If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Beast)   Republicans are for gay marriage. They have always been for gay marriage. Move along, citizen   (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com) divider line 199
    More: Strange  
•       •       •

4981 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 May 2012 at 3:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



199 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-12 07:49:28 PM

shivashakti: today, with people being open about sexuality, and blowjob or buttsex jokes being fairly common, what are gay people doing that straight couples aren't?


Scissoring.
 
2012-05-12 07:50:58 PM

Jormungandr: It is icky because God told them it is icky.


Nah, religion's an excuse not a reason - there's plenty of shiat in the bible they don't give a fark about.
 
2012-05-12 08:03:43 PM

Wyalt Derp: Scissoring.


That's not really a common thing among lesbians, despite South Park.
 
2012-05-12 08:08:27 PM

Marcus Aurelius: The GOP convention is going to be a hoot. This might be the extreme right wing's last real chance to shoot themselves in both feet.


And you know that they are, too.

With a 50-cal mounted machine gun.
 
2012-05-12 08:25:09 PM
If it wasn't for gay people, Nancy Reagan wouldn't have been able to dress so fabulously.
 
2012-05-12 08:31:57 PM

djkutch: If it wasn't for gay people, Nancy Reagan wouldn't have been able to dress so fabulously.


isnt she dead?
 
2012-05-12 08:35:51 PM

namatad: djkutch: If it wasn't for gay people, Nancy Reagan wouldn't have been able to dress so fabulously.

isnt she dead?


Dead sexy.
www.presidentsrus.com
 
2012-05-12 08:37:55 PM
 
2012-05-12 08:46:45 PM

RedT: Bacontastesgood: This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.

God what a bunch of assholes. I don't even currently know anyone who is definitely gay. I know a few people who probably are, but they haven't told me explicitly and I don't know them well enough to ask. Probably comes from being in a suburban area and knowing a lot of hetero married people with kids over the last 10 years. Anyway, why would you need to know people personally who are suffering from the effects of our shiatty outdated laws to wake up to the fact that they are being discriminated against? Seriously, you are a real asshole if that's what it takes. Let people do what and who they want and treat them according to the constitution, is that so farking hard?

For decades the gay stereotype was bath houses, anonymous sex, AIDS/disease, inability to commit, etc...
I think a lot of folks who do not know and observe normal gay couples still think gay is that sick perversion.

It DOES make sense that when that gay couple with their adorable daughter moved in next door and they go to work, now their lawn, pick their kid up from school, helped me that morning my tire was flat and "seem" so nice and normal, would change folks' attitude. In fact, I think this is how attitudes change in general. You meet folks who do not jibe with your stereotype.

Quite frankly, there is nothing wrong with this.


The only troubling thing with this premise (which I tend to agree with) is that there have been several times in the past when homosexuality was not a concern with society; blase even. Consider the Greeks, the early Romans, medieval times a lot of royalty were high profile poofs, even Frederick the Great of Prussia was accepted as gay. So apparently society's acceptance of LGB(T) waxes and wanes. We may be entering into a more tolerant period but I got to think homo bigotry will never be eradicated.

A good question perhaps is, why the shifts in tolerance through the ages?
 
2012-05-12 08:48:52 PM
*rtfa*

This is something I've known for an incredibly long time. It's one of many reasons why I lament the current state of the Republican party.

Whatever.
 
2012-05-12 08:52:12 PM

hubiestubert: miscreant: hubiestubert: To be fair, I always have been. I'm still waiting for the rest of the party to catch up and stop listening to mouth breathers who only pick and choose the parts of the Bible that they like, and who seem to hate freedom of religion and equality under the law...

But we all know that you would have been considered a RINO long before you actually got fed up and left.

What bothered me about that is that I hewed to the sort of Republicanism that my Grandmother adhered to. The party has been askew for some time, but someone had to try to vote for sane folks. The leadership has abandoned that for the Wing Nut Brigade, and more's the pity, because we could some Old Skool right now in the party. Not the Voodoo Economics folks, and far less adventurism...


All of that.

There's a reason why I was a Republican as a young kid. Just like what you were saying, I grew up with my parents and grandparent's view of the Republican ideal. At some point, the likes of Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell overtook the party and now we had that whole "moral majority" crap going on.

It was about then that I became an "independent."
 
2012-05-12 08:55:48 PM

Frederick: RedT: Bacontastesgood: This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.

God what a bunch of assholes. I don't even currently know anyone who is definitely gay. I know a few people who probably are, but they haven't told me explicitly and I don't know them well enough to ask. Probably comes from being in a suburban area and knowing a lot of hetero married people with kids over the last 10 years. Anyway, why would you need to know people personally who are suffering from the effects of our shiatty outdated laws to wake up to the fact that they are being discriminated against? Seriously, you are a real asshole if that's what it takes. Let people do what and who they want and treat them according to the constitution, is that so farking hard?

For decades the gay stereotype was bath houses, anonymous sex, AIDS/disease, inability to commit, etc...
I think a lot of folks who do not know and observe normal gay couples still think gay is that sick perversion.

It DOES make sense that when that gay couple with their adorable daughter moved in next door and they go to work, now their lawn, pick their kid up from school, helped me that morning my tire was flat and "seem" so nice and normal, would change folks' attitude. In fact, I think this is how attitudes change in general. You meet folks who do not jibe with your stereotype.

Quite frankly, there is nothing wrong with this.

The only troubling thing with this premise (which I tend to agree with) is that there have been several times in the past when homosexuality was not a concern with society; blase even. Consider the Greeks, the early Romans, medieval times a lot of royalty were high profile poofs, even Frederick the Great of Prussia was accepted as gay. So apparently society's acceptance of LGB(T) waxes and wanes. We may be entering into a more tolerant period but I got to think homo bigot ...


There are shifts in sexual mores of societies. Some societies are far more permissive than others with promiscuity, adultery, prostitution, etc. As long as homosexuality as seen as nothing more or less than a sexual behavior, then approval of it will wax and wane as the tides. I think this is the first time in history we gays have actually convinced people that we're a true minority group rather than a salacious sex act. I think that tolerance will stick this time. Maybe.
Contrary to the prophesy of a great movie like Idiocracy, I think we're actually getting smarter, not dumber. As technology advances at a break-neck speed, religion is increasingly being left behind. And there is no homophobia without religion.
But who knows, really? There could be more setbacks. If AIDS hadn't happened, gay marriage would've been legal by the 90's. I think part of human nature is the need to feel "better" than some other group, no matter what.
 
2012-05-12 09:00:55 PM
Some Republicans are for gay marriage and some Democrats are against it.

But don't let your fragile little world view be shattered with reality. Just keep thinking that these anti-gay marriage amendments keep passing with 99% Republican votes while 99% of Democrats vote against them. Particularly in California.

Here's a hint for you: The bill in California passed with 53% of the vote, and as there are far more registered Democrats in California, and it is a liberal state, there is no way in living hell that didn't pass without plenty of registered Democrats, especially when you consider that even if 70% of the Republicans voted for it, then 30% of them voted against it... meaning the remainder of the votes came from who? Democrats.

For all of your jumping up and down screaming about the NC ballot measure? Might want to check the number of primary votes Obama got there. I'm totally sure that all those people voting for Obama surely didn't vote for the amendment. I mean that can't happen right? It's all those white red neck Republican hicks.

Again, don't let reality shatter that fragile world view.
 
2012-05-12 09:02:25 PM
thenewcivilrightsmovement.com
 
2012-05-12 09:03:39 PM

randomjsa: Some Republicans are for gay marriage and some Democrats are against it.


Yes. 22% of Republicans are for gay marriage and 65% of Democrats are for it.

My "fragile" world view is that 8 out of 10 Republicans are bigots compared to 3.5 out of ten Democrats.

What was your point again?
 
2012-05-12 09:03:59 PM

shivashakti: That's not really a common thing among lesbians, despite South Park.


I know. But it's even less common among straight couples.
 
2012-05-12 09:04:03 PM

randomjsa: Some Republicans are for gay marriage RINOs and some Democrats are against it.


FTFY
 
2012-05-12 09:27:53 PM

Frederick: The only troubling thing with this premise (which I tend to agree with) is that there have been several times in the past when homosexuality was not a concern with society; blase even. Consider the Greeks, the early Romans, medieval times a lot of royalty were high profile poofs, even Frederick the Great of Prussia was accepted as gay. So apparently society's acceptance of LGB(T) waxes and wanes. We may be entering into a more tolerant period but I got to think homo bigotry will never be eradicated.

A good question perhaps is, why the shifts in tolerance through the ages?


A very fascinating quirk of human nature is that, whenever a minority group or subculture is vilified by the ruling culture, one of the first things they're accused of is sexual perversion. Sexual perversion is ALWAYS defined as gay, lesbian, multiple-partner, bestiality and/or pedophilia, REGARDLESS of what is actually accepted and common in the majority culture. Even at times when, as you say, the King was gay, persecuted minorities would be being tortured and burned for perceived homosexual behavior.

Examples include the early Roman persecutions of the Christians; the Christian persecutions of the various heretic groups and then the Jews; later Christian inquisitions against heretics and witches in the Middle Ages and Renaissance; the Conquista of America and the Westward Expansion; American slavery and oppression of the blacks during the Jim Crow era; the British Empire's colonialism; etc. etc.

In every instance, along with whatever specifics the rulers used to denigrate their subjects, they always were sure to add that the evil they were rooting out practiced all kinds of bizarre sexual deviancy. Witches were lesbians! Heretics were sodomites! Blacks were insatiable rapists! So today, the idea that gay men especially HAVE to be perverts, and especially because they are, well, sodomites, makes the charge that much easier. When the group you're vilifying is a sexual minority, you don't have to make up things like they worship Satan or eat dead babies, you can stick with the bizarre sexual practices. I suspect that's why fear of teh homogheys has been so virulent and pervasive lately. There's nothing else to attack them with, first of all; and second, it's ALWAYS easy to attack an outsider over their sexual practices--it's always been done. The problem is that that is what makes a person gay, who they have sex with.
 
2012-05-12 09:33:36 PM

RminusQ: 1. You're lying. This is a generational shift in attitudes.


Actually, it's both. While the generational shift in attitudes really makes the DOOMED, DOOMED, DOOMED obvious, there's also the aforementioned circa 1%/yr shift within cohorts.

bugontherug: But the numbers just don't support the notion that there's an anti-GOP tidal wave building.


Technically, no. They merely support that there's a pro-gay-marriage tidal wave building... though it won't reach full height for at least a few more years.
The GOP may instead within the next two decades shift its positions massively on gay marriage, church/state separation, and the war on drugs; or, it may become a regional party for a short while before going the way of the Whig.

Switching from a first-past-the-post voting system so as to shift dynamics in a way that would help third parties run might alter that scenario a bit, though.

Myria: What happened in the 20th century that had the Democrats go from slavers and segregationists to civil rights champions, and had Republicans go from emancipation and reconstruction to the "eww gay" derpfest that they are now?

LordJiro: This. This happened.

The Name: This is what happened.


Though that was just the end; the obvious beginning would be Hubert Humphrey's 1948 DNC address, though there were warning signs before that .

HeartBurnKid: /now all we need is a catchy nickname for southern Republicans


They're mostly Theocons and Xenocons, with a mix of Jingocons and Moneycons thrown in.

Though if you really have your heard set on a regional term... hm. Republiconfederates has too many syllables.
 
2012-05-12 09:46:56 PM

abb3w: RminusQ: 1. You're lying. This is a generational shift in attitudes.

Actually, it's both. While the generational shift in attitudes really makes the DOOMED, DOOMED, DOOMED obvious, there's also the aforementioned circa 1%/yr shift within cohorts.

bugontherug: But the numbers just don't support the notion that there's an anti-GOP tidal wave building.

Technically, no. They merely support that there's a pro-gay-marriage tidal wave building... though it won't reach full height for at least a few more years.
The GOP may instead within the next two decades shift its positions massively on gay marriage, church/state separation, and the war on drugs; or, it may become a regional party for a short while before going the way of the Whig.

Switching from a first-past-the-post voting system so as to shift dynamics in a way that would help third parties run might alter that scenario a bit, though.

Myria: What happened in the 20th century that had the Democrats go from slavers and segregationists to civil rights champions, and had Republicans go from emancipation and reconstruction to the "eww gay" derpfest that they are now?
LordJiro: This. This happened.
The Name: This is what happened.

Though that was just the end; the obvious beginning would be Hubert Humphrey's 1948 DNC address, though there were warning signs before that .

HeartBurnKid: /now all we need is a catchy nickname for southern Republicans

They're mostly Theocons and Xenocons, with a mix of Jingocons and Moneycons thrown in.

Though if you really have your heard set on a regional term... hm. Republiconfederates has too many syllables.


I don't know why you're trying to reinvent Dixiecrat. Everyone knows exactly what that means.
 
2012-05-12 09:50:18 PM

randomjsa: Some Republicans are for gay marriage and some Democrats are against it.


True; but they're outliers. (Also, tending to be from the parts of the country where that attitude is more prevalent regardless -- Southern Democrats on the one side, New England and Pacific Republicans on the other.)

randomjsa: For all of your jumping up and down screaming about the NC ballot measure? Might want to check the number of primary votes Obama got there. I'm totally sure that all those people voting for Obama surely didn't vote for the amendment.


The existence of such outliers is statistically certain.

Contrariwise, the measure ended about 60-40. Both the GOP and Democratic primaries got about a million votes; something around 20% of the democrats voted for "None of the Above" over Obama. Assume all the NOTA votes also voted for the NC-A-1 measure... first approximation, 60-40.
 
2012-05-12 09:51:33 PM

Gyrfalcon: I don't know why you're trying to reinvent Dixiecrat.


Because it's a different brand name that they're waving the same banner under.
 
2012-05-12 09:54:05 PM
PsiChick:
It might give me a bad taste in my mouth, but is it ethical to choose revenge over helping people?

/Serious question. I don't know.


It's normal human behavior and very hard to feel differently, but it's not very becoming of a liberal.
The prison "punishment vs. rehabilitation" debate is related. Sounds easy, but I fortunately haven't had a loved one raped or killed so my emotions aren't involved.
 
2012-05-12 09:57:29 PM

r1chard3:
I disagree. Conservatism is to try to conserve what you have.

I'm a conservative in that I want to preserve the system of social services, regulations, and workers rights that gave us a distribution of wealth and prosperity that made us the envy of the world.


Uhhh.... Not one of those is in the "Conservatism" column.
 
2012-05-12 10:18:34 PM
"As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government."

This should be a no-brainer. The problem is that while makes sense for conservatives the GOP is also composed of right-wing religious fanatics. A religious fanatic not only doesn't care about your freedom, they want to straight up tell you what you are and are not allowed to do based on their interpretation of a religion. So when it comes to things like rights, these two factions are almost 180 degrees apart from each other.
 
2012-05-12 10:38:33 PM

abb3w: Still relevant, dammit:

You guys don't understand. You've already lost. The current generation doesn't care.

[a.imageshack.us image 600x400]
[carryabigsticker.com image 449x533]


I'm such a nerd that every time I see this, I think of Mace Windu.

i114.photobucket.com

"You... have LOST."
 
2012-05-12 10:53:34 PM
How come anti-gay rights people always accuse teh gheys of being unable to commit to a relationship, and yet deny them marriage? Just to prove themselves right?
 
2012-05-12 11:38:17 PM

shivashakti: Wyalt Derp: Scissoring.

That's not really a common thing among lesbians, despite South Park.


Well, since everything I know about lesbians comes from South Park, Hentai porn and Women In Prison movies I'm gonna pretend I never read your comment.

It's real to me, dammit!

i293.photobucket.com

Just cos.
 
2012-05-13 12:13:29 AM
My first basic question:

Can I trust the GOP?

To me the answer is NO F*CKING WAY!!
 
2012-05-13 12:24:02 AM
farking called it.

Get used to hearing how Republicans have always been pro-gay rights and how its really the Democrats who where holding the gay people down all this time. Its only a matter of time.
 
2012-05-13 12:36:51 AM

bk3k: farking called it.

Get used to hearing how Republicans have always been pro-gay rights and how its really the Democrats who where holding the gay people down all this time. Its only a matter of time.


I've already been hearing it from some people, who cite Dick Cheney's stance on the matter. You know, because one single prominent Republican is for gay marriage, that means that the Democrats aren't really for gay rights, even they've done far more for gay rights than anybody else.

It's like the people who bring up the fact that Martin Luther King Jr. was a registered Republican (without bringing up the realignment that the Republican party underwent in the '60s and '70s, which MLK vociferously decried) or that Robert Byrd was a prominent Democrat and a former member of the KKK (without mentioning the fact that Byrd sincerely regretted his past and openly apologized for it every single chance he got). And that means that all the work that Democrats did on civil rights wasn't real and they're the real racists.
 
2012-05-13 12:45:35 AM

Wayne 985: I'm such a nerd that every time I see this, I think of Mace Windu.


quatchi: Just cos.


Actually, that provides me a good segue to an alternate nerd reference.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-13 12:59:23 AM
I can already see that gay Republican VP candidate. Maybe even a lesbian to really show how "up to date" they are.
Remember Palin?
 
2012-05-13 02:52:26 AM

Bacontastesgood: This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.

God what a bunch of assholes. I don't even currently know anyone who is definitely gay. I know a few people who probably are, but they haven't told me explicitly and I don't know them well enough to ask. Probably comes from being in a suburban area and knowing a lot of hetero married people with kids over the last 10 years. Anyway, why would you need to know people personally who are suffering from the effects of our shiatty outdated laws to wake up to the fact that they are being discriminated against? Seriously, you are a real asshole if that's what it takes. Let people do what and who they want and treat them according to the constitution, is that so farking hard?


It's the same reason that enemies are vilified and demonized. When you think of faceless people in the abstract, it's very easy to be sociopathic. And you don't think of it as sociopathy, because they mean nothing to you. It's just not real, just not a part of your personal world.

When you learn that someone you know and have known for a while is gay - or Muslim, or whatever - suddenly they're real. And you realize they're just like everyone else, there's good sorts and bad sorts.

Not everyone can feel empathy and responsibility for people they can only imagine and read about or see on TV.
 
2012-05-13 03:09:20 AM

thamike: Karac: If you want to know if republicans are going to eventually lose the gay marriage debate, then just answer these two questions.
When is the last time you heard someone who changed him mind from being against gay rights to being for them?
When is the last time you heard of someone who used to support gay marriage and doesn't now?

You ask this question as if it would be unfathomable for any of these situations to happen. Yet, here we are.

[iveseenthings.jpg]


I don't believe that Karac's point was that these changes of heart never happen, but that they happen pretty much in only one direction.
 
2012-05-13 03:10:01 AM
Republicans have always been vehement supporters of gay rights!
 
2012-05-13 03:19:28 AM

randomjsa: Some Republicans are for gay marriage and some Democrats are against it.

But don't let your fragile little world view be shattered with reality. Just keep thinking that these anti-gay marriage amendments keep passing with 99% Republican votes while 99% of Democrats vote against them. Particularly in California.

Here's a hint for you: The bill in California passed with 53% of the vote, and as there are far more registered Democrats in California, and it is a liberal state, there is no way in living hell that didn't pass without plenty of registered Democrats, especially when you consider that even if 70% of the Republicans voted for it, then 30% of them voted against it... meaning the remainder of the votes came from who? Democrats.

For all of your jumping up and down screaming about the NC ballot measure? Might want to check the number of primary votes Obama got there. I'm totally sure that all those people voting for Obama surely didn't vote for the amendment. I mean that can't happen right? It's all those white red neck Republican hicks.

Again, don't let reality shatter that fragile world view.


I don't think anyone denies that some Democratic voters are morons... but only one of the two parties makes being a moron (in this specific way, mind you) part of the official platform.

You want to tell me I'm wrong?
 
2012-05-13 03:20:48 AM

bugontherug: r1chard3: GAT_00: CPT Ethanolic: FlashHarry: The last paragraph is, to my mind, the most remarkable. It's advising Republican candidates to emphasize the conservative nature of gay marriage, to say how it encourages personal responsibility, commitment, stability and family values. It uses Dick Cheney's formula (which was for a couple of years, the motto of this blog) that "freedom means freedom for everyone." And it uses David Cameron's argument that you can be for gay marriage because you are a conservative.

bizarre.

Actually, it's 100% correct. The only reason it's "bizarre" is that conservatives are no longer conservative.

They are steadfastly opposing progress, innovation, and anything new. That is conservatism at its heart.

I disagree. Conservatism is to try to conserve what you have.

I'm a conservative in that I want to preserve the system of social services, regulations, and workers rights that gave us a distribution of wealth and prosperity that made us the envy of the world.

I understand where you're coming from, but surely you can see that's not the most usual use of the word "conservative" in America.


Absolutely. The word has been appropriated by radicals who are fundamentally anti-American and anti-democratic.
 
2012-05-13 03:23:18 AM

God-is-a-Taco: r1chard3:
I disagree. Conservatism is to try to conserve what you have.

I'm a conservative in that I want to preserve the system of social services, regulations, and workers rights that gave us a distribution of wealth and prosperity that made us the envy of the world.


Uhhh.... Not one of those is in the "Conservatism" column.


They are part of our system, I want to conserve them.

Ergo.

I am a conservative.
 
2012-05-13 06:04:24 AM
cache.gawker.com

Corporate Self: Republicans have always been vehement supporters of gay rights!

 
2012-05-13 08:33:58 AM

Weaver95: I think the evangelical wing of the GOP would rather chew their own lips off than change their stance on gay marriage. in their view, they'd rather see the Republican party destroyed than 'compromise with evil'.


