Romney Spokesman Forced to Resign for Being Openly Gay

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

TheGuy(wantstobe):
Well you certainly took the bait deary. Take a look at the actual link. Where does it link to sweetie?

edit: Are you going to backtrack and try and spin this or slink off like you always do when confronted with the hard truth that you've been caught with your trousers down. Before you ask though, yes I did deliberately name the source HuffPo to see once and for all if you specifically actually bother to read the content of the post and the links/sources or went off the thread title only. At least now we all have proof.

This ladies and gentleman is why you don't listen to Seekster.

You know what, though? That's still a dick move. You gave the notable portion of it as an excerpt already; at that point, reading it is often not really necessary. I thought it was HuffPo too. Lying in the OP to make a point, especially when that point is not immediately clear or is buried under another point, is not a good tactic.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):
HuffPo

Well...

Ummm...

Yeah...

Too easy to take jabs at Repubs for this but I'm not particularly surprised. Still the fact that you can't be openly gay and be a spokesman for the likely Republican Presidential nominee speaks volumes of the sort of base it is. Still waiting for Romney to condemn the personal attacks on his now former spokesman on the basis of his sexuality and I suspect I'l be waiting for a long time.

I think this is absurd but politically the guy was a liability for Romney. If he stuck by him it would severely hurt him in the election.

I don't see why the guy being gay matters, its not like Romney hired him to be an advisor on social policy (that would make his sexual orientation relevant). Of course I am also curious why Romney hired him to begin with, surely he knew he would be a liability.

Edit:

And THIS is a case and point for why the Huffington Post is full of shit. Quite frankly I am ashamed of myself for not doing this sooner:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/richard-grenell-openly-gay-romney-aide-resigns-backlash/story?id=16255584#.T6CZL9Xc6LA

"Richard Grenell, openly gay Romney aide, resigns after backlash"

Some interesting bits:

"An openly gay Republican operative hired as Mitt Romney's foreign policy spokesman has abruptly resigned from the campaign, suggesting the focus on his personal life had become a distraction."

"While I welcomed the challenge to confront President Obama's foreign policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage, my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign," Grenell said. "I want to thank Gov. Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team."
-Richard Grenell

A Romney aide, speaking on background, tells Yahoo News the campaign tried to convince Grenell to stay with the campaign, but he declined-calling it "completely his decision, not ours."

So this discussion is now much changed and I furthermore demand that the OP amend their post and the topic title to reflect the facts of the case as they are, not as the Huffington Post would like them to be. Romney in fact wanted Grenell to stay on but Grenell is the one who left as his personal issues had unfortunately become a distraction to the campaign.

This ladies and gentleman is why you do not rely on Huffington Post for your news.

Well you certainly took the bait deary. Take a look at the actual link. Where does it link to sweetie?

edit: Are you going to backtrack and try and spin this or slink off like you always do when confronted with the hard truth that you've been caught with your trousers down. Before you ask though, yes I did deliberately name the source HuffPo to see once and for all if you specifically actually bother to read the content of the post and the links/sources or went off the thread title only. At least now we all have proof.

This ladies and gentleman is why you don't listen to Seekster.

While clever its certainly underhanded. And you come across with even more arrogance than most other people here, seriously. Dont do it. I personally wondered why the hell I was linked to Business Inside when I clicked Huffington Post. I thought it was a redirect virus or something... A positive one but one nontheless.

Please dont lie, lying is bad. M'kay?

Comando96:

Seekster:
You know if Romney loses the response is going to be that he was too moderate and the far-right will try and pull the party further to the right just like they did after McCain faltered.

And... Natural Selection... hopefully the Republican party will just die off and be a problem child in the corner until someone reforms it and kicks out the lunatics and create the New Republican Party.

Frankly I couldn't care if the democrats died off... another part would form to pick up their members.
The Republican party has dissatisfied the people who are aligning themselves now as Tea Party members. They are still Republicans officially but unofficially they distort the Republican party... as they are lunatics. If they cripple the Republican party then fine... something new will form but without them as a burden to bear.

Seekster:
But yes it is sad that people out there lose sight of the issue and make things personal. There is absolutely no reason this guy should have been a problem to anyone. Now if he were advising Romney on social issues that would be another matter but he was not and shame on Fischer for his drastic overreaction.

There would be a cross over of interest if he was the social but nothing inhertently wrong... only wrong if he wanted to lose the election in the US...

