GOProud | Jimmy LaSalvia | News | Republican Party

BigGayDeal.com

GOProud's Jimmy LaSalvia to NOM: 'Who's the Pansy at CPAC?'

Lasalvia

Gay Republican group GOProud certainly benefited from its presence at CPAC, attracting the attention of both CNN (which documented a friendly handshake between GOProud and the National Organization for Marriage - NOM) and of gay-hating Republican youth Ryan Sorba.

Writes Chris Geidner in an article about GOProud's involvement at the conservative confab:

"Despite the voiced concerns about whether GOProud 'works to undermine the mission' of Liberty University School of Law – or natural law or the military, for that matter – most CPAC attendees seemed to have the same supportive or indifferent about GOProud's involvement. GOProud officials and those passing by the booth on Saturday joked that the organization should send flowers to Sorba for raising the profile of the group – and in a very sympathetic way."

Following the CNN meeting, NOM issued a press release, warning the group not to try to elect "pro-marriage Republicans." GOProud's Jimmy LaSalvia, angry that the group couldn't deliver its message in person, fired back at the group with a Vimeo diatribe, asking "Who's the pansy at CPAC?"

Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...

GOProud's Jimmy LaSalvia at CPAC from sarahposner on Vimeo.

In related news, Andrew Sullivan has more goods on Sorba, including a conversation between Sorba and openly gay conservative Alex Knepper in which Sorba reveals more of his fixation on homosexuality, and a message about Sorba from another reader.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Actually, Jimmy, you're still the pansy. And the patsy. What the hell is wrong with your brain that you need to embed yourself in an environment that thinks you're less than human. Oh please love me Daddy GOP! I'm a good boy, ain't I?

    Posted by: LD | Feb 22, 2010 2:59:48 PM


  2. For what it's worth, the Democratic Party isn't the most gay-friendly party out there, despite being a lot better than the GOP. But I think it's great when people work to change the Republican Party from the inside.

    Posted by: rafi | Feb 22, 2010 3:15:44 PM


  3. It's great when people commit themselves to a hopeless endeavor, huh? When people are so desperate for acceptance from those who openly dislike them for who they are that they'll be willing to abase themselves for the scraps of belonging. Futile.

    As to ms lasalvia (you just know that this person has always tried very hard to go against the grain for the sake of attention), pansy is a derogatory word for homosexual...or not a "real man". This guy's a pansy, and defines himself outside of the class of "real men"...self loathing at its finest.

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 22, 2010 3:28:01 PM


  4. What does this fool expect from the likes of NOM? Kinda reminds me of Jewish Nazis... "Well, maybe if we try to reason with Adolph"...........

    Posted by: John Normile | Feb 22, 2010 3:28:07 PM


  5. The usual insults from the peanut gallery above. Hurl insults all you want. The truth is that in something like 45 states, gay people cannot win equality w/o some GOP support. We just lost marriage equality in NY and NJ because we got zero Republican support in the NYS senate and only 1 vote in the NJ senate. If we would support gay Republicans instead of deriding them, maybe we could do better on both sides of the aisle.

    Posted by: Jon | Feb 22, 2010 3:39:03 PM


  6. "Jewish Nazis"? Really?

    What exactly is so hopeless about the GOP becoming pro-gay? It's going to happen eventually, it's just a matter of time. They'll be much slower about it than Democrats, but they WILL do it. Adding pro-gay GOPers in the meantime will only help, because it mainstreams the idea even faster.

    Why do you think Ryan Sorba got as many jeers as he did with his comments? Even 15 years ago, that would never have happened.

    I do think it's really, really sad when gay or pro-gay Republicans become apologists for their anti-gay colleagues, but I'm all about the ones who say, "We might agree on taxes and abortion, but they're plain wrong on this one."

    Posted by: rafi | Feb 22, 2010 4:11:36 PM


  7. "They'll be much slower about it than Democrats, but they WILL do it."

    What evidence do you have for this belief?

    Further, what makes you think that democrats are pro-gay?

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 22, 2010 4:25:32 PM



  8. "Jewish Nazis"

    Yep, the radical leftists are shameless in their anti-Semitism. Because, you know, if you work hard enough to denigrate someone whose political views are different from your own by evoking the Holocaust, it will also minimize the unique horror of that genocide.

    Two birds, one stone!

