August 01, 2011
— Gabriel Malor Late Friday night word began to circulate that the ACU board of directors had voted to exclude GOProud from CPAC in February. GOProud's participation in the conference has been a sore point for some, but by no means all or even most, social conservative interest groups for the past two years.
The American Conservative Union is preparing to open registration and announce sponsorship opportunities for our Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2012. As a courtesy to your organization, a previous co-sponsor of CPAC, this letter serves to inform you GOProud will not be invited to participate in a formal role for CPAC events scheduled during the 2012 election cycle.
It's seriously disappointing, but not exactly unexpected, to see this decision taken now, when conservatives should be most united in driving the Democrats out of the Senate and White House. I was pleased to see many prominent conservatives, including Andrew Breitbart and Roger Simon, immediately denounce the decision.
YID with LID and Joy McCann have noteworthy posts on this.
I've tucked GOProud's legislative agenda below the fold.
1 – TAX REFORM - We support replacing the current tax code with the Fair Tax. Until then, we support death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity; cuts in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.
2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Free market healthcare reform. Allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.
3 – SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM - The only way to permanent solvency in the Social Security system is through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts. Personal savings accounts would give gay and lesbian couples the same opportunity to leave their accounts to their spouses as their straight counterparts.
4 - RESPECTING THE PROPER ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY - We believe our Constitution should be respected and that judges appointed to the federal bench should recognize the proper and appropriate role of the judiciary as laid out by our Founding Fathers.
5 – HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING – Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unneccessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.
6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes that refuse to recognize the basic human rights of gays and lesbians, women and religious minorities.
7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment. Marriage should be a question for the states. A federal constitutional amendment on marriage would be an unprecedented federal power grab from the states.
8 – ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship. Such reforms would create jobs for all Americans – including gay Americans.
9 – REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES – A package of urban related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice.
10 – DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY – Protecting 2nd amendment rights.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
03:39 AM
| Comments (200)
Post contains 525 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at August 01, 2011 03:44 AM (VdsWe)
Posted by: Moe Szyslak at August 01, 2011 07:43 AM (+kznc)
The beef is they're men who like beef, as it were.
Posted by: Robert at August 01, 2011 03:51 AM (4ixH5)
GOProud is basically one guy. That one guy used to get a paycheck from Planned Parenthood for "outreach" to the Republican Party.
At least, that's why I'm not too crazy about GOProud.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 01, 2011 03:55 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: I disagree at August 01, 2011 03:55 AM (UtnXa)
Posted by: Captain Hate at August 01, 2011 03:59 AM (zsvKP)
Lets see, the 'anti-war' agenda has been shown to be what it really is now that the messiah is in office. The global warming agenda, the climate change agenda, womens rights, groups, on and on, have been revealed to be what they really are, just anti-conservative.
Why shouldn't we be leery about another exclusive group with an agenda?
Posted by: Artruen at August 01, 2011 04:00 AM (QpiBw)
Posted by: the guy who forgets to read the blog headline at August 01, 2011 04:05 AM (xc/va)
Posted by: Mandy P. at August 01, 2011 04:06 AM (k6J0r)
Posted by: Artruen
........
Only your approved agendas allowed?
Every group has an agenda.. some will agree with those agendas, some won't.
If you look at their legislative agenda above, can you really say you don't want those folks on our side?
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at August 01, 2011 04:07 AM (Wm4Mf)
Posted by: Krazy Kat at August 01, 2011 04:09 AM (A23u6)
Posted by: Mandy P. at August 01, 2011 04:13 AM (k6J0r)
Completely with Gabriel on this one. It's a political, not religious meeting of the 80% agreements between us, with the ONE goal at hand. Stupid move. Next thing you know, Pat Buchanon and his hateful ass sister will be back up on stage making friends for our chances again.
God, we love to shoot ourselves in the foot.
Posted by: tree hugging sister at August 01, 2011 04:14 AM (RAqf7)
Posted by: Mandy P. at August 01, 2011 04:14 AM (k6J0r)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at August 01, 2011 08:07 AM (Wm4Mf)
Well, when we know that the founder of GOProud took money from an organization that practices Eugenics in order to try to make Republicans like them...
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 01, 2011 04:14 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: brown gargantua at August 01, 2011 04:16 AM (B60j2)
Posted by: Flakbait at August 01, 2011 04:18 AM (Sk+LR)
Well, when we know that the
founder of GOProud took money from an organization that practices
Eugenics in order to try to make Republicans like them...
............
That fine.. I don't follow that stuff. If the reason they are being excluded is a problem with their organizational ethics, then fine. (I commented on using their "agenda" - which we all know what that means - as the criteria)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at August 01, 2011 04:21 AM (Wm4Mf)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at August 01, 2011 08:21 AM (Wm4Mf)
Ethically, I think it passes muster - the guy was a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood who focused on Republicans. The issue here is the guy claims to be conservative when he was bankrolled by one of the most non-conservative organizations in existence.
What, for example, does GOProud think of Planned Parenthood receiving federal funds? I'm sure it would be entertaining to ask their founder.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 01, 2011 04:25 AM (FkKjr)
You really should read the whole thing. YouÂ’ll learn that should you disagree with GOProud, you are a bigot too. In fact there are lots of delightful quotes. GOProud has taken one of the favorite leftist bullet points and brought it straight into CPAC. You oppose affirmative action? YouÂ’re a racist. You oppose gay marriage? YouÂ’re a bigot.
Erickson goes on to point out that GOProud has some unsavory ties to Planned Parenthood, the AFLCIO, the SEIU, and has attacked Jim DeMint and Tim Pawlenty.
Posted by: GoY at August 01, 2011 04:28 AM (PLvLS)
Here's a surprisingly objective post about the controversy by a Lesbian blog.
Here's an article about the vote at the Daily Caller.
This is post by Erick Erickson at Red State voicing his disapproval of GOProud.
Here's some background on GOProud from MetroWeekly.
and here's the bio of one of the people labeled a bigot in that background article Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.
And finally an article by the WSJ about Cleta Mitchell who was also called a bigot by GOProud last year.
We report, you decide.
Posted by: Mealy mouthed weasel and orange RINO campaign operative at August 01, 2011 04:29 AM (xg4Ev)
Posted by: GoY at August 01, 2011 04:29 AM (PLvLS)
I might change my mind if CPAC actually mattered, and if GOProud wasn't pushing gay marriage.
Posted by: Kerry at August 01, 2011 04:30 AM (a/VXa)
Posted by: Jean at August 01, 2011 04:31 AM (tvOF2)
And I'd be willing to bet that their published agenda and their actual agenda are not at all alike.
I say this as someone who has no love for "social conservatives". That sounds too similar to "social justice" to me, and we all know what the left means by it.
Posted by: brian at August 01, 2011 04:34 AM (y05cf)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at August 01, 2011 04:36 AM (jx2j9)
1. Cut spending
2. No new taxes
3. Olivia Wilde and me, with her mouth too occupied to babble lefty claptrap.
If you guys can't handle it, cast me out.
Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at August 01, 2011 04:37 AM (xqhoO)
Homosexuality is an abnormal behavior engaged in by less than 3% of the population.
You obviously don't watch HGTV
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at August 01, 2011 04:37 AM (0OJd9)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at August 01, 2011 04:38 AM (PLvLS)
Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at August 01, 2011 04:42 AM (xqhoO)
CPAC is wrong.
The fundamental challenge to America now if first and foremost to get our fiscal house in order.
The challenge to traditional morality presented by the gay agenda is a symptom of the breakdown of morality, not the cause. While we should fight to keep the courts out of it, leadership in morality has to be by personal example, and the way we teach our children. Teach traditional values and morality, but teach tolerance as well. Approval? no.
But, to oppose the Obama agenda, we don't need to approve of everyone who's on the same side's personal morals. The Democrats are now the party of telling people how they should behave. Just as they were when they were the Puritans in New England.
Richard the Lionhearted, when given a magnificent horse by Saladin after his own had been killed in battle, was asked why he did not look the gift horse in the mouth (so to speak) and is supposed to have said "if the Devil himself gave me this magnificent horse I would ride it".
