Log Cabins

[smokey]

Ya know something I have never been able to figure out is how, given the Republican antipathy towards gays (and bisexuals) how any self respecting gay or bisexual can support them. But, apparently many do. Is this some misplaced attempt to fit in or self loathing?

[Driver 8]

Could be both of the things you suggested ... but I think that for a lot of GLBT people, there are non-GLBT issues that are just more important for them. (Andrew Sullivan, for example, is a gay conservative who generally supports Republicans because he favors their traditional economic policies.)

Any bi Republicans here who'd like to explain their position?

[funtimebiman47]

Good question Smokey. Being from Texas I too have pondered similiar scenerios. Simply put why would poor people vote Republican. And now Texas has even more poor people (and richer people). The only obvious answer for me is ignorance. Hopefully this thread will recieve better answers than mine.

[darkeyes]

Its a mystery which never fails to amaze me how any one in any group of society's "non norms" can vote for parties of the right wherever they live. And as a woman it becomes more strange. But then me sometimes been thought of as a bit strange! Seriously the republicans in the US and Tories over here are essentially unprincipled dishonest and corrupt, something which sadly the democratic parties of the left are having fun imitating, which is leaving us in a right cleft stick. But for all that so far at least, the more leftist parties havent jumped on the anti gay and bi anti minority bandwagon yet and so far at least are to be commended for that. Whereas the right is seems to delight in playing the anti whatever card at every turn.

I am not interested in the advantages or otherwise of the economic philosophies of any party. To me freedom, a big word in american terms, less so here, is far too important to sacrifice on the high altar of economic advantage. In any case I argue that social issues are at least as important and taken overall, in my mind my liberties, and my social standing as a human being are better protected by the left rather than the right. Recent developments in the UK seem to contradict this, but I have no doubt that Tory legislation would have been far more draconian than that of Labour in the same set of circumstances, something I think history shows. But for all that in Britain, there has been huge social progress for the likes of us under Labour. Economic advantage of right over left is moot and is a whole minefield which we could debate till the cows come home. But in the end in general the freedoms and liberties which we enjoy, certainly in the UK have generally been gained by struggle in the face of right wing opposition, and implemented by the predominant parties of the left.

I end with this thought. Even should those who propound right wing economic theory are right, something which I do not accept, what use are they if huge swathes of society, minority ethnic groups, gays, bis, women are subjected to less than equal treatment within that society, disadvantaged by it, and those of us with different lifestyles have to perpetually fight to retain our rights, our dignity and freedoms to enjoy that lifestyle?

[smokey]

well said darkeyes very well said indeed.

[allbimyself]

The problem is that within our two party system, one can rarely agree with either party on all issues. On many issues I find myself disagreeing with both!

[inthewoods]

I am bi and I am self respecting and I support mostly republicans, why? Because I look at the big picture, the first and second amendments to the constitution of the United States. Without either the GLBT community in America have no voice. I do support some democrats that fight hard to protect our constitution.
How many of you know that China is asking the US and the UN to have full control of the internet? Bush said no way, if China has full control of the net then this site is gone forever. There are much bigger things to consider than just the GLBT community. I will try to locate that artical and put a link here.
There are many UN treaties that the republicans have refused to sign because it would cost millions of jobs for Americans and would give the UN the authority to govern the American people. I will say it again, GLBT issues have no place in Washington, these are state issues and if the GLBT community want fair treatment then present the facts of the case to your state officials and courts in a respectful manner.

[smokey]

I am bi and I am self respecting and I support mostly republicans, why? Because I look at the big picture, the first and second amendments to the constitution of the United States. Without either the GLBT community in America have no voice. I do support some democrats that fight hard to protect our constitution.
How many of you know that China is asking the US and the UN to have full control of the internet? Bush said no way, if China has full control of the net then this site is gone forever. There are much bigger things to consider than just the GLBT community. I will try to locate that artical and put a link here.
There are many UN treaties that the republicans have refused to sign because it would cost millions of jobs for Americans and would give the UN the authority to govern the American people. I will say it again, GLBT issues have no place in Washington, these are state issues and if the GLBT community want fair treatment then present the facts of the case to your state officials and courts in a respectful manner.


There are several significent fallacies in your post sir. I am not saying that you are lying, rather you have been lied to. There is nothing in the constitution that protects gays, not the 1st or 2nd amendment, and if the hard right has their way, discrimination against gays will become instituitionalized. What to you think the proposed constituitional ban on gay marrage is all about? It would be the first time since the slavery that the constituition would be used to deny rights as opposed to affirming them and the backers of this are predominately Republican. China wants to control the internet within their boundries, not the internet internationally. I don't think they should have the right to limit it either but the differences between what you suggested and the reality are vast. As it stands both microsoft and google have caved into their demands and did you know that there are now proposals to allow corporations the right to charge a fee for access to the internet above and beyond what we already pay our local ISP. What remained free would be a far more watered down internet than we have now. That is also censorship. Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the loss of jobs in this country but the loss of real wages has happened under Republicans. To claim that the UN could or would govern America is, I am sorry, laughable. As for states rights, it is the job of the federal government to set standards that all of us abide by...by your logic your state could have the freedom to deny you the right to live there, and you would have no recourse in the federal courts to fight it. Think about it.

[adventure]

People's interests are not solely defined by their sexual interests. A dog-owning lesbian couple may have agreater interest in a conservative tax policy than in the right to marry, and so forth. Economic freedom has always been found to lie at the root of social and other freedoms. The right to tell people to go jump in the lake is broadly shared in a liberal free market society (which is now labelled "conservative"), and very narrowly confined where people cannot change jobs, and change their lives. A gay gun-owner with nephews and nieces may be more interested in education and the future than a childless couple, to cite another example. A marijuana smoking conservative may find more in common with drug liberalization policies of the Left. We are not one thing, we are many. To hold that gay/bi people must support the Democrats, in order to satisfy some political logic in someone else's brain, is precisely the thing most people on this list would revolt against. It really says "My perception of your interest is superior to your perception of your interest." It is difficult to argue this and still respect the autonomy of the other person to make a rational decision.

[smokey]

I agree...I am not arguing that we should support democrats exclusively I am simply asking that considering Republican antipathy towards gays. lesbians and bisexuals (transgenders etc) how can you support a party that is dead set on a bias against you. I don't support any party they are all corrupt. That being said I have joked before that the only difference between the Democrats and Republicans is at least the Democrats try and kiss ya before they tell ya to bend over and with the Republicans its more akin to date rape. And I don't know about you but a kiss goes a long way :bigrin:

[smokey]

I just came across this statement from the senate majority leader Bill Frist that is exactly what I am talking about...He is on record as saying that unless there is a medical break through i(as in a cure for homosexuality, and by extension bisexuality) in the next few years we might have to start executing them. I have said for years that I have no problem with conservatives or Republicans, I can respect them even though we disagree on many things, but what the rank and file either don't want to undeerstand or cannot face is that the party of Lincoln, has been taken over by extremists and that they are taking the rank and file who support the party for a ride. Nixon would be too liberal for these people and it scares me for my country and the world.

[darkeyes]

Dunno bout any of u lot but the present US administration scares the hell outa me. I know that on this side of the great pond we laff our heads off at the sayings and antics and downright daftness of Bush an his cronies, and in so many ways treat them as a musical hall joke, which of course were it not so serious, is about all they really are. However so was ole Adolf in the thirties, an look wer he led humanity. So deep down they scare the doo dah out of us cos of their self righteous determination to put two fingers up at the world and override the interests and rights of other nations by doin what the hell they like. Sad sad bloody world.

[Driver 8]

Here's a quote from Andrew Sullivan, who I mentioned earlier:

"I don't mean by "conservative" applying fundamentalist theological positions to social policy, regardless of the consequences. That's well entrenched. I mean actually limiting government, favoring personal self-reliance, and balancing budgets."

Although I have some sympathy with Sullivan's viewpoint, if I were a strong supporter of it, I feel I'd still be weighing it against the Republican party's demonization of GLBT people. Whatever our respective positions on the best economic policy, the idea of equal rights under the law - and freedom from having someone else's religious beliefs imposed on you - is a central part of the American system, and I could not be more troubled that a major political party has put discriminating against a minority, and enforcing one single religion's values, at the center of their policy.

