Another Toe-Tappin' Republican

[Devastatin Dave]

Tis a valid reason.

But why not just plunk the stories in "News o the weird" thread? Why a whole thread to laugh at the republican party? Surely it seems to be most suited for news o the weird.

CR

Its because Lemur has secret homosexual fantasies about getting tag teamed by Dick Cheney and George Bush.

Nah, its just Lemur being his "independent" self, as he always says....

[Lemur]

Nah, its just Lemur being his "independent" self, as he always says....

Riiight, Dave, 'cause we all know that anyone who finds the Republican take on homosexuality absurd and hypocritical must, by definition, be a Democrat.

Someday we should work on getting you out of binaries. Chicks dig it when you can count past two.

-edit-

CR, the reason I don't put these in our beloved News of the Weird thread is that I don't like to post political stuff in there. Doing my bit to keep the Weird News pure.

[Papewaio]

What is surprising that a politician is a hypocrite and will present whatever public image will garner him votes?

More seriously. Can you be a rep, rebulican and openly gay? Or is there a code of conduct that they sign on with?

[Kralizec]

What is surprising that a politician is a hypocrite and will present whatever public image will garner him votes?

More seriously. Can you be a rep, rebulican and openly gay? Or is there a code of conduct that they sign on with?

http://logcabin.org/

[Crazed Rabbit]

Riiight, Dave, 'cause we all know that anyone who finds the Republican take on homosexuality absurd and hypocritical must, by definition, be a Democrat.

Now see, that's the strange bit. How is the party's stance on homosexuality - being against gay marriage - hypocritical? Or do you take these few isolated incidents as somehow representing all republicans?

The party is not hypocritical, nor the GOP leadership. It really seems to me like somehow you see these incidents as representative of the whole GOP and therefore an indictment against the whole Republican party, which makes no sense.

The real story is that a few politicians are hypocrites. That's it.

CR

[Ronin]

Or do you take these few isolated incidents as somehow representing all republicans?

I think I´ll quote Bill Hicks on this one.... 'When you are that right wing, you must be hiding some very deep, dark secret.'

these isolated incidents are just the tip of the iceberg!

[Xiahou]

Now see, that's the strange bit. How is the party's stance on homosexuality - being against gay marriage - hypocritical?

I think one could make the case that the Democrat party's positions are hypocritical. Their statements are all tailored to whatever group they're standing in front of. If addressing a gay group, they're all in favor of increased privileges. But, put them in front of a minority group and they'll run from those statements or try to pretend they didn't say what they did. Seems pretty two-faced to me.

At least Republicans have a more consistent stance.

[CrossLOPER]

At least Republicans have a more consistent stance.

Too easy.

[Lemur]

Now see, that's the strange bit. How is the party's stance on homosexuality - being against gay marriage - hypocritical? Or do you take these few isolated incidents as somehow representing all republicans?

I think the moment Republicans started pushing for Federal Amendments prohibiting gay marriage, they were putting themselves on the wrong side of human nature and the wrong side of history. Let face facts -- a certain percentage of people attracted to a conservative or reactionary party will also be attracted to hot studs. Or bears, as the case may be.

The real story is that a few politicians are hypocrites. That's it.

Disagree. The Republicans have traded on moral panic for years. They pretty much kept the Congress by fanning up gay hatred in '04. Gotta keep the base turning out, right?

So you'll excuse me if I'm tickled pink when various elected representatives of the party from all over the nation get busted for indiscreet gay sex. It's funny.

At least Republicans have a more consistent stance.

Must ... resist ... temptation ...

[Don Corleone]

Oh come on. Arguing over whether elected Republicans are more true to their stated principals vesus elected Democrats is like arguing which leper in the colony has the most surface area of skin left. At the end of the day, nobody's really got what it takes.

First, Lemur, I hate to say it bro, but you are losing the independent status. You do seem like you've been on a witch-hunt, and it started in the summer of 2006. In all that time, you couldn't post one thread of a Democrat being hypocritical and slimy?

Second, come on guys. Larry Craig asked for sex in a bathroom stall at the airport. The reason gay rights groups were following Larry Craig around wasn't because he was a Republican, but because he was a Republican that actively played the Christian conservative card one time too many and had ran on his willingness to put gays in their place (my words, not his).

Gay marriage is one issue. Equal treatment for gays is a separate issue, and I can see where one would stand for the second and not the first. I do, and I don't think that makes me hypocritical. Gay 'marriage' is about forcing organized religions to recognize homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice. BUT and this is important, they're still entitled to any legal priveleges and responsiblities anybody else is. We cannot deny them a potenially advantageous legal arrangement because we disagree with their lifestyle choices.

So either we stop treating the institution of marriage as a legal arrangement (and, for the record, the pilgrims at Thanksgiving aside, this country was really founded by Anglicans... who got a tax break when they were confirmed, Anglican, Catholic or Greek Orthodox?) or, we grant civil unions to everyone. But, that's my answer.

I don't think even all openly avowed homosexuals agree with the whole gay-marriage thing.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think the moment Republicans started pushing for Federal Amendments prohibiting gay marriage, they were putting themselves on the wrong side of human nature and the wrong side of history. Let face facts -- a certain percentage of people attracted to a conservative or reactionary party will also be attracted to hot studs. Or bears, as the case may be.

So? You disagree with their stance on that. That doesn't make the party hypocritical.

Disagree. The Republicans have traded on moral panic for years. They pretty much kept the Congress by fanning up gay hatred in '04. Gotta keep the base turning out, right?

Yeah. Just that one issue, nothing else big was going on was it?

Even then, it doesn't make the party hypocritical, it makes a couple people hypocrites.

So you'll excuse me if I'm tickled pink when various elected representatives of the party from all over the nation get busted for indiscreet gay sex. It's funny.

And you'll have to excuse me as I see nothing about how the party is hypocritical, or all republicans. All you've shown is that there's a couple hypocrites.

Crazed Rabbit
PS You and Don are giving me a serious case of deja vue.

[Xiahou]

I think the moment Republicans started pushing for Federal Amendments prohibiting gay marriage, they were putting themselves on the wrong side of human nature and the wrong side of history.

So the Defense of Marriage Act was well and good, but the amendment went too far? Or were both equally bad?

[Ice]

Riiight, Dave, 'cause we all know that anyone who finds the Republican take on homosexuality absurd and hypocritical must, by definition, be a Democrat.

Of course. Just like anyone who doesn't support the war, isn't a white Christian, and doesn't like Nascar.