We should not demand purity and agreement on every issue for potential allies in the biggest fight in the life of the Republic since the Civil War.
Posted by: CatoRenasci at August 01, 2011 04:45 AM (b0qmU)
Posted by: Kerry at August 01, 2011 04:45 AM (a/VXa)
How many times have those of the left been caught squirming about a direct question because their modus operandi is similar to the Islamist; they lie to keep from it being discovered that they're really doing something other than what they claim? (well to be fair, we ALL do that but liberals Leftists Progressives Socialists Communists Atheists anti-capitalists anti-american nihilist anarchist Democrats (the ends justify the means & Alinskys rules) and Islamists (taqqiya) are taught to do so because their agenda is contrary to most folks desires.
Do we really need to invite the camel in?
BTW they were encouraged to ATTEND the conference as individuals. Which if they're genuinely concerned about conservatism and mending fences and making friends then they will. If not then we know what their REAL agenda was.
I'm somewhat disappointed in Breitbart's membership in GOProud but who knows what he knows and why he's doing it. He still does good work exposing the left and giving those doing so a platform to do it.
Posted by: Mealy mouthed weasel and orange RINO campaign operative at August 01, 2011 04:46 AM (xg4Ev)
The fundamental challenge to America now if first and foremost to get our fiscal house in order.
As someone pointed out earlier, why does it only go one way? If the most important thing is fiscal sanity why does GOPride even exist, why is it o.k to push their agenda? And I'm not talking about their bullshit legislative agenda they and Malor like to pretend is their main focus.
Posted by: lowandslow at August 01, 2011 04:50 AM (GZitp)
Let's celebrate the "conservative" fetishists, whatever their kink may be.
Posted by: Fritz at August 01, 2011 04:51 AM (/ZZCn)
Posted by: Mandy P. at August 01, 2011 04:52 AM (k6J0r)
Posted by: Conservatives Who Like Asphyxiation Play (CWLAP) at August 01, 2011 04:52 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: ronno at August 01, 2011 04:53 AM (nQR0p)
Posted by: Mandy P. at August 01, 2011 04:54 AM (k6J0r)
Posted by: Mandy P. at August 01, 2011 04:54 AM (k6J0r)
I think CPAC is being kind of dickish here, but if GOProud's agenda is simply a conservative agenda, why is it so important that it be the "gay" conservative agenda?
I don't really care where people want to stick their junk, but why is broadcasting that preference always the most important thing to the gay groups?
Posted by: mugiwara at August 01, 2011 04:54 AM (W7ffl)
Posted by: ronno at August 01, 2011 08:53 AM (nQR0p)
Hey, there's NOTHING we can do about the economy with one half of one third of the government. May as well argue over which end of the egg to cut...
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 01, 2011 04:55 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: Mealy mouthed weasel and orange RINO campaign operative at August 01, 2011 04:57 AM (xg4Ev)
No group that has a leader that did what this group's leader did belongs at any conservative gathering.
Posted by: Chuckit at August 01, 2011 04:58 AM (dFTLj)
I'm torn, if GOProud actually stands for what it claims then fine, but they turned CPAC into a bit of a spectacle last year by inviting Donald Trump forcing us Republicans to deal with a potential Donald Trup candidacy.
They essentially let a media whore use our party as a vehicle to get more attention.
I don't really see that as having been helpful
Posted by: Ben at August 01, 2011 04:58 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Mandy P. at August 01, 2011 04:58 AM (k6J0r)
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at August 01, 2011 04:59 AM (VdsWe)
Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at August 01, 2011 04:59 AM (xqhoO)
Oh, now you're bringing the fruits into this!
Posted by: nickless at August 01, 2011 05:00 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: nevergiveup at August 01, 2011 05:01 AM (i6RpT)
because for so many it's how they define themselves.
And some believe that's how EVERYBODY defines themselves.
This is a common trait of an 'outsider' group.
Take their most obvious and relevant characteristic that the 'insider' group laughs/punishes/bullies/assaults at and make their moniker.
And their defining goal. (insert your deviancy from the norm here) for everyone whether they want it or not.
(btw deviancy does NOT pertain only to sexual matters. It means: "Deviance in a sociological context describes actions or behaviors that violate cultural norms."
Posted by: Mealy mouthed weasel and orange RINO campaign operative at August 01, 2011 05:03 AM (xg4Ev)
Posted by: Mandy P. at August 01, 2011 05:04 AM (k6J0r)
Nobody's stopping them from attending as individuals. And I don't buy this meme that we can only focus on one thing at a time. Wasn't that what killed any chance of Daniels Presidential aspirations?
Posted by: lowandslow at August 01, 2011 05:05 AM (GZitp)
Posted by: nevergiveup at August 01, 2011 05:09 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Wordygirl at August 01, 2011 05:11 AM (8lLeH)
1. Cut spending
2. No new taxes
3. Olivia Wilde and me, with her mouth too occupied to babble lefty claptrap.
If you guys can't handle it, cast me out.
Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at August 01, 2011 08:37 AM (xqhoO)
I believe I speak for many, many morons (and possibly a few moronettes, too) when I say I embrace your agenda. So long as you post videos let us watch.
Posted by: Josef K. at August 01, 2011 05:11 AM (7+pP9)
Since they have the intellect you'd expect from good looking folks who've gone through life mostly getting their way (unless a BETTER looking person wanted it first) then they sometimes say something monumentally stupid and don't even realize it. (and wouldn't correct themselves if they wanted to; it's not in the script).
Posted by: Mealy mouthed weasel and orange RINO campaign operative at August 01, 2011 05:13 AM (xg4Ev)
This. The lovely bullet point list Gabe posted -- save for #7, parts of #1 (which implicitly is a call for overturning DOMA -- so much for 'it should be a state decision'. I also kinda wonder, given the wording of #6, where GOProud would stand if AllGayIstan started a terror campaign against breeders; #6 COULD have stopped right after "human rights") -- is all well and good. But their ACTUAL agenda looks like this:
#1) Use leftist rhetorical tricks to demonize anyone in the Conservative movement who does not agree with us.
#2) See #7.
#3) See #7.
#4) See #7.
#5) See #7.
#6) For kicks, see #1.
#7) Let's pretend that Constitutional Amendments are unconstitutional. Let's use the courts to overturn (a) DADT -- which was itself originally a compromise to avoid ASKING and then INVESTIGATING and then KICKING OUT (with a stay in Leavenworth), and (b) DOMA. But first let's use a lot of blather about "state issues" even though DOMA is all ABOUT preventing "victories" in one state from forcing another state to recognize teh ghey weddings (when we DO defeat DOMA, we can cry lots of crocodile tears about Vermont policies being forced on Georgia, but then it'll be too late for those Southern homophobes. Tee-hee!) Let's also use the courts to overturn, block, and otherwise gain a do-over every time we inevitably lose an actual, popular vote in a State constitutional amendment or referendum. Like that bastion of Conservative ghey-hating vitriol, California.
#
See #7#9) See #1 -- but follow Alinsky rule #12.
#10) See #7.
Remember that GOProud is the litigant in overturning DADT, by court action. Yay! Go Conservatives! Woot!
I'm interested to see where GOProud comes down, in the inevitable ACLU lawsuit that will sever the "religious exemption" from the NY Ghey Wedding law. And then in the followup lawsuit -- or criminal prosecution -- that tries to put a pastor or priest in jail, or bankrupt his church, for refusing to officiate.
I think I know.
So, no, GOProud is NOT conservative, and doesn't belong as a SPONSOR of CPAC.
Posted by: BobInFL at August 01, 2011 05:17 AM (mD1l+)
Yeah, I'll buy they deserve our support when I find out they not only condemned the vicious personal assaults on anyone who dares publicly oppose gay marriage, but that they aid and assist in stopping and preventing future attacks. They want inclusion, bring something to the table better than a few hundred votes and a puff piece in a minor publication safely outside of any effect on an election (while the hit pieces for any slight or dust-up will always be front and center). And don't give me that shit about how it's only a few on the fringe, vast majority not to blame and all that same shit the left uses to excuse any act of terrorism by the moslums 'cause the not-so-funny thing is, both groups act the same way in furtherance of their radical agendas.
