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. 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!

    Posted by: Chris | Feb 23, 2010 12:22:46 AM


  2. 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.

    Posted by: rafi | Feb 23, 2010 1:11:42 AM


  3. 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.

    Posted by: DEREK WASHINGTON | Feb 23, 2010 1:15:48 AM


  4. "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.

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 23, 2010 1:56:59 AM


  5. 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.


    Posted by: TANK | Feb 23, 2010 2:41:47 AM


  6. 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.

    Posted by: rafi | Feb 23, 2010 11:07:15 AM


  7. 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.

    Posted by: rafi | Feb 23, 2010 11:26:46 AM


  8. >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!

    Posted by: GrabbinNewscum | Feb 23, 2010 12:39:05 PM


  9. "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.

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 23, 2010 1:42:54 PM


  10. 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.

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 23, 2010 1:44:03 PM


  11. "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.

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 23, 2010 1:45:02 PM


  12. "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.

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 23, 2010 1:48:25 PM


  13. 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.

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 23, 2010 1:56:27 PM


  14. 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!

    Posted by: Chris | Feb 24, 2010 12:07:08 AM


  15. Anti-Gay Group GOPproud already endorses candidates that are vehemently against gay rights in general. What's the point of this post?

    Posted by: Paul | Jun 15, 2010 1:22:55 PM


  16. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


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