GOP- The Gay Old Party

[aaronssongs]

Repost from a Yahoo Group:

Welcome to the G.O.P., now more appropriately referenced as the Gay
Old Party. Still, Democrats seem to think that their party is more
"liberal" when it comes to GLBT's. But these days that stereoype is
becoming increasingly hard to believe.

Let's begin with Capitol....(cough cough) I mean Brokeback Hill. In
1980 Congressman Robert Bauman (R-MD), a founding member of Young
America's Foundation, was caught soliciting sex from what he thought
was a 16-year-old male prostitute. At first he denied being gay, then
blamed his behavior on alcoholism and claimed to have recovered via
the 12-step program. Then in 1983 he finally admitted to being gay.
You can read all about it in his book called The Gentleman From Maryland.

It wasn't too long after the Bauman sexcapade that Steve Gunderson,
the Republican Congressman from Wisconsin, had a sex sting of his own.
He also lost his election and is now shacking up with his boy toy
Robby Morris. In 1996 he was the only Republican to vote against
President Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act. He, like Congressman
Bauman, also tried to make money off of his story. You can learn more
by reading his book House and Home...more on link

Aaron Maloy's Blog - GOP: Gay Old Party

[Jason]

Are you posing any particular question for debate, aaron?

[aaronssongs]

Well, possibly....perhaps, the hypocrisy of the Republican Party, or its' failure to live up to its' own flagwaving as the standard bearer of morality and "family values"...Anyone care to discuss or "debate"????

[Chaossaber314]

For all the things that the Republicans CAN be smeared for, I think attempting to smear them for being gay, something I don't really consider a negative, is pretty low.

Here you are, a minority no less, exploiting a negative connotation against another minority group in order to further your own political agenda. I find it reprehensible quite frankly.

[Suburbanite]

The reason Republicans come out as being gay is because neoconservatives make them rape boys on camera for black mailing them if they betray the illuminati.

[Milton Bradley]

So, it's like the Catholic Church?

[Suburbanite]

hahahaha, zeitgeist, all things contingent huh?

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Suburbanite The reason Republicans come out as being gay is because neoconservatives make them rape boys on camera for black mailing them if they betray the illuminati.

Did you take your meds this morning?

[aaronssongs]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 For all the things that the Republicans CAN be smeared for, I think attempting to smear them for being gay, something I don't really consider a negative, is pretty low. Here you are, a minority no less, exploiting a negative connotation against another minority group in order to further your own political agenda. I find it reprehensible quite frankly.

Excuse me...but "zoom"..; over your head! The point being made was pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republicans...I have no problem with them being "gay", only , "pointing fingers" and lying about "being gay".
Exploiting a "negative connotation"???? Which one? There are so many to choose from. Show me a respectable, conscientious Republican, and we'll be waiting a long while. I find that reprehensible.

[aaronssongs]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Did you take your meds this morning?

No, you didn't take yours. You want to pretend that the Republicans don't have unresolved issues surrounding "integrity" and "sex". Think again.
These are probably the very same people that would "defame" a statue by Rodin ( which actually happened at the Sculpture Garden, in midtown Houston, at the behest of the Museum of Fine Arts board....I guess the Lourvre, would totally freak them out!) , removing the parts of the male anatomy, because what? Nudity offends? Give me a f....... break! Victorian-ass-lying-through-their-teeth- hypocrites.

[Chris]

aaron calm down, Chaos was referring to suburbanite when he was asking about meds...

chill

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Aaron Excuse me...but "zoom"..; over your head! The point being made was pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republicans...I have no problem with them being "gay", only , "pointing fingers" and lying about "being gay".

Then you should have no problem proving that the majority of Republicans are really closeted homosexuals rather than a few well publicized incidents. I mean of all the issues to call the entire Republican party hypocritcal on (and there are countless), this is at the bottom.

Exploiting a "negative connotation"???? Which one?

I thought I specifically stated that by addressing the op where the claim you are making also implies pretty overtly that there is something negative about being homosexual.

Why should calling the GOP the Gay Old Party be a bad thing? The entire Op goes beyond hypocricy to the double standard some minorities seem to feel toward homosexuals which I find quite ironic. As groups that have historically been the target of prejudice and injustice, they should know better.

Calling the GOP the Gay Old Party is meant to be insulting and indicates that you think such a title is such.

Show me a respectable, conscientious Republican, and we'll be waiting a long while. I find that reprehensible.

Show me a respectable conscientious Demoncrat or any other politician and I will be highly surprised. Focusing on the Republicans admist such widespread corruption is dishonest at best and irresponsible at worst as it allows for the big picture to be glossed over in the interest of patently partisan politics.

No, you didn't take yours. You want to pretend that the Republicans don't have unresolved issues surrounding "integrity" and "sex". Think again.

Jump the gun, much? Where did I want to pretend anything. I'm sure the Republicans do have problems with Integrity (misnomer to any individual in Washington reguardless of party) and Sex. You're just not proving this point by focusing on a minority of Republicans who are turning out to be gay or sexually deviant as in the case of the congressional page scandals.

If you want to argue the problems the Republican party has with sex, start with Sex Education and maybe some fun facts like that the CDC website removed information on Condom usage after the Bush adminstration entered office and pushed the flawed abstinence only policy.

[aaronssongs]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Then you should have no problem proving that the majority of Republicans are really closeted homosexuals rather than a few well publicized incidents. I mean of all the issues to call the entire Republican party hypocritcal on (and there are countless), this is at the bottom. Really, Chaoss, Is it that hard to comprehend? In light of all the countless scandals, is there any better issue to call the entire Republican party on? Who spoke up, and when? Well, it wasn't Dennis Hastert...who "shucked and jived", and hunched his shoulders when asked what he knew and when he knew it, in the Mark Foley debacle. See that is the modus operandi with the Republicans....big elephant in the middle of the room...no one can see it, it's not there....elephant knocks over lamp, then there's a lot of hemming and hawwing about not knowing how things got broke....typical. I thought I specifically stated that by addressing the op where the claim you are making also implies pretty overtly that there is something negative about being homosexual. Now me being homosexual, wouldn't that be just plain stupid, if not disingenuous? I don't think there is something negative about being homosexual. Do you? I know Republicans, as a whole think that....but just because they do, doesn't mean that it's worth salt...they get so many things wrong...this is just another. Why should calling the GOP the Gay Old Party be a bad thing? The entire Op goes beyond hypocricy to the double standard some minorities seem to feel toward homosexuals which I find quite ironic. As groups that have historically been the target of prejudice and injustice, they should know better. Calling the GOP the Gay Old Party is meant to be insulting and indicates that you think such a title is such. Besides the obvious irony (GOP= Gay Old Party), who is the label insulting to? Not gays....they don't have a problem with terminology. If you see something as negative, and stereotypical aren't you coloring with your own mind stuff? One man's floor is another's ceiling. The Republican Party is the party of hypocrisy, is what the op-ed is pointing out....folks just keep falling "out of the closet"...but to listen to the powers that be tell it...don't ask, don't tell...or better yet, "Republicans are not gay", to which the Log Cabin Republicans must be scratching their "gay little heads", in wonder. There is so much doublespeak, and double standards, as to make anyone's head spin. Show me a respectable conscientious Demoncrat or any other politician and I will be highly surprised. Focusing on the Republicans admist such widespread corruption is dishonest at best and irresponsible at worst as it allows for the big picture to be glossed over in the interest of patently partisan politics. With Bush and Co. as poster children for the Republican party, I'd say they have a big image problem...but, again, I ask, did anybody ever challenge them (save Hagel and Warner) No. No one spoke up, and they let this administration have a free hand in shredding the Constitution, ignoring the rule of law, and repealing habeas corpus, and worse, conducting an illegal war on false pretenses....widespread corruption? Please..unprecedented widespread corruption. If you don't think so, why are the Repub presidential candidates avoiding Bush's name like the plague? Jump the gun, much? Where did I want to pretend anything. I'm sure the Republicans do have problems with Integrity (misnomer to any individual in Washington reguardless of party) and Sex. You're just not proving this point by focusing on a minority of Republicans who are turning out to be gay or sexually deviant as in the case of the congressional page scandals. Again it goes to the level of hypocrisy...the Democrats were never as disingenuous or arrogant to claim to be the party of the moral majority, or the Christian Right, only to see that banner "peed" on by it's own representatives. I'm not saying that the Democrats don't have their issues, and are just as immoral and hypocritical...but they didn't take the moral high ground...because, perhaps, they better understand that people are human, and have weaknesses, and make mistakes...they don't claim to never have made any mistakes, as the Republicans do. George Bush was asked in a widely observed press conference, if he had any regrets, or things that he would do differently....and he couldn't think of one single solitary thing. Very telling. If you want to argue the problems the Republican party has with sex, start with Sex Education and maybe some fun facts like that the CDC website removed information on Condom usage after the Bush adminstration entered office and pushed the flawed abstinence only policy.

This country has problems with sex...from freaking out at Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" to Tila Tequila....Victorian on the one hand, and whores on the other.

[grandpa]

Quote by: aaronssongs This country has problems with sex... from freaking out at Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" to Tila Tequila....

There are still plenty of right-wing anti-sex activists (for lack of a better term).

Grandpa h.

[Gabe2007]

Quote by: aaronssongs Well, possibly....perhaps, the hypocrisy of the Republican Party, or its' failure to live up to its' own flagwaving as the standard bearer of morality and "family values"...Anyone care to discuss or "debate"????

Oh and I suppose killing babies and letting murderers kill others is very moral?

[Jimmy the Pro]

To the OP:

Fine, knock the hypocracy of the Republican party.

Everyone, Republican, Democrat, Independent, and any other party has committed hypocracy even to the extent of homosexuality.

Pointing the finger at Republicans and saying "Bad Dog" doesn't mean much if you don't explain the full spectrum of hypocracy on the issue.

[Matt W]

Is it just me, or is responding to someone who is banned a bit of a waste of time?

[Gabe2007]

Quote by: Matt W Is it just me, or is responding to someone who is banned a bit of a waste of time?

No. Because everyone else can read and reply if they disagree with my point.

[Jimmy the Pro]

Matt, isn't coming on here theoretically a waste of our time also?

If we went online during work hours we would be interferring with our work time.

Same goes for family time and any other alotted time.

If you tell me that we go on her for educational value or to spur new ideas then there is no reason to argue that my post is a waste of time as it seeks to do both.

[Matt W]

Quote by: Gabe2007 No. Because everyone else can read and reply if they disagree with my point.

Wasn't talking to you, but rather to Jimmy, who is attempting to address the OP. When the original poster can't respond.

Never mind...