Posted by: Jimmuy at August 01, 2011 05:20 AM (W789i)
Posted by: Y-not hasn't read the comments at August 01, 2011 05:25 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Not necessarily metaphorically, either at August 01, 2011 05:28 AM (B60j2)
Gabe, I agree with you about 80% of the time, but your entire post here stands (falls, actually) on two very smelly red herrings:
1. The whole 80/20 thing. Besides the numerous ways to measure that (words? ideas?) it is not always about the size of the area of disagreement, but the substance. If the 20 percent involved sending grandma and grandpa off to the desert to die when they turn 65 so as not to be a burden on society, I would be repulsed enough by that 20 percent to disregard the 80. I am repulsed enough by the endorsement of homosexuality to disregard that 80.
2. If their legislative agenda is their whole reason for existing, then why the need to put their sexual orientation front and center, if not to serve as a trojan horse for broader acceptance of their lifestyle choice?
Finally, YWL calls the decision "stupid." As I read his link I wondered how "smart" of a move by CPAC it was to alienate three other groups in order to humor one that represents a very tiny minority of all Americans. For those keeping score, that's a differential of 25/75. In numbers of interest groups. In numbers of actual alienated voters, it would probably look a lot worse.
Posted by: Ed Snyder at August 01, 2011 05:31 AM (15s7j)
Yeah, as I read his article yesterday it seemed to me his whole argument was "JBS makes conservatives look bad because they're unpopular; GOProud does not because they're not unpopular." I mean, his whole argument hinged on the assumption that rank and file Republicans aren't offended by GOProud.
News flash: a lot of us are offended by their agenda and totally unimpressed by their priorities (such as suing to enact DADT repeal before the military had a chance to get the implementation worked out).
The GOProud supporters try to marginalize opponents by labeling them as SoCons, but I am not a friggin' SoCon and I'm ticked off by this group. I think they bring nothing to the table except divisiveness.
Posted by: Y-not at August 01, 2011 05:35 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Doom at August 01, 2011 05:38 AM (1awZ0)
I'm thinking the pee-wee leagues would reject these fools. There will be a time and a place for that discussion, but this is not it. Fighting in a burning house, and all...
Posted by: F--- Nevada! (I'm AoSHQ's DarkLord©, and I approve this message) at August 01, 2011 05:41 AM (GBXon)
I say this as someone who has no love for "social conservatives". That sounds too similar to "social justice" to me, and we all know what the left means by it.
Holy crap, you're right! Now that I think about it, I can no longer support the United States because that sounds too much like United Auto Workers, and those bastards make shitty cars.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at August 01, 2011 05:43 AM (7EV/g)
Posted by: The Editor of Sassy! Magazine at August 01, 2011 05:44 AM (qndXR)
Posted by: naturalfake at August 01, 2011 05:56 AM (I49Jm)
Posted by: Larry Dickman at August 01, 2011 05:56 AM (4t9J5)
Posted by: Paul Zummo at August 01, 2011 05:58 AM (IGkEP)
Posted by: YRM At Work at August 01, 2011 05:59 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Formerly YRM) At Work at August 01, 2011 06:02 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: YRM At Work at August 01, 2011 09:59 AM (yAor6)
Well put. Thank you, sir.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 06:18 AM (PET8M)
Remember that GOProud is the litigant in overturning DADT, by court action. Yay! Go Conservatives! Woot!
No, GOProud is absolutely not the litigant in the DADT case. One of the most frustrating thing about raising this topic is how often GOProud's detractors feel the need to lie about it. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 01, 2011 06:19 AM (B2LxR)
Posted by: buzzion at August 01, 2011 06:21 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at August 01, 2011 06:24 AM (lGFXF)
Amen. Of course Gabe is barely more tolerable than Andy Sullivan when it comes to this issue, so no doubt we've not heard the last of his caterwauling.
Posted by: Paul Zummo at August 01, 2011 09:58 AM (IGkEP)
To compare Gabe to that colossal prick Sully is so far beyond ignorant as to be insulting.
Further, as an openly gay conservative and former US Army Cold War-era vet who remains staunchly supportive of DADT, I'm not surprised at the level of hostility I encounter amongst fellow conservatives. However, whereas I am vilified and pilloried by the gay left as a "self-hating fag," I am pleased to see we conservatives can disagree without casting each other out as heretics.
The mission is to rid the country of the Mocha Messiah and statism. Period.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 06:26 AM (PET8M)
Posted by: buzzion at August 01, 2011 10:21 AM (oVQFe)
GOProud's "bigot" comments are piffle compared to some of the mail I get from those trying to drag me "kicking and screaming" into a more "tolerant" future.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 06:28 AM (PET8M)
News flash: a lot of us are offended by their agenda and totally unimpressed by their priorities (such as suing to enact DADT repeal before the military had a chance to get the implementation worked out).
Y-not, I'd be more impressed with your comment if GOProud were actually "suing to enact DADT repeal."
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 01, 2011 06:33 AM (B2LxR)
Posted by: Mike at August 01, 2011 06:33 AM (NH9Y5)
Woot!
Posted by: islamic polygamists at August 01, 2011 06:36 AM (GTbGH)
As for the issue of calling an ACU board member a bigot and getting thrown out of CPAC...well, they fucked themselves I suppose. I remember two years ago, some asshole got up and went on a little homophoboc rant about GOProud and got booed off stage. That was great. It was a major moment that could be pointed at when people launched accusations.
Now I don't know what prompted this accusation of bigotry, but if the folks at GOProud feel that way, it's only logical for the ACU to assist them in stepping out.
I don't necessarily agree that it's the right thing to do. ACU either comes off like a bunch of little cry babies or, ya know, but it's to be expected.
Posted by: Robert at August 01, 2011 06:37 AM (4q6A5)
Posted by: buzzion at August 01, 2011 06:39 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: TEH GAY at August 01, 2011 06:39 AM (jP3Hh)
Agreed. So love shouldn't be an issue so there is no need for state acknowledgement of gay love.
Posted by: buzzion at August 01, 2011 10:39 AM (oVQFe)
I agree with you 100%. "State acknowledgement of love"is reserved for those who still await the delivery of their Skittle-shitting unicorns.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 06:43 AM (PET8M)
Without even getting into the merits of this, there are far more social conservatives then there are homosexual conservatives. If you have to tick off one side, logically you will inflict less harm on the conservative movement by keeping the social conservatives happy.
Sorry if you social liberal-types don't like that, but that's the numbers.
Posted by: Peter at August 01, 2011 06:44 AM (cSlKk)
The Republican party, like, so totally needs an infusion of gay-rights identity politics right now!
Posted by: Meggy Mac at August 01, 2011 06:45 AM (v+QvA)
Mike said: "It's time to enter the 21st century, Republicans. It doesn't matter who a person loves, and it's none of the state's business."
That's the 21st Century view? Funny, I could have SWORN Mohammed took that same approach with nine-year-old girls....
Posted by: Peter at August 01, 2011 06:46 AM (cSlKk)
CPAC was started by the American CONSERVATIVE Union and Young Americans for Freedom back in '73, when conservative Republicans were pretty much vilified in the Republican party. It's always been a haven for conservatives to gather and talk about conservative values and conservative policies.
I think the basic concern for a lot of conservatives is it's getting too libertarianish, a fine example being last year's Paultards skewing the straw poll (again) for Ron Paul and in general being complete douchebags at the event.
Listen, the big tent is inclusive and GOProud is certainly invited to participate but I think that the organization has to keep it's SPONSORS solidly based in the conservative camp. Conservatism is the roots of the organization and the event, hence the Conservative Political Action Conference name. Plus, I don't think it's cool to let just anybody be a sponsor if they pony up some cash.
Breitbart needs to put his big boy pants on quit being such a dope.
Posted by: California Conservative at August 01, 2011 06:49 AM (8DdAv)
Without even getting into the merits of this, there are far more social conservatives then there are homosexual conservatives. If you have to tick off one side, logically you will inflict less harm on the conservative movement by keeping the social conservatives happy.
