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.

(CBS News)   Log Cabin Republicans: *heavy sigh* Fine, fark it, we endorse Mitt Romney for president because we're pretty sure he won't be as anti-gay a president as he's pretending to be on the campaign trail   (cbsnews.com) divider line 115
    More: Asinine, Log Cabin Republicans, Mitt Romney, GOP, CBS MoneyWatch, LGBT Americans, Stonewall Democrats  
•       •       •

1132 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Oct 2012 at 12:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-24 10:43:48 AM  
It's no weirder for gay people to vote Republican than it is for middle class people. In either case you are helping to elect someone who quite openly and publicly is working against your interests
 
2012-10-24 10:49:53 AM  
Log Cabin Republicans take self-loathing to a whole, new level. You've really got to hate yourself to willingly elect a group of people whose platforms consist of vilifying you and making your life more and more miserable.
 
2012-10-24 11:02:36 AM  
I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for the LCR group. I don't care how "severely conservative" they are on any other issue -- to continue to vote for a party who has made it a point to go out of their way to deny you everything from spousal benefits, health insurance, even the right to marry or raise a family, is beyond insane.

50 years from now, the LCR will appear in the Wikipedia as an example of Stockholm syndrome.
 
2012-10-24 11:37:23 AM  
I can understand if they don't want to vote Democratic, but they could decide to abandon the GOP and vote LP.
 
2012-10-24 11:38:52 AM  
I'm starting to believe that the Log Cabin Republicans are really more of a "Jews for Jesus" outfit: i.e., a total fraud.
 
2012-10-24 11:42:25 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for the LCR group.

 
2012-10-24 11:43:16 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for the LCR group. I don't care how "severely conservative" they are on any other issue -- to continue to vote for a party who has made it a point to go out of their way to deny you everything from spousal benefits, health insurance, even the right to marry or raise a family, is beyond insane.

50 years from now, the LCR will appear in the Wikipedia as an example of Stockholm syndrome.


I realized something about social conservatives. Their moral policy is "Die alone." There is absolutely no other reason to prevent visitation rights between homosexual partners. Marriage you can argue about. Adoption you can argue about. Preventing visitation is nothing more than "If we disagree with your lifestyle morally, we want you to die alone."
 
2012-10-24 11:43:19 AM  
I dont have any problem with Log Cabin Republicans existing as a concept. If you agree with 95% of one parties ideas, you join then and try to get them to change their position on that other 5%.
 
2012-10-24 11:44:58 AM  

DamnYankees: I dont have any problem with Log Cabin Republicans existing as a concept. If you agree with 95% of one parties ideas, you join then and try to get them to change their position on that other 5%.


Not to Godwin, but that's kind of like Jews who are really pro-Germany and want a stronger military joining the Nazi party because it's really just one thing. When a group has a clear and fundamental moral objection to your existence as you are now, it doesn't matter how much you might like your other policies. You are a fool to join them.
 
2012-10-24 11:45:56 AM  

Bloody William: DamnYankees: I dont have any problem with Log Cabin Republicans existing as a concept. If you agree with 95% of one parties ideas, you join then and try to get them to change their position on that other 5%.

Not to Godwin, but that's kind of like Jews who are really pro-Germany and want a stronger military joining the Nazi party because it's really just one thing. When a group has a clear and fundamental moral objection to your existence as you are now, it doesn't matter how much you might like your other policies. You are a fool to join them.


Fair rejoinder.
 
2012-10-24 11:46:58 AM  

kronicfeld: I'm starting to believe that the Log Cabin Republicans are really more of a "Jews for Jesus" outfit: i.e., a total fraud.


Trust me, they are for serious. I dont agree with them on most (if not nearly all) things, but they certainly believe in what they are doing.

Vodka Zombie: Log Cabin Republicans take self-loathing to a whole, new level.


You should meet GOProud.
 
2012-10-24 11:53:10 AM  
As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act - a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton - but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Go fark yourselves
 
2012-10-24 12:00:25 PM  

DamnYankees: I dont have any problem with Log Cabin Republicans existing as a concept. If you agree with 95% of one parties ideas, you join then and try to get them to change their position on that other 5%.


It would make sense for them to get behind Gary Johnson. That way they can be conservative and not vote for someone out to screw them over. Plus the 'get behind' and 'johnson' jokes would just write themselves.
 
2012-10-24 12:00:58 PM  
I don't know. If I was a wealthy gay guy, and fairly greedy and amoral, I would probably vote republican.

