Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#427 Mar 17 2015 at 5:47 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
No secret mystery -- he resigned because he was misusing funds and about to get hit hard with an ethics investigation. When you bill 170,000 miles on your car and then sell it with an odometer reading 80,000 it's not because you might be gay.

To be fair to Gbaji, I, too, find it hard to believe a GOP congressperson would resign over simply obvious fraud and corruption. The gay angle makes way more sense.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#428 Mar 17 2015 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
That seems a bit far fetched as well though (not the being *** bit, but the needing to resign because of it)

It doesn't seem farfetched that he'd have to resign rather than be an openly *** GOP congressman? I guess that makes sense, I mean the GOP has no issue electing gays to congress like...um...well...Jim Kolbe? No? 10 years ago. Oh, well. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd imagine at least 30% of the GOP delegation is ***..just as it happens, in the last 10 years there have been zero openly *** GOP congresspeople. Because you people are spineless cowards as everyone knows.


No. Because almost every time an openly gay person tries to run as a Republican, or is outted while holding office as a Republican, the Left tosses some sort of sex crime allegation at them. There's an enormous political value for the Left to maintain the idea that only the Democratic party is friendly or open to homosexuality and they'll go to great lengths to protect it. Conservatives who dare to be gay (or gay people who dare to be conservative) face pretty ridiculous character assaults, almost entirely from the Left, not the Right.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#429 Mar 17 2015 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
No. Because almost every time an openly *** person tries to run as a Republican, or is outted while holding office as a Republican, the Left tosses some sort of *** crime allegation at them. There's an enormous political value for the Left to maintain the idea that only the Democratic party is friendly or open to homosexuality

Hahahhaha. Holy ****. Yeah, that's it. It's the "Left" working hard to "convince" people that Republicans hate gays. If only we could get that to work with bigoted white guys, then we'd really have something. I'll write a letter to Mother Jones.

Edited, Mar 17th 2015 7:53pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#430 Mar 17 2015 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
No. Because almost every time an openly *** person tries to run as a Republican, or is outted while holding office as a Republican, the Left tosses some sort of *** crime allegation at them. There's an enormous political value for the Left to maintain the idea that only the Democratic party is friendly or open to homosexuality and they'll go to great lengths to protect it.

So I guess only gay people can be "open to homosexuality" because apparently the only thing holding the GOP back are these devious attacks on gay Republicans. Man, the day the GOP finds out that straight people can also not be assholes to the gays, the Democrats are gonna be screwed.

Edited, Mar 17th 2015 6:58pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#431 Mar 17 2015 at 7:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Whatever. The real question is, who's going to play him in the movie? I'm thinking Neal Patrick Harris.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#432 Mar 17 2015 at 7:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. Because almost every time an openly *** person tries to run as a Republican, or is outted while holding office as a Republican, the Left tosses some sort of *** crime allegation at them. There's an enormous political value for the Left to maintain the idea that only the Democratic party is friendly or open to homosexuality and they'll go to great lengths to protect it.

So I guess only gay people can be "open to homosexuality" because apparently the only thing holding the GOP back are these devious attacks on gay Republicans.


When the absence of openly gay Republicans is used (right up above by Smash) as evidence of the GOP being anti-gay, then it's not far fetched to suggest that this might motivate liberal political organizations to actively prevent homosexuals from running (and especially from winning) on any GOP ticket. Combine that with an open and active effort to out closeted gay Republicans on the grounds that any gay person who is Republican must be a hypocrite (which itself assumes that the only political positions which must matter to all gay people are "gay rights" issues), and the fact that there are few openly gay Republicans is not surprising at all. There's been a concerted effort to eliminate them, not by the Right, but by the Left.

Just Read this idiots explanation of why he went after gay Republicans. Still in doubt as to why there aren't many openly gay Republicans? It's because of assumptions like his, which are pretty rampant on the left side of politics. There's a prevailing belief that you can't be gay and conservative. So anyone who is must be lying about something, or self hating, or some other silly thing. It never occurs to people like this that maybe it's possible for someone to disagree with them on what it means to be gay, and what political positions a gay person may have. Heaven forbid gay people be free to have their own opinions or anything. Nope. They must be liberals, or they are evil hypocrites deserving of any sort of personal attack that will drive them from the public eye.