Sorry if you social liberal-types don't like that, but that's the numbers.
Posted by: Peter at August 01, 2011 10:44 AM (cSlKk)
Again, I completely agree here. Pissing off one side is entirely expected in a coalition; it is to be expected, given that everyone can agree on the importance of the overall mission. GOProud, to the best of my knowledge, isn't about to defect to the dark side over this, and if they did, would deserve every bit of the rancor and acrimony gay conservatives hold for all those wonderfully loving people who've called us worthy of death since GWB's election in 2000.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 06:49 AM (PET8M)
Posted by: TEH GAY at August 01, 2011 06:52 AM (jP3Hh)
Posted by: Deanna at August 01, 2011 06:57 AM (H7MAP)
I quote (which Gabe should've done, but failed to do):
“As a courtesy to your organization, a previous co-sponsor of CPAC, this letter serves to inform you GOProud will not be invited to participate in a formal role for CPAC events scheduled during the 2012 election cycle.
“As always, GOProud members are welcome and encouraged to attend as individual registrants.”
Gabe, Breitbart, Roger Simon, YWL, et al are overreacting and making things worse by putting out false info. Way to go, guys.
Posted by: Redhead Infidel at August 01, 2011 06:58 AM (o1478)
Posted by: buzzion at August 01, 2011 06:58 AM (oVQFe)
I'm a 45 year-old, 6'1", 240 lb former Army Pershing II Missile Officer. I drink beer, eat as much red meat and pork rinds as I can get my hands on, drive a fully-restored '73 Mercury, own a 160 lb Saint Bernard, have season tickets to the Bears, and listen to Tool, Disturbed and Hatebreed.
I have voted straight GOP since I was first eligible to vote in 1984, and have been moderately successful in my industry since leaving the Army. I'm a Goldwater conservative, an Ayn Rand "open" Objectivist, and an occasionally observant Catholic at peace with God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Heck, I was even an altar boy throughout grade school.
I also happen to like men, and have never once, in the course of my life, felt it necessary to broadcast to the world the fact that I prefer a penis to a vagina, nor have I ever demanded that anyone give me a different level of respect for that.
However, I DO use the name "GayPatriotMidwest" for one reason and one reason only: to rub in the faces of those leftist lemmings who somehow think they are entitled to my support simply because of who I sleep with. Bullshit.
Make of that what you will.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 07:00 AM (PET8M)
Posted by: TEH GAY at August 01, 2011 10:52 AM
Not necessarily. Many of the Gays I know think GayProud is a joke. They dislike the founder and are not supporters of Planned Parenthood. Oh, and they all vote. And this wasn't just about appeasing one person, but you know that.
Posted by: Deanna at August 01, 2011 07:00 AM (H7MAP)
Not necessarily. Many of the Gays I know think GayProud is a joke. They dislike the founder and are not supporters of Planned Parenthood. Oh, and they all vote. And this wasn't just about appeasing one person, but you know that.
Posted by: Deanna at August 01, 2011 11:00 AM (H7MAP)
This is certainly true of me, Deanna. I don't like GOProud, but I do support their desire to bring more gay conservatives out of their ideological closets.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 07:03 AM (PET8M)
I quote (which Gabe should've done, but failed to do):
“As a courtesy to your organization, a previous co-sponsor of CPAC, this letter serves to inform you GOProud will not be invited to participate in a formal role for CPAC events scheduled during the 2012 election cycle.
“As always, GOProud members are welcome and encouraged to attend as individual registrants.”
Gabe, Breitbart, Roger Simon, YWL, et al are overreacting and making things worse by putting out false info. Way to go, guys.
Posted by: Redhead Infidel at August 01, 2011 10:58 AM
This.
Posted by: Deanna at August 01, 2011 07:03 AM (H7MAP)
Posted by: gm at August 01, 2011 07:04 AM (K0tm3)
"... had voted to exclude GOProud's SPONSORSHIP from CPAC in February." FIFY.
They didn't vote to exclude them from the event. Just sponsorship. They ain't in the right league to be sponsors. The ACU made a big mistake and stoopid decision last year to let them be sponsors, alienating groups who have been attending for years and who have genuinely and consistently been supporting and promoting conservative values (and have a much bigger effect on candidates and elections, btw).
Gabe, it's understandable that this is upsetting to you. I'm sure you're very disappointed but get real and be honest. Gay stuff will never be an accepted plank in the conservative Republican party.
Posted by: I still like teh gays at August 01, 2011 07:05 AM (8DdAv)
Unfortunately, they have a much larger pulpit than we do at our little site, and are consequently in a much better position to bring gay conservatives in from the cold.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 07:08 AM (PET8M)
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 11:00 AM (PET8M)
RINO.
Posted by: Robert at August 01, 2011 07:09 AM (4q6A5)
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 11:08 AM (PET8M)
The goal of which, of course, is to eliminate the need for identity politics altogether.
Tolerance is inherently a conservative trait. The exploitation of tolerance for political gain is among the most powerful weapons the left has.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 07:11 AM (PET8M)
This is certainly true of me, Deanna. I don't like GOProud, but I do support their desire to bring more gay conservatives out of their ideological closets.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 11:03 AM
Exactly. Gabe and Breibart and others are doing a disservice to the Conservative Gay community when they equate one group as representing all. It's what I hate about people equating the Tea Party Express or Tea Part Patriots for example representing the entire Tea Party movement. These groups of ten have their own select agenda and it may not be truly representative.
I have a very dear friend who is a retired drag queen performer. You cannot get more flamboyant than he is. But he dislikes the founder and leader of GoProud as not being a true Conservative and refuses to support them. He does work with other organizations to encourage Gay Conservatives to make their voice heard.
Posted by: Deanna at August 01, 2011 07:11 AM (H7MAP)
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 11:00 AM (PET8M)
RINO.
Posted by: Robert at August 01, 2011 11:09 AM (4q6A5)
I suppose you'd be right, were that I actually got some "message" out of the music I play while doing 75 on Lake Shore Drive.
It's the drums and bass, man. Always has been.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 07:13 AM (PET8M)
Posted by: Mike at August 01, 2011 07:13 AM (NH9Y5)
Posted by: buzzion at August 01, 2011 07:16 AM (oVQFe)
You're right. I got GOProud confused with the Log Cabin Republicans.
GOProud is the group that slammed Pawlenty for saying he'd defund the repeal of DADT.
The Log Cabin Republicans are the ones who coordinated with Obama to get the the Republican votes to repeal DADT and they're the ones who sued to rush implementation.
Did GOProud criticize the Log Cabins for the lawsuit?
Posted by: Y-not at August 01, 2011 07:16 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Always Say Thanks to Veterans at August 01, 2011 07:16 AM (8DdAv)
Posted by: Redhead Infidel at August 01, 2011 07:17 AM (o1478)
Posted by: buzzion at August 01, 2011 11:16 AM (oVQFe)
Nope. I'm in Chicago.
And I never said it was legal to do 75 on Lake Shore Drive - only that I have been known to do it, on occasion,
SHIT! And I've already described my car!!!!! LOL
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 07:17 AM (PET8M)
Posted by: Mike at August 01, 2011 11:13 AM
That isn't why they were excluded from being sponsors. Please read posts 108 and 115.
Posted by: Deanna at August 01, 2011 07:17 AM (H7MAP)
Posted by: Always Say Thanks to Veterans at August 01, 2011 11:16 AM (8DdAv)
Proud to have served with A Btry, 1/41 FA, Hardt Kaserne, Schwaebisch Gmeund, W. Germany, under Commander-in-Chief Ronaldus Maximus!
Thank you!
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 07:20 AM (PET8M)
Posted by: gm at August 01, 2011 07:20 AM (K0tm3)
Posted by: V. S. at August 01, 2011 07:22 AM (AN7r7)
It's the drums and bass, man. Always has been.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 11:13 AM (PET8M)
Megadeth, Iron Maiden and Dream Theater are your new favorite bands.
