1 Conservative ideas are good for everyone.

2 Looks like another purists vs pragmatists dust-up

3
Republican ideas are good for gays

Identity politics.

4 I'm with Toby on this one.  I have no issues with gays.  I simply object to being beaten over the head with the gay agenda, which is nearly inescapable.  Hence, the Seinfeld NTTAWWT tagline.

5

 

We shouldn't be fighting each other......we need to be fighting the guys on the OTHER side of the aisle. Conservative gay republicans should not be an oxymoron. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with any hard working conservative! If you can't do that then we don't need you!

6 There likely is some mutually agreeable middle ground that hasn't been made or found yet. Kind of hard to do so when you won't even sit at the same table.

7 Why Republican ideas are good for gays

I'm the best idea that's ever happened to Republicans.

... and Catholics

... and Americans

... and Uteruse - usses

... and Pot

.... and Beagles

... and Spiders .. Spiders!!! getthem offme, getthe moff me getthem offmeget them offme . spiders! spiders! spiders! spiders! what? where's my cpap machine? spiders coming out of it spiders spiders aigh aigh aigh aigh aigh aigh aigh augh augh augh augh augh oh oh oh uh uh uh uh uh ... phew ... spiders

... and Conservatives, too.

I'm the best thing to happen to them too.

8

Is not freedom to pursue one's sexual fetish enough?

Must we pander in all things?

9 I am sure the Republicans will get their usual 25 gay votes nationwide in the next election.  Fuck the identity politics, I am sick of it on either side.  There should be no special rights for any groups based on ethnic background or sexual orientation, hence no need for these interest groups trying to influence government policy. Same sex marriage is as such a special right so I am against it as are the people of every state that has had the issue on the ballot so far.

10 You wouldn't expect, however, a co-sponsor to actively work to undermine another co-sponsor, and that is in fact what GOProud does."

What an asinine statement. All the GOP splinter groups undermine each other in some fashion... that's why they're different groups and not one group! Libertarians constantly undermine social cons who undermine the individual rights people who undermine the foreign policy hawks and so on and so on.

This fantasy that all the CPAC sponsors are bffs is preposterous.

11 Snap, that was some thread back in December.

12 Yeah, you see, dividing yourself into a special victim groups is sort of the antithesis of conservatism. Conservatives aren't supposed to divide themselves into groups of victims and then negotiate for goodies for those victim groups.

13

If you are a conservative, I could give less than a frog's watertight ass what you do in the privacy of your bedromm (etc) as long as its with a consenting adult, and would be honored to stand shoulder to shoulder with you to fight these azzhats that are trying to destroy our country.

I do have major problems with "gay activists" trying to shove thier agenda down our throats and into our childrens lives at way too young an age.

14 I am sure the Republicans will get their usual 25 gay votes nationwide in the next election.

Bush got nearly 30% of the "gay vote" and McCain performed remarkably well. Gays vote conservative much more reliably than blacks and most other minorities but I don't hear many calls for ignoring those voters.

15

Gabriel, do you have an agenda here? Why are you trying so hard to give relevancy to gays?

They are pervrts. They're neurotic. They're a distasteful subject. They deserve to be ignored.

16

If we are all just giving to individual candidates anyway, piss on all their houses.

17

Conservative ideas are good for everyone - especially us gay chickens.

18 And I'm sorry Gabe, but the number of votes lost by supporting gay marriage will not be made up for by supporting it. Of every gay individual I've run into, maybe three are even Republican. But the RNC isn't going to drop the issue to pick up the percentage of gay Americans who realize liberal policies don't work.

Kind of like John McCain. He's been a tireless advocate for legalizing illegal aliens. He almost lost in pursuit of supporting that agenda. How was he repaid? Hispanics went and voted for Obama.

19 I know this sounds extraordinarily superficial but I can't help but think that we could all work together and just talked this out.  I mean for crying out loud, do people think gays will disappear if they just act pissed off at them?  (and yes, the whole gay dash shit - dash American, Republican, Texan, etc. etc. is a hell of a whole lot like the whole dash American bullshit - it's exasperating girlfriend! - e f--king nuff already.)

20 Gays vote conservative much more reliably than blacks and most other minorities but I don't hear many calls for ignoring those voters.

You also don't hear calls for conservatives to abandon their opposition to affirmative action to gain a few more points of minority voters.

21

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber

+1

22

Interesting, Gabe. Give us the Cliff's Notes tomorrow if you get a chance.

As to this class act,"They are pervrts. They're neurotic. They're a distasteful subject. They deserve to be ignored.", fuck off piece of shit.

23 CPAC. Didn't see it.

24 Two points:  1.  "McCain performed remarkably well" DoDoGuRu that is NOT something I want to read anywhere, especially on a thread involving sexual preferences. 

2.  "Posted by: A Casual Observation at January 13, 2010 09:36 PM (ITzbJ)"   Pull up your pants, you're showing your ass. 

25 You also don't hear calls for conservatives to abandon their opposition to affirmative action to gain a few more points of minority voters.

Posted by: Benson at January 13, 2010 09:40 PM (qzcNU)

What a bizarre non-sequiter. That's not what's being argued here at all... What's being argued is that a certain group maybe should be able to attend a convention even though they disagree with one part of the coalition on one single policy issue.

26 30% of the gay vote in a nat'l election is what, in real numbers?

27

Please tell us Gabe what agenda, other than GAY MARRIAGE, is GOProud supporting, that the GOP isn't already doing?

GOProud is a one-issue advocacy group. For some reason you seem to go out of your way not to mention that little point.

I want to screw my dog, he likes it and we are in love. I'm also a Republican. Why the hell shouldn't my special purpose advocacy group also be invited?

Now excuse me while I wait for Drew to start screaming "bigot" in 3... 2... 1...

28

 "fuck off piece of shit." - laceyunderalls

Yeah, you're a real class act. Anyone can see that. You degenerate.

29 DoDoGuRu,

I'm sure the gay groups were going to CPAC to argue the benefits of lowering the current capital gains tax level. Or express their support for school choice. I'm sure they wouldn't have argued that conservatives should support gay marriage to win gay votes.

30

GOProud is a one-issue advocacy group

What exactly is the NRA again?

31

 _{Fuck the identity politics, I am sick of it on either side.  There should be no special rights for any groups based on ethnic background or sexual orientation, hence no need for these interest groups trying to influence government policy.}

You can't have just a little grace fair.

32

Posted by: A Casual Observation at January 13, 2010 09:44 PM (ITzbJ)

 

I think yer skatin on thin ice, bub.

33 30

GOProud is a one-issue advocacy group

What exactly is the NRA again?

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 13, 2010 09:45 PM (SYU4y)

The 'one issue' wasn't my point, it was the specific issue.

34

A Casual Observation -

As you're low rent, dropping f'bomb is the only way I know how to speak to an ingrate like you.

35

prettypinkfluffypanties

Another degenerate.

36 Advocating Gay Marriage is sufficient to shun them? Why? Let them speak.

37 Benson,

Maybe they were going to CPAC to do just what they claim... To argue that conservative policies are good for gay people, the single policy dispute notwithstanding, and that the GOP could do better by articulating how conservative policy helps those voters (for instance, how 2nd amendment rights benefit people who are more at-risk for violence).

Many of you seem to have a strange idea of the purpose of GOProud. It is as much a platform for proselytizing gays to the value of conservatism as anything.

38 In fact, one of their last Tweets regarded the conservative case for legalizing gay marriage.

39 Jim in SD, do you have a link or something to back that up?  Not saying you're wrong or trying to pick a fight, but the GOProud website does not seem to support what you just wrote.  I am against gay marriage (but fine with civil unions, etc.), but I am more than happy to stand beside people of any persuasion who believe in limited government, as they profess to do.

40 I'm sure the gay groups were going to CPAC to argue the benefits of lowering the current capital gains tax level. Or express their support for school choice.

And you're right! Also, the high costs of gun control and the dangers of ObamaCare. See here.

41

The 'one issue' wasn't my point, it was the specific issue.

Then I guess you should have called it a Specific-Issue-One-Issue group.

42

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 13, 2010 09:47 PM (SYU4y)

Besides being a pig, what are you, a dyke, or a transvestite?

43

What exactly is the NRA again?

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 13, 2010 09:45 PM (SYU4y)

A defender of the Constitution, as written, and not interpreted.

44

I never understood why republicans have an issue with Gays. I am all for civil unions, but not gay marriage, partners should have equal protection under law, but I believe Marriage is between a man and a woman. And if a state's citizens are fine with Gay Marriage, since I strongly belive in the 10th amendent, I got no issues with states who allow gay marriages.

That being said, I agree with the earlier comments, I don't want it shoved down the American people's throat, and children should be taught this in school.

I have 2 collegues who are gay (they run a business), they are some of most hardworking, patriotic, fiscally conservative and overall conservative people I know. And yes, they are even pro-life, I still can't figure that out. But when I asked them about this, they said, life is life and every life should be protected and defended and not discriminated against.

I don't understand why the social conservatives have an issue here, I agree with them on their opposition of gay marriage, but why be discrimanting against gays?  People seem to think the gay community is all the lunatics you see on TV, but that really isn't the case. Some of the shrewdest, hardworking business people I have worked with are gay,  I didn't even know they were gay, they don't flaunt it, they just don't want to be discriminated against. And I get that and agree with that.

Isn't that what conservative is? no discrimination? just adherance to America's founding principles.

anyways my 2 cents.

45

degenerate? 

Whew - Lacy is going to tapdance on your ass!  (gettin' the popcorn out)

46 Sod off, colin.

47

Interesting, Gabe. Give us the Cliff's Notes tomorrow if you get a chance.

As to this class act,"They are pervrts. They're neurotic. They're a distasteful subject. They deserve to be ignored.", fuck off piece of shit.

Yes please to the first part and well said to the second.

Good job Gabe - keep us posted.

 

 

48

If everyone was a gay chicken, there wouldn't be wars.

49 And you're right! Also, the high costs of gun control and the dangers of ObamaCare. See here.

Of course. At the one major conservative gathering of the year, the organization that believes conservatives should be convinced to support gay marriage was going to talk about gun control and health care. Nothing at all about gay marriage. Despite the fact they're currently talking about why conservatives should support gay marriage.

I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you, Gabe. Are you interested?

50 Good grief, why do some people treat the Republican Party like a church?  That's what Democrats do; they should not stoop to that level.

51

What is 30% of the gay vote in real numbers?

Anyone?

52 30% of the gay vote in a nat'l election is what, in real numbers?

According to CNN exit polls, the gay population made up 4% of the voting demographic. So let's take 30% of 4% of the population.

53 50 Good grief, why do some people treat the Republican Party like a church?    Posted by: logprof at January 13, 2010 09:51 PM (gJL6J)   The difference is that the Republicans would totally fuck up a bake sale.

54 Of course. At the one major conservative gathering of the year, the organization that believes conservatives should be convinced to support gay marriage was going to talk about gun control and health care. Nothing at all about gay marriage. Despite the fact they're currently talking about why conservatives should support gay marriage.

I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you, Gabe. Are you interested?

Posted by: Benson at January 13, 2010 09:51 PM (qzcNU)

I'm not really sure what your point is... that they can't disagree on that issue and advocate for different policy there? That Gay Marriage Opposition is the most holy of holies in the GOP platform?We let Ronulans in with their fiat money and gold standard nonsense, but having a lunatic fislcal policy proscription is somehow less damning than having an alternate social policy?

What's the deal?

55 Good grief, why do some people treat the Republican Party like a church?  That's what Democrats do; they should not stoop to that level.

Perhaps because this isn't a Republican meeting; it's a conservative meeting.

56

42  Wow, you are a champion of tolerance, there... 

 I don't think you'd be kindly welcomed at one of the get-togethers.

God, I wish/hope I am there to appreciate your attendance should you decide to mingle, though. 

Until then, keep the confidence in the bottle and/or on the net. 

You speak from ignorance and stupidity.

 

57  The Homosexual lobby knows full well that the American people, and by extension conservatives, care less what goes on in the privacy of ones bed room, but don't ask me to condone the actions. You see they want us to say their actions are normal, I'm sorry I can't do that.

