Join or sign in Register for your free TechRepublic membership or if you are already a member, sign in using your preferred method below. Use Your Email Use FacebookUse Linkedin

Gay-Bashing Republicans

Locked

TechRepublic member DaveSlam says about the people who oppose Bush’s war against the People of Iraq, “It has nothing to do with 100,000 dead Iraqis (I beleive that’s the correct number?) You’re just pissed about his stance against gay marriage. haha
[snip]
I would hate to make any ASSumptions about your moral fortitude.
—– —– —– —– —– —–

It’s a real tragedy that the Bush Regime has given voice and to people who have such hateful attitudes towards their fellow Americans. But the deed is done.

What do you think – is opposition to the War against the People of Iraq some sort of gay rights thing… or is it about basic human rights?

Topic

Twisted

In reply to Gay-Bashing Republicans

Again you post things out of context to fit your bizaro twisted political mantra.

I wasn’t gay bashing. I was Bucky bashing.

“Hateful attitudes against their fellow Americans”… Have you even read any of your posts, here or on other sites???

Take your meds.

Your Words Speak for Themself(?)

In reply to Twisted

re:
I wasn’t gay bashing. I was Bucky bashing.
—– —– —– —– —–

Your words speak for themselves. You were attempting to insult Bucky by saying he opposed the War against Iraq because of support for gay rights.

It was irrational, hateful… and *very* Republican.

re:
Have you even read any of your posts, here or on other sites???
——- ——- ——- ——-

Why do Republican ask dumb questions, and give dumb answers. Are they really that dumb?

Yes, I’ve read my posts – often, before I even post them. Is there a point or were you just on another hate-based NeoCon rant.

I’ve noticed that NeoCons, faced with your own unChristian and unAmerican hate-mongering often get irrationally defensive like that.

You would be wise to adopt a position that allows for “rational” defense.

all republicans are dumb….?!

In reply to Your Words Speak for Themself(?)

It’s called intellectual superiority, and nobody is falling for it…..
If I had a dime for every time I was called dumb, bush or republicans were called dumb….I would literally be rich…
If you all or soooooooo smart, win an election by running one of your einstein like candidates to outsmart the republicans and actually WIN AN ELECTION WITH A MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY VOTING FOR YOU….its been a while….I know…..

NeoCons – Anti-Intellect?!

In reply to all republicans are dumb….?!

re:
It’s called intellectual superiority, and nobody is falling for it
—- —- —- —- —- —-

I’m always amazed by NeoCons who take such an aggressive stand *against* intellect.

I guess that explains Bush’s massive stockpile of intelligence failures.

LOL

In reply to all republicans are dumb….?!

this is soooo funny
you are only proving what you are trying to refute

Why don’t the republicans try winning an honest election next time without having to resort to stealing it from the Dems? lol

omg.. your post is sooo funny!!! lol

Most Republican are dumb, the other 2% like to stay rich

In reply to all republicans are dumb….?!

As for your comment, I believe you intended to spell/type: “If all of you are so smart” not ?If you all or soooooooo smart?

My point being made, no one ever accused the MAJORITY of Americans of being educated.
Now be a good boy and go back to watching your Nascar.

Are Republicans dumber than people who dig up four year old topics?

In reply to Most Republican are dumb, the other 2% like to stay rich

I’m sure a member of the educated minority would always check the date of a topic and know better than to respond to a four year old discussion.

You would think so

In reply to Are Republicans dumber than people who dig up four year old topics?

You would also think they would know the difference between a typo and a misspelling.

But whatever makes the assclown sleep at night…. ;\

I’d go so far as to say

In reply to You would think so

no talent assclown…if you excuse me I have to go see the Bobs. 😉

your words speak even louder

In reply to Your Words Speak for Themself(?)

Care to put away that broad brush?

I think

In reply to Gay-Bashing Republicans

You are way too sensitive.

Dave Slam is one poster, not the Republican Party, Karl Rove or George W. Bush. There were hateful people before any of these people existed, and will be long after.

And you make simplistic assumptions about opposition to the war. Just like there is never just one cause for a war, there is never just one reason for opposing it. Lots of people would like you to think otherwise, but its not so black and white.

You know by highlighting what Dave Slam said, you give it a certain amount of legitimacy. Better to just ignore it.

James

Hate-Based Party

In reply to I think

re:
Dave Slam is one poster, not the Republican Party, Karl Rove or George W. Bush.
—- —- —- —-

True, but he expressed a statement that well-represents the hate-based foundation of that Party.

I think the hate based party is:

In reply to Hate-Based Party

The party of slavery.
The party of Jim Crow.
The party of the KKK.
The party that has a former KKK leader in the senate
The party that attacked a woman’s infant child with Downs Syndrome.
The party that has attacked people simply for being gay, and made sniggering ‘wide stance’ jokes.
The party that celebrated the death of Tony Snow, but grieves over the treatment of people who want to kill us.

In other words, the Democrats.

You’re arguing with someone who’s been inactive for a year.

In reply to I think the hate based party is:

On four year old discussion. Let it go.

Breathe in, breathe out; move on.

And I thought I was a Jimmy Buffett fan :D

In reply to You’re arguing with someone who’s been inactive for a year.

.

I realized that *AFTER* I posted.

In reply to You’re arguing with someone who’s been inactive for a year.

DOH!

Trolls

In reply to Gay-Bashing Republicans

There be trolls under this bridge.

Reply To: Gay-Bashing Republicans

In reply to Gay-Bashing Republicans

Becky,
This was a childish statement yes…but to come to the conclusion that it was hateful is a stretch. He may be, however it is not clear from this brief statement. Being for the defense of a marriage between a man and a woman is not hate.

Expression of Love?

In reply to Reply To: Gay-Bashing Republicans

re:
This was a childish statement yes…but to come to the conclusion that it was hateful is a stretch.
—– —– —– —– —– —–

Perhaps you thought it was an expression of love?
It was indeed a hateful statement – one expressed often and loudly by *many*.

You wish to redefine hate

In reply to Expression of Love?

By painting people that make crass statements and disagree with your views as people of hate…..Burning crosses is hate…flying into buildings and killing 3000 people is hate.

Killing for LOVE

In reply to You wish to redefine hate

re:
By painting people that make crass statements and disagree with your views as people of hate…..Burning crosses is hate…flying into buildings and killing 3000 people is hate.
—- —- —- —- —- —-

Killing, murdering and torturing 100,000 Iraqis is what – Republican *affection*?

Let’s see what Christianity has to say about THAT.

“As you sew, so shall you reap”.
“Cast your bread upon the water, and it will come back to you tenfold”
“As you treat the least among you, so do you treat Him”.

and my favorite

“Thou shalt not kill”.

Bucky – You’re WAY out of line

In reply to Gay-Bashing Republicans

.
Not only did you take that guy’s comment out of context, but you started a thread with the explicit purpose of attacking a TechRepublic member.

You really need some help.

Off base

In reply to Bucky – You’re WAY out of line

Bucky that’s out of line. People can read each others posts just fine without you starting a discussion based on one heated line form one heated post. Taking quotes out of context and repeating them is the one thing Bush does that really gets under my skin, he’s like a broken record with it. Now you are doing the exact same thing in the same defensive manner, not too clever.

I did think Dave Slam showed some homophobia and prejudice in his post for all to see quite clearly, without you reiterating it with a different and rash conclusion.

Sometimes it’s best to let people have thier say and sink themselves, we don’t need cheerleaders pointing out the opponents fumbles, we are all watching the same game no matter which side of the field we sit on.

sorry Max, I intended to post beneath the main thread but ended up responding to your post by mistake.

Point taken

In reply to Off base

The original post was intended as a slam against Bucky due to his incessant ranting on the other posting. It was also “quite clearly”, and unintentially, predjudicial. I do sincerely appologize to anyone (except Bucky) that I offended.

NO offense taken

In reply to Point taken

You will learn in short time how unoffended I actually get by people’s comments. Yet I can offend others too easily it seems 🙂

I am just getting tired of it all now, I am tired of hearing people whine, I am tired of hearing people say the same old crap, long after it is too late.

Your post, well yes it was a heated rant, but there have been a few admittedly gay peers on here and I know you wouldn’t want to see them offended by this, however I am sure they are not.

Your shots at Bucky are justified, yet he is just a tired old man with no direction in life and some real medical, psychological problems.

Best to let him be for the most part I suppose, I know it’s hard but I am learning from some of the nutjobs here just how easy it is to get dragged into wasting hours of my time.

No offense taken, maybe just be careful what slams you toss around, you never know who’s reading.

Take care mate,
OM

What I meant was….

In reply to Point taken

re:
The original post was intended as a slam against Bucky due to his incessant ranting on the other posting. It was also “quite clearly”, and unintentially, predjudicial. I do sincerely appologize to anyone (except Bucky) that I offended.
—– —– —– —– —– —–

It’s my fault. I know better than to take NeoCons at their word. It’s may have been best to wait for y’alls inevitable “What I meant to say” correction.

But if I hadn’t promted you to apologize for the casual way you express hatred for so many millions of Americans – you probably never would have.

It’s always important to point out the hateful flaws in NeoCon rationale – lest you think that sort of behaviour is acceptable to liberty-loving Democratic Americans. Elsewise, you have folks like Bush up there saying “I don’t think I made any mistakes”.

—-
“Clearly the troops in the field are to blame, and NOT the President” – Rudy Giuliani

Take a pill

In reply to What I meant was….

Seriously Bucky, take a freakin’ pill man, it’s the dusty bottle under the bed.

This was a segue that didn’t concern you at all, just let it go. Get that brown paper bag and breeeeeeeeeaaaaaaath.

Distracted

In reply to Take a pill

You got distracted again. We was talkin bout Bush’s failurfication of Iraq.

LOL!

In reply to Distracted

You sound like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. “failurfication”. Thanks for the chuckle!

New Topic

In reply to Off base

re:
Bucky that’s out of line. People can read each others posts just fine without you starting a discussion based on one heated line form one heated post.
—– —– —– —– —–

The thread had reached the limit of its depth, and was not topical in the “Bush won” thread. It was totally appropriate to begin a new thread to take the discussion in this new direction.

It is not one, isolated opinion. Gay-bashing is a primal, fundamental(ist) issue in the Republican Party’s hate-based agenda. It’s a value shared by millions of Bush’s followers.

Whatever

In reply to New Topic

As far as gay bashing, it happens everywhere and by everyone, you can’t peg it as a Republican issue. The ONLY relationship is that most people who are agressively egocentric will favour a more agressive party, the passive the other side. I have been on both and still teeter between the two personalities myself.

Sedcondly, you cannot possibly come here and tell me the how’s and why’s of Tech Republic. To tell me when it is appropriate or not to continue a discussion is as absurd as your focus. These dicussions are just off topic “water cooler”- (Edison 2003) chat, and there is no limit except the truncation restrictions of the threads, just post below.

One thing that doesn’t work here is playing people against one another, your thread failed, one day you MAY learn why.

Again and to paraphrase your own comments,”It is not one isolated opinion. Gay-bashiing is a primal, fundamental(ist) issue in the (HUMAN RACE’S) agenda. It’s a value shared by (MANY) millions of (HUMANS).

Take a deeeeep breath…………now let it out sloooooooooowly. Count to ten and repeat deep slow breathing for 5 minutes.

There you go. 🙂

Hate-Based Legislation

In reply to Whatever

re:
As far as gay bashing, it happens everywhere and by everyone, you can’t peg it as a Republican issue.
—- —- —- —- —-

That would be a lot easier to believe – if gay-bashing wasn’t such a fundamental plank in the Republican platform.

Paying lip service to civil rights falls flat, when by your deedsyou express opposition to civil rights.

Well at least we know all gays are Democrats

In reply to Hate-Based Legislation

By your conclusion, one can say all gays are democrats.

OR like my favorite, ‘If fish live under water, all that lives underwater is a fish.’

Intelligence or Propoganda

In reply to Well at least we know all gays are Democrats

re:
By your conclusion, one can say all gays are democrats.
—– —– —– —– —–

Of course, you would be wrong.
I guess that explains why the anti-Democratic forces in the Republican party keep jumping to the WRONG conclusion.

What the …?

In reply to Well at least we know all gays are Democrats

No I wouldn’t be wrong at all, it was a reflection of your conclusion not mine.

Why would you compare me to an anti-Democratic Republican?

please enlighten us oh all wise one!

In reply to Hate-Based Legislation

If you can please enlighten us all on the specifics of Gay Bashing as part of the republican agenda…that would be great….

What context?

In reply to Bucky – You’re WAY out of line

re:
Not only did you take that guy’s comment out of context,
—– —– —– —– —–

In what context do you Bush loyalists feel it’s appropriate to express hatred for homosexuals?

Y’all are screaming for at least one constitutional ammendment to limit their rights as Americnas – perhaps you NeoCons think that context would be more appropriate for expressing hatred for your fellow, moral, Americans.

You said NEOCON’s

In reply to What context?

Please show me where in the constitution it refers to the inalienable rights of homosexuals? Please show me in the constitution where it refers to recognizing the union of homosexuals? Please indicate just how non-acceptance equates to hatred.
I never thought I?d agree with you on anything but I must say that I find the idea of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as absurd and unneeded. That is like saying we need a constitutional amendment to define human life as that which exists when a human being has cerebral and cardio activity. Oh, perhaps I have touched on something there.

Gay People are People

In reply to You said NEOCON’s

re:
Please show me where in the constitution it refers to the inalienable rights of homosexuals?
—– —– —– —– —–

You know all those places where it says what rights Americans have? That’s where.

Act of Love?

In reply to You said NEOCON’s

re:
Please indicate just how non-acceptance equates to hatred.
—– —– —– —– —–

Perhaps you think limiting the rights of Americans is an Act of Love?

That would be consistent with the “kill for Christ” attitude so many Militant Christians in the Bush Regime have.

It’s a real tragedy that Bush’s followers have chosen to turn their backs on Jesus teachings of love and acceptance.

Heck, he was a guy who was totally cool with hanging out with whores and tax collectors. He knew the secret to love – the carrot effective, while the stick is counter-productive.

WWJK – What Would Jesus Kill?

You?re absolutely right

In reply to Act of Love?

You?re absolutely right about Jesus being about love. You are the one talking about hate. Jesus did not accept sin but he did embrace the sinner. What you must understand is that God loved people so much that he sent his son to die on the cross for them. Jesus paid the price for our sin because God can?t look upon sin. Does that mean that we should continue in sin once we have accepted Jesus into our lives? God forbid. You automatically equate hatred and bigotry because a Christian will not accept sexual deviancy as normal behavior. This is not so. Jesus loves everyone and he wishes that no one would ?perish? which means ?go to hell?. In case you?re wondering Jesus spoke about hell quite a bit while he was here.

Killing for Jesus?!

In reply to You?re absolutely right

re:
What you must understand is that God loved people so much that he sent his son to die on the cross for them.
—- —- —- —- —- —-

What makes you think I don’t understand that statement?

re:
Jesus paid the price for our sin because God can?t look upon sin.
—– —– —– —– —– —–

I find it disturbing to know that so MANY Christians believe they are free to do so MUCH evil, and that they will be automagically forgiven.

In Judaism, we are taught that we are responsible and accountable for our own sins. There’s no sacraficial goat that will wash our sins away.

re:
You automatically equate hatred and bigotry because a Christian will not accept sexual deviancy as normal behavior.
—– —– —– —– —–

You are wrong. I don’t care what you accept. It’s how Militant Christians behave in public that I find so revolting – you know, the killing the raping, the torture and the murder. That stuff.

Bucky

In reply to Killing for Jesus?!

If someone is killing raping murdering…etc…then they are militants….not christians…..

Militant Christian

In reply to Killing for Jesus?!

re:
If someone is killing raping murdering…etc…then they are militants….not christians…..
—– —– —– —– —–

Nobody said Bush’s Death Squad members were *good* Christians – except Bush’s loyalists.

Earth to Bucky. Earth calling Bucky. Come in Bucky!

In reply to Killing for Jesus?!

Can you give me an example of ?Militant? Christians raping or pillaging or killing? You are a piece of work.

No need for that

In reply to Killing for Jesus?!

I am sure Bucky’s tinfoil hat works just fine. If he can hear the mothership, he can hear you just fine.

Now have some respect!
😀

I have had it with bucky boy……

In reply to Act of Love?

I am done with you Bucky…..You obviously have no capacity for rational disucussion….Your words are laced with hatred….and I thought the right had a monopoly on hatred….?!

Irrational Tantrum

In reply to I have had it with bucky boy……

re:
I am done with you Bucky
—– —– —– —– —–

And yet, you continue to post to me.
Common sense says, “If you want to stop getting what you’re getting – stop doing what you’re doing”.

Hmmm

In reply to Gay-Bashing Republicans

I was wondering if you could actually post something to this site without the phrases ?100,000 dead Iraqis? or ?Bush Regime? or ?Republican guard? or ?FAIRIE GOD PARANTS!!!? oh wait that was my son?s cartoon. Sorry.

There are quite a few Gay Republicans here…

In reply to Gay-Bashing Republicans

Even though our legislature’s first openly gay (openly being the key word)legislator is a Democrat, there are many Gay Republicans here.

Some of them are quite ardent Bush supporters actually, which while on first glance might seem odd, most people weigh their choices for a candidate or party amoung many issues- not just hinging it on one (at least I hope most people don’t vote for a President on one issue!).

I am not sure how these 2 issues got put together by DaveSlam (of course anyone with a pseudonym with Slam in it is probably just stirring the pot) but unfortunately most people do get a lot more worked up about what people do sexually than what they do with violence. You can see this in our movie & game rating system- Sex 21 and over- Violence- lets start introducing it at 13 unless the parents want to take them earlier…. It’s the American way.

Of course the Actions (We are not at War there) in Iraq have nothing to do with Gay Rights. To think that one would be more upset at Gay Marriage sounds ludicrous at first glance, but unfortunately most Americans are more concerned about Gay Marraige than any Military Action in Iraq.

WWJD?

You have pointed out in other threads your belief that “Militant Christians” are responsible for this and yet Christ, when asked about his aspirations for political power stated that his kingdom was not of this world. Christ did not want to legislate morality.

If being a Christian means that one is a follower of Christ, then Christians by definition are against what you are implying they are for. I also know that while Christians are spiritual, they are also human, so it is not their Christianity that leads them to legislating Morality, but actually their own (to put it in Christian terms) sinful nature that is controlling them and upsetting them.

The Christian approach is the same as it has been since Christ healed the ear of the Soldier and welcomed the Roman Centurian. Do what you can to heal when you are given the opportunity. Healing those you find wounded on the road, even if they are despised by your culture as in the good Samaritan- that is the Christ-like way.

It would be good of Bush to speak to this more publically if he wants to be remembered as having a Christian witness, and also it would be lucky for him that if he did, the media would support him in this. Instead, Bush will probably be remembered as a Christian primarily acting and speaking against Christian principles in practice. I do not believe this is entirely his fault as a person. I believe the media and the bloodlust of the people are really working together in driving this focus on violence and intolerance.

Militant Christian

In reply to There are quite a few Gay Republicans here…

re:
If being a Christian means that one is a follower of Christ, then Christians by definition are against what you are implying they are for.
—– —– —– —– —–

I’ve been very specific about limiting my opposition to *MILITANT* Christians – not Christians in general. It’s foolish to equate the two – as it is to equate Israelis with Judaism or Islamists with Islam.

Do NOT take my posts against MILITANT Christians as being against Christianity. I am simply standing shoulder-to-shoulder with my fellow Americans in opposition to those who would slaughter innocent people in the name of God.

Jesus is my favorite Rabbi.

Jesus as Rabbi.

In reply to Militant Christian

Thank you for remembering he was this. Sometimes I tire of people who read (or more likely have it read to them on Sunday, the day after the Sabbath) the translated word “teacher” over and over and still do not have an inkling that he was in fact a Rabbi working within Judaism to affect change.

I get the feeling that you are angry in these threads at times. This may not be the case. I do hope that you find a way to cope with the current system and work within America to affect change. On a local level I find that quite possible and encouraging. The national politics, although needing many people to effect change, can also be influenced at the state level to some extent.