Lunatics? I get you disagree with them but saying they are lunatics is going way too far.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):
HuffPo

Well...

Ummm...

Yeah...

Too easy to take jabs at Repubs for this but I'm not particularly surprised. Still the fact that you can't be openly gay and be a spokesman for the likely Republican Presidential nominee speaks volumes of the sort of base it is. Still waiting for Romney to condemn the personal attacks on his now former spokesman on the basis of his sexuality and I suspect I'l be waiting for a long time.

I think this is absurd but politically the guy was a liability for Romney. If he stuck by him it would severely hurt him in the election.

I don't see why the guy being gay matters, its not like Romney hired him to be an advisor on social policy (that would make his sexual orientation relevant). Of course I am also curious why Romney hired him to begin with, surely he knew he would be a liability.

Edit:

And THIS is a case and point for why the Huffington Post is full of shit. Quite frankly I am ashamed of myself for not doing this sooner:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/richard-grenell-openly-gay-romney-aide-resigns-backlash/story?id=16255584#.T6CZL9Xc6LA

"Richard Grenell, openly gay Romney aide, resigns after backlash"

Some interesting bits:

"An openly gay Republican operative hired as Mitt Romney's foreign policy spokesman has abruptly resigned from the campaign, suggesting the focus on his personal life had become a distraction."

"While I welcomed the challenge to confront President Obama's foreign policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage, my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign," Grenell said. "I want to thank Gov. Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team."
-Richard Grenell

A Romney aide, speaking on background, tells Yahoo News the campaign tried to convince Grenell to stay with the campaign, but he declined-calling it "completely his decision, not ours."

So this discussion is now much changed and I furthermore demand that the OP amend their post and the topic title to reflect the facts of the case as they are, not as the Huffington Post would like them to be. Romney in fact wanted Grenell to stay on but Grenell is the one who left as his personal issues had unfortunately become a distraction to the campaign.

This ladies and gentleman is why you do not rely on Huffington Post for your news.

Well you certainly took the bait deary. Take a look at the actual link. Where does it link to sweetie?

edit: Are you going to backtrack and try and spin this or slink off like you always do when confronted with the hard truth that you've been caught with your trousers down. Before you ask though, yes I did deliberately name the source HuffPo to see once and for all if you specifically actually bother to read the content of the post and the links/sources or went off the thread title only. At least now we all have proof.

This ladies and gentleman is why you don't listen to Seekster.

You are a liar, I checked the link last night and it did indeed link to the Huffington Post. Never in my years on the Escapist have I encoutered such an underhanded and dishonest move to try and save your own skin.

Agema:

Seekster:
I agree it sucks but the guy resigned on his own accord, Romney wanted him to stay on.

We all know perfectly well that there's a difference between what actually happens behind closed doors and what they tell the press. It's very disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise.

Bluntly, it's a well known practice - not just in politics - that higher-ups inform liability underlings that they have to go. The system of supposed "voluntary resignation" may occur for a number of reasons, but usually to protect the reputations of one or both parties, or even the whole organisation.

Thus what we know for sure is that we don't know how the resignation came about and no-one involved is going to reliably tell us the full truth any time soon. Maybe Grenell jumped, maybe Romney pushed him.

However, with respect to the title, "Romney Spokesman Forced to Resign for Being Openly Gay", it's undeniably true. He might not have been forced by Romney, but he was forced by need for Romney to win over homophobic voters.

So you are going to make wild assumptions rather than go with the official story? Think about that for a moment.

And no the OP is false, he is even changing his links now to try and cover his arse.

Seekster:

And no the OP is false, he is even changing his links now to try and cover his arse.

If you wanted to try and go this route you should have at least changed the link and text in your quote of the OP and then also convince me to change it in my quote of you quoting me. Would make it a little more convincing.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

And no the OP is false, he is even changing his links now to try and cover his arse.

If you wanted to try and go this route you should have at least changed the link and text in your quote of the OP and then also convince me to change it in my quote of you quoting me. Would make it a little more convincing.

I linked to your post.

I distinctly remember seeing the Huffington Post story on this last night and I would not even go to the Huffington Post story on this subject if it wasnt from the link on this site.

Moreover the summary you provided is inadequate and leaves out a few important fact thus making the OP false on a bad day, misleading on a good day.

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

And no the OP is false, he is even changing his links now to try and cover his arse.

