I Pit the Audience of the GOP Debate

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/republican-debate-crowd-boos-steven-hill-gay-soldier-serving-in-iraq/

For this. If they were booing because a candidate said he supported repealing DADT, it might make some sense, but what was the crowd booing here? I find it absolutely disgraceful and disgusting-if the crowd was booing the soldiers for being homosexual why the Hell weren't they booing former Speaker Gingrich everytime he went up considering he committed the abominable offense of adultery? :mad::mad::mad:

[Chefguy]

People are morons. What can you do?

[BobLibDem]

I wouldn't say it's any worse than the knuckleheads that cheered the statement that Texas led the nation in executions or those that shouted "Oh yeah!" when a candidate was asked if uninsured patients should be left for dead.

[jayjay]

Qin, have you ever actually paid attention to the party you seem to like so much? Being shocked that Republicans would be homophobic is kind of disingenuous, even for a 15-year-old.

[Merijeek]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/republican-debate-crowd-boos-steven-hill-gay-soldier-serving-in-iraq/

For this. If they were booing because a candidate said he supported repealing DADT, it might make some sense, but what was the crowd booing here? I find it absolutely disgraceful and disgusting-if the crowd was booing the soldiers for being homosexual why the Hell weren't they booing former Speaker Gingrich everytime he went up considering he committed the abominable offense of adultery? :mad::mad::mad:

Because Newter is one of them, a Jeebus-hating fag isn't.

If nothing else, this helps answer the age-old question, which is the stronger feeling? Army loving or fag hating? Now we know.

And you're a big fan of theirs. Congratulations.

-Joe

[George Kaplin]

To the extent that anti-gay bigots have mainstream political representation, the Republicans are their party. Why wouldn't they boo a gay soldier?

[madmonk28]

Yeah, I can't understand why people are surprised that the Republican Party is exactly who they say they are,.

[kaylasdad99]

Having, at the time of this post, just returned from bringing my daughter to school, I'm presuming that Qin will likely be off the grid, Dope-wise, for the next 7-8 hours.

Just an OT tip to anyone who might think he's bowing out of the conversation at this point.

[BigT]

To be fair, I didn't know this at his age, either.

[Cumberdale]

More proof, as if any was needed, that these people are bigots. It has nothing to do with family values or the sanctity of marriage. It is hate pure and simple.

[jayjay]

Having, at the time of this post, just returned from bringing my daughter to school, I'm presuming that Qin will likely be off the grid, Dope-wise, for the next 7-8 hours.

Just an OT tip to anyone who might think he's bowing out of the conversation at this point.

I'm making that allowance. Despite what some people post about him, Qin generally does come back to his OPs to engage. A lot more than certain other posters generally do or did.

[Gyrate]

It must be hell to be a GOP candidate. The thing about being the leader of an angry mob is that it's sometimes hard to tell whether you're leading them or just trying to keep far enough ahead that they don't run you down.

[Merijeek]

To be fair, I didn't know this at his age, either.

When I was his age Bush The Greater was taking office. It was less obvious back then.

-Joe

[jayjay]

When I was his age Bush The Greater was taking office. It was less obvious back then.

-Joe

Not really. Not if you WERE gay...

[Drunky Smurf]

To be fair, I didn't know this at his age, either.

Yeah me too. I didn't follow politics until I was almost 18 and could vote. Before that I thought it was dumb an dboring and tried to avoid it.

[elucidator]

Hell, they didn't even have "gay" when I was his age. Just "queer", "fairy", that sort of thing.

[Acid Lamp]

I can't say as I'm surprised to hear them boo, but it did surprise me to hear them boo in the context of the event. You would think they would have some decorum. Is it not obvious by now that a significant percentage of the right is a bigoted mess? Why keep courting them? I'd love to hear from a thoughtful conservative who doesn't feel the need to bash on gays, thump the bible, and deny evolution. Make a solid constitutional argument, show me how you intend to preserve standards without federal oversight, and I'm all ears. Let the tea party take the bigots, racists and loons, and run a serious candidate.

[Merijeek]

I can't say as I'm surprised to hear them boo, but it did surprise me to hear them boo in the context of the event. You would think they would have some decorum.

Seriously? Maybe you're bust being way too charitable toward them, but those people you're complaining about are the people these candidates are competing to impress.

I can't say as I'm surprised to hear them boo, but it did surprise me to hear them boo in the context of the event. You would think they would have some decorum. Is it not obvious by now that a significant percentage of the right is a bigoted mess? Why keep courting them? I'd love to hear from a thoughtful conservative who doesn't feel the need to bash on gays, thump the bible, and deny evolution. Make a solid constitutional argument, show me how you intend to preserve standards without federal oversight, and I'm all ears. Let the tea party take the bigots, racists and loons, and run a serious candidate.

Because that would leave you with Jon Huntsman standing alone in an empty room.

Even the ones who pull the R lever and aren't a racist homophobic shitheel, they do it because the R's "won't raise their taxes". At best they're stupid for believing it, at worst, they're stupid for believing it and evil for being willing to oppress and shit on other people for a couple percent worth of tax breaks for themselves.

-Joe

[Vinyl Turnip]

It must be hell to be a GOP candidate. The thing about being the leader of an angry mob is that it's sometimes hard to tell whether you're leading them or just trying to keep far enough ahead that they don't run you down.

I know, it's like... you're leading the chase after Frankenstein's monster, when all of a sudden you realize that the monster is you. <toke>

[DiosaBellissima]

More proof, as if any was needed, that these people are bigots. It has nothing to do with family values or the sanctity of marriage. It is hate pure and simple.

And I'll tell you, this is my policy now: call a spade a spade. I used to try to be diplomatic, to engage these folks in conversation. . . but only a fool argues with a fool. Instead, when I hear someone (of any political persuasion, but it's usually a very conservative person) say something bigoted, I look at them and tell them that.

I wish more people would call folks on this type of hateful behavior*.






*And I'm not saying people aren't in this instance, but I suppose I'm just speaking generally.

[kayaker]

he committed the abominable offense of adultery? :mad::mad::mad:

Abominable, huh? Crap, I've done something abominable!

[Merijeek]

Abominable, huh? Crap, I've done something abominable!

Are you a Republican? Because if so it's OK. Jeebus forgives Republicans.

-Joe

[Cheesesteak]

I wish more people would call folks on this type of hateful behavior*.Yes, like the candidates this audience came to hear. I guess it's too much to expect one of these hateful people to say "you may not like the law, or homosexuality, but this soldier puts his life on the line for our security, you can afford him some respect."

