A ? for Fin Fang Foom & the other conservatives

[BewareofNick]

Why do you support President Bush and the GOP? I am asking this as a serious question and in the hopes of seeking an understanding. In the Senate thread, there were a lot of soundbites and a liberal this and that, but I want to know why you support the GOP and the conservative movement.

 

Most particularly:

 

The GOP is dominated at the moment by Southern conservatives and Conservative Christians. How can you support a group that hates your very existence?

 

"I have known few homosexuals who did not practice their tendencies. Such people are sinning against God and will lead to the ultimate destruction of the family and our nation. I am unalterably opposed to such things, and will do everything I can to restrict the freedom of these people to spread their contagious infection to the youth of our nation."

 

-- Pat Robertson, May 24, 1994 letter

 

Not that I can tell you what or how to post, but can you do it by extolling the GOP/conservative virtues instead of turning it into an anti-liberal or anti-Clinton rant? Doing that is easy, but I have to wonder if there are any virtues there. I look forward to your thoughts.

 

-Truth Justice and the American Way-

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

RE: A ? for Fin Fang Foom

 

>Most particularly:

>

>The GOP is dominated at the moment by Southern conservatives

>and Conservative Christians. How can you support a group

>that hates your very existence?

 

I don't have any time to address this fully right now so I'll touch upon it and head out but return to it later.

 

First of all, the GOP is NOT "dominated" by Southern conservatives and Christians. This is a fiction of the media. If you look at Tuesday's election, GOP candidates were elected as governors in Rhode Island, New York, Hawaii, Vermont, South Dakota, Minnesota, Ohio, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Alaska, and Maryland. Last time I checked, none of these states were hotbeds of Southern conservativism, nor are these states in the Bible Belt. So, how would you explain those victories in light of your assumption that the GOP is dominated by SOUTHERN conservatives and conservative Christians?

 

Secondly, I don't buy this "the GOP hates gays" mantra. They don't. Are there some in the GOP who are loud about being anti-gay? Yep. However, they're, for the most part, nutcases. And, believe it or not, the GOP doesn't have a lock on nutcases - shall I go over the loonies the Democrats have?

 

Do you REALLY think all the Democrats love us? I have four words for you: Defense of Marriage Act. Shall we go over who in the Democratic Party voted FOR that? THIRTY-TWO Democratic Senators (a majority) voted for it. Please take a look at this link and see which of those DEMOCRATS think you should NOT be allowed to marry http://www.proaxis.com/cop/sv960280.htm . Do their "yes" votes mean they hate you? You tell me. Here, the champions of gay rights (the Democratic Party) had an opportunity to show how much they stand up for us, and what did they do? They sat down.

 

Oh yeah, and lest we forget, Clinton (our "best" friend") signed it. Yet, even after doing that, faggots continue to behave like Monica and stick their tongues up his ass (it was in the footnotes, she rimmed him - ewwwwwwwww).

 

I would like to know why you support a party that says it's for you and yet, when given the chance, votes against you? Isn't there a word for that kind of behavior?

 

I don't have a myopic view of the world. There are other issues important to me other than being a faggot. I am for a strong military, lower taxes, less government, law and order, judges that don't legislate from the bench, and I'm pro-life. That's the big picture and the Republican party matches my views more than the Democrats. However, I think the GOP's obsession with the NRA is bullshit - THAT leaves me scratching my head.

 

Gotta get to the gym.

 

Loveyoumissyoumeanit.

 

Moderatedly yours,

 

FFF

[Guest 7Zach]

RE: A ? for Fin Fang Foom

 

To me, the better question is to determine which issues are more important to you, and then to see which party is better on that or those issues.

Obviously, the Democratic policies are more active intervention on the environment, more money on social programs, ostensibly (in terms of lip service) on gay rights, etc.

But for less government, historically a balanced budget, less taxes, and a strong defence - the Republicans actively promote these. And those are more important to me rather than the right to abortion, etc.

I don't agree with a lot of the other policies of the party/administration, but it's always a balancing act.

As far as the dogma of either party, it's part of politics. People in both parties act ugly and stupid.