All true conservatives know the lyrics to Peace Sells...But Who's Buying.
Posted by: Robert at August 01, 2011 07:23 AM (4q6A5)
Posted by: Homo Sapien at August 01, 2011 07:24 AM (TEgVw)
The fundamental challenge to America now if first and foremost to get our fiscal house in order.
As someone pointed out earlier, why does it only go one way? If the most important thing is fiscal sanity why does GOPride even exist, why is it o.k to push their agenda? And I'm not talking about their bullshit legislative agenda they and Malor like to pretend is their main focus.
Posted by: lowandslow
This.
Social cons = bad and evil
social leftists (GOPproud) = good just and true.
If they really want to be part of this, and they really don't want division, then drop the pro-gay stuff. Stick with the fiscal policy. Better yet, ask GOPproud is they want the Republican establishment to treat them the exact same way they treat the Tea Party. That should be a fun response.
Posted by: Blue Hen at August 01, 2011 07:26 AM (6rX0K)
I have a very dear friend who is a retired drag queen performer. You cannot get more flamboyant than he is. But he dislikes the founder and leader of GoProud as not being a true Conservative and refuses to support them. He does work with other organizations to encourage Gay Conservatives to make their voice heard.
Posted by: Deanna at August 01, 2011 11:11 AM (H7MAP)
Deanna, you (and your dear friend) are absolutely correct. I suppose we could be focusing our efforts in another direction, but have found it exceedingly difficult to be taken seriously as conservatives outside of GOProud which, arguably, is the closest thing to a mainstream organization we have. Older gays (the Stonewall Generation) seem to think they own the entire demographic, when most of us of Gen X'ers were never raised to somehow use our sexual proclivities as a reason for acceptance.
Unfortunately, those younger than we (take Glee, for example), all of a sudden realized that the left would shower them with attention simply because of that. Disconcerting, to say the least.
I'd say it's a bitch, but that's an oversimplification of the matter.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 07:26 AM (PET8M)
Megadeth, Iron Maiden and Dream Theater are your new favorite bands.
All true conservatives know the lyrics to Peace Sells...But Who's Buying.
Posted by: Robert at August 01, 2011 11:23 AM (4q6A5)
Mustaine and Portnoy. Geniuses. I agree.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 07:28 AM (PET8M)
Posted by: Homo Sapien at August 01, 2011 11:24 AM (TEgVw)
No, just the ones who played starting tackle for USC, who know the difference between an strong and weak "I" formation, as well as how to make a dynamite fucking steak.
It also helps if they like giant breed dogs and know when to shut the fuck up and let you enjoy a Guy Ritchie British mob movie without giving you a running fucking commentary on how hot Jason Statham is. :-)
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 07:37 AM (PET8M)
I agree. Stupid decision. We want to expand the GOP not shrink it. and yes - anti-gay zealots are bigots.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at August 01, 2011 07:42 AM (0fzsA)
I lived with gay men in a very gay neighborhood back in college. It's funny how most gay men will have sex with horny young girls, and chastise me for saying no to casual sex. If you believe in love and monogamy, they treat you like you're an inferior.
Also, I have known way too many Pagan, Socialist gay men who would fit right into an SS uniform.
Gay marriage is as much about gays getting married as the Civil War was about slavery. I'm sure gays will be treated equally under marriage law, when guess what? Men and women aren't treated the same.
That's the point. To codify inequality based on a persons use to THE STATE and THE PARTY.
Posted by: KirkCameronLeftMeBehind at August 01, 2011 07:42 AM (iZ6fL)
Posted by: MTF at August 01, 2011 07:42 AM (RMYrx)
122 You don't win elections - or the battle of ideas - by excluding people because of who they sleep with. If two adults are doing this with mutual consent, and they're not hurting anyone else, then why should anyone else have a problem with it?
I don't and never have but teh libs do. I think I can speak for a lot of people when I say that I'm sick and tired of being told that all that I believe in is wrong and that I'm a bigot homophobe for not actively supporting a certain lifestye by a select minority. Plus, I don't feel all warm and fuzzy when my vote is hi-jacked by a liberal court and thrown in the gutter.
And BTW, have your ever seen a gay pride parade? So much for consenting adults doing things in private.
Posted by: California Doomin at August 01, 2011 07:42 AM (8DdAv)
GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 11:20 AM (PET8M)
*salutes*
Lucky sod. I had Nixon, Ford and Carter.
Posted by: ranger117 at August 01, 2011 07:45 AM (LOk96)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 01, 2011 07:46 AM (r4wIV)
I do call bullshit on going 70 on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago though. Maybe at like 3 AM if you staged a donut robbery someplace to keep the cops busy...
Posted by: Ian S. at August 01, 2011 07:46 AM (tqwMN)
I have a deep hatred of those who would hijack the state and use it to coerce people. Government exists to protect our liberty, not to usurp it. Social change is the product of persuasion, not coercion. Ideas that cannot prevail in the court of public opinion fail for a reason. When government is corrupted and used to force those ideas upon us, that government is illegitimate and those responsible for its corruption are traitors and enemies.
The only difference between leftists who want to use the state to coerce people into Marxism and the social cons who want to coerce people into social conservativism is that their goals are different. Their methods and mindset are very much the same.
Posted by: Lee Reynolds at August 01, 2011 07:48 AM (zkRoG)
122 You don't win elections - or the battle of ideas - by excluding people because of who they sleep with. If two adults are doing this with mutual consent, and they're not hurting anyone else, then why should anyone else have a problem with it?
I don't and never have but teh libs do. I think I can speak for a lot of people when I say that I'm sick and tired of being told that all that I believe in is wrong and that I'm a bigot homophobe for not actively supporting a certain lifestye by a select minority. Plus, I don't feel all warm and fuzzy when my vote is hi-jacked by a liberal court and thrown in the gutter.
And BTW, have your ever seen a gay pride parade? So much for consenting adults doing things in private.
Posted by: California Doomin at August 01, 2011 11:42 AM (8DdAv)
Welcome to the world of gay conservatives...this is the type of "caught in the crossfire" shit we've been dealing with for over 20 years. Libtard proglodytes trying to get us to shut the fuck up and get back out in the fields, and politicians trying to lump every homosexual on God's green earth in with those on the Far Left who'd like nothing more than to do teach boys why blowjobs aren't just a girl's Area of Responsibility.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 07:50 AM (PET8M)
Posted by: MTF at August 01, 2011 07:50 AM (RMYrx)
Posted by: ranger117 at August 01, 2011 11:45 AM (LOk96)
My condolences, sir. :-(
I do call bullshit on going 70 on Lake Shore
Drive in Chicago though. Maybe at like 3 AM if you staged a donut
robbery someplace to keep the cops busy...
Posted by: Ian S. at August 01, 2011 11:46 AM (tqwMN)
Dude, there was a yellow Lamboghini, just yesterday at 11:00 am, that blew by me doing 85, easy, just after the "S" curve at Oak Street. I swear to you, I haven't seen a CPD squad car on LSD since Taste of Chicago wrapped up a few weeks ago.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 07:54 AM (PET8M)
Tolerance is inherently a conservative trait. The exploitation of tolerance for political gain is among the most powerful weapons the left has.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 11:11 AM (PET8M)
Holy shit! The profundity of that statement just blows my mind. Sir, I salute you!!
Posted by: California Doomin at August 01, 2011 07:55 AM (8DdAv)
I have a deep hatred of those who would hijack the state and use it to coerce people. Government exists to protect our liberty, not to usurp it. Social change is the product of persuasion, not coercion. Ideas that cannot prevail in the court of public opinion fail for a reason. When government is corrupted and used to force those ideas upon us, that government is illegitimate and those responsible for its corruption are traitors and enemies.
The only difference between leftists who want to use the state to coerce people into Marxism and the social cons who want to coerce people into social conservativism is that their goals are different. Their methods and mindset are very much the same.
Posted by: Lee Reynolds at August 01, 2011 11:48 AM (zkRoG)
THIS
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 07:58 AM (PET8M)
Alright. I'll admit, I haven't regularly been on Lake Shore since the late 80s (and was last on it at all in 2002), but the concept of going 70 anywhere near that S curve seems whacked
Tolerance is inherently a conservative trait. The exploitation of tolerance for political gain is among the most powerful weapons the left has.