Quote:
Man, the day the GOP finds out that straight people can also not be assholes to the gays, the Democrats are gonna be screwed.


Again, missing the point. The Left engages in a circular attack. They go after any openly gay person who tries to run as a Republican, and they attack any gay Republican that they can find out is gay. Because they are gay. And then, they use the fact that there aren't many openly gay Republicans as support for their claim that the GOP is anti-gay. And since this also silences any conservative gay voices who may actually challenge their assumptions about what gay people must believe, it allows them to continue to maintain this lie.

But to do so they must actively prevent gay people from expressing conservative ideas and positions, and especially from holding public office in the GOP.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#433 Mar 17 2015 at 8:17 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
When the absence of openly *** Republicans is used (right up above by Smash) as evidence of the GOP being anti-***, then it's not far fetched to suggest that this might motivate liberal political organizations to actively prevent homosexuals from running (and especially from winning) on any GOP ticket.

How? How the fuck are Democrats "actively preventing" republican gays from running or winning? I mean, I know you people are mush brained simpletons who have to be lead by the hand into every decision, but how the hell do *Democrats* manage to do that? Limbaugh: "Folks, I'd really like it if you'd vote for Billy McGayerson in Iowa." Rachel Madow: "Don't vote for McGayerson!"
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#434 Mar 17 2015 at 9:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
When the absence of openly *** Republicans is used (right up above by Smash) as evidence of the GOP being anti-***

Oh, it's far from the only evidence. I'm sure your average gay guy is more offended by conservatives who say "You wouldn't want a drug addict or child molester working for you, so why shouldn't we let employers discriminate against gay people" than doing head counts of Congress.

I suppose blaming it on Democrats and the media is a little easier on the soul though while allowing you to continue doing what you do.
Quote:
Again, missing the point.

The irony comes from the blind sincerity with which you say it.

Edited, Mar 17th 2015 10:05pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#435 Mar 18 2015 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
NSFK:
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#436 Mar 18 2015 at 7:37 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Still in doubt as to why there aren't many openly *** Republicans?
No, I'm sure your single op-ed about a person's blog is evidence enough of you knowing what you're talking about.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#437 Mar 18 2015 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Well, looks like Netanyahu won. Time to play settlers of Canaan.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#438 Mar 18 2015 at 11:07 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Time to play settlers of Canaan.
I wonder who has Wood for Sheep.
#439 Mar 18 2015 at 12:18 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
I can do you rocks for rockets, if you like.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#440 Mar 18 2015 at 2:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Well, looks like Netanyahu won. Time to play settlers of Canaan.


Isn't that like Catan but with two robbers instead of one?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#441 Mar 18 2015 at 2:37 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Isn't that like Catan but with two robbers instead of one?

It's like if only one player could have resource cards.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#442 Mar 18 2015 at 3:19 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Isn't that like Catan but with two robbers instead of one?

It's like if only one player could have resource cards.


Well, that's what happens when robbers occupy territories.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#443 Mar 18 2015 at 3:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
When the absence of openly *** Republicans is used (right up above by Smash) as evidence of the GOP being anti-***, then it's not far fetched to suggest that this might motivate liberal political organizations to actively prevent homosexuals from running (and especially from winning) on any GOP ticket.

How? How the fuck are Democrats "actively preventing" republican gays from running or winning? I mean, I know you people are mush brained simpletons who have to be lead by the hand into every decision, but how the **** do *Democrats* manage to do that? Limbaugh: "Folks, I'd really like it if you'd vote for Billy McGayerson in Iowa." Rachel Madow: "Don't vote for McGayerson!"


Replace Madow with Barney Frank, and that's about right. Here's another article on the subject:

Quote:
In fact, the GOP candidates argue they face more hostility from Democrats than from members of their own party.