58 Hahahaha, be against fag marrying and shit all you want, but don't say it's because the baby jesus told you. That really gets the Objectionable Religious Right stirred up.

59

Posted by: Peaches at January 13, 2010 09:49 PM (9Wv2j)

http://tiny.cc/Jiw6m

Item number 7

California has a gay friendly civil union law and has had it for years. That isn't good enough for that crowd.

60 "I'm not really sure what your point is... that they can't disagree on that issue and advocate for different policy there"

They can disagree all they want. Welcome to America. But we shouldn't alienate conservatives to secure the very small percentage of the gay population that would vote conservative.

"That Gay Marriage Opposition is the most holy of holies in the GOP platform?"

It's one of the most popular. See: Every state that's put the issue up for popular vote.

"We let Ronulans in with their fiat money and gold standard nonsense, but having a lunatic fislcal policy proscription is somehow less damning than having an alternate social policy?"

I never said I like the Ronulans, either.

61 I never understood why republicans have an issue with Gays

Well said, johnc (the whole thing, I mean).  As a general rule, the gay community -- not the chains & leather freaks in the "pride" parades, but our neighbors and our friends and our family members -- are some of the most passionate, put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is people around.  I fuckin' hate the knee-jerk "you're going to hell" attitude I see some conservatives exhibiting.  God will sort that out, nobody needs mere mortals to do the judging.

62 42

Besides being a pig, what are you, a dyke, or a transvestite?

Posted by: A Casual Observation at January 13, 2010 09:49 PM (ITzbJ)

ACO, this is your one and only warning.  That type of behavior toward other commenters is trolling and, as it adds no value to the blog or the experience of other commenters, will result in me calling in the TrollBusters. Additional comments like that will earn you a banning and see your comments re-written for our amusement without further warning.

You've made your point (such as it is). Probably time for you to move on.

63 Well, I'm pleased to be in the same category as laceyunderalls.  

Lingerie unite!!

64

Oh A Casual Observation, what a gem you are. I bet the members of the opposite sex are just beating down your door with that quick wit and silver tongue.

Who am I? Someone that could care less about gay marriage. It doesn't affect me but I understand those that wish to preserve the sanctity of marriage.

Who I am not? A pathetic excuse of a human being that chooses to  denigrate those I disagree with (present disgusting company excluded of course). You'e not even worth the keystrokes so I shall leave you with this:

Mr/Miss Casual Observation, what you have said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling incoherent repsonse were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

That will be all. Oh and the price is wrong, bitch.

65 36 Advocating Gay Marriage is sufficient to shun them?

Why?

Let them speak.

Posted by: eman at January 13, 2010 09:48 PM (bcTXf)

Because they are not just advocating that but instead a forced acceptance of their lifestyle. That's my take on their motivation and the entire gay marriage Trojan horse.

66 Oh, and those using derogatory terms against Malor can go fuck themselves. I might oppose gay marriage but I'd never use a term intended to hurt someone like that.

67 That's non sequitUr.

A booboo, Doo Doo.

68 42

Hey, fuckstick, what's your gripe? You sound like an idiot.

69  So let's take 30% of 4% of the population.

Posted by: Benson at January 13, 2010 09:53 PM (qzcNU)

That doesn't sound like much. None of the girly emos I know voted, so it is probably even less.

Better to learn spanish and court the next majority population in the US.

70

I believe in God.  These Idiots give religion a bad name... and they wonder why people question religion...  a belief founded on love but the followers just can't accept it.

Thank you Gabe.

71

_{(popcorn was a good call)}

 

72

peaches:

I will add one more thing, the Tea Party movement, I really hope the social conservatives do NOT hijack it. I have been to some tea party events, while I am pro-choice, I respect pro-life people that were there, but I go to Tea Party events not b/c of the social conservertism.

I go b/c I 100% agree with them on fiscal, national security, indiv. rights, preservation of US constitution, that is the conservatism I agree with and will always support. And frankly, I really don't care that much about social issues, I just don't want things shoved down my throat when it comes to social issues.

I sincerely hope the Tea Party knows this, and makes sure that their main pillars are fiscal responsibily, strong national defense, strong defense of indiv rights, etc.  items like that will attract pro-choice and pro-life people.

73 "and they wonder why people question religion...  a belief founded on love but the followers just can't accept it."

I'm pretty sure that of all the reasons people question religion, this isn't even in the top 10.

74

http://tiny.cc/Jiw6m

Item number 7

Jim, if you read that, all it says is "Defending our constitution - opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment."  I don't have a problem with that.  Marriage (along with education and a whole slew of other issues) belong at the state and local levels.  I would no more support a Constitutional amendment than I do gay marriage.  And I mainly oppose gay marriage because, while I am unlikely to be in a church any time soon, I think it would open a huge can of worms in that direction.  And I've seen some very disturbing things in the educational system in California.  But, I really think that's a weak reason to cast out people who believe as many of us do on the issues that the federal government has an actual right to be involved.

75 I don't have any interest in what people do in private, and I believe the government should stay out of our bedrooms.  Whatever people do in private is their own business.  We need to stick to a message of lower taxes, and smaller, better government.  That being said, I don't think that a group of Gay conservatives has any place at a GOP event.  It's irrelevant to the larger message.  That's just this mans opinion.

76 65, Some, not all. I still say it is better to let them speak.

77

As a fairly small-l libertarian Conservative, I have a bit of trouble with the bile that some of the more vocal gay-bashers toss out there.

This kind of rhetoric is not going to help us to turn back the Left. Too divisive and fairly puerile, to be honest.

78 Because they are not just advocating that but instead a forced acceptance of their lifestyle. That's my take on their motivation and the entire gay marriage Trojan horse. I'm not accepting their lifestyle unless they also dig the second amendment. Then I'll feel forced. Show me some gun love , girls. I'm yours.

79 72 I sincerely hope the Tea Party knows this,

Don't worry about it overmuch. Your ideas and opinions are as much a part of the "Tea Party" agenda as anyone else's. It's my humble judgment that single-issue social onservatives will find very little traction among those inclined toward the Tea Parties.

80

I find the Tea Party crowds are regular folks.  Working class, bussiness owners like me,  who are fed up with being told what to do, and what they can't do.  I see a revolution in america not the apocoliptic style but a silent majority saying enough is enough.  Stop telling us what We think.  People are people... let them be.

81 And yes, they are even pro-life, I still can't figure that out. But when I asked them about this, they said, life is life and every life should be protected and defended and not discriminated against.

This is obvious - when you are the victim of discrimination, you are more keenly aware of the value of human dignity and how completely unjust it is for the state to trample upon it.

82 Perhaps because this isn't a Republican meeting; it's a conservative meeting.

Posted by: Benson at January 13, 2010 09:55 PM (qzcNU)

--That changes the context a bit (I must have been thrown off by the GOProud tag).  Still, I do not see any problem with allowing them to air their views among political confreres --even, to an extent, if it is mostly about the marriage issue.  Although rational minds will conclude that the electorate at large will not buy what they are selling on that issue, what's the harm in a little dialogue?  Some of the diehards from the gay marriage side may be persuaded to the conservative view (which should be devolution of the issue to the legislatures or voters of the states), and the other side of the divide may learn more about how to appeal to members of the gay community who are coloseted conservatives.

83 ACO, this is your one and only warning.  That type of behavior toward other commenters is trolling and, as it adds no value to the blog or the experience of other commenters, will result in me calling in the TrollBusters. Additional comments like that will earn you a banning and see your comments re-written for our amusement without further warning.

I love me some banhammer.

84 I agree with eman, laceyunderalls et al. - it seems silly for them to be shut out of a conservative conference when they will probably agree with conservatives on about 85-90% of all issues.  Then again it is CPAC's conference, not ours, and they are free to do whatever they like with their conference.  We are free to do our own thing as well.

85 They have "liberty" in their name, but are boycotting because of gays attention. I guess its liberty only for people like them.

86 Posted by: johnc_recent_EX-democrat at January 13, 2010 10:02 PM (ACkhT)

I agree, johnc.  It irks the living shit out of me that there are factions out there (from the religious right all the way to the radical gays) who refuse to just dial it back to what the Constitution deems appropriate for the federal government to participate in. 

- Limited government, particularly on the federal level

- Lower taxes, we're smart enough to earn the money, we're smart enough to spend it ourselves

- Strong national security, starting with our fuckin' borders which are a world-wide JOKE.

Until that is accomplished, all other issues are irrelevant.

87

Peaches, I also am "into" defending the constitution but marriage is a special constitutional issue simple because a marriage lawfully performed in one local must be recognized in ALL of them.

It has nothing to do with gayness, but everything to do with telling us what we HAVE to accept and I think that is very unconstitutional.

I contend that the group is a social left organization and I would no more let them speak than I would MeCHA on behalf of illegal alien amnesty.

88 So let's take 30% of 4% of the population.

Posted by: Benson at January 13, 2010 09:53 PM (qzcNU)

The number of votes generated is a red-herring. Several of you seem to have no idea why it is that Democrats value gay voters... Here's a hint: it's not because of their numerous votes.

What on Earth could possibly motivate a political party to value such a small demographic? And let's not pretend it's (snicker) altruism.

89 72

I go b/c I 100% agree with them on fiscal, national security, indiv. rights, preservation of US constitution, that is the conservatism I agree with and will always support.

Wait, and you're a recent ex-Democrat?

90

Well GoProud certainly seems to have thrown a wrench into CPAC. I'm sure that wasn't there true goal.

Who funds them?

91 "Although rational minds will conclude that the electorate at large will not buy what they are selling on that issue, what's the harm in a little dialogue? "

Because we don't like in a world of political theory. People will be alienated. Is that right? No. Should it be the case? No. But it's reality. As evidence by the fact that conservative groups with tens of thousands of students are announcing their departure from the event.

92

@72  The Tea Party movement consists of different groups, with different ideas.  This article explains it, in terms of the divisions in MA (Brown).

http://tiny.cc/A9q9U

93

Posted by: Peaches at January 13, 2010 10:10 PM (9Wv2j)

I agree. First principles, always.

And maybe they should look up the definition of the words "Liberty" and "Freedom".

94 Lingerie unite!! untie!!

FTFY

95

Well GoProud certainly seems to have thrown a wrench into CPAC. I'm sure that wasn't there true goal.

Who funds them?

Posted by: OokOok at January 13, 2010 10:12 PM (dQdrY)

Yeah: by showing up. Those sinister fiends! Who is behind this plot!!?

96 I hope GOProud doesn't cave, fuck Liberty University and the other social con groups who are throwing such a fucking tantrum.  GOProud was founded in response to the rampant RINOism of the Log Cabin Republicans, and are a good conservative organization.

97 It's okay...CPAC still has the John Birch Society sponsorship.  To be honest, I think CPAC is more interested in perpetuating itself than in any real discussion or advocacy of Conservative issues.  As for Liberty University's sponsorship, I'm not surprised they withdrew.  Their beliefs have to be totally counter to the core beliefs of GOProud...whether right or wrong.  These are religious beliefs that are basic to the Liberty U participants and maybe they just felt they couldn't compromise on them. 

98

89 72Wait, and you're a recent ex-Democrat?

Posted by: Average Jen

Seriously. I had to do a double-take on that one.
 JohnC., what about the Constitution did you used to hate before you changed your mind?

99

The number of votes generated is a red-herring.

And yet, you quoted it.

100

Are you elightened types prepared to council your sons against having a penis placed in their rectems?

Since we all agree we are the same, and the law says homosexual marriage is the same, and homosexuals can adopt, there really is no difference, etc.

How do you tell your boy not to put things up his butt?

Would not a prohibnition against such behavior be discriminatory?

Further, how do you intend to stop the activists from expalining the wonders of anal pleasure during Sex Ed. class?

TOTAL ACCEPTANCE or LAWSUIT

101 DoDoGuRu,

It's a legitimate question. Log Cabin Republicans received many large contributions from Tim Gill, a Democrat.

