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

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.

Comments

  1. LD says

    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?

  2. rafi says

    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.

  3. TANK says

    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.

  4. Jon says

    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.

  5. rafi says

    “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.”

  6. TANK says

    “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?

  7. GrabbinNewscum says

    “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!

  8. rafi says

    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.”

  9. Rodney says

    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.

  10. TANK says

    “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.

  11. Chitown Kev says

    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.

  12. rafi says

    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.

  13. Chris says

    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!

  14. rafi says

    “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.

  15. TANK says

    “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.

  16. TANK says

    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.

  17. rafi says

    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.

  18. TANK says

    “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?

  19. TANK says

    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.

  20. GrabbinNewscum says

    >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.

  21. John Normile says

    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

  22. Chris says

    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

    Well Miss Grabbin……BITCH You don’t really want it???? Because if you live within the Northeast Corridor FAGGOT I’ll meet you anywhere you like. FUCK the blooging we can make this LIVE IN PERSON AND IN LIVING COLOR! Since you’re choosing to go the violent route

    Go ahead and make your next motherfucking move!

    Otherwise you racist faggot shut the fuck up!

  23. rafi says

    Oh Tank.

    Okay, I SWEAR I’m not just trying to push buttons here, I’m just honestly baffled at how someone could have something so clearly explained to them, twice, and then continue to make the same failed, non sequitur arguments. This isn’t a matter of us disagreeing — you just really, I mean genuinely, do not understand the very simple things I’m saying to you, so you’re responding to points you think I’m making that I’m not.

    I’ll do my best here:

    “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.”

    Aaahhh, what? Show me the part where I said Dixiecrats were true-blue Democrats. I agree with you that they changed their name! I mean, I went through seventh grade history too! Please stop arguing random points that I agree with and never challenged, if only because that’s the easiest thing for you to grasp. Once again, my point, from the beginning, was: Republicans and Democrats have both, in relatively modern history, become a lot more progressive on civil rights. Defections don’t matter here — both the individual people and the parties they made up went through it.

    Wait! I know you desperately want to talk about some totally unrelated point here. Resist the urge. Just… get someone to help you with any words longer than five letters.

    Okay, this is a good part. Watch:

    Me: “I said both parties have gotten more progressive over the years.”

    You: “You said nothing of the sort.”

    You (six lines later): “Oy, let’s go back to your words.”

    Me: “…in much the same way [the GOP] (and the Democratic Party) gave up overtly racist policies some time ago.”

    TANK. WHY would you make it so easy for other people to point out these glaring inconsistencies? And why can’t you see them yourself?

    “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.”

    TANK AAANNGRRYYY! The beliefs of both parties favored, at different points in history: slavery, segregation, miscegeny, and anti-suffrage for women. Neither of them do now. Regardless of name and ideological shifts over the years, there was obviously a change at some point. Please tell me you get this; I cannot make it easier.

    Me: “Do you get it yet? Read it again, then one more time. Don’t be afraid to ask an adult for help.”

    You: “I think you need to do it again. Several times.”

    “You don’t understand.” – “No, YOU are the one who is not understanding!”

    Oh, BURN!

    “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.”

    Okay, to be fair, this was something I tried soooo hard to get you to figure out earlier, and it just… didn’t… take. And now I guess it has. Stupid me for understanding it from the start!

    “No, now you’re simply asserting what I wrote instead of reading what I wrote…

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

    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.

    …Do you know what the word ‘perhaps’ means?”

    This just tickles me. It’s not the “perhaps” clause I’m talking about, it’s the “…but I don’t see any indication of this” part.

    Statement 1: “…they just don’t prioritize that belief they hold above others.”

    Means: They don’t prioritize that belief. (Your words!)

    Statement 2: “Perhaps they [don’t prioritize that belief]…BUT I DON’T SEE ANY INDICATION OF THIS. (emphasis mine.)

    Means: Maybe they don’t prioritize that belief, but I doubt it.

    Uh oh!

    “…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…”

    So, I’m pointing out a relatively easy-to-spot contradictions, and because you don’t see it, you try to explain something else you think I’m maybe referring to. Which I’m not.

    Analogy: Someone repeatedly trying to explain middle-school algebra when you’re asking them about theoretical physics. Thanks for the tip, Tank!

    “that’s it, rafi. It’s time to go to school.”

    Whoooaaa! Showed me.

  24. says

    Grabbincum is a douche , but, no reason to kick his ass, he’s miserable enough. Don’t be baited into crap with crap.

    I don’t see anything wrong at all with saying “like a Jew Nazi” or “A Black KKK member”. Goproud is the exact example of why those statements are relevant.

    I’m sad for them because they are a sad bunch who don’t seem to get that they are not wanted by the particular branch of the R’s that they want to belong to.

