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 minority and now how people really are deep down, is how I get myself to fall asleep at night.
No but these are genuine Conservatives (they actually wont even let you post there if they think you are not...its not an open forum). Just thought it would be refershing to hear from actual conservatives instead of being told by liberals what actual conservatives think.
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 minority and now how people really are deep down, is how I get myself to fall asleep at night.
No but these are genuine Conservatives (they actually wont even let you post there if they think you are not...its not an open forum). Just thought it would be refershing to hear from actual conservatives instead of being told by liberals what actual conservatives think.
Funny, Free Republic has the same rule. If they don't think you're a real conservative, they'll ban your ass.
Seekster: 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.
Don't conflate far-right loon with conservative. It doesn't help the far-right loons and it only makes the more moderate conservatives look bad, you're serving nobody by acting like I'm overgeneralizing. You specifically spoke of people who are "well to [your] right".
My point is the stereotype that conservatives or even a large minority of Conservatives are a bunch gay haters is just an outright falsehood. There are gay haters sure but they are a very small minority.
Seekster: My point is the stereotype that conservatives or even a large minority of Conservatives are a bunch gay haters is just an outright falsehood. There are gay haters sure but they are a very small minority.
[Citation Needed]
If they were such a small minority, why would having a gay person on staff be a liability for Romney, as you yourself stated it would be?
keiskay: 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.
Has the left been attacking him because of his sexuality? Or because of his actions? If it's the latter, then there is nothing to apologize about. The problem here is that the right is up in arms about his sexuality.
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.
"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'm starting to suspect Seekster has me on his ignore list, because I just explained that this doesn't really matter. Your sample size is a few people on a moderate conservative forum. Mine is "what the Romney Campaign thinks about the republican demographics". Your friends on that forum who are posting reasonably? They're not the rule. And you know what? I decided to actually click the link. And lo and behold...
post number 2:
Did he grab his pocketbook and huff and puff and stomp out of the room ? Other than the potential of blackmail or scandal, there's nothing wrong with a gay as a foreign policy advisor....my problem is OPENLY GAY.....what does that mean ? In the middle of a strategic foreign policy meeting, will he/she pull a Lewinski on some guy at or under the conference table ? If not, who cares ?
post number 4: Since there was conservative pressure for the homo to resign, you can bet the dimocrats will try to exploit the unfairness of the Republicans for it.
post number 5: I can hear the attorneys on this one now. I don't have a problem with him as long as he keeps it low key and in the closet. We'd probably be surprised at how many up on the Hill are gays.
post number 10: First of all, I believe in equal rights for everyone. However, to me, Gay means happy. I detest the use of the word "gay" being used to soften the stigma of their lifestyle.
Queers, homosexuals, lesbians, or homos are the terms I use, and I mean to use those terms as fairly and respectfully as those using the incorrect term "gay."
Huh. That's like... 4 out of the 12 posts in the thread which show off clear bigotry, albeit usually in the form of "I think gay people are weird/different/other" rather than "gay people should burn in hell". And that's your counter-example?
Seekster: My point is the stereotype that conservatives or even a large minority of Conservatives are a bunch gay haters is just an outright falsehood. There are gay haters sure but they are a very small minority.
And you are determining this by using the posts on a forum you frequent as a metric? Hey, I've got a great idea - let's do that on some other famous conservative forum! Like, I dunno, FreeRepublic!
"This is good news in my opinion. This Grenell character is 'married' to another homosexual and was way too militant on that issue. If Romney wants to get the conservative vote, he needs to surround himself with people who have values, not perverts."
"...aaaaand so it goes. We'll be seeing backtracking on all sorts of liberal/moderate stuff from now through November, and who really knows what kind of leader we'd have if he gets elected?"
"Wonder how many other wolves in sheep clothing are hiding amongst Romney's ilk. I'm sick to my stomach over the coming elections."
"Mitt must have suggested a particularly comfy bus for him to jump under.
At least the Mitt campaign has some people on it who still have their sanity. Or at least know that the political wind is blowing against the gay marriage crap. (It always fails when put to a plebiscite.)"
"This is all about the Willard.
Fact is if you want to run as a Republican and you want to win if you have too close a relationship to any homosexual politicians YOU WILL LOSE.
The Democrats rode Senator Craig hard in 2006, as they did Mark Foley, and as they were prepared to do Ken Mehlman ~ and others.
When a subordinate of Michael Steele, the previous RNC chairman wanted to try to bring some Hollywood lesbians over as Republican donors, the Washington Post was beating down the doors all over town hollering about that one ~ even louder than the folks at Washington Times and the New York Times.