102 My friends a gay and that's okay. Who really gives a shit. I can understand if they want to make a church argument, but I am sorry-we are not in church. I'll back them in church, but not in civil society.

103

Yeah: by showing up. Those sinister fiends! Who is behind this plot!!?

Posted by: DoDoGuRu at January 13, 2010 10:15 PM (31pnY)

How witty.

So, who funds them?

104

>>>>Well GoProud certainly seems to have thrown a wrench into CPAC. I'm sure that wasn't there true goal.

>>>>Who funds them?

GOProud was a conservative organization formed in response to active selling out and outright coordinating with leftists by the Log Cabin Republicans.  GOProud has done nothing wrong, Liberty and the organizations that are acting all butthurt about GOProud's presence are being twats.

105 " I hope GOProud doesn't cave, fuck Liberty University and the other social con groups who are throwing such a fucking tantrum. "

I can't imagine why anyone would believe conservative groups could become alienated by "discussions" with GOProud supporters.

Hey, let's tell social conservative groups to go fuck themselves so we can win more of the four percent of the voting population that's gay! A strategy sure to win!

106 "94 Lingerie unite!! untie!!

FTFYM

Posted by: toby928 at January 13, 2010 10:14 PM (PD1tk)"

I love a good dislexic.  You are good, right?

107 104

I tend to agree, but history has shown us (per the LC Repubs, among others) that the fundamental question is sound. Who is funding them?
I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to any nominally libertarian/conservative group, but it never hurts to make sure we're not accepting a Trojan horse.

108 107,

Especially since previous similar groups have been funded by Democrats.

109

Would not a prohibnition against such behavior be discriminatory?

Further, how do you intend to stop the activists from expalining the wonders of anal pleasure during Sex Ed. class?

TOTAL ACCEPTANCE or LAWSUIT

Posted by: Not Quite at January 13, 2010 10:18 PM (Bs8Te)

Because that IS the end game.

It has nothing with hating or rejecting gays, because I don't. I just do not want to be obligated or mandated into accepting every aspect of their culture and lifestyle without fear of being prosecuted.

110

So, who funds them?

Posted by: OokOok at January 13, 2010 10:19 PM (dQdrY)

They fund themselves.  Gays, as a rule, have tremendous amounts of discretionary income.  Why do you think gay-centric advertising and tourism has been such a social phenomenon?  And, as a generally "double-income, no kids" group, they have significant financial clout.  Not surprising they would be conservative in their political views.

111

GOProud was a conservative organization formed in response to active selling out and outright coordinating with leftists by the Log Cabin Republicans.  GOProud has done nothing wrong, Liberty and the organizations that are acting all butthurt about GOProud's presence are being twats.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at January 13, 2010 10:20 PM (HRe60)

And what makes you think GOProud will not also go into the same direction, assuming that is not already their intention?

112 Liberty and the organizations that are acting all butthurt about GOProud's presence are being twats.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at January 13, 2010 10:20 PM (HRe60)

Liberty is entitled to their beliefs, as well.

What will stop GOProud from going the way of Log Cabin? Do you personally know these people? This isn't just a shiv on election year?

113 "They fund themselves.  Gays, as a rule, have tremendous amounts of discretionary income.  Why do you think gay-centric advertising and tourism has been such a social phenomenon?  And, as a generally "double-income, no kids" group, they have significant financial clout.  Not surprising they would be conservative in their political views."

So they're different than the previous gay Republican group, Log Cabin Republicans, which received substantial funding from Democrat Tim Gill?

114 Hey Chem,  How did the interview go.  Well I hope.

115

I'm not trying to be mean or disruptive, Gabriel. I consider gays to be immoral, and if they have a conscience, they recognize that they are immoral.

I am entitled to my opinions, and you are entitled to yours. If you have a problem with me expressing my opinion, you should be posting on The Huffington Post or on the Daily KOS, not on a conservative website, where freedom of speech is at the core of the Republican Party's agenda.

Um, speaking of tolerance, I'm seeing a double standard here. You expect me to be tolerant of your ignorance and your profanity and your sleazy and imbecilic comments, but gee, you're intolerant of my opinions, because they hit a nerve. What is wrong with that picture?

What a bunch of whiners and crybabies and sissies. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

116 >>>>>Hey, let's tell social conservative groups to go fuck themselves so we can win >>>>>more of the four percent of the voting population that's gay! A strategy sure to win!

If social cons want to walk away because GOProud, which is a conservative organization wants to support the biggest conservative political conference in the nation because they have a strong disagreement on one minor, petty issue, if they're that ignorant, disrespectful and immature, yes, fuck'em.

117 110 They fund themselves.  Gays, as a rule, have tremendous amounts of discretionary income.

Really? I'd heard that economic discrimination had relegated them to lives of poverty and hiding in the shadows.

Frankly, that "everyone knows gays are rich:" meme reminds me of the "gays stay together longer than straight people" meme that was pushed when MA declared the existence of something called "gay marriage".
Lame and untrue, but very handy to appease people.

118 When gays organize into groups and get involved in politics, the result is always that they start leaning on their political allies to normalize gay sex.

Most conservatives - and thus most Republicans - are Christians, and many of them take their faith very seriously.

Christianity teaches very plainly that homosexual behavior - not same-sex attraction, but the acts of gay sex - is sinful.

So while most conservative Christians are happy to ally themselves with other conservatives to defeat liberalism, when that alliance requires them to endorse the normalization of gay sex - even if it's passively, by their silence - that's a bridge too far for many of them.

Conservative non-Christians have got to understand: For Christians, loyalty to God comes before loyalty to country. Christians see themselves as just passing through this world, and the U.S. government is just a temporary thing in this temporary world. If the choice is between abandoning the conservative political cause, and abandoning what they believe is the word of God, there's no debate, and no hesitation. Politics is of the world, and their time here is short. Loyalty to God and His word is forever.

I realize this makes the atheists and agnostics among us grind their teeth, but so be it.

119 >>>And what makes you think GOProud will not also go into the same direction, >>>>assuming that is not already their intention?

What evidence do you have that they're doing that?  Innocent until proven RINO.

120 where freedom of speech is at the core of the Republican Party's agenda.

Huh.  Last I knew AoSHQ wasn't the government and respect for private property is at the core of conservative values.

Or, in teeny tiny words so you can understand, this is Ace's place.  Gabe is a co-blogger.  Not your sandbox.  Not your rules. 

121 A conservative would allow gays into it's philosophy. We are willing to deprive no citizen of their comstitutional blessings. Marriage rights however, are states rights. Most states are mot ready to extend them to gays. Of the few states that do, most are given judicially, not legislatively. Including MA'es. For any Government to force a "majority" of good people to accept laws that they disgree with is wrong. That would include gay marriage.

122

If GOProud wants to walk away because social cons, which is a conservative organization wants to support the biggest conservative political conference in the nation because they have a strong disagreement on one minor, petty issue, if they're that ignorant, disrespectful and immature, yes, fuck'em.

FIFY!

123

I'm not trying to be mean or disruptive, Gabriel. I consider gays to be immoral, and if they have a conscience, they recognize that they are immoral.

I am entitled to my opinions, and you are entitled to yours.

Try to take some quiet time and learn the difference between having an opinion (which is fine) and foisting your judgments on others as though you were personally ordained by God to cover his shift.

124 "If social cons want to walk away because GOProud, which is a conservative organization wants to support the biggest conservative political conference in the nation because they have a strong disagreement on one minor, petty issue, if they're that ignorant, disrespectful and immature, yes, fuck'em."

Minor issue? Are you living under a rock? There's currently a federal trial ongoing about gay marriage. The Supreme Court of the United States is dealing with the same trial. States are regularly putting the issue up for votes. Even blue states are opposing gay marriage. The Democratic president and vice president find consensus with conservatives on the issue.

What if an illegal alien-supporting group wanted to sponsor the event at the expense of, say, CU or FreedomWorks? Should the latter two go fuck themselves too? Hey, it's just one issue.

125 I just read GOProud is a spin-off of Log Cabin. True?

126

Hmmm...seems CPAC has some strange ideas about tolerance...

"But David Keene, the head of CPACÂ’s main organizing group, tried to calm the potential boycott by using a different tactic. In an e-mail to a right-wing radio host, Keene promised that GOProud would not have a speaking spot...

In his e-mail response, Keene admitted GOProud “has signed on as a CPAC co-sponsor, but will have no speakers and we told them that, in fact, since opposition to gay marriage, etc are consensus positions (if not unanimous) among conservatives, these topics are not open to debate.” [...]   http://tinyurl.com/ydoma5b

127 jose christophis on a cracker, some of you talk as though gay folk run around fornicating all over the grocery store.  Did it ever occur to you that God ain't exactly smiling down on your filthy dirty mind either?

128 119 >>>And what makes you think GOProud will not also go into the same direction, >>>>assuming that is not already their intention?

What evidence do you have that they're doing that?  Innocent until proven RINO.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at January 13, 2010 10:33 PM (HRe60)

Fair enough.

Let's go back to their charter and let that speak for them.

129

"JohnC., what about the Constitution did you used to hate before you changed your mind?"

Let me clue you in. It was never the Constitution. I am giving advise as a former democrat and heck I was even a former liberal a while ago.

Conservatives to many dems means social conservative, democrats have hijacked what it really means and brainwashed up and comning voters into saying... those damn clingy church going folks. This is what they think Conservatism is. This is what they have hijacked from you conservatives. The main reason I was a democrat is b/c I am pro-choice, no other reason.

If you go to a young person and tell them about free market, ya know like build a biz, grow it and keep the profits, you mess up, you lose, no bailouts.  I can guarantee you they will think this is a sexy idea.

So, instead of calling it just "Conservative" ideas, call them American ideas. The democrats and liberals especially have taken over your definition and made it mean something it is not. This is why I keep saying if social conservatism is main face of Conservatism/Americanism, the brand will not grow.

Stick to those Founding American ideas, and you will attract a lot of people to the cause. And I am writing this as a lifelong democrat who recent became an Independent, but democrats play this game, knowingly. I have volunteered for enough campaigned to see this strategy implemented.

You guys have to take back the definition of conservatism and stop letting the democrats & liberals hijack it from you. Rebrand it and call them American ideas.

130

Honest Cloud, I mean Casual Observation. 

They are pervrts. They're neurotic. They're a distasteful subject. They deserve to be ignored. They are, for the most part, honest contributing members of society.  No one is asking you to take long warm showers with them.  Have your opinions.  Just don't be a jerk.

131 I propose we invite a gun control group to sponsor CPAC at the expense of the NRA. Hey, it's only a minor issue. Let the NRA go fuck itself if it wants to be that childish.

132 127 jose christophis on a cracker, some of you talk as though gay folk run around fornicating all over the grocery store.  Did it ever occur to you that God ain't exactly smiling down on your filthy dirty mind either?

Posted by: prettypinkfluffypanties at January 13, 2010 10:37 PM (zlzVS)

I'm not talking that way and I see no one else here that is talking that way.

133 "What a bunch of whiners and crybabies and sissies. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Posted by: A Casual Observation at January 13, 2010 10:30 PM (ITzbJ)"

You didn't dish it out, you shoveled a bunch of shit into a post and hit send.  Kinda hard to backpeddle when you slippin' on your own shit, eh?

134 What if an illegal alien-supporting group wanted to sponsor the event at the expense of, say, CU or FreedomWorks? Should the latter two go fuck themselves too? Hey, it's just one issue.

Posted by: Benson at January 13, 2010 10:35 PM (qzcNU)

So, you are equating a sexual orientation that differs from your own with breaking federal law and violating our sovereign borders?  I was thinking you were disingenuous, but you have just provide me with evidence that you are a complete and utter mental douchenozzle.

135 I'm not talking that way and I see no one else here that is talking that way.

So comparing homosexuality to beastiality wasn't supposed to be offensive in any way?  Alrighty then.

136

Dude, social cons that don't play politics, will walk when there is no difference between the parties. Fiscal be damned. Socialism might suck, but it isn't the end of the world. Christianity has survived all kinds of governments.