Similarly, capitalism can't be racist, sexist, or homophobic, at least if you're doing it right.
Posted by: Ian S. at August 01, 2011 08:00 AM (tqwMN)
limited access and the cops are busy elsewhere (usually. YMMV)
Couple sections on the south side also.
Gotta look out for the lollygagging hoosiers and the cheesers though.
Posted by: Mealy mouthed weasel and orange RINO campaign operative at August 01, 2011 08:01 AM (xg4Ev)
Holy shit! The profundity of that statement just blows my mind. Sir, I salute you!!
Posted by: California Doomin at August 01, 2011 11:55 AM (8DdAv)
Thank you, sir. It is borne of experience.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 08:02 AM (PET8M)
Someday researchers will discover the prenatal conditions that create the neurological changes responsible for homosexuality. It doesn't appear to be genetic in the traditional sense, but rather due to a combination of other factors that result in a person's switches being flipped into the wrong position when they are still in the womb. Even now they've managed to fish out a few pieces of the puzzle.
Accepting and embracing victims of this birth defect doesn't make it more prevalent. The very same number of gay people will be born regardless.
Posted by: Lee Reynolds at August 01, 2011 08:02 AM (zkRoG)
Posted by: Ian S. at August 01, 2011 12:00 PM (tqwMN)
YESH!!!!!!!!
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 08:04 AM (PET8M)
Malor trying to justify sodomy again.
It's sodomy. There's feces involved. It's wrong.
Malor is wrong. Even if he and other sodomites were to simply shut up about it they'd still be wrong.
Sex involving feces is wrong. Shut up about it and deal with your own concience. I don't care how much it hurts.
We will never approve of sodomy. Malor will just have to stay used to feeling bad about himself. In private.
Vim Toot
Posted by: Mica Vim Toot at August 01, 2011 08:05 AM (a5Iis)
we're not talking about the hairy bend crossing the river.
Go north past Oprah's place and it widens out and there's fewer access pts.
Go south past the park and the museums and you've got some good sections there with fewer access pts.
Posted by: Mealy mouthed weasel and orange RINO campaign operative at August 01, 2011 08:06 AM (xg4Ev)
Boy talk about beating a dead horse with this GOProud issue.
There's nothing uniting about GOProud. The spend half their time at CPAC last year talking about "gay rights" and the other half bringing in Donald Trump to poke the Paulbots with a stick. Unity.
You can quote their, much modified for effect, legislative agenda all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the only reason there is a GOProud is to push "gay rights". Something the vast majority of Conservatives determined is ridiculous a long time ago.
Posted by: Rocks at August 01, 2011 08:08 AM (HXc6N)
We will never approve of sodomy. Malor will just have to stay used to feeling bad about himself. In private.
Vim Toot
Posted by: Mica Vim Toot at August 01, 2011 12:05 PM (a5Iis)
"We'll" also never approve of the forced redistribution of wealth in order to fund "social justice," so we're in agreement there, at least.
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 08:08 AM (PET8M)
Lee Reynolds: I have a deep hatred of those who would hijack the state and use it to coerce people. Government exists to protect our liberty, not to usurp it. Social change is the product of persuasion, not coercion.
First off, no one is "hijacking the state" here, but thanks for the drama. The state has recognized marriage for hundreds of years because it is a naturally-occurring phenomenon. Gay rights activists are the ones attempting to "hijack" marriage, so they can force others to validate their sexual preferences against their will. There is no greater justification for the state to make a sexual relationship between two men an institution than there is for the state to make a platonic relationship between two close neighbors an institution.
Secondly, the social change you seem so supportive of has been advanced through the same kind of deceitful propaganda that convinced generations before to embrace collectivism. Do you hold the same reverence for the "court of public opinion" when it comes to the public's fondness for socialism?
Finally, you seem to think "encouraging entrepreneurship" is somehow less arbitrary a belief than "encouraging natural familes". Why is it libertarians are never required to explain why it's okay for government policies to encourage one, but not the other?
Go start your own convention, and we'll see you in November.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at August 01, 2011 08:08 AM (psns8)
Posted by: Lee Reynolds at August 01, 2011 12:02 PM (zkRoG)"
Interesting.
I believe Jesus asked us to love other people, knowing 100% of the people he's talking about are sinners.
It's not my place to judge, for good or bad, other people anyway. And we have a more important problem as a society.
But, sexuality itself, straight or gay, is way to intense in pop culture. It's horribly corrosive and our kids are screwed up about what they are supposed to be like, look like, feel like. It's not judgmental to wish that wasn't happening.
I just don't know how to deal with it. I don't want to take anyone's freedom away, and of course they want me to shut up. You don't see a lot of good values on display anywhere because many people find religion too offensive in the public space.
It's just a more primitive version of Alinksy. Sex and God are forced into different rules. Tolerance for one, judgment upon the other. I totally understand the reaction from Christians who realize their ways are superior for society, but excluding others they disagree with isn't the solution.
Posted by: Dustin at August 01, 2011 08:09 AM (519+h)
"We'll" also never approve of the forced redistribution of wealth in order to fund "social justice," so we're in agreement there, at least."
Midwest Gay Patriot
Absolute agreement. Once sex is kept out of politics there is unanimity among like thinking Conservatives.
Vim Toot!
Posted by: Mica Vim Toot at August 01, 2011 08:14 AM (a5Iis)
Oh the dishonesty here: You don't win elections - or the battle of ideas - by excluding people because of who they sleep with.
Give me a break. No one is excluding anyone "because of who they sleep with". They are being excluded because they are openly working against social conservatism.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at August 01, 2011 08:15 AM (psns8)
Absolute agreement. Once sex is kept out of politics there is unanimity among like thinking Conservatives.
Vim Toot!
Posted by: Mica Vim Toot at August 01, 2011 12:14 PM (a5Iis)
My point exactly, Vim Toot.
I want the left to cease trying to use my sexuality as a voting base, and I want my president to quit telling me "that at some point, [I've] made enough money."
Posted by: GayPatriotMidwest at August 01, 2011 08:17 AM (PET8M)
That's all it is. That's all it's ever been.
It's also about poking those who think homos are icky.
It's also about those who's religion thinks homos are icky.
It's always been about being in someone's face. (whether invited or not).
Qualifier; insert 'for some' in the appropriate places as there are many homosexual folks who'd rather the 'flamer's' would disappear.
BTW I don't believe there IS such a thing as strictly homosexual (they're all BI) other wise it would not have been inherited through the ages. (if it is an inherited trait.)
Posted by: Mealy mouthed weasel and orange RINO campaign operative at August 01, 2011 08:18 AM (xg4Ev)
Another false statement: ""Accepting and embracing victims of this birth defect doesn't make it more prevalent. The very same number of gay people will be born regardless."
It isn't a birth defect. Sexually-abused boys are seven times more likely to self-identify as gay later in life than non-abused boys.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at August 01, 2011 08:21 AM (psns8)
"I want the left to cease trying to use my sexuality as a voting base, and I want my president to quit telling me "that at some point, [I've] made enough money."
Midwest Gay Patriot
Indeed. Now lets evolve beyond sexual-identity politics, Mr. Midwest Patriot and work for our cause without a neon and un-neccesary gay modifier.
Vim Toot!
Posted by: Mica Vim Toot at August 01, 2011 08:23 AM (a5Iis)
2) Socialism and its analogues have most definitely NOT been embraced by the majority. These ideas are the domain of the failed and the insane, not normal human beings.
3) I have no idea what you are talking about with the bit about entrepreneurship and normal families, at least not in regards to anything I've written here. You seem to be responding to some other person than me, perhaps lumping me in with someone else.
But since you bought it up, entrepreneurship and normal families are the natural result of normal human impulses, not state intervention. Gay people, being biologically misaligned, don't tend to have kids. Nothing need be done to encourage nor discourage them.