If you wanted to try and go this route you should have at least changed the link and text in your quote of the OP and then also convince me to change it in my quote of you quoting me. Would make it a little more convincing.

I linked to your post.

I distinctly remember seeing the Huffington Post story on this last night and I would not even go to the Huffington Post story on this subject if it wasnt from the link on this site.

Moreover the summary you provided is inadequate and leaves out a few important fact thus making the OP false on a bad day, misleading on a good day.

Someone is sounding extremely butthurt over having his biases/inadequacies pointed out. Like I said if you wish to go this route change your first post in this topic, specifically the link in the quote of the op to actually go to whatever huffpo has on this along with a snippet from them. Then convince me to change it in my quoting of your quote so that it actually matches up.

If you went to huffpo by yourself it's nothing to be ashamed of Seeks.

Seekster:
So you are going to make wild assumptions rather than go with the official story? Think about that for a moment.

I said that we neither know enough about what happened nor can trust the reliability of those involved to draw a safe conclusion. Please explain to me how this constitutes a "wild assumption" that necessarily contradicts the official story.

Think about that for a moment. Actually, take a day or two working on it, it appears you might need it.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

If you wanted to try and go this route you should have at least changed the link and text in your quote of the OP and then also convince me to change it in my quote of you quoting me. Would make it a little more convincing.

I linked to your post.

I distinctly remember seeing the Huffington Post story on this last night and I would not even go to the Huffington Post story on this subject if it wasnt from the link on this site.

Moreover the summary you provided is inadequate and leaves out a few important fact thus making the OP false on a bad day, misleading on a good day.

Someone is sounding extremely butthurt over having his biases/inadequacies pointed out. Like I said if you wish to go this route change your first post in this topic, specifically the link in the quote of the op to actually go to whatever huffpo has on this along with a snippet from them. Then convince me to change it in my quoting of your quote so that it actually matches up.

If you went to huffpo by yourself it's nothing to be ashamed of Seeks.

My biases I freely admit and I am fully aware of. If you want to save face by turning this into a child like game you go right ahead, I will have no part of it though.

Agema:

Seekster:
So you are going to make wild assumptions rather than go with the official story? Think about that for a moment.

I said that we neither know enough about what happened nor can trust the reliability of those involved to draw a safe conclusion. Please explain to me how this constitutes a "wild assumption" that necessarily contradicts the official story.

Think about that for a moment. Actually, take a day or two working on it, it appears you might need it.

Tell me something, who, other than the people involved would be able to give an account of what happened? Nobody. Now if Grenell comes out and says "now hold on, Romney came into my office and said "I don't want you in my campaign because you are gay" then you have a case. Until then you are speculating. Is it possible the Romney campaign is spinning this for their greatest benefit? Yes of course it is, but there is no way to prove that they are. To doubt the official story is one thing, to discard it without any contradicting evidence is dangerously close to what conspiracy theorists do.

I like how the biggest problem Seekster has with this is over whether he was forced into resignation or did it of his own free will.

Who gives a flying fuck.

The issue here is the fact that there was pressure to get rid of him in the first place because of his sexuality. You can nitpick the details all you want, the fact is that REPUBLICAN supporters pressured the removal of a member of Romney's team simply because he is gay. It does not matter if he was fired, forced to resign or resigned of his own free will, what matters is that America has a problem with homophobia and discrimination against gays and one of the two political parties has aligned themselves with the hate and discrimination.

Guys, lay off Seekster. At the very least, his point about the source getting it wrong is accurate, and should lead to us reassessing the actual problem here. It's no longer "Grenell got sacked because he was gay". It's "Grenell felt that his being gay was a liability to the group or at least very distracting somehow". That's not much better, but the misleading article in the OP was a good call from his end. Claiming that it was edited afterwards... Pretty sure that's not true, but oh well, you can't win 'em all.

pyrate:
I like how the biggest problem Seekster has with this is over whether he was forced into resignation or did it of his own free will.

Who gives a flying fuck.

The issue here is the fact that there was pressure to get rid of him in the first place because of his sexuality. You can nitpick the details all you want, the fact is that REPUBLICAN supporters pressured the removal of a member of Romney's team simply because he is gay. It does not matter if he was fired, forced to resign or resigned of his own free will, what matters is that America has a problem with homophobia and discrimination against gays and one of the two political parties has aligned themselves with the hate and discrimination.