 

137

I'm not talking that way and I see no one else here that is talking that way.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at January 13, 2010 10:39 PM      No one is except the troll, it's another over-use of hyperbole.

138

Hey, let's have NARAL and the Southern Poverty Law Center key-note the whole damn thing, and if those damn social cons can't take a little diversity of opinion because they are all into "purity". then screw 'em!

 

139 Jim, I wasn't referring to you....I'm referring to the people that have to take a personal shot at Gabe and the gays in general.  Remarks about 'teaching boys not to stick stuff up their butt...." remarks like that.  Some of those remarks are beyond the pale.

140

So, you are equating a sexual orientation that differs from your own with breaking federal law and violating our sovereign borders?  I was thinking you were disingenuous, but you have just provide me with evidence that you are a complete and utter mental douchenozzle.

I'm fine with people being gay. I'm not equating changing the law to allow illegal aliens to stay with people being gay. I'm equating it with demanding the law be changed and people drop centuries-old definitions of marriage because gays want to be married.

Change the law to allow illegal aliens, who only committed a civil rather than criminal offense, to stay. Change the law supported by the majority of Americans  to allow gays redefine marriage.

141

@115   The issue is not your opinion, but how you started out expressing them.  There's rules here.  Gab is just enforcing them.

"where freedom of speech is at the core of the Republican Party's agenda"

Some might say that not allowing GOProud to attend, violates this core principle.

142 "Hey, let's have NARAL and the Southern Poverty Law Center key-note the whole damn thing, and if those damn social cons can't take a little diversity of opinion because they are all into "purity". then screw 'em!"

Yeah, I mean, why can't conservatives take a little diversity? Also, let's invite MoveOn.org. Their anti-war stance might be in line with some attendants. Besides, tolerance! Screw hawkish groups if they childishly walk.

143 I hereby declare Benson unworthy of discourse.  Anyone have the over/under on when he gets the banhammer? 

144 135 I'm not talking that way and I see no one else here that is talking that way.

So comparing homosexuality to beastiality wasn't supposed to be offensive in any way?  Alrighty then.

Posted by: alexthechick at January 13, 2010 10:42 PM (6Hbvd)

What non-offensive example should I use then. Please tell me.

What I really think you mean is to feign outrage and offense to shut me up. By all means prove me wrong and tell me what examples I can use that are non-offensive.

145 Hey Chem,  How did the interview go.  Well I hope.

It went very well.  I should know by next week if I get the job or not.

146 I hereby declare Benson unworthy of discourse.  Anyone have the over/under on when he gets the banhammer? 

Posted by: Peaches at January 13, 2010 10:45 PM

Same Peaches once at FR?

147 Heh. Ban me if you want. Inviting gay marriage groups to a convention that typically opposes gay marriage is necessary for tolerance. But being banned for disagreeing with the group's attendance is just fine.

148 I'm not trying to be mean or disruptive, Gabriel. I consider gays to be immoral, and if they have a conscience, they recognize that they are immoral.

You called another commenter a dyke or a transvestite. That was both mean and disruptive. It had no value other than malice toward a commenter. I don't particularly mind when you direct that stuff against me. I've got the megaphone, so I get to face some of that stuff. But attacking other commenters is what got you in trouble.

I am entitled to my opinions, and you are entitled to yours. If you have a problem with me expressing my opinion, you should be posting on The Huffington Post or on the Daily KOS, not on a conservative website, where freedom of speech is at the core of the Republican Party's agenda.

The rules for participation here have been made clear, both tonight and on many occasions previously. We enjoy raucous debate here, but the key is that actual exchange occurs. Attacking another commenter like you did is outside that generally wide latitude.

Just today I called out one of our commenters here, Jim in SD. He and I have a disagreement on some issues. But I have never had to warn Jim about his comments and never would, just because we disagree. He speaks his mind and I'm glad he does, even though we come to different conclusions. That's exchange. That's not namecalling. It's not disruption. Can you understand the difference?

Um, speaking of tolerance, I'm seeing a double standard here. You expect me to be tolerant of your ignorance and your profanity and your sleazy and imbecilic comments, but gee, you're intolerant of my opinions, because they hit a nerve. What is wrong with that picture?
You struck first. Unlike retarded secondary schools that have "suspend them both" zero-tolerance policies, I will exercise my judgment to determine if things have gone off the rails and where the blame for that lies.

Now, remember that you have been duly apprised of the commenting policy and received your one warning. A banning at this website is a rare thing. Let's not have one today, okay?

149 Same Peaches once at FR?

Nope, not a big fan of FR.  (No offense to anyone.)

150

>And yes, they are even pro-life, I still can't figure that out. But when I asked them about this, they said, life is life and every life should be protected and defended and not discriminated against.

Most gays I know are pro-life.  If they are liberals- I always ask them this question:  If homosexuality has a "gene" how many of their liberal friends would really keep a baby that they knew would grow up to be homosexual?

I as a pro-lifer would have a baby no matter what, because life is sacred.

 

151 I'm confused.  Staver is quoted in the blockquote, then Liberty Counsel mentioned as a counterpoint after.  Matt Staver is Liberty Counsel.

152 Same Peaches once at FR?

Nope, not a big fan of FR.  (No offense to anyone.)

Posted by: Peaches at January 13, 2010 10:49 PM

Not offended, actually it's a good thing,,,being one of the banned there myself.  LOL

153 Man, Ace, I can see why you weary of this shit. I'll never do it again I promise.

154 test

155 My personal gay agenda:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

156 I'm confused.  Staver is quoted in the blockquote, then Liberty Counsel mentioned as a counterpoint after.  Matt Staver is Liberty Counsel.

Posted by: ArrMatey at January 13, 2010 10:51 PM

Liberty U was a sponsor.  They withdrew as a sponsor.  Liberty Counsel will still have a booth there.  Personally I think it's a big fuss about nothing.  Keene knew there would be disagreement on these social issues and shouldn't have been surprised.

157 What I really think you mean is to feign outrage and offense to shut me up. By all means prove me wrong and tell me what examples I can use that are non-offensive.

First of all, how on earth could I do that?  I have absolutely no ability to keep anyone here from commenting on anything.  I couldn't shut you up even if I wanted to do so.  Which, for the record, I do not. 

Second, I'm not particularly sure what point you were attempting to make with the dog screwing example.  Apparently, you were attempting to use some kind of illustration of what would be perceived as a deviant sexual practice and then asking for acceptance, etc., because of being Republican.  There is no possible way you can do that without being offensive. 

Third, I have little patience for those who make statements that any reasonable person knows will cause offense who then attempt to act all huffy when someone is offended.  You made the statement.  Own it.  I do not subscribe to the Cult of Nice.  You had a point to make.  You made it.  That people may be offended should not stop the point from being made.  That does not mean, however, that others reading cannot disagree or be offended.  Nor does it mean you can't be called out on it.

Fourth, you're the one who claimed no one here was doing anything of the kind when you yourself had done so.

Now, having said all that, I have no interest at all in shutting you up.  Nor is my outrage feigned.  It's not even outrage so much as eyerolling at the banal obviousness of the examples being used.

I may disagree with what you're saying (or I may not) but I do disagree with a perception that anyone here cannot be challenged on the contents of their comments.

158 <sup>118 When gays organize into groups and get involved in politics, the result is always that they start leaning on their political allies to normalize gay sex.

Most conservatives - and thus most Republicans - are Christians, and many of them take their faith very seriously.

Christianity teaches very plainly that homosexual behavior - not same-sex attraction, but the acts of gay sex - is sinful.

So while most conservative Christians are happy to ally themselves with other conservatives to defeat liberalism, when that alliance requires them to endorse the normalization of gay sex - even if it's passively, by their silence - that's a bridge too far for many of them.

Conservative non-Christians have got to understand: For Christians, loyalty to God comes before loyalty to country. Christians see themselves as just passing through this world, and the U.S. government is just a temporary thing in this temporary world. If the choice is between abandoning the conservative political cause, and abandoning what they believe is the word of God, there's no debate, and no hesitation. Politics is of the world, and their time here is short. Loyalty to God and His word is forever.

I realize this makes the atheists and agnostics among us grind their teeth, but so be it.
Posted by: G$</sup>

So in your eyes, blowjobs and hitting Anne Hathaway's squeekhole are wrong? Because I can bet you big money that most Christian couples don't just do it missionary style, with the lights off, door locked, kids at Grandma/Grandpa's, with the explicit reason to procreate and not for pleasure.

Now I don't give a damn what people do behind closed doors. Most gay couples that I know (my wife works with quite a few) hate Obama, and they don't care what I do behind closed doors. It is not my job to judge them, God will judge them.

BTW, I am a social conservative and a fiscal conservative, but I prefer having the greatest number of votes to make sure that the conservative agenda is successful. If that means working with GOProud on 98% of the issues, and then telling them I can't support them on the 2%, I will.

159 157   I do not subscribe to the Cult of Nice.


I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

160

Okay, to sum up...Liberty University Law School was a sponsor(gave money) and withdrew as a sponsor.  Overever Liberty Counsel will still have a booth there.  GOProud will still be a sponsor but will not be allowed to have speakers.  Sounds to me like a CPAC screw-ep.

161

Hey Dodo-- If you want tolerance & acceptance why don't you try giving some.

 You said: "That Gay Marriage Opposition is the most holy of holies in the GOP platform?"

I am an evangelical Christian.  I am against gay marriage.. I can give you many LEGAL reasons that have nothing to do with my religion.  I was for civil union until I saw how that worked out in California.  They were given all rights that a married couple receives, but it wasn't called marriage.  I understood then that it really wasn't about "rights"... It was something more.  It was about forced acceptance which is impossible and imposes on other people.

Funny "holy of holies" and yet most states have voted it down

BTW, I think GOProud should have been able to speak. 

162 However not "Overever."  Sheesh...

163 Okay, so if GOProud is invited but the marriage issue isn't allowed as a topic of discussion (as someone above mentioned), does that make it a little more palatable for some of you?  I haven't heard anyone reply to that and I'm honestly curious.
-------------
(my own opinion: I think it's very much a States' issue, and trying to ram it through the Courts peeves me; personally I'd like to keep it at civil unions and allow religion to define marriage.  And don't tell my kid what to think, I can do that myself thank you.)

164

Test.

My sister is gay, and lives in Nevada. She hates Harry Reid, as do most of her friends. From the sound of it, they will vote against his ass. This is a good thing.

Dont discount all gays, some are on more or less our side. Lets get rid of Reid, Pelousi, Boxer, Obumbler, etc. This has to happen, and soon, or all will be lost.

165

Now I don't give a damn what people do behind closed doors.

Me either, but we already have that.

166 So, gays are not many votes, but one hell of a wedge issue. Good plan.

167

BTW, I think GOProud should have been able to speak. 

Posted by: Angie1228 at January 13, 2010 11:03 PM (AAJaO)

I think so, too.  Let them be judged on their actions and their words, not the preconceived notions of others.

168 121 For any Government to force a "majority" of good people to accept laws that they disgree with is wrong. That would include gay marriage.

Nah, not wrong; just unrepresentative. I'm fine with imposing secular governments upon Muslims, for instance.

To force BAD laws upon people, whether or not they agree, would be wrong. Whether a law is good or bad has nothing to do with whether it is popular. In fact I'd argue that the most popular laws are usually the worst.

(And my thoughts on GOProud sponsoring a self-identified conservative group are already on record. I'm not getting into that again.)

169 Oh what the hey. I think GOProud should be allowed to speak. I don't think they should be allowed to sponsor. CPAC is going about the whole thing backward.

170

>Oh what the hey. I think GOProud should be allowed to speak. I don't think they should be allowed to sponsor

Kind of like waving a red flag in front of a bull isn't it?

171

> personally I'd like to keep it at civil unions and allow religion to define marriage

I think that all legal partnerships should be civil unions & marriage should be performed by Church.  This would completely seperate the issue & allow the Church to remain the religious and released from this political issue(hopefully)... if they are not drug back into it by the courts.