Posted by: Lee Reynolds at August 01, 2011 08:23 AM (zkRoG)
I agree. Stupid decision. We want to expand the GOP not shrink it. and yes - anti-gay zealots are bigots.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten
Gee, not one, but two loaded terms in one shot. Nice. Just last week we had people decrying the purity/rino bit and telling social cons to "shut up" all for the sake of unity and growing the party. Now another group comes along. Are they told to shut up for the sake of unity? Of course not. Everyone else is. What a lovely way to grow the party.
Posted by: Blue Hen at August 01, 2011 08:25 AM (6rX0K)
"Gay people, being biologically misaligned . . . "
This is not the position of the APA. Why do you believe it is biological?
Posted by: NotALibertarian at August 01, 2011 08:28 AM (psns8)
1) The state should not be in the marriage business. Marriage, if it is recognized by the state as anything at all, should be based on contract law.
Posted by: Lee Reynolds
You said that the sate should be out of the marriage business, without bothering to reply to the observation made above and dozens of times before; most societies have chosen to be IN the mariage business, and to ENCOURAGE one particular type. They do so for their own selfish reasons (society wants to live). I've never seen a response to this.
The only response we get is similar to those who don't want to be seen as opposing abortion but who also don't want to be seen as liking it either. We get the mealy-mouthed, 'personal choice', or "safe, legal and rare".
And then you contradict yourself and note that "the state" will certainly BE in the 'marriage business' due to contract law.
Do you wonder why people get annoyed when these canards are trotted out? The basic dishonesty alone is appalling.
Posted by: Blue Hen at August 01, 2011 08:34 AM (326rv)
Socialism and its analogues have most definitely NOT been embraced by the majority.
Really? Then why is SS and Medicare reform so "politically impossible"?
. . . entrepreneurship and normal families are the natural result of normal human impulses, not state intervention.
So is the desire to shield your eight-year-old from being taught about homosexuality in school.
Gay people, being biologically misaligned, don't tend to have kids. Nothing need be done to encourage nor discourage them.
What? Gay adoption, artificial insemination. Oh, and then there's the very public fight for the right to be Scout leaders and Big Brothers. Your world view only seems to work if only some of the world is viewed.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at August 01, 2011 08:37 AM (psns8)
Log Cabin Republicans v. United States 'DADT' lawsuit.
It was actually that OTHER Trojan Horse gay-uber-alles fake "conservative" organization that filed the lawsuit, not GOProud. Sorry for the confusion.
However, the sad thing about gay hustlers like Gabe is they always assume the worst about their rhetorical opponents. Gabe COULD have simply posted the correction, but instead made an assumption and called me a liar.
Nice. Now I'm convinced that Gabe and GOProud are the side of the angels. [/sarc]
Posted by: BobInFL at August 01, 2011 08:38 AM (ENnz1)
Another false statement: ""Accepting and embracing victims of this birth defect doesn't make it more prevalent. The very same number of gay people will be born regardless."
It isn't a birth defect. Sexually-abused boys are seven times more
likely to self-identify as gay later in life than non-abused boys.
I don't believe that any more than I believe the left's claim that 10% of the population is gay. The correct number is more like 3% at best.
But lets pretend that you are right for a moment.
Straight guys are looking for sex when they hit puberty, but tend to have a hard time finding it for all of the reasons that are well understood to anyone with experience with women and their teenage counterparts. Getting laid is, for most guys in high school, a constant goal to which ever fiber of their being is perpetually driven. But because women are not as eager as we are to do the deed, that goal is difficult to achieve.
Gay guys are also looking for sex when they hit puberty, only because it is, as one gay man put it, a matter of boys without girls, finding sex is little more than finding someone else who is gay.
Lesbians on the other hand, because they are still female, tend to have relationships that are much more like normal male-female relationships.
In other words, this is a self-selecting process.
I was sexually abused when I was young, by a pedophile with a penchant for little boys. Today I'm quite straight thank you very much. Getting molested didn't make me gay and it didn't make me a molester either. It was painful and something that still troubles me today, but it didn't change who I am.
I was straight when I was born and I'm still straight today. If a person's sexual orientation were so malleable, therapists would have discovered a process by which gay people could be made straight, a goal that was, until the 1970's at least, a very real one.
Posted by: Lee Reynolds at August 01, 2011 08:40 AM (zkRoG)
Posted by: Jewstin at August 01, 2011 08:40 AM (OHUAs)
All this talk of "pushing away voters" is rather silly, considering that gay issues are a PERFECT way to attract black and Latino voters. Why haven't all the people so concerned about how social cons are alienating so many people noticed how passionately against gay marriage the Latino/black communities are?
Posted by: NotALibertarian at August 01, 2011 08:41 AM (psns8)
I was straight when I was born and I'm still
straight today. If a person's sexual orientation were so malleable,
therapists would have discovered a process by which gay people could be
made straight, a goal that was, until the 1970's at least, a very real
one.
Posted by: Lee Reynolds at August 01, 2011 12:40 PM (zkRoG)
If sexual orientation isn't malleable, how do you explain what goes on in prisons?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 01, 2011 08:50 AM (FkKjr)
All this talk of "pushing away voters" is rather silly, considering that gay issues are a PERFECT way to attract black and Latino voters. Why haven't all the people so concerned about how social cons are alienating so many people noticed how passionately against gay marriage the Latino/black communities are?
Posted by: NotALibertarian
This is yet another example of the basic dishonesty at work. And note that it's very similar to the dishonesty displayed by the left on the same issue. Note that none of the major religions came out in favor of gay marriage in California. Several actively worked against it. They included Muslims and many black churches. But the gay groups went after Mormons and Catholics. They conveniently ignored groups that had the same goal, but upon whom attacks wouldn't be as productive. They're following Mark Steyn's rule of provocation: Rule #1 is select a group who won't be provoked. Assailing Catholics or Mormons will get you big press and at most a war of words. Assail muslims or black congregations and you'll be branded as the bigot or in the case of the former, running for your life.
Posted by: Blue Hen at August 01, 2011 08:51 AM (326rv)
The 7 times more likely finding is in a study called "Sexual Victimization of Boys: An Ongoing Study of an Adolescent Medicine Clinic Population", but this site won't let me post the link because links are boring or something I guess.
"Most striking was the finding that members of the study group identified themselves as currently homosexual nearly seven times as often and bisexual nearly six times as often as the [non-abused] control group."
The Born That Way line is discredited by prison behavior, the fact that many lesbians drift in and out of the lifestyle, and minority cultures like the Sambia of New Guinea, whose men practice gay pedophilia as a culture rite. Your own experience -- which I am very sorry to hear about, but glad you are able to function now -- does not explain how an entire population of men can decide to practice gay pedophilia for generations if people are just born that way.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at August 01, 2011 08:54 AM (psns8)
Jewstin,
Many of the studies that are shedding light on the nature of homosexuality are coming out of post-activist Western Europe. For years, any negative correllates within the gay community were explained away by citing the stigma of homosexuality as a cause. But gay populations in even very liberal societies display significantly higher rates of chemical dependency/psychological disorders. This research, along with the rise of new media, is making this harder and harder for the APA to ignore.
Same-sex divorce in Norway, for example, is off the charts compared to traditional marriages. Those supposedly "committed" lesbians we're always hearing about were 167% more likely to divorce than traditional husbands and wives, for example.
Sorry, but this website will not let me post links.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at August 01, 2011 09:03 AM (psns8)
"Assail muslims or black congregations and you'll be branded as the bigot or in the case of the former, running for your life."
It seems to me that attracting the black/Latino demographics would yield much greater success electorally, wouldn't they? Perhaps someone should tell Gabe and Mr. Breitbart.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at August 01, 2011 09:06 AM (psns8)
inserting a link here can be confusing and frustrating.
First, get the tinyurl.com tool bar addon or whatever for your browser. (you can get a tinyurl by going to the tinyurl.com site but you'll have to do this every time you want to copy a link so get the tool bar from that site.)
This will allow you to just click an icon on your toolbar to insert a tiny url into your clipboard.
Then in the comment box click on the link icon.
paste your tiny url into the appropriate boxes click insert then click apply then ok and you're done.