And my main dispute with the Conservatives/Republicans, is that if you are truly conservative, then the government is not to interfere on issues such as abortion, free speech, etc. The view in favor right now is not conservative, but driven by perceived morals of people who want the government to actively promote policies that contravene individual freedoms - that is not conservative.

Contrary to a lot of the opinions on this board, the upper 10% of taxpayers pay the overwhelming majority of taxes in this country. And there is no policy in place to actually promote savings, which in turn boosts the economy because that money has to be invested - which in turn means invested in production of goods and services, which translates into jobs, which in turn translates into higher tax revenues.

The Republicans are at least open to a tax based on consumption; the Office on Tax Policy has spent a year on it trying to see how it would work in place of an income tax, or at least a revised tax code. It's more equitable, as long as it taxes above a certain level, or on things other than basic necessities.

Concluding, I am conservative on fiscal matters and defense; indeed, defense is where you start, because without defense, we are nothing.

Liberal on social issues - that's why, contrary to every one of the liberals here, I think LBJ was a great president - solely because of his stand on those social issues of equal opportunity, integration, etc., and notwithstanding Viet Nam.

In terms of Medicare, I have reservations on the size and scope of that program, but the government has an obligation of help to seniors for medical care. Same with housing to the poor. And the same with Head Start and other social programs.

But that doesn't mean that there should not be strong incentives for people to work, and similarly strong thresholds for people to meet to qualify for such programs. And again, the Republicans did much better on rolling back these runaway programs.

Both parties have switched on a lot of the issues, and they continue, in Traveller's words, to co-opt each other's platforms and policies. All in the need to garner a majority of votes. Nixon captured the Southern Democrats and labor unions solely on the veiled references to race, and brought those people into the party. Reagan did the same with blue collar workers across the board in all regions of the country on the issue of taxes and the need to cut back on government social programs. Clinton reversed a lot of this with his seemingly conservative fiscal policies and activist social programs. But when it came to the budget, it never would have been passed but for the republicans in congress pushing it, especially with the Graham Rudman Act.

In the last election, Gore et al continued a class war, pitting the seemingly rich against the poor and minorities. Rich under their tax plan was an income above $55,000 a year. The problem: everyone thinks everyone else is richer and getting more, and everyone wants someone else to pay taxes. But I will never vote for a democrat if they continue the same policy of divide and conquer, especially when it is premised solely on winning a majority by capturing the vote of the large urban areas, and ignoring the masses of people in the rest of the US. I just disagree with the mindset and politics of the average New York and urban Chicago voter.

At the end of the campaign in 2000, Gore was clueless - he was now beyond any definition of liberal, but ranting as a l940s populist, enlisting what he termed disenfrachised minorities and labor unions. The worst, the saturday before the election (or friday), he spoke in Memphis to a black audience, and he said that the Republicans would appoint strict constructionist to the Supreme Court. He then looked down, in his Reganesque mode, looked up and smiled with the punchline: he said that the last time he checked, blacks weren't but 3/5 of a person under the Constitution, and essentially, watch out for the Republicans. Huge applause. (I don't have time to double check the percentage, but in the Constitution, for purposes of calculating the number of representatives to the given population, whites counted as one person and others less than one - the reason being that the southerners wanted more representatives, so they increased the number of their "citizenry" by counting a proportion of slaves, and therefore a larger number of representatives in Congress.

 

At the time, I wasn't sure of Bush, and was thinking of Gore, much to my disgust. But that was it - much more divisive, and would do or say anything to be elected. And as far as Bush, he is far smarter and a better president that I expected. And a much,much better politician - he made history in this last election. And in terms of terrorism, who would you rather have? Clinton's advisers, or Cheney, Powell, Rumsfield, and Rice. To me, the latter, no question about it. For a fact.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

RE: A ? for Fin Fang Foom

 

>But for less government, historically a balanced budget,

>less taxes, and a strong defence - the Republicans actively

>promote these.

 

The Republicans haven't promoted a balanced budget for quite some time. In fact, one of Reagan's most brilliant long-term tactical achievements was, essentially, to run up astronomical deficits and force the Democrats, in the nineties, to become the party of fiscal responsibility. But the new focus on deficit reduction made it impossible to conduct a restoration of the social programs that Reagan had cut. Indeed, Clinton got elected partly on promises to "end welfare as we know it" and to "reinvent government" (which largely meant downsizing).

