LPSG Republicans

dude_007

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,846
Media
0
Likes
116
Points
133
Location
California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
As seen I have responded to a number of posts. Let me add that I enjoy this site. It's great!

Now please allow me to give you some perspective from a socially liberal but fiscally conservative Republican, Tea Partier, etc.

You may not realize it but I am a friend to gay people. While I am heterosexual I fully support the rights of gay people. In a nutshell, I think gay people should be able to do anything that straight people can do including but not limited to marriage and adoption.

You may also not realize that straight, Republicans like myself, whom some of you seem to despise, are your allies in your fight for equality and fair treatment. Some of you seem consumed with hatred against some of us. I will encourage you to recognize that there are plenty of Republicans that have no issue with gay people.

Some of you also claim the Tea Party to be racist and discriminatory. That claim is untrue. I'll keep an open mind in case someone wants to provide examples of how this nationwide movement is, at the core, racist.

The Tea Party is about bringing fiscal responsibility to the federal government...pure and simple. It's not for or against gay rights, abortion, medical marijuana, foreign ventures, education, obesity, etc. It's about fiscal responsibility. Individual candidates will have a myriad of opinions on the afore-mentioned topics but one thing they will all agree on is that fiscal responsibility must be brought to Washington. Without it everything can be lost. It is the paramount issue in the USA.

The Tea Party is a bunch of irresponsible my-way-or-the-highway conservatives who were key players in the downgrading of the US credit rating...all so they can (try to) pin it on Obama, like it isn't their fault. Typical Republican political tactic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Frotninja21

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
341
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Sorry I made a mistake in my calculations on $30K wage earner. I meant to say "someone earning $30,000 taxed at 10%" instead of 30%. My POINT simply being -- the smaller the pool of money you have to begin with -- the less that's left! I just don't feel much sympathy for those moaning that they might have to pay 5% more of their millions! But to listen to them "you just want to fleece us out of everything we own!" BULL!! The Nation seemed to being doing pretty well under the Clinton rates!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frotninja21

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
341
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Hi. Lifelong conservative, here. Let me try to correct a few of the misconceptions I've seen in this thread.

1) Democrat/Republican and Liberal/Conservative are not the same thing. There is a general correlation, but it's not a 1:1 relationship. I am conservative. I often (but not always) vote Republican.

2) Despite the bad press, the TEA Party (stands for Taxed Enough, Already) stands for limited government involvement in our lives, a reduced size and power of the federal government, and obviously a related reduction in the individual tax burden. The name harkens back to the original Boston Tea Party, which had as its slogan "no taxation without representation." A remarkably similar premise. Their goals are clearly and specifically enumerated, the participants are almost universally polite and well mannered, and the rallies are a positive reflection on their cause.

Those goals are consistent with our founding documents, and the way our government is "supposed" to work. And yes, I support those goals.

3) Gay rights are, essentially, just rights. It's wrong to discriminate against people...gay people included! Those who oppose "gay rights," usually oppose them on philosophical grounds, but are subjected to accusations of bigotry. It's not bigotry...it's logic! It's analogous to black rights, women's rights, etc...they're the same rights, but restated and reaffirmed for each minority group. Kinda' ridiculous when you view it through that prism.

Some of us are smart enough to realize this fact, and are resisting the current trend to break up the "American melting pot" into increasingly disparate groups of sub-categories.

It's easier to explain using a different example, though. Truism: Murder is wrong. Is a white man murdering a black man *more* wrong? No? Then why does "hate crime" legislation try to say that it is?

4) There are those of us who are not gay, who fully support full equality for gays (and all sexual minorities)...but that doesn't mean taking a specially enumerated "reverse discrimination" approach. And that's where a lot of the gay rights discussions invariably end up.

5) What does the size of my endowment have to do with my political views? Republicans (or conservatives) are not sexually repressed prudes...and even if we were, where else would one come for advice on underwear for big guys?

Heck, I found this site with a google search about "my balls fall out of my underwear," or something similar.

Most of us just don't have the desire to flaunt it in your face, like a circus side show.

Apart from the economic stance of the Tea Party --- it's THIS post that I find your most interesting!! SilverTrain did you no credit by simply judging your opinion without really clarifying WHY he considers this thinking a little "off."

When it comes to the "rights" of all Americans what you say might be a truism IF those rights were granted to all Americans in the first place. If you were a woman paid less than a man for the SAME position -- you'd see that as a justice issue. If you were Black and for years had been denied access to certain neighborhoods because of Red-lining or denied access to voting because of poll taxes -- you'd see THAT as a justice issue. If you were gay and you were told you had NO right to a partner's pension money after their death or that you were not permitted access to them when a hospital rule was "family only!" you'd see that as a justice issue as well. Granting rights to minorities MUST be done as a special effort (legislation) because the IN-justice is in assuming the status quo of "what is" does not oppress at all! Hate crimes legislation was established because the of motive! I have NO RIGHT to attack someone just because I think they should not exist. The person may have cheated me, stolen my car, broken into my home and I may seek revenge -- but in a hate crime I have done harm simply because I think that person has no right to exist at all! Their mere presence is an offense to me!