A quick little note to Sen Santorum. If sexual activity has no place in the military, then why do you care what kind of sexual activity a soldier prefers?

[MeanOldLady]

Ugh, Santorum pulls out the same tired argument of allowing openly gay soldiers to serve is creating a "special" class for them. Why does this argument infuriate me so much?

Edit: @Cheesesteak - No shit, eh? He says it "shouldn't be an issue." So then why exclude people based on it if it shouldn't be an issue, asswipe?

[Mosier]

The social conservative agenda is pretty straightforward, Qin. Oppose homosexuality, oppose abortion, support Christianity in government and schools, get tougher on crime, and close the borders. Those issues are pretty much what defines a social conservative, so it's pretty strange that you'd be surprised or upset that a room full of social conservatives would cheer or boo when these issues are addressed by political candidates.

[Mosier]

Abominable, huh? Crap, I've done something abominable!

Abominable crap? I think I had one of those this morning.

[Merijeek]

The social conservative agenda is pretty straightforward, Qin. Oppose homosexuality, oppose abortion, support Christianity in government and schools, get tougher on crime, and close the borders. Those issues are pretty much what defines a social conservative, so it's pretty strange that you'd be surprised or upset that a room full of social conservatives would cheer or boo when these issues are addressed by political candidates.

Depends on who is committing the crime now doesn't it?

-Joe

[gonzomax]

C'mon QIN , those are your peeps. That is where the haters live. Listen to the boos . Think of who you are and who they are. The cheered the potential death of a person without healthcare. They booed a soldier on the front lines ,fighting for the country because he is gay. They cheered the execution of people maybe guilty of capital crime.
Those are your peeps. Enjoy them.

[kayaker]

Are you a Republican? Because if so it's OK. Jeebus forgives Republicans.

-Joe

Nope, not a republican. And I wasn't asking for forgiveness. Jeebus can go fuck himself.

[drewtwo99]

Texas put to death over 200 people since you became gover... *CHEERS*

This soldier is gay and... *BOOOOOOHHH*

Should we kill all muslims in this country and... *CHEEEEERS*

A 14 year old girl was raped and wants an abortion so that... *BOOOOOH*

These people are a class act.

[kaylasdad99]

Nope, not a republican. And I wasn't asking for forgiveness. Jeebus can go fuck himself.Well, as long as Jeebus isn't married to someone else, fucking himself wouldn't be adultery, now would it?

[kayaker]

Well, as long as Jeebus isn't married to someone else, fucking himself wouldn't be adultery, now would it?

Well, there's that whole trinity issue....

[Gangster Octopus]

Yes, the audience members who booed were despicable, but there a jackholes in every group And I am sure much of the audience would have liked to boo, but I could care less about that. What is much more upsetting is the fact that not one candidate had the guts to tell those people to go fuck themselves.

[Omg a Black Conservative]

Yes, the audience members who booed were despicable, but there a jackholes in every group.

No, there are not. Only in Republican/conservative corners.

Allegedly.

[Palo Verde]

No, there are not. Only in Republican/conservative corners.

Allegedly.

No, no. I'm pretty sure everyone here would agree that jerkishness transends all political bounds.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Yes, the audience members who booed were despicable, but there a jackholes in every group And I am sure much of the audience would have liked to boo, but I could care less about that. What is much more upsetting is the fact that not one candidate had the guts to tell those people to go fuck themselves.

Yeah, at least McCain contradicted his constituent in the audience that claimed Obama was a sekrit Moozlim, and appeared to recoil slightly at the cries of "KILL 'IM!"

Then again, look how far that got him.

They could benefit from some heckler training. "I don't come down to YOUR rallies and knock the HOOD off your head..."

[Vinyl Turnip]

No, there are not. Only in Republican/conservative corners.

Allegedly.

Omg, a black strawman!

[Merijeek]

Nope, not a republican. And I wasn't asking for forgiveness. Jeebus can go fuck himself.

Ah. Well in that case you're not a "real American"
-Joe

[Cumberdale]

No, there are not. Only in Republican/conservative corners.

Allegedly.

If it was a democratic debate and audience members boo'd a soldier, folks like you'd be calling them traitors.

[DiosaBellissima]

Yes, like the candidates this audience came to hear. I guess it's too much to expect one of these hateful people to say "you may not like the law, or homosexuality, but this soldier puts his life on the line for our security, you can afford him some respect."

Amen. Say what you will about McCain (mostly for bringing Palin into the world's radar. . .:mad:), but at least he would do things like call out the morons in the audience for being just that. Of course, we can see where that got him.

[jayjay]

Amen. Say what you will about McCain (mostly for bringing Palin into the world's radar. . .:mad:), but at least he would do things like call out the morons in the audience for being just that. Of course, we can see where that got him.

Only after he realized it was getting away from him. You could almost see the "OMFG! WHAT has She been DOING?!" in his eyes at that particular campaign event.

[jayjay]

Apparently, even conservative media outlets and groups are condemning the candidates for not addressing the booing, or even acknowledging Stephen Hill's service. GOProud and Log Cabin have put out statements as well. It's kind of sad to see those two groups beating their heads against the Tea Party wall like this, though. It's like "African-Americans For The KKK" or "Jews For Aryan Nation" or something.

[Omg a Black Conservative]

Omg, a black strawman!

Straw men have no race nor color. Your response is invalid.

If it was a democratic debate and audience members boo'd a soldier, folks like you'd be calling them traitors.

I'll give you an e-cookie if you can find any post of mine where I've referred to anyone as a 'traitor', a 'terrorist' or insinuated that a Democrat/liberal leaning person "hates America".

[Merijeek]

Apparently, even conservative media outlets and groups are condemning the candidates for not addressing the booing, or even acknowledging Stephen Hill's service. GOProud and Log Cabin have put out statements as well. It's kind of sad to see those two groups beating their heads against the Tea Party wall like this, though. It's like "African-Americans For The KKK" or "Jews For Aryan Nation" or something.

Eh, just shows that people are happy to stay second class citizens as long as they are promised tax breaks.

-Joe

[DiosaBellissima]

Eh, just shows that people are happy to stay second class citizens as long as they are promised tax breaks.

-Joe

Tax breaks that, statistically, aren't even likely to directly effect them.

[jayjay]

Eh, just shows that people are happy to stay second class citizens as long as they are promised tax breaks.

-Joe

"Chickens For Colonel Sanders"

[Mosier]

Eh, just shows that people are happy to stay second class citizens as long as they are promised tax breaks.

-Joe

But the second class citizens aren't even being offered tax breaks, this go around.