Note. Not just "opposition", but "hostility". There's a strong sense on the Left that gays are an identity group that should vote Democrat and they tend to get angry if a gay person tries to run as a Republican because they might loose that association.

I can't speak for the other two, but I watched the Demaio race here in San Diego and it got very very ugly. And at the last minute (like 3 days before the election), what do you know? Allegations of sexual harassment appeared out of nowhere. I'm sure that was just a coincidence though. And while the national media worked hard to make the narrative about bigoted conservatives not wanting to vote for Demaio because of his sexual orientation (and I'm sure they found one or two people willing to say that somehow) him being gay wasn't even an issue around here for conservatives. It was a *huge* issue for liberals though. Amazingly negative stuff came from that side. I saw it first hand. So yeah, I'm going to stick with the idea that it's the Left that really doesn't want gay Republicans, not the right.

Edited, Mar 18th 2015 2:53pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#444 Mar 18 2015 at 3:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When the absence of openly *** Republicans is used (right up above by Smash) as evidence of the GOP being anti-***

Oh, it's far from the only evidence. I'm sure your average gay guy is more offended by conservatives who say "You wouldn't want a drug addict or child molester working for you, so why shouldn't we let employers discriminate against gay people" than doing head counts of Congress.


Quoting a case where you showed the inability to tell the difference between analogy and equality doesn't make your position stronger here.

Quote:
I suppose blaming it on Democrats and the media is a little easier on the soul though while allowing you to continue doing what you do.


And yet, I voted for the openly gay Republican, while his opponent launched some pretty foul and stereotypical "gay's are icky!" attacks on him. My soul is perfectly fine Joph.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#445 Mar 18 2015 at 3:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Really I was noting the well you always go to for your "analogies". But, hey, keep being blind and whining about Democrats tricking all the homosexuals. That'll probably work too.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#446 Mar 18 2015 at 4:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Really I was noting the well you always go to for your "analogies".


You mean when you selectively choose to assume that when I make an analogy, I'm equating the two things, when what I'm really trying to do is get people to examine how they make decisions between them. In the thread you linked, I provided a pretty clear explanation of this:

gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:

I find it telling that while several people have responded with various degrees of scorn, dismissal, and derision, not one person has actually been able to answer the somewhat important question I asked.

Well I was trying to, but what do you mean by alcoholic? There's a difference between someone who has a history of causing alcohol-related problems both in and out of the workplace and someone who has a few too many beers.



It's not about whether someone's an alcoholic, or how we determine that. You're missing the forest for the trees. It could be the color shirt someone wears, or whether they like boxers or briefs, or wear a hat. It's not about the specific case, but about what criteria you use to determine which cases are ok and which aren't.

Is is ok for me to refuse to hire people based on the color of their eyes? Assuming no direct correlation to race is involved, this doesn't violate the civil rights laws of this country, right? How about the size of someone's hands? Or feet? Hair length? Height? Weight? It's not about the specific criteria, but how we decide which criteria is "ok" to discriminate based on, and which aren't? I'm asking for a non-circular criteria for this (so "because that's discrimination", or "that would violate someone's rights" isn't a good answer). Why do some forms of discrimination violate someone's rights sufficiently to justify prohibiting them, but others do not? And if it is truly arbitrary, then is there really a morality issue involved at all? And if there isn't an absolute morality issue involved, then are we wrong to demonize people simply because they disagree with our completely arbitrary decision?


That's where I'm going with this.


The specific cases I'm using in the analogies are irrelevant. They could be anything. The point I was trying to get across was about how me make the determination with regard to which things it's ok to discriminate based on, and which things it's not. As per usual though, this concept sailed right across most people's heads. And you specifically want for the low hanging fruit counter by obsessing over things I used as analogies (selectively even!), right after I'd just explained that this wasn't relevant to my argument.