    Posted by: GrabbinNewscum | Feb 22, 2010 5:05:48 PM


  9. Tank,

    1. There's this: http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/11/05/support-for-same-sex-marriage-by-age-and-state/

    If referendums were held in every state just for the 18-29 demographic, gay marriage would be legal in 38 states. You could argue that most of that demographic is non-Republican, but no matter what the older crowd isn't going to live forever. The GOP isn't going to hold on to a position that is being seen more and more as discrimination, in much the same way it (and the Democratic Party) gave up overtly racist policies some time ago.

    If you wanted something more directly tied to conservatives, Andy posted this today: http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef0120a8c3e87c970b-pi

    And aside from that, both parties have become more progressive on equality issues over time. People tend to look at things as they are now, give or take 10 years, and assume it'll always be that way. But look at a wider set of years, and progressivism becomes inevitable for both.

    2. I never said Democrats are pro-gay. I said the opposite: "For what it's worth, the Democratic Party isn't the most gay-friendly party out there."

    Posted by: rafi | Feb 22, 2010 5:07:45 PM


  10. GRABBINNEWSCUM,

    I don't know that it was anti-Semitic, just absurd. Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

    Posted by: rafi | Feb 22, 2010 5:10:57 PM


  11. You know most baby boomers were extremely liberal in the late 1960s and early 1970s. More than half of them identify themselves as conservative today.

    My point is just because the majority of youth in 38 states say they are for gay marriage now, I'd be willing to bet that their politics will grow more and more conservative as they age. So, don't pin all your hopes on the GOP shifting to a more moderate stance. In fact, I'd say they are MUCH more conservative than they were just 15 years ago.

    GOProud is tilting at windmills.

    Posted by: Rodney | Feb 22, 2010 5:33:40 PM


  12. "1. There's this: http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/11/05/support-for-same-sex-marriage-by-age-and-state/

    If referendums were held in every state
    just for the 18-29 demographic, gay marriage would be legal in 38 states."

    SO maybe over the next quarter century they'll tone it down, but you realize that the vast majority of the republican party as it is currently constituted can't be reached. They're unreachable, and this is a fact that many gays need to come to terms with. They're not going anywhere for quite some time. And please, don't act like it's groups like goproud and the lcr's who are responsible for this sea change in the views of younger demographics. That has so much more to do with cultural shifts in attitudes as gays and lesbians have become more vocal and public than any direct political lobbying. So this isn't supporting them.

    "You could argue that most of that demographic is non-Republican,"

    Which would be true.

    "but no matter what the older crowd isn't going to live forever."

    They'll live long enough, and the young republican crowd is far from gay friendly.

    "The GOP isn't going to hold on to a position that is being seen more and more as discrimination, in much the same way it (and the Democratic Party) gave up overtly racist policies some time ago."


    That's rubbish. All those dixiecrats defected after the civil rights act to the republican party. The only things that has changed over the years has been a name, no substantive political beliefs. There's no indication that the GOP is going to amend its intolerant attitudes on lgbt issues anytime soon. The only way that GOP politicians change their minds is if their constituencies do, and young republicans are still homophobic. Perhaps they just don't care about that issue as much as they do other issues...but I don't see any indication of this.

    "If you wanted something more directly tied to conservatives, Andy posted this today: http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef0120a8c3e87c970b-pi"

    I'm assuming this is a reference to the CPAC poll. Libertarians aren't republicans, and they are responsible for distorting the numbers. Secondly, the question didn't rule out that these people are antigay; they just don't prioritize that belief they hold above others. Third, I'd question the sample group at CPAC in providing reliable indications of the actual attitudes of the republican party. All in all, I think that data is unreliable to gauge mainstream republican attitudes on same sex marriage and gay rights.


    "And aside from that, both parties have become more progressive on equality issues over time."

    Overall? Um, you do realize that top republican leaders like jim demint and sam brownback would like homosexuality to be against the law, right?

    "People tend to look at things as they are now,"

    Well that's stupid, isn't it? To use the only data you have available to make predictions about the future with? Crazy...lol

    "give or take 10 years, and assume it'll always be that way."

    I think you're greatly misunderestimating the time period given the mortality rate, and overestimating how gay friendly young republicans are.

    "But look at a wider set of years, and progressivism becomes inevitable for both."

    Or, just as likely, not.