172 #158: Ah, no. Insofar as conservatives care at all, we don't care about what's happening in the bedroom between man and wife. Well, yes, we do, but unless and until it's being conducted in broad daylight many people can pretend not to notice. For the record, I disagree with sexual relations that are not sexual intercourse. Fun, no doubt, but valueless. Foreplay is one thing, anal or oral sex is another. Also, anal sex is not homosexual sex (and vice versa, so I understand). Homosexual acts require two or more participants of the *same sex*. Get your definitions right. I think this is too much of a mountain, myself. Freedom of association, no? I can choose to give money or not as I choose, no? So why are so many people condemning a group for withdrawing their money from a cause they feel they cannot currently support? It's not even blackmail or extortion or threats - they're simply re-allocating their scarce resources elsewhere that fit their needs better.

173

Um, techically, Gabby, I didn't call what's-her/his-name a dyke or any other name. I just made an, um, cordial inquiry to satisfy my curiosity after reading the inane response that I received from that coarse individual, whose limited vocabulary presumably compels that coarse individual to resort to using dirty language whenever he or she or it can't come up with a rational response.

We'll have to agree to disagree; i.e., it's a matter of pereception, I suppose. I wasn't directing my comments at anyone in particular here, until, until I was attacted ineptly by a few dimwits here, at which time I responded appropriately, albeit more mildly that I would have done if I was responding to someone with an IQ higher than that of an eggplant.. 

BTW, I don't feel any malace towards anyone here, Gabby. After all, I always feel so much love just oozing from this website.

I am curious about one more thing, though. When someone responds to me in bold print, does that mean that they're shouting at me?

174 So why are so many people condemning a group for withdrawing their money from a cause they feel they cannot currently support? It's not even blackmail or extortion or threats - they're simply re-allocating their scarce resources elsewhere that fit their needs better.

Posted by: Gregory at January 13, 2010 11:21 PM

Exactly.  This is more of a screw up on CPAC's(David Keene's) part than anything. 

175 I wonder if A Casual Observer even realizes that Gabriel is himself gay.  From the asinine way he's carrying on it seems not.  But maybe he's just a rotten twatscar.  Yeah, that's likely the answer.

Man, it's been so long since I saddled up as a TrollBuster that I've actually forgotten my freakin' password -- it was on another computer that has since been lost to time.  I feel like those old guys in Lonesome Dove or something.

176 I was attacted ineptly

Yeah, nothing worse than being attacted ineptly by some dumbass.  Very big of you not to feel any malace, though, despite your pereceptions.

177 157 What I really think you mean is to feign outrage and offense to shut me up. By all means prove me wrong and tell me what examples I can use that are non-offensive.

First of all, how on earth could I do that?  I have absolutely no ability to keep anyone here from commenting on anything.  I couldn't shut you up even if I wanted to do so.  Which, for the record, I do not. 

Second, I'm not particularly sure what point you were attempting to make with the dog screwing example.  Apparently, you were attempting to use some kind of illustration of what would be perceived as a deviant sexual practice and then asking for acceptance, etc., because of being Republican.  There is no possible way you can do that without being offensive. 

Third, I have little patience for those who make statements that any reasonable person knows will cause offense who then attempt to act all huffy when someone is offended.  You made the statement.  Own it.  I do not subscribe to the Cult of Nice.  You had a point to make.  You made it.  That people may be offended should not stop the point from being made.  That does not mean, however, that others reading cannot disagree or be offended.  Nor does it mean you can't be called out on it.

Fourth, you're the one who claimed no one here was doing anything of the kind when you yourself had done so.

Now, having said all that, I have no interest at all in shutting you up.  Nor is my outrage feigned.  It's not even outrage so much as eyerolling at the banal obviousness of the examples being used.

I may disagree with what you're saying (or I may not) but I do disagree with a perception that anyone here cannot be challenged on the contents of their comments.

Posted by: alexthechick at January 13, 2010 10:57 PM (6Hbvd)

I'll respond to the rest of what you said when you can give me a concrete example of what other example I could use that would not be "offensive".

Now I'll warn you up front I could probably care less as to what specifically offends you, but I'm looking for a specific example.

The rest of your post I call B.S. on as you are spinning like a helicopter.

178 I might also point out, incidentally, that you'd be surprised how many gay conservatives (and furious gay ex-Hillaryites!) are working like mad in Chicago and downstate Illinois to help Obama's old Senate go red in November.  They're some of the hardest, most dogged, and most connected fucking workers I've seen on any campaign...and I've been involved with several.

179 conservative ideas are good for everyone, whatever their personal life is like. Your sexual proclivities have nothing to do with politics or conservatism in the political realm and insisting that you have a conspicuous and "proud" announcement of that part of your private life strikes me as inappropriate, to say the least. Keep it to yourselves, eh?

180

I am more conservative than 90% of the commenters who posted on this thread. It is amazing to me that some of you would agree to have me and those like me banned from the CPAC meeting.

And here I thought that Obama and his radical thugs destroying our great nation were the true enemy. I thought the Islamist Murderers that wish us all dead were the real threat.

All along it was me. Tax paying, hard working, home owning, PTA going, Air Force veteran, me. God-loving, Conservative voting me.

Wow.  

181 07' Liberty Alum here: very embarrassing for our school, but not unexpected. Staver's statement isn't entirely unreasonable (they're certainly not obligated to remain as sponsors), but it is short-sighted. There is absolutely nothing incompatible between being gay and being a conservative, and GOPProud should be welcomed into the big tent. Does Liberty really want to turn away conservative votes when we're completely out of power, but on the verge of a comeback? Jeeez, a little perspective here.

182 I'll respond to the rest of what you said when you can give me a concrete example of what other example I could use that would not be "offensive".

I think we're talking past each other.  I presume from the context of your prior statement that you were attempting to illustrate that GOProud's inclusion in CPAC was an example of forcing others to accept the presence of those whose personal practices are offensive.  In which case there is no way to do that without being offensive.  If that is not the point you were trying to make, then I clearly misread your intent. 

The rest of your post I call B.S. on as you are spinning like a helicopter.

What is it that you think that I'm trying to spin?  Seriously, what exactly.  Here, let me be clear.  I think that you were trying to make an offensive comparison because it was part of the point you were trying to make.  I am not in charge of this sandbox but, for what it's worth, I think you have every right to make an offensive point.  In the same vein, I have the right to dispute that.  I'm not sure what you think I'm spinning.

183

Hmm, speaking of a "rational response" does this remotely qualify as a rational comment, They are pervrts. They're neurotic. They're a distasteful subject. They deserve to be ignored.

Since "fuck off, you piece of shit" is too rudimentary for your taste, perhaps I can offer you a slice of what I like to call "the lacey". Ahem, *clears throat*......Kindly, get bent.

His name is Gabe, not Gabby you sub-human piece of trash.

184 log cabin, I'm with ya, dood. gotta sleep soon though. work tommorow whoo-hooo...

185

All along it was me. Tax paying, hard working, home owning, PTA going, Air Force veteran, me. God-loving, Conservative voting me.

Wow.  

Posted by: Log Cabin at January 13, 2010 11:35 PM (S0Rj0)

Yeah, I cry for you. Society is so harsh on gays these days.

186 Hey, Jim in San Diego? Aren't you the guy who boasted of how much you enjoyed bullying dorks? I assume Jesus backs you on that, but I can't find that verse anywhere in Cruden's Concordance. I'm looking through Chapters 5 through 7 in Matthew, but I have this old translation in funky Elizabethan English that must be obscuring the author's intent.

Help a girl out here?

187

I am curious about one more thing, though. When someone responds to me in bold print, does that mean that they're shouting at me?

Posted by: A Casual Observation at January 13, 2010 11:26 PM (ITzbJ)

NO YOU FUCKING FAG!!!!!!  ALL CAPS IS SHOUTING!!!!!

188 laceyunderalls - completely agree with you.

189 >>>>All along it was me. Tax paying, hard working, home owning, PTA going, Air >>>>Force veteran, me. God-loving, Conservative voting me.

You forgot Val-U-Rite swilling, hobo-slaying, and gun toting...work on it.

190

So conservatives cannot develop an antigen to Alinsky?

191

I am more conservative than 90% of the commenters who posted on this thread. It is amazing to me that some of you would agree to have me and those like me banned from the CPAC meeting.

Posted by: Log Cabin at January 13, 2010 11:35 PM (S0Rj0)

Always the extreme eh? If GOProud is kicked out as a sponsor does that stop them from attending? or you? No one is asking for banning.

GOProud shouldn't be a sponsor because the sole thing which makes them a group is support of a liberal policy regarding gay issues. Nothing is stopping them from being members of conservative groups who are sponsors on all those other issues.  Would anyone here think it's crazy or awful  if the Netroots convention refused to accept the Liberals for a Balanced Budget Ammendment as sponsors?

192

That's a non sequitur, Ook ook. I never said a word about society being hard on me. Do you happen to know the definition of the word: Projection? You might want to listen to what people say rather than jump to the preconceived notion of what you think they are trying to say. I am pretty sure that you never served our nation in uniform nor spent the last 30 years supporting, donating to, and working for the conservative movement. I have. I don't want your thanks, just enough respect to not have to be insulted by little snot-nosed punks that never sacrificed a damn thing in their lives.  

But anyone can plainly see that critical thinking is not your strong suit. Perhaps you should more time reading some books instead of proudly displaying your ignorance in a public forum. This can't possibly the first time someone has told you about this character flaw of yours.

193

Free Republic founder is also boycotting CPAC due to gay activist sponsor.  Here's the link:

http://tiny.cc/9u9K6

194

GOProud shouldn't be a sponsor because the sole thing which makes them a group is support of a liberal policy regarding gay issues.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Go to their website. You truly have no idea what you are talking about. But don't let that stop you...

195

I'm not alone:

15

Gabriel, do you have an agenda here? Why are you trying so hard to give relevancy to gays?

They are pervrts. They're neurotic. They're a distasteful subject. They deserve to be ignored.

196

Well you would be wrong, Mr. Cabin. I was in the Navy.

I too have supported all the conservative causes. The happiest moment of my life was converting my entire family from Truman democrats into new, shiny Republicans, just in time to vote for Reagan. I was only a wee lad at the time, but I recongnized my life's calling.

You seem to have a gift for hyperbole. I'm sure you'd make a fine used car salesman.

197

Log Cabin,

>I am more conservative than 90% of the commenters who posted on this thread. It is amazing to me that some of you would agree to have me and those like me banned from the CPAC meeting.

I guessed you miss those of us who disagree with Gay marriage, but also said that GOProud should have been able to speak.. Ugg, selective reading to make yourself a victim..  very unconservative.

198 Don't sweat it.  The loudmouths on both sides of this issue don't control the debate.

Folks, we only have two parties.  It sucks, but that's the way it is.  You need to choose your tent, and walk on in.  Those that are trying to give you the bum rush today will likely be getting it themselves before too long.  It's happening to the RNC clique right now, though they don't acknowledge it.

Just think of all the Democrats who had a fondness for cross burning and sheet wearing back in the days of MLK.  They aren't running the party anymore, are they?  (And no, Reid and Byrd aren't really good examples there, being collectively older than the number of years since the Civil War.)

Note a big difference between a Purity Goon and folks who are looking for leaders who follow a philosophy (and not just seek to join in the powerbrokering inside the beltway). Purity Goons are those unfortunates who have redoubled their efforts while losing sight of their objectives. The normal folks are tolerant as necessary to secure the most liberty.

199 having a co sponsor of a gay group might be counter productive for CPAC.  Might serve to be more divisive than not.  This kind of drama is why so many Americans are turning their backs on organized political parties.

200

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 13, 2010 11:43 PM (SYU4y)

Now, don't take this personally, but ordinarily imbeciles have just enough common sense that they don't advertise their stupidity. Are you trying to let me know that you're a part of that tiny minority that doesn't even have enough sense to know when to shut up? No offense. I'm just curious.

Gee, I can't wait for your goofy response.

201 An accusation of stupidity.  How droll.

202

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Go to their website. You truly have no idea what you are talking about. But don't let that stop you...