Its not a nitpick, it completely changes the narrative. Even the Huffington Post updated their article with a comment about how the Democrats prefer the previous version of the story.

You can rant all you like about the GOP being the party of hate and discrimination but the only people who buy that garbage are those would never even consider voting for a Republican anyway.

Seekster:

pyrate:
I like how the biggest problem Seekster has with this is over whether he was forced into resignation or did it of his own free will.

Who gives a flying fuck.

The issue here is the fact that there was pressure to get rid of him in the first place because of his sexuality. You can nitpick the details all you want, the fact is that REPUBLICAN supporters pressured the removal of a member of Romney's team simply because he is gay. It does not matter if he was fired, forced to resign or resigned of his own free will, what matters is that America has a problem with homophobia and discrimination against gays and one of the two political parties has aligned themselves with the hate and discrimination.

Its not a nitpick, it completely changes the narrative. Even the Huffington Post updated their article with a comment about how the Democrats prefer the previous version of the story.

You can rant all you like about the GOP being the party of hate and discrimination but the only people who buy that garbage are those would never even consider voting for a Republican anyway.

you forgot most women, blacks, latinos and intelligent informed people.... o right people who would never vote republican my bad

reonhato:

you forgot most women, blacks, latinos and intelligent informed people.... o right people who would never vote republican my bad

There are women and black Republicans...I suspect they are either robots created by the GOP or straight up mind controlled.

Seekster:

pyrate:
I like how the biggest problem Seekster has with this is over whether he was forced into resignation or did it of his own free will.

Who gives a flying fuck.

The issue here is the fact that there was pressure to get rid of him in the first place because of his sexuality. You can nitpick the details all you want, the fact is that REPUBLICAN supporters pressured the removal of a member of Romney's team simply because he is gay. It does not matter if he was fired, forced to resign or resigned of his own free will, what matters is that America has a problem with homophobia and discrimination against gays and one of the two political parties has aligned themselves with the hate and discrimination.

Its not a nitpick, it completely changes the narrative. Even the Huffington Post updated their article with a comment about how the Democrats prefer the previous version of the story.

You can rant all you like about the GOP being the party of hate and discrimination but the only people who buy that garbage are those would never even consider voting for a Republican anyway.

I am pretty sure it was the Republicans in Wisconsin that just passed Act 219. I am pretty sure it was the Republicans that were against the repeal of DADT. I am pretty sure it is the Republicans that are against expanding discrimination laws to protect homosexuals. Hell, Kansas Republicans passed a law that made anti-gay discrimination 100% legal if you are religious.

If you want I can sit down for longer to go through more google pages, because this was just the stuff on the first page, I have 736,000 pages to go.

pyrate:

Seekster:

pyrate:
I like how the biggest problem Seekster has with this is over whether he was forced into resignation or did it of his own free will.

Who gives a flying fuck.

The issue here is the fact that there was pressure to get rid of him in the first place because of his sexuality. You can nitpick the details all you want, the fact is that REPUBLICAN supporters pressured the removal of a member of Romney's team simply because he is gay. It does not matter if he was fired, forced to resign or resigned of his own free will, what matters is that America has a problem with homophobia and discrimination against gays and one of the two political parties has aligned themselves with the hate and discrimination.

Its not a nitpick, it completely changes the narrative. Even the Huffington Post updated their article with a comment about how the Democrats prefer the previous version of the story.

You can rant all you like about the GOP being the party of hate and discrimination but the only people who buy that garbage are those would never even consider voting for a Republican anyway.

I am pretty sure it was the Republicans in Wisconsin that just passed Act 219. I am pretty sure it was the Republicans that were against the repeal of DADT. I am pretty sure it is the Republicans that are against expanding discrimination laws to protect homosexuals. Hell, Kansas Republicans passed a law that made anti-gay discrimination 100% legal if you are religious.

If you want I can sit down for longer to go through more google pages, because this was just the stuff on the first page, I have 736,000 pages to go.

and what do democrats do? thats right nothing, they bend over and take the figurative republican cock so far up their ass and they hope that one day the republicans will do the same. dems roll over and allow shit like the bush tax cuts, the patriot act, and many other dumb ass bills and laws to pass, even when they have a severe house majority. they even supported the NDAA. so sure the GOP does some bad shit, but guess what? dems are more then glad to let it happen. sure they will spin words about how they oppose this and that and support this and that. but have they done anything about it? fuck no.

you can blame republicans all you want, but dont expect the dems to do anything about it.