[allbimyself]

Good stuff, driver.

Unfortunately, what is called conservative in sneering tones is NOT true conservatism. Reagan got the republican party in bed with the religious "right" and that will turn out to be a vast strategic mistake for the party. (Did you know that the republicans supported the ERA before the christians took over?)

Fiscal conservatism seems to be beyond the current bunch of yahoos as well.

However, the democrats fail to understand strategy. If your opponent is extreme, become more centrist. Instead they trot out the most left wing nut job they can find to run against bush.

[darkeyes]

Had two bites at the cherry on this. Seems ta hav drifted onto a bigger subject now.

Allbi babes ya knows me luvs ya. Was only a baby wen Reagan wos around so only know wot Ive read or been told about him, an my knowledge is pretty sketchy. But will take issue on ur conclusion bout the democrats (also steppin outa me depth here too huh?). After years of nuttiness, I think the US requires, no needs desperately a man or woman not from the centre but from considerably to the left to combat what is gonna b a very difficult time with congress. Dont know who u have in mind about left wing nut, but do know from my limited experience that those people often called left wing crazies are usually very intelligent and reasoning individuals who have a good idea of what is required to claw back the nation from the brink. Sadly these people are so often demonised by the media, the right wing parties and indeed the right and centre of their own party the electorate get a very jaundiced view of the man or woman in question, and sadly vote accordingly.

Must admit here I have an axe to grind cos me is an old fashioned socialist who no doubt ya wud call a nut in political terms, (as well as maybe personal ones...). Me dad was, is a good teacher an afraid it was sittin on his knee I got me social consience an politics. I loathe an detest Blair an wot he has done to the party of the working class in the UK. It is no longer that, even if it still retains much of its heart and its own social conscience. Fiscally it is now the party of wealth and power just as much as the Tories or in the US your Republicans. Therefore by electing to power a centrist or right of centre democrat you get a continuation of the economics, an much of the politics of before, which have been found wanting, and a tinkering with the social system of the country to appease the democrats electoral base, without offending too much, congress, which will probably be still controlled by the republicans, or the immense power of of the lobbies and vested capitalist interests..the interests of wealth and priveledge. A more dynamic more left wing political figure is required to radically change that which needs changing and take on a probable hostile legislature and wealth interests.

I have iggied the international situation deliberately cos put simply..we all knows its a mess.. an anythin is betta than ya have now! Though mayb sumtime babes me an thee will have a wee confab on that too. lol

Thats me. Switchin back inta bimbo mode wiv immediate effect. This thinkin hurts me brain.

[SilverWulf]

Things to believe if you are a Democrat:

You believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand - In short: you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

You have to believe that the same overpaid public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.

You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Koreans.

You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty -faced activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the programming quality PBS does.

You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinman are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Alva Edison.

You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

You have to believe that conservatives are racists but black people couldn't make it without your help.

You have to believe that the only reason democratic socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge

[funtimebiman47]

Darkeyes, i think i love your brain. All the replies, and counter replies have lived up to my expectations. I can learn so much from this site and the people here who eloquently express their feelings into written word.

[SilverWulf]

I am a Conservative Republican, bi, and proud of it, here are some reasons why:

The Democratic parties first answer to a problem always seems to be to raise taxes to fund endless studies/programs/buracracies to deal with said problem. Republicans on the other hand wish to reduce taxes and cut the government down to size.

Democrats are on record as wanting to take away my second ammendment rights. Republicans support my right to keep and bear arms.

Democrats do not believe in true equal rights, to them, equal rights means giving special consideration to the supposed minority. Republicans believe that equal truly means equal, not that one should be given more opportunity than the other.

Democrats strongly believe that legislation and increased taxes is the answer to every social problem that ever existed. Again, Republicans cut taxes (generally).

Despite strong evidence that the social welfare problems in the country are a monumental failure, any talk about reform is blocked, filibustered, and lied about to the general public. Republicans would love to reform the system so it actually WORKS, the Democratic party will not allow it to happen, they would rather throw more money at it and keep the system as it is now.

Democrats constantly demonize the "Rich Republicans", do some research yourself, find out how many of those Democratic Senators and Representatives are themselves multi-millionaires.

Democrats want this country to be a true Democracy, sorry folks it is a Representative Republic, there is a difference, go research and learn.

Democrats believe the Constitution is a 'living document', when in fact is was meant to be (and is) a static document. (strict constitutionalism(R) vs. interprative constitutionalism(D))

Democrats would love nothing more than to impose censorship to remove from the public debate anything they find to be insulting. (Rampant Political Correctness is an animal of the Democratic Party) Republicans choose to follow the written meaning of the first ammendment.

Democrats are well known for the love of the UN, and would have given the company store to it long ago if they were able to. In my opinion, the UN is one of the most corrupt, evil, disgusting organizations on the face of this earth.

Just a few things off the top of my head, I may do some reading and come up with a better constructed essay on this subject for future posting.

[darkeyes]

me does hate it wen peeps talk crap outa their arse. too late now an too tired ta comment on silverwulf's wee tome..so for now all I will say is...groaaaaaannnnnn. (sumthin usually reserved for more pleasurable pursuits than readin dross.)

[funtimebiman47]

Now i really do love that brain of yours Darkeyes. Silverwulf are you sure you composed that Democratic ass whooping reply off the top of your head without plagiarizing just a wee bit?

[SilverWulf]

funtimebiman,

The first 'list' I posted was an old one I found in a saved e-mail, I should have attributed it to an unknown source, my bad.

The second posting I made, was indeed off the top of my head.

[smokey]

Things to believe if you are a Democrat:

You believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand - In short: you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

You have to believe that the same overpaid public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.

You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Koreans.

You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty -faced activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the programming quality PBS does.

You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinman are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Alva Edison.

You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

You have to believe that conservatives are racists but black people couldn't make it without your help.

You have to believe that the only reason democratic socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge

I juat love listening to (and reading) other people's fantesies.

[smokey]

Since Sliver Fox posted his fantesies of what it means to be a Democrat &/or liberal...here is something I wrote awhile back defining the liberalism I believe in.

I grew up believing John Kennedy’s famous, “Ask not what your country can do for you; rather ask what you can do for your country.” I grew up believing Martin Luther King Jr.’s, “I have a dream.” I grew up believing, “All you need is love.” I grew up believing the Earth is all we have so we’d better take care of it because moving is not an option. Besides, what good are property rights if the land is poisoned and cannot support life? I grew up believing that to change the world you must change hearts and minds first. I still believe these things. I believe that society is not just an aggregate of business concerns but a community of people. I believe that until the needs of all the people; from the mansion to the hovel are met, nothing will change. I believe that unless it is applied equally, there is no justice. I believe that if you truly want to help the poor, then they must be given a reason to hope. Because without hope why should they care, much less even try? I believe as the Rig-Veda said almost five thousand years ago, “Truth is one, sages call it by various names.” I believe that the truth of a religion is in whether it leads the heart to God, and that only the individual can determine that. In short, I am a liberal and proud of it. And, at this late date see no reason to change. I refuse to accept a grim hearted conservatism that has perverted Kennedy’s call to public service to read, ask not what you can do for your country, rather ask what tax cut and bailout your country can give to you.
I am sick and tired of liberal being used as an insult, a dirty word, and a scapegoat. We have a long and honorable history. Work eight hours a day, forty hours a week? Thank a liberal. Are you on Social Security and Medicare or Medicaid? Thank a liberal. If the air and water are cleaner today than thirty years ago, thank a liberal. A minimum wage other than what the bosses can get away with paying, safer workplaces and public education, unemployment insurance? Thank a liberal. Conservatives didn’t give us these things, indeed they fought them tooth and nail. In fact they still are and would eliminate or privatize them entirely if they thought they could get away with it and God knows they are trying. I will end my days objecting as vigorously as I can to their cold-eyed reptilian world-view until they cart me away to the re-education camps. I cannot even call them “The Right” anymore, they are so wrong.
I used to believe that there wasn’t any difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. I was wrong. Since the mid 1960’s, the Republican party has been taken over by extremists and it’s moderate and liberal branches are being forced out. I understand that there are still plenty of decent Republicans and conservatives in the rank and file. They are people of good will who truly believe in their political ideology. I have no problem with them even if we disagree. It is the Republican leadership and their media spokesmen that cynically play the politics of hate and division, then hide behind the flag as they do it. It is they who have poisoned the political discourse in this country by playing one group off another in order to gain and keep power.

