• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gay Republicans Slam Romney For Speaking At Liberty

L

leftofabbie

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
723
Reaction score
86
Location
North Woods Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
Gay Republicans Slam Romney For Speaking At Liberty | TPM Livewire


LYNCHBURG, VA – The gay consevative group GOProud is not happy Mitt Romney chose to speak at Liberty University Saturday.

A statement from GOProud co-founder Jimmy LaSalvia was sent to reporters as Romney delivered his address:

Today, Governor Mitt Romney spoke at Liberty University. Liberty was founded by the late Jerry Falwell, who in 2007 said, “AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh’s charioteers … AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”

The speech at Liberty comes just days after top Romney adviser Ed Gillespie said that Governor Romney would campaign on the issue of marriage. In response, JimmyLaSalvia, Executive Director and Co-Founder of GOProud – a national organization of gay and straight Americans seeking to promote freedom by supporting free markets, limited government, and a respect for individual rights, issued the following statement:

“The father of the modern conservative movement, former US Senator Barry Goldwater, once said of Jerry Falwell that he needed a kick in the ass. With his speech at Falwell’s Liberty University, it is clear that Governor Romney’s message to Goldwater conservatives is: drop dead.

<...>

“These concerns aren’t just concerns of our organization, these are concerns shared by many limited government conservatives. If Governor Romney hopes he can alleviate these concerns and unite the conservative movement by grossly engaging in the culture wars, as he did today at Liberty University, he is sadly mistaken.

“We have said since our founding in 2009, that we are committed to defeating Barack Obama. We remain committed to Obama’s defeat. However, if Governor Romney expects to be the candidate who can beat Obama in November then he needs to embrace a strategy that makes victory possible – falling into the culture war trap laid by Obama is a guaranteed electoral loser.

“It is not too late. If Governor Romney wants to unite conservatives and motivate Tea Party voters then he needs to embrace bolder positions on taxes, entitlement reform, healthcare and spending, not pander to big government theocrats.”​
 
The leadership at Liberty University should be blasted for letting a politician with a liberal track record like Romney speak there.
 
no more than gay republicans will flock to Obama.
 
cpwill said:
no more than gay republicans will flock to Obama.
Click to expand...

I'd say gay Republicans are far more likely to vote for Obama than blacks are to vote for Romney. The most amazing thing about this story is that there actually are Gay Republicans. It's sort of like blacks belonging to the KKK. Why would you want to be a member of a political party that marginalizes you and treats you like you have some sort of disease which can only be cured through praying?
 
You know whats really sad? You dont see all those gay liberals hitting out at Obama for being in bed with preachers that oppose gay marriage. Must have something to do with that complete lack of values and character.
 
If you are a gay Republican, it is on purpose. They aren't going to switch.

What may happen is that the two respective demographics see depressed turn out. That, rather than voting for the other guy, they simply don't care enough about the choice to come out and vote.

SO, the question becomes, which demographic can each party most easily afford to lose at the ballot box? Log-Cabin Republicans, or Black Democrats?
 
I've always been mystified (not critical) about gay and black Republicans. They are out there but I really wonder what makes them tick. Now, if they are very rich, that would explain it. The Republicans are less likely to tax them and money matters more than anything in the world (that I'm aware of). Well, maybe I just answered my own question (that's why I like this board - I learn things). Gay people overall are probably more successful than their heterosexual counterparts. So they are more concerned with their money than their "rights". Do you think?
 
I heard the speach live.. It was terrible..... preachy, whiny..

leftofabbie said:
Gay Republicans Slam Romney For Speaking At Liberty | TPM Livewire


LYNCHBURG, VA – The gay consevative group GOProud is not happy Mitt Romney chose to speak at Liberty University Saturday.

A statement from GOProud co-founder Jimmy LaSalvia was sent to reporters as Romney delivered his address:

Today, Governor Mitt Romney spoke at Liberty University. Liberty was founded by the late Jerry Falwell, who in 2007 said, “AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh’s charioteers … AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”

The speech at Liberty comes just days after top Romney adviser Ed Gillespie said that Governor Romney would campaign on the issue of marriage. In response, JimmyLaSalvia, Executive Director and Co-Founder of GOProud – a national organization of gay and straight Americans seeking to promote freedom by supporting free markets, limited government, and a respect for individual rights, issued the following statement:

“The father of the modern conservative movement, former US Senator Barry Goldwater, once said of Jerry Falwell that he needed a kick in the ass. With his speech at Falwell’s Liberty University, it is clear that Governor Romney’s message to Goldwater conservatives is: drop dead.

<...>

“These concerns aren’t just concerns of our organization, these are concerns shared by many limited government conservatives. If Governor Romney hopes he can alleviate these concerns and unite the conservative movement by grossly engaging in the culture wars, as he did today at Liberty University, he is sadly mistaken.

“We have said since our founding in 2009, that we are committed to defeating Barack Obama. We remain committed to Obama’s defeat. However, if Governor Romney expects to be the candidate who can beat Obama in November then he needs to embrace a strategy that makes victory possible – falling into the culture war trap laid by Obama is a guaranteed electoral loser.

“It is not too late. If Governor Romney wants to unite conservatives and motivate Tea Party voters then he needs to embrace bolder positions on taxes, entitlement reform, healthcare and spending, not pander to big government theocrats.”​
Click to expand...
 