If you highlight some text before you click the link icon, that text will be the hyperlink to your tinyurl url and will be underlined and in colored text.
Try it it's easy. Don't try copying a page url and pasting. It won't work. You'll get the box telling you the link was too long. (doesn't matter how long the link actually was, you'll get this message.)
Now go out there and post a link!
Posted by: Mealy mouthed weasel and orange RINO campaign operative at August 01, 2011 09:06 AM (xg4Ev)
Listen, the fact of this matter is the conservative umbrella is welcoming. But the ACU was in error last year by throwing a lot of people under the bus for a select few, which I don't think they meant to do (but it certainly exposes their lack of careful thought and consideration to all parties involved). In their pre-2010 election enthusiasm of big tentedness, I think they jumped the shark and I hold them responsible for 90% of this debacle.
I hold GOProud 10% responsible for not conducting themselves in a better manner. I think it was very unrealistic and surprisingly unsophisticated of them to think some people wouldn't have a problem with their sponsorship and they should have just chosen to attend as regular conservatives.
Now the ACU has the difficulty of undoing a serious error in judgement (theirs), and it's not going to be pretty. It is what it is. I just would hope that all parties involved would draw upon their conservative values and graciousness and think twice about throwing a tantrum in public with a lot of misinformation thrown in to boot.
Gabe, you, Andrew Bretbart, ect. are making it impossible for GOProud to attend CPAC with their dignity intact, if they were to choose to do so. GOProud should accept their mistakes and move on. But the more you guys distort the situation, while I respect the loyalty, I just don't think you are making the situation any better nor do I think you're doing GOProud any favors.
Posted by: California Doomin at August 01, 2011 09:16 AM (8DdAv)
Posted by: Village Idiot at August 01, 2011 09:22 AM (utXSy)
This is just like the issue in CA where they just passed a law that schools must teach gay history. WTF is gay history? History is history, and it's populated by people who did stuff, some of which may have been gay. Whatever. I'm interested in what people did to make history, not what they do/did in the privacy of their bedroom. This "history" is also supposed to be taught starting in Kindergarten. Really?
And honestly, if there's some middle school or high school kid who is gay and sees that someone who was gay did something special, how is that going to have any impact whatsoever on their life? Are they going to say, yeah, I totally get bullied every day but Joe X was gay and he signed the Declaration of Independence so I've got a chance in life too?
I get that CPAC is attended by a multitude of organizations with overlapping and conflicting goals, but I don't recall the rest of them running around calling everyone else names. OTOH, I don't condone others publicly calling out GOProud with derogatory names either. Find you common ground to push your common agenda, and push your conflicting agenda's at other venues.
Posted by: Chief of Police, Anytown at August 01, 2011 09:26 AM (lRqIF)
Homosexuals comprise maybe 1.5% of the population. Those that bother voting 90%+ vote straight line democrat. The few real conservatives who happen to be gay, likely agree that DADT repeal and gay marriage are bad ideas, and will vote GOP.
These mythical gays who would vote republican only if it adopted the progressive homosexual agenda, are like those "moderate muslems" - they don't exist.
Posted by: Rebar at August 01, 2011 09:28 AM (uPpYX)
If GoProud wants to be included without much of a fuss, they need to look at their leader and his actions.
Posted by: Stella at August 01, 2011 09:29 AM (tYR6e)
Yes, but you must understand that I cannot tolerate that lifestyle. If people like you and your buddies are allowed in our party, it drags us all through the mud of having to hear about your vile, unnatural choice -- yes, choice, you weren't "born this way" -- to be a Bears fan. You come down here to Texas with that flamboyant blue-and-orange gear, and we'll show...what?
Well, what did you think I was talking about? Oh, no, I'm totally cool with your being gay! But the Bears? Get your Urlacher-loving giant-#1-foam-fingers out of my GOP!
Posted by: Bender Bending Rodriguez at August 01, 2011 09:29 AM (1H47k)
Posted by: Mahmoud, watching olive-oil wrestling on al-JazeeraTV at August 01, 2011 09:33 AM (1H47k)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at August 01, 2011 09:44 AM (psns8)
Posted by: Sgt. York at August 01, 2011 09:47 AM (QHzLG)
Posted by: Barney Framk at August 01, 2011 09:48 AM (mQMnK)
Posted by: V. S. at August 01, 2011 09:53 AM (AN7r7)
Posted by: MTF at August 01, 2011 10:01 AM (RMYrx)
I don't mean to be explicit, but I've had the "hey baby, stick your finger in my ass" routine from enough girlfriends that I stopped thinking it was weird a loooong time ago.
GayPatriot, you were ABMA? I salute you, sir. I was in SAC... and I'm a tiger in the sack, hahah.
Posted by: KirkCameronLeftMeBehind at August 01, 2011 10:43 AM (iZ6fL)
Listen, the fact of this matter is the conservative umbrella is welcoming. But the ACU was in error last year by throwing a lot of people under the bus for a select few, which I don't think they meant to do (but it certainly exposes their lack of careful thought and consideration to all parties involved). In their pre-2010 election enthusiasm of big tentedness, I think they jumped the shark and I hold them responsible for 90% of this debacle.
I hold GOProud 10% responsible for not conducting themselves in a better manner. I think it was very unrealistic and surprisingly unsophisticated of them to think some people wouldn't have a problem with their sponsorship and they should have just chosen to attend as regular conservatives.
Now the ACU has the difficulty of undoing a serious error in judgement (theirs), and it's not going to be pretty. It is what it is. I just would hope that all parties involved would draw upon their conservative values and graciousness and think twice about throwing a tantrum in public with a lot of misinformation thrown in to boot.
Gabe, you, Andrew Bretbart, ect. are making it impossible for GOProud to attend CPAC with their dignity intact, if they were to choose to do so. GOProud should accept their mistakes and move on. But the more you guys distort the situation, while I respect the loyalty, I just don't think you are making the situation any better nor do I think you're doing GOProud any favors.
Posted by: California Doomin at August 01, 2011 01:16 PM (8DdAv)
Let me comment on my own post. I just read GOProud's response to the ACU's letter. Throwing fucking tantrums ain't gonna get you squat with conservatives. In fact, it only pisses us off. Especially when you lie about the facts. That's a 100% commie liberal tactic and an unbelieveably stupid and fucked up move. We ain't the party of victims. We're the party of accepting the consequences for your actions. Fucking little girls (sorry little girls).
Posted by: California Doomin at August 01, 2011 10:44 AM (8DdAv)
Posted by: Molon Labe at August 01, 2011 11:13 AM (g5MrG)
Posted by: Tim Mc at August 01, 2011 11:15 AM (nA+tQ)
Tim Mc, you lost me at the word "bigotry".
Posted by: NotALibertarian at August 01, 2011 11:41 AM (psns8)
Let me comment on my own post. I just read GOProud's response to the ACU's letter. Throwing fucking tantrums ain't gonna get you squat with conservatives. In fact, it only pisses us off. Especially when you lie about the facts. That's a 100% commie liberal tactic and an unbelieveably stupid and fucked up move. We ain't the party of victims. We're the party of accepting the consequences for your actions. Fucking little girls (sorry little girls).
Posted by: California Doomin at August 01, 2011 02:44 PM (8DdAv)
Gee if only we had someone to post stuff like the GOProud's response along with some of the reasons the ACU might not be interested in having them as a sponsor this year. Someone that would post stuff impartially and without bias. Oh wait! Gabe claims to just impartially post these sorts of things and does not let his biases or emotions come into play. Hmmm, but I didn't see anything about what you are talking about CD. Shocking really.
Posted by: buzzion at August 01, 2011 11:45 AM (oVQFe)
I support the right of any group to exercise their right of free association.
GOProud has the right to be gay, CPAC has the right to not invite them.
And GOProud is crooked as Hell.
Posted by: sifty at August 01, 2011 12:25 PM (ECjvn)
Posted by: GHD at August 14, 2011 02:22 AM (UDaJ+)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2289 seconds, 328 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Robert at August 01, 2011 03:42 AM (4ixH5)