    Btw, WHY do Gays think it’s ok to be a R when they make it clear in state after state that the party does not want any of us. Say what you will about the Democrats, but, we are a part of the platform and Dems do make an effort in most cases to do the right thing by people in general. I just don’t see that on the other side. And it’s not just Gays. It’s women, poor people, people of color, trade unions,the disabled, oh wait, now we’re back to that whole comparing them to Nazis thingee.

  25. TANK says

    “Republicans and Democrats have both, in relatively modern history, become a lot more progressive on civil rights. Defections don’t matter here — both the individual people and the parties they made up went through it.”

    And the examples you used were racism and segregation. Now to say that the dixiecrats, who you now agree were always antifederalist republicans, came around on race relations is extremely disingenuous. It took a civil war and decades of racial conflict culminating in an act of congress that forced their hand to “come around,” and they still hold a grudge and trust me, if it weren’t politically poison, they, like trent lott did in fact say, would be endorsing segregation once again. So either use a better example, or shut the fuck up. Your point, as I’ve shown again and again…is without merit. What overtly racist policies did the federalists endorse? Isn’t it true that the federalists who cofounded this country were abolitionists from the start? Short of racial equality, hasn’t that always been a democratic ideal which the republicans/antifederalists needed to lose a war and have a legislature and executive order force down their throats? Please don’t pretend that the republicans/antifederalists have come around on their own after seeing the light.

    “slavery, segregation, miscegeny, and anti-suffrage for women. Neither of them do now. Regardless of name and ideological shifts over the years, there was obviously a change at some point. Please tell me you get this; I cannot make it easier.”

    What does this have to do with the fact that until republicans are literally forced to move on social issues, they won’t? What does this have to do with the fact that this isn’t true for mainstream federalists/democrats? Or the fact that you’re once again confusing a party name for an ideology (the basis of the entire dispute, which you still apparently fail to grasp)? More importantly, what does any of this have to do with supporting goproud and the lcr’s, who are in no position to affect positive change within their party, and haven’t?

    “This just tickles me. It’s not the “perhaps” clause I’m talking about, it’s the “…but I don’t see any indication of this” part.”

    But you need to read the whole sentence to, ah, understand it…

    “Statement 1: ‘…they just don’t prioritize that belief they hold above others.’

    Means: They don’t prioritize that belief. (Your words!)

    Statement 2: ‘Perhaps they [don’t prioritize that belief]…BUT I DON’T SEE ANY INDICATION OF THIS. (emphasis mine.)

    Means: Maybe they don’t prioritize that belief, but I doubt it.

    Uh oh!”

    Which isn’t a contradiction, as you seem now to admit. It would have been a contradiction if I’d said that they do and don’t, but I didn’t. Me doubting that someone does something, and them doing it are two different things; and I doubt very much that the degree to which young republicans are antigay has changed–just its order of importance due to more important concerns supplanting it. And besides, one can be just as antigay as they always were and have other priorities that are more important than it. So, to repeat, the republican party can be just as antigay, but focus more on economic concerns than social values; it hasn’t changed the antigay attitude, just its place on the order of importance. Do you really want to support a party that only allows gay rights to pass in twenty five to fifty years because of a lack of concern instead of support? LOL! And if you’d read the quote in context, I’d already stated that the numbers distorted by young libertarians, who aren’t republicans.

    “So, I’m pointing out a relatively easy-to-spot contradictions, and because you don’t see it, you try to explain something else you think I’m maybe referring to. Which I’m not.”

    Ooo, you don’t get it yet. Do you know what a contradiction is? That’s what happens when you assert P and ~P (~=it is not the case that in logical notation). Nowhere in the above did I assert P and ~P, I merely asserted that I don’t believe that young republicans are becoming more progay, though values issues may be shifting to lower importance in that demographic. And from that, you simply can’t infer either that the antigay attitude has decreased or that progay attitudes have increased. Do you know what maybe means? It means P or ~P, which isn’t a contradiction, either… you’re a riot.

  26. TANK says

    One last logic lesson for you, because I have a sneaking feeling you’re going to refuse to “understand” the most basic principles of reasoning once again and insist that I contradicted myself.

    1. It will rain tomorrow.

    2. It will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

    1. and 2. are consistent with each other. There is no contradiction between 1. and 2. That logical form is what you’re calling a contradiction.

  27. rafi says

    Tank, sweetie, that’s because you’re not saying “P or ~P”, you’re saying “I think P, and I doubt P”. Your two statements were:

    1. “I bet it’ll rain tomorrow.”
    2. “It could rain tomorrow, but I doubt it.”

    There’s no “or”. You added that once you had the contradiction pointed out.

    Incredibly, everything else you said rehashed arguments against points you keep thinking I mean despite the many direct times I’ve said I don’t. The only new parts were:

    “What does this have to do with the fact that until republicans are literally forced to move on social issues, they won’t?”

    This is at least an acknowledgment that ideological groups do shift. I’m not making excuses for them; naturally a non-progressive group will be slow to progress. But it’s beyond stupid to say that any group still holds the exact same beliefs they had in 1948.