    Posted by: TANK | Feb 22, 2010 5:40:14 PM


  13. "misunderestimating"

    Not a word! Dash these out to combat "naive" kapos, and look what happens.

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 22, 2010 5:44:17 PM


  14. The fact is that as far as moving the Republican Party on LGBT issues, the LCR's (who could not deliver the votes that they said they would in the NY State Senate) and GOProud have a ways to go. Period.

    (Not saying that the Dems at the national level are all of that, but depending on the state, yes, they are all of that at the state levels).

    The LCR's lost me when they endorsed McCain/Palin after refusing to endorse Bush in 2004.

    And these GOProud girls...well...

    And Miss Jimmy really needs to hear all of the purses dribbling from her mouth when she talks, she should not be calling anyone a "pansy" in any way, shape, or form.

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Feb 22, 2010 5:48:14 PM


  15. RODNEY,

    "Liberal" means different things when you're talking about fiscal/defense/social welfare/role of government issues than when you're talking about equality. Same with "conservative." Those baby-boomers who were liberal when young but conservative now might have toned down their liberalism on a number of issues, but they don't think segregation should be reinstated or that women should be paid less in the workplace. Not many people regress on civil rights issues.


    TANK,

    "SO maybe over the next quarter century they'll tone it down"

    ...Exactly...

    "They're unreachable, and this is a fact that many gays need to come to terms with. They're not going anywhere for quite some time."

    15 years ago, gay marriage was a non-issue because no one was pushing for it. Now there are prominent Republicans who think a) it should happen, and b) it'll happen even if they wanted to stop it.

    "They'll live long enough, and the young republican crowd is far from gay friendly."

    You keep mistaking "will happen" with "is happening". I'm talking about trends, not the current state of things. The majority of young Republicans are against us; but they are still friendlier than the young Republican crowd of 10 years ago, and that crowd's better than the one 10 years before *them*, etc.

    "That's rubbish. All those dixiecrats defected after the civil rights act to the republican party. The only things that has changed over the years has been a name, no substantive political beliefs."

    Really? Where in the Republican platform does it call for segregation?

    "Perhaps they just don't care about that issue as much as they do other issues...but I don't see any indication of this." -- versus -- "the question didn't rule out that these people are antigay; they just don't prioritize that belief they hold above others."

    These two statements contradict each other.

    "Overall? Um, you do realize that top republican leaders like jim demint and sam brownback would like homosexuality to be against the law, right?"

    What does that have to do with anything? There used to be zero prominent Republicans supporting gay anything, now there are a handful who openly support gay marriage. How is that not a progression?

    "Well that's stupid, isn't it? To use the only data you have available to make predictions about the future with? Crazy...lol"

    ...Are you asking if it's stupid to look only at how things are right now to try to predict how things will be in the future? Yes, that's very stupid.

    "I think you're greatly misunderestimating the time period given the mortality rate, and overestimating how gay friendly young republicans are."

    *Shrug* Replace every 70- to 80-year-old Republican with an 8- to 18-year-old (future) Republican, and our outlook looks a lot better. That, and it's not just the death cycle that swings things our way: A majority of people (Republican or Democrat) who are currently pro-gay-marriage haven't been that way all their lives. It's an incredibly narrow viewpoint that ignores that.


    "'But look at a wider set of years, and progressivism becomes inevitable for both.'

    Or, just as likely, not."

    ?
    That's not really a response.

    Posted by: rafi | Feb 22, 2010 6:07:01 PM


  16. Kids,

    Every time that DAMN grabbiesuckcum says something. I just wish he was nearby so I can put a GOP/KKK sock in his mouth. Such a dumb ass.

    And Miss Jimmy it's your party and NOM crashed it and you can cry if you want to. And we would to if it happened to us.

    But thankfully it didn't!

    Posted by: Chris | Feb 22, 2010 6:09:46 PM


  17. "The fact is that as far as moving the Republican Party on LGBT issues, the LCR's (who could not deliver the votes that they said they would in the NY State Senate) and GOProud have a ways to go. Period."

    Absolutely, totally agree. They're impotent, but I only see that as a "for now" problem. The fact they even exist, and have national prominence, says something.

    Posted by: rafi | Feb 22, 2010 6:10:19 PM


  18. "15 years ago, gay marriage was a non-issue because no one was pushing for it. Now there are prominent Republicans who think a) it should happen, and b) it'll happen even if they wanted to stop it."

    Extreme minority republicans who represent blue state constituencies. They aren't representative, and further, their views do not signify ANY change in the composition of the republican party. They're RINOS.

    "I'm talking about trends, not the current state of things. The majority of young Republicans are against us; but they are still friendlier than the young Republican crowd of 10 years ago, and that crowd's better than the one 10 years before *them*, etc."

    And going by the trends (what's currently available), republicans, nationally, will not shift to be supportive of gay rights in at least 25 maybe forty years. It's futile to support them at this point.

    "Really? Where in the Republican platform does it call for segregation?"

    Oh my goodness. Do you dispute that the dixiecrats were always basically republicans, and that their change in party name did not represent a change in values and political beliefs? If you do, you're a on par with birthers and truthers, and moreso, have no appreciation for history whatsoever.

    "...Are you asking if it's stupid to look only at how things are right now to try to predict how things will be in the future? Yes, that's very stupid."

    Do you really believe that? THe data we have available right now is the only way we can predict the future...what do you think a trend is based off of? Whim? Well, in your case, it seems pretty much just that. That's false, though. Yes, things right now are all we have access to to predict the future. If you'd like to introduce your religious faith into the equation, you're welcome to, but it's not a valid prediction.

    "These two statements contradict each other."

    They most certainly don't. I need for you to pay to attention to what words mean, and the logic of the English language. To say that someone cares less about an issue than other issues is not to say that they don't care about it. For example, to say that one cares more about the economy than gay rights, but is antigay, does not mean that they're progay. To say that a neo nazi hates black people more than he hates jews is not to say that he hates black people. Do you get it? To say that a young republican cares less about social/values issues than economic issues is not to say he won't vote for antigay candidates.

    Rafi, you're a very simple man who couldn't care less about an honest discussion. You don't value the truth. Go away.

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 22, 2010 6:40:31 PM


  19. To further address the reinterpretive history going on, ideologically, there have been two major parties throughout the history of this country. Federalist and antifederalist (or republican). The names can change, but the beliefs remain pretty much intact.

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 22, 2010 6:54:00 PM


  20. You...you're joking.

    "Do you dispute that the dixiecrats were always basically republicans, and that their change in party name did not represent a change in values and political beliefs? If you do, you're a on par with birthers and truthers, and moreso, have no appreciation for history whatsoever."

    I... don't know how to say this any simpler for you. I said both parties have gotten more progressive over the years. As an example, I pointed to segregation. There are no parties that support segregation today. There used to be two. Who cares that Dixiecrats defected, then became Republicans -- they still (as Republicans) gave up segregation. Do you get it yet? Read it again, then one more time. Don't be afraid to ask an adult for help.

    "THe data we have available right now is the only way we can predict the future...what do you think a trend is based off of? Whim? Well, in your case, it seems pretty much just that."

    Nnnoo. BAD Tank. It is stupid to look only at how things are right now... as opposed to how they have changed over the years. That = trend. That's how you predict the future, not by looking at a snapshot of right this minute. And, as a bonus, you get to look at other issues (see: racism) that are analogous to your issue, that have very many things in common, and use that as a predictor.

    "To say that someone cares less about an issue than other issues is not to say that they don't care about it."

    Well, sure, but that's not what I was talking about. The irony with asking me to pay attention is a bit much here. Let's try again:

    You said,

    1) You don't see any indication that young Republicans care less about gay marriage than other issues

    2) Young Republicans care less about that belief than others

    The tantrum that followed me pointing this out explained something totally unrelated to my point. What have you learned?

    "Rafi, you're a very simple man who couldn't care less about an honest discussion. You don't value the truth. Go away."

    Take a deep breath. You're almost there.

    Posted by: rafi | Feb 22, 2010 7:54:50 PM


  21. that's it, rafi. It's time to go to school.

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 22, 2010 8:30:51 PM


  22. "I... don't know how to say this any simpler for you."

    Really? Because after you had asked where in the "republican platform it" called for "segregation," anyone who knows how to read English would interpret you to be defending that the dixiecrats were not just democratis in name only, but true blue democrats, which they were not--they republicans who only changed their name after the civil rights act. Are you now repeating that again? Would you like to shot down again with historical references? I can destroy your half hearted attempts at defending your thesis that the democratic party (not the political ideology, but a word) was the party or racism leading up to and following the civil war.

    "I said both parties have gotten more progressive over the years."

    You said nothing of the sort. You defended the assertion that the dixiecrats represented the democratic ideology. Let's dance, motherfucker! Because you will lose a rhetorical showdown with me no matter how hard you try to obsfucate, spin, lie and deceive...the record speaks for itself.

    "As an example, I pointed to segregation. There are no parties that support segregation today."

    Oy, let's go back to your words.

    "...in much the same way it (and the Democratic Party) gave up overtly racist policies some time ago."

    The democratic party is being implicated in segregation by you...no, dixiecrats were not ideological democrats, ever...they were ideological republicans or antifederalists.


    "There used to be two. Who cares that Dixiecrats defected, then became Republicans -- they still (as Republicans) gave up segregation."

    NO, asshole. YOu can't assess a party by a name...you need to actually analyze the beliefs of the party to label it correctly. Names are meaningless in politics, babycakes...the world round meaningless. IT comes down to beliefs and political positions on issues. It matters a great deal that the dixiecrats defected. They were never ideological democrats...they were ideological republicans who canged a word, not a political belief system. DO you get it yet?

    "Do you get it yet? Read it again, then one more time. Don't be afraid to ask an adult for help."

    I think you need to do it again. Several times.

    "Nnnoo. BAD Tank. It is stupid to look only at how things are right now..."

    Oh, you stupid equivocating shit. How things are right now includes what happened before that resulted in how things are right now. NOW includes the data that came before.

    "as opposed to how they have changed over the years. That = trend."

    Presumably, right now we have access to what happened before in making a credible prediction. Right? LOL!

    "You said,

    1) You don't see any indication that young Republicans care less about gay marriage than other issues

    2) Young Republicans care less about that belief than others

    The tantrum that followed me pointing this out explained something totally unrelated to my point. What have you learned?"

    No, now you're simply asserting what I wrote instead of reading what I wrote. It's called a strawman, in layman's terms. Let's go back to the record. I wrote was this:

    1. Secondly, the question didn't rule out that these people are antigay; they just don't prioritize that belief they hold above others.

    and

    2. Perhaps they just don't care about that issue as much as they do other issues...but I don't see any indication of this.

    You assert that there's a contradiction between 1. and 2. here. I think anyone who speaks English will tell you no, there is no logical contradiction here, or any way to fashion one. Do you know what the word "perhaps" means? It's something like maybe, kiddo. LOL! I don't, in fact, see a shift in young republican attitudes toward homosexuality; I, instead, see a shift in their attitudes toward caring about it as much as other issues. They are antigay for the most part, they just don't care about it as much as they do other issues.


    Once again, I'll give ya an example to demonstrate the logic behind it. I know it's awful confusin' to ya, champ, but it'll be rewarding in the end when or if ya get it. K trig?

    Alright, here we go. Are you ready? Good...

    A young republican who is antigay but doesn't care about voting against gay rights as much as he does his little economic concerns doesn't make him progay. Are ya with me? He would vote for an antigay politician under many circumstances...because he's antigay. Get it, sugar?

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 22, 2010 8:52:12 PM


  23. And let's be clear, rafi...you're a kapo. You think that there's a lot of progress to be made in changing the minds of republican/antifederalist ideologues concerning gay rights. There is no credible indication that this is possible in any significant way. You rely on projections of the future which have no grounding in empirical analysis, opinion polls, or statistics. Also RINOs and libertarian pundits which you think are a credible indicator of the shift in attitudes in the party. I think you're a few cards short of a full deck, to be honest. But hold that book of scripture tight, rafi...and pray and mutter over it...because even the delusional need their security binkies.

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 22, 2010 9:00:23 PM


  24. >Kids, Every time that DAMN grabbiesuckcum >says something. I just wish he was nearby >so I can put a GOP/KKK sock in his mouth.
    >Posted by: Chris

    You go ahead and try, hon, and you'll wind up with an extra hole in your face.

    Posted by: GrabbinNewscum | Feb 22, 2010 9:35:05 PM


  25. Lord, you guys need to read about NOM and what they stand for. It's not a democratic or Republican issue dudes; They hate Queer people.
    It's simple....You can blather on all day about political issues but these people are evil they would prefer we ( lgbt or whatever) didn't exist

    Posted by: John Normile | Feb 22, 2010 11:41:08 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «A Dangerous Muse, Ke$ha, Adam Lambert Menage a Trois« «