:shrug: that or they support an intelligent forward-leaning foreign policy, small government (big government has more often been bad for gays than good for them), a free-market orientation, or even strong family based social policy.
 
specklebang said:
I've always been mystified (not critical) about gay and black Republicans. They are out there but I really wonder what makes them tick. Now, if they are very rich, that would explain it. The Republicans are less likely to tax them and money matters more than anything in the world (that I'm aware of). Well, maybe I just answered my own question (that's why I like this board - I learn things). Gay people overall are probably more successful than their heterosexual counterparts. So they are more concerned with their money than their "rights". Do you think?
Click to expand...

It's the exact same reason why Libertarians turn out for the Republicans. Most of these people believe that the government that governs best governs least, and so they vote for the party that will best represent that view. Unfortunately, like most of the gay republicans and libertarians I know, voting for a generic republican requires us to hold our noses. It's just that voting for a Democrat would be even worse. Rock and a hard place kind of thing.
 
johnny_rebson said:
The leadership at Liberty University should be blasted for letting a politician with a liberal track record like Romney speak there.
Click to expand...


On the long list of things the leadership at Liberty University should be stung up and chastised for... Romney is at the bottom.

How about promoting a homophobic anti-Christian interpretation of the bible.
 
cpwill said:
If you are a gay Republican, it is on purpose. They aren't going to switch.

What may happen is that the two respective demographics see depressed turn out. That, rather than voting for the other guy, they simply don't care enough about the choice to come out and vote.

SO, the question becomes, which demographic can each party most easily afford to lose at the ballot box? Log-Cabin Republicans, or Black Democrats?
Click to expand...

If you think blacks are not going to vote for Barack Obama then you really don't understand black people.
 
Wiggen said:
If you think blacks are not going to vote for Barack Obama then you really don't understand black people.
Click to expand...

Blacks came out in huge, unprecedented numbers in 2008. I see no evidence that suggests they will do so again, and quite a bit that suggests they will not.
 
cpwill said:
Blacks came out in huge, unprecedented numbers in 2008. I see no evidence that suggests they will do so again, and quite a bit that suggests they will not.
Click to expand...

Spend a lot of time cruising the neighborhoods in Chicago, Milwaukee and Philly do ya?
 
No, I live in Japan. I simply continue to note that the Democrat base in general appears to be depressed this election cycle, that black Americans are the most likely portion of the Democrat base to become more so, and the most likely to become more so over this issue.
 
cpwill said:
No, I live in Japan. I simply continue to note that the Democrat base in general appears to be depressed this election cycle, that black Americans are the most likely portion of the Democrat base to become more so, and the most likely to become more so over this issue.
Click to expand...



Thanks. I guess we'll see in November. Do they still have the snake farm up on the north end of Okinawa?
 
IMHO neither Repugnancans or Democraps have ever shrunk government. They expand it. Different areas, different beneficiaries but "less government" seems a bit oxymoronish to me.

I'm here to learn so if I'm wrong, please tell me when Government shrank, or at least failed to expand. I've been alive long enough to vaguely remember Eisenhower and you know what, I don't remember if he grew or shrank the USG.
 
specklebang said:
IMHO neither Repugnancans or Democraps have ever shrunk government. They expand it. Different areas, different beneficiaries but "less government" seems a bit oxymoronish to me.

I'm here to learn so if I'm wrong, please tell me when Government shrank, or at least failed to expand. I've been alive long enough to vaguely remember Eisenhower and you know what, I don't remember if he grew or shrank the USG.
Click to expand...



Think Herbert Hoover for shrinking government.

It makes sense that government expands. The complexity of our world is expanding at an astonishing rate. Our founders didn't include a clause for leasing the airwaves to TV and radio stations but that doesn't mean they don't belong to the People and we shouldn't be compensated for their use (and be able to impose limits on such use).
 
Nothing here folks, move along to something important like jobs and the economy. Besides who gives a rats ass what 4 to 6% of the population thinks. Majority rules not insignificant homosexuals rules.
 
Last edited:
leftofabbie said:
Thanks. I guess we'll see in November.
Click to expand...

I think we'll start seeing sooner than that. I intend to pay pretty close attention to Wisconsin come June.

Do they still have the snake farm up on the north end of Okinawa?
Click to expand...

Not that I've seen; but I haven't been able to spend much time on-Island over the past year :p
 
leftofabbie said:
Think Herbert Hoover for shrinking government.
Click to expand...

Herbert Hoover expanded government. FDR ran excoriating Hoover for overspending. Hoover's programs were the start of what FDR turned into the New Deal.
 
specklebang said:
IMHO neither Repugnancans or Democraps have ever shrunk government. They expand it. Different areas, different beneficiaries but "less government" seems a bit oxymoronish to me.

I'm here to learn so if I'm wrong, please tell me when Government shrank, or at least failed to expand. I've been alive long enough to vaguely remember Eisenhower and you know what, I don't remember if he grew or shrank the USG.
Click to expand...

Government has grown and shrank (as a percentage of GDP) off and on since the end of WWII.

FDR/Truman - Grew government considerably.
Eisenhower - Shrunk government (not really that much though).
JFK/Johnson - Slight growth in government.
Nixon/Ford - Slight growth in government (just more than JFK/Johnson, though most of that grown was during Ford's years).
Carter - Growth in government.
Reagan - More or less flat.
Bush - Slight growth in gov't.
Clinton - Somewhat significant drop in gov't.
Bush Jr. - Flat, up until his last few years, with significant growth.
Obama - Continued significant growth.

However, there really isn't a good metric to show "growth" of government. Sometimes, a government might impose a significant cost on business or employers, or significantly restrict liberty, while showing a good balance sheet. Or you might have a government engaged in a war or cleanup effort, all the while removing restrictions on liberty.

If anyone knows of a good analysis of the size of government (as in the subjective "size" including costs, taxes, freedoms, etc.) I'd love to read it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom