Don't you love it when Republicans get what they ask for?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2004 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I must say that I have the utmost respect for ALL of you. I respect your knowledge and I respect your passion for what you believe in. I have admitted to knowing very little about events prior to GWB. All I know is what I have seen and how feel. Bush has the demeanor of what I see America standing for. When it came to throwing blows....he did. When we were attacked, he returned the favor. To me...that is a leader. We all have skeletons in our closests (mine is a walk-in LOL) and I tend to live "in the now". I just don't feel safe knowing that if Kerry is elected or was in GWB's place...he'd have backed down from the fight and Saddam would still be a threat.

Colonel - come on now.......gay? I just don't think so.


BoutTime....please bring back the old avatar and thank you for "kindly" explaining things




posted on May, 19 2004 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chevy
Thank God for the consitution, abortion and gay marriage.

[Edited on 19-5-2004 by Chevy]


Yeah, let's stop all "moral" ideas because the church is the ones who say it.

You don't have to do the opposite as the church thinks in order to keep it out. Then you are just fighting them and in that become the same.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Venus


Colonel - come on now.......gay? I just don't think so.


BoutTime....please bring back the old avatar and thank you for "kindly" explaining things


yes,he is gay. Too many incidences of his gayness.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Originally posted by Chevy Thank God for the consitution, abortion and gay marriage


SEE........NO MORALS OR TRADITIONS HERE.........you make me sick...


:bnghd:

[Edited on 5/19/2004 by Venus]



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
yes,he is gay. Too many incidences of his gayness.


As long as you are not......that's all that matters!



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Venus

Originally posted by Colonel
yes,he is gay. Too many incidences of his gayness.


As long as you are not......that's all that matters!


Most certainly not, Trooper.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel

Most certainly not, Trooper.


Wait, don't you live over in DuPont Circle though?






posted on May, 19 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by Colonel

Most certainly not, Trooper.


Wait, don't you live over in DuPont Circle though?






BACK OFF.......JUST BACK OFF MULLET BOY

THAT ISN'T EVEN FUNNY



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   
KJ & Venus: Now, both those posts were funny...."Mullet Boy."



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
KJ & Venus: Now, both those posts were funny...."Mullet Boy."


Har-umph

I'll have you know, that I just got a hair cut. No more mullet.

Now I keep all my kick powers in my brand new RAT TAIL.

That's right... Feel my wrath.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   
This thread is a labyrinth of confusion. For the sake of clarification, I will avoid certain topics (like the accusations that GWB is gay).

I'm one of those bad people some of you have been referring to. I'm a fundie republican and a bible thumper. I don't agree with abortion but feel that gay people should be allowed to marry if they want, but should not be able to push their sexuality, publically. In other words, I feel as if they should keep their sexual proclivity to the proper environments. The reason I say this is because it is outside the "norm." Whenever anything is outside a "norm," society requires and/or requests that you refrain from it in public - such as public nudity and/or indecency, screaming in restaurants, disturbing the peace, wearing a bikini (and nothing else) to high school graduation, visiting the hospital barefoot and shirtless, playing in a public water fountain, refusal to bathe or wear deodorant while knowing you'll be in tight quarters with others, displaying grotesque or violent material to unwilling or unsuspecting viewers, carrying and displaying deadly weapons in full view when you aren't a keeper of the peace (even if carrying such weapons is legal), giving the punchline out before the joke, pushing movie spoilers on people who don't want to know the details beforehand, insisting other people hear your sexual fantasies even if they don't want to hear them, preaching the gospel when uninvited to an unwilling crowd of people in a public venue. Most of the time, when you don't want to hear a preacher on tv, you change the channel. That works. But in public settings, the channel can't be changed.

Acceptance is a two-way street and if one or both sides won't budge for the other, you can expect this type of problem will never be resolved. If one side gives ground and the other refuses on the basis that the other side never had a ground to stand on in the first place (et.al, God isn't real anyway, so the fundies have no grounds for their decisions or gays are bad people and therefore have no grounds for their decisions ), then the problem will never be resolved. It's as simple as that. It just won't.

The only reason the fundies are all up in arms now is because of lack of social acceptance for their beliefs in the gay community, in fact, the total rigidity and lack of acceptance with which people of faith are approached by some in the gay community has convinced many fundies that it wouldn't matter what they did, that the only resolution for the problem would be to not be fundies anymore - that is not an option anymore than asking gay people to not be gay is an option for those gay people who are happy as they are. It simply cannot be a one-way street folks. No matter how many times you protest, either against fundies or against gays, nothing will change their postions on the issues - not even one iota, until the people involved agree to take part in proper social discourse with each other and respect one another as human beings. That's the truth of it, I'm sorry to say, and because that's the truth of it, it doesn't look as if it's going to change any time soon.

It isn't a matter of bigotry unless all sides in the debate are called bigots - which, if they can't accept each other, is the truth of it. A bigot is a bigot - and it doesn't matter what they choose to do with their sexual organs, they will still be bigots if they can't give any ground to the other side. By give ground I mean, we live in a free society where free will is the deciding factor in moral decisions. We can try to convince each other to see things our way, but not at the expense of their humanity, not at the expense of respect for the real human being under the title "gay" or the title "fundie." When our public schools insist they have the right to force a general moral code on people of varying degrees of fundamentalism (no matter what religion), then the respect for the members of society who call themselves "religious" begins to wane. That's bad form and it starts the ball rolling into the type of scenarios you're seeing now. Action, opposite reaction.

