As much as I’d like to see social and religious conservatives bolt the Republican coalition, now is not the time to do it. I agree with Clayton’s post on this matter completely. Top priority is preventing there being another Clinton in the White House. Whoever gets the GOP nod will not, and cannot be as bad as her.
This is the year I hold my nose and gladly hold hands with people who don’t share my views on gays or abortion, lest I be subject to 4, or god forbid, 8 years of The Hildabeast.
I hope you and Clayton are very happy together.
Hasn’t Kevin banned you from this site yet?
Agreed, Sebastian, but I dunno if sticking with whoever gets the GOP nomination is much of a good bet. Guiliani might be electable, if he can somehow manage to keep the photos of him in a dress out of the media…
But that’s about the same chance as a snowball in hell.
If the choice is between Hillary for sure, and a 98% chance of Hillary against a third party Thompson or any real reasonable conservative… well, I know which one sounds better.
Kevin? I thought I was SayUncle. Or am I getting confused again?
Obviously you are confused, Sebastian. Otherwise, how to explain that you stand shoulder to shoulder with an anti-gay bigot?
I guess you can’t use use the argument that gun ownership is about civil rights anymore given the fact you’re willing to side with someone who believes about 10% of the US population are subhuman.
And JG sides w/ those that believe about 25% + of the US population are subhuman.
There is no party that represents my views. I’m not allying with Clayton because I agree with him on gays, I’m allying with him on not bolting out of the coalition, and supporting Giuliani, should he be the nominee, and handing the White House to Hillary Clinton.
Giuliani is closer to my views than Hilly. Actually, except for his views on the gun issue, and his unfortunate penchant for quirky authoritarianism, I don’t have too much in the way of a beef with Rudy.
Jadegold is just being difficult. I’m sure he understands the purpose of being in a coalition of people you often don’t agree with for the purposes of defeating people you almost always don’t agree with.
Of course you are allying with him, Sebastian. You can’t deny that. This is a person who has written extensively about gays in a hateful, pejorative and untruthful way and you’re signing up to it.
Look, you can’t climb into bed with a Clayton Cramer and then pretend you were there for the sleep.
More homosexual inuendo from the butterbar. Feeling frustrated because Kevin rejected you Jade?
Are you saying the National Baptist Convention and the Gay Rights Community are shoulder to shoulder because they both vote primarily Democrat?
“understands the purpose of being in a coalition of people you often don’t agree with for the purposes of defeating people you almost always don’t agree with.”
Oh, I understand this. But only up to a point. Are you willing to support some candidate you agree with 99% of the time even if he believes blacks are subhumans? Most folks would say no.
Here, you have a guy who tells us all gays are perverts and worse. Once you sign onboard that ship, it’s awfully tough to become credible once more.
That’s an image I didn’t need in my head before eating dinner. At this point you’re just trolling for a reaction.
I’m allying with Clayton on the issue of it being a bad idea for the social conservatives to start a third party if Giuliani is nominated to run on the Republican ticket in 2008. Giuliani has been supportive of gay and abortion rights. If anything, you should be wondering how someone so “hateful” about gays would ally with someone like me to vote for someone like Giuliani.
It’s not that we agree on those issues, it’s that, as a package, we both agree Hillary is worse than anyone on the GOP ticket right now. Maybe you only form political coalitions with folks you agree with everything on, but for everyone else, it’s a trade off. I’ve never felt good about anyone I’ve voted for, and I don’t feel good about other members of the Republican coalition either.
Third: Your ignorance is astonishing in its ignorance.
The National Baptist Convention hasn’t issued any policies concerning gays. They do believe homosexuality to be sinful–as several religions do–but they haven’t supported a constitutional ban on same sex marriage. In fact, the leader of the church considers adultery to be a greater threat. Similarly, many gay rights organizations believe the NBC hasn’t done enough to support black gays and has called on the church to do more.
The point that escapes you is that these are two groups who don’t necessarily see eye-t0-eye but can engage each other respectfully and with common goals.
Aligning yourself with a biogot and hate-monger only demeans you. For you, though, it may be a step up.
Really. I’m in favor of the Gov’t getting completely out of the “recognized marriage” business and leaving it up to consenting adults w/ private contracts.
Like I said, remember that the largest AA Baptist Groups and the various GLBT groups vote primarily Democrat.
According to JG, they are in bed together.
Boy butterbar, you really have to reach to make your points, don’t you? I just used them as an example. But of course since you know you’re just trolling, that’s the best you’ve got.
Now we get to play your game. What’s a ‘biogot’?
Like I said, remember that the largest AA Baptist Groups and the various GLBT groups vote primarily Democrat.
According to JG, they are in bed together.
Yes, Third, they are. Both groups recognize one party values civil rights over skin color, faith, or sexual orientation. And they know the GOP does not.
Psssst..on the ‘butter bar’ thing–you might upset Linoge. Plus, I’ve not worn butter bars for years now; not since about a year and a half after f=graduating from that famous Federal Military Academy.
“I guess you can’t use use the argument that gun ownership is about civil rights anymore given the fact you’re willing to side with someone who believes about 10% of the US population are subhuman.”
1. About 4% of the U.S. population is gay or bisexual.
2. Subhuman? Huh? That’s certainly never been my position.
I don’t think laws that prohibit homosexuality are a good idea. Constitutional, yes, but not a particularly good idea.