Not that I would want to be any of those things. Well, except wealthy and gay.
 
2012-10-24 12:02:47 PM  
Is it just me, or do many decisions to vote for Romney hinge on the supposition that he probably won't do what he says he will?
 
2012-10-24 12:03:34 PM  
The best thing they can say about Romney is that he's a liar.

Fascinating.
 
2012-10-24 12:04:15 PM  
Do they not remember when Mitt fired the gay guy from his campaign?
 
2012-10-24 12:04:21 PM  
Show some farking backbone people.

Although I'm still not certain why religions that have or have had polygamy don't encourage some homosexuality to lessen the competition for wives.
 
2012-10-24 12:04:30 PM  

slayer199: I can understand if they don't want to vote Democratic, but they could decide to abandon the GOP and vote LP.


Why? The LP will cry "states rights" and then the Deep South will treat the LGBTs like sub-human species.
 
2012-10-24 12:05:03 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Log Cabin Republicans take self-loathing to a whole, new level. You've really got to hate yourself to willingly elect a group of people whose platforms consist of vilifying you and making your life more and more miserable.


People who call others self-loathing because you don't understand their perspective take self-loathing to a whole new level.

/see! I can make a superficial lazy argument just like you can!
 
2012-10-24 12:05:20 PM  

Jackson Herring: As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act - a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton - but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Go fark yourselves


'sabout the only farking they'd be allowed under a Romney presidency.

// does Romney have an anti-fapping plank?
// please let him have said something like (IIRC Santorum's) "masturbation is adultery"
 
2012-10-24 12:05:26 PM  

sprawl15: The best thing they can say about Romney is that he's a liar.

Fascinating.


I would just like you o know I read your response in the voice of the six-fingered man

/I giggled
 
2012-10-24 12:05:43 PM  
So apparently they're bottoms.

What's the point of having a lobby/caucus if you just roll over for the bigots?
 
2012-10-24 12:05:56 PM  

qorkfiend: Is it just me, or do many decisions to vote for Romney hinge on the supposition that he probably won't do what he says he will?


Well that has to be the case, doesn't it?

He has taken every position on every issue. The box will open if he wins, and he'd have to leave quantum superposition when it did.
 
2012-10-24 12:06:31 PM  
"Mitt Romney is not Rick Santorum, and Paul Ryan is not Michele Bachmann. Otherwise, our decision would have been different," the group said.
 

Yeah. And Josef Stalin is not like Pol Pot.

Dumbf*cks.
 
2012-10-24 12:06:38 PM  
GO TEAM!?
 
2012-10-24 12:06:40 PM  

Magorn: It's no weirder for gay people to vote Republican than it is for middle class people. In either case you are helping to elect someone who quite openly and publicly is working against your interests


Or poor people, or minorities, or women, or non-Christians...
 
2012-10-24 12:06:55 PM  
From Dan Savage's column today:


Gay Republicans, Dan. Why? How?
- Confused

Self-loathing, that's why. Homophobia, that's how.
 
2012-10-24 12:07:30 PM  

Rann Xerox: "Mitt Romney is not Rick Santorum, and Paul Ryan is not Michele Bachmann. Otherwise, our decision would have been different," the group said.


Do they believe Romney would be willing to veto bills sent to him by the House GOP? Because if not, this point is irrelevant.
 
2012-10-24 12:07:47 PM  

Bloody William: Not to Godwin, but that's kind of like Jews who are really pro-Germany and want a stronger military joining the Nazi party because it's really just one thing. When a group has a clear and fundamental moral objection to your existence as you are now, it doesn't matter how much you might like your other policies. You are a fool to join them.


Comparing 2012 America to 1930s Germany is pretty farking pathetic. Have ever actual read a history book?
 
2012-10-24 12:08:02 PM  
"If LGBT issues are a voter's highest or only priority, then ... yada yada yada . . . with legislative attacks on LGBT Americans."

Maybe LGBT Americans should do what LDS Americans do, declare their specialness to be a religion. 

Of course they'll need to have special clothes, special clubhouses, secret rituals.

Maybe they could go to camp to get all these things done.
 
2012-10-24 12:08:19 PM  

Rann Xerox: "Mitt Romney is not Rick Santorum, and Paul Ryan is not Michele Bachmann. Otherwise, our decision would have been different," the group said.
 

Yeah. And Josef Stalin is not like Pol Pot.

Dumbf*cks.


Torquemada's no Hitler.
 