    Which you then do:

    “…and they still hold a grudge and trust me, if it weren’t politically poison, they, like trent lott did in fact say, would be endorsing segregation once again.”

    I mean, if you honestly believe a major ideological group would truly push for segregation today, then you’re grasping at straws. And you can’t say that because abolitionists existed at the founding of this country, then ideologies have not changed significantly. 18th-century abolitionists still didn’t view blacks (or women) as equals.

    Look, there’s only so much of this that’s worth repeating four times. I’m sure you come across as a very bright young man in real life, but man, does it ever not translate in your posts. Good luck.

  28. rafi says

    DEREK,

    I don’t find the Jew Nazis/Black KKK thing offensive, it just irks me when people use overblown analogies purely for the emotional punch.

    “I’m sad for them because they are a sad bunch who don’t seem to get that they are not wanted by the particular branch of the R’s that they want to belong to.”

    If you’re talking about LaSalvia specifically, I can’t say much. I find it sad when they stay with the party only because they grew up in a conservative household and are too stupid and stubborn to give it up.

    But in general I don’t think it’s a contradiction to be gay and genuinely hold other conservative views, not for acceptance but because of your actual beliefs regarding taxes, gun rights, defense, role of government, abortion… It’s not my cup of tea but I do think it’s possible. It’s just hard to separate out genuine conservative gays from the self-hating ones.

  29. GrabbinNewscum says

    >Well Miss Grabbin……BITCH You don’t >really want it???? Because if you live >within the Northeast Corridor FAGGOT I’ll >meet you anywhere you like. FUCK the >blooging we can make this LIVE IN PERSON >AND IN LIVING COLOR! Since you’re >choosing to go the violent route Go >ahead and make your next motherfucking >move! Otherwise you racist faggot shut >the fuck up!
    >Posted by: Chris | Feb 23, 2010 12:22:46 AM

    Oh dear, look at them ghetto lips flapping!

    Seriously Ebonica, shove it up your ass. I ain’t no scurred a you!

  30. TANK says

    “1. “I bet it’ll rain tomorrow.”
    2. “It could rain tomorrow, but I doubt it.””

    Nope, that’s false. I don’t know if you’re impaired at this point, but I’m thinking you are. I’m no longer annoyed, or amused by our lack of comprehension. It’s just sad. You don’t seem to grasp the most basic understanding of logic.

    Once again, I didn’t said that according to the CPAC poll (which I stated several times now I don’t believe is a reliable indicator of mainstream attitudes) the priority of social issues has changed. I went on to say that perhaps this is true, but I doubt it…and I do. There’s no inconsistency there.

  31. TANK says

    1. “I bet it’ll rain tomorrow.”
    2. “It could rain tomorrow, but I doubt it.””

    Nope, that’s false. I don’t know if you’re impaired at this point, but I’m thinking you are. I’m no longer annoyed, or amused by your lack of comprehension. It’s just sad. You don’t seem to grasp the most basic understanding of logic.

    Once again, I said that according to the CPAC poll (which I stated several times now I don’t believe is a reliable indicator of mainstream attitudes) the priority of social issues has changed. I went on to say that perhaps this is true, but I doubt it…and I do. There’s no inconsistency there.

  32. TANK says

    “This is at least an acknowledgment that ideological groups do shift”

    Oh goodness no. When you’re forced to move at gunpoint, I hardly call that a shift in the right direction.

  33. TANK says

    “I mean, if you honestly believe a major ideological group would truly push for segregation today,”

    Well absolutely. Trent Lott said himself to strom thurmond that he was very sorry he lost the civil rights struggle. The point is very simple…and you’ve consistently missed it I think because you’re both extremely slow witted and also have an republican agenda to push here…and that is that it took force to move the republican party…not a ideological shift, but gunpoint force. After that happened, things could change because there was no choice… SO if that’s your idea of an ideological shift or “progress” being made in the republican camp…well, I pity you.

    “then you’re grasping at straws. And you can’t say that because abolitionists existed at the founding of this country, then ideologies have not changed significantly. 18th-century abolitionists still didn’t view blacks (or women) as equals.”

    And? The abolitionists were the federalists/democrats. There weren’t antifederalist/republican abolitionists.

  34. TANK says

    And btw, this is it for me. I mean it. There is no conversation to be had with someone who simply doesn’t understand what a contradiction is. It’d be more productive to talk to a vegetable. Take care, crazypants.

  35. Chris says

    Grabbin,

    TRANSLATION…….You must don’t live on the East Coast otherwise you’d MAN UP.. OKAY a internet troll you are…FUCK YOU AND YOUR MOTHER MAY SHE GET RAPED AND KILLED FOR HAVING YOU.

    Okay PUNK RACIST FAG I’m done and you’ll be ignored from me from this point on!

Leave A Reply