 

>Clinton reversed a lot of this

>with his seemingly conservative fiscal policies and activist

>social programs. But when it came to the budget, it never

>would have been passed but for the republicans in congress

>pushing it

 

Clinton's 1993 budget -- the one credited with turning the economy around and leading to the longest post-war expansion -- was passed with nary a single Republican vote (maybe Jeffords or somebody like that). It raised taxes on the rich, remember? Of course, because of its austerity relative to the "stimulus" the liberals in the party wanted, it also represents a victory by Clinton over the left wing of the Democratic party -- a victory that you could say twelve years of Republican rule had made politically necessary.

[Guest bottomboykk]

RE: A ? for Fin Fang Foom

 

>Clinton's 1993 budget -- the one credited with turning the

>economy around and leading to the longest post-war expansion

>-- was passed with nary a single Republican vote (maybe

>Jeffords or somebody like that).

 

Not even Jeffords voted for it. In the Senate only Democrats voted for it, and Gore had to break the tie.

 

>It raised taxes on the

>rich, remember? Of course, because of its austerity

>relative to the "stimulus" the liberals in the party wanted,

>it also represents a victory by Clinton over the left wing

>of the Democratic party -- a victory that you could say

>twelve years of Republican rule had made politically

>necessary.

 

You're partly correct. Clinton tried and failed first to pass a stimulus package that the liberals were drooling over. Then he got the point, due in no small part to the tutelage of Alan Greenspan, that deficit reduction was key to economic recovery. That is a point that no Republican President in modern times has understood. I give a lot of credit to Greenspan and to Clinton, who had to reverse course on his convictions and do what was best for the economy.

[Guest alanm]

RE: A ? for Fin Fang Foom

 

I served in Vietnam and hated the war. Yet I consider LBJ to be the greatest president in the 2nd half of the century, because of his great society programs. Democrats are usually better on social issue, agreed that there many good liberal Republicans.

 

On gay-related issues, the Democrats have a much better record than the GOP. So FFF and others defense of the Republicans is strange.

Why would you support a party than gives little attention to its own gay group, the Log Cabin people? I bet FFF does not live in a conservative area of the country, where he would have to face prejudice every day.

[+ Lucky]

RE: A ? for Fin Fang Foom

 

"I bet FFF does not live in a conservative area of the country, where he would have to face prejudice every day."

 

Doesn't he get enough of it right here?:-)

[N.N.]

RE: A ? for Fin Fang Foom

 

>Secondly, I don't buy this "the GOP hates gays" mantra. They

>don't. Are there some in the GOP who are loud about being

>anti-gay? Yep. However, they're, for the most part,

>nutcases.

 

Like the president. As governor of Texas, he promised to

veto any attempts to repeal the state's gay-only sodomy

law, saying that he liked the message the law sent.

 

 

>However, I think the GOP's obsession with

>the NRA is bullshit - THAT leaves me scratching my head.

 

What part of "money and votes" don't you understand?

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

RE: A ? for Fin Fang Foom

 

>On gay-related issues, the Democrats have a much better

>record than the GOP.

 

Please share with the class ONE SINGLE PIECE of DEMOCRATIC legislation that addressed ANYTHING for gays. I'm not talking about state houses but rather the CONGRESS.

 

Dazzle me with their "record".

 

Patiently yours,

 

FFF

[Guest in yer face]

RE: A ? for Fin Fang Foom

 

>First of all, the GOP is NOT "dominated" by Southern

>conservatives and Christians. This is a fiction of the

>media. If you look at Tuesday's election, GOP candidates

>were elected as governors in Rhode Island, New York, Hawaii,

>Vermont, South Dakota, Minnesota, Ohio, New Hampshire,

>Massachusetts, Alaska, and Maryland. Last time I checked,

>none of these states were hotbeds of Southern

>conservativism, nor are these states in the Bible Belt. So,

>how would you explain those victories in light of your

>assumption that the GOP is dominated by SOUTHERN

>conservatives and conservative Christians?

 

I would not say that any group is dominated by anything. However, the fact remains that the Republican party has no interest in helping further gay causes, and in many cases, those bigots that do stand out in the Republican party, are very vocal of their disdain toward gays people.