[Gangster Octopus]

"Chickens For Colonel Sanders"

Heh, reminds me of those Foster Farms commercials where chickens are trying to fake being Foster Farm Chickens so they can be considered good enough to be slaughtered and packaged?

[Merijeek]

Tax breaks that, statistically, aren't even likely to directly effect them.

Hey, I never said they'd get them, I said they'd be promised them.

Vote for me, and free oral sex for everyone*!

-Joe

*If you're on this list of my five favorite starlets

[jayjay]

Heh, reminds me of those Foster Farms commercials where chickens are trying to fake being Foster Farm Chickens so they can be considered good enough to be slaughtered and packaged?

Remember Charlie Tuna?

[Bridget Burke]

No, there are not. Only in Republican/conservative corners.

Allegedly.

Well, this is mostly a somewhat liberal board.

But, here you are!

[Merijeek]

Well, this is mostly a somewhat liberal board.

But, here you are!

He's a victim! Poor guy! Just another conservative victim! Why can't they just drag homos behind their trucks without libruls being so intolerant?

-Joe

[Cumberdale]

I'll give you an e-cookie if you can find any post of mine where I've referred to anyone as a 'traitor', a 'terrorist' or insinuated that a Democrat/liberal leaning person "hates America".

I didn't say anything about you condemning Democrats or liberal people in general as "hating America". I'm saying that if during Democratic debate the audience boo'd a currently serving soldier you would be criticizing them and the fact that none of the debaters said anything about it. Am I wrong?

[Algher]

I didn't say anything about you condemning Democrats or liberal people in general as "hating America". I'm saying that if during Democratic debate the audience boo'd a currently serving soldier you would be criticizing them and the fact that none of the debaters said anything about it. Am I wrong?

I don't know about OMG - but I certainly would have been someone disgusted by the behavior of the audience. I would have attributed it to the general attitude of anti-military sentiment that I heard from Democrats on campus when I wore a uniform.

So I see myself in this. I am disgusted. I am hurt. I am angry. As someone else said, bigotry outweighed jingoism in the audience, and nobody on the podium said a damned thing.

I am so fucking done with my former party.

[Merijeek]

and nobody on the podium said a damned thing.

You don't chastise the people you're auditioning for.

-Joe

[Cumberdale]

I don't know about OMG - but I certainly would have been someone disgusted by the behavior of the audience. I would have attributed it to the general attitude of anti-military sentiment that I heard from Democrats on campus when I wore a uniform.

So I see myself in this. I am disgusted. I am hurt. I am angry. As someone else said, bigotry outweighed jingoism in the audience, and nobody on the podium said a damned thing.

I am so fucking done with my former party.

I agree. As a fiscal conservative I hate the fact that the current Republican party caters to the social conservative idiots that infest the party. I would love to be able to proudly vote for a Republican, unfortunately, I cannot in good conscience. The party has been turned over to the fucking idiots and I have no choice but to oppose them. As much as I dislike Obama and feel he has squandered his presidency, I have no choice but to vote for him against whoever runs against him.

[zoid]

Apparently, even conservative media outlets and groups are condemning the candidates for not addressing the booing, or even acknowledging Stephen Hill's service. GOProud and Log Cabin have put out statements as well.

Do we have links to any of this stiff? If we can verify it them I'm all for a "I applaud the conservative madia" thread.
Plus I'd really like to read the articles and I can't search at work.

[jayjay]

Do we have links to any of this stiff? If we can verify it them I'm all for a "I applaud the conservative madia" thread.
Plus I'd really like to read the articles and I can't search at work.

National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/278157/no-thanking-gay-soldier-iraq-his-service)
GOProud (http://www.goproud.org/rick-santorum-owes-gay-soldier-an-apology/)
Log Cabin Republicans (http://www.logcabin.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=nsKSL7PMLpF&b=6420733&ct=11231881)

[joebuck20]

I wonder if they'll take the opportunity to also boo an Air Force vet when Rick Perry is finally forced out of the closet.

[Merijeek]

National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/278157/no-thanking-gay-soldier-iraq-his-service)
GOProud (http://www.goproud.org/rick-santorum-owes-gay-soldier-an-apology/)
Log Cabin Republicans (http://www.logcabin.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=nsKSL7PMLpF&b=6420733&ct=11231881)

Was there anything similar for the "Let him die!" comment, or is it just this one that was bad because they flubbed their obligatory fellating of the military?

-Joe

[Omg a Black Conservative]

I didn't say anything about you condemning Democrats or liberal people in general as "hating America". I'm saying that if during Democratic debate the audience boo'd a currently serving soldier you would be criticizing them and the fact that none of the debaters said anything about it. Am I wrong?

You said "folks like me". Presumably, "folks like me" would also include myself.

[jayjay]

Was there anything similar for the "Let him die!" comment, or is it just this one that was bad because they flubbed their obligatory fellating of the military?

-Joe

I hadn't read anything about it.

[Cumberdale]

You said "folks like me". Presumably, "folks like me" would also include myself.

Yes I did and I stand behind it. Now I am not familiar with your posting history since I don't visit this board very often, but please tell me if I am wrong. If at a Democrat debate a currently serving soldier was boo'd, you would not be as outraged and disappointed that it was practically ignored by the candidates as I am in this instance?

[Wheelz]

You don't chastise the people you're auditioning for. Which is all part of the viscious foot-shooting cycle the Republicans find themselves in.

To get the nomination, the candidates must embrace the very values that will hopelessly doom them in the general election. They all must know this, yet nobody seems to have the guts to say it out loud.

[joebuck20]

And now the backtracking begins:

Rick Santorum thanks gay soldier for his service

http://gawker.com/5843390/rick-santorum-thanks-gay-soldier-for-his-service-many-hours-later

He also had this to say:


I have to admit, I seriously did not hear those boos. Had I heard them, I certainly would have commented on them, but, as you know, when you're in that sort of environment, you're sort of focused on the question and formulating your answer. I just didn't hear those couple of boos that were out there, but certainly had I, I would have said "Don't do that. This man is serving our country and we are to thank him for his service."

[MeanOldLady]

Rick Santorum is a sleazebag of a liar? Who knew? He didn't hear loud boos emanating from the audience? And if he had, he'd have thanked the man for his service, while promptly reassuring him that under a Santorum White House, the military policy would revert back to "No Fags"?

Uh huh.

[Gangster Octopus]

What does hearing boos have to do with thanking a soldier for his service?

[MeanOldLady]

What does hearing boos have to do with thanking a soldier for his service?Santorum only thanks soldiers who have been booed.