Seekster:
Lunatics? I get you disagree with them but saying they are lunatics is going way too far.

Ok then.
Compared to the rest of the politicians around them, they are lunatics.
Compared with the general population sure, they're merely a bit weird and on the extreme wing but in the political landscape what they are doing is numberous area's is just utter lunacy...

Its as if a 10 year old boy inherited the Candaian mind and decided that he will create a few coin with a dinosaw on it, which is glow in the dark... oh wait...

Comando96:

Seekster:
Lunatics? I get you disagree with them but saying they are lunatics is going way too far.

Ok then.
Compared to the rest of the politicians around them, they are lunatics.
Compared with the general population sure, they're merely a bit weird and on the extreme wing but in the political landscape what they are doing is numberous area's is just utter lunacy...

Who is "they" exactly now?

Agema:

Seekster:

To doubt the official story is one thing, to discard it without any contradicting evidence is dangerously close to what conspiracy theorists do.

I told you to put a day or two's thought into it as you might need to. I said:

Agema:
Thus what we know for sure is that we don't know how the resignation came about and no-one involved is going to reliably tell us the full truth any time soon. Maybe Grenell jumped, maybe Romney pushed him.

That is obviously doubting the official story rather than discarding it. Repeat this simple sentence through your mind a few times: "Maybe Grenell jumped, maybe Romney pushed him". Dwell on it for a while. Think about the meaning. Does it state the official story is bogus, or does it express equivocation?

Now, don't rush this time. Get the little brain cells going, and see if you can reach the right interpretation. If nothing else, 'third time lucky'.

Sorry Agema but I don't see any reason to doubt the official story and quite frankly neither should you. What you propose is possible but that isnt really saying much for it.

Just for you ill keep an eye on this story and see if anything develops.

Seekster:
Who is "they" exactly now?

The ones in office who have shown their hands. If the ones in office disappear then it means that the Tea Party movement dissipated after nothing much changed or even at seeing the plague of idiocy they the voters unleashed, and if they stay in power and keep passing ridiculous legislation then those people and those who voted for them are "they".

Comando96:

Seekster:
Who is "they" exactly now?

The onces in office who have shown their hands. If the ones in office disappear then it means that the Tea Party movement dissipated after nothing much changed, and if they stay in power and keep passing rediclious legislation then those people and those who voted for them are "they".

Names please?

Right now my personal view towards the entire Legislative and Executive branch is summed up as "vote all the bums out".

Seekster:
My biases I freely admit and I am fully aware of. If you want to save face by turning this into a child like game you go right ahead, I will have no part of it though.

He tricked you into exposing your own biases. I wouldn't say he's trying to "save face".

Seekster:

Sorry Agema but I don't see any reason to doubt the official story and quite frankly neither should you. What you propose is possible but that isnt really saying much for it.

Just for you ill keep an eye on this story and see if anything develops.

Let me suggest a correction:

There are plenty of obvious, good reasons for anyone to be skeptical of an official story. In this case, you personally do not want to accept any because you side with the people who have something to lose from being doubted.

Agema:

Seekster:

Sorry Agema but I don't see any reason to doubt the official story and quite frankly neither should you. What you propose is possible but that isnt really saying much for it.

Just for you ill keep an eye on this story and see if anything develops.

Let me suggest a correction:

There are plenty of obvious, good reasons for anyone to be skeptical of an official story. In this case, you personally do not want to accept any because you side with the people who have something to lose from being doubted.

Umm no the prudent thing to do is to accept the official story unless there is sound reason not to. Now this doesnt mean you can't remain skeptical but for now the official story should be thought of as what happened unless something comes up that contradicts it.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
My biases I freely admit and I am fully aware of. If you want to save face by turning this into a child like game you go right ahead, I will have no part of it though.

He tricked you into exposing your own biases. I wouldn't say he's trying to "save face".

He didnt trick anyone, even I can go back change the links after the fact. As for making me reveal my own biases, I have it in my bleeding profile that I am an Independent Conservative. So yes I have biases and unlike many people here I recognize them, I have said this before for years.

Seekster:
He didnt trick anyone, even I can go back change the links after the fact.

The link the OP provided always linked to Business Insider. He didn't change anything.

Well, that whole excuse about "I love gay people I just don't want to see them live in sin. Those extreme homophobes don't represent us! I'm just a free market capitalist who wants to fix the debt! What about the Log Cabin Republicans?!" just got thrown out the window. And now the evidence is even more serve that the Republican party is nothing more than just anti-gay through and through.