[SilverWulf]

Here's a little something I wrote this morning to help describe my conservative mindset:

I grew up reading the words of our Founding Fathers, those brave men who were willing to sacrifice their very lives for freedom and liberty. By the time I was in my early teens I had read and studied the Federalist Papers in full, I had delved into the goings on of the Constitutional Convention. I read and studied the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the amendments that had been added to the Constitution since its inception.

I agree, that was pretty heavy reading for a young teen. Where I was raised, there wasn't much else to do besides read; there was no TV, no radio, no movies. No, not a cult, commune, or retreat of any kind, simply a very rural area of Alaska. My father was a voracious reader and an extremely well educated man. He told me from the time I was old enough to understand that history was one of the most important things to learn, for those who don't are bound to repeat it.

I grew up surrounded by men and women who gathered several times a week to discuss anything and everything. Think of the societies of old, where people who were interested would gather at a home to sit together, to discuss and debate the issues of the day face to face. A simpler time when personal interaction and deep ideals were important and respected.

Noah Webster inspired me by saying, "Every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country."

What became clear early on is the original vision in the forming of this country, what is amazing is the foresight of these humble men. Their words are as powerful and as applicable today as they were over 200 years ago.

James Wilson said, "Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind." This means simply, that a government should serve the interests of it's people. Today's liberal mindset is just the opposite, that the people should bow to the governments whims.

The Declaration of Independence states, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Again, that a government not only serves the people, but only has the powers that the people choose to allow. Today's liberal has twisted this thought as well, wanting the government to have all powers, and to grant what is necessary to the people.

The tenth amendment to the Constitution states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This ties in with the above, but references states rights as well. Again, it limits the power of the Federal Government. The Federal branch powers were intended to be limited, and for very good reason. Once again, today's modern liberal would give all powers to the Federal branch, only doling out bits and pieces here and there to the governed.

John Kennedy is often quoted and is revered by those on the left side of the political spectrum. The thing is, in today's political climate, Kennedy would be a conservative. Simply read his writings and listen to his speeches, it is clear that he shares few or no ideals with the modern Democratic Party. This is not only my perception, a great many political historians and scholars, from both the left and the right, have stated this a great many times.

Today's Democratic Party shares very little with the Democratic Party of only 30 years ago. At one time, the Democrats were the party of the people. They ushered in necessary legislation to protect workers, to protect the environment, to protect the security of our country, as well as a great many other just ideals.

Sadly, that is not the party of today. Today, the Democratic Party hates America and everything she stands for. They trust only in the government, not the people. In socialist ideas they believe, not the right of self-determination. They believe in the despicable idea of wealth redistribution, not in working hard and keeping what you earn. They do not believe in a free market economy, but rather a government controlled economy designed to arbitrarily redistribute wealth. They do not believe in freedom, just free stuff. They do not believe in national sovereignty, but they do believe in a gathering of thugs, thieves and tin pot dictators that call themselves the UN.

Today's Democratic leaders are liberal elitists who are sadly out of touch with what America is really about. The interesting thing is, the Democrats receive the majority of their funding from only 9 of our 51 states. Those 9 states out spend the average American campaign donor by a 5 to 1 margin. Isn't it interesting that those 9 states comprise the highest income earners in our nation. It is not the average working man that supports the party today, it is the liberal elite.

Government controlled health care systems around the world are failing in spectacular fashion. Canadians come to America daily, spending their hard earned dollars to get the best health care possible. Yet the Democrats still want to socialize medicine.

Democratic liberals see nothing wrong with terrorists spewing hate speech from mosques and street corners across the nation, but bristle at the thought of the pledge of allegiance or a morning prayer in our schools.

America is the freest nation on earth. We have the lowest unemployment rate of any nation, the largest number of self made millionaires, the highest standard of living anywhere, our poor are even richer than the poor elsewhere on the planet. We are the most generous nation on earth, because we are the most powerful. The Liberals hate all of that and want nothing more than to destroy it. They want us to be just like everyone else, they cannot abide success, power, wealth, and freedom.

Social welfare is bleeding our country dry and raising the national debt to new, record levels. The system is broken seemingly beyond repair. Yet any talk of repairing the system is blocked and lied about to the American people, by the Democratic Party. The Democrats would have you believe that military spending is what is raising the national debt so rapidly, that if we only shut down more military bases all would be fixed.

The national debt began rising some 60 years ago, under a Democratic controlled country. The debt accumulation really kicked into gear under FDR, when social welfare spending began to out-pace all other spending. In 1962, social welfare accounted for 29% of the federal budget and military spending was at 53%. By 1999, social welfare had risen to 68%, but military spending had been cut to less than 18%. Do the math, which one is causing America to go bankrupt, social welfare or military spending?

I could go on and on here, easily debunking today's Democratic platform. I will stop here so I don't write a novel.

If anyone is interested in debating from a factual, not emotional, standpoint I would welcome the discourse.

[anda692]

I hate to think about sex and politics at the same time, so I thought long and hard about not repling to this thread. But SilverWulf's postings, long repeats of half-truths and lies, require some answers.
I am also a student of history. It seems that what I read and what I lived through must be all a lie, if one is to believe SilverWulf.
Silverwulf wrote "The national debt began rising some 60 years ago, under a Democratic controlled country. The debt accumulation really kicked into gear under FDR, when social welfare spending began to out-pace all other spending. In 1962, social welfare accounted for 29% of the federal budget and military spending was at 53%. By 1999, social welfare had risen to 68%, but military spending had been cut to less than 18%. Do the math, which one is causing America to go bankrupt, social welfare or military spending?"
The history that I know and love tells a different story. True FDR did raise deficit spending to a new art, but that is one of the best ways to bring a country out of a depression. But moving right along, lets look at the last 35 years. Nixon, remember him, had higher deficits almost every year of his administration. He was the first to hit a billion dollar a week, 52 billion dollars in a year. We would be glad to have that now. How about Reagan? Debt accumilated faster under him than any president in history. Clinton, cut the deficit, and started paying down the debt. Now we got these clowns - cut taxes and expand the government at a rate that has been unheard of. Deficits are out of sight. It used to be said that our children will have to pay for our mistakes. Boy is that wrong! Hopfully our grandchilden will be able to cover it.
As for the rest of your "facts", they have about the same level of correctness. Mostly fables and hate speech. One other point about these "republicans" (true Republicans don't associate with them), they have trampled more civil rights than any other administration in history. Thank god that some true Republicans stood up to them in Congress. Lynn

[smokey]

[QUOTE=SilverWulf]Here's a little something I wrote this morning to help describe my conservative mindset:

I grew up reading the words of our Founding Fathers, those brave men who were willing to sacrifice their very lives for freedom and liberty. By the time I was in my early teens I had read and studied the Federalist Papers in full, I had delved into the goings on of the Constitutional Convention. I read and studied the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the amendments that had been added to the Constitution since its inception.

Today's Democratic Party shares very little with the Democratic Party of only 30 years ago. At one time, the Democrats were the party of the people. They ushered in necessary legislation to protect workers, to protect the environment, to protect the security of our country, as well as a great many other just ideals.

Sadly, that is not the party of today. Today, the Democratic Party hates America and everything she stands for. They trust only in the government, not the people. In socialist ideas they believe, not the right of self-determination. They believe in the despicable idea of wealth redistribution, not in working hard and keeping what you earn. They do not believe in a free market economy, but rather a government controlled economy designed to arbitrarily redistribute wealth. They do not believe in freedom, just free stuff. They do not believe in national sovereignty, but they do believe in a gathering of thugs, thieves and tin pot dictators that call themselves the UN.

Democratic liberals see nothing wrong with terrorists spewing hate speech from mosques and street corners across the nation, but bristle at the thought of the pledge of allegiance or a morning prayer in our schools.