 

 

>

>Secondly, I don't buy this "the GOP hates gays" mantra. They

>don't. Are there some in the GOP who are loud about being

>anti-gay? Yep. However, they're, for the most part,

>nutcases. And, believe it or not, the GOP doesn't have a

>lock on nutcases - shall I go over the loonies the Democrats

>have?

>

 

Uhh, whatever. A nutcase is as a nutcase does, and in the case of those wacky 'publicans, they just dont like fags.

 

 

>Do you REALLY think all the Democrats love us? I have four

>words for you: Defense of Marriage Act. Shall we go over who

>in the Democratic Party voted FOR that? THIRTY-TWO

>Democratic Senators (a majority) voted for it. Please take a

>look at this link and see which of those DEMOCRATS think you

>should NOT be allowed to marry

 

OK, so how many republicans voted against DOMA? 0, thats how many It would seem that pretty much everyone had it out for us on that one. However, the only group of holdouts were in the Democrat party. NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED AGAINST DOMA. Do you think that GWB would stand up against DOMA now? I would say that based on that, your argument about DOMA as a litmus test of a good polititian is shot to hell.

 

 

>http://www.proaxis.com/cop/sv960280.htm . Do their "yes"

>votes mean they hate you? You tell me. Here, the champions

>of gay rights (the Democratic Party) had an opportunity to

>show how much they stand up for us, and what did they do?

>They sat down.

 

Heres the list on NAYS form your own weblink:

NAYS--14

Akaka Democrat Hawaii N

Boxer Democrat California N

Feingold Democrat Wisconsin N

Feinstein Democrat California N

Inouye Democrat Hawaii N

Kennedy Democrat Massachusetts N

Kerrey Democrat Nebraska N

Kerry Democrat Massachusetts N

Moseley-Braun Democrat Illinois N

Moynihan Democrat New York N

Pell Democrat Rhode Island N

Robb Democrat Virginia N

Simon Democrat Illinois N

Wyden Democrat Oregon N

 

I dont see a single republican on that list.

 

 

>

>Oh yeah, and lest we forget, Clinton (our "best" friend")

>signed it. Yet, even after doing that, faggots continue to

>behave like Monica and stick their tongues up his ass (it

>was in the footnotes, she rimmed him - ewwwwwwwww).

 

OK, this is just stupid and low. How many assholes did you lick last year. EWWWW!

 

 

 

>

>I would like to know why you support a party that says it's

>for you and yet, when given the chance, votes against you?

>Isn't there a word for that kind of behavior?

 

All politicians do that. Its the nature of the game.

 

 

>

>I don't have a myopic view of the world. There are other

>issues important to me other than being a faggot. I am for a

>strong military, lower taxes, less government, law and

>order, judges that don't legislate from the bench, and I'm

>pro-life. That's the big picture and the Republican party

>matches my views more than the Democrats. However, I think

>the GOP's obsession with the NRA is bullshit - THAT leaves

>me scratching my head.

 

OK, so heres the marrow of the bone. Fine, the republicans stand for the same thing that you do. However, I wonder about the descrepancy between what you THINK you stand for and who you really are. Law and order? Isnt it against the law to hire prostitutes? And as far as abortion, what the business does a GAY MAN have in telling a woman about that kind of thing?

 

 

>

>Gotta get to the gym.

 

Yes, please take that doughy body out of here.

 

>

>Loveyoumissyoumeanit.

>

>Moderatedly yours,

 

Your signatures are stupid and childish by the way. YOur just another weird catty fag thinking that you are different somehow. However, I can assure you that to the escorts that you hire, you are just a plain schmuck. Boring, and silly.

>

>FFF

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

Gays and their Democratic drum beat ...

 

Stepping on soap box ...

 

Although I'm an independent, I have, in the past, voted and supported both Republican and Democratic candidates. But as to your question, I have another one: Why do most gay men feel that all gays should be or are even obligated to be Democrats??

 

Being gay is only part of who I am. Am I for gay rights? Absolutely. But there are also a lot of other issues that are important to me as well. And since there are things that I like and dislike about both parties, I prefer to remain an independent and judge each candidate, case by case, on the issues.

