The Special Interest President Is On To Something

I saw this video the other day, it is of the “It Gets Better” theme, made with White House personnel. It really pissed me off, but maybe not for the reasons you think, give it a look:

 

 

First off, I think the whole “It Gets Better” concept is effing brilliant, but damn it, why does the left always co opt compassion? I understand the play book involved, divide and conquer, marginalize your opponent by making them out as bigots racists, homophobes , and general all round reprobates, by showcasing your compassion, tolerance, and humanity, I get all that. But this was really a clever concept and I wish my side had thought of it first.

 

When I was very young I had a slight speech impediment, I had difficulty in pronouncing “R”‘s and for a few years it was no fun. After some time with a speech therapist I managed to lick it but I knew what it felt like to be different and to be made fun of. This in context is really minor compared to those other “different” types, I had the help and assurance of a supporting family but someone who is young and gay? good luck with that. Being different is always a tough road to hoe but being different and alone? ouch. This is why the “It gets Better” movement is so useful, it provides instant support and validation.

 

You can see the president’s IGB speech here. Taking ideology out of it, it was a great message. Now the cynics of us will spot the panderer a mile away and declare that this was done strictly for political effect, of course it was, but does it resonate with caring human beings? you betcha. Oh, and it’s first speech of his that I could really see his eyes moving across that teleprompter, almost 3 years in and the tell is still there.

I also did not like that shot at rural America, you know, that place that clings to their guns and religion. This really needs to be hit hard at the next election, his total disconnect with the common folk outside of the big cities.

I hope the president  will view the honest tax payer, that guy that makes all his social programs work, as the next special interest target and explain to me how its going to get better. A few suggestions, work with the House in adopting Ryan’s Path To Prosperity, listen to your debt commission and adopt some of their recommendations, quit the class warfare, cut corporate taxes and make it easier for businesses to prosper and more tax revenue will grow naturally, and please, get out of the way and unass those drilling permits so we don’t have to keep felating the Saudis for our oil.

The day is approaching when the gay community will feel just as at home in the right’s tent as they do in the left’s, we aren’t there yet, but we’re working on it.

 

Any other feelings about this video?

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    I’ve been extremely disappointed that the Republicans haven’t done anything with this. Conservative politicians in the UK and Canada have. But they’re too beholden to the far right to even tell gays kids not to off themselves.

    Thumb up 0

  2. Hal_10000

    You know the perfect Republican to record an IGB video? George W. Bush. He has no political ambitions anymore, he always hated having to bash the gays on behalf of the religious right and I still believe that, in the end, he’s a decent man. I know he wants to stay out of the spotlight as much as possible now — he never really did enjoy it. But this would be a huge thing for the GOP.

    Thumb up 0

  3. Kimpost

    The right could certainly become the party of choice for homosexuals. The problem, as I see it, is that there still are a significant number of social conservatives who believe that homosexuality is wrong. For the record I think that’s a dying attitude, but for now, it still stands.

    I believe that prominent republicans need to step up on this. Huckabee, Pawlenty, Santorum etc, all need to step up and say that homosexuality is ever so natural and right as heterosexuality is. Hammer that down peoples throats if you have to.

    Let’s say I was gay. Let’s also say that I was against Obama’s economic policies. As well as his foreign policies. I would still probably vote for him if the only other choice was for someone who openly despises my lifestyle, and in essence a large bulk of what defines me as a person.

    Thumb up 0

  4. AlexInCT

    I’ve been extremely disappointed that the Republicans haven’t done anything with this.

    Actually I think you are all forgetting that republicans DID already do this, and that it was a disaster. Remember that GWB ran on “compassionate conservatism” in 2000, and we all know how well our “compassionate conservatism” fiscal record looks like. While it wasn’t as bad as the democrat’s compassioned whatever, it was what led us down this road to perdition. We shouldn’t be trying to co-opt this concept. We should be pointing out that no matter how well meaning it is, in the end, the philosophy that government can and should be solving all problems, is a flawed and why we are so deep in trouble financially.

    I am all for “It gets better” as long as it doesn’t mean another expensive government program that goes absolutely nowhere. We have enough of those.

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT

    I believe that prominent republicans need to step up on this. Huckabee, Pawlenty, Santorum etc, all need to step up and say that homosexuality is ever so natural and right as heterosexuality is. Hammer that down peoples throats if you have to.

    That’s why I am against this whole thing and have been lukewarm at best on this issue. The attitude that the people that believe homosexuality isn’t wrong thinking the others are just stupid and need to have it hammered down their throats. Next I will get the fact that I am evil for thinking I shouldn’t be robbed of even more of my income, by crooked politicians to buy votes, hammered down my throat. Or that I need to actually take serious the demands and motives of genocidal religious fanatics that simply want to force everyone to do what they want. I don’t like that whole totalitarian thing, no matter how good the portended motive, at all. Next these noble and enlightened people will tell us we should just kill off anyone refusing to accept their world view. Wait a second! Didn’t we already have a lot of this during the last century? How well did it work out?

    Thumb up 0

  6. Kimpost

    I’m not calling for legislative action. I’m calling for individuals and organisations to step up. Something that should be consistent with any value system. It’s no more controversial than taking a stance against bullying, or racism.

    Instead of just saying that racism, bigotry and hate is non-of-my-business, we should all step up. This is especially true, when it comes to politicians and people of power and influence. If you think that homosexuality is not only wrong, but so wrong that you think it should be fought, then you need to hear that you are an idiot. All day long. Sentiments like that need to be marginalized. Just like racism, sexism and bullying.

    Thumb up 1

  7. AlexInCT

    I’m not calling for legislative action. I’m calling for individuals and organisations to step up.

    Like the gay movement did, in CA after they lost for the umpteenth time at the ballot, and where they engaged in a campaign of personal attacks, threats, and even violence against those they blamed for the loss? That kind of bullying is considered wrong whenever anyone else does it, but it generated nary a peep from people that see the world like you do Kimpost.

    Something that should be consistent with any value system.

    Whose value system? Because I sure as hell do not see any respect for other value systems except maybe Islam, and that’s simply because the cowardly left knows those guys kill you when you piss them off.

    It’s no more controversial than taking a stance against bullying, or racism.

    Funny that. In that example about the CA gay movement going berserk at the loss of their vote, it comes across more like they were doing the bullying and the hating, than the other way around.

    Thumb up 0

  8. richtaylor365 *

    I’m not calling for legislative action. I’m calling for individuals and organisations to step up. Something that should be consistent with any value system.

    YES

    While I have always believed that the liberal philosophy in general was a dead end and a roadblock not only to the American Dream but to real prosperity and hope, I was always envious of how they tried to include everyone and widen their tent. The GOP has in the past gravitated towards the notion that their ideas and their vision for the future will naturally draw people to their tent, this is probably true, but no one wants to go where they are not wanted, and wagging your finger and poo pooing someone’s lifestyle or their laziness or their beliefs is a sure path to a little tent.

    I think we can use the concept but make it better. What the dems due is they pander, they send the president down to the border states and rile up the Hispanic populace with promises of amnesty and spread lies that those nasty Arizonians are just bigots who don’t like you.

    We can do better, articulate the message to more people, the common sense of the message, that the idea of big government taking care of you is a pipe dream, that the other side has nothing of substance to fix our problems, but our side (with your help) can gets us back to fiscal solvency and make us great again.

    With this message, and a concerted effort to quit the demonizing of the gays, the Mexicans, the poor, and the dis enfranchised, the tent can grow, it has to grow, otherwise, we get 4 more years of the same.

    Thumb up 0

  9. JimK

    The problem is, the big R Republicans are either social cons, or financially beholden to social cons. And the social cons know it.

    Well, that’s one of the problems. The other is a media perfectly willing to bury the fact that most elected Democrats hold the SAME GODDAMNED FUCKING VIEWS on homosexuality and are in fact responsible for some of the laws that currently discriminate against gays.

    There’s more problems in bringing gays into the “big tent of conservatism.” Some of it is social, some of it is peer pressure, some of it is cultural. But it can – and needs to – be done. If Rs can’t bring themselves to actually accept gay people, how about this:

    “The fact that you’re gay, straight, both or neither is none of my business, it’s none of anyone else’s business and it’s damn sure none of the government’s business. That’s about all I, or anyone else, should really ever say on the subject. Next question?”

    Thumb up 0

  10. JimK

    the Mexicans,

    Gotta ask for clarification here. I don’t know anyone that demonizes Mexicans specifically. I do, however, see demonization of illegal immigrants, which in this country tends to be Mexican more often than not. And I got the impression you were falling for the media trap of conflating criticism of illegal immigration with criticism of Mexicans. I also see demonization of Mexican drug gangs, but, then, they are demons, so….

    Thumb up 1

  11. richtaylor365 *

    Sure, living in a “border” state I see a prevailing sentiment (how large? who knows) that “Mexicans” are a problem, not only illegal immigrants, but even the legal Mexicans, because they:
    1)Are the root cause of our unemployment problem (taking jobs that should go to citizens)
    2)Are more often then not a drag on the social programs, sucking tax dollars away from the actual tax payers
    3)overcrowd our schools and subvert the educational system with its bilingual requirement
    4)generally stick together so even the legal ones will vote for things like amnesty

    Now I’m not saying that I am a part of this contingency, but it exists non the less, more so in border states like mine, Arizona, Texas, and so on. Conflating these issues and lumping them in to a “Mexican problem” not only insults the Mexicans but gets us nowhere to addressing some of the more legitimate issues like illegal immigration.

    Thumb up 0

  12. Kimpost

    I would suggest keeping illegal immigration separated from illegal immigrants. Demonize the occurrence, but not the individuals. They aren’t necessarily bad people. Hispanics know that their aunt is not bad. If a politicians claims that she is, then they will have problems with that group.

    Thumb up 0

  13. richtaylor365 *

    The problem is, the big R Republicans are either social cons, or financially beholden to social cons. And the social cons know it.

    This topic deserves it’s own separate thread.

    Thumb up 0

  14. JimK

    I agree. But I also dread a massive comment war that splits people and forces them to pick a “gay/anti-gay” side.

    Have you tried to have a reasonable conversation about gay marriage lately? ;)

    Thumb up 1

  15. JimK

    I get what you’re saying, I do, but I also understand the frustration of people who say that illegal immigrants knowingly violate the law, and furthermore as a political group tend to hurl abuse at anyone who points out the difference between legal and illegal immigration. Or the fact that illegal immigrants are intentionally and knowingly breaking the law and have absolutely no defense when caught. “It sucks in my country” isn’t a legal defense unless you apply through the proper channels.

    Emotionally I get it, and I can’t say I wouldn’t jump a fence myself under the right circumstances, but legally and politically, it’s a fat load of horseshit that we can’t point out the de facto criminal behavior of illegal immigrants. By being illegal immigrants, they are actively committing a crime, and it’s not wrong to say that.

    Thumb up 1

  16. richtaylor365 *

    Yeah, but I figure I already have most of you guys yelling ,”There he is, someone get a rope”, besides, I wasn’t thinking of the gay/anti-gay angle, more from the “How much influence and sway does the religious right still have over the GOP”, interesting topic.

    Thumb up 1

  17. AlexInCT

    While I have always believed that the liberal philosophy in general was a dead end and a roadblock not only to the American Dream but to real prosperity and hope, I was always envious of how they tried to include everyone and widen their tent.

    I laughed at this Rich. Some of the most homophobic, racist, and sexist bastages I have ever had the displeasure of knowing were also die hard demcorats till they hit the grave and beyond. They readily admitted they hated, but put up with the victims of their hate, just to muster a win. Because winning was everything, and once you won, you didn’t really need to bother with those you didn’t like anyway. Some token gestures and you were golden. Especially since you could demonize the other side and then basically tell the idiots still voting for you they had nowhere else to go. When you paint the choice between the guy that wants to lynch you, even thought that is pure bullshit, and the guy that treats you like a battered wife, people choose the later it seems. The left is great at pretending to be inclusive. Again. dishonesty to win, isn’t that great a thing, but it works real well for them.

    Anyway, I think the guy in the WH is one of these that takes several of those big tent groups for granted, now that I have seen him work his mojo on the whole gay thing, BTW.

    Thumb up 0

  18. Kimpost

    What’s up with your fascination for judging by the extremes? There’s a legitimate issue somewhere on the mix of republicans and social conservatism. I believe you when you posit that there are democrats who only talk the talk, but really are equally bigoted, sometimes even worse. But one does not negate the other, does it?

    I truly believe that most politicians, (normal) social conservatives included, believe that homosexuals should enjoy all the rights heterosexuals do. Probably +95% of the lot. However, some of them don’t speak up against bigotry when it’s coming from their potential voters. Instead they choose to dodge questions on homosexuality. Why is that? Presumably because they don’t want to take on some of the evangelicals. The lack of balls don’t impress me much.

    Same thing with questions on Obama’s birth certificate. I say, don’t shut up, hoping to score easy political points. Take a hard stand when people within your own ranks are being idiots. Palin should not have suggested that Obama should have released his long form birth certificate earlier. Nor should she have said that these are legitimate questions to raise. She should have said that anyone who asks for it, is an idiot. In that kind of clear language, or similar, if you prefer not to use the idiot word. Ridicule idiocy. Laugh Trump of the air. Don’t say that he’s a good business man. Say that it’s a wonder that he manages to get himself dressed in the morning.

    The same goes for politicians who dodge questions on evolution. I’m confident that all of them believe in evolution, yet they very often dodge the question (Chris Christie dodged it the other day), probably out of fear of evangelical literalists.

    Politicians too often worry about offending possible voters. They should man up, and lead.

    Thumb up 0

  19. Kimpost

    “Sucks in my country”, isn’t a valid legals defence; I agree. It is however understandable that immigration laws are broken is such cases. Not acceptable, but understandable.

    A mother crossing the border trying to make a better life for her family, is not a common criminal, even if she technically broke the law by doing so. A distinction is needed, in my opinion. Smugglers and gang members are something else.

    If I had a say in US politics (haha), I would propose the following.

    1. Keep improving on border security.

    2. Make it easier (faster handling times, lowered entry standards) to enter legally. This would make it easier for honest people to pursue the American dream. Immigrants built your country, let them keep building it. Don’t change who you historically have been. Don’t become as (or stay as) closed as Europe is. Making it easier to enter would also lessen the burden on the border, making point 1 cheaper and easier to maintain.

    3. Find and document the 10-20 million illegals who are already in. Fine them for their illegal entry if you want, but try to turn them into tax payers.

    Thumb up 0

  20. AlexInCT

    As someone that knows not one but two people trying hard to legally immigrate to the US for the past 5 years – one in Mexico and one in India – I can tell you that they have zero sympathy for the notion of separating the crime of illegal immigration from the criminals committing it. My friend in Mexico has relatives that have been in the US for over 4 years now illegally, they will likely end up with amnesty of some kind long before he gets the mountain of paperwork done to come here legally. My friend in India has joked about taking a flight to Mexico and then paying someone to get him over the border. It is less risky, costly, time consuming, and frustrating than the process he has been through the last few years.

    I am now convinced that there is a policy in place to keep out anyone but the least educated people possible, and that’s on purpose. Incapable and uneducated people love big government and even piss-poor welfare services make these people feel like they have died and gone to heaven. Cheap labor, easy peasants, and all that. Not knocking the poor and uneducated people, but knocking the shysters using them to grow government while getting rich and powerful – on both sides – at the expense of this country’s future.

    Thumb up 0

  21. richtaylor365 *

    Some of the most homophobic, racist, and sexist bastages I have ever had the displeasure of knowing were also die hard demcorats till they hit the grave and beyond.

    I have found that no party/ideology has a monopoly on stupid, that each has their crazy uncles that they try to hide. But my point was that if you were to poll all the independents in the country (those with no real dog in the hunt) and ask them which party they thought was the more inclusive, the more compassionate and the more welcoming , the answer is obvious, and that has to change. It matters not one bit why that perception is out there, the bottom line is that it is.

    Thumb up 0

  22. CM

    One way to ‘widen the tent’ might be to stop assuming that everyone who expresses compassion isn’t being sincere. Being completely cynical about everything related to compassion (“Dems are all racists, they just pretend they’re not” or “Obama doesn’t give a shit about xxxx, he just needs their votes”) isn’t going to widen jack-shit. Republicans/conservatives need to either accept that some people (Dem politicians/voters) do actually care, or hide their cyncism a little better.
    And as Kimpost says, Republican politicians need to stop indirectly endorsing moronic positions (by ignoring them).
    Otherwise the Republican Party tent will just get smaller and smaller.

    Thumb up 0

  23. AlexInCT

    What’s up with your fascination for judging by the extremes? There’s a legitimate issue somewhere on the mix of republicans and social conservatism. I believe you when you posit that there are democrats who only talk the talk, but really are equally bigoted, sometimes even worse. But one does not negate the other, does it?

    I wasn’t trying to negate the other Kimpost, I was trying to point out how stupid the notion that the issue was primarily on the republican/conservative side as the left so successfully but hypocritically has propagandized it for far too long.

    I truly believe that most politicians, (normal) social conservatives included, believe that homosexuals should enjoy all the rights heterosexuals do. Probably +95% of the lot.

    Maybe where you are from. Not here. In fact quite a few of those pretending to be for it on the left do so solely out of political expedience. That’s not the only topic they do this for either. Abortion is another of these hot button items.

    However, some of them don’t speak up against bigotry when it’s coming from their potential voters.

    That you outright label the motivation as bigotry worries me. Have you ever wondered why so many of the older societies put a stigma on homosexuality, births out of wedlock, lying & cheating, murder, and so on, be it through religious morals or otherwise, while promoting things like slavery, the death penalty, and forced labor by criminals, focusing on the reality on the ground then, what forced them to make these choices/decisions bad or good, instead of basing your judgment on contemporary beliefs? And no, I am not bigoted: I just find it ludicrous that we pass judgment on people and practices that are grounded in older customs that were based on serious reasoning when adopted, and then think ourselves morally superior. How happy will you be if 100 years in the future societies decided something we think is wrong or right today was the opposite, and then labeled us all bigoted for it?

    Instead they choose to dodge questions on homosexuality. Why is that? Presumably because they don’t want to take on some of the evangelicals. The lack of balls don’t impress me much.

    Neither does the militant pro-homosexual movement and their tactics impress me. And I have zero problem with what two consenting adults do in the bedroom, before you call me a homophobe.

    Same thing with questions on Obama’s birth certificate. I say, don’t shut up, hoping to score easy political points. Take a hard stand when people within your own ranks are being idiots. Palin should not have suggested that Obama should have released his long form birth certificate earlier. Nor should she have said that these are legitimate questions to raise. She should have said that anyone who asks for it, is an idiot. In that kind of clear language, or similar, if you prefer not to use the idiot word. Ridicule idiocy. Laugh Trump of the air. Don’t say that he’s a good business man. Say that it’s a wonder that he manages to get himself dressed in the morning.

    Really? Why? Because you think so? Why can’t Palin, Trump,or for that matter anyone else, ask this question when answers aren’t forthcoming? I put them all in the same camp as the people that say that without proof of UBL’s death – a video or picture – the WH could have made it all up. Shit, how hard would it have been for the national media to clear the whole thing up by asking for it as soon as it became a distraction, printing it to shut the people wasting time on this up, and moved us onto more important questions like WTF was the $1 trillion stimulus bill wasted on, huh? The point was they didn’t and that’s the bigger story IMO.

    Personally I find the whole birth certificate argument a distraction. Obama not releasing it was likely a great tactic so nobody would then move on and ask him to release the real records that would embarrass him: his education/college records. I have a feeling that those are as paper thin as his work experience resume. It would destroy the left’s claim he is an intellectual.

    The same goes for politicians who dodge questions on evolution. I’m confident that all of them believe in evolution, yet they very often dodge the question (Chris Christie dodged it the other day), probably out of fear of evangelical literalists.

    What about politicians that avoid questions on the use of salt? Yeah, salt, the condiment. Scientists have told us, in just the last 5 decades, that salt was good, then bad, then really bad on to be totally avoided, and now they are suddenly backtracking and saying they likely got it wrong and salt is OK. I bet in another decade they will tell us salt is just fine and dandy, if not an absolute must for human health. While the chances for the same 360 degree switch to happen to the theory of evolution is IMO negligible, the principle that we are not omniscient and can get science wrong still applies, so never say never. Of course, I seriously doubt they will find creationism to be real and replace the theory of evolution with it either, because it would mean we got practically everything else in science wrong, and that’s far less likely to be possible IMO.

    Also, considering how disastrous the ideology of the left has been for mankind, I would figure people that are as adamant as you are on “settled issues” Kimpost, would demand we do the same to people that still have faith in any of the bastard children of Marx’s collectivist insanity, that you now demand be done to any politician that will not swear and oath of allegiance to the theory of evolution, but for some reason never get any of that. Me, I am more interested in finding out if a politician believes punishing my work and success, by confiscating more and more of my income, to then play “Mother Theresa”, but only to buy votes from life’s losers, while enriching their pockets. If they are crazy creationists they are far less likely to screw me over than if they are shysters selling “social justice” and all that nonsense.

    Thumb up 0

  24. AlexInCT

    One way to ‘widen the tent’ might be to stop assuming that everyone who expresses compassion isn’t being sincere. Being completely cynical about everything related to compassion (“Dems are all racists, they just pretend they’re not” or “Obama doesn’t give a shit about xxxx, he just needs their votes”) isn’t going to widen jack-shit.

    Neither should the left saying that everyone on the right is motivated by evil, greedy, wants to kill children and old people, and in general are all stupid, but they do so successfully. And yet, I never hear people like you saying that has to stop first.

    Thumb up 3

  25. CM

    Surely it matters a great deal why that perception is out there? At the end of the day, politics is almost all about perception.

    Thumb up 0

  26. CM

    Neither should the left saying that everyone on the right is motivated by evil, greedy, wants to kill children and old people, and in general are all stupid, but they do so successfully. And yet, I never hear people like you saying that has to stop first.

    We’re talking about how the Republicans (or conservatives in general) can ‘widen the tent’. At the last election, presumably because they realised that Obama was very popular with the ‘middle’ (the moderate, swinging voters) they allowed the tent to widen towards the extreme end. But that’s never going to be a good tactic, because you’ll always do more damage to your brand than good.

    Fundamentally the Dems don’t need to further widen their tent – it’s already pretty wide. The Republicans clearly do though, given the demographic changes that are and will continue to occur.

    I certainly believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt in terms of them being sincere in their beliefs, until they give me a good reason not to. But what in this video suggests that it’s part of the “divide and conquer, marginalize your opponent by making them out as bigots racists, homophobes, and general all round reprobates” playbook? I’ve watched it twice to make sure I didn’t miss anything (the second time my wife wandered into the room, and after watching 30 seconds or so said “Have you got something to tell me?” to which I replied “Yeah love, I’m gay and I want to work at the White House?”).

    Rich also said in his opening post:

    I also did not like that shot at rural America, you know, that place that clings to their guns and religion. This really needs to be hit hard at the next election, his total disconnect with the common folk outside of the big cities.

    That’s confusing as hell to me. Which shot at rural America? Do gay people get treated better in rural communities (that would make America unique in the world)?
    How is anyone going to ‘hit this hard’ at the next election by using this as an example? How is this even remotely an example of a “disconnect with the common folk outside of the big cities”?

    Thumb up 0

  27. JimK

    Alex is dead right here on both counts. Democrats and left-leaning people at large demonize Republicans and conservatives hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of times a day. And where’s your condemnation of that bullshit, CM? You like to call out one side and not the other on a regular basis. And here, where you could have strengthened your argument by giving a token “oh and the Dems shouldn’t do it either” you couldn’t bring yourself to criticize “your side.”

    Either the behavior is unacceptable for all or it;s acceptable for both. Pick a stance and be consistent.

    Thumb up 0

  28. CM

    In fact quite a few of those pretending to be for it on the left do so solely out of political expedience. That’s not the only topic they do this for either.

    There it is again. No way a tent is going to be widened by making out that those you disagree with aren’t sincere about their beliefs. Moderates hate that.

    Why can’t Palin, Trump,or for that matter anyone else, ask this question when answers aren’t forthcoming?

    They can. But they have to accept that they’ll be labelled as kooks by reasonable people for doing so. It’s their choice.

    How happy will you be if 100 years in the future societies decided something we think is wrong or right today was the opposite, and then labeled us all bigoted for it?

    Yep, judge people in context. People with discriminatory attitudes today get judged today in today’s context. If someone today argued that slavery should still be ok, would you cut them some slack because it used to be acceptable to think that?

    I put them all in the same camp as the people that say that without proof of UBL’s death – a video or picture – the WH could have made it all up.

    Republican politicians were shown the photos. Only extreme nutters would now cling to the belief that it’s a conspiracy. There was/is no need to release photos. There is no public benefit.

    What about politicians that avoid questions on the use of salt?

    Nobody really cares enough about salt. A politician’s position on salt isn’t going to buy or lose votes.

    Thumb up 0

  29. Miguelito

    IME, some of the most out-spoken opponents to illegal immigrants are…. legal immigrants. You should hear some of the H1B people I’ve worked with after all the crap they have to go through (especially those from India and Asia in general). I’ve known plenty of Hispanics that are here legally that dislike illegals a lot too.

    Thumb up 0

  30. Miguelito

    Huh.. well living in San Diego, I don’t see anyone complaining of “mexcans” in general. It’s always specifically illegal immigrants (though yes, they’re overwhelmingly from mexico or points farther south).

    Points 1 through 3 really only apply to illegals anyway. Someone making those claims about legal immigrants are just dumb.

    However, point 4 does seem fairly common.. unfortunately it seems to me to be because people make the same mistake you seem to be: that anyone who’s against illegal immigrants is somehow just hating brown people, or something similar.

    Thumb up 0

  31. CM

    WTF? Sorry, I thought that went without saying (even though I did, when I said “I certainly believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt in terms of them being sincere in their beliefs, until they give me a good reason not to”).

    Again, isn’t this topic about widening the Republican voting base?
    Stop doing it (and stop engaging in ODS) and let the Dems get on with doing it. I believe the Republicans would do much better with those swing-voting moderates simply by appearing to be more reasonable.

    Thumb up 0

  32. richtaylor365 *

    That’s confusing as hell to me. Which shot at rural America? Do gay people get treated better in rural communities (that would make America unique in the world)?
    How is anyone going to ‘hit this hard’ at the next election by using this as an example? How is this even remotely an example of a “disconnect with the common folk outside of the big cities”?

    What I meant by this is that this president has made comments in the past that have belittled and insulted those non big city folk. Insinuating that rural America is somehow unable to adapt to unemployment or changes in their life over that of those big city dwellers is just stupid.

    Many of the people in this video went out of their way to let it be known that it was small town bigotry that made growing up even harder and I was just wondering if growing up gay in Detroit or Chicago would of been such a walk in the park and so much easier for them. Growing up different is going to hard anywhere and big city kids can be just as mean and nasty with regards to dealing with “those people” as anywhere else, it is going to be hard, period. Now if they want to connect the dots that in some small rural areas religion is more prevalent so in those instances growing up gay is going to be harder, I’ll agree with that.

    Thumb up 0

  33. CM

    What I meant by this is that this president has made comments in the past that have belittled and insulted those non big city folk. Insinuating that rural America is somehow unable to adapt to unemployment or changes in their life over that of those big city dwellers is just stupid.

    Yep I remember that well (although I’m in NZ, I’m an election junkie, and I followed the election very closely – it’s always a million times more interesting than ours). However to connect the dots to THIS video and make out that it’s part of that (in my opinion) is JUST the sort of thing that is going to seem unreasonable (and frankly, a little crazy) to those moderate swing-voters that the Republican’s need in their tent if they want to stay competitive.

    Many of the people in this video went out of their way to let it be known that it was small town bigotry that made growing up even harder and I was just wondering if growing up gay in Detroit or Chicago would of been such a walk in the park and so much easier for them. Growing up different is going to hard anywhere and big city kids can be just as mean and nasty with regards to dealing with “those people” as anywhere else, it is going to be hard, period. Now if they want to connect the dots that in some small rural areas religion is more prevalent so in those instances growing up gay is going to be harder, I’ll agree with that.

    As I said, I watched it twice. I certainly didn’t see the rural/small-town thing being overplayed. Presumably those that have come from rural areas or small towns aren’t lying about their background, and their background in those places is completely relevant. YEah, I’d say growing up in more urban areas would have been easier. Not easy, but it’s all relative.
    I don’t see how anyone can legitimately connect dots to this video and anything else.

    Your opening post bascally says “man, I wish we were able to be this insincere and pander so we could increase our voting base”. I think that’s a counter-productive mindset to have. I don’t think expanding the base (or ‘widening the tent’) is going to work by suggesting that anything the Democrats do in relation to their base is ‘pandering’ or not sincere. Effectively that also suggests that the people in the video are being used. Suggesting or implying that people are dumb enough to be ‘used’ (simply based on a narrative) also isn’t conducive to ‘widening the base’ at all.

    Thumb up 0

  34. CM

    I hope the president will view the honest tax payer, that guy that makes all his social programs work, as the next special interest target and explain to me how its going to get better.

    There is plenty in the bullet-points here that you could argue is aimed to the ‘honest tax payer':

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/the_article_liberals_are_too_s.html

    I also think the campaign to make large companies pay their tax is also a good one for ‘honest tax payers’. Ultimately, it’s the ‘honest tax payers’ that subsidise the large corporations when those corporations declare losses in the US and profits elsewhere. Yes, I recognise that paying higher taxes will introduce additional costs to the corporations, which will need to absorbed in a number of ways, but they can’t just jack up prices by that amount because they’ll still need to remain compeitive.

    Thumb up 0

  35. Kimpost

    I hardly know what the f-ck we are discussing any more. The posts are getting longer and longer, and they are all over the place. And I’m partly to blame for it. Sorry for that.

    Is this now about general political hypocrisy, with you focusing on the lefty version of it, end me(?) on the righty? Kind of off topic don’t you think? This particular back and forth began with you objecting to Rich’ statement on “including and tent widening liberals” (paraphrased).

    I laughed at this Rich. Some of the most homophobic, racist, and sexist bastages I have ever had the displeasure of knowing were also die hard demcorats till they hit the grave and beyond.

    I answered that hypocrisy has little to do with any of it, since it doesn’t change the general perception of “narrow tented” republicans. To widen their tent republicans need to focus less on lefty hypocrisy and more on open narrow-mindedness within their own ranks. They need to distance themselves from birthers, creationists, racism and bigotry (anti gay). If they want a broader base, that is.

    Personally I find the whole birth certificate argument a distraction. Obama not releasing it was likely a great tactic so nobody would then move on and ask him to release the real records that would embarrass him: his education/college records. I have a feeling that those are as paper thin as his work experience resume. It would destroy the left’s claim he is an intellectual.

    *sigh* College records (i.e “Birth Certificate Part II – Same Same But Different”)?

    You state it yourself. There surely are more important things to focus on. Record deficits, never ending wars, the patriot act, the list goes on.

    I just find it ludicrous that we pass judgment on people and practices that are grounded in older customs that were based on serious reasoning when adopted, and then think ourselves morally superior. How happy will you be if 100 years in the future societies decided something we think is wrong or right today was the opposite, and then labeled us all bigoted for it?

    I think we should probably look at things wearing contemporary glasses.

    Thumb up 0

  36. CM

    Well said Kimpost. I agree with all of it.

    Republicans need to distance themselves with crazy. Lately, they seem to be embracing it. Or at least that’s the perception. Pushing crazy narratives, over-dramatizing what the Democrats or Obama is doing, actively suggesting that scientists and science is corrupt or wrong simply because it’s inconsistent with religion or political ideology. It doesn’t matter if Dem-voters or liberals (who would never consider voting Republican anyway) hold this perception. But it matters a great deal if moderate swing-voters do.

    Here are examples of what I’m talking about:

    http://tinyurl.com/3vymc7q

    http://tinyurl.com/453rosf

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/16/mike-beard-natural-resources-god_n_824312.html

    http://www.grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-02-28-what-we-have-and-havent-learned-from-climategate

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7338/full/471265b.html

    Defending that sort of shit is going to make the tent smaller and smaller.

    Thumb up 0

  37. JimK

    And I’m partly to blame for it.

    Partly?!? ;) Dude. Partly? Just in case you weren’t aware, you don’t have to comment on *every* single thing that *every* person posts in *every* thread. ;)

    I kid, I kid. Comment away. Seriously, I’m TOTALLY teasing. :)

    *edit*

    Okay, so this is just how confusing the long comments can get: I thought CM said that. SO, now *I’m* the asshole. Sorry. :)

    Thumb up 0

  38. JimK

    I’m not opposed to those 3 things, especially #2. #3 is an uphill fight because people hear it as “AMNESTY OMG AMNESTY” but turning them into taxpayers seems like the logical end game. We just have to find a way to do it without punishing those who followed the law by giving illegals a special rapid path that is easier than the legal way.

    Thumb up 0

  39. CM

    ;)

    This layout doesn’t easily allow long back-and-forwards. Is these any reason to keep the wide margins on both sides? Could this middle part of the page be widened to include some of that? That would avoid posts being reduced to only about 6 words wide very quickly.

    Thumb up 0

  40. richtaylor365 *

    However to connect the dots to THIS video and make out that it’s part of that

    I think the dots were corrected properly, you honestly don’t think this was a elitist slam at those ignorant back woods rubes? My, but you sure are forgiving.

    “They are bitter”- they, because of their inferior breeding and lack of coping mechanisms, can not handle things like unemployment and changes.
    “They cling to their guns and religion”-yep, those lack of coping skills again, going to whatever is convenient, their bible and their Winchester, poor fools.
    “Or antipathy to people who are not like them”- not only are they socially inept, but they are racists and bigots, who can’t assimilate into the cultural melting pot that we have here in the big cities.

    Yep, no dot connecting there.

    As I said, I watched it twice. I certainly didn’t see the rural/small-town thing being overplayed.

    OK, fair enough, maybe my sensitivity with him dissing the Deliverance types in his other video clouded my judgement here, possible.

    Your opening post bascally says “man, I wish we were able to be this insincere and pander so we could increase our voting base”. I think that’s a counter-productive mindset to have.

    Really? that is what you took away when I said:

    First off, I think the whole “It Gets Better” concept is effing brilliant, but damn it, why does the left always co opt compassion?

    And

    But this was really a clever concept and I wish my side had thought of it first.

    Oh, and this part

    This is why the “It gets Better” movement is so useful, it provides instant support and validation.

    Man, you are a tough audience. I thought I was giving them props and wishing that we could be as clever and pro active.

    I don’t think expanding the base (or ‘widening the tent’) is going to work by suggesting that anything the Democrats do in relation to their base is ‘pandering’ or not sincere. Effectively that also suggests that the people in the video are being used. Suggesting or implying that people are dumb enough to be ‘used’ (simply based on a narrative) also isn’t conducive to ‘widening the base’ at all.

    I assume this was addressed to me but where in my post did I say anyone was insincere in relation to this video? Where did I say I thought they were being used?

    Thumb up 0

  41. JimK

    The problem is the majority of the viewers of this site are running 1280 or less in screen resolution. The fixed width is really limited by that, but I will see what I can do.

    Thumb up 0

  42. CM

    I think the dots were corrected properly, you honestly don’t think this was a elitist slam at those ignorant back woods rubes? My, but you sure are forgiving.

    Sorry, I sincerely and honestly don’t see that video as anything remotely like an ‘elitist slam’. You’ve already acknowledged how coming from a rural/small town background might be relevant to how hard it is to be young and gay. An equivalent video would equally apply in my country, and could be made by the current centre-right government.

    “They are bitter”- they, because of their inferior breeding and lack of coping mechanisms, can not handle things like unemployment and changes.
    “They cling to their guns and religion”-yep, those lack of coping skills again, going to whatever is convenient, their bible and their Winchester, poor fools.
    “Or antipathy to people who are not like them”- not only are they socially inept, but they are racists and bigots, who can’t assimilate into the cultural melting pot that we have here in the big cities.

    What does that video, the purpose behind it and the specifics within it, have to do with those comments? Again, you’ve already acknowledged that “….in some small rural areas religion is more prevalent so in those instances growing up gay is going to be harder….”. Why does it have to be any more than that? Why does it necessarily have to be a negative political campaign?

    OK, fair enough, maybe my sensitivity with him dissing the Deliverance types in his other video clouded my judgement here, possible.

    That would be my assessment. Just like some people interpreted every single little thing Bush said or did through their filters, so do people with Obama. In many, or even most cases, I would say they were over-interpreting. Connecting dots in order to support their existing narrative. Hey I’m sure I do it without thinking all the time too.

    Eveytime the Dems or Obama do something related to discrimination, it doesn’t necessarily have to mean that they’re (a) being insincere (b) cynically using the people involved, or (c) somehow indirectly implying that their political opponents are evil. And yeah, before I’m asked, that applies the other way as well.

    Really?

    Your examples of how you DIDN’T mean that contain comments of how it came across as the opposite. E.g. that this video is an example of how the left ‘co-opt compassion’. When in fact the Dem’s political opposition is only relevant to this video if you make so. What about this video suggests a ‘cop-opting’ of anything? I didn’t notice any comparisons between how the Republicans treat people or their policies. E.g. you say that it’s a “clever concept” and that you wish “your side” had “thought of it first”. The cynical of what you are saying there is self-evident. You’re in no doubt that this video is some sort of political tactic, when in fact there is nothing in it that suggests that at all (if you acknowledge that it can certainly be harder growing up gay outside the big cities, and you acknowledge that some of the people in the video have the right to mention that if that’s what happened to them). E.g. where you say “This is why the “It gets Better” movement is so useful, it provides instant support and validation.” What? What does that even mean? Again, why do you assume this video is being made for insincere reasons?

    Man, you are a tough audience. I thought I was giving them props and wishing that we could be as clever and pro active.

    Sorry, but your comments say that you don’t believe they are being sincere. If you simply believe this video is propaganda for a political party (which is why it is clever), then I don’t see how you can also give them props in a sincere way. Again you just seem to be saying “man, I wish we were able to be this insincere and pander so we could increase our voting base”. I.e. you’re impressed that they can be so deeply cynical and get away with it.

    I assume this was addressed to me but where in my post did I say anyone was insincere in relation to this video? Where did I say I thought they were being used?

    If the video is simply political propaganda from a ‘Special Interest President” who uses a bash-the-opposition playbook (of which this is one example), then inherently the people in the video are just being used as props in that propaganda. If the purpose of the video isn’t sincere, then the people in the video are being used for their sexual orientation. But presumably they didn’t feel they were being used (otherwise presumably they wouldn’t have agreed to do it), so on what basis would anyone else decide that they were?

    I thought the video was excellent, and I don’t think party politics need to come into it at all. If I was a young gay person who feel persecuted on a daily basis, it would probably be nice to take at least a couple of minutes out and listen to people in these positions providing these messages.

    Isn’t it the left that’s meant to be into ‘identity politics’?

    You said at the end of your original post:

    The day is approaching when the gay community will feel just as at home in the right’s tent as they do in the left’s, we aren’t there yet, but we’re working on it.

    Can I ask – what steps do you think have been taken, and are being taken, to make that a reality?

    Thumb up 0

  43. CM

    Ok no worries. I have no doubts that you know what you’re doing. From what I can tell you’ve done a great job so far.

    Thumb up 0

  44. Kimpost

    1280 still leaves room for width expansion. If it’s too much of a hassle, you could always remove a level of nesting.

    Thumb up 0

  45. richtaylor365 *

    Sorry, but you totally missed the sentiment of this thread. I have written many hit pieces on this president and the dems in general, but in this thread I was paying him a compliment:

    Taking ideology out of it, it was a great message.

    I was praising the whole concept of “It Gets Better” and lamenting why my side did not think of it first. I never called those guys in the video’s phonies or thought they were being used.

    That was quite a little nefarious web you weaved, none of it accurate, of course, but telling non the less. I have tried to dissuade you of my unkind intentions, because in this thread, they were just the opposite, but you believe whatever you like.

    Thumb up 0

  46. CM

    Sorry, but you totally missed the sentiment of this thread.

    Well then I apologise for that. I still struggle to interpret some of your comments they way you clearly meant them. E.g. you said that “of course it was”…”done strictly for political effect”.

    I was praising the whole concept of “It Gets Better” and lamenting why my side did not think of it first. I never called those guys in the video’s phonies or thought they were being used.

    If it’s a fact (“of course it was”) that the video was “strictly” (i.e. only) made for political reasons, then (to me) they’ve been used. I guess I need to try and get my head around how they’re possibly not.

    That was quite a little nefarious web you weaved, none of it accurate, of course, but telling non the less.

    Can I ask what it tells you?

    I have tried to dissuade you of my unkind intentions, because in this thread, they were just the opposite, but you believe whatever you like.

    No, I have to believe that you’re being sincere. I can’t rationally say you were intending something if you say you weren’t. Obviously it’s just up to me to figure out where I went wrong….

    Thumb up 0

  47. JimK

    The more I look the more I think removing the 7th nested layer is the only smart move. Widening the site right now would require a top-down re-design of *everything*.

    I’m honestly not up for that right now! :)

    Thumb up 0

  48. AlexInCT

    There it is again. No way a tent is going to be widened by making out that those you disagree with aren’t sincere about their beliefs. Moderates hate that.

    Hating the truth is stupid. Ask the moderates that didn’t like people pointing out Obama was full of shit , an incompetent used car salesman, and likely a disastrous president in the making, what they think these days about the “hating” you refer to when you point out people like me were saying that was going to happen 3 years ago. I lay a lot of the blame for the shit we find ourselves in right now on these moderates and their lack of seriousness.

    They can. But they have to accept that they’ll be labelled as kooks by reasonable people for doing so. It’s their choice.

    You mean people that claimed Bush was the second coming of Hitler, a war mongering fascist that was stealing our rights, plunging the world into the abyss, and then are silent when Obama does far worse? Those reasonable people? Heh!

    Yep, judge people in context. People with discriminatory attitudes today get judged today in today’s context. If someone today argued that slavery should still be ok, would you cut them some slack because it used to be acceptable to think that?

    Actually I have repeatedly tried to argue against modern day slavery only to be rebuffed by those that are fine with it. People that think government has the right to confiscate other people’s money and control every aspect of our lives have already made us all slaves & serfs, with the illusion of freedom, and they defend the practice. You are correct that I should not cut them any slack.

    Anyhow, just so I am sure you have the historical facts correctly on slavery, let me point out that slavery is over 5000 years old and was a constant source of labor until the industrial revolution made it possible to do away with the practice. Note that primitive societies invented the concept as an alternative to the only other punishment of the time – death – so as to get some compensation out of the criminal. It had nothing to do with race until some people rewrote history to pretend Europeans enslaved Africans, completely ignoring the role of other Africans whom sold the slaves to the Europeans, or that many free blacks also owned slaves. Ignoring these facts has harmed the anti-slavery argument or the healing process far more than helped it. BTW, guess where in the world slavery is still alive and well today?

    Nobody really cares enough about salt. A politician’s position on salt isn’t going to buy or lose votes.

    Way to miss the point, likely on purpose, CM. My point was that science, the real kind that does research and constantly is testing what came before for validity with bigger and better experiments as we learn more & get better equipment, get shit wrong constantly. Not that politicians should be complaining about salt. And you must not have heard about the crusades by many politicians to control salt and people’s food intake, especially where the left is in charge, for our own good of course.

    Thumb up 0

  49. AlexInCT

    I answered that hypocrisy has little to do with any of it, since it doesn’t change the general perception of “narrow tented” republicans.

    That’s my point precisely Kimpost. This is all about perception. A carefully cultivated one, done on purpose, with help from a complacent and partisan media that goes out of its way to hide anything that would change the perception, while making mountains out of molehills when it enforces that perception, and thus in the end absolutely and totally false. The democrats have done an awesome job of selling the notion they are inclusive when they are nothing of the sort, and in fact, one can easily and effectively make the argument that they are far worse than those they demonize as not being inclusive.

    There are many other of these false perceptions favoring the left over the right unfortunately as well. The post’s basic premise, that the right should do better at being inclusive, thus is rendered meaningless unless the right first breaks the left’s lock on how any of these perceptions are made and being kept alive. No matter how inclusive the right becomes, and no matter how much better their policies or ideas would serve someone holding the perceptions that the left is better at something, they will always fall short if the propaganda machine keeps the false perception in place. And I still hold that the left is far less inclusive than the right. They are just better at pretending they are.

    Thumb up 0

  50. Kimpost

    @AlexInCT

    Ok, let’s forget about “true intent”, and what not, seeing that we can’t actually look into people hearts and minds. Let’s just go with what’s actually being said and done.

    Which phrase of the two below is the most inclusive one, according to you?

    1. – Homosexuality is wrong, and we need to promote public policies making sure that homosexual influence don’t harm our culture. We need to stop the gay agenda.

    2. – Homosexuality is just as right as heterosexuality or bi-sexuality. We need to promote public policies protecting the individuals right to pursue their own version of happiness.

    Thumb up 0

  51. AlexInCT

    Ok, let’s forget about “true intent”, and what not, seeing that we can’t actually look into people hearts and minds. Let’s just go with what’s actually being said and done.

    Which phrase of the two below is the most inclusive one, according to you?

    So you want to ignore the fact and the truth so you can then pretend people talking out of their ass are more inclusive? Got it. Sorry if I prefer not to play this game and simply point out that its rigged and not worth playing. Replace honsexual with murderer in your example and then tell me I have to answer it in a vacuum, and see how well that works. Also, what if someone was telling you that pedophiles or murderers are misunderstood people? No, I am definitely not conflating or comparing homosexuality with either, but pointing out that when morality becomes subjective, arguments for one type of behavior over another becomes superfluous. And the answer most people felt/feel it is wrong, apparently isn’t good enough anymore these days either, since most people could and have, at one time or another, been on the wrong side of something or another. I am no prude or bible thumper, but I can clearly see that the road to hell has always been paved with the best of intentions, and that seems to be what the left is best at.

    Thumb up 0

  52. AlexInCT

    I also think the campaign to make large companies pay their tax is also a good one for ‘honest tax payers’.

    Except smart and informed people know that companies don’t pay taxes, CM: the people buying the company’s products do.

    It’s long been a habit of government to force the sales of the companies they don’t like to be uncompetitive, against the ones they favor through either subsidies for the ones they like or the institution of taxes, with exception selling schemes that profit the sellers big time, for their friends. Kind of like Obamacare screwing over anyone not connected enough to Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. In the end the real loser is always the consumer/public whom pays far more than they need to if government wasn’t picking the winners and the losers. But you can go ahead pretending that taxing companies is going to help do anything but make things more expensive, costing jobs, discouraging investments, and thus job growth, and the left pretend they care about the little guy while raking in oodles of cash selling exclusions. Bleh.

    Thumb up 0

  53. Kimpost

    @AlexInCT

    What you are basically saying is that you have given up. No point for Republicans to even try to be more inclusive, because they don’t need to. It’s just a matter of perception. And the perception can’t be helped, because the game is rigged. It’s not better to welcome homosexuals than it is to actively push them away, because it’s all relative anyway, and subjective – and subjective is wrong. After all, some people might think that murder or paedophilia are right too.

    :)

    Are you listening to yourself? Why can’t you just concede that it would be good for republicans to distance themselves from bigotry within their ranks? This regardless of what democrats are doing in terms of being hypocritical bastards. Forget the other side for a moment.

    Thumb up 0

  54. loserlame

    What I heard, firsthand, from my very own Euros is that the losers who couldn’t hack it at home emigrated to the New World and promptly raided, raped and pillaged it for fun and profit. Thats the non-culture that exists here to this day, and while I can’t morally object to illegal immigration for this reason alone, I have to warn that allowing it will ultimately label every one of these perps as “Yankees” – white, uncultured, overweight, Xtian heterosexuals (with a small downtrodden black minority), in the eyes of the world (itself a small minority).

    Thumb up 0

  55. loserlame

    Showing a Kraut my US passport gets them guffawing about “non-culture”, showing them my German passport is okay, makes me a mensch..
    Telling them I wasn’t a conscientious objector to Germany’s conscriptive military duty gets many of guffawing all over again.and crying over all the trees I destroyed doing so. A Yankee after all.

    Thumb up 0

  56. AlexInCT

    What you are basically saying is that you have given up. No point for Republicans to even try to be more inclusive, because they don’t need to. It’s just a matter of perception. And the perception can’t be helped, because the game is rigged.

    Oh absolutely not Kimpost. I am saying that republicans need to work real hard at inclusion but hand in hand with destroying the propagated myths that the left is more inclusive, and definitely not if inclusion ends up meaning we do what democrats want like bipartisanship now does.

    It’s not better to welcome homosexuals than it is to actively push them away, because it’s all relative anyway, and subjective – and subjective is wrong.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if we could respect and honor everyone and every view? Of course we all know that’s impossible. I am fine being inclusive to homosexuals to a point. Just like I am fine with moderates and any other special interest, also all to a point. When I however have to completely give up my own concerns, issues, and wishes and basically accept everything the other side – in this case what the left wants – even if I disagree with it to be inclusive, then we have a problem. Basically I end up waving the white flag. And I am not interested in that.

    edit: And let me add right here that if social conservatives wanted to deny gay people the right to civil unions, the same protection under the law as a heterosexual, or anything crazy like that, that I also would object to them and their demands. Inclusion doesn’t mean I give up my values for anyone.

    After all, some people might think that murder or paedophilia are right too.

    :)

    Yeah, and we should lock their asses up.

    Are you listening to yourself? Why can’t you just concede that it would be good for republicans to distance themselves from bigotry within their ranks?

    Who the hell gets to decide what’s bigoted and what’s not? I find it incredibly bigoted that you have no problem saying that people that don’t agree with homosexuality are just bigots because you have no issues with it. If to be inclusive to some special interest I have to give up my own morals and concerns, I think I will pass on being inclusive.

    This regardless of what democrats are doing in terms of being hypocritical bastards. Forget the other side for a moment.

    That’s like saying ignore the fact that the victim is being poisoned and focus only on the belly ache he has. It is ludicrous.

    Thumb up 0