2012-10-24 12:10:05 PM  
Why do they think he won't pursue that agenda? Things like gay rights and abortion are the *easiest* thing to pursue once the president takes office. Deficits, health care, entitlements, military spending....those issues are frickin' complicated and can quickly fragment his base.
 
2012-10-24 12:11:11 PM  
Magorn: It's no weirder for gay people to vote Republican than it is for middle class people. In either case you are helping to elect someone who quite openly and publicly is working against your interests

Riight, because no body considers anything but tax policy and gay rights when deciding who they will vote for or against. Gun control, the death penalty, illegal immigration, foreign policy, abortion, and energy policy are all non existant, amirite?

Sometimes you have to decide between one issue and another because neither side agrees with you on EVERYTHING
 
2012-10-24 12:11:21 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Magorn: It's no weirder for gay people to vote Republican than it is for middle class people. In either case you are helping to elect someone who quite openly and publicly is working against your interests

Or poor people, or minorities, or women, or non-Christians...


When it comes down to it, even rich white christian men voting for Republicans are going to lose out in the long term when they fark the American economy beyond recovery, so even Romney voting for himself as President is most likely voting against his own interests, let alone the other 99% of the population they public and directly want to fark over.
 
2012-10-24 12:12:12 PM  
He himself may not be actively anti-gay but he courts and coddles those who are and will do nothing to oppose them.

www.theage.com.au
 
2012-10-24 12:12:31 PM  

gingerjet: Bloody William: Not to Godwin, but that's kind of like Jews who are really pro-Germany and want a stronger military joining the Nazi party because it's really just one thing. When a group has a clear and fundamental moral objection to your existence as you are now, it doesn't matter how much you might like your other policies. You are a fool to join them.

Comparing 2012 America to 1930s Germany is pretty farking pathetic. Have ever actual read a history book?


It's not pathetic, it's hyperbole. While the GOP hasn't expressly stated they want LGBTs to not exist, they just don't want them to have the same rights as other humans in the United States, therefore creating a sub-human designation for them.

And it's impossible to see how being deemed less-than-human could really ever work against you....

Slippery Slope - you should learn the term before advocating someone else read a book.
 
2012-10-24 12:12:49 PM  
We believe Gov. Romney will make cutting spending and job creation his priorities, and, as his record as governor of Massachusetts suggests, will not waste his precious time in office with legislative attacks on LGBT Americans

Sure, Romney might not actively push anything but he sure is shiat isn't going to be in your corner when the radical GOP members in the House draft legislation to curb your rights. Hes also not going actively support any legislation that might further your cause.

But hey, you might have a few extra bucks in your pocket. So you've got that going for you
 
2012-10-24 12:13:25 PM  

gingerjet: Bloody William: Not to Godwin, but that's kind of like Jews who are really pro-Germany and want a stronger military joining the Nazi party because it's really just one thing. When a group has a clear and fundamental moral objection to your existence as you are now, it doesn't matter how much you might like your other policies. You are a fool to join them.

Comparing 2012 America to 1930s Germany is pretty farking pathetic. Have ever actual read a history book?


I'm not comparing 2012 America to 1930s German. I'm comparing the 2012 Republican party to the 1930s Nazi party.

Actually, I'm not. I'm just pointing out that both groups have an existential problem with, respectively, gays and Jews. The measures by which they'll act are different, but fundamentally both groups believe the people in question are fundamentally immoral and do not deserve the same rights we do, to the extent that, for example, gay men should die alone in hospitals isolated from their loved ones instead of allowing visitation rights.

This is a fundamental problem with specific groups used as planks by these organizations. I'm not going to apologize for drawing parallels.
 
2012-10-24 12:13:59 PM  

gilgigamesh: I don't know. If I was a wealthy gay guy, and fairly greedy and amoral, I would probably vote republican.

Not that I would want to be any of those things. Well, except wealthy and gay.


Wealthy people are better off when marriages aren't a possibility.

I make a mere six figures and even I'm considering the value of a prenup.
 
2012-10-24 12:14:54 PM  

LandOfChocolate: We believe Gov. Romney will make cutting spending and job creation his priorities, and, as his record as governor of Massachusetts suggests, will not waste his precious time in office with legislative attacks on LGBT Americans

Sure, Romney might not actively push anything but he sure is shiat isn't going to be in your corner when the radical GOP members in the House draft legislation to curb your rights. Hes also not going actively support any legislation that might further your cause.