You still don't get this? Really? And after all this time, you still think that post by you is anything other than an example of you failing to grasp the point I was making. So much so that you'd dredge it up and quote it like some kind of badge of honor or something. Wow. Just wow.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#447 Mar 18 2015 at 4:34 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji, is there some reason most of your links are 404 just lately?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#448 Mar 18 2015 at 5:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's cool. You should continue to believe that it's Democratic shenanigans giving conservatives a bad reputation among homosexuals.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#449 Mar 18 2015 at 5:23 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Because they're censored for the word gay. Just use that to sub for the asterisks.

Really it looks to me like the Democrats are showing that a gay Republican is actually working against his own best interests and that gay voters would be doing the same in supporting him.

Edit: Of course, if the word gay is censored for gbaji then it is for me too, which means you can't really tell what I'm saying when I say gay, but in reference to the current discussion I figure it's easy enough to figure out.

Edited, Mar 18th 2015 7:25pm by Debalic
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#450 Mar 18 2015 at 7:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
Really it looks to me like the Democrats are showingassume that a *** Republican is actually working against his own best interests and that *** voters would be doing the same in supporting him.


Let me make a small adjustment to what you said. The point, which is raised by a number of gay conservatives (if you actually bother to read what they write/say about rather than what other people write/say about them), is that on the Right side of politics we don't place the same weight on identity as the Left does. We don't assume that if you are gay, that "gay issues" are the number one thing you care about. We don't assume that if you are a woman, that "women's issues" are the number one thing you care about. Same for being black, latino, jewish, catholic, etc, etc, etc.

The problem is that the Left does place great weight on identity. Also, the Left has a habit of assuming that their position on a given issue regarding identity is synonymous with that identity's "rights". So being pro-SSM is being "for gay rights" (and by extension anyone opposed to SSM is "against gay rights". This leaves them in a distinct quandary when a gay person chooses to be conservative, much less run for office as a Republican since it flies in the face of the assumptions they start with. How can someone who is gay oppose gay rights? Well, they don't. They just don't place the same weight on "gay", nor make the same assumption that any given position is equivalent for being for/against "gay rights" in general.

Remember also (as I have mentioned many many times) that conservatives do not define rights the same way liberals do. Liberals tend to equate rights with benefits provided, while conservatives only define them as the absence of restrictions. So SSM does not qualify as a "right" to conservatives. Period. A conservative's position on SSM, therefore, is less about rights than about how he feels about promoting particular types of relationships, and frankly how devoted he is to the small government idea (there is a reasonable range in this area). Main point being that it's not contradictory for a gay person to be conservative, nor a Republican. It does not mean he works against his best interests (because he defines his best interests in a broader scope than "what's good for me as a gay person").


I've said many times that the mistake liberals make is assuming that conservatives believe the same things as liberals, but just choose to take the opposite positions. That's not true at all. We really do place different weights on things, and view things differently. When we arrive at different positions, it's not because we think doing X is the right thing to do, but are evil nasty people who do the opposite out of spite. And frankly, I think it's somewhat silly when some liberals present arguments that rest on this assumption. You can't possibly really believe that half of the population are evil mustache twirling bad guys who do evil just because they like to make people suffer. Can you?

And if you can accept that we don't take our positions out of some unexplainable malice, then maybe open your mind to the sorts of explanations for our positions that we freely give whenever asked instead of just rejecting them out of hand. Just a thought.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#451 Mar 18 2015 at 7:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
You can't possibly really believe that half of the population are evil mustache twirling bad guys who do evil just because they like to make people suffer. Can you?

Nah. Nor do I believe it's "unexplainable" or intentional "malice". I think it's usually some mixture of apathy for others, unwillingness to take any sort of a hit so someone else can benefit, racism, sexism, xenophobia, nationalism. jingoism, entitlement, elitism, fear of change, religion, tradition or just listening to others who suffer from the above and coming up with convoluted reasons why their ideas aren't really based on those things. I mean, sure, someone can come up with some "liberty!" based reason for denying two people the right to marry and then say "But you have to try to understand my opinion" but at the end of the day they're still the one advocating to deny them the right to marry while they try and blame their party's problems on Democrat shenanigans.

Edited, Mar 18th 2015 8:54pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 232 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (232)