Not that one needs more evidence, but come on. It's like they're playing the "no redeeming qualities" campaign in recent year. Not even willing to keep it under the top, ever. And squashing the most meager and pathetic excuses to pretend they're not a bunch of extremely over the top bigots like a roach. They're an entire party that has gotten elected against Democrats, their only real competition, and they can't even manage better than this. This is like some king of Night of Long Knives for them. Where they have to oust more queers who have snuck into their homophobic party. I'm sorry, Ernst Röhm, I mean Richard Grenell, but why would you associate with them in the first place?

As disgusting as it is, I hope they keep doing this sort of atrocious thing so that can dig their own grave as deep as possible. Never to rise from the undead again.

Seekster:

He didnt trick anyone, even I can go back change the links after the fact. As for making me reveal my own biases, I have it in my bleeding profile that I am an Independent Conservative. So yes I have biases and unlike many people here I recognize them, I have said this before for years.

Your assertion that you would vote for any of the people in the GOP Primary (Bachmann? Perry? Paul? Gingrich? Santorum?) over Obama makes your 'independent' credentials laughable.

But more pressingly, because you've previously stated that you would vote for Romney over Obama, then it's clear that you side with Romney.

Thus, as Agema said

Agema:

There are plenty of obvious, good reasons for anyone to be skeptical of an official story. In this case, you personally do not want to accept any because you side with the people who have something to lose from being doubted.

Still kinda curious why you won't just come out (heh) and admit that Romney needs the homophobic votes to get elected, and that the Conservatives actively court them. Dunno why you're dancing around this issue considering how many posts you've made defending it without outright saying it.

I posed this story to some fellows over on Conservative Forum, would anyone be interesting in hearing what people well to my right have to say about this or would you prefer ignorance so you can keep saying that this is indicative of a large number of Conservatives?

Are we supposed to think that just because there's "worse", there isn't a "bad", Seekster? That's pretty pathetic.

Almost as bad as the trick you, TheGuy(wantstobe), played on him there. Yes, I'm with Stagnant on this, that was pretty awful, guy.

No, I don't need some far-right loons opinion on the subject, Seekster, but I'd assume their opinions would at least be, how do they say, lulz-worthy?

Seekster:
Its not a nitpick, it completely changes the narrative. Even the Huffington Post updated their article with a comment about how the Democrats prefer the previous version of the story.

You can rant all you like about the GOP being the party of hate and discrimination but the only people who buy that garbage are those would never even consider voting for a Republican anyway.

Depends on what you want to say by "completely changes the narrative". If he got fired, it's clearly worse than if he left freely, but the problem remains the same: the republican party is not a welcoming place for gays, to the point where him being gay is a liability. And at that point, yes, the GOP is the party of hate and discrimination. When it is a liability for your voter base for someone in your party to be gay, then there's a problem, and the problem is with the voting base. If this was just the Romney campaign throwing the guy out, you could make the case for Romney's campaign being out of touch with modern conservatives, but here's the thing: there's way, way more to it. Homosexuality has, in fact, been a major wedge issue since at the very least 2004.

Seekster:
I posed this story to some fellows over on Conservative Forum, would anyone be interesting in hearing what people well to my right have to say about this or would you prefer ignorance so you can keep saying that this is indicative of a large number of Conservatives?

By all means, change our sample from "What the leaders in the republican party consider the voting base to be" to "what various conservatives say". I would be interested, even though I wouldn't consider it an improvement as far as sample size goes. You see, the decision for this is clearly not coming out of nowhere. Why would the guy have left the Romney campaign (or, you know, getting the boot, depending on whether you trust the official story; I do) if his sexuality was not considered a liability to the voter base?

Note: I'm gonna be linking to and quoting one of the most Americo-Conservative forums on the internet shortly. It's not for the faint hearted, and I'm 99% sure I don't endorse any views espoused there. If they told me the sky was blue, I'd have to double check. That said...

Seekster:
I posed this story to some fellows over on Conservative Forum, would anyone be interesting in hearing what people well to my right have to say about this or would you prefer ignorance so you can keep saying that this is indicative of a large number of Conservatives?

Why bother asking you when I can go straight to the source?

And more...