To the Democrats bringing GLBT people into contact of any kind with the Republican party is just more raw meat for nasty campaigning.
They know the public will reject Republicans with gay affiliations ~ although they'll tolerate the same stuff from the Democrats.
If gay people want to participate in the Republican side of politics please send money, don't ask for a job, and no public meetings ~ or really private meetings either.
Else the Democrats will beat the Republicans about the head and shoulders with that stuff ~ and NOT A SINGLE GAY PERSON WILL RISE TO THEIR DEFENSE
Romney would not have made this mistake if he'd bothered finding out what Real Republicans think ~ the Conservatives, the TEA Partiers, the Establishment, the Country Clubbers, the elected officials.....
Guess he doesn't know enough Republicans ~ just the money men.
I"ve been trying to think of something that would be more stupid to set us up like we were set up in 2006 and just can't do it. Does MItt have a tin-ear when it comes to homosexuals? "
--
You know what, though? That sample from FreeRepublic? While it is both more radical, intolerant, and bigoted than your example, and despite the fact that I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, I find it more realistic as a response from the "average republican" given the large degree to which the republican party is incredibly religious, and the legislature being passed by state GOP congresses.
Seekster: My point is the stereotype that conservatives or even a large minority of Conservatives are a bunch gay haters is just an outright falsehood. There are gay haters sure but they are a very small minority.
[Citation Needed]
If they were such a small minority, why would having a gay person on staff be a liability for Romney, as you yourself stated it would be?
Because its Romney, the governor who was on duty when the first state marriage licenses in the country were issued.
Seekster: My point is the stereotype that conservatives or even a large minority of Conservatives are a bunch gay haters is just an outright falsehood. There are gay haters sure but they are a very small minority.
[Citation Needed]
If they were such a small minority, why would having a gay person on staff be a liability for Romney, as you yourself stated it would be?
Because its Romney, the governor who was on duty when the first state marriage licenses in the country were issued.
Whoops, misread. Disregard this post.
Also, will someone else please quote at least this segment of the post: "Seekster, do you have me on 'ignore'?"
Seekster: My point is the stereotype that conservatives or even a large minority of Conservatives are a bunch gay haters is just an outright falsehood. There are gay haters sure but they are a very small minority.
[Citation Needed]
If they were such a small minority, why would having a gay person on staff be a liability for Romney, as you yourself stated it would be?
Because its Romney, the governor who was on duty when the first state marriage licenses in the country were issued.
Again, why does that matter if gay haters are such a small minority?
Seekster: And yes Stag I have you on ignore, helps keep me from getting myself suspended again for calling you out.
Oh good, so I can stop responding to your bullshit then? What a colossal waste of time. I had such high hopes, too... You were always just borderline not stupid. And then some new issue comes along and you are wrong in every way possible... *sigh*
And for the record? My opinion applies to everyone here: if you do not see the homophobia present and active in the republican party, then you are blind. I'd go so far as to say you're doing it on purpose.
I just answer that question, you can put up your tackle box and stop fishing. As I said before, if it were Bush this wouldnt be an issue at all.
Except your reasoning doesn't make sense.
Your propositions so far: Romney having a homosexual on staff is a liability. Gay haters are a "very small minority" of voters.
These are logically incompatible.
The 'real conservative' and Bush references are you attempting misdirection. To be a liability, gay haters can't be a "very small minority", because otherwise he wouldn't give a shit what they think.
I just answer that question, you can put up your tackle box and stop fishing. As I said before, if it were Bush this wouldnt be an issue at all.
Except your reasoning doesn't make sense.
Your propositions so far: Romney having a homosexual on staff is a liability. Gay haters are a "very small minority" of voters.
These are logically incompatible.
The 'real conservative' and Bush references are you attempting misdirection. To be a liability, gay haters can't be a "very small minority", because otherwise he wouldn't give a shit what they think.
It'd be like losing the Black KKK Members votes.
Again, its a liability for Romney because of his background, were the candidate someone else then this wouldnt be a liability. As such the deciding factor has more to do with Romney.
I just answer that question, you can put up your tackle box and stop fishing. As I said before, if it were Bush this wouldnt be an issue at all.
Except your reasoning doesn't make sense.
Your propositions so far: Romney having a homosexual on staff is a liability. Gay haters are a "very small minority" of voters.
These are logically incompatible.
The 'real conservative' and Bush references are you attempting misdirection. To be a liability, gay haters can't be a "very small minority", because otherwise he wouldn't give a shit what they think.
