E
electric monk
Guest
Wow. Was not aware of that. Thank you for passing that along!
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
LGBT: Obama or Ron Paul in 2012?
- Thread starter FreakyLocz14
- Start date
E
electric monk
Guest
That was for Freaky, BTW.
Isthmus
Android Expert
So is your issue then not one of concept but of terminology?
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
I absolutely agree. Things have changed. I mean, Arnold is a republican and he would never have been elected thirty years ago (as a republican) because he is not truly a republican. RINO!
Facebook? Go for it. No matter your motives, good or bad. If you want to use my post as an example of a republican nut bar with a loose screw or two, clearly clueless about gays and straights and crookeds, go for it.
If you just think it is funny, go for it.
Will you be my Facebook? I have so few Facebook friends; they all keep dying off, as us old farts tend to do. I am 50-ish and still a pissy, unforgiving, set in my ways, gun loving, banjo picking, slash writer stuck in in Godless Utah.
Bob
Now let me point out another reason for LGBT Americans to be Republicans: The 2nd Amendment.
The Republican Party believes in preserving our right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
Armed gays don't get bashed!
The Republican Party believes in preserving our right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
Armed gays don't get bashed!
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Hell yeah! I stay strapped with a 9 and have a shotgun at home. I'd like to see them come for me! I don't need a gun, though. I'm from $$$J, so I don't play that weak shit. They can see the hood ***** in me come out!
Crude
Android Expert
why repealing dadt is absurd.
YouTube - Allen West on DADT
YouTube - Allen West on DADT
E
electric monk
Guest
He never explained why its okay to kick openly gay soldiers out of the military though.
Crude
Android Expert
Bliss?
E
electric monk
Guest
Then maybe you can help me. Why is it OK to kick openly gay soldiers out if the military?
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Perhaps a sign of weakness, some might say? Perhaps if a soldier is found to be gay, they might not last on the battlefield. (friendly fire) Or in the barracks, for that matter. Or if known to be gay, they kiss their chance of promotion out the porthole.
Perhaps the military is not the place to battle some agenda -gay or straight. Maybe it is military tradition, which is difficult to change or perhaps it is as simple as "we hate gay people so keep off the battlefield, thank you very much."
Are you asked if you are straight when you join the military? Are you asked if you are gay when you join? Perhaps you should join and just STFU if you are gay or straight. If either becomes a problem, it is dealt with however the military does it.
All I ask is you load your rifle, walk a post, and stop looking at me in my tighty whities.
When you join, you are no longer you. You are a member of a group of people that can ill-afford disruption and the military does not take crap or disruption. It is their way and that is that. Anything that disrupts is bad and I think if other soldiers know you are gay, it can be disruptive.
I would hate to see our battlefields turn into Busby Berkley musical reviews, however. And I do not know one gay person that thinks the Tuba, the Coronet, and marching band music is great.
For the record, I LOVE military marches. I was a proud member of the Music City Marching Band and I performed on the stage at the Valley Music Hall many years ago; B-Flat Coronet, by the way. Then I married a Banjo and we adopted several sweet Les Paul Customs and we are expecting an electric mandolin quite soon.
One is black, so there.
What's next, a disco version of The Battle Hymn of the Republic? My God, I hope Cher does not sing --I mean Autotune it.
I think showers would take too long (wink, wink) and all the skipping would be just too much to bear. Can you imagine just how distracting Chevrons would be when done up in lavender sequins and gay, festive ribbons? I mean there are just too many homophobic stereotypes to mention.
Perhaps if you are closeted and you rise in rank and become a general, you can be manipulated and likely disgraced. If you can't keep it in your pants and are caught, punishment is not because you are gay, it is because you broke some rule in the UCMJ. A video posted earlier explained what happens to adulterers (SP?) So it is obvious that the military life is decidedly different than civilian life.
Perhaps some think if gay soldiers are allowed to skip and jump through our military, the end will come. So I guess the next step is transgendered people? And then what? I'll tell you what, women will want to fly jets in combat or perhaps shoot guns. We can't have that now can we?
What about the uniforms? Some might insist on a different color for the winter and the spring; I mean, OD green is so yesterday's war. We might need to develop new ranks, like 'Thargent.'
Perhaps there are some places that not everyone should be allowed to go, like the army, navy, air force, coast guard, boy scouts, outer space, Utah, and the like and gay people should simply stop crashing the party.
Or simply skip to your local recruiter's office, join, man up, hit on waitresses, serve honorably, and distinguish yourself. Make 'ol Bob proud.
Will SEAR training need to be changed to include special 'Thlapping people thiilly' training?
At the very least, being openly gay in the army is just as bad as being openly straight. You are there to kill our enemy, develop character, protect me and my loved one, kill our enemy, and shoot Bin Laden. (well, mission accomplished) Certainly not to push an agenda.
Perhaps it really does not matter or it matters greatly. Bob never joined the army, so what do I know, anyway.
You could join this unit:
YouTube - YMCA
Bob
I just found this out!
At CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) this year, the gay Republican group GOProud attended. A homophobe named named Ryan Sorba got up and talked smack about them being there. How did the crowd of conservatives respond? They booed his gay bashing ass off the stage!
CPAC crowd boos Gay Basher Ryan Sorba for Bashing GOP GoProud Group - Democratic Underground
Denouncer of GOProud booed offstage by CPAC audience | NowPublic News Coverage
CPAC Speaker Condemns CPAC For Allowing GOProud, Booed Off Stage | Texas GOP Vote
At CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) this year, the gay Republican group GOProud attended. A homophobe named named Ryan Sorba got up and talked smack about them being there. How did the crowd of conservatives respond? They booed his gay bashing ass off the stage!
CPAC crowd boos Gay Basher Ryan Sorba for Bashing GOP GoProud Group - Democratic Underground
Denouncer of GOProud booed offstage by CPAC audience | NowPublic News Coverage
CPAC Speaker Condemns CPAC For Allowing GOProud, Booed Off Stage | Texas GOP Vote
Crude
Android Expert
What does the military do with some one who won't keep his hair the regulation cut? The military is about standards. Standards that easily exceed our daily lives. Did you watch the video?
Crude
Android Expert
Well duh. Same reason you don't go to a gun show with a sign condemning private gun ownership.
But I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion?
E
electric monk
Guest
I did. And I still don't see the similarity between a nonregulation haircut and being gay. One can cut one's hair.
We are discussing the attitudes that conservative Republicans have towards LGBT people. This shows that those attitudes are improving.
Crude
Android Expert
Yeah, politicians will do/say anything to get elected huh?
Those people in the crowd aren't politicians. They're mostly right-wing Tea Party conservative Republicans who were there to discuss taking down Obama in 2012 and donate money.
I disagree. I don't think he was trying to be evasive with his BS, but clearly it is BS.
I also love the argument that gays should be kicked out of the military because they might be a target for friendly fire; a) not sure the poster understands the word friendly. and b) why not kick out the murderous homophobe scum instead?
noah way
Android Enthusiast
Facts are not things you make up. Comparing political parties of 150 years ago against those today is non sequitur. While politicians on both sides supported and fought against civil rights, it was the more liberal members of both parties that passed legislation under LBJ.
And it's not right wing-nuts that have hijacked the Republican party, it is corporate industrialists and financiers. And they've hijacked most of the Democrats, too, including Obama.
As for Ron Paul, he thinks the free market is the answer to everything. This would be an enhanced version of the same unregulated free market that gave us the the current financial crisis (based on widespread mortgage and investment scandals driven by the likes of Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, et.al.), the Savings and Loan crisis, Madoff, Enron, WorldCom, etc., etc.
Government forcing lenders to issue loans to low-income minorities that had no way of them paying them back by liberals are what caused our financial crisis.
noah way
Android Enthusiast
You're right, of course. It had nothing to do with no-income verification ARM or balloon loans given to people who couldn't afford them, for more than the underlying properties were worth, with temporary teaser zero (or even negative) interest rates, by mortgage brokers and bankers who often falsified data in order to close the loan and collect closing fees so they could resell the loan for instant cash without any liability. And it didn't have anything to do with huge investment companies who knowingly prepared huge pools of these implosive "mortgage investments" rated AAA by bribed rating agencies and sold to unwitting investors around the world - again, for quick cash and without liability (they were even insured!).
None of it had to do with the housing bubble - in which the same banks that floated mortgages to people who couldn't afford them financed the speculative construction of millions of houses across the country, properties which had to be sold in order for the bank to profit (and recover their investment!).
Nope. It was all the fault of the poor guy who wanted to own a house that he knew he could never afford to pay for, that he knew he would lose within a year, that he knew would take all his money, destroy his credit and force him into bankruptcy.
The Community Reinvestment Act (enacted in 1977 and revised under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II) was not the cause of the mortgage crisis: it was in fact private sector loans.