 

I listen to many gays recite quotes from extreme Republican nut cases like Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson. But I also listen to others rail and quote Democratic nut cases like Farrakahn and Al Sharpton. Let's face it, both parties have their extremists!

 

Here is how I feel on a few issues:

1. I believe in gay rights and believe gay partners should have the same rights as their hetero counterparts. And I do not believe these are special rights.

2. I believe in one's right to own a gun. But I also believe that they all should be registered.

3. Not only do I not have a problem with school vouchers, but I also do not have a problem with parents using these vouchers in religious based schools as long as these schools meet all the necessary academic requirements. It's the parents' decision.

4. Although ultimately I believe in a woman's right to abortion, I believe more effort and energy should be applied to cutting down unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is just a sever symptom to the underlying problem of unwanted pregnancies in my view.

5. I do not believe in abstinence only teachings in school. Abstinence should be taught as the only fool proof way of preventing pregnancy and STDs, but methods that "reduce" the risks of pregnancies and STDs should be taught as well.

6. I do NOT believe in any type of organized school prayer in the public schools.

7. I believe in the death penalty. I also think the same punishment for murder should be applied to attempted murder as well. Never understood why we reward the criminal should the victim, either through luck or the quick actions of medical professionals, survive. Their intent and the threat that they pose to society remains the same regardless of whether the victim survives or not.

8. I am strictly opposed to affirmative action. Period.

9. I am for most forms of campaign finance reform.

10. I believe the government has no business dictating morality. Prostitution should be legalized. Laws preventing street walkers from making a menace in the streets are fine. But hauling people off to jail because two adults have sex with one paying the other is ridiculous. (A guy can take a girl he has just met, wine and dine her all night long, have wild and passionate sex, and both go on their merry way is OK. But if a guy gives her $100 and does the same thing, they are both handcuffed and hauled off to jail. It is none of the government's fucking business!)

11. I believe that we should not follow a policy of appeasement toward rogue nations hell bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Not only does it not make sense, but our world's history has demonstrated that it doesn't work.

 

So, considering my positions on some of these issues, should I be a Democrat or a Republican?

 

I also think that those people who criticize gays for being members of the Log Cabin Republicans (and I am not a member) should consider that this group can actually have a positive affect on other members of the Republican party by dispelling a lot of the negative and untrue stereotypes that the extremists within the party are always expressing.

 

And in the 2000 election, I was actually for John McCain (who by the way is a Republican who met openly with gay groups). When he didn't get the Republican nomination, I then voted for Gore. Not because I was for Gore so much, but rather I absolutely could not stand George Bush. What's a boy to do?

 

... stepping off soap box.

[Guest JustStarting]

RE: A ? for Fin Fang Foom

 

FFF-

I think you're right on. May I add to your arguments, that while many on this site think the Dems are more "gay friendly", when push comes to shove, they're not. Rich (a liberal mind you)wrote in today's NY Times a careful critique of the Democrats. As regards gays, he wrote:

 

"Two Democratic Senate campaigns a continent apart were marked by gay-baiting. In one of them, Alex Sanders of South Carolina apparently seized on a column I wrote about Rudolph Giuliani in August 2001 to mock the then-mayor's decision to bunk with "two gay men and a Shih Tzu" after he moved out of Gracie Mansion. "Is that South Carolina values?" he pandered in a debate, heedlessly trashing his and his party's record on civil rights."

 

For me, Sept 11 made it clear that Democrats lack the sense of purpose and direction and frankly guts to lead the nation in what will certainly be a long and difficult war. Attitudes towards gay marriage versus civil unions take a back seat to this war.

[Guest fukamarine]

RE: A ? for Fin Fang Foom

 

>I bet FFF does not

>live in a conservative area of the country, where he would

>have to face prejudice every day.

 

Hell no - I think he lives in NYC if memory serves me correctly.

 

fukamarine

[Guest Bitchboy]

RE: A ? for Fin Fang Foom

 

While I assume that the Republican party is not dominated by anti-gay assholes and that most likely there are a number of Democratic legislators who equally detest our lifestyle, I cannot be part of a party in which the chief executive appoints vocal opponents to gay rights and even our existence. John Ashcroft, no matter what anyone says - I know him and have met him a lot - is an antigay bigot who will do all he can to see that we never live with dignity and the rights of our heterosexual brothers. He and George are supported by the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberston, et al. I can't be part of it.