It'd be like losing the Black KKK Members votes.
Again, its a liability for Romney because of his background, were the candidate someone else then this wouldnt be a liability. As such the deciding factor has more to do with Romney.
You're just repeating yourself, rather than addressing the question. Probably because it'd force you to admit that gay haters aren't the minority of Republicans you tried to paint them as.
Your propositions so far: Romney having a homosexual on staff is a liability. Gay haters are a "very small minority" of voters.
These are logically incompatible.
The 'real conservative' and Bush references are you attempting misdirection. To be a liability, gay haters can't be a "very small minority", because otherwise he wouldn't give a shit what they think.
It'd be like losing the Black KKK Members votes.
Again, its a liability for Romney because of his background, were the candidate someone else then this wouldnt be a liability. As such the deciding factor has more to do with Romney.
You're just repeating yourself, rather than addressing the question. Probably because it'd force you to admit that gay haters aren't the minority of Republicans you tried to paint them as.
I'm repeating myself? Yes because you are asking the same question, presumably hoping to get an answer you like. Now you are starting to get delusional too.
Edit: Adding Amne to the ignore list. I come here for intellegent discussion on issues, not to get dragged into a playground pissing competition.
I'm repeating myself? Yes because you are asking the same question, presumably hoping to get an answer you like. Now you are starting to get delusional too.
Heh. Whatever floats your boat mate. If you can't admit it to yourself, that's fine, but I'm pretty sure everyone reading this thread knows what's up, especially with my Freeper quotes from last page and multiple people taking you to task during this thread.
Or, alternatively, Seekster thinks that Romney is on such shaky ground that the tiny minority of homophobes that he posits would be a catastrophal loss. Either way, I think he's nuts.
Again, its a liability for Romney because of his background, were the candidate someone else then this wouldnt be a liability. As such the deciding factor has more to do with Romney.
You're just repeating yourself, rather than addressing the question. Probably because it'd force you to admit that gay haters aren't the minority of Republicans you tried to paint them as.
I'm repeating myself? Yes because you are asking the same question, presumably hoping to get an answer you like. Now you are starting to get delusional too.
Edit: Adding Amne to the ignore list. I come here for intellegent discussion on issues, not to get dragged into a playground pissing competition.
If gay-haters are a sufficiently tiny minority in the American conservative base, having an openly gay staff member wouldn't be a "liability" for Romney regardless of his history with Massachusetts. I think that was what Amnestic and Stagnant were trying to get across.
I'm also not seeing any delusion or playground pissing in Amnestic's posts at all. Not quite sure what you're getting at with that.
You're just repeating yourself, rather than addressing the question. Probably because it'd force you to admit that gay haters aren't the minority of Republicans you tried to paint them as.
I'm repeating myself? Yes because you are asking the same question, presumably hoping to get an answer you like. Now you are starting to get delusional too.
Edit: Adding Amne to the ignore list. I come here for intellegent discussion on issues, not to get dragged into a playground pissing competition.
If gay-haters are a sufficiently tiny minority in the American conservative base, having an openly gay staff member wouldn't be a "liability" for Romney regardless of his history with Massachusetts. I think that was what Amnestic and Stagnant were trying to get across.
I'm also not seeing any delusion or playground pissing in Amnestic's posts at all. Not quite sure what you're getting at with that.
'
Perhaps liability is the wrong word, suffice it to say he is an unnecessary distraction and doesnt help Romney win over skeptical Conservatives. Romney doesnt get anything out of having this guy vs a different guy.
Amne seemed to think he caught me in something and keeps asking the same question and getting the same answer and saying I just don't want to admit something that actually isnt even true (I think I know my former party better than someone who gets their information from the Huffington Post).
Seekster: Romney doesnt get anything out of having this guy vs a different guy.
So he did not choose the most qualified person for the position? That's pretty poor judgement on his part. :)
The crux of the matter is that we think that Romney should have ignored the people asking for the guy's resignation because we think that these people should be ignored and not given any power. Since Romney does not seem to be able to ignore them, they have power over him which means that we have issue with him becoming President.
Seekster: Romney doesnt get anything out of having this guy vs a different guy.
So he did not choose the most qualified person for the position? That's pretty poor judgement on his part. :)
The crux of the matter is that we think that Romney should have ignored the people asking for the guy's resignation because we think that these people should be ignored and not given any power. Since Romney does not seem to be able to ignore them, they have power over him which means that we have issue with him becoming President.
Its campaign staff, its not like you can't find new people to fill openings.