Posted by: Log Cabin at January 14, 2010 12:04 AM (S0Rj0)

No, I'm not wrong. I have read their website. This is not the first time Gabe has posted on this and not the first time I've commented. What makes GOProud proud? Support of liberal ploicies on gay issues. Without that they are just a bunch of conservatives. Conservatives who could just as easily belong to any number of conservative groups, and indiviually they probably do. The purpose of forming a group instead of working thorugh the NRA or FIRE or any other conservative group? Change the GOP platform on gay issues. In what way? In every single case a liberal way. I would be more than happy to have them as a member of any conservative group but I'm not supporting a group  who's main purpose is pushing a liberal policy. I wouldn't make them a sponsor if I was in charge of CPAC any more than I would accept Christian Fundamentalists for Cap and Trade or Federalists for Universal Health Care.

203 Log Cabin, don't let some of the assholes on this thread speak for the conservative movement as a whole.  There are a hell of a lot more people in it who believe as I do than support people like ACO or OokOok.

204

I guessed you miss those of us who disagree with Gay marriage, but also said that GOProud should have been able to speak.. Ugg, selective reading to make yourself a victim..  very unconservative.

Actually, you missed the fact that I said some, not all or every. Ugg, selective to reading and again, projection. Very unconservative. Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

205

>Christian Fundamentalists for Cap and Trade or Federalists for Universal Health Care.

LOL- Jesus says " Go green."  Sorry it just struck me as funny.

 

206 Hey, garrett? I have to apologize for harshing at you over on the Sarah Palin thread earlier. I was foolishly trying to defend and respect the feelings of people who obviously deserve neither defense nor respect. I retract all threats of rectum prolapsing. Have at the creepy assholes with both penises.

207 I got ya, Jeff. It's no biggie. Most of these drive-by's are just trying to provoke reaction anyway. My bad for taking the bait.

208 Actually that falls near to the mark.  More religious groups are closer to accepting cap and trade than I would have believed.  Even the Pope has started mouthing AGW claptrap.

209

+1,000 Jeff B.

I'm hanging my head in shame just reading some of these comments. Makes one wonder about the hardwiring on some folks.

210

>Actually, you missed the fact that I said some, not all or every. Ugg, selective to reading and again, projection. Very unconservative. Stop embarrassing yourself.

 Yes, I know you said SOME, but then you turned into a little drama queen talking about enemies and Islamic murderers.  So it won't be me who will be embarrassed.

And here I thought that Obama and his radical thugs destroying our great nation were the true enemy. I thought the Islamist Murderers that wish us all dead were the real threat.

All along it was me. Tax paying, hard working, home owning, PTA going, Air Force veteran, me. God-loving, Conservative voting me.

211 There are a hell of a lot more people in it who believe as I do than support people like ACO or OokOok.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 14, 2010 12:17 AM (GhUHn)

How come I'm getting lumped in with ACO?

212 K bob, I sort of think that the pope should not be commenting on stuff like that, better that he stick to matters of faith.

213

>Actually that falls near to the mark.  More religious groups are closer to accepting cap and trade than I would have believed.  Even the Pope has started mouthing AGW claptrap.

Which really strikes me as funny.  Jesus would have never counted on Caesar to take care of  anything especially his fellow man/woman...and yet all these religious groups are suddenly aligning themselves with the modern day Caesar(govt),

214 Personally I've maintained for years that we need to use up the Earth completely.  Move on the the stars and leave a small, spinning cinder with a nice memorial plaque. That way we get the most out of it, and waste nothing.

Also, when Sol goes Red Giant, the Earth and everything on it gets recycled.  So don't sweat throwin' that plastic bag out the car window.  In a few hundred million years or so, (billyuns?) no one will ever know.

215

>How come I'm getting lumped in with ACO?

Because if someone disagrees with them they automatically link you in with a homophobe- don't ya know?  It is is this whole victimization thing.

216 212 K bob, I sort of think that the pope should not be commenting on stuff like that, better that he stick to matters of faith.

Posted by: curious at January 14, 2010 12:22 AM (p302b)

Heh, AGW is a matter of faith these days. Maybe he's defending the franchise?

217

NO YOU FUCKING FAG!!!!!!  ALL CAPS IS SHOUTING!!!!!

Posted by: fozzy at January 13, 2010 11:46 PM (ccEuN)

Whoa, was that a hissy fit? Appears that I've got the closet queens all riled up. LOL

218 So I've lost track of the original argument. Are we all agreed that the folks who run CPAC shouldn't be allowed to admit people that they choose to associate with and live with the consequences of their free choice?

219 ...and yet all these religious groups are suddenly aligning themselves with the modern day Caesar(govt),

Posted by: Angie1228 at January 14, 2010 12:24 AM (AAJaO)

Good thing we have Reverend Wright to rail against the government then.  Wait, is he a czar of something now?  You never know with this administration.

220

>  Wait, is he a czar of something now?

I think he is .... Wasn't it Jewish relations czar..

221 marriage is between a man and a woman- call your homo 'partnership' anything you want but dont call it marriage. and yeah, dont be fucking 'gay'. it's not cool. faggity sausage munchers paying little boys to build their leaning tower. quiche eating assbandits. whistle when you fart. aids.

222 And the folks at Augusta National Golf Club shouldn't be permitted to sponsor the Masters tournament if they insist on deciding their own rules for membership?

223 So I've lost track of the original argument. Are we all agreed that the folks who run CPAC shouldn't be allowed to admit people that they choose to associate with and live with the consequences of their free choice?

Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at January 14, 2010 12:28 AM (xqhoO)

Uh, no. It's a free country, barely, CPAC should do whatever they please. The question is should other groups suddenly be called homophobes or discriminatory because they decide to drop out or criticize CPAC  because a liberal advocacy group is a sponsor.

224

CPAC screwed the pooch, no doubt.

I still want to know who funds GOProud.

Why now?

And are they just the latest Alinskying of the good hearted cons?

225 218 So I've lost track of the original argument. Are we all agreed that the folks who run CPAC shouldn't be allowed to admit people that they choose to associate with and live with the consequences of their free choice?

Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at January 14, 2010 12:28 AM (xqhoO)

I thought we'd all decided CPAC was a tool of the devil, and needed to be cleansed in nuclear fire.

226

I was simply trying to establish my conservative credentials, Angie. I wasn't trying to be anyone's victim. BTW, that was a pretty clever way to work drama queen into the discussion. You should be proud of yourself. You'll notice I never called you a... snarky twat, for instance (though you richly deserve it).  

Let's just agree to disagree.

227

>and yeah, dont be fucking 'gay'. it's not cool.

That should elevate the discourse..

228 It is is this whole victimization thing.

Posted by: Angie1228 at January 14, 2010 12:27 AM (AAJaO)

Heh.

"Poor Poor Pitiful Me"

229 So I've lost track of the original argument. Are we all agreed that the folks who run CPAC shouldn't be allowed to admit people that they choose to associate with and live with the consequences of their free choice?

No.  Unless I'm tripping up on a negation in your sentence there, at least, I think the opposite: CPAC should be allowed admit whoever it wants as a sponsor.  In fact, it did -- it's these Liberty U guys who are flipping out, not CPAC. 

They also should have to deal with the consequences of that free choice (in fact they have, with the bad press from the Bircher thing).  What I (and many others) are suggesting is that it is just plain dumb -- bad politics, bad optics, bad morals -- for people to complain about GOProud.  What's the objection here?  It certainly ISN'T the "gay marriage" thing, since CPAC and GOProud have made it clear that they're not there to upset any applecarts in that regard (even if they support it).  No, people talking that angle are engaging in a smokescreen: it IS hard not to come to conclusion that some (not all, but some in this thread for sure) really are just objecting because...hey, they don't much care for faggots and their faggoty ways. 

Look at some of the rhetoric being used here about the "gay agenda" blah blah blah.  Make no mistake: I don't think little Tommy and Sally should be learning about fisting in grade school either.  But that's not what ANYONE is suggesting here.  This is about gay conservatives wanting to come out and show the flag for conservative values, and more importantly to send the message to others outside the conservative tent -- not just gays but also moderates and even center-left folks -- that the conservative movement isn't the "STONE THE GAYS" caricature that the libs portray it as.    They're trying to DO US A FUCKING FAVOR WITH THE AMERICAN PUBLIC and yet some assholes (the real bigots that the libs make bank portraying us all as) are trying to kick them out.

Yeah, it outrages me just a bit. 

230 Dammit.  First paragraph of my 12:39 post should be in italics, as I'm quoting Little Miss Spellcheck.

231 Yeah, it outrages me just a bit.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 14, 2010 12:39 AM (GhUHn)

I'm beginning to doubt your Moronic purity, there, Jeff. That was too rational for this blog. You should be boycotted. Or something.

232

>BTW, that was a pretty clever way to work drama queen into the discussion. You should be proud of yourself. 

BAAAWWAWWHAAA-- it didn't even flippin cross my mind since at time I can be a drama queen. Queen as in " head of state" not homosexual.  That is a phrase that has been highjacked by the homosexual community like gay. Hence, you have proved my point about victimization.What are you the gay Al Sharpton? I am a conservative so I don't have to deal with people like you carping at everything I say and playing the identity politic crap.

>>You'll notice I never called you a... s narky twat, for instance (though you richly deserve it)

Yeah you just did.

233

NO YOU FUCKING FAG!!!!!!  ALL CAPS IS SHOUTING!!!!!

Posted by: fozzy at January 13, 2010 11:46 PM (ccEuN)

Whoa, was that a hissy fit? Appears that I've got the closet queens all riled up. LOL

Posted by: A Casual Observation at January 14, 2010 12:28 AM (ITzbJ)

Not a hissy fit, a joke.  CAPS has been shouting for the last 25 years.  Welcome to the intertubes troll.

234 Jeff B. -- You didn't miss a negation, but I think my sarcasm might have been a bit too subtle.

235 "CAPS has been shouting for the last 25 years."

And boy are my lungs tired!

236 I'm beginning to doubt your Moronic purity, there, Jeff. That was too rational for this blog. You should be boycotted. Or something.

Don't worry, just catch me on a day when I'm saying nice things about John McCain and all those kindly thoughts will wash clean out!

237 (the real bigots that the libs make bank portraying us all as) are trying to kick them out.

So that's the choices? Support them or you're a real bigot trying to kick them out? Support them or the STONE THE GAYS caricature is true? Yeah, that just screams conservative right there. Sign me up. In fact I'm making out my check for African American Republicans for Racial Quotas as we speak.

238

Drama Queen King

There log Cabin it is now pc for you.....

239 Yeah, but we do all the important work.

240

The AoSHQ Style Manual should really make clear that italics are the proper way to stress a word, not caps.

241 235 - Nice one K-Bob

242 I was completely unaware of any recent stoning of gays by conservatives. Is there a link?

243

Q: What would Jesus do?
A: Limit Government

 

244

To G$

Conservative non-Christians have got to understand: For Christians, loyalty to God comes before loyalty to country. Christians see themselves as just passing through this world, and the U.S. government is just a temporary thing in this temporary world. If the choice is between abandoning the conservative political cause, and abandoning what they believe is the word of God, there's no debate, and no hesitation. Politics is of the world, and their time here is short. Loyalty to God and His word is forever.

And this is my whole problem with the Christer wing of my party - if you all are so concerned with your life in the next world, can't you leave mine alone? 

We are forced to take unpopular postions on Social Con issues to appease the Christian Right,  and they really could care less anyway - they will abandon true "American Issues" (I like that) without hesitation if it makes them feel holier then thou - and builds their mansion in heaven.

Out of the boardroom and into the bedroom is a strage brand of Conservatism, in my mind.

245 186 Hey, Jim in San Diego? Aren't you the guy who boasted of how much you enjoyed bullying dorks? I assume Jesus backs you on that, but I can't find that verse anywhere in Cruden's Concordance. I'm looking through Chapters 5 through 7 in Matthew, but I have this old translation in funky Elizabethan English that must be obscuring the author's intent.

Help a girl out here?

Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at January 13, 2010 11:45 PM (xqhoO)

Actually what I said was slightly different than what you say it was but hey, I'll play ball.