It would be nice if we lived in a country where there was indeed "equal justice under law." But when minorities have had THEIR rights denied, taken away or never granted in the first place because society considered them "less than" --- it takes SPECIAL legislation to "right the wrong!" Women SHOULD have had the right to vote in 1789 --- but it took special legislation to grant them that right ---------- hmmmmm in 1920!

And one final note: We are 300 million in this country. A real MAJORITY
would be 150 million! Apart from the fact that approximately half of us are male and the other half female ---- the reality is that we ARE and have been for a long time been divided into varying sub-groups! We ARE a nation of minorities! Now it's just a matter of learning how to live with that reality in peace and harmony!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frotninja21

B_Hung Jon

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Posts
4,124
Media
0
Likes
535
Points
193
Location
Los Angeles, California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Nearly half of Americans pay zero federal income tax and many of those collect entitlements from the provider class. There are millions more here illegally that are also collecting benefits. What do you believe is just? Do you favor seizing all the wealth from the so-called "1%" and redistributing it to the poor and those here illegally? Do you believe those that have worked hard and smart to become wealthy should have the fruits of their labors seized and given to someone else? I'm just trying to understand your rationale if, that is, you care to explain it. Thank you.

Yes, I believe it would be just to tax the 1% out of existence. For me this is primarily a moral issue. No one should have or even want to have obscene amounts of money and property. All your argument says to me is that greed is good and we should all accept that as a valid premise for living a moral life. It isn't. And, yes, I am a socialist by your definition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frotninja21

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The Republican party are like the Cons in the UK, they talk nonsense (see Fox News) and they're totally unelectable.
I dont think they are. Best I can gather both main british political parties are in some way left of democrats. As such, they would say they are centre left and centre right parties. The UK seems to have some fundamental differences to the US with regard to what is the unquestioned role of government. Republicans seem rather Stalinist, from here. UK political parties do not seem to tolerate extremists coming under their banner in the way US ones do.

Do any minor parties get a look in anywhere in the US? Local councils in the Uk have a scattering of UKIP (united kingdom independence party) BNP British nationalist party, Scottish nationalists, welsh nationalists, Irish national parties of protestant and catholic stripe, green party. We did for a while have a 'save our local hospital' MP. So the right wing extremes have some alternative homes rather than just the conservaties.

Seems to me US federal government is very skewed because its role is mainly military and foreign affairs. I suspect that because these were its unquestioned areas of competence it has just made them bigger and bigger.
 

TurkeyWithaSunburn

Legendary Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
3,589
Media
25
Likes
1,225
Points
608
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Nearly half of Americans pay zero federal income tax and many of those collect entitlements from the provider class. There are millions more here illegally that are also collecting benefits. What do you believe is just? Do you favor seizing all the wealth from the so-called "1%" and redistributing it to the poor and those her illegally? Do you believe those that have worked hard and smart to become wealthy should have the fruits of their labors seized and given to someone else? I'm just trying to understand your rationale if, that is, you care to explain it. Thank you.

"Provider class"? What is THAT?

1500 millionaire EARNERS paid ZERO in income tax.
IRS: Nearly 1,500 millionaires paid no federal income tax in 2009 - latimes.com

The Koch brothers started their wealth the old fashioned way - inheriting it. They didn't work hard or smart, unless you count a fortunate gene pool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frotninja21

2_fister

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Posts
380
Media
49
Likes
59
Points
173
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm so sick of hearing conservatives tell us how many americans didn't pay income tax....what they're failing to mention is the reason why. These are poor people who didn't make enough to be taxed....AND they actually DID pay taxes...payroll taxes.

as for the OQ: seems to me that a gay republican is not unlike a black man in the KKK. Why would you choose to align yourself with people who for the most part nothing to do with you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frotninja21

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
322
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
How do you explain GOPROUD or Log cabin Republicans? I for one think GOPROUD is something the Koch Brothers invented and pay for but that's another story.

Though I generally agree with you on substance, I rarely do with tone; this post is right exactly-fucking on.
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
No. It's not.

He's the one who complained about wealthy people's money being seized and given to illegal aliens.

Funny how many experts there are on how to spend/disburse other people's funds.

Those that have none/very little have all the answers.

And those that have it should be burned at the stake.

Forget the fact that the 'evil' 1% finances everything in this country.
 

Channelwood

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Posts
327
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
163
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Nearly half of Americans pay zero federal income tax ...

Reality check:

You may have heard the claim that about half of Americans pay no federal income tax. That’s a true fact. Estimates are that 46% of households either will pay no federal income tax in 2011 or will receive more from the IRS than they pay in.

The number one reason should come as no surprise. It’s because they have low incomes. A couple with two children earning less than $26,400 will pay no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero. The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax.


Low incomes (or, if you prefer, the standard deduction and personal exemptions) account for fully half of the people who pay no federal income tax.


The second reason is that for many senior citizens, Social Security benefits are exempt from federal income taxes. That accounts for about 22% of the people who pay no federal income tax.


The third reason is that the US uses the tax code to provide benefits to low-income families, particularly those with children. Taken together, the earned income tax credit, the child credit, and the childcare credit account for about 15% of the people who pay no federal income tax.


Taken together, those three factors — incomes that fall below the standard deduction and personal exemptions; the exemption for most Social Security benefits; and tax benefits aimed at low-income families and children — account for almost 90% of the Americans who pay no federal income tax.

[adapted from the Christian Science Monitor]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frotninja21