PDA

View Full Version : Gay Conservatives



Nitro Express
01-03-2011, 11:55 AM
I was talking to a prominent Republican in my local area and he has been watching with interest the financial mismanagement within the party and the process of deciding who the new chairman will be. The current one has been a disaster but of course like anyone who can't make a real living if they lose their post, he's going to fight like hell to keep it.

I said the problem with the Republican party is it leans too far to protect the interest of the rich and panders to religious zealots. I said the problem with the Democratic party is it has been taken over by radical socialists.

What was interesting is this Republican told me there is a gay conservative movement that is picking up steam. He says they are people who want gay rights but they run businesses and hire people and don't like where the Democratic party is going. These people are fiscal conservatives. This Republican said basically the gays have won the culture war and are more accepted and organized religion as a whole is viewed with more distrust. I was told the Republican party is going to change because our culture is changing. It's going to become a more diverse party than it was in the past being driven more by people who want proper fiscal management and less government.

The Republican Party has traditionally been viewed as the corporate party, favoring the rich and corporations. What the Obama administration has showed us it the Democrats as well favor big corporations and the connected rich. In this regard there is no real difference. Leaders in the Republican Party realize their old formula isn't working and there is a chunk of the Democrats they can gain if they welcome them. This group includes gays.

It's about staying relevant this person told me and staying the course is going to lead to obscurity. Maybe radical Christianity is going out of fashion and tolerance of groups traditionally not welcome in the conservative circles will be the new norm.

I think people just realize we need to grow ourselves out of this mess and cut the wasteful spending. The citizens are tired of the wasteful spending and government over reach and maybe that is more important now than who you worship and who you fuck.

This Republican also admitted the Republican record of fiscal responsibility is pretty poor. He said the days of getting away with radical spending using security as the excuse are over. Both the Republicans and Democrats have broke the nation and sold us out to international bankers and corporations. The cat is out of the bag and the people are pissed. A third party is unlikely because a candidate can't get on all the ballots. So change will happen within the two major parties. People are pissed and the traditional political base will change. A conservative in a few years may not be a bible thumping, gay hating person who votes for a piece of cheese in a cowboy hat.

FORD
01-03-2011, 12:48 PM
Sometimes I wonder if some of these "gay conservatives" are even for real. The Log Cabin Republicans have been around a while, and they're legitimate enough, but I'm not so sure about this new group "GOProud" which are the ones who got some of the religious reich groups to boycott the upcoming CPAC conference. While the Log Cabin types aren't afraid to address the Republican party's horrible record on gay rights, this new group wants to keep all of that "in the closet" and claim that the Repukes have always been "the best party for gay Americans"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HUwsDTbRIw

FORD
01-03-2011, 12:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK4LI31zXNE

Seshmeister
01-03-2011, 01:18 PM
It's just absolutely ridiculous to describe the Democrats as being taken over by radical socialists.

They are still well to the right of our Conservative party which is to the right of most other governments in the West.

You would be as accurate saying that space lizards from the planet Noob Noob have taken over. Just silly talk.

FORD
01-03-2011, 01:24 PM
We would probably be better off with the lizards than the "Democratic Leadership Council" who are neither Democrats nor leaders. :(

Seshmeister
01-03-2011, 01:27 PM
It's the use of the word 'radical' that really has me laughing over here... :)

FORD
01-03-2011, 01:30 PM
It seems they're still fighting against Candidate Obama, rather than President Obama. Sadly, they aren't the same guy. And even Candidate Obama wasn't exactly Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader.

Socialist radical?? Yeah, we should be so lucky. :(

Nitro Express
01-04-2011, 02:18 AM
It's just absolutely ridiculous to describe the Democrats as being taken over by radical socialists.

They are still well to the right of our Conservative party which is to the right of most other governments in the West.

You would be as accurate saying that space lizards from the planet Noob Noob have taken over. Just silly talk.

Hmmm you mean people who nationalize industries, empower unions at the expense of stockholders, who want to regulate and tax private businesses out of business, and pass unread legislation on Christmas Eve aren't radical socialists? I mean the current Democrat Party don't give a ratt's ass about what the American public think as a whole. They had the power and abused it ramming as much radical socialism through as they could whether we wanted it or not.

Nitro Express
01-04-2011, 02:19 AM
At least some of the Republicans I'm talking to understand times are a changin and they are going to have to change to survive. The Democrats don't have a clue right now. Obama is lost.

Seshmeister
01-04-2011, 08:06 AM
I think part of the reason he's lost is that before getting the job he hadn't been around long enough to understand how completely owned and dependant on big business these 'radical socialists' in his party had become. The people voted massively for change and it was blocked by the elite that actually run America. Your so called nationalisation was instigated before he started and will end up making some rich people richer not with state control of anything.

kwame k
01-04-2011, 09:07 AM
I think part of the reason he's lost is that before getting the job he hadn't been around long enough to understand how completely owned and dependant on big business these 'radical socialists' in his party had become. The people voted massively for change and it was blocked by the elite that actually run America. Your so called nationalisation was instigated before he started and will end up making some rich people richer not with state control of anything.

Exactly.........if we must come up with a moniker for the current political movement going on in this country for the past few decades the moniker would be, "Corporate Greed", or "Corporatism".

How in the fuck you guys came up with Socialism is amazing.......<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G2y8Sx4B2Sk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G2y8Sx4B2Sk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

knuckleboner
01-04-2011, 08:48 PM
Hmmm you mean people who nationalize industries, empower unions at the expense of stockholders, who want to regulate and tax private businesses out of business, and pass unread legislation on Christmas Eve aren't radical socialists? I mean the current Democrat Party don't give a ratt's ass about what the American public think as a whole. They had the power and abused it ramming as much radical socialism through as they could whether we wanted it or not.

which industries? because, the bank bailouts were under bush. and the auto bailouts were NOT a nationalization of the industry. see: ford (not FORD...;)) motor company. and, see the fact that the government is selling its stake in GM and chrysler.

now, did the unions benefit against the shareholders? um...yeah. but the shareholders were fucked either way. without government intervention, GM and chrysler would simply have failed. in which case shareholders get nothing, and bondholders likely get far less than they wound up getting. and hundreds of thousands more Americans would be out of work.