American Elephant on February 7, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Really? I guess we’ve evil? In a children’s movie kind of way?

I suppose the Brownshirt comments were being overdone, huh?

Just a reminder, GOProud does in fact have a leftist progressive social policy. Whether it is writ large on the front page of their web page or not.

The 10% of “Pure-Blood” Slytherins who dont want to allow Half-bloods or Muggles into Hogwarts apparently come from RedState where they are more concerned with masturbating over their pure blood than actually growingchanging with the intent to destroy the conservative movement.

American Elephant on February 7, 2011 at 11:20 PM

There, corrected that for you, AE.

Silly me, and here I thought that when I join a group it is “I” who have to abide by the rules of the group. THEY SHOULD BE MADE TO ABIDE BY MINE! /rules by MC

If GOProud wishes to attend CPAC, they should abide by their rules and ideals just like every other group that wants to call itself conservative. No special privileges.

dominigan on February 8, 2011 at 1:10 PM

………….they did.

And then a few anti-gay groups decided to boycott.

And why?

BECAUSE THEY WANTED CPAC TO ABIDE BY THEIR RULES.

Try again, dimwit.

Kick everyone out of a movement who doesn’t adhere strictly to a single combination of positions on the issues and you’ll quickly find yourself relegated to third-party status.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Silly me, and here I thought that when I join a group it is “I” who have to abide by the rules of the group. THEY SHOULD BE MADE TO ABIDE BY MINE! /rules by MC

If GOProud wishes to attend CPAC, they should abide by their rules and ideals just like every other group that wants to call itself conservative. No special privileges.

Wow. A Harry Potter analogy involving masturbation. You are a digusting swine. That analogy says more about you than the people you’re swinging it at; and what it says ain’t pretty. Please don’t post here anymore.

austinnelly on February 8, 2011 at 12:22 PM

And your post says more about you being a stiff dullard with no sense of humor than the poster you’re ridiculously chastising. Chill the f**k out, or take your own advice. This is not your personal site where people are supposed to leave if they don’t entertain you.

American Elephant on February 7, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Wow. A Harry Potter analogy involving masturbation. You are a digusting swine. That analogy says more about you than the people you’re swinging it at; and what it says ain’t pretty. Please don’t post here anymore.

Again, a lot of brouhaha about what? I agree with entagor that GOProud is not going to bring anything to conservatism itself; because their agenda by and large isn’t conservative. Yes, let them speak, but they’re not going to grow the movement or add anything to it; they’re going to dilute and weaken conservatism. Good for the GOP, maybe, bad for conservatism itself. Identity politics is out for itself to sap support from movement politics.
Again, I say who cares. All of this arguing about conservatism; and most of you supported the worst candidate the GOP ever fielded. McCain was the antithesis of conservatism and everyone cheerfully jettisoned their principles that you’re p*ssing about now to support him. Does it really mean anything? If Lindsey Graham gets the nomination is there going to be a big fight about principles? I remember being told to shut up and get in line. I didn’t but I saw a lot of people who did; blathering on about ‘holding their nose’. Lot of good that did. Turn your back on your beliefs to support a dirtbag that never had a chance to begin with. So, here we are again fighting the purist fight and I don’t buy it. I think these boycott groups are content to skirmish over interparty nonsense but when push comes to shove will support any lamea** with an ‘R’ next to their name. This is all ultimately meaningless. Talk the big talk about the conservative movement, then come primary time, drop your pants and support Lindsey Graham. Just end it already. Let them speak and get on with it.

It also reduces the chance of re gaining trust for GOP candidates. The fear of GOP underlying commitment to the Brave New World will overshadow the infant trust born of the last election

The GOP is being measured by every speech, strategy and bill submitted. The GOP does not have to pass a bill to win trust, but it must make public efforts.

The public games of CPAC et al will be tranferred to the reputation of the GOP

Sometimes, when you win, you lose

Fools, IMHO

That political heavy hand is being applied in a way to lower political chances in future elections

Palin handles the situation well.