Its funny...I read the same things silverwulf did at about the same age and came to entirely different conclusions. It could also be said that the Republican party is vastly different than the one 30 years ago. When it embraced the racist elements that bolted the Democratic party over desegration they lost my interest. His characterizations of the Democratic party is truly sad...somebody has been listening to way too much Rush Limbraugh (or as i call him mush loosebowels :bigrin: ) and ann coulter and the like. As for social programs, someone (and for the sake of me I cannot remember who at 7am) said that a true measure of a society is how it treats its least fortunate. And failing that Jesus enjoined us to comfort the sick, clothe the naked and to help the poor. Those are simple, decent things and I cannot understand how anyone could object to them, but alas I have heard many Republicans and conservatives do just that. I have no patience with the beltway Democrats and all I can say about the house and senate democrats is that is is sad and rather pathetic watching invertabrates trying to stand up. That being said, what I have seen of the Republicans up there nausates me. Besides the true strength in the Democratic party is its rank and file, they are truly good, decent and moral people no matter how broad a brush the conservatives paint them with, not is so called leaders. I hope that is true of the republicans but I have to say I have heard some pretty vile things out of the mouths of some of the Republicans I have met. I can only hope they are the exception and not the norm.

[smokey]

P.S. I did not start this thread to discuss the pros and cons of republicans and democrats, but to learn how was it gays and bisexuals could support a party that obviously dispises them. I can see now that the issue is quite complex. Interesting, most interesting.

[inthewoods]

I posted to this thread once and since have been reading other posts, it caused me to see that within the GLBT community there just maybe great division so I contacted some friends that I worked with in the politics game in the past. First I would like to say that I have spent a lot of time working with both democrat and republican and many of these same people I have also worked against. That's the game, one day you are on the same team and maybe a year later you are on oppisite side due to so many issues.
But concerning the GLBT issue I find it very disturbing. The report I recieved from my friends in the right places who asked me please do not use our names one of who has been on this forum in the past. Two are gay and one straight but all at one time have been invloved in the GLBT political issues. The reason they want their identities hiden is because of the amount of threats they have recieved in the past.
I heard the same thing from all 3 just as I suspected there is a big division in the GLBT community. Just as smokey had refered in his post bi republicans have no self respect, this is very big in the GLBT community. It was also said that quote "the GLBT community has not learned to be polite" "the GLBT community for the most part are the largest group of couch complainers" end quote.
I asked what do you mean by not being polite? Answer, the ones that do get involved have a habit of writing disrespectful hate letters and emails that neither the republicans or democrats listen to and do not want to recieve. The majority of the GLBT community want to complain but are not willing to get involved in what they believe in.
One friend had given some good insight, he explained how the GLBT fight for equal rights and exceptance is the same as the fight Black Americans fought and to some extent are still fighting today. I have to agree, it is pretty much the same. Then he went on to remind me of the things we had talked about in the past concerning the mind set of America. America was founded on christain fath and values the same as any other counrty that was founded on another religious belief. It takes time for people to understand and change, remember how long the African-American community fought for change, he stated. He also stated that any amendment to the constitution to ban any type of marriage can and would be jammed up in the courts for years, I have to agree.
I had also contacted some gay and bisexuals in my area and I was not at all surprised by their behavior, it was rude and very hateful. I was told to my face that I am f!#@$% up in the head because I voted for a republican.
My friends told me to ask this question. How many of you on this forum write respectful letters to both democrat and republicans concerning GLBT issues and send them info on research to educate them to understand better. To explain to them how you are fighting equal rights and exceptance the same as the African-American community has done to be free Americans?
I do not support just one party I have voted for both but I vote and work on the issues not just one as most of the GLBT community does. The loss of just one freedom has an effect on all people not just one community. Smokey thinks some things are laughable well that is exactly what many politicians love to see. As soon as they here people saying "oh that will never happen" that is when they know they have the green light to pass legislation that reduces our freedom.
So you do not think China could have control of the internet, well you will be the last one laughing. Censorship through acquisition, this is very big in America. Most of the news media in America is owned by big democrat money supporters and they control what Americans see and do not see. In 2005 the feds lifted the regulation on how many media outlets a corporation can own. The media gianst started buying up evey thing, censorship through acquisition. Chine is learning well from American Corporations.
The democrats served a huge blow to all non profits including the GLBT community when the Campaign Finance Bill was past and most Americans had know idea that this bill infringed on their right to free speech. In this bill no non profit can speek against any one running for office 90 days before an election. The sickest part of this bill is that the media giants made sure that they were not held to this law.
As for corporations using the federal government to become larger and actually having control of the American people, well it is the peoples fault for having the atitude "oh that will never happen", but it is. The drug corporations have been using the FDA for years to control the American people. How many of you know that there are bills in Washington today that if past you will no longer be able to purchase most natural dietary vitamins.
How many of you know about the National Animal Identification System? This is a scam by big corporations who have used the USDA to gain control of all food animals in America. Under the NAIS all farmers and any one that even owns just 4 chickens for their own eggs will need to register your property and the animals with the feds and put radio tags on all your animals. The corporations behind this are monsanto, cargill and the makers of the radio tags and they have asked the feds to have control of it all. In 2008 this will be manditory in order to have any kind of animal except cats and dogs. I remember a few years ago when I talked to people about this and guess what, they laught at me and said that will never happen, their not laughing now.
How many of you allow corporations or any other company to automaticly deduct payments from your bank account? Well if you are you are opening the doors for corporate America to have access to your bank account without your permission. It is going to become very easy for corporations to lobby the government to make it manditory for auto payment for any services. Go ahead and laugh that's just what they want you to do.
Why are corporations getting away with this type of stuff? Because Americans sit and do nothing and have given the federal government to much power. Go ahead smokey and laugh at the thought of the UN having control over the American people because you will be the last one laughing. The koyoto Protical which is in the name of protecting the environment if signed by Bush in 2005 would have gave the UN the authority to tell America which companies are to shut their doors putting millions of Americans out of work plus it would have required the tax payers of America to pay 74 billion $$ a year to help build up third world counties who would not have any environment restrictions of any kind. The Koyoto is designed to take money out of America very little to do with protecting the environment.
The summer of 2006 the UN will be asking Bush to sign The Small Arms Treaty, if Bush signs this treaty it give the UN direct authority to tell the American people what kind of firearms they can own and which ones they cannot own. That's being controlled by the UN. I fight for freedom and I speek out against corporate monopolization because monopolization destroys free enterprise. The problem is to many Americans sit and do nothing, being concerned with only one issue will surely cause us all to lose a lot. Every time we lose a freedom it makes it easier to lose more.
By the my friends no long are involved with the GLBT movement due to the threats by others in the GLBT community and the lack of respect, that was their words not mine. So where do I stand with the GLBT community being a bi mostly republican? One thing for sure I will not support a knew amendment against gay marriage but on the other hand I have far more important things to do in the near future to get to tied up with the GLBT community.

[BaskinRobbins]

Most conservatives, me included, don't give a CRAP what people do in the privacy of our own homes. Don't make everyone condone what we do and it's cool. Live and let live.

When people start trying to FORCE people to do ANYTHING people get pissed off and there will be an inevitable backlash...

Just live and let live. Don't ask don't tell. -- President Clinton and the militairy.

Leave well enough alone. Don't stir up a hornets nest. Most people are just busy trying to make a living.

[warmpuppy]

Could be both of the things you suggested ... but I think that for a lot of GLBT people, there are non-GLBT issues that are just more important for them. (Andrew Sullivan, for example, is a gay conservative who generally supports Republicans because he favors their traditional economic policies.)

Any bi Republicans here who'd like to explain their position?

I'm a bi Republican, and I think you're correct in your assessment. There are other issues that are more important to me, i.e., right-to-life, aggressive national defense, no tolerance for illegal aliens, etc. I don't think this is the forum to debate these issues, but they do explain why some of us are Republicans. There are hundreds of issues out there, and the rights of those with alternative sexual preferences is just one.

[funtimebiman47]

There is nothing like a discussion of sex and politics to bring out some of the deepest emotions in all people...I wont even mention the third :bigrin:

[BaskinRobbins]

I agree with wpuppy...

[APMountianMan]

The problem is that within our two party system, one can rarely agree with either party on all issues. On many issues I find myself disagreeing with both!

Well-spoken!


:cool:

[anne27]

What a pathetic load of crap! :rolleyes:

I wish I had time to answer this line per line, but I don't this morning. I do find the post offensive and less mature than my 6 year old.


I am a Conservative Republican, bi, and proud of it, here are some reasons why:

The Democratic parties first answer to a problem always seems to be to raise taxes to fund endless studies/programs/buracracies to deal with said problem. Republicans on the other hand wish to reduce taxes and cut the government down to size.

Democrats are on record as wanting to take away my second ammendment rights. Republicans support my right to keep and bear arms.

Democrats do not believe in true equal rights, to them, equal rights means giving special consideration to the supposed minority. Republicans believe that equal truly means equal, not that one should be given more opportunity than the other.

Democrats strongly believe that legislation and increased taxes is the answer to every social problem that ever existed. Again, Republicans cut taxes (generally).

Despite strong evidence that the social welfare problems in the country are a monumental failure, any talk about reform is blocked, filibustered, and lied about to the general public. Republicans would love to reform the system so it actually WORKS, the Democratic party will not allow it to happen, they would rather throw more money at it and keep the system as it is now.

Democrats constantly demonize the "Rich Republicans", do some research yourself, find out how many of those Democratic Senators and Representatives are themselves multi-millionaires.

Democrats want this country to be a true Democracy, sorry folks it is a Representative Republic, there is a difference, go research and learn.

Democrats believe the Constitution is a 'living document', when in fact is was meant to be (and is) a static document. (strict constitutionalism(R) vs. interprative constitutionalism(D))

Democrats would love nothing more than to impose censorship to remove from the public debate anything they find to be insulting. (Rampant Political Correctness is an animal of the Democratic Party) Republicans choose to follow the written meaning of the first ammendment.

Democrats are well known for the love of the UN, and would have given the company store to it long ago if they were able to. In my opinion, the UN is one of the most corrupt, evil, disgusting organizations on the face of this earth.

Just a few things off the top of my head, I may do some reading and come up with a better constructed essay on this subject for future posting.

[12voltman59]

I could not sign-off without making some comments about this thread.

Since I have been inactive these past few months, I have not met Silverwulf.

In spite of disagreeing entirely with his politics, I am sure he is nice person and all that.

I respect his right to hold his opinions and to express them here or anywhere else--I just wished that his list of reasons for being a conservative Republican and against anything "liberal" and Democrat is that same old laundry list repeated ad nauseum from the RNC, Faux-News, Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Ann Coulter and so forth.

While there are some true and valid criticisms of the failings of the Democratic party and of "liberalism and progressivism" there are also many failings of the conservative side as well.

As far as both parties in America are concerned--I say a pox on both houses--in recent times both parties have failed to truly serve in the best interests of the commonweal----they have failed to do what is for the greatest good for the greater number....

Leaders in both parties have blood on thier hands in many ways and both parties and political "movements," in my opinion, are equally guilty in one fashion or another for the dismantling of this nation.

When the Democrats had control of the levers of power for many years, they had indisputedly become corrupt but now we have a similar situation with more than a decade of Republican control.

As the saying goes: "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Let's face it--both parties want the power and when they get it--they give the spoils to their big money supporters--both like to tax and to spend and you cannot say that only Democrats are guilty of this--for we did have a Democratic president and Congress that got spending under control---now we have the Republicans at the control levers and we have a record deficit and national debt--debt that the grandchildren of our grandchildren will not be able to repay.

I believe that for America--it is time that we do make some modification in the way our government is structured. In the interest of truly being Democratic--we need to have direct elections of our president (ditch the electoral college), we need to open the political structure from being a "two-party" state to a true multi-party system where there is proportional representation and coalition government, we need to have 100 percent public financing of political campaigns, we need to have totally free public broadcasting of political ads by all candidates on the public airwaves which would eliminate the biggest expense of campaigning, we need to limit the amount of time for active campaigning for all offices to no more than a few months, the boundaries of voting districts must be such that no one party has an advantage in order to always make races competitive and that said districts acurately and fairly represent the racial, ethnic, geographic and other make-ups of said district and we need to overturn court rulings that give "rights" to corporations--nothing at all about the rights of corporations anywhere in the US Constitution (eh strict constructionists?) And we need to overturn court rulings that hold that "money equals speech."

Those two things are the most undemocratic things that were ever perpetrated by our judicial system.

Robert Bork and his kind don't talk about setting back the Constitutional clock on these issues but they sure want to scuttle the "penumbral" rights of American citizens.

To Sliverwulf and his conservative friends--yeah---"Demlibs" are guilty of many stupid things and of restricting rights of Americans--but don't say that the "Republicons" are not guilty of the same damnable thing--they both want to impose their will on us--it just is a difference of what they do.

Like Bill Clinton said--"it all depends upon what your definition of what is, is."

It is obvious that there is this really huge disconnect between the way those of the "right" see the world and the way in which those of the "left" see the world and apparently neither the twain shall meet---there was a time that both sides could get together to work on things--that out of their disagreements they could craft things that both sides could at least agree upon to some degree in order to get things done and the outcome wasn't so bad.

We have seemed to have lost that--we cannot no longer "agree to disagree" any longer and that bodes ill for our future for no one side has the "truth" or all the answers. So much for "E Pluribus Unum."

I guess if it is an either-or, zero sum game--I will drink the "lefty" tea--you can have your right wing tea....

By my reckoning---the path your side is taking is going to lead this country and the world to a major crash......

This is what my gut, my heart and my head all tell me---- :2cents: :2cents:

[thefallenpaladin]

I saw this thread and I actually joined the site because I had to comment.

First off, 12voltman59... that is the worst text ever. You can not read that. And I don't want to take the effort to copy/paste it into word so I can.

Down to bussiness. I am bi and I am a conservitive. I am not sure I'd call myself a Republican, but it would take a ton for me to support a democrat. Most for reasons mentioned by Silverwulf. I'm not sure I agree with his assessment of history... but his grasp on the general attitude of democrats seem to hit home. I could go further, but I think it's been said.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for GLBT rights, they just aren't that important to me most of the time. Of course, I've lived it pretty easy so far with my sexuality. I've not really met anyone who has been bothered by me being bisexual. I've gotten a lot of ridicule for being super-feminine, but I don't believe that is from my being bisexual. My parents (while they don't completely understand) have not shuned me or anything. I've lost no friends when I came out. Really, the hardest thing I've had to deal with is convince my fellow Christians I am not 'sining' by being attracted to men. Yea, I'm a Christian. I'm a 'liberal' Christian, obviously not a Bible beater, but Jesus is important to me in my life. I won't go on, since I'm sure you don't want to hear (if you do, send me a messege, it is kinda interesting.). Anyway, my point is, I've had the easy life, so it's easy for me to not be marching pride flags. And so I understand those that find it most important. But there are issues I hold higher. Namely, abortion. I will not go into the details, but assure you I am sympathetic. Please do not flame me about my abortion views, though if you take it up with me one on one I'm all for that.

OK, that ends my rant. I'm sorry if it's a little... unfocused. I have a prescription sleeping pill that makes me a little... stoned ^_^; So please don't tear apart what I've said till I can make a more sound argument.

[inthroughtheout]

Posts like Silverwulfs are not even worth replying to. In my experience, this type of willfull ignorance cannot be reasoned with.

[julie]

welcome back 12volt man...

PLEASE change your font size though... i cant read more than a few (very interesting looking ;) ) words of your posts before i have to give up trying to focus so hard!..

:bigrin: julie..

just that i feel like i'm missing out.. being so short sighted n all :female:

[12voltman59]

Sorry that my font style/size caused such difficulty for so many people.....I guess I will stick with the default mode from now on.....

[NWMtnHawk]

Of all the thread's I've read on this site, this one really sucked me in. . . . and of all the post's on this thread, I thought that 12voltman's had the most truth in it. I agree with the vast majority of everything he said. Small font or not, in my opinion, the single most worthy input concerning the two parties and politics in general in this country.

[julie]

Of all the thread's I've read on this site, this one really sucked me in. . . . and of all the post's on this thread, I thought that 12voltman's had the most truth in it. I agree with the vast majority of everything he said. Small font or not, in my opinion, the single most worthy input concerning the two parties and politics in general in this country.

Any chance of you re posting your last couple of posts in a clearer font 12voltman?.. just clearer.. this doesnt mean you have to suppress your creative juices and go back to default you know ;) x

[NWMtnHawk]

12VOLTMAN's post:"I could not sign-off without making some comments about this thread.

Since I have been inactive these past few months, I have not met Silverwulf.

In spite of disagreeing entirely with his politics, I am sure he is nice person and all that.

I respect his right to hold his opinions and to express them here or anywhere else--I just wished that his list of reasons for being a conservative Republican and against anything "liberal" and Democrat is that same old laundry list repeated ad nauseum from the RNC, Faux-News, Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Ann Coulter and so forth.

While there are some true and valid criticisms of the failings of the Democratic party and of "liberalism and progressivism" there are also many failings of the conservative side as well.

As far as both parties in America are concerned--I say a pox on both houses--in recent times both parties have failed to truly serve in the best interests of the commonweal----they have failed to do what is for the greatest good for the greater number....

Leaders in both parties have blood on thier hands in many ways and both parties and political "movements," in my opinion, are equally guilty in one fashion or another for the dismantling of this nation.

When the Democrats had control of the levers of power for many years, they had indisputedly become corrupt but now we have a similar situation with more than a decade of Republican control.

As the saying goes: "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Let's face it--both parties want the power and when they get it--they give the spoils to their big money supporters--both like to tax and to spend and you cannot say that only Democrats are guilty of this--for we did have a Democratic president and Congress that got spending under control---now we have the Republicans at the control levers and we have a record deficit and national debt--debt that the grandchildren of our grandchildren will not be able to repay.

I believe that for America--it is time that we do make some modification in the way our government is structured. In the interest of truly being Democratic--we need to have direct elections of our president (ditch the electoral college), we need to open the political structure from being a "two-party" state to a true multi-party system where there is proportional representation and coalition government, we need to have 100 percent public financing of political campaigns, we need to have totally free public broadcasting of political ads by all candidates on the public airwaves which would eliminate the biggest expense of campaigning, we need to limit the amount of time for active campaigning for all offices to no more than a few months, the boundaries of voting districts must be such that no one party has an advantage in order to always make races competitive and that said districts acurately and fairly represent the racial, ethnic, geographic and other make-ups of said district and we need to overturn court rulings that give "rights" to corporations--nothing at all about the rights of corporations anywhere in the US Constitution (eh strict constructionists?) And we need to overturn court rulings that hold that "money equals speech."

Those two things are the most undemocratic things that were ever perpetrated by our judicial system.

Robert Bork and his kind don't talk about setting back the Constitutional clock on these issues but they sure want to scuttle the "penumbral" rights of American citizens.

To Sliverwulf and his conservative friends--yeah---"Demlibs" are guilty of many stupid things and of restricting rights of Americans--but don't say that the "Republicons" are not guilty of the same damnable thing--they both want to impose their will on us--it just is a difference of what they do.

Like Bill Clinton said--"it all depends upon what your definition of what is, is."

It is obvious that there is this really huge disconnect between the way those of the "right" see the world and the way in which those of the "left" see the world and apparently neither the twain shall meet---there was a time that both sides could get together to work on things--that out of their disagreements they could craft things that both sides could at least agree upon to some degree in order to get things done and the outcome wasn't so bad.

We have seemed to have lost that--we cannot no longer "agree to disagree" any longer and that bodes ill for our future for no one side has the "truth" or all the answers. So much for "E Pluribus Unum."

I guess if it is an either-or, zero sum game--I will drink the "lefty" tea--you can have your right wing tea....

By my reckoning---the path your side is taking is going to lead this country and the world to a major crash......"

I hope this helps those that couldn't read the small font. I just copied and pasted. I also hope that 12Voltman doesn't find offense im my taking the liberty of copying and pasting his post. :-)

[Sparks]

Ya know something I have never been able to figure out is how, given the Republican antipathy towards gays (and bisexuals) how any self respecting gay or bisexual can support them. But, apparently many do. Is this some misplaced attempt to fit in or self loathing?

Interesting topic. I'm a Union electirican, which in my best interest makes me a Democrat. However, most of my work has been in areospace and Defence related programs which is highly Republican. And to top it off I'm bisexual.

"Misplacaed attemt to fit in or self loathing?" Perhaps. By virtue of the dicotomy in my life (personally and professionally), I vote non-partisan. It gives me a choice. The only time I crossed party lines was with Reagan. Why? His Administration made me money and he had a goal that was universal.

Was he a Carter or a Bush who had an agenda over who was doing whom; hardly. Nor was he a Clinton. But being the cowboy that he was, I wouln't doubt that he got a bj now and then while in office. Yes, I do have an agenda. I have a 21 year old step-son who is a United States Marine in the Middle East. As a Vietnam Vet, I know first hand this is a lost cause

It's time to tell that little boy in the White House to bring our troops home, accept that we accomplished the goal, and reduce oil prices. He has the power to do all of these things, let alone bring peace to our community, within the community at large.

Public Policy, notwithstanding, this is just my :2cents:

[JohnnyV]

Ya know something I have never been able to figure out is how, given the Republican antipathy towards gays (and bisexuals) how any self respecting gay or bisexual can support them. But, apparently many do. Is this some misplaced attempt to fit in or self loathing?


I just came across this old thread... wow, very passionate comments.

Smokey, I think the replies from bisexual conservatives answered your question. They seem not to hate themselves; it seems more that they view themselves as "exceptions" and therefore rationalize undermining the movement for GLBT rights. I was impressed with how sophisticated and bold-faced their rationalizations were. Then again, the most destructive ideologies in world history have always been highly nuanced, even if they give off the appearance of simplicity in order to capture the most supporters.

J

[orpheus_lost]

I found this and thought I'd post is as an alternative to Silverwolf's diatribe. Really, I think memes like this are superficial and lack any real merit, but I wanted to point out that either party can be subjected to this sillyness.


*What You Need To Believe To Be a Republican*


Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddymade war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing healthcare to all Americans is socialism.

HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die, is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host (Rush Limbaugh). Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

Support for hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail.

[jamiehue]

Here's a little something I wrote this morning to help describe my conservative mindset:

I grew up reading the words of our Founding Fathers, those brave men who were willing to sacrifice their very lives for freedom and liberty. By the time I was in my early teens I had read and studied the Federalist Papers in full, I had delved into the goings on of the Constitutional Convention. I read and studied the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the amendments that had been added to the Constitution since its inception.

I agree, that was pretty heavy reading for a young teen. Where I was raised, there wasn't much else to do besides read; there was no TV, no radio, no movies. No, not a cult, commune, or retreat of any kind, simply a very rural area of Alaska. My father was a voracious reader and an extremely well educated man. He told me from the time I was old enough to understand that history was one of the most important things to learn, for those who don't are bound to repeat it.

I grew up surrounded by men and women who gathered several times a week to discuss anything and everything. Think of the societies of old, where people who were interested would gather at a home to sit together, to discuss and debate the issues of the day face to face. A simpler time when personal interaction and deep ideals were important and respected.

Noah Webster inspired me by saying, "Every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country."

What became clear early on is the original vision in the forming of this country, what is amazing is the foresight of these humble men. Their words are as powerful and as applicable today as they were over 200 years ago.

James Wilson said, "Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind." This means simply, that a government should serve the interests of it's people. Today's liberal mindset is just the opposite, that the people should bow to the governments whims.

The Declaration of Independence states, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Again, that a government not only serves the people, but only has the powers that the people choose to allow. Today's liberal has twisted this thought as well, wanting the government to have all powers, and to grant what is necessary to the people.

The tenth amendment to the Constitution states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This ties in with the above, but references states rights as well. Again, it limits the power of the Federal Government. The Federal branch powers were intended to be limited, and for very good reason. Once again, today's modern liberal would give all powers to the Federal branch, only doling out bits and pieces here and there to the governed.

John Kennedy is often quoted and is revered by those on the left side of the political spectrum. The thing is, in today's political climate, Kennedy would be a conservative. Simply read his writings and listen to his speeches, it is clear that he shares few or no ideals with the modern Democratic Party. This is not only my perception, a great many political historians and scholars, from both the left and the right, have stated this a great many times.

Today's Democratic Party shares very little with the Democratic Party of only 30 years ago. At one time, the Democrats were the party of the people. They ushered in necessary legislation to protect workers, to protect the environment, to protect the security of our country, as well as a great many other just ideals.

Sadly, that is not the party of today. Today, the Democratic Party hates America and everything she stands for. They trust only in the government, not the people. In socialist ideas they believe, not the right of self-determination. They believe in the despicable idea of wealth redistribution, not in working hard and keeping what you earn. They do not believe in a free market economy, but rather a government controlled economy designed to arbitrarily redistribute wealth. They do not believe in freedom, just free stuff. They do not believe in national sovereignty, but they do believe in a gathering of thugs, thieves and tin pot dictators that call themselves the UN.

Today's Democratic leaders are liberal elitists who are sadly out of touch with what America is really about. The interesting thing is, the Democrats receive the majority of their funding from only 9 of our 51 states. Those 9 states out spend the average American campaign donor by a 5 to 1 margin. Isn't it interesting that those 9 states comprise the highest income earners in our nation. It is not the average working man that supports the party today, it is the liberal elite.

Government controlled health care systems around the world are failing in spectacular fashion. Canadians come to America daily, spending their hard earned dollars to get the best health care possible. Yet the Democrats still want to socialize medicine.

Democratic liberals see nothing wrong with terrorists spewing hate speech from mosques and street corners across the nation, but bristle at the thought of the pledge of allegiance or a morning prayer in our schools.

America is the freest nation on earth. We have the lowest unemployment rate of any nation, the largest number of self made millionaires, the highest standard of living anywhere, our poor are even richer than the poor elsewhere on the planet. We are the most generous nation on earth, because we are the most powerful. The Liberals hate all of that and want nothing more than to destroy it. They want us to be just like everyone else, they cannot abide success, power, wealth, and freedom.

Social welfare is bleeding our country dry and raising the national debt to new, record levels. The system is broken seemingly beyond repair. Yet any talk of repairing the system is blocked and lied about to the American people, by the Democratic Party. The Democrats would have you believe that military spending is what is raising the national debt so rapidly, that if we only shut down more military bases all would be fixed.

The national debt began rising some 60 years ago, under a Democratic controlled country. The debt accumulation really kicked into gear under FDR, when social welfare spending began to out-pace all other spending. In 1962, social welfare accounted for 29% of the federal budget and military spending was at 53%. By 1999, social welfare had risen to 68%, but military spending had been cut to less than 18%. Do the math, which one is causing America to go bankrupt, social welfare or military spending?

I could go on and on here, easily debunking today's Democratic platform. I will stop here so I don't write a novel.

If anyone is interested in debating from a factual, not emotional, standpoint I would welcome the discourse.
wolf do you believe that the republican party today exemplifies your core beliefs as a neo con?

[jamiehue]

Then why dont you and sen. rick spend some time in the mountians together you both wood have a lot to share im sure.

[JohnnyV]

Jamie,

At the end of Silverwulf's post, which you quoted, he asks for a factual debate rather than an emotional one. A couple people in this thread wanted to respond to that long post but said they didn't have the time or patience. I don't have time to go over everything he says in that long statement, but I can add a few things here:

Like Silverwulf, I too have studied the origins of American democracy very closely. I have also studied the political precedents that the early framers of the Constitution used as templates: the Athenian assembly, the Roman Senate, the ancient Israelite confederacy of twelve tribes, the Iroquois League, the British Parliament, to name some of them.

I think the key area where I would disagree with Silverwulf is historical. He says that the United States is not a democracy but rather a representative Republic. I don't agree that the distinction between these two forms of popular rule is clear enough to us, nor was it clear enough to Jefferson, Hamilton, or other important figures in the American Revolution, to warrant dismissing the entire platform of the Democratic Party. Especially because the Democratic party isn't all the democratic, and the Republican party isn't all that republican (the dictionary can explain the difference between upper case and lower case meanings of these words.)

In the Federalist papers, Jay and Hamilton and Madison had healthy debates about how to balance two concerns. On the one hand there were people who feared that a large group of people could not rule intelligently, so many people favored the Roman model of a Senate. On the other hand there were framers who feared that a politically powerful group would grow corrupt if it didn't fall under the purview of a broadly popular mandate, so they favored the Athenian model of direct democracy. Checks and balances grew out of their competing worries, as a compromise, which is what the Constitution is built on. The House is more Athenian, the Senate is more Roman, and the court system is more like the ancient Mosaic system of judges.

Also, remember that none of the framers felt very positive about political parties. Originally the vice president was supposed to be the runner-up in a general election, not a running mate drawn from the same political camp as a successful candidate.

It would be impossible to "claim" the founders for either side of a political debate, since in the wide range of opinions held at America's founding, you can identify people who resemble all the political parties we have today, including the Libertarians, the Greens, and the Socialists. Jefferson supported many measures that sound like universal health care and free education for everyone, for instance. Ben Franklin looks and sounds a lot like a pragmatic atheist in the things he writes. And Tom Paine's radicalism is unmistakably more similar to the vegetarians screaming "no blood for oil" than the self-proclaimed Christian conservatives who are demanding that Mexicans be shot on the border if they try to enter the US illegally.

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton both feared, most of all, what would happen to a republic if an uneducated populace fell under the influence of self-interested men. For Hamilton in Federalist 6, one of the biggest preoccupations was with "popular wars," meaning military conflicts begun by demagogues under false pretenses, and foisted on an ignorant populace ill-equipped to understand what they were getting into. Even though Hamilton and Jefferson fought heartily with each other, ironically George W. Bush seems to be pursuing many of the policies that *both* Hamilton and Jefferson feared -- a return to dogmatic religion in the midst of corporate greed and military aggression. Under Bush's NCLB program, math scores *have* increased, but reading skills in American students have declined in all categories and now roughly 59% of Americans can only read well enough to make sense of a pamphlet or a cookbook. When the 9/11 Commission Report was published by Congress in the summer of 2004, at most roughly 10% of the United States population had good enough reading skills to make any sense of it. Hamilton and Jefferson emphasized that it was advanced reading skills that alone made a republic viable.

I'd love to say that the rambling lecture I just delivered has something to do with being attracted to women and men, but I can't. It's just :2cents: .

J

[ezervet]

Alright, i'm a 19 y.o. bi guy (hell i'm even from MA, the most liberal place on earth) , and i have to admit i'm totally a Republican.

The bottom line is the philosophy of government. To me, government intervention is almost always a bad idea, and we ought to avoid it wherever possible.

For me, being a Republican does not require towing the line on every Republican issue. I can agree on alot of issues with Democrats, I might even vote for them from time to time. The bottom line however, is that I can't call myself a democrat b/c our fundamental principles of government are different.

I'll admit I haven't read through this whole thread, because I was so excited to see it that i just skimmed for a while and then decided to post. But one big misconception i'm seeing is the idea that the Democratic party is somehow going to do anything for the GLBT community. They'll take our money, sure, but the bottom line is that there's plenty of common ground between the Dems and Republicans on hating the queers. So unless hilary clinton lays out a groundbreaking new plan for Gay civil rights in the next two years, i don't think i'd be undermining the "movement" if i don't vote for her.

This brings me to what i think is an important issue in any political debate going on today; that the two political parties have in more in common than setting them apart. This goes for 90% of americans as well, i'd say. The idea that there's really a war between liberals and conservatives going on today is laughable, it's something drummed up by the far ends of the political spectrum to drive fund raising. So don't say that "liberals/conservatives are destroying America." Don't give into that kind of thinking. Remember that the other side isn't evil. They're basically good, and they're trying to do what they think is best. So we'll debate them, in the halls of Congress and at dinner tables, and we'll all try to muddle through. America isn't something that I believe can be destroyed by a political party, and to say that it can be diminishes it.

Oh, btw, alot of the people saying that republican or right leaning Bi-folk are "self hating" or "undermining the movement," are kind of being douchebags. self-righteous, condescending douchebags. Hmm, kind of reminds me of the far right.

PLEASE someone respond to this and lets have a good discussion. Better yet, approach me one on one and lets have a good, friendly discussion.

[JohnnyV]

Ezervet,

If you agree with the democrats on many issues and you don't agree with the Republicans on gay marriage (which is a major issue on which Republicans are united, and on which the Democrats are *not* united), then you are not "totally a Republican." I think you might be embracing that label simply to react against us "douchebags" who have irritated you by criticizing gay and bi conservatives for endorsing a party wholeheartedly, when the party wholeheartedly supports legislation that will make it illegal for same-sex couples to marry or adopt, and that makes it impossible for gays and bis to receive protection against discrimination.

Just :2cents: from a proud, happy douchebag!

J

[JohnnyV]

Oh I should edit that last post.... The Repubs aren't totally "united" since there are some like Pataki and Giuliani who support gay marriage rights. But there is much more conformity of opposition to gay marriage rights among the Repubs, even liberal Repubs, than among the Dems.

If the gay marriage ban fails in Congress this summer, it will most likely fail because the Senate is scared of amending the constitution. Under President Clinton, a Repub legislature already passed the ban on gay marriage as a federal law (Defense of Marriage); on that vote the Democrats were largely split, half supporting gay marriage rights and half going along with the ban.

Makes more sense simply to say you're wary of both parties than to go through verbal hoops explaining why you're bi and republican.

J

[Driver 8]

But one big misconception i'm seeing is the idea that the Democratic party is somehow going to do anything for the GLBT community.
Well ...

California Democrats organized support for, and passed, a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in their state. A Republican governor vetoed it.

The Democratic party has a plank in their platform opposing the Constitutional marriage amendment and calling for the issue to be worked out by individual states. The Republicans have been the ones organizing to amend the Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage.

If you look at the individual, state-by-state votes on things like anti-discrimination bills, you'll repeatedly see that the Democratic block voted unanimously for GLBT rights, and the Republican block voted unanimously against. Sometimes you'll see moderates crossing sides; but, in general, the phrase you are going to see in the newspapers is "along party lines."

I have no illusions about the Democratic party - just this week, Howard Dean has been running around misrepresenting the official Democratic position on same-sex marriage, and Clinton himself signed the DOMA into law. (There's also some reason to believe Dean had a high-ranking gay man fired because his partner criticized Dean's stance on GLBT issues.) In general, though, the Republican party has gone to great lengths to strike down protections for GLBT people, and to whip up hatred to raise money. The Democratic party has had a much better track record on this issue, even if there's also plenty of room for improvement.

[ezervet]

That is of course a very good point. Believe me, about 95% of the time i'm pretty ashamed of the Republican party's stance on GLBT issues. My main point, i suppose, was that its possible to not label myself as a Democrat and still support GLBT rights. I'd rather try to change the Republican party than destroy it, you know? And I don't think i could change the party by voting for the other side, that just drives them (republicans) to the right. At the end of the day, I'll probably end up voting one way or the other depending on what issues are most important for that particular vote.

[jamiehue]

silverwolf.Yes indeed my reply was emotional and somewhat meanspirited.Past experiences with (meaningful dialogue ) with neocons and their ilk have been utterly useless given their through indoctrination by their (instructors) limbaugh et.al.Yet as you pointed out when more votes are going for american idol then a presidental election even opposing dialogue from someone who just may point out something of note to me is worthwhile.Ps. Didnt that shaven rock singer on idol get ripped oh my god he shoulda won!........j.

[jamiehue]

johnnie v! oops sorry!

[CountryLover]

Until the last presidential election, I've always voted Republican, with a few exceptions for local elections. Unlike many of you, I haven't the inclination or time to do the background research on the two parties.

I do know that I'm pro-life, have strong beliefs about how precious new life is, and that's been a big factor in my continuing to vote Republican. I'm not foaming at the mouth fanatical however, and I can see the damage that this current administration is doing to the country.

At this point, I'm shifting to the Libertarian party. I know, I know, the consensus will be I'm throwing my vote away. At least it won't break my arm to vote like it has for the past 10 years.

[JohnnyV]

My main point, i suppose, was that its possible to not label myself as a Democrat and still support GLBT rights. I'd rather try to change the Republican party than destroy it, you know? And I don't think i could change the party by voting for the other side, that just drives them (republicans) to the right.

I see the logic in what you're saying but I think it's a hopeless cause. The Republican party doesn't need or want you, other than the money they might be able to get from you. You aren't part of their standard base and many of them will tell you outright that you're a liability. And the Republicans aren't stupid -- they know that a Log Cabin member is secretly plotting to unravel their Christian Right agenda. They'll thwart you before you can even make any changes to the party.

Now, I am not a Democrat. I call myself "independent." I have voted for Republicans like Giuliani or Jack Quinn, who was pretty moderate. But I have also noticed that even the most liberal Republicans, like let's say Christine Todd Whitman, are powerless before the party leadership's lockstep demands. Bush himself said he was going to be moderate, and we saw how quickly his moderation lasted.

Mary Cheney couldn't stop the Repubs from pushing the same-sex marriage ban onto the Congress this summer (it will happen, trust me, and might pass the House even if the Senate will shoot it down). The Repubs are keen on their demographic reality.

First, face it, self-identified gays and bisexuals are at most 2-3% of the US adult population. One of the biggest fiascoes was when activists claimed in 1992 that 1 in 10 voters was gay; they could never deliver those votes to the Democrats and the Republicans know it.

Second, somewhere around 75% of the electorate opposes gay marriage and believes that homosexuality is morally wrong.

You're in a gridlock. If you're gay or bi, you can't change the Republican Party from within. If you don't like the Democrats, then work in the system as an independent.

Just me :banghead: .

J

[Driver 8]

Second, somewhere around 75% of the electorate opposes gay marriage and believes that homosexuality is morally wrong.
These numbers may be old - I've been seeing a little over 50% opposition to same-sex marriage, though it varies by state (and MA has recently been racking up a slight majority in favor.) "Homosexuality is morally wrong" seems to be polling around 50%, too.

Cites are here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll5.htm) and here (http://pewresearch.org/social/pack.php?PackID=7).

[12voltman59]

On last Friday night's editon of Bill Maher's show on HBO--one of his guests was Richard Clarke--the former counter-terrorism specialist for both the Clinton and Geo. W. Bush administrations in its early days.

Clarke said that the push back in 2004 that took place in 34 states, including my home state of Ohio, that put "marriage protection" legislation and ballot amendments out there largely came from the desk of Karl Rove.

He maintained that the issue was rasied for one reason--to get Bush's fundamentalist base out to the polls.

Clarke said that in addition to the marriage protection amendment---there will also be a push in coming months for legislation that would bar gays, lesbians, bisexuals and others considered unfit from adopting kids.

Once again--this is not really about morality says Clarke--it is about energizing those from the religious right to vote and the rile them up.

I thought it interesting---Laura Bush was quoted as being against the proposed "marriage protection amendment."

Hooray for a former librarian and teacher---I wonder if Bush's handlers will send Laura to solitary confinement back on the ranch in Crawford for her breaking away from the RNC/Karl Rove talking points memo on the issue--but then Dick Cheney was even quoted as being against the measure.

[Driver 8]

Clarke said that in addition to the marriage protection amendment---there will also be a push in coming months for legislation that would bar gays, lesbians, bisexuals and others considered unfit from adopting kids.
We're already starting to see this in several states.

If anyone's interested in following the state-by-state battles (and getting involved, of course) I'd recommend checking the Freedom to Marry (http://www.freedomtomarry.org) website regularly; the Advocate (www.advocate.com) also has daily headlines on GLBT issues, and will usually have something when major legislation is introduced.

[jedinudist]

I just came across this statement from the senate majority leader Bill Frist that is exactly what I am talking about...He is on record as saying that unless there is a medical break through i(as in a cure for homosexuality, and by extension bisexuality) in the next few years we might have to start executing them. I have said for years that I have no problem with conservatives or Republicans, I can respect them even though we disagree on many things, but what the rank and file either don't want to undeerstand or cannot face is that the party of Lincoln, has been taken over by extremists and that they are taking the rank and file who support the party for a ride. Nixon would be too liberal for these people and it scares me for my country and the world.

Good God!!!

Can you post a link to that?