I would have answered earlier but I had to run out to the store and grab some milk so when I beat the crap out of the next Star Wars fan I find, my bones have enough calcium density to withstand the punishment.

246

>>You'll notice I never called you a... s narky twat, for instance (though you richly deserve it)

BTW, Log Cabin- another reason your perceived "slur"( drama queen) wouldn't have occurred to me is that I don't refer to homosexuals as queens, faggots or queers(not even in my evil homophobic mind). I think it is dehumanizing, so queen would not have been a slur from me, and wouldn't even occur to me that you would think it was.

You on the other hand who want to be "heard" and are screaming for tolerance- should learn some.. or maybe your mama should wash your mouth out with soap.

247

And this is my whole problem with the Christer wing of my party - if you all are so concerned with your life in the next world, can't you leave mine alone? 

What law have Christians passed lately that have tripped you up?

248 235 - Nice one K-Bob

Damn.  Forgot to use all caps.  Next time.

249

Dude, if you want me, and mine, out of the Republican party tomorrow, just adopt a pro-abortion platform. I will be gone by my second cup of coffee.

Your move.

250 And this is my whole problem with the Christer wing of my party - if you all are so concerned with your life in the next world, can't you leave mine alone? 

We are forced to take unpopular postions on Social Con issues to appease the Christian Right,  and they really could care less anyway - they will abandon true "American Issues" (I like that) without hesitation if it makes them feel holier then thou - and builds their mansion in heaven.

Out of the boardroom and into the bedroom is a strage brand of Conservatism, in my mind.

Posted by: Joe at January 14, 2010 12:58 AM (anJq7)

Uhhh yeah. Please tell me again why I should care about what you think?

Gabe, is he one of your twitter buddies that seem to rush over here every time you make a boneheaded gay causes post and then disappear until you make another one?

251 Posted by: Joe at January 14, 2010 12:58 AM (anJq7)

I'd buy that argument, if it were true. Most Social Con issues are very popular, like not accepting redefining marriage to include same sex unions, with the public. At worst almost all are generally a wash nationally.

252 So that's the choices? Support them or you're a real bigot trying to kick them out? Support them or the STONE THE GAYS caricature is true? Yeah, that just screams conservative right there. Sign me up. In fact I'm making out my check for African American Republicans for Racial Quotas as we speak.

You don't have to "support" any political program you don't believe in.  If you don't support gay marriage, that's cool -- you're in good company with majority of the nation and a supermajority of conservatives.  But the proper response is to welcome folks like GOProud in by saying "C'mon and join the party folks, but understand that you're seriously outnumbered on the gay marriage issue.  That said, let's work together on the vast common ground that unites us: fiscal responsibility, small government, strong defense, pwning liberals, etc."

People who agree with us 90% of time are not our enemies, they're our allies.  Why should we ostracize them, especially when they're going out of their way to emphasize their common ground with us and not their differences?  I just don't get it.  This isn't RINO-ism or flabby middle-of-road moderate garbage.  This is about hardcore trueblue economic & foreign policy conservatives finding that THOSE issues are more important, are more powerful in binding us together in common cause, than a peripheral social issue that GOProud is explicitly looking to set aside.  For fuck's sake, this is a group that split off from the Log Cabin Repubs because they were insufficiently devoted to the sorts of meat & potatoes conservative issues that we all care about here on AoSHQ.  They are EXACTLY the sorts of people we ought to be welcoming with open arms: a genuine opportunity to "broaden the big tent" WITHOUT diluting it with wishy-washy big government BS. 

253 Still waiting on that verse, you fucking hypocrite.

254

Joe,

How about this I will keep my Christianity out of my politics if gays (substitute any constitutent)will keep their sexuality out of theirs.  See how absurd it is? 

If the government & the political machine left me alone then I wouldn't be forced into politics, but my taxes go to support things I disagree with.

All this political strife including the gay marriage debate has trickled into the church.  I didn't get involved until I was INVOLVED.

255 253 Still waiting on that verse, you fucking hypocrite.

Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at January 14, 2010 01:06 AM (xqhoO)

And you will wait forever too.

Hey Gabe, is that the rational discourse, give and take of ideas, you were talking about earlier?

256

And Joe bad use of the word Christer.

Christer = someone who only goes to church on Christmas & Easter.

257

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 14, 2010 01:05 AM (GhUHn)

Do you often get taken by the same con twice?

GOProud is shoving a wedge into CPAC and I question the timing.

258 Christ was pretty miffed with those dorky money changers as I recall.

259 >Dude, if you want me, and mine, out of the Republican party tomorrow, just adopt a pro-abortion platform. I will be gone by my second cup of coffee.

Your move.

Works for this Christer too...

260

Do you often get taken by the same con twice?

GOProud is shoving a wedge into CPAC and I question the timing.

It's almost as if you don't know any gay conservatives.  I do, and these are the sorts of folks who are involved in GOProud (and were formerly Log Cabin guys)  You'd be surprised: there's more than you would think, they're active, they donate and volunteer, and they work their ass off for the same causes we care about.  I'm not even a big Sarah Palin fan myself, but man...the biggest one I know is a self-described flaming queer who also happens to be a rabid conservative.  And I don't mean "squish," I mean a "let's eliminate the Dept. of Education while we cut taxes, ban partial birth abortion, hand out free guns & NRA training to all high school kids, and build the biggest fucking bombs and fighter jets on God's green earth" type of conservative. 

It's not just him.  These guys are every bit as much on the level and good-faith as you or me.  It's downright repulsive to accuse them of hidden ulterior motives, and if you had worked side by side in the trenches with them like I have (let me tell ya, nothing will ever be more depressing than doing GOTV in Indiana during 2008 election day...like being steeled in the fires of hell, my friend), you'd never say that.

261 Posted by: Jeff B. at January 14, 2010 01:05 AM (GhUHn)

So you'd be just fine with the African American Republicans for Racial Quotas as long as they supported ALL other conservative positions right? BS.
What is the difference between that and GOProud?

No one is saying they weren't welcome. Come and join the party folks. Lets work together on the the vast common ground that unites us. Look! There is probably a group here already for every single one of those issues we have common ground on. But I don't think having a group who's sole reason for making them a group is  liberal issues is going to work out. The problem is not with gays. If the entire membership of GOProud was straight they would be no more welcome as sponsors as GOProud is now.  The problem is the liberal agenda.

262

That is a nice story, JeffB. It might even be true.

I'm not a trusting soul. GoProud is obviously not hesitant to drive a wedge into CPAC during the most crucial voting year in American history, and you want to praise them as angels? We will disagree.

263 It's downright repulsive to accuse them of hidden ulterior motives,

No one is accusing them of hidden ulterior motives. It's right there on their website.
And it's liberal. When you see your gay conservative friends tell them thanks from me for every single thing they have done to advance CONSERVATIVE issues and candidates and I support them in every single conservative effort they make. Just like I say to my gay friends. But that isn't going to make "Gay Rights" any less liberal and I'm not going to be supporting any group that pushes them, gay or straight or any other thing they come up with.

264 By the way, if Log Cabin is still around in this thread, or for anyone who wants to read some true Ace Of Spades Classic Edition, click this link and enjoy:

http://tinyurl.com/yfvssno

From back in 2005, the AoSHQ flamewar that started it all.  Back when men were men, women were women, and I was still a legendary pussy.

265

>By the way, if Log Cabin is still around in this thread

I think he left after I called him a drama queen and he took it as a homosexual slur...

266 258 Christ was pretty miffed with those dorky money changers as I recall.

Posted by: OokOok at January 14, 2010 01:14 AM (dQdrY)

Jesus busted up the money changers just to piss off the Sanhedrin.  They took a cut of all the commerce taking place in the temple, and interfering with their revenue force the Sanhedrin to take notice of him.  It was just politics.

267 It was just politics.

Posted by: fozzy at January 14, 2010 01:45 AM (ccEuN)

For very high stakes, it would seem.

268 If the Republicans are going to start playing the identity politics game, I hearby announce the formation of the Republicans For Rimjobs (RFR). Workshops for female conservatives will be held every monday  in my tool shed.

269 Jesus drove out the money changers because they were desecrating His Father's house by ripping-off the poor, like the medieval Church did with indulgences. The noise also would have made it impossible to pray.

270 I guess it's okay to slam the entire organization if you can find something "liberal" about it.  Damn.  I could find something liberal with almost any so-called conservative action group.  Including paleocons.

On many things, the Paulistas are far more "Conservative" than the so-cons.  Maybe all the so-cons should be banned.  Wait, on many things the Paulistas are more liberal.  Ban them too.  In fact, Mr. Gorbachev, open this front door.  Mr. Gorbachev, burn this house down.

271 @268  How do I get a franchise?

272 A "gay conservative" is the ultimate oxymoron; a contradiction in terms. Gays are the antithesis of conservatism. Only a fool or a dolt would be gullible enough to believe that a gay could be a conservative. They're so neurotic that they're delusional, and they don't have a clue as to what conservatism in politics is.

273

Jesus busted up the money changers just to piss off the Sanhedrin.  They took a cut of all the commerce taking place in the temple, and interfering with their revenue force the Sanhedrin to take notice of him.  It was just politics.

Posted by: fozzy at January 14, 2010 01:45 AM (ccEuN)

I think you need to read that part again. The moneychangers were there because of the Sanhedrin. They had required that all offerings, or the money used to buy offering, only be in shekels. Jesus overturned them because they had brought this into the house of God. This was keeping some people out as they could not afford the offerings after exchange rates, which were also making a profit for the Sanhedrin. It wasn't about getting noticed. It was about getting them to notice what they were doing wrong. It was about not letting government interfere with people's access to the House of God. It was never politics, it was religion.

274   271 @268  How do I get a franchise?

Posted by: MDr VB1.0 CS1st at January 14, 2010 01:54 AM (ucq49)

I accept Paypal.

275

>If the Republicans are going to start playing the identity politics game, I hearby announce the formation of the Republicans For Rimjobs (RFR). Workshops for female conservatives will be held every monday  in my tool shed.

I hearby announce the formation of:

CWADWFRFR

Conservative women against Drizzle's Workshops for Republicans for Rimjobs..

276 I'm forming the Conservatives Against Acronyms Caucus.
And don't you dare call us CAAC, got it?

277 It's time some of you lot were introduced to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Face it, Conservatism isn't owned by anyone.  While it may feel good to relieve yerself into the wind, you still end up with what's ur'n.  Or something.

278 I think you need to read that part again. The moneychangers were there because of the Sanhedrin.

Posted by: Rocks at January 14, 2010 01:55 AM (OOgDc)


Isn't that what I said?  Remember Jesus wanted to be tried and executed for blasphemy.  That was the plan, but the Pharisees couldn't do it.  Only the Sanhedrin had that power, and breaking up their business made them take notice of how dangerous Jesus was to them.


269 Jesus drove out the money changers because they were desecrating His Father's house by ripping-off the poor, like the medieval Church did with indulgences. The noise also would have made it impossible to pray.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 14, 2010 01:53 AM (zmiSr)

I know their was a moral element to throwing out the money changers but I think it was mainly a political act.

279

>I'm forming the Conservatives Against Acronyms Caucus.
And don't you dare call us CAAC, got it?

Where can i get my CAAC membership?

280

"Face it, Conservatism isn't owned by anyone." - K-Bob

What an absurd and loony assertion. Conservatism is owned by conservatives,.

281 Isn't that what I said?  Remember Jesus wanted to be tried and executed for blasphemy.  That was the plan, but the Pharisees couldn't do it.  Only the Sanhedrin had that power, and breaking up their business made them take notice of how dangerous Jesus was to them.


Jesus wanted that eh? What was the whole bit in Gethsemane then? A setup for a good scene in Mel Gibson's movie? The Sanhedrin didn't have that power. That's how Pilate and the Roman's got involved. Jesus wasn't brought to the Roman's because he made a mess. He was brought there for blasphemy and sedition.

I know their was a moral element to throwing out the money changers but I think it was mainly a political act.

Posted by: fozzy at January 14, 2010 02:05 AM (ccEuN)

None of what Jesus did was political. Remember Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's? It was all about the morals.