Missing in all the strategy to force Palin into a corner is any interest in what Palin thinks, and what actions she would take in office. She let go without a real fight a gay related issue in her state on the grounds she was informed it would lose in the courts. I do not consider that an honest explanation, but it was a useful explanation. However, Palin does not make it a point to encourage kiddies into the gay lifestyle either

Personally, I consider the way CPAC has decided to become a champion of the gay institutionalization to be a point against CPAC. CPAC has always been a manipulated ‘open tent’ of voices. However the sudden swing in CPAC to highlight a new norm of gay institutionalization tells me the manipulators at the top have an agenda, and it involves the sledge hammer to pound the square pegs at the bottom into submission to the ‘inevitable’.

This was too heavy handed, and too fast. It was also incredibly stupid. So stupid, I would almost think the DEMs orchestrated the swing, except the DEMS are also too stupid. It is really just a new group of determined revolutionaries, another ‘cultural revolution’ a la Maoist China, and the euphoric have moved in for the kill

Here is the mistake: one cannot kill a thought, one must win over the other side. This was not done, and IMHO the numbers are on the side of the new excluded. As ye sow so shall ye reap

As for why straight guys like catfights…heh, I really can’t tell ya.

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Women are sexy when uninhibited.
It’s soft-core porn.

katy the mean old lady on February 7, 2011 at 10:05 PM

First Church of Liberace.

Christian” gays must have their own separate church or denomination, after all they have a different creed or so.

TheAlamos on February 7, 2011 at 9:59 PM

Maybe 1st Church of Tallulah Bankhead?

That’s my take.

As for Sarah Palin, I disagree with her about GOProud but … I’M STILL SARAH PALIN FOR 2012 ALL THE WAY!

I don’t vote for a single issue.

Palin has just proven that she’s PRO-LIFE, and not a lunatic would like recommend to ABORT gay babies (if science could only tell) or OSTRACIZE economically-contributing adult gays.

But I believe that Gay movement should not force any traditional church to “amend” their beliefs and teachings just to support gay ideologies, whatever they are.

“Christian” gays must have their own separate church or denomination, after all they have a different creed or so.

unclesmrgol on February 7, 2011 at 9:29 PM

In my ever the optimist outlook I’m going to go with young and stupid and to be outgrown. If not I hope payback was a b!tch.

That was a rather broad statement I made. When I was an employee at a middle school, guys would tell fibs to get girls mad at each other so that they would fight. Not serious fights as you are describing just hair pulling and arms flailing and the young guys thought it was so funny.

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Hopefully, the jerks got the Darwinian treatment, girlfriend wise. Truth in any friendship is essential, and a person who tells a falsehood deliberately to harm another for their own enjoyment is a sociopath — a sadist is probably the correct term.

Vyce on February 7, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Notice how the sample in your putative study is already skewed. First, the individuals (all homosexuals) have self-binned based on their perception of why they were attacked, and the bins add up to nearly 100%;

Now, from these statistics, can we determine what percentage of the gay population is attacked by heterosexuals because they are gay?

I for one was three times accosted (which would count for an attack since touching occurred in every case) with unwanted attention by homosexuals during my youth. If they selected me and enough of my peers for a survey, well, I’m sure we could easily approximate the statistics in this survey.

We do know one interesting number for gay males in a relationship — almost 30% of them report violence inflicted upon them by a partner — nearly the same number as for heterosexuals — and nearly the same number as for lesbians.

The implications of this are that 15% of the population regardless of orientation (assuming monogamous relationships) are jerks.

Of course, the numbers may well be higher in the gay community if discrimination prevents the report from ever being taken by authorities.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 7, 2011 at 9:11 PM

I am sure none of it is meant personally, after all, we don’t really know each other.

unclesmrgol on February 7, 2011 at 9:08 PM

That was a rather broad statement I made. When I was an employee at a middle school, guys would tell fibs to get girls mad at each other so that they would fight. Not serious fights as you are describing just hair pulling and arms flailing and the young guys thought it was so funny.

katy the mean old lady on February 7, 2011 at 8:33 PM

Heaven doesn’t want me and Hell’s afraid I’m gonna take over.