 

I am not a dove. I think we should have a strong military and am still thinking and reading about the proposed anihilation of Sadam. That said, of course I'm for less taxes, for everyone - not just the wealthy with Republican-supported tax shelters,etc. I gag at that pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps-like-I-did mentality, as if all people are created with the same resources and abilities. Fuck that shit! It's not true. If it costs me a few extra bucks to see that no one has to sleep on the streets or miss out on the medicines they need to survive then so be it.

 

There are many things I'm concerned about other than gay rights. I detest the pro-life mentality. Don't have an abortion, but don't you dare say you have the right to prevent someone else from having one because you believe something contrary to the majority. I never could understand those people who want to protect the sanctity of the unborn, but are the first to stick them in jails and death rows when the unwanted child becomes a threat to them.

 

Yes, I want my politicians to address more than just the plight of the homosexual in 21st century America, but I am a gay man and I'm glad I'm a gay man, and the acceptance of gay people as full citizens is as important as anything else to me. I feel that's best served with Democratic legislators. Vote Republican if you want, this is still America. But don't expect me to vote your causes as well. I've got my own to protect.

[woodlawn]

RE: A ? for Fin Fang Foom

 

>First of all, the GOP is NOT "dominated" by Southern

>conservatives and Christians.

 

The president is from Texas, the new House Majority Leader is from Texas, and the new Senate Majority Leader is from Mississippi. All three are southern conservatives and Christians, right?

 

 

>This is a fiction of the

>media. If you look at Tuesday's election, GOP candidates

>were elected as governors in Rhode Island, New York, Hawaii,

>Vermont, South Dakota, Minnesota, Ohio, New Hampshire,

>Massachusetts, Alaska, and Maryland. Last time I checked,

>none of these states were hotbeds of Southern

>conservativism, nor are these states in the Bible Belt. So,

>how would you explain those victories in light of your

>assumption that the GOP is dominated by SOUTHERN

>conservatives and conservative Christians?

 

No one said the GOP is composed solely of southern conservatives, merely that they seem to dominate. Do you disagree with the statement that there is no way for the GOP to win a presidential election without winning the southern states? I think that statement is accurate, and it shows why Bush and other GOP leaders cater to the views of southern conservatives.

 

 

>Secondly, I don't buy this "the GOP hates gays" mantra. They

>don't. Are there some in the GOP who are loud about being

>anti-gay? Yep. However, they're, for the most part,

>nutcases.

 

 

In an earlier thread, you compared Democrat James Carville unfavorably to Republican Bill Bennett. Is Bill Bennett a 'nutcase'? Do you understand the disdain Bennett has for someone like you, a gay man who hires male prostitutes? What is it you like about him?

 

 

>Do you REALLY think all the Democrats love us? I have four

>words for you: Defense of Marriage Act. Shall we go over who

>in the Democratic Party voted FOR that?

 

 

I don't think the Democrats love gays. I do think we are a part of their political coalition. In case no one has ever explained coalition politics to you, its essense is that each member of the coalition gets some of the things it wants, while no member gets all of the things it wants. If any member gets everything it wants while the others do not, there is no reason for the other members to belong.

 

>I would like to know why you support a party that says it's

>for you and yet, when given the chance, votes against you?

>Isn't there a word for that kind of behavior?

 

In what way have Republicans shown their support for issues that gays and lesbians care about?

 

 

>I don't have a myopic view of the world. There are other

>issues important to me other than being a faggot. I am for a

>strong military, lower taxes, less government, law and

>order, judges that don't legislate from the bench, and I'm

>pro-life. That's the big picture and the Republican party

>matches my views more than the Democrats.

 

 

There are several things about the above I don't understand. For one thing, when you people say less government, what part of government do you want to eliminate? Do you want to take prescription drugs that have NOT been approved by FDA? Or eat meat that is NOT USDA inspected? Or fly on an airline that does NOT follow FAA safety rules? Or disband the Border Patrol? Or the DEA? Well?

 

If you are for law and order why do you hire prostitutes?

 

If Republicans are pro-life, why do they support executions?

 

What are examples of judges who 'legislate from the bench'?