282

Where can i get my CAAC membership?

Posted by: Angie1228 at January 14, 2010 02:05 AM (AAJaO)

Don't use CAAC.  If I let you join you would be telling everyone how CAAC is growing bigger. That's just dirty.

283

@280: "Conservatism is owned by conservatives."

Yeah, but they play the king like liberals are gonna play the ace.

284 A "gay conservative" is the ultimate oxymoron; a contradiction in terms. Gays are the antithesis of conservatism. Only a fool or a dolt would be gullible enough to believe that a gay could be a conservative. They're so neurotic that they're delusional, and they don't have a clue as to what conservatism in politics is.

And you are an ultramoron.  I've been following this debate with some interest, but that's just an asinine statement.  I'll take the bait.  Heck, I won't even ask you for a definition of conservatism.  Name 2 things, heck name one thing that shows that gays are the antithesis of conservativism.

285

If we go full retard on identity politics, I'm going to claim to be a gay, native american with Tourette's.

That would make even socialism amusing.

286 280

"Face it, Conservatism isn't owned by anyone." - K-Bob

What an absurd and loony assertion. Conservatism is owned by conservatives,.

Posted by: A Casual Observation at January 14, 2010 02:11 AM (ITzbJ)

Talk about loony.  You don't own an idea.  You can claim it all you want (the notion of a claim being yet another idea).  But you can't own it.  In fact, I'd postulate the claim of "ownership of an idea" as being one of the sure signs of insanity.  Right up there with "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

287

>If I let you join you would be telling everyone how CAAC is growing bigger. That's just dirty.

I walked right into that one.. Duh'   I assume you are not pronouncing it CAAACK like Quack with a C.. ?

288

>If we go full retard on identity politics, I'm going to claim to be a gay, native american with Tourette's

 I bet you qualify for some killer college scholarships...

289

None of what Jesus did was political. Remember Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's? It was all about the morals.

Posted by: Rocks at January 14, 2010 02:12 AM (OOgDc)

Jesus telling the Pharisees that he wasn't their to overthrow the Romans, but in fact that the kingdom of heaven was open to all.... that's not politics?

290 I bet you qualify for some killer college scholarships...

Posted by: Angie1228 at January 14, 2010 02:21 AM (AAJaO)

Or ambassador to Iran. Think of the utube clips I could make with that.

291 In fact, the belief in ownership of ideas is behind some of the worst violent confrontations in the history of mankind.  A small example is the bizarre appropriation of the right to use a particular word by racists in this country.

292

@287: "I assume you are not pronouncing it CAAACK like Quack with a C?"

Nah, it's pronounced just like a Bostonian would say "penis".

293

I walked right into that one..

Posted by: Angie1228 at January 14, 2010 02:19 AM (AAJaO)

Walked right into it? I knew you were dirty. No Coservatives Against Acronyms Caucus for you.

294 Sockpuppet off!

295

>In fact, the belief in ownership of ideas is behind some of the worst violent confrontations in the history of mankind.  A small example is the bizarre appropriation of the right to use a particular word by racists in this country.

You are correct, but an "evolving"  idea can get so complex or diluted that it will ultimately self-destruct. Too much of a "big tent" and you risk not having a base at all. 

BTW, despite my political leaning I thought it was wrong what happened, but I am also getting mighty tired of being villified by "big tent" repubs for being a so-con.

296

Suffice to say K-Bob, you're cuckoo - the loopiest of the loonies.

Trying to reason with you would be like trying to reason with "whatever"; an exercise in futility. Besides, I would feel like I was rolling a drunk. I'll take a pass with both of you loonies.

297

>Walked right into it? I knew you were dirty. No Coservatives Against Acronyms Caucus for you.

I am definitely too naive for late night Ace of Spades...

298

Jesus telling the Pharisees that he wasn't their to overthrow the Romans, but in fact that the kingdom of heaven was open to all.... that's not politics?

Posted by: fozzy at January 14, 2010 02:23 AM (ccEuN)

No, you see the Romans were the ones in charge, politically. If Jesus had said he was there to overthrow the Romans then it would have been politics. Instead he was talking about the Kingdom of Heaven. A religious concept.

BTW liberation theology? Biggest load of crap to come down the pike since Gnosticism. 

299 ²⁷⁵

^{>If the Republicans are going to start playing the identity politics game, I hearby announce the formation of the Republicans For Rimjobs (RFR). Workshops for female conservatives will be held every monday  in my tool shed.}

^{I hearby announce the formation of:}

^CWADWFRFR

^{Conservative women against Drizzle's Workshops for Republicans for Rimjobs..}

^{Posted by: Angie1228 at January 14, 2010 01:56 AM (AAJaO)}

In this political climate, we must put aside any differences, and find common ground; and that comon ground is in my tool shed. FOR THE PARTY!!

300 ACO, dude, walk it back why don't you? I agree with most of your stated stance, but your language ain't helping one bit. Or, you're just a troll yanking all our chains. In which case, sir, by all means continue until Ace lowers the banhammer on you. It should be epic.

301

BTW liberation theology? Biggest load of crap to come down the pike since Gnosticism. 

Communism's pre-AGW cloak.

302

>ACO, dude, walk it back why don't you? I agree with most of your stated stance, but your language ain't helping one bit.

I agree.

Plus people turn out any actual points you are trying to make and concentrate on your inflaming remarks only.. If you want to get your point across, trying being a little more civil.

303

Or, you're just a troll yanking all our chains.

That's my bet.

304 Hey Gregory, pack a lunch.

305 Rocks - I don't know how liberation theology got into this, I am barely aware that it's some king of far left Christianity and has nothing to do with me.  What I am saying is that Jesus could have chosen to teach a hundred other moral lessons that day, but he chose the one that would so anger the top Jewish authorities that they would demand of the Roman govenor that he be executed.  Passover was a touchy time for the Romans, hundreds of thousands of Jews crowded into the city celebrating their escape from tyranny.  Pontius Pilate didn't want to execute him, but 'washed his hands' of it in order to calm the mobs. 

When I wrote that throwing the money lenders out of the temple was a political act, I was not saying that Jesus was a Chicago politician, but that he was very aware of the political implications of what he was doing, that it was part of his plan.

306 it's some king of far left Christianity

Posted by: fozzy at January 14, 2010 02:56 AM (ccEuN)

typo - some kind, not some king

307 Night guys

308 Nite Angie

309 Geezez, I hate sycophants. They're always followers, never leaders.

310 309 Geezez, I hate sycophants. They're always followers, never leaders.

Posted by: A Casual Observation at January 14, 2010 03:04 AM (ITzbJ)

The only thing you've led is an expedition into the left nostril.

311

Nite angie

 

Not going thru for some reason

312 interestingly enough...i have known several gay republicans...all male, of course.

when i asked some gay male friends of mine why they were republicans one of them interjected, "Oh honey, it's the money." many gay male couples are very affluent. they have lots of disposable income and no dependents. as my gay republican friends pointed out, they don't need society's "approval;" they could careless actually...but they would like to keep thier money...it's thiers...they worked for it...they earned it...

313 Ha, I didn't think you'd answer me ACO, and I made it so easy.  You couldn't give me one reason to support your statement.

314 Social Authoritarians are a waste of space.  If there were some way to pawn these guys off on the left, they would make for an excellent trojan horse.  Put all the intellectual and moral bankruptcy in one basket.

Homosexuality is a neurological defect, not a moral failing.  For whatever reason, a small percentage of people have some fundamental switches flipped in the wrong direction.  Why this happens is a mystery.  When it happens is also unclear.  Maybe this happens before birth, maybe it happens in early childhood.  Either way there is no fixing it, at least not yet.  If the mechanism behind it is ever understood then there may be some future way of preventing it, but for now the most you can do is find strategies to cope with it.  This is where the moral issues do emerge.

If you're a gay man, do you go around fucking everything that moves, or do you pursue a monogamous relationship with someone who is equally committed to you?  Gays who do the former die of AIDS.  Gays who do the latter don't.  The problem here is that it's boys without girls.  In heterosexual relationships, females act as sexual gatekeepers, putting a huge damper on the "lets have sex 5 minutes after meeting" inclinations that many men have.  But when it is boys with boys, that moderating influence is absent and you end up with the most rampantly promiscuous group in the world.  The end result is that 25 years after the emergence of HIV, gays still drop dead from AIDS almost exclusively.  IV drug losers are the only group to give them a run for their money in that department. 

Lesbians are not similarly afflicted because as women they are naturally inclined towards monogamy in the first place.  There are lesbians sluts just as their are sluts who are straight, but they are the exception rather than the rule. 

The moral issue is not to be found in the desire of gay men to have sex with other men, but in how they choose to go about it.  Those who are monogamous live, those who are promiscuous die.  If it weren't for the fact that gay men don't breed, this might be a very interesting spontaneous experiment in natural selection. 

315 Why can't people leave the abnormal uses of alimentary canals in the bed room or bath house?  Bring it up, put it in everyone's face and demand to be called normal.

Sorry, it's not and never will be. 

Now back to politics.

316 Geez, Gabe really made this something other than what it is.  Let's recap what it really is.  CPAC(David Keene) thought it would appear more inclusive, or fair and balanced or big tent or whatever, by having GOProud be a sponsor.  But knowing it might cause some dissension with its more social Conservative attendees and sponsors CPAC(Daivid Keene) decided to take their money but not allow them to speak.  Liberty U Law School, as expected based on their beliefs, disagreed with GOProud's sponsorship and withdrew its own.  It felt that a sponsorship denoted more of an agreement with some of the contentious issues than simple attendance would.   Liberty Counsel is attending and has a booth there, since attendance is not the same thing as sponsorship.  All in all a major screw-up by CPAC and a simple case of Liberty U adhering to its beliefs, whether anyone else considers them right or wrong.  Something Gabe and everyone should understand.  So the culprit here is CPAC(David Keene) which is no surprise.  Now can we all complain to CPAC about their stupidity in the way they handled this instead of bashing people who have different beliefs on social issues?   

317
They are pervrts. They're neurotic. They're a distasteful subject. They deserve to be ignored.

Hey, don't be slagging on women. They have the vote, too!

318

Let's face it - the issue of conservative gays and conservatism is very similar to the issue of libertarians and conservatism.

There may be a lot of things that libertarians and conservatives agree upon, primarily in the realm of fiscal and foreign policy issues.  Nevertheless, there is still a huge fundamental divide on many social issues between the two camps.

The same is the case with "conservative" gays. 

And I would say that, without social conservatism, you're not really conservative.  Conservatism is a complete package, not a smorgasbord.  While there is certainly a margin within which you can disagree, you still can't just go down the line, pick the stuff you like, reject the stuff you don't, and call yourself a conservative.  Socially conservative issues are there because they represent a fundamentally, well, conservative approach to the way our society orders and conducts itself.  Trying to change that via gay marriage, abortion, and so forth represents radical innovations which, regardless of whether you agree with them or not, cannot be called "conservative".  Even if someone wants to lower taxes, reduce regulation, etc. etc., if they are not socially conservative, then they are not conservative - period.  They are libertarian. 

GOProud is not a conservative organisation, and do not really belong at the annual conference of a group that ostensibly touts itself as a coordinating organisation for conservatives.  GOProud may be a libertarian group that we can work with on issues in which we are in agreement, but they aren't conservative.  And saying as much doesn't mean that someone wants to "stone gays" or whatever else hyperbolistic nonsense that social liberals tend to throw out there when discussing gay issues. 

319 I can't even understand why a gay person would want to be a prt of the GOP. It's obvious that Republicans hate gays.

320 Nowadays I'd say politics is mostly gay-neutral, since neither party seems in favor of gay marriage but support equal rights for civil unions.  I don't see why gay Republicans have to pigeonhole themselves into a gay-specific group since there's nothing to really gain from it.  It's like Republicans Who Put Mustard On Their French Fries or something.

321 The thread's long dead, but: lots of social conservatives now say "I'm not telling people what to do behind closed doors ..."

How do you feel about Lawrence v. Texas, then?