[Merijeek]

Which is all part of the viscious foot-shooting cycle the Republicans find themselves in.

To get the nomination, the candidates must embrace the very values that will hopelessly doom them in the general election. They all must know this, yet nobody seems to have the guts to say it out loud.

...and I hope you're right. I just don't have a lot of faith in the electorate.

Rick Santorum thanks gay soldier for his service

...but he'd happily throw the switch on the oven.

What does hearing boos have to do with thanking a soldier for his service?

Because his original excuse for not saying anything about it (cuz he's such an upstanding guy who will totally face up to a mob to protect some homo) was that he "didn't hear the boos".

-Joe

[joebuck20]

He didn't hear loud boos emanating from the audience?

Well, in fairness, he did have his head up his ass.

[jayjay]

Well, in fairness, he did have his head up his ass.

You'd think after all these years in that position, he'd have developed some sort of compensating sense...

[marshmallow]

Gays shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Or women. Or blacks, Asians, Indians, whites, men, human beings...

[Merijeek]

Gays shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Or women. Or blacks, Asians, Indians, whites, men, human beings...

Only male WASPs. Ooh, there you go.

"Charge, men!"
"Bzzzzzzzzz!"

-Joe

[Ca3799]

Didn't Santorum follow with some statement about how military people should'nt be having sex?

So, it's OK to kill, but not have sex? Even the married soldiers?

[Merijeek]

Didn't Santorum follow with some statement about how military people should'nt be having sex?

So, it's OK to kill, but not have sex? Even the married soldiers?

Well, any moment they're not actively pulling a trigger is a moment the taxpayers money isn't getting maximum value.

Are you endorsing wasting money that rightfully belongs to American citizens?

-Joe

[waterj2]

Rick Santorum is a sleazebag of a liar? Who knew? He didn't hear loud boos emanating from the audience? And if he had, he'd have thanked the man for his service, while promptly reassuring him that under a Santorum White House, the military policy would revert back to "No Fags"?

Uh huh.As far as I can tell from parsing whatever Santorum was trying to say, if it were up to him, everyone in the military would be required to live under the rules of DADT. And be celibate. And yet he's worried about how letting gay people serve is going to affect recruitment. Even ignoring the anti-gay bigotry, he wasn't even making sense on his own terms.

Not that he was remotely in the running before, but I think this is pretty much the end of Rick Santorum. He's an embarrassment to the Republican Party, and they'll throw him under the bus. Sucks to be the guy caught with the dog whistle, but then, it must suck to be Rick Santorum in general. Having to live with the knowledge that people are out there having gay sex and don't live in shame about it.

[Der Trihs]

I can't say as I'm surprised to hear them boo, but it did surprise me to hear them boo in the context of the event. You would think they would have some decorum. Is it not obvious by now that a significant percentage of the right is a bigoted mess? Why keep courting them?Because the bigoted mess votes Republicans; and because by now most of the Republican leadership is part of that bigoted mess.

[saoirse]

Of course, his answer ignores the fact that gay soldiers have been investigated thoroughly, and that discharges for homosexuality rose during DADT. Oh my God, why am I arguing with Rick Santorum?

[elucidator]

Yes I did and I stand behind it. Now I am not familiar with your posting history since I don't visit this board very often, but please tell me if I am wrong. If at a Democrat debate a currently serving soldier was boo'd, you would not be as outraged and disappointed that it was practically ignored by the candidates as I am in this instance?

Two points: what the soldier says, first and foremost. There was a general of intelligence going around back in the Bush years, wearing full uniform and giving lectures on how God hates Islam. "Booooo!" doesn't get it.

Second, you are operating under a misapprehension, that somehow Dems and lefties are inherently contemptuous of the service. We have often been contemptuous of the purposes to which their service is used. More often than not, and for good reasons.

It serves the political interests of our opposition to foster the impression that the left is unpatriotic. If I am the only red-blooded, flag waving, all American radical lefty you've ever met, you don't get out enough.

[Cyberhwk]

I hope someone's keeping track of this shit so we can carpet bomb the entire internet with their douchebaggery come election time.

[Guinastasia]

"Support the Troops"...but only the straight ones. :mad:

[SteveG1]

"Support the Troops"...but only the straight ones. :mad:

I want people to remember this shit when they do their "patriotic support the troops flag waving routine".

What a bunch of scumbags.

I would LOVE to see a Gunny Sgt or Sgt Major grab a microphone at one of those "functions' tell Santorum all about himself and then go Stone Cold Steve Austin all over his sorry ass.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Qin, have you ever actually paid attention to the party you seem to like so much? Being shocked that Republicans would be homophobic is kind of disingenuous, even for a 15-year-old.

I agree that there are homophobes in the GOP, and I condemn their hateful rhetoric and actions (as seen here)-but this does not represent the views of all the Republican Party.

[boytyperanma]

this does not represent the views of all the Republican Party.

It might not represent the views of a few in the party but it does indeed represent the views of the party. Given the opportunity to stand on the side of that American solder everyone on that stage declined. Those are the people your party has chosen to lead them. You can prove me wrong when your party rejects the people on that stage and chooses another.

[Mosier]

It might not represent the views of a few in the party but it does indeed represent the views of the party. Given the opportunity to stand on the side of that American solder everyone on that stage declined. Those are the people your party has chosen to lead them. You can prove me wrong when your party rejects the people on that stage and chooses another.

The question was asked to a single candidate, who gave a singular opinion on the subject. None of the other candidates were involved, as far as I know.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I agree that there are homophobes in the GOP, and I condemn their hateful rhetoric and actions (as seen here)-but this does not represent the views of all the Republican Party.

Good for you for not being in this group of homophobes.

Do you think that most Republican politicians would be in favor of anti-gay legislation? Would most folks who identify as Republicans be in favor of extending all rights to gays, including the right to adopt or marry?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Good for you for not being in this group of homophobes.

Do you think that most Republican politicians would be in favor of anti-gay legislation? Would most folks who identify as Republicans be in favor of extending all rights to gays, including the right to adopt or marry?

What is meant by "anti-gay legislation"? But a no for the second question.

[Mosier]

What is meant by "anti-gay legislation"?

Legislation written with the intent to have a disproportionate negative effect on homosexuals.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Legislation written with the intent to have a disproportionate negative effect on homosexuals.

Such as DADT?

[Mosier]

Such as DADT?

Yeah, a badge which the Democrats must wear in shame.

[Mosier]

Such as DADT?

