutely fabulous special on Elton John coming up. He's got an outfit that is to DIE FOR, girl!
nice first segment from last week's Daily Show covering the Republican frontrunner Michelle Bachmann's views on gays... Jerry Seinfeld stops by http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-july-13-2011-matthew-richardson STOMP
I edited out a certain person's name that you had included in your post but besides that, wow what a post! Nice job! Rep'd!
Understandable, apologies, got caught up in anger over this recurring theme. Wont happen again (the names).
Exactly. That is why I have to vote Democrat. Even if Obama sucks when it comes to gay rights, Michelle Bachmann would be worse. Far worse. I wanted Hilary anyway. Can't always get who you want.
ding ding ding ding!!! Republicans have been using homophobia to win elections for the last 10 years. It's how Bush won in 2004.
No tactics here, dear. I just post when I see hypocrisy. What's sad is you can't even address the issues at hand. When he ran for President I said he doesn't give two shits about gay people; it was clear from his political affiliations on the South Side. And once again he's trying to screw gay people over. As an American, any time I see people not treated equally, it pisses me off. But you keep defending the Democrats while they continue to treat gay people like second class citizens. At least when the GOP went on their spending binge in 2004 and 2006 people who cared about limited government kicked their asses out of office by not supporting them. It took a few years, but now there's a contingent of new Congresspeople who are actually changing the debate from lessening the increase in government to actually decreasing it. Clearly, overwhelming support of gay voters for these Democrats have gotten the gay community jack squat. Rather than try the same thing over and over again, how about trying a different strategy?
I hope those servicepeople are protected if and when the policy changes. These people volunteered to defend our country and we're concerned about with whom they like to fuck? I say thank you for your service.
If a Big Mac isn't nutritious enough, why not try poison? Give it up, no one is buying what you are selling. It's possible that you limited government types might actually be better for gays than democrats, but until you get out of bed with the homophobes and the religious right, no one can trust you on social issues. barfo
How about these threads: "Christian Right for Jesus used by pro-war Republicans once again" "Tea Party used by corporate Republicans once again to cut taxes for the rich" The point is that in a 2-party system, factions who should dislike each other are forced to ally. In Europe, each faction just forms its own little party.
The responses to this thread have been interesting. There has been no outrage nor even disappointment from supporters of this Administration over privately reversing their position on a public stance abandoning support for gays. Instead, the responses have been about how "Republicans are worse" and "Republicans do it too" and personal attacks about how pointing how the poor treatment of gay people by this Administration is some is some kind of "tactic" based on "emotion". Nowhere in this thread was there the suggestion that people who want equal rights for gay people should vote Republican, yet that's been the assumption. All I recommended was that if people who are left-of-center oriented, that they rid their party of representatives that just pay lip service to equal rights for gay people, by removing their support for them and instead support people that will actually do what they say. I guess if those people choose to vote the same way, they can expect the same results. That's a shame.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/anderson-cooper-obama-gay-marriage_n_882075.html Anderson Cooper Calls Out Obama's Gay Marriage Flip Flopping Anderson Cooper called out President Obama on his Tuesday show for flip-flopping on gay marriage. Obama is under increased scrutiny about his "evolving" views on gay rights in the wake of the battle for gay marriage in New York. Obama will be in the state on Thursday to attend a high-priced fundraiser with gay donors. In his "Keeping Them Honest" segment, Cooper said, "New questions are being raised about what the president actually believes about gay marriage and whether his public opposition to it is real or just political posturing." He then ran through the by-now familiar tale of President Obama's stance on gay marriage, from his initial written support for it in 1996 to his stated opposition to it when he began running for national office. (Obama advisers recently told The Huffington Post that his current position on the issue is that it should be left up to the states.) Cooper played footage from the recent Netroots Nation Conference, where White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer was grilled about Obama's shifting statements about gay marriage. "Hard to see how the president's position has changed so much," Cooper said. "The only thing that has changed is his need for a wider audience to vote for him." Cooper then brought on gay rights activist Cleve Jones and Democratic strategist Paul Begala to discuss Obama's flip-flopping. Jones called the president's moves a "political calculation, and sadly, I think it's the wrong one." "You know, Paul, Democrats attack conservatives for being hypocritical on issues that they're hypocritical about," Cooper said to Begala. "But I don't hear a lot of Democrats attacking their own president for hypocrisy."
If they were to "get rid" of the party reps who say one thing and did another, and tried to replace them with people who backed their ideals, chances are they'd be called socialist/commie/leftist and wouldn't get elected. Not necessarily because it's "against what the country wants" but because the people who are against certain things have an incredible amount of power, not on par with the support they have for said movement. btw, that statement (what the country wants) tends to be used by both sides of the spectrum to back what they want to spin as being correct. Even if it's flies in the face of the other side using the same tactic, OR in some cases, flies in the face of reality. For the most part, we live in a very lemming society, especially when it comes to politics. People who post here might be on the higher end of the spectrum, but for fucks sake, in the last 2 elections, people willingly voted against candidates who went against their ideals BECAUSE of the name of the party. As in, in 2008, some Republicans lost their seats to Democrats, because they were Republicans (and the same thing happened in 2010). The Tea Party people voted for people who said they would do XYZ but in reality, they're not going to be able to do XYZ. They either don't have the power, don't have the seniority, or don't really stand a chance in hell in passing some of the legislation they promised.
Absolutely right. It drives me nuts when people claim that mantle. The only way to find out what the country wants is for each elected official to honestly state their case as to what they think. If they get elected, then the aggregate votes and then we find the country's will. Until then, stop with the false backstopping. Just make your best case. If you lose, at least you can look yourself in the mirror. I think voting for Obama became a fashion statement for many people, just as voting for Bush became a way to show you were a good Christian or patriotic. BTW, those were intentional strategies created by Plouffe and Rove. I wish people would think for themselves, but largely I think you're correct. Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 because they spent like Democrats and lost their fiscally conservative base. George W. Bush--while I applauded his prosceution of the War on Terror--was a nightmare for many on the Libertarian-leaning right. He believed in Big Government AND wanted to intrude in our personal lives. I live my life like a social conservative, but I don't think it's my right to tell others how to live their lives, and it certainly doesn't belong in the sphere of public policy. The Democrats were wiped out in 2010 largely as a result of the loss of the independents. Candidate Obama ran as a uniting centrist, but President Obama has governed as a partisan leftist. Hell, it was the policies of the Obama Administration and the Pelosi/Reid Congress that created the Tea Party. Tea Partiers are so bad at politics because is largely comprised of people who tried to avoid politics, but finally found it was intruding too much into their daily lives. The Tea Party thus far has been an enormous success. It has completely changed the debate on not just spending, but the proper role of government. They may not get everything they want, but they're making a huge difference. Also, it's just been one election. It will take two to three election cycles to fully evaluate the impact of the Tea Party. I may not agree with everything you wrote, but thanks for the thoughtful post. Repped.
