Gay-Bashing Republicans

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.

by packet spoofer Nov 10, 2004

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.....

Care to put away that broad brush?

by jamesrl Nov 9, 2004

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

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.

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.

by ccollins Nov 9, 2004

There be trolls under this bridge.

by packet spoofer Nov 9, 2004

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.

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*.

by packet spoofer Nov 10, 2004

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.

by maxwell edison Nov 9, 2004

.
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.

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.

by cortech Nov 9, 2004

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.

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.

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.

by protiusx Nov 9, 2004

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.

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

by protiusx Nov 9, 2004

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

by protiusx Nov 10, 2004

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.

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.

by packet spoofer Nov 10, 2004

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....?!

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".

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. :)

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.

by oz_media Nov 10, 2004

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.'

by packet spoofer Nov 12, 2004

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

by admin Nov 10, 2004

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.

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.

by admin Nov 11, 2004

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.

by protiusx Nov 10, 2004

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

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.

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".

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.

by oz_media Nov 10, 2004

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?

by bucky kaufman (mcsd) Nov 12, 2004

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.

by packet spoofer Nov 12, 2004

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

by bucky kaufman (mcsd) Nov 12, 2004

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.

by admin Nov 12, 2004

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.

by bucky kaufman (mcsd) Nov 13, 2004

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

by protiusx Nov 13, 2004

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.

by protiusx Nov 12, 2004

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

by oz_media Nov 13, 2004

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!
:D

by bucky kaufman (mcsd) Nov 14, 2004

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

Don't be an idiot.

by protiusx Nov 15, 2004

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.

by anonymous82 Oct 14, 2007

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

by cybernetsolutions Sep 12, 2008

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.

by charliespencer Sep 12, 2008

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.

by jdclyde Sep 12, 2008

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

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

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

by jck Sep 12, 2008

[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?

by charliespencer Sep 12, 2008

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

by charliespencer Sep 12, 2008

On four year old discussion. Let it go.

Breathe in, breathe out; move on.

by jiminpa Sep 12, 2008

.