Just out of curiosity, do you know what the intent of DADT was? It was actually a liberalization of the then-current policy, which was to exclude gays from serving altogether.

So it seems that DADT, when it was written, might actually fail the "written with the intent to have a negative disproportionate effect on gays" criteria.

[Euphonious Polemic]

What is meant by "anti-gay legislation"? But a no for the second question.

I would say an example would be legislation that would prevent someone from not renting a house to a person because they were gay, or legislation that would prevent a restaurant from kicking someone out just because they are gay. Basically recognizing that being gay should not be a basis of discrimination.

Would most Republican politicians sponsor or support legislation like that?

[Dr. Drake]

I agree that there are homophobes in the GOP, and I condemn their hateful rhetoric and actions (as seen here)-but this does not represent the views of all the Republican Party.At least not officially. The 2008 Party Platform has a statement strongly condemning gay marriage and pooh-poohing the repeal of DoMA, and it fails to mention gays anywhere in its statement of tolerance and individual rights, so while their policy may not be actively homophobic they're not exactly falling over themselves to combat homophobia.

Also, their stance on equality and religious tolerance seems to directly contradict their stance on DoMA / gay marriage, suggesting that at best homophobia is a blind spot, something the party is not willing to condemn.

I don't think you'll find a single thing that unites every single Republican voter, and I know plenty of Republicans who aren't homophobic, but homophobia is pretty prevalent at all levels of the party. I hate the Democrats = good / Republican = evil meme, but it's pretty clear that mainstream Republican values are closer to homophobia than not.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Just out of curiosity, do you know what the intent of DADT was? It was actually a liberalization of the then-current policy, which was to exclude gays from serving altogether.



My impression as well is that it was a compromise between those who wanted gays to be able to serve, and those who wanted no gays in the military at all. (No points for guessing which party was on which side.) Perhaps not a compromise that made everyone happy but...

[Gyrate]

I agree that there are homophobes in the GOP, and I condemn their hateful rhetoric and actions (as seen here)-but this does not represent the views of all the Republican Party.Clearly the existence of GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans shows that not all Republicans are homophobes. A pity that the ones that are front and center, who continue to happily pander to the Christian Right, either are homophobes or (ironically) are happy to hop into bed with them.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Just out of curiosity, do you know what the intent of DADT was? It was actually a liberalization of the then-current policy, which was to exclude gays from serving altogether.

.

I know, it has been noted before

I would say an example would be legislation that would prevent someone from not renting a house to a person because they were gay, or legislation that would prevent a restaurant from kicking someone out just because they are gay. Basically recognizing that being gay should not be a basis of discrimination.

Would most Republican politicians sponsor or support legislation like that?

I'm not sure. Wasn't such a bill up before Congress not too long ago?

[Euphonious Polemic]

I'm not sure. Wasn't such a bill up before Congress not too long ago?

You're not sure if Republicans would sponsor or support a bill to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

You might want to look into that. Just FYI, the majority of the party does not share your tolerant outlook.

[tomndebb]

As far as I can tell from parsing whatever Santorum was trying to say, if it were up to him, everyone in the military would be required to live under the rules of DADT. And be celibate. And yet he's worried about how letting gay people serve is going to affect recruitment. Even ignoring the anti-gay bigotry, he wasn't even making sense on his own terms.At the risk of excluding the middle, Santorum (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Santorum) is either a liar or an ignorant idiot.*

He claimed that in the military, previously, "sex was not an issue," ignoring the explicit regulations that prohibited any member of the service from engaging in any homosexual behavior, even off base or on leave while having no similar prohibition regarding heterosexual behavior. His comment is false regardless whether it was intended to indicate the period before or the period during DADT.

(And I am sure that black people throughout the military and women in the military would agree with him that we should not engage in "social experiments" (such as racial integration or permitting women to serve in ships or combat theaters) regarding the military.)

* (I fully recognize that the most likely situation is that both conditions are true.)

[Cyberhwk]

(And I am sure that black people throughout the military and women in the military would agree with him that we should not engage in "social experiments" (such as racial integration or permitting women to serve in ships or combat theaters) regarding the military.)"It DID disrupt the unit. The unit got over it.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XbPGsLSw1k)

[gonzomax]

No, no. I'm pretty sure everyone here would agree that jerkishness transends all political bounds.

But the home of the vast majority is the Republican party. Not just jerks but haters of people of color and gays. You will notice none of the candidates were offended . None of them had a thing to say in any of 3 embarrassing occasions. That is because in the repub party, it is accepted. No big deal at all.

[jsgoddess]

But the home of the vast majority is the Republican party. Not just jerks but haters of people of color and gays. You will notice none of the candidates were offended . None of them had a thing to say in any of 3 embarrassing occasions. That is because in the repub party, it is accepted. No big deal at all.

Eh, Ron Paul stood up a little about the "let him die" idiots.

[Cumberdale]

Two points: what the soldier says, first and foremost. There was a general of intelligence going around back in the Bush years, wearing full uniform and giving lectures on how God hates Islam. "Booooo!" doesn't get it.

Second, you are operating under a misapprehension, that somehow Dems and lefties are inherently contemptuous of the service. We have often been contemptuous of the purposes to which their service is used. More often than not, and for good reasons.

It serves the political interests of our opposition to foster the impression that the left is unpatriotic. If I am the only red-blooded, flag waving, all American radical lefty you've ever met, you don't get out enough.

I have no idea what you are yapping about. I asked a question and have yet to hear a response.

[boytyperanma]

The question was asked to a single candidate, who gave a singular opinion on the subject. None of the other candidates were involved, as far as I know.

The only one on the stage that has claimed not to hear the booing was Santorum. Each candidate had plenty of time on the stage afterwords to condemn the crowds behavior. A few of them after being hit with negative press over their lack of reaction have made statements saying they did not agree with the booing. The time to say that was then not after the fact. Their inaction was passive support of bigotry. They at best lack the courage to lead.

[elucidator]

I have no idea what you are yapping about. I asked a question and have yet to hear a response.

You can type but you can't read? How very odd.

[Robot Arm]

The ad at the bottom of the page is "stop Obama's assault on our veterans" from the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Committee.

See the rich irony you paid members are missing out on?

[Cumberdale]

You can type but you can't read? How very odd.

Yes, I can read, thank you. I just don't understand who you can tell what I believe about "lefties" from my post or can tell if I don't get out enough. In other words don't assign motivations or beliefs to people you don't know, you'll just come off sounding like an ass.

[Budget Player Cadet]

I agree that there are homophobes in the GOP, and I condemn their hateful rhetoric and actions (as seen here)-but this does not represent the views of all the Republican Party.