You forget how quickly and easily these people change positions. From 2011-2008 disagreeing with the president was treason. On 2009 it became the highest form of patriotism. The conservative base has no principles beyond "stick it to those people" and no goal beyond "winning".

Romney is absolutely the perfect fit for the right wingers of this country.
 
2012-05-13 11:36:32 AM
Garble 2012-05-13 08:33:58 AM

Weaver95: I think the evangelical wing of the GOP would rather chew their own lips off than change their stance on gay marriage. in their view, they'd rather see the Republican party destroyed than 'compromise with evil'.

You forget how quickly and easily these people change positions. From 2011-2008 disagreeing with the president was treason. On 2009 it became the highest form of patriotism.


Yeah good point but do ya think people are just gonna keep on not noticing this kinda thing??

I'm waiting for the Southern Baptists to suddenly decide that Israel was created by Satan.
 
2012-05-13 09:25:02 PM

Kittypie070: Yeah good point but do ya think people are just gonna keep on not noticing this kinda thing??


Well, presumably by "people" you're not talking about those who already notice it. Those who haven't....

Has anyone pointed you at the work of Dr. Robert Altemeyer yet?
 
2012-05-14 02:33:07 AM

GAT_00: CPT Ethanolic: FlashHarry: The last paragraph is, to my mind, the most remarkable. It's advising Republican candidates to emphasize the conservative nature of gay marriage, to say how it encourages personal responsibility, commitment, stability and family values. It uses Dick Cheney's formula (which was for a couple of years, the motto of this blog) that "freedom means freedom for everyone." And it uses David Cameron's argument that you can be for gay marriage because you are a conservative.

bizarre.

Actually, it's 100% correct. The only reason it's "bizarre" is that conservatives are no longer conservative.

They are steadfastly opposing progress, innovation, and anything new. That is conservatism at its heart.


Yeah, but they're also radicals in that they want to dramatically alter the economy and society by dismantling the decades old welfare system. If they were truly conservative they would want to be maintaining the status quo.
 
2012-05-14 02:36:06 AM

Weaver95: I think the evangelical wing of the GOP would rather chew their own lips off than change their stance on gay marriage. in their view, they'd rather see the Republican party destroyed than 'compromise with evil'.

meh. works for me.


That's really ironic.
 
2012-05-14 02:55:35 AM

hubiestubert: miscreant: hubiestubert: To be fair, I always have been. I'm still waiting for the rest of the party to catch up and stop listening to mouth breathers who only pick and choose the parts of the Bible that they like, and who seem to hate freedom of religion and equality under the law...

But we all know that you would have been considered a RINO long before you actually got fed up and left.

What bothered me about that is that I hewed to the sort of Republicanism that my Grandmother adhered to. The party has been askew for some time, but someone had to try to vote for sane folks. The leadership has abandoned that for the Wing Nut Brigade, and more's the pity, because we could some Old Skool right now in the party. Not the Voodoo Economics folks, and far less adventurism...


The funny thing is you just described Obama. If he were a politician outside of the US Obama would be considered fairly conservative, but in a sane, non-extremist way.
 
2012-05-14 11:20:31 AM

starsrift: Not everyone can feel empathy and responsibility for people they can only imagine and read about or see on TV.


Sure, that's what makes them assholes.

RedT: Quite frankly, there is nothing wrong with this.


So it's OK to discriminate and treat others badly if you are ignorant? There's nothing wrong with racist crackers because they just don't know how black people can actually be OK?

Come on. They're assholes, just call them that and move on. You don't need to reflexively defend assholes because it's PC or some shiat. This isn't 1992.
 
2012-05-15 12:56:02 PM
abb3w 2012-05-13 09:25:02 PM

Kittypie070: Yeah good point but do ya think people are just gonna keep on not noticing this kinda thing??

Well, presumably by "people" you're not talking about those who already notice it. Those who haven't....

Has anyone pointed you at the work of Dr. Robert Altemeyer yet?


Yeah I have. I got copies on my HD.

I think I better give up RIGHT NOW on the people who refuse to see what's metaphorically stuck right on their faces directly over their feeler-bedecked mouthflaps.

It'll spare what's left of my sanity.
 
2012-05-15 06:23:48 PM

Kittypie070: feeler-bedecked mouthflaps.


images2.wikia.nocookie.net

"Hey, f*ck you right back, lady."
 
Displayed 49 of 199 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report