I don’t think same-sex marriage should be recognized by the government, and there is certainly no Constitutional basis for the courts to find such a right. But that means that I am lined up with most DEMOCRATS in this country.
Too bad large portions of one group don’t recognize the civil rights of another and actively protest against them, eh butterbar. Kind of shoots your claim in the foot.
We’ve all heard your claims of graduating from a military academy. It’s OK. We understand that you couldn’t hack it as an officer.
At this point in time, I do not think I could agree with any of the current Republican candidates on all of their various campaign points. Of course, I cannot think of an instance in history where that would have happened.
That said, given the choice between any of the current Republican candidates, and seemingly unavoidable choice of Hillary being the Democractic candidate… well, that is not a choice.
I honestly have no idea if any of the Republicans are electable at this point – too far out, too much to account for, too many interesting things to happen between now and when it will really matter. But electable or not, when Hillary gets the Democractic nomination, they will have my vote.
Hell, Third, he can’t hack it as a human, forget as an officer.
1. About 4% of the U.S. population is gay or bisexual.
Depends which survey you’re looking at. Many anti-gay groups will claim a lower number.
2. Subhuman? Huh? That’s certainly never been my position.
Actually, it is. You have repeatedly referred to gays as “depraved,” “sick,” “damaged,” and other pejorative adjectives. You frequently accuse gays of having sex with animals and children and often recount, in prurient detail, how gays might have sex; neglecting, of course, the fact heterosexuals often engage in the same activities. Further, you back up your goofiness with the kind of ‘research’ that would make a Nazi eugenicist embarrassed.
Classic Godwin.
You know what JG. You’re argument was actually pretty good up until that.
To bad you had to ruin it.
Third: You’re being silly once more.
Nazi eugenicists were renowned for conducting all manners of bogus ‘research’ to ‘prove’ the superiority of Aryans and the inferiority of non-Aryans.
Cramer’s ‘research’ is both anecdotal and made up out of thin air.
Yes, Jade, I’m well familiar w/ Nazi psuedo-science. It’s still a Godwin and a poor analogy. Since you have to resort to more personal attacks, I’m sure you’re well aware of that.
While Cramer has a very low opinion of homosexuals to put it mildly, I highly doubt he would ever endorse a “final solution”.
Of course all this is based on your ad hominem attacks that any support of CC = total support.
I highly doubt he would ever endorse a “final solutionâ€.
Gosh, then it’s ok to lie about and smear them and deny them civil rights.
In reality, I’m not sure Cramer doesn’t favor a final solution for gays. After all, bigots are generally a bit more temperate in their language these days, understanding a call for genocide usually won’t win you much support. If you take a look at David Duke’s rhetoric, he eschews calling for violence against blacks and other minorities. Instead, he relies on vilifying them with the hope that someone dim enough will copmmit violence.
As Mike Silverman writes: “According to Mr. Cramer, gay people are all cannibals who all have AIDS, are depraved, censors who were all abused as children. Oh yeah, gays are also “rampantly promiscuous” because they have the emotional level of children. “
Right Jade, because that’s what I said.
Of course then you fit into the same category as Cramer w/ regards to firearm owners as you lie about them, smear them, and endorse denying them civil rights.
You use Silverman as a source against Cramer. Fine. You keep trying to imply that I support Cramer on this issue. Maybe you should try highlighting the rest of the article:
“The irony is that one of the reasons why I support individual gun rights is to protect myself from people like Clayton Cramer and his gay-bashing fellow travelers.”
Now who here is bashing gays? It hasn’t been Sebastian or myself. Yet Silverman is on the same side as Cramer on the firearm issue.
He (Silverman) also feels that dog-fighters are just a step above child molestors. A truly stupid argument IMO with a complete lack of perspective. Does not agreeing w/ that mean that I support dog-fighting? Does it mean that I have to agree w/ his every philosophy or oppose him completely? Or can I oppose him on that issue while supporting him on others?
Rudy is a pro-gay rights candidate. Doesn’t Clayton Cramer’s willingness to support him indicate that Clayton isn’t the bigot you depict him to be?
Your logic is this:
Sebastian supports a gay-rights candidate.
Clayton Cramer supports that same gay-rights candidate.
Therefore, Sebastian and all RKBA activists are bigots!
Supports him if he’s the nominee. I don’t want him to be the nominee. Just want to make that clear. And that’s only if Hillary gets the Dem nomination. If Rudy runs up against Bill Richardson, I may decide not to support Rudy, but we’d have to see.
Rudy is too quirky and authoritarian a conservative for my tastes. I may agree with him on a lot of social issues, aside from guns, but I don’t really go for the tough on crime at any cost type folks. Truth be told, I don’t like any of the Republican candidates. But nor do I like any of the Democrats.
Gosh, Third, I’m dumber for having read your last comment. All of a sudden we’re into dogfighting and other weirdness.
AMcZ: I’m unsure that Cramer supports Rudy; his point was that he didn’t want to see conservatives split off and form a third party candidacy should Rudy get the GOP nomination.
And JG misses the forest for the trees.
No, he didn’t, third. He is dishonest and got caught and had nowhere else to go except pretending to be stupid. At least I think he’s pretending.