I agree that there are racists in the NPD*, and I condemn their hateful rhetoric and actions - but this does not represent the views of all the NPD.

*modern right-wing radical party of Germany; commonly seen as the reaction to the banning of the NSDAP as a party. Anti-gay, anti-immigration, strongly anti-turk. Notably fringe and generally worth ignoring.

Look, you may not be a homophobe, and I respect that. But that said, it doesn't matter: you're supporting the party of homophobia, bigotry, and prejudice. When most of the republican presidential candidates sign a pledge to "family values"; when they will openly speak out against a gay serviceman because he is gay; when nobody will dare call Santorum–an enemy in this race–out on his very clear logical errors, either because they agree or because they are scared of being branded as a supporter of gay rights, then it is fair to brand the party as homophobic. And as long as that is part of the party line, people who support the republican party have a duty to either act to change that through whatever means they have, or they lose the right to complain when they are labeled as supporters of homophobia and detractors of social progress.

"It DID disrupt the unit. The unit got over it.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XbPGsLSw1k)

That is an awesome clip.

[elucidator]

Yes, I can read, thank you. I just don't understand who you can tell what I believe about "lefties" from my post or can tell if I don't get out enough. In other words don't assign motivations or beliefs to people you don't know, you'll just come off sounding like an ass.

Let me introduce you to a concept rather popular hereabouts. It's called a "quote", by which you illustrate a posters views with their own words, those words being a reliable indicator of views.

...but please tell me if I am wrong. If at a Democrat debate a currently serving soldier was boo'd, you would not be as outraged and disappointed that it was practically ignored by the candidates as I am in this instance?

By which you imply the Dems are inherently less likely to be shocked at dissing a serviceman. A slander of long standing and durable. You present a hypothetical Dem response as though it were a fact, and then offer to compare the Dem regard for servicemen against your own, and find it wanting.

You offer a comparison between something that did happen and something that didn't, and assure us in aggrieved tones of butthurt that if the one that didn't happen did happen, it would be much worse. Apparently hoping that an insinuation can outweigh a fact.

You got nothin'.

[Cumberdale]

Let me introduce you to a concept rather popular hereabouts. It's called a "quote", by which you illustrate a posters views with their own words, those words being a reliable indicator of views.



By which you imply the Dems are inherently less likely to be shocked at dissing a serviceman. A slander of long standing and durable. You present a hypothetical Dem response as though it were a fact, and then offer to compare the Dem regard for servicemen against your own, and find it wanting.

You offer a comparison between something that did happen and something that didn't, and assure us in aggrieved tones of butthurt that if the one that didn't happen did happen, it would be much worse. Apparently hoping that an insinuation can outweigh a fact.

You got nothin'.

First, you can take your condescending attitude and shove it.

I merely asked a question of another poster.

I did not preface my comment with "since this is what I believe..." You simply read into it what you wanted to see. Besides, I happen to think that what actually happened is much worse than if it would have been in the reverse. While this may be an unfair stereotype I'd be willing to wager that the boo'ers were right of center on the political scale, conservative Christians and pro military all the way. However the incident shows that they let their bigotry trump everything else.

[Bosstone]

elucidator, you're completely off-base. Cumberdale worded his hypothetical a bit poorly maybe, but he's clearly doing a standard "if the party names were reversed" hypothetical. Going all attack-dog on the unintentional implication that of course the Democratic candidates wouldn't say anything about booing audience members is overkill.

[elucidator]

Huh? Looked to me like a jigger of "liberal hypocrisy" on the rocks with a dash of "They hate the troops" bitters. Rather have a swampwater fizz.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Huh? Looked to me like a jigger of "liberal hypocrisy" on the rocks with a dash of "They hate the troops" bitters. Rather have a swampwater fizz.

Nope. You were off base here.

[Yumblie]

Because his original excuse for not saying anything about it (cuz he's such an upstanding guy who will totally face up to a mob to protect some homo) was that he "didn't hear the boos".

He thought they were saying "boo-urns."

[gonzomax]

The pit is weak. He pits the audience without understanding they are the Republicans. The audience is not filled with people off the streets. It is filled with people who have shown loyalty and given money to the party or have worked for it. They are a fair representative of the Republican followers.

[Bosstone]

Huh? Looked to me like a jigger of "liberal hypocrisy" on the rocks with a dash of "They hate the troops" bitters. Rather have a swampwater fizz.Cumberdale was asking OMGABC whether or not he would condemn Democrats if audience members booed service members and the candidates didn't remark on it at a Democratic Party debate. It's just a hypothetical, and it's one intended to expose hypocrisy in conservatives who would condemn Democrats doing so hypothetically but would excuse Republicans who actually did it. So, yes, off-base.

And now you've made me explain the joke, so no drinks for you.

[Lago Ys-Transform]

How many people were booing (can't see the link, sorry, I'm limited to 1G right now)? If it's just like 1% of the crowd I seriously don't think that it's worth pitting over. No offense because I support full-on LGBT rights, but if it's not a significant ratio then it's just a wee bit hasty.

[Ibn Warraq]

I think people are being more than a little unfair to the audience.

That soldier was quite ripped.

Considering how many social conservatives have turned out to be repressed closet-cases isn't there a strong possibility the were going "Woo! Woo!"

[gonzomax]

How many people were booing (can't see the link, sorry, I'm limited to 1G right now)? If it's just like 1% of the crowd I seriously don't think that it's worth pitting over. No offense because I support full-on LGBT rights, but if it's not a significant ratio then it's just a wee bit hasty.

You do not know how many. You are making up a statistic. Nor do you tell us how many you would consider significant. Some think 1 is too many. This was not the whole Republican party, but it was all Republicans. It is a representation of the party.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

I agree that there are racists in the NPD*, and I condemn their hateful rhetoric and actions - but this does not represent the views of all the NPD.

*modern right-wing radical party of Germany; commonly seen as the reaction to the banning of the NSDAP as a party. Anti-gay, anti-immigration, strongly anti-turk. Notably fringe and generally worth ignoring.

Look, you may not be a homophobe, and I respect that. But that said, it doesn't matter: you're supporting the party of homophobia, bigotry, and prejudice. When most of the republican presidential candidates sign a pledge to "family values"; when they will openly speak out against a gay serviceman because he is gay; when nobody will dare call Santorum–an enemy in this race–out on his very clear logical errors, either because they agree or because they are scared of being branded as a supporter of gay rights, then it is fair to brand the party as homophobic. And as long as that is part of the party line, people who support the republican party have a duty to either act to change that through whatever means they have, or they lose the right to complain when they are labeled as supporters of homophobia and detractors of social progress.



That is an awesome clip.

Well younger Republicans and moderates elected in 2010 are starting to change the GOP from within-but I don't think the Republican politicians as a whole are homophobic but like as you said unwilling to piss off the base. But then on the other hand even Ann Coulter spoke at a GOProud

The pit is weak. He pits the audience without understanding they are the Republicans. The audience is not filled with people off the streets. It is filled with people who have shown loyalty and given money to the party or have worked for it. They are a fair representative of the Republican followers.

I think its self-evident that probably most of the crowd is Republican, thus I did not need to include that.

You're not sure if Republicans would sponsor or support a bill to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

You might want to look into that. Just FYI, the majority of the party does not share your tolerant outlook.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd,_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act

Voila. Well the bill did have some Republican support but opposition to the bill came for reasons of constitutionality (such as the US commitssion on Civil Rights)
You do not know how many. You are making up a statistic. Nor do you tell us how many you would consider significant. Some think 1 is too many. This was not the whole Republican party, but it was all Republicans. It is a representation of the party.

No it did not pick Republicans from all varieties from all regions-the audience is skewed toward the locality and whatever groups bothered to make the trip.

[Lago Ys-Transform]

You do not know how many. You are making up a statistic. Nor do you tell us how many you would consider significant. Some think 1 is too many. This was not the whole Republican party, but it was all Republicans. It is a representation of the party.

I'm not making up anything. I'm asking for a percentage of the audience actually booing. If the OP is going to put the audience you need to show that the attitude is reflective of 'the audience' and not just a few random assholes. I'm not quite sure where the line from individual to collective guilt is, but I think that 1-5% of the audience misbehaving is too low for it.

[Euphonious Polemic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd,_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act

Voila. Well the bill did have some Republican support but opposition to the bill came for reasons of constitutionality (such as the US commitssion on Civil Rights)


I congratulate the following 18 Republicans for supporting the bill:
Judy Biggert (IL), Mary Bono Mack (CA), Joseph Cao (LA), Mike Castle (DE), Charlie Dent (PA), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL), Mario Diaz-Balart (FL), Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ), Jim Gerlach (PA), Mark Kirk (IL), Leonard Lance (NJ), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Todd Russell Platts (PA), Dave Reichert (WA), and Greg Walden (OR) along with Bill Cassidy (LA), Mike Coffman (CO), and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL). I spit on the other 175 Republican representatives who voted against the bill, and am of the opinion that the "constitutionality" points were a bullshit smokescreen.

I congratulate the 5 republican senators that voted for the bill: Susan Collins (ME), Dick Lugar (IN), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe (ME), and George Voinovich (OH). I spit on the rest of the Republican senators.

As you can see, the Republican politicians who support gay issues are in the very slim minority. Still, they do exist, and I salute them.

[elucidator]

Cumberdale was asking OMGABC whether or not he would condemn Democrats if audience members booed service members and the candidates didn't remark on it at a Democratic Party debate. It's just a hypothetical, and it's one intended to expose hypocrisy in conservatives who would condemn Democrats doing so hypothetically but would excuse Republicans who actually did it. So, yes, off-base.

And now you've made me explain the joke, so no drinks for you.

OK, I take your point. Clearly, Cumberdale had his head on straight and his heart in the right place, and I misread him. A lot. So, sorry. Mea fuckup

Garcon! This crow is indifferently prepared. Have the cook thrashed soundly, and bring me another.

[F. U. Shakespeare]

To the OP:

If this issue required you to recall details of TV ads from the Goldwater-Johnson campaign, I would respect your youth.

But holy freaking crap: how can anyone follow national politics for the last few years and not be aware of the sharp right/left dialectic on gay rights???

This thread is historic for me: it's the first argument I've ever had with a conservative who is claiming that his bunch have (to paraphrase) "never REALLY had anything against" gays, whom y'all recently referred to as 'fags' or 'queers'. It's true: children really are the future!

I had similar arguments with conservative friends decades ago, except the issue was the rights of black people. (Whom y'all had recently referred to as... eh, look it up).

It's a sign that things are changing, when you people are sufficiently ashamed of your prejudices that you try to rewrite history.

I wonder now how long before the right claim to be the ones who've had the interests of gay people at heart all along? Like they claimed about black people once affirmative action became an issue.

[Mosier]

Well younger Republicans and moderates elected in 2010 are starting to change the GOP from within

Who are you referring to as moderate, elected from the Republican party to a federal level in 2010? Are you sure you're not just using "moderate" as another term for "agrees with you?"

[Merijeek]

I'm not making up anything. I'm asking for a percentage of the audience actually booing. If the OP is going to put the audience you need to show that the attitude is reflective of 'the audience' and not just a few random assholes. I'm not quite sure where the line from individual to collective guilt is, but I think that 1-5% of the audience misbehaving is too low for it.

You're right. Now if only one of the nine alleged "leaders" on stage had made some comment about it. I could say I wonder why they didn't, but I know why. That is their base. Those are the people they are auditioning for.

Those are the ones to whom they are trying to say "I am one of you".

And either they are, or they're gutless. And if they're gutless they may as well be one of them.

-Joe

[Steve MB]

Cumberdale was asking OMGABC whether or not he would condemn Democrats if audience members booed service members and the candidates didn't remark on it at a Democratic Party debate. It's just a hypothetical, and it's one intended to expose hypocrisy in conservatives who would condemn Democrats doing so hypothetically but would excuse Republicans who actually did it. So, yes, off-base.

Since the joke needs to be explained, here's a link to "JAQing off" (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off), of which the above-referenced hypothetical is a veritable textbook example.

[Steve MB]

I'm not making up anything. I'm asking for a percentage of the audience actually booing. If the OP is going to put the audience you need to show that the attitude is reflective of 'the audience' and not just a few random assholes. I'm not quite sure where the line from individual to collective guilt is, but I think that 1-5% of the audience misbehaving is too low for it.

The relevant percentage would be the percentage of self-appointed "leader" candidates where were perfectly OK with it. That would be one hundred.

[42fish]

I think people are being more than a little unfair to the audience.

That soldier was quite ripped.

Considering how many social conservatives have turned out to be repressed closet-cases isn't there a strong possibility the were going "Woo! Woo!"

Also explains how Santorum failed to hear the boos: His mind was elsewhere at the time.

[Slow Moving Vehicle]

I'd love to hear from a thoughtful conservative who doesn't feel the need to bash on gays, thump the bible, and deny evolution. Make a solid constitutional argument, show me how you intend to preserve standards without federal oversight, and I'm all ears. Let the tea party take the bigots, racists and loons, and run a serious candidate.

Try David Brooks, of the Wall Street Journal. He's the kind of conservative liberals like me hate: intelligent, measured, reflective - the sort you have to debate, rather than simply mock. Bastard.

[jayjay]

Try David Brooks, of the Wall Street Journal. He's the kind of conservative liberals like me hate: intelligent, measured, reflective - the sort you have to debate, rather than simply mock. Bastard.

The King of False Equivalence? Really?

[gonzomax]

I'm not making up anything. I'm asking for a percentage of the audience actually booing. If the OP is going to put the audience you need to show that the attitude is reflective of 'the audience' and not just a few random assholes. I'm not quite sure where the line from individual to collective guilt is, but I think that 1-5% of the audience misbehaving is too low for it.

Still making up a percentage and then offering as debatable. It is not. I heard the booing on the TV. I am sure it was louder a the venue.
This was all repubs in that audience. the Repubs are very careful about preventing Dems from going near them in public.
The audience is a reflection of the Republican party as a whole. But I would suggest the ones able to get into that show were serious party workers and followers. The real Republican party would have even more of those haters in the mix. The home of haters is the Republican Party. The home of anti gays is the same. It also houses the anti blacks.

[Merijeek]

The King of False Equivalence? Really?

Sure! The guy who haz sad faces because Obama actually stopped bending over the desk for a minute.

-Joe

[gonzomax]

I would posit that the audience at the debates is a higher class group than the typical Repub. They are a select group . They don't just let the regular righty in. I believe a true cross section of the Republican Party would have even more booing and hatred.

[Gyrate]

I would posit that the audience at the debates is a higher class group than the typical Repub. They are a select group . They don't just let the regular righty in. I believe a true cross section of the Republican Party would have even more booing and hatred.Let's not go overboard here. What a hypothetical crowd might have done is also hypothetical. What the real crowd did - and what the candidates didn't do - is bad enough.

[B. Serum]

I agree that there are homophobes in the GOP, and I condemn their hateful rhetoric and actions (as seen here)-but this does not represent the views of all the Republican Party.

Thank you! Good point!

All one needs to do is to look at the "It Gets Better Project" to see the massive outpouring of elected Republican support. In fact, I encourage everyone reading these words right now to count just how many Republican leaders urge LGBT youth to not kill themselves because the bullying they're encountering is unjustified.

The number is truly staggering, remarkable enough to bring a tear to your eye.

[Oldeb]

The number is truly staggering, remarkable enough to bring a tear to your eye.

What? Staggering? Staggering in it's absence maybe. Name 2 nationally elected Republicans to have made videos.

The only Republican I'm aware of is Fred Karger, who has never held any elected office.

And as of last November there were no Republicans who had made such a video. Meanwhile Obama, Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Pelosi all had done so. (cite (http://news.change.org/stories/some-bipartisanship-for-the-it-gets-better-project))

[elucidator]

Your sarcasm meter is busted. That post measures 783 millihicks, well within the heavy sarcasm range. (600-800 millihicks)

[B. Serum]

What? Staggering? Staggering in it's absence maybe. Name 2 nationally elected Republicans to have made videos.

The only Republican I'm aware of is Fred Karger, who has never held any elected office.

And as of last November there were no Republicans who had made such a video. Meanwhile Obama, Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Pelosi all had done so. (cite (http://news.change.org/stories/some-bipartisanship-for-the-it-gets-better-project))

Woosh.

[Oldeb]

Your sarcasm meter is busted. That post measures 783 millihicks, well within the heavy sarcasm range. (600-800 millihicks)

Woosh.


Er, um... :smack:

[Naxos]

People are morons. What can you do?

No...

You mean Republicans.

[gonzomax]

Who are you referring to as moderate, elected from the Republican party to a federal level in 2010? Are you sure you're not just using "moderate" as another term for "agrees with you?"

Moderates = tea baggers to QIN.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Moderates = tea baggers to QIN.

I mean moderates to be Republicans like Messrs. Huntsman, Kirk, or Brown or Frau Murkowski.

[boytyperanma]

You said this

Well younger Republicans and moderates elected in 2010 are starting to change the GOP from within

Which is kinda at odds with this

I mean moderates to be Republicans like Messrs. Huntsman, Kirk, or Brown or Frau Murkowski.

Well Murkowski was elected in 2010 but I wouldn't say she is changing her party from within as her own party rejected her in the primary.

Who are these more moderate Republicans that came about in 2010? Can you name anyone that was more moderate then their predecessor?

This change you speak of is going kinda strangely. They aren't moving in the direction you think they are going. Eventually they will hit the wall that is the American people and they'll have to become more moderate, until then they march further and further right as long as they can find more bigots to appease.

[CarnalK]

Abominable, huh? Crap, I've done something abominable!

Late to the thread but this kind of made me go "Huh?" Am I missing a back story? Because it seems like you are laughing off adultery that you've committed and a couple people laughed along with you. I just ask because "worthy of disgust" is the general consensus I sense around here about adultery so "abominable" seems to fit even if it's a little archaic sounding.

[kayaker]

Late to the thread but this kind of made me go "Huh?" Am I missing a back story? Because it seems like you are laughing off adultery that you've committed and a couple people laughed along with you. I just ask because "worthy of disgust" is the general consensus I sense around here about adultery so "abominable" seems to fit even if it's a little archaic sounding.

Yes, it was the archaic sound of "abominable" that got me. I would have copped to doing something "worthy of disgust" without batting an eyelash. But abominable, other than when used to describe a snowman, is strange.

[Merijeek]

Yes, it was the archaic sound of "abominable" that got me. I would have copped to doing something "worthy of disgust" without batting an eyelash. But abominable, other than when used to describe a snowman, is strange.

So, you were cheating with a snowman? I know there's a fetish for everything, but man I had no idea they had gotten quite that far yet...

-Joe

[elucidator]

Usually, the carrot is the nose. A cucumber could be employed for another part, I suppose.

[kayaker]

So, you were cheating with a snowman? I know there's a fetish for everything, but man I had no idea they had gotten quite that far yet...

-Joe

{insert snowball joke}

[Merijeek]

{insert snowball joke}

I'm ashamed that you missed throwing in "blue balls" in there as well.

-Joe

[elucidator]

Lick my snowballs. No, wait, stop lickng my snowballs! I'm melting, melting, oh, what a world...