AND MORE

And a wikipedia link to Free Republic

At this point I had to stop. I'm fairly certain there's at least one other Freeper thread but my capacity for reading derp has reached its limit. This, Seekster, is what 'Conservatives' think of the issue.

Stagnant:

By all means, change our sample from "What the leaders in the republican party consider the voting base to be" to "what various conservatives say". I would be interested, even though I wouldn't consider it an improvement as far as sample size goes.

Don't worry, I got this covered.

Now if you don't mind, I need to go scrub out my hard drive.

Seekster:
I posed this story to some fellows over on Conservative Forum, would anyone be interesting in hearing what people well to my right have to say about this or would you prefer ignorance so you can keep saying that this is indicative of a large number of Conservatives?

It's not relevant. Hatred among conservatives is obviously big enough to make someone lose their job, and that's pretty much all we need to know.

It's irrelevant how many apologetics or people who don't hate homosexuals exist which consider themselves conservatives, because the end result is the same. If it's important to them, we'll see them vote something different and that would be the end of it.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
I posed this story to some fellows over on Conservative Forum, would anyone be interesting in hearing what people well to my right have to say about this or would you prefer ignorance so you can keep saying that this is indicative of a large number of Conservatives?

It's not relevant. Hatred among conservatives is obviously big enough to make someone lose their job, and that's pretty much all we need to know.

It's irrelevant how many apologetics or people who don't hate homosexuals exist which consider themselves conservatives, because the end result is the same. If it's important to them, we'll see them vote something different and that would be the end of it.

funny thing is this man also received hatred from the left. the leader of the log cabin republicans (gay conservative group) has said that he is constantly attacked by the left and the right. but the left is better at apologetics then the right, since the right hardly ever apologizes.

Skeleon:
Are we supposed to think that just because there's "worse", there isn't a "bad", Seekster? That's pretty pathetic.

Almost as bad as the trick you, TheGuy(wantstobe), played on him there. Yes, I'm with Stagnant on this, that was pretty awful, guy.

No, I don't need some far-right loons opinion on the subject, Seekster, but I'd assume their opinions would at least be, how do they say, lulz-worthy?

Worse? Bad? What are you talking about.

Let the record show that you prefer not to hear what Conservatives have to say on this issue, choosing instead to mock what they say without knowing it.

In response to Amne I now have no choice but to post the responses.

http://www.conservativesforum.com/cgi-bin/conservatives-forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335933432

"Good grief - this is just asinine. Some folks need to get their panties out of their crack and look at a persons qualifications not their sexual orientation. Christians are supposed to hate the sin not the sinner; but far too many of them can't tell the difference anymore. They fail to recognize their own sins but are glaringly lucid where the sins of others is concerned."

"While I personally support traditional marriage and believe homosexuality is odd, I don't believe in discrimination. Despite being a bit odd, this individual is still one of Gods children. This is why I can not identify at all with the "religious right" because although I believe in God, I don't believe in discriminating against people, which I believe the lord feels the same way.

The guy should stay. "

Just a few samples.

Seekster:
I posed this story to some fellows over on Conservative Forum, would anyone be interesting in hearing what people well to my right have to say about this or would you prefer ignorance so you can keep saying that this is indicative of a large number of Conservatives?

So people on an internet forum... speak for the Conservative majority?

If I took the average internet user, or the internet majority as any reflection of humanity, I would be the biggest misanthropist the world has ever seen. If the internet really does reflect the opinions of people very well, I need to go to the liquor store right now and purchase enough alcohol to drink myself to sleep for years to come.

Telling myself the cruel majority of the internet is a minority and not how people really are deep down, is how I get myself to fall asleep at night.

Seekster:

In response to Amne I now have no choice but to post the responses.

http://www.conservativesforum.com/cgi-bin/conservatives-forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335933432

"Good grief - this is just asinine. Some folks need to get their panties out of their crack and look at a persons qualifications not their sexual orientation. Christians are supposed to hate the sin not the sinner; but far too many of them can't tell the difference anymore. They fail to recognize their own sins but are glaringly lucid where the sins of others is concerned."

"While I personally support traditional marriage and believe homosexuality is odd, I don't believe in discrimination. Despite being a bit odd, this individual is still one of Gods children. This is why I can not identify at all with the "religious right" because although I believe in God, I don't believe in discriminating against people, which I believe the lord feels the same way.

The guy should stay. "

Just a few samples.

I have twice as many 'samples' in my first, shortest spoiler.

What does that say, exactly?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked