NationStates Jolt Archive

At first I thought this was a joke when the link came up on the Google sponsered links on a forum I run. But as it turns out there are not just black and female Republicans, but homosexual ones to! Check it out: Linky (http://homocon.com/)

lmao... haven't looked at the site yet but the "homocon" url is hilarious :p


think i've just found a new insult :p (j/k)

lmao... haven't looked at the site yet but the "homocon" url is hilarious :p


think i've just found a new insult :p (j/k)
lol fair enough

Yah, the Log Cabin Republicans make about as much sense to me as any minority who chooses to be a Republican.

The lesson is fairly simple:

"The people who you are identifying yourselves with, want nothing to do with you, and certainly arent there to help you."

Yah, the Log Cabin Republicans...

Log cabin is a codeword...


*shivers*

:eek:

Log cabin is a codeword...


*shivers*

:eek:
That is so wrong, yet so funny.

Yah, the Log Cabin Republicans make about as much sense to me as any minority who chooses to be a Republican.

The lesson is fairly simple:

"The people who you are identifying yourselves with, want nothing to do with you, and certainly arent there to help you."
I know, what is the go there? It's like Right-wing Libertarians, just wrong.

*chuckles* :)

flamebait thread.

Your point being?

Are you saying that minorities should stay in the Democrat's plantation?

Your point being?

Are you saying that minorities should stay in the Democrat's plantation?


The Democrats, while spineless, are not trying to write discrimination into the Constitution.

I know, what is the go there? It's like Right-wing Libertarians, just wrong.

Hmmm... funny... most Libertarians I've met in REAL LIFE are closer philosophically to the Right, than the Left. That whole pesky "Small Government" thing, you know-the rhetoric the RNC hijacked from the Libertarians in '80, '94, '96, and 2000 about limiting government power? The whole thing that Limbaugh made his name with before selling out to George Sr. in '92?? Most Libertarians I know favour Gun-Rights, lower-taxes, fewer Government REgulations (across the board, not just legalization of dope), smaller government, freer trade, more open economy, less nanny-state...

In Washington, the Libertarian wing was enough to turn Slade Gorton out in '96 by simply not-voting for him, all he got were the Krisschuns and the big-busisness busybodies- since the Busybodies are pretty evenly split Democrat/Republican in this state, and they (like most people) prefer the genuine article to the alternative, we have a democratic Senator named Cantwell now (she was, at least, honest about what she stood for, yet not obnoxious enough to be revolting to moderates.)

As for the Log-Cabin Republicans, they're kind of like another Gay organisation-the Pink Pistols. Gays whose politics are not dominated by how they get their orgasms... proof you can be more than a demographic slice for some cop-head statistician.

The Democrats, while spineless, are not trying to write discrimination into the Constitution.

Nope, they aren't trying to write it, they just make sure they get Judges that read-it-in, and create programmes and systems that guarantee those minorities are eternally their dependents.

It's like the old story about Stalin, looking for a successor in the garden (it's probably not a true story, but it illustrates a point...)

he had three men with him, he pointed at a bird, and said, "make that bird stay with you."

The first man grabbed a bird, and crushed it in his hands.

The second could not keep the bird-it escaped because he flinched at its beak.

The third man also failed, smothering his bird by wrapping it up.

Stalin took a bird, deftly plucked its feathers. The bird stayed.

"You keep the animal under control by making it completely dependent. See how the bird nestles in my hands for warmth?"

This is what the Democrats offer their chattels. They make them totally dependent, then do as they wish with the full blessing of people who, by all rights, should be able to care for themselves.

Nope, they aren't trying to write it, they just make sure they get Judges that read-it-in, and create programmes and systems that guarantee those minorities are eternally their dependents.

It's like the old story about Stalin, looking for a successor in the garden (it's probably not a true story, but it illustrates a point...)

he had three men with him, he pointed at a bird, and said, "make that bird stay with you."

The first man grabbed a bird, and crushed it in his hands.

The second could not keep the bird-it escaped because he flinched at its beak.

The third man also failed, smothering his bird by wrapping it up.

Stalin took a bird, deftly plucked its feathers. The bird stayed.

"You keep the animal under control by making it completely dependent. See how the bird nestles in my hands for warmth?"

This is what the Democrats offer their chattels. They make them totally dependent, then do as they wish with the full blessing of people who, by all rights, should be able to care for themselves.

As opposed to the Republicans who just wish they'd all go away, and no longer draw support form "My hard-earned pockets."

The Republicans would love nothing better than to change the constitution to eliminate gay marriage.
Thats desrimination, pure and simple.

Off Topic, but, The focus of the Libertarian Party itself seems to be to consider itself neither Left nor Right in the American sense. As those 'positions' are inhabited entirely by the Democrat & Republican parties. Indeed, what is 'left' & 'right' in American politics is defined by what those parties pursue. The Libertarian Party is best described as socially left & economically right. Calling oneself a 'right-wing Libertarian' or a 'left-wing Libertarian' is a rather futile gesture, by 'right-wing' does that mean one is for an especially free market perhaps? or against certain social freedoms which they think debase family values? and in the same sense, does a 'left libertarian' see oneself as somehow more socially liberal than a regular libertarian? or against what they might consider excessive economic freedoms like deregulating minimum wage or even be for a measure of a welfare state? It's meaningless, a "left-libertarian" is a Democrat, and a "right-libertarian" is a Republican. A Libertarian is a Libertarian.

As opposed to the Republicans who just wish they'd all go away, and no longer draw support form "My hard-earned pockets."

The Republicans would love nothing better than to change the constitution to eliminate gay marriage.
Thats desrimination, pure and simple.

Some Republicans, Squatches. Some of us could give a (censored) less if a person wanted to marry their cat, or legally formalize their Mistress/Slave kinky interactions. Like the ERA in 1978, a constitutional ban on gay marraige would die in the Statehouse, or possibly even in Congress, and the split would not be party-line anymore than the ERA was.

It's the difference between a Fad, and a long-term Trend. as for your comment about wanting them to 'go away'...

That's not entirely a Republican sentiment, you know. It's pretty much everyone. NOBODY wants a hand in their pocket that they didn't invite there.
Dems are just more 'generous' with money-taken-by-force-from-other-people.

Generous in the same way that Thief, who takes your paycheck, then natters somethe money out to you is 'generous', or the way that nice, warm, hand that plucked your feathers is generous to provide you with warm shelter.

Some Republicans, Squatches. Some of us could give a (censored) less if a person wanted to marry their cat, or legally formalize their Mistress/Slave kinky interactions. Like the ERA in 1978, a constitutional ban on gay marraige would die in the Statehouse, or possibly even in Congress, and the split would not be party-line anymore than the ERA was.

It's the difference between a Fad, and a long-term Trend. as for your comment about wanting them to 'go away'...

That's not entirely a Republican sentiment, you know. It's pretty much everyone. NOBODY wants a hand in their pocket that they didn't invite there.
Dems are just more 'generous' with money-taken-by-force-from-other-people.

Generous in the same way that Thief, who takes your paycheck, then natters somethe money out to you is 'generous', or the way that nice, warm, hand that plucked your feathers is generous to provide you with warm shelter.


My apologies, if you are one of the dying breed of moderate Republicans, wich.
Sadly, it seems the Neo-Cons are giving all Reps bad names.

Off Topic, but, The focus of the Libertarian Party itself seems to be to consider itself neither Left nor Right in the American sense, as those 'positions' are inhabited entirely by the Democrat & Republican parties, indeed, what is 'left' & 'right' in American politics is defined by what those parties pursue. The Libertarian Party is best described as socially left & economically right. Calling oneself a 'right wing libertarian' or a 'left wing libertarian' is a rather futile gesture, by 'right wing' does that mean one is for an especially free market perhaps? or against certain social freedoms which they think debase family values? and in the same sense, does a 'left libertarian' see itself as somehow more socially liberal than a regular libertarian? or against what they might consider excessive economic freedoms like deregulating minimum wage or even be for a measure of a welfare state? It's meaningless, a "left-libertarian" is a Democrat, and a "right-libertarian" is a republican. A Libertarian is a Libertarian.

Actually, a "Right Wing" libertarian tends to favour a stronger National Defense and trend right on Defense and International issues. A "Left" Libertarian favours a more Appeasement-based foreign policy and more disadvantageous interactions with the world at large. (i.e. a Left-Libertarian would favour Unilateral Disarmament in the 1980s. A Right-Libertarian would favour strong spending on defense matters, considering them to be paramount in keeping his Liberty.)

Actually, a "Right Wing" libertarian tends to favour a stronger National Defense and trend right on Defense and International issues. A "Left" Libertarian favours a more Appeasement-based foreign policy and more disadvantageous interactions with the world at large. (i.e. a Left-Libertarian would favour Unilateral Disarmament in the 1980s. A Right-Libertarian would favour strong spending on defense matters, considering them to be paramount in keeping his Liberty.)

But in the sense you were arguing, both would be for 'small government' closer to the 'right' in terms of privatism as in your previous post. In relation to the left/right spectrum of the major left and right parties of the US. I was addressing more of a widespread misconception of people who posit their viewpoint as 'left libertarian' or 'right libertarian' in terms of internal economic or social issues. Rather than the interventionist versus nonentanglement, inward national or outward international stance of a truly economically-right & socially-left Libertarian if-in-power scenario. Of course in a situation of a fully Libertarian government a legitimate division would arise that would be labeled 'left' & 'right' in viewpoint, but in the internal spread of a Libertarian demographic outside of considerations of an if in power foreign policy, Libertarian is simply one thing.

My apologies, if you are one of the dying breed of moderate Republicans, wich.
Sadly, it seems the Neo-Cons are giving all Reps bad names.

Honestly, I don't consider myself moderate in the least-I just don't hold with the Falwellites. I'm what you might have termed twenty years ago, a "Reagan Democrat" more than anything. I don't trust the Government at all, I have a deep and abiding belief in the incompetence of Governmental 'Solutions', and a serious distrust of all things meant to solve what amounts to 'temorary' problems.

We've had:

A War on Poverty (that's managed to spread the misery out and reduce the middle-Class),
a War On Drugs (I live within fifteen miles of Meth-Central for the Northwest...)
a War on Crime (I have to sleep with a gun under the pillow, and I've run at least one housebreaking bastard out of my home...and this is a relatively good neighbourhood for someone of my means.)

Public Education (failure city. Corrupt from top to bottom, and the more money thrown at it, the worse it gets.)

Generational Welfare. (I regret to say that not only do I know people on this, I'm related to them.)

Runaway Environmentalism. ("Save the Salmon" my ass. redefining 'species' to justify juicy dam-breaching contracts, drive up the price of lumber, and try to shift EPA standards because the current ones have been met...)

Illegal Immigration (Linked to 'Generational Welfare' and other entitlement programmes, War on Crime, War on Drugs, War on Poverty.)

"Soak the Rich" (wouldn't be so bad, but the Bar was set when a dollar was worth more than twenty times what it is now. "the Rich" includes damned near anyone who works overtime at a Union shop!) Tax schemes that seem to only hurt people who can't hide their assets overseas. Eighteen Thousand pages and not getting smaller.

We have too many laws, so many, that not even the Judges can reliably know all of the current ones, and the Legislators who busily generate them tend not to read what they just voted in.

The Entitlement Culture.

Group Rights. When did people stop identifying themselves, as themselves, and start basing everything on one or two small parts of who they are???
A person is not defined by who they sleep with (or what), nor by how much money they make, (or, within the common law, how they make it), nor are they defined by what mummy and Daddy do for a living. This is not pre-British Raj India. "Special Interest Lib" is still irrelevant. Applying "Sins of the Father" to justify fresh offences is asnine. Where do you stop? Do we go after Normandy for the French Conquest of Britain, or Rome for... well... most of the Eurasian Continent?
How about going after Spain for what the Conquistadors did to Central and South America? I'm sure Peru could use some of that looted gold (if they can find it), same for Old Mexico.

You are not your group, you are not your demographic catagory, your furniture, your car, your bank-account, or your tax-return. you aren't defined as a person by who you sleep with, you are not defined by your job. You are not your family background, skin colour, or your religious affiliation. You certainly are not defined by your Party Membership (or lack thereof).

So... when did people start identifying with their Stereotypes? is it in grade-school? Earlier? Does Teevee have something to do with it, or is it just that we've somehow gone from being the land of the free and home of the brave, to the land of hte sheep?

Well, we had problems starting with whatever amendment truned the election of the Seante over to the people.

Well, we had problems starting with whatever amendment truned the election of the Seante over to the people.
IIRC (not going to look it up right now), that would be the 26th, the same one that gave the vote to teenagers.

Just a side not but in the Sweden we actually hade openly homesexual leading the christianconservative partys youth section (the party that come closest to valueconservative in Sweden, but also a small party) but it lasted just for one year.

Personally I think it's good that minorities and woman get influence in all partys so it not just white straight guys running the show especially in sutch powerfull partys as the American republicans. Even if I as a real lefty can't see mutch reason why they would like to join the republicans or that for example that homosexual will get a influence in that party. But of course people have diffrent ideas and conviction and if elephant fly homosexuals may even get a influence in the GOP

IIRC (not going to look it up right now), that would be the 26th, the same one that gave the vote to teenagers.

No, it's more like the 17th or something. Now the states have little say in national matters.

The Democrats, while spineless, are not trying to write discrimination into the Constitution.
Or so you think . . . Affirmative Action is discriminatory against whites after all, and political correctness doesn't help much.

As for the Log-Cabin Republicans, they're kind of like another Gay organisation-the Pink Pistols. Gays whose politics are not dominated by how they get their orgasms... proof you can be more than a demographic slice for some cop-head statistician.
There are plenty of good reasons, which have nothing to do with being gay, that a gay person could have for voting Republican. But gay marriage isn't about orgasm so much as it is about being a second-class citizen.

Nope, they aren't trying to write it, they just make sure they get Judges that read-it-in, and create programmes and systems that guarantee those minorities are eternally their dependents.

...

This is what the Democrats offer their chattels. They make them totally dependent, then do as they wish with the full blessing of people who, by all rights, should be able to care for themselves.
How is that discrimination? It may be a repugnant way of politics but the topic is discrimination, and you seem to be wandering off elsewhere.

Actually, a "Right Wing" libertarian tends to favour a stronger National Defense and trend right on Defense and International issues. A "Left" Libertarian favours a more Appeasement-based foreign policy and more disadvantageous interactions with the world at large.
Can you translate your bias for me? Is the Libertarian Party USA in favour of "appeasement" and "disadvantageous interactions with the world" because they opposed the Iraq war?

By your description, the Left Libertarians are more truly small-government than the Right Libertarians.

Hmmm... funny... most Libertarians I've met in REAL LIFE are closer philosophically to the Right, than the Left. That whole pesky "Small Government" thing, you know-the rhetoric the RNC hijacked from the Libertarians in '80, '94, '96, and 2000 about limiting government power? The whole thing that Limbaugh made his name with before selling out to George Sr. in '92?? Most Libertarians I know favour Gun-Rights, lower-taxes, fewer Government REgulations (across the board, not just legalization of dope), smaller government, freer trade, more open economy, less nanny-state...


You know ... the whole thing they have not carried out and in fact done the opposite with in many fassions ... instead of giving out more welfare they just sink more money on making a whole new set of rules so that different groups of concenting adults cant get hitched

The Democrats, while spineless, are not trying to write discrimination into the Constitution.

This is so wrong on so many levels.

Have you heard the President of the NAACP? Have you heard Howard Dean? Oh brother. This is so funny! LOL!!!!

My apologies, if you are one of the dying breed of moderate Republicans, wich.
Sadly, it seems the Neo-Cons are giving all Reps bad names.

Like the Liberal Dems giving Democrats a bad name.

Just proves that the Republican Party is an all inclusive party. Heck, we even had a Democrat as a speaker at the convention.

Just proves that the Republican Party is an all inclusive party. Heck, we even had a Democrat as a speaker at the convention.

Zell Miller a CONSERVATIVE Democrat. LOL! :D

Yah, the Log Cabin Republicans make about as much sense to me as any minority who chooses to be a Republican.

The lesson is fairly simple:

"The people who you are identifying yourselves with, want nothing to do with you, and certainly arent there to help you."

I loved the question that one reporter posed to the head of the Log Cabin Republicans. "Who are you going to be endorsing? John Kerry or Ralph Nader?"

If I recall correctly, they didn't actually give their endorsement to Dubya.

Generous in the same way that Thief, who takes your paycheck, then natters somethe money out to you is 'generous', or the way that nice, warm, hand that plucked your feathers is generous to provide you with warm shelter.

I think that if you check the statistics you'll see that it is the conservative states that benefit from the taxes that are collected in liberal states. Conservative states get more taxes back than they pay out, the other way around with liberal states.

That's pretty much the definition of generosity on the part of the liberals, and hypocrisy on the part of the conservatives.

Just proves that the Republican Party is an all inclusive party. Heck, we even had a Democrat as a speaker at the convention.

Yup. Minorities, transgender, working and middle class people, you can be of any origin in the world, but if you're willing to vote against your own best interests there's a place for you in the Republican party.

Yup. Minorities, transgender, working and middle class people, you can be of any origin in the world, but if you're willing to vote against your own best interests there's a place for you in the Republican party.

And if your for poverty, Keeping the little guy down, and racism, there's a place for you in the democratic party.

I loved the question that one reporter posed to the head of the Log Cabin Republicans. "Who are you going to be endorsing? John Kerry or Ralph Nader?"

If I recall correctly, they didn't actually give their endorsement to Dubya.
They gave their endorsement to GOP only after Dubya promised to give a good amount of gay rights. Bush did just that, and they endorsed the GOP for the election.

Yup. Minorities, transgender, working and middle class people, you can be of any origin in the world, but if you're willing to vote against your own best interests there's a place for you in the Republican party.
I prefer not to get lynched, peoned, or enslaved by the Democrats, thx. Nor will I succumb to their constant infringements on my freedom of speech, right to bear arms, or their appeasement of my country of origin (China). FYI, Lyndon Johnson drew much more support from Republicans (% wise) than Democrats when he was passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Democrat Tolerance? Bullshit. It's more about ideological conformity nowadays.

And if your for poverty, Keeping the little guy down, and racism, there's a place for you in the democratic party.
Good post. Democrats have yet to admit their shameful past for civil rights. Star Parker wrote an excellent article on World Net Daily, describing today's utter lack of class mobility. She drew some pretty brilliant conclusions, one of them being the negative correlation between social welfare and class mobility (at least of the lower class bluecollars).

Log cabin republicans = quislings (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=quisling).

It's that simple.

Good post. Democrats have yet to admit their shameful past for civil rights. Star Parker wrote an excellent article on World Net Daily, describing today's utter lack of class mobility. She drew some pretty brilliant conclusions, one of them being the negative correlation between social welfare and class mobility (at least of the lower class bluecollars).

Thank you Neltharion. I shall look up this World Net Article. Sounds interesting. Thanks again :)

Zell Miller a CONSERVATIVE Democrat. LOL! :D
But what's even worse in the minds of most Democrats is that he is SOUTHERN. He's a big favorite in Georgia, which is more than I can say about any politician since Lester Maddox.

And if your for poverty, Keeping the little guy down, and racism, there's a place for you in the democratic party.

Good work Corn, you realy know how to go after Mr. Spock...uh...er...Domici. Keep it up.

Log cabin republicans = quislings (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=quisling).

It's that simple.

Are you calling them that because of their political ideology or their lifestyle?

At first I thought this was a joke when the link came up on the Google sponsered links on a forum I run. But as it turns out there are not just black and female Republicans, but homosexual ones to! Check it out: Linky (http://homocon.com/)

Who gives a damn? Why should it matter whether a politician is black or white or male or femail or gay or straight or a shrubbery? It isn't like they're gay members of the straight nationalist party... people's political and economic views are what matters, not with whom, if anyone, they have sex.

Just proves that the Republican Party is an all inclusive party. Heck, we even had a Democrat as a speaker at the convention.

Heh. And Howard Dean calls us the "pretty much a white, Christian party".

God, I can't stand him.

Good work Corn, you realy know how to go after Mr. Spock...uh...er...Domici. Keep it up.

I do try. When people show that type of ignorance, its always good to shove it right back sometimes. I noticed he hasn't rebutted it yet! LOL

Heh. And Howard Dean calls us the "pretty much a white, Christian party".

God, I can't stand him.

Neither can:

Biden
Peliosi
Edwards

All democrats.

:fluffle: Everything is Gay!

Yup. Minorities, transgender, working and middle class people, you can be of any origin in the world, but if you're willing to vote against your own best interests there's a place for you in the Republican party.

:D

And if your for poverty, Keeping the little guy down, and racism, there's a place for you in the democratic party.

No, that hasn't been true since the days up until LBJ.

That's why Strom Thrumond jumped ship. Unless you're over 70 years old I can only assume you don't pay much attention to politics.

:fluffle: Everything is Gay!
Apparently (http://www.funnyjunk.com/movies/59/Everything%20Is%20Gay/stream).

No, that hasn't been true since the days up until LBJ.

Have you listened to Howard Dean Talk? have you listened to the NAACP talk? Sounds true to me.

That's why Strom Thrumond jumped ship. Unless you're over 70 years old I can only assume you don't pay much attention to politics.

I'm studying Political Science

Try not to stereotype minorities people, members of it WILL surprise you one day...

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

Challenge your preconceptions or they will challenge you.

I think that if you check the statistics you'll see that it is the conservative states that benefit from the taxes that are collected in liberal states. Conservative states get more taxes back than they pay out, the other way around with liberal states.

That's pretty much the definition of generosity on the part of the liberals, and hypocrisy on the part of the conservatives.

Much of the raw spending used to justify your statement comes in the form of Federal enforcement and control of local resource-bases. That's a fancy way of saying that it's spent to keep the locals from using the land and resources. To Keep them Poor.

If you live on the Western Slope of the rocky mountains, you have Big Brother to make sure your water belongs to California.

Money spent to keep people dependent is exactly what I'm talking about. Federal power to first keep the local economies weak, then, to make the local citizens dependent. Unlike Urban-culture types in the East-Coast and California-to-Oregon west coast, we're actually able to realize what's been done to us, and resent it.

Keep your 'Generosity' and let go of the eighty-plus-percent control of lands west of the Mississippi. Then we'll talk about who should be 'grateful'.

Take your boot off my neck before you tell me how much you've helped me.

Awesome! the Mods dodn't care about flaming anymore!

I might actually come back more often.

The democratic party is like a small town: the old families want to dictate everything to you, how to dress, what to eat, whom to marry, what to do, etc.

The republican party is more about doing what is right for the right reasons.

Democrats try to force behavior; republicans encourage it, then let you govern yourself.

Not all of them fit this bill, however...
Yet, they still call themselves this party or that...

The democratic party is like a small town: the old families want to dictate everything to you, how to dress, what to eat, whom to marry, what to do, etc.

The republican party is more about doing what is right for the right reasons.

Democrats try to force behavior; republicans encourage it, then let you govern yourself.

Not all of them fit this bill, however...
Yet, they still call themselves this party or that...
That may have been how the republicans used to be … or how they want to be viewed

But they seem to LOVE legislating their belief rather then as you say letting us “govern” ourselves
They are the ones trying to force behavior right now

That may have been how the republicans used to be … or how they want to be viewed

But they seem to LOVE legislating their belief rather then as you say letting us “govern” ourselves
They are the ones trying to force behavior right now

This is how I stand on it. I do not believe that it is within my right (assuming I were a politician) to legislate according to my own morality, which is precisely why I leave the politicking to the politicians.

What it boils down to in their minds is this:
We are going to teach you correct principles and let you decide what you want to do about it.

Since they don't have a perfect understanding, their efforts, while often well-meaning, often appear obtrusive.

Are you calling them that because of their political ideology or their lifestyle?

What lifestyle?

Being gay myself, you figure it out.

This is how I stand on it. I do not believe that it is within my right (assuming I were a politician) to legislate according to my own morality, which is precisely why I leave the politicking to the politicians.

What it boils down to in their minds is this:
We are going to teach you correct principles and let you decide what you want to do about it.

Since they don't have a perfect understanding, their efforts, while often well-meaning, often appear obtrusive.
And if I was a politician I would be more concerned about making sure that people had the max allowed freedom that does not harm others.
Irregardless if I find the act to conflict with my personal morals

But what they are doing is “this is how we feel and we are allowed to not only try to teach you but punish you for not following our beliefs”

Then either take it up with them or run for office yourself.

Apparently (http://www.funnyjunk.com/movies/59/Everything%20Is%20Gay/stream).
That was indescribably bad.

Who gives a damn? Why should it matter whether a politician is black or white or male or femail or gay or straight or a shrubbery? It isn't like they're gay members of the straight nationalist party... people's political and economic views are what matters, not with whom, if anyone, they have sex.
The Republican Party is basically a straight nationalist party by a different name. Sexuality matters in politics when the party concerned is working against the rights of people of that sexuality. Here's an example that is more extreme but on the same lines: do you know of any Jewish Nazi group?

That was indescribably bad.
Indeed.

:fluffle: Everything is Gay!

This is what gay used to mean;

# Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
# Bright or lively, especially in color:

it had nothing to do with sexual orentation. The word for that was homosexual. I wonder why they don't use that word instead of "gay." :confused:

This is what gay used to mean;

# Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
# Bright or lively, especially in color:

We'll have a gay ole time (end of the Flintstones theme song)

it had nothing to do with sexual orentation. The word for that was homosexual. I wonder why they don't use that word instead of "gay." :confused:

I'm just as in the dark about that as you are Celtlund.