That's the message I believe Jesus speaks of. You can't love a person while condemning them. You can't say, I love you but your sin offends me so much that I want to usurp your God-given free will and force you to have certain behaviors when in the privacy of your own home or when in environments clearly indicated for your behaviors.

Being anti-gay and going into a gay community and insisting they modify their behavior is like being anti-fundie and going into a church and insisting they modify their behavior. It never resolves anything. It increases bigotry on both sides, and the only after effect is a bunch of angry people. The negativity from such an event overrides any positive message of salvation or understanding.

I think alot of christians and americans of various religious backgrounds agree with this principle. But putting into action requires understanding on both sides, and from all appearances, the understanding has been demanded and that's the same thing as demanding that you usurp the free will of religious people, not to have stuff pushed in their faces that they don't want, especially in public venues.

It's all about respect, which is woefully absent on both sides at the moment, primarily because it was woefully absent for gays for many years and then the opposite reaction of woefully absent for religious folks for many years. It's the pendulum swinging from extreme to extreme. Only YOU can stop the spin by refusing to give in to the finger pointing and hate mongering that is prevalent when neither side will respect the other's wishes. The solution is not easy, but it is available. Yes, I know this is idealistic pie-in-the-sky, but it's certainly better than giving in to the hate.

Personally, I don't agree with homosexuality and wouldn't practice it, but my decisions are my own, that's what free will is all about. In a free will society, this should be reciprocated on all sides as that is the premise of free will. But it has not been, historically and probably never will be. All we can hope for is to win minor skirmishes along the way, to promote understanding between opposing positions.

Honey not vinegar.


[Edited on 19-5-2004 by Undomiel]

[Edited on 19-5-2004 by Undomiel]



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I'm sorry but you must accept that GWB is gay to see the hypocrisy of the whole thng. I know its hard to stomach for a fundie but its true.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Why should it matter to me if he's gay if it shouldn't matter to me if you're gay?



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   
It matters because of his and the right's hypocritical stance towards gays. If he was truly gay, I wouldn't care. But, its the stance he takes toward gays that's the problem.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I can't believe this... you know they say that those people who call gay to others all the time are said to be gay themselves...



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I'm from the right. Do you think I'm being hypocritical?



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 12:19 AM
link   
DEMOCRATS - THE PARTY OF TOLERENCE



Rant - But you "enlightened" and pro-choice Republicans absolutely crack me up.





Bout Time - Who's that Reich wing British columnist again?





Bout Time - Is this azzhole obnoxious or what?





Colonel - I heard Bush may be a boykisser. I heard Bush might just be on FIRE. I heard Bush might be a NANCYBOY!





Chevy - LMAOOOO colonol I love ya babe for your putting the comments in about what Bush said to that guy He has a pretty face lmaoooo Now someone read that and tell me once again that Bush isn't an IDIOT !!!!!!





Rant - GOD, you guys suck. Even vampires get a little new blood once in blue moon.


*SIGH*

Rather surprising in a thread about Republican intolerance isn't it?

No, not really.

(You can get me for excessive quoting now.)



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Bit of a stretch Seth to call those quotes "in-tolerant", but that's fine. Glad to see you read the whole thread.
It's understandable why you didn't bother defending Republican intolerance, but rather sought out supposed Democratic hypocrisy to justify the behavior.

I'd agree, in any event, that in-tolerance exists on both sides of the aisle. Though I'd prefer to see Dems become LESS tolerant of the BIGOTS, RACISTS and RELIGIOUS INTOLERANTS on your side.

For too long the pacifist left tried to get along with your appointed monsters like Jesse Helms, quietly shaking their heads during hate mongering tantrums on the floor for the good of political progress and unity. No more. The spotlight is being shined on your party's intolerance from the INSIDE. Your own Log Cabin REPUBLICANS.

Scurry away now.

[Edited on 20-5-2004 by RANT]



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Undomiel
I'm from the right. Do you think I'm being hypocritical?


I think your party is hypocritical and the things your party stands for, although you may believe, are just words to buy your vote. Like Family Values, that's supposed to be a pillar and staple of the repugnant party but I have posted so many articles on repugnants engaging in S&M, sex orgies, rape, cross-dressing, pedophillia, and having gay sex parties in the White House (the last part was from the Washington Times, a right wing newspaper) that the hypocrisy is killing me. I'm tired of it.

I'm tired of the repugnants claiming that they're the party of morality when its all a LIE.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Colonel, while I generally agree with you on the leadership of the Republican party, I tend to more pity it's followers than consider them the source of evil.

Take Venus throughtout this thread. She's 100% Republican and adamantly PRO-CHOICE.

Does it even register with her that her own party leadership considers her an abomination and a baby killer? Sure they welcome her vote for it furthers their agenda...but in the end, they've reserved a special place in hell for her and her kind.

I'm afraid Pro-choice and Log Cabin Republicans just won't get it until it's too late.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join