But hey, you might have a few extra bucks in your pocket. So you've got that going for you


Maybe they can use those few dollars to bribe the hospital security guard to allow them to see their dying partners.
 
2012-10-24 12:15:53 PM  

LandOfChocolate: Sure, Romney might not actively push anything but he sure is shiat isn't going to be in your corner when the radical GOP members in the House draft legislation to curb your rights. Hes also not going actively support any legislation that might further your cause.


And he'll leave issues "up to the states," which means not only is marriage a no-go in most states, but whether you can visit your partner in the hospital is up to the moralizing laws of the state in which you live.

I want to bring this up again, because I honestly don't see how it's moral in any way. Marriage and adoption you can make the flimsy argument, but visitation rights are literally nothing more than saying "If you are gay, then die alone."
 
2012-10-24 12:16:57 PM  

Oldiron_79: Magorn: It's no weirder for gay people to vote Republican than it is for middle class people. In either case you are helping to elect someone who quite openly and publicly is working against your interests

Riight, because no body considers anything but tax policy and gay rights when deciding who they will vote for or against. Gun control, the death penalty, illegal immigration, foreign policy, abortion, and energy policy are all non existant, amirite?

Sometimes you have to decide between one issue and another because neither side agrees with you on EVERYTHING


If there was a major-party candidate whose party platform was "Jews don't get freedom of religion because everyone knows that the Founders meant 'freedom of Christian belief'", after years of states passing similar Constitutional amendments and generally making the religious lives of Jews difficult (if not hellish), it really wouldn't matter if the other guy was a full-on Randroid and our hypothetical Jew-hater was a Democratic Socialist.

Some positions are just trump cards (or reverse-trumps, where playing that card means you lose). I'd rather take my chances in a pure meritocracy (pfft, like that's what Randroids want anyway) than one where my freedom to practice could be questioned.

// not actually a practicing Jew
// "agnostic", then
// or how about "black", since that was actually a thing in US history?
 
2012-10-24 12:16:58 PM  
I recommend the documentary Outrage for a good exposé of self loathing gays and the impact it has in the community.
 
2012-10-24 12:18:25 PM  

Smackledorfer: gilgigamesh: I don't know. If I was a wealthy gay guy, and fairly greedy and amoral, I would probably vote republican.

Not that I would want to be any of those things. Well, except wealthy and gay.

Wealthy people are better off when marriages aren't a possibility.

I make a mere six figures and even I'm considering the value of a prenup.


Aw come on. TFA isn't even about measuring penii.

*checks profile* Oh god you're serious. Nevermind. :P
 
2012-10-24 12:19:04 PM  

Bloody William: Actually, I'm not. I'm just pointing out that both groups have an existential problem with, respectively, gays and Jews.


Actually, both groups have/had an existential problem with gays, really no reason to bring the Jews into it at all.
 
2012-10-24 12:20:00 PM  

coeyagi: It's not pathetic, it's hyperbole. While the GOP hasn't expressly stated they want LGBTs to not exist, they just don't want them to have the same rights as other humans in the United States, therefore creating a sub-human designation for them.


Some of them have kinda said that. At least, they support countries that imprison or kill homosexuals.
 
2012-10-24 12:21:00 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Log Cabin Republicans take self-loathing to a whole, new level. You've really got to hate yourself to willingly elect a group of people whose platforms consist of vilifying you and making your life more and more miserable.


This; instead of showing a pair and telling their brethren in no uncertain terms to show a spine and stand up to the crazies within the GOP, they go along with it.

If you wanna make a statement that shows you are sick and tired of the direction your party's gone, you go ahead and break with them.
 
2012-10-24 12:21:24 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: coeyagi: It's not pathetic, it's hyperbole. While the GOP hasn't expressly stated they want LGBTs to not exist, they just don't want them to have the same rights as other humans in the United States, therefore creating a sub-human designation for them.

Some of them have kinda said that. At least, they support countries that imprison or kill homosexuals.


True, there are individuals that have said it, but the GOP platform thus far has only said that gays are f*cked when it comes to equal rights.
 
2012-10-24 12:21:54 PM  
I have never met a gay person who was a Log Cabin Republican. I've met plenty of religious gay people, super religious, I've met plenty of conservative ones, plenty of gays who feel utter loathing towards other gay people. None of them were Log Cabin Republicans. With these people if it comes up as a topic of conversation then they agree that the LCRs are a batty organization. It doesn't make any sense.
 
Displayed 50 of 115 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report