The President can do little without Congress and I would venture that even more than the almost half of the voting population that voted against Bush have specific policies that they do not support.

I will no longer think that when you say “Militant” Christian that you are referencing followers of Christ. In a better world I hope that this will be more self-evident.

Nazarene Rabbi Dude

In reply to Jesus as Rabbi.

re:
I get the feeling that you are angry in these threads at times. This may not be the case.
—– —– —– —– —–

Chalk it up to the 100,000 dead Iraqis – and one healthy bin Laden.

Militant Christians: An Oxymoron?

In reply to Gay-Bashing Republicans

Nazi Party Rule #24 “The Party stands for positive Christianity.”

I got to thinking about this thread. While the phrase: “Militant Christian” does seem to not be talking about Followers of Christ, it does unfortunately describe a very terrible twisted group of people who sadly do need identified, isolated and allowed to portrayed for what they really are.

Just as the Nazi Parties “Positive Christianity” today is by almost all considered a horrifying association that has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ, I hope that someday “Militant” and Christian are never linked in reasonable discourse, except as a watchtower to never allow this to happen again.

Extremist NeoCons

In reply to Militant Christians: An Oxymoron?

re:
I got to thinking about this thread. While the phrase: “Militant Christian”
—– —– —– —– —–

I started using this phrase a coupla years ago, in a thread someone started, claiming that the War against Terrorism is really a war against all of Islam.

The guy was well-versed in the bible and pointed out that according to one of the Christian bibles (a.k.a. graven images) it says that someday all of the dead christians are gonna come back to life and kill the Muslims.

At least, that’s how *he* interpreted it, but upon adopting that phrase in discussion I found that there’s a massive stockpile of Christo-Republicans who share that world-view – particularly in the Slave States. They overwhelinlgy support Bush, aggravated by him only in that he’s not militant enough.

“There’s a special place in hell for believers who remain silent during times of Moral Crisis.” – da Pope

Liable

In reply to Extremist NeoCons

You know when you quote someone when they didn?t say that it?s called liable. Perhaps you should think about what you write before you write it. Or maybe you could break with your past and actually provide us with some shred of proof that ?Da Pope? said this.

Legal Advice

In reply to Liable

re:
You know when you quote someone when they didn?t say that it?s called liable.
—– —– —– —– —–

Don’t be an idiot.

Personal Attacks

In reply to Legal Advice

I see now. When someone calls you an idiot it is a mean spirited attack against you personally but when you say that to someone else it is mearly the truth. Thanks for clearing that up for me Bucky.

No, the opposition to the war is simply ignorance and idiocy.

In reply to Gay-Bashing Republicans

However, if you can list one gay group that supports the war, I will toss the very idea entirely.

mind if I ask

In reply to No, the opposition to the war is simply ignorance and idiocy.

[b][i]No, the opposition to the war is simply ignorance and idiocy.[/i][/b]

Simply ignorance and idiocy? How so?

You are referring to Iraq, correct?

Why not start a new discussion?

In reply to mind if I ask

That way the original homophobic topic can re-inter itself.

Nevermind

In reply to Why not start a new discussion?

qed

Absurd

In reply to Gay-Bashing Republicans

Let me be very clear. I (one conservative American) do NOT believe that one?s position on the war in Iraq has or should have anything to do with one?s position of homosexuality. I don?t even see how someone could logically come to that conclusion. That is as absurd as saying one?s opinion on the taste of grapes has a bearing on one?s opinion on the war. It doesn?t make sense.

However

In reply to Absurd

Not everyone is you 🙂

BTW, if you were a gay American…your position on the “war” in Iraq may have everything to do with homosexuality, seeing as how the United States military exercises the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and makes it essentially a punishable offense to admit or state you are homosexual.

Therefore, I can see how some gays might feel that anyone dying in Iraq (especially those who are gay and being forced to remain silent about their sexuality while their straight peers are not) may feel that the “war” in Iraq is stupid for anyone to die for the military when “freedom of speech” isn’t even afforded to those who wish to speak the truth about only themself.

And yes…I still have trouble calling it a war. It’s more like a “police action” to me…not a war.

[Author]

Replies