Romney wanted the guy to stay on, it was the spokesman himself who decided to resign, the OP is misleading.
Its campaign staff, its not like you can't find new people to fill openings.
Romney wanted the guy to stay on, it was the spokesman himself who decided to resign, the OP is misleading.
"Richard Grenell, Mitt Romney's recently hired openly gay spokesman who was supposed to lead the Romney campaign on the issue of foreign policy and national defense, has resigned, according to a report in the Washington Post. The Post report, by conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin, says that Grenell resigned after anti-gay conservatives pushed back against Romney's hire. One conservative, Bryan Fischer, the director of issue analysis at the American Family Association, made a particular public spectacle of that pushback against Grenell."
This is what's in the OP. You're not going to win this one Seeks, better just to give up and pretend this never happened.
Its campaign staff, its not like you can't find new people to fill openings.
Romney wanted the guy to stay on, it was the spokesman himself who decided to resign, the OP is misleading.
"Richard Grenell, Mitt Romney's recently hired openly gay spokesman who was supposed to lead the Romney campaign on the issue of foreign policy and national defense, has resigned, according to a report in the Washington Post. The Post report, by conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin, says that Grenell resigned after anti-gay conservatives pushed back against Romney's hire. One conservative, Bryan Fischer, the director of issue analysis at the American Family Association, made a particular public spectacle of that pushback against Grenell."
This is what's in the OP. You're not going to win this one Seeks, better just to give up and pretend this never happened.
I effectively already won this one Percy, the OP is flawed and misleading. Here is ABC:
"Richard Grenell, openly gay Romney aide, resigns after backlash"
Spoiler: Click to 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
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."
The OP omits important details like the spokesman resigning despite Romney being willing to stick up for him. It lets the reader make the wrong assumption.
The only reason I am not reporting the coke comment is because I made a dumb typo, thank you for pointing it out to me.
Seekster: The OP omits important details like the spokesman resigning despite Romney being willing to stick up for him. It lets the reader make the wrong assumption.
What wrong assumptions? Grenell himself admitted the reason he quit was because conservatives kept attacking him for his sexual orientation.
Seekster: The OP omits important details like the spokesman resigning despite Romney being willing to stick up for him. It lets the reader make the wrong assumption.
What wrong assumptions? Grenell himself admitted the reason he quit was because conservatives kept attacking him for his sexual orientation.
He quit because his personal life was becoming an unnecessary distraction.
He quit because his personal life was becoming an unnecessary distraction.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?
"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."
He quit because his personal life was becoming an unnecessary distraction.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?
"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."
My reading comprehension is fine and I assume yours is too, but the issue here is you are only reading parts of the story instead of the whole story.
"First, Grenell was criticized for posting a series of crude Twitter messages-that he later deleted-attacking several women, including Hillary Clinton, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow and Newt Gingrich's wife, Callista. He also reportedly came under fire from social conservatives for being gay."
"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."
"We are disappointed that Ric decided to resign from the campaign for his own personal reasons," Matt Rhoades, Romney's campaign manager, said in a statement provided to reporters. "We wanted him to stay because he had superior qualifications for the position he was hired to fill."
Seekster: My reading comprehension is fine and I assume yours is too, but the issue here is you are only reading parts of the story instead of the whole story.
The guy was criticized by conservatives for being gay and quit. There's nothing more to it. If you'd like to explain how this isn't true then feel free to do so but as of now, both ABC News and Business Insider point to the same thing.
Anti-gay conservatives: fuck off and accept people can be gay, don't deny it you fucking losers. This is why I hate politics, close-minded people should not be running a country. America, land of the free my hole.
Seekster: My reading comprehension is fine and I assume yours is too, but the issue here is you are only reading parts of the story instead of the whole story.
The guy was criticized by conservatives for being gay and quit. There's nothing more to it. If you'd like to explain how this isn't true then feel free to do so but as of now, both ABC News and Business Insider point to the same thing.
I just want to drive home the following facts:
1. Romney did not fire this guy and in fact was willing to stand up for him.
2. This guy quit of his own accord.
Once again I think this guy should not have resigned. After having looked at this more I think even Romney could have weathered any criticism from the sparse elements in the Republican party that have a problem for with this guy and in the end it would serve as a teachable moment among Conservatives. The issue is with same-sex marriage not with homosexuals themselves (that is true for most Conservatives at least).
No but these are genuine Conservatives (they actually wont even let you post there if they think you are not...its not an open forum). Just thought it would be refershing to hear from actual conservatives instead of being told by liberals what actual conservatives think.