Everything I was told to fear about being openly gay has become a reality in being openly conservative.

[Gil Dobie]

Not at all. We now have Banana Republicans like the ones in WI, NC, GA, among others. Liberalism is far from perfect, but today's conservatives have stopped caring about democracy and believe they have an inherent right to govern, whether the voters want them or not. And they'll step on Americans to do it.

Why do you hate democracy?

He's grouping conservatives with Republicans, isn't that democracy. There are conservatives that are not Republicans.

[Ivytalk]

We already have a thread on California. Trip was just trying to cover all the also-rans.

He forgot the Saracens.

[Ibanez]

That's your problem right there. Having no objectivity makes you blind to new and different ideas - sounds like communism/socialism. Don't think outside the box. Don't question anything. Take this particular stance - hook, line and sinker.

You need objectivity in a democracy. You need to be open to a diversity in opinions.

Why are you anti-democracy and anti-diversity? That's a serious question.

Bias against ideas which hurt people and value money over humanity is good bias.

If everyone votes to kill you, I'll be biased against it because despite "democracy," it's an evil opinion.

You think personal accountability and the sanctity of life are bad ideas? Jesus fucking Christ....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

I think you have democracy confused with Venezuela.

Not at all. We now have Banana Republicans like the ones in WI, NC, GA, among others. Liberalism is far from perfect, but today's conservatives have stopped caring about democracy and believe they have an inherent right to govern, whether the voters want them or not. And they'll step on Americans to do it.

You want a totalitarian government. That hasn’t worked out in history.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[css75]

Being conservative is a choice. Being gay is not.

You're judged according to the choices you make, not who you are as a person.

Nobody plays the victim card quite like Republicans though...

Being gay is a choice, there is no objective scientific data to support that, there is no gay gene.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[css75]

I don't disagree

There's nothing incorrect about my statements regarding while males in America. We're the only group that it's perfectly acceptable to target for essentially ANYTHING.

Liberal guilt has made white males their punching bag.

Along with Christians


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[css75]

Why do you hate democracy?

He's grouping conservatives with Republicans, isn't that democracy. There are conservatives that are not Republicans.

And Republicans that are not conservative.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Yes there does but you’ll find very few of them in establishment media or the Democrat Party. Just like you’ll find too few conservatives who recognize the equal if not greater threat to liberty imposed by monied interests and corporatists of both stripes.

I disagree. I think MOST conservatives feel that way...it's mainly the ones who get corrupted by DC that think as you've described. Conversely, I think MOST liberals swallow hook, line and sinker the bullshit spewed by the Pelosis, Waters', Obamas and O'Rourkes of their party...in fact many libs (who consider themselves mainstream) would say that those people are too far to the RIGHT. Thus the entire point of this article...the fact that "mainstream" libs have embraced the concept that it's completely acceptable to tear down and destroy a conservative merely because they are a conservative. Facist, racist, sexist, bigot, Nazi, etc., etc...I've been called them all, merely because I call myself a conservative. And it's totally acceptable for the left (in their eyes) to do that. They've embraced identity politics to the point that it's really all the know now.

I hope you're right that they "feel" that way but conservatives tend to not show it rhetorically. As for the rest of your post, the bullshit is spewed from both sides. But I do like how you played the victim card.

[kalm]

Being conservative is a choice. Being gay is not.

You're judged according to the choices you make, not who you are as a person.

Nobody plays the victim card quite like Republicans though...

Being gay is a choice, there is no objective scientific data to support that, there is no gay gene.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I hate it when grizzly bears choose to be gay.

[kalm]

Why do you hate democracy?

He's grouping conservatives with Republicans, isn't that democracy. There are conservatives that are not Republicans.

Yep! And there liberals who are not Democrats.

Trip deserves some kudos for some excellent work in the stirring of this discussion.

[Ivytalk]

Being conservative is a choice. Being gay is not.

You're judged according to the choices you make, not who you are as a person.

Nobody plays the victim card quite like Republicans though...

Being gay is a choice, there is no objective scientific data to support that, there is no gay gene.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So when my dog humps my leg, he’s choosing to be gay?

[CID1990]

That's your problem right there. Having no objectivity makes you blind to new and different ideas - sounds like communism/socialism. Don't think outside the box. Don't question anything. Take this particular stance - hook, line and sinker.

You need objectivity in a democracy. You need to be open to a diversity in opinions.

Why are you anti-democracy and anti-diversity? That's a serious question.

Bias against ideas which hurt people and value money over humanity is good bias.

If everyone votes to kill you, I'll be biased against it because despite "democracy," it's an evil opinion.

Your boilerplate socialist ideals have been just as responsible for "hurting people" over the last 100 years as any other grand "idea".

What you want is only achieved through coercion and restricted liberties.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

I disagree. I think MOST conservatives feel that way...it's mainly the ones who get corrupted by DC that think as you've described. Conversely, I think MOST liberals swallow hook, line and sinker the bullshit spewed by the Pelosis, Waters', Obamas and O'Rourkes of their party...in fact many libs (who consider themselves mainstream) would say that those people are too far to the RIGHT. Thus the entire point of this article...the fact that "mainstream" libs have embraced the concept that it's completely acceptable to tear down and destroy a conservative merely because they are a conservative. Facist, racist, sexist, bigot, Nazi, etc., etc...I've been called them all, merely because I call myself a conservative. And it's totally acceptable for the left (in their eyes) to do that. They've embraced identity politics to the point that it's really all the know now.

I hope you're right that they "feel" that way but conservatives tend to not show it rhetorically. As for the rest of your post, the bullshit is spewed from both sides. But I do like how you played the victim card.

I didn’t play the victim card. I merely agreed with his premise.

[AZGrizFan]

He's grouping conservatives with Republicans, isn't that democracy. There are conservatives that are not Republicans.

Yep! And there liberals who are not Democrats.

Trip deserves some kudos for some excellent work in the stirring of this discussion.

Yeah, because, boy howdy, this is real ground breaking stuff.

Who knew there were liberals that weren’t democrats? Or conservatives that weren’t republicans? Wow. Mind blowing...

[Ibanez]

Bias against ideas which hurt people and value money over humanity is good bias.

If everyone votes to kill you, I'll be biased against it because despite "democracy," it's an evil opinion.

Your boilerplate socialist ideals have been just as responsible for "hurting people" over the last 100 years as any other grand "idea".

What you want is only achieved through coercion and restricted liberties.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Socialist countries are thriving. Just look at the USSR, Venezuela, and Cuba. All of them have more social and economic liberty and successes than any democracy you can name.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

Your boilerplate socialist ideals have been just as responsible for "hurting people" over the last 100 years as any other grand "idea".

What you want is only achieved through coercion and restricted liberties.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Socialist countries are thriving. Just look at the USSR, Venezuela, and Cuba. All of them have more social and economic liberty and successes than any democracy you can name.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't forget how well the Uighurs are doing in China.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[css75]

Being gay is a choice, there is no objective scientific data to support that, there is no gay gene.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So when my dog humps my leg, he’s choosing to be gay?

I don’t know, but we had a chihuahua who always humped an ALF toy. Only thing he ever did, wife got so tired of it, she threw ALF out, Pedro was never the same.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I thought about this thread yesterday as I was riding around listening on a NPR piece about how homosexuality got removed from the list of disorders in the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. It was another reminder of the fact that it was not a scientific decision. It was a political/philosophical decision forced by constant pressure and intimidation. An account of how prominent psychiatrists who thought it should remain on the list were hunted and harassed. Accounts of how homosexual activists invaded and disrupted ASA meeting to threaten and shout down people.

It surprised me to hear such an honest treatment of the history on NPR. I do think NPR is high quality. But it still surprised me. I found a transcript of the piece at https://www.thisamericanlife.org/204/transcript. It's a lot to read. But here is an excerpt:

This is Gary Allender, one of the gay activists who infiltrated the APA convention. He says that while one group of activists stormed a session on behavioral therapy, another combed the halls, looking for Bieber. They found him at a panel on transsexuals and homosexuality. Bieber, who was sitting in the front of the room, had just settled in for a nice long chat about close-binding mothers when, according to his wife, Toby, there was a loud noise from outside the auditorium.

Toby Bieber
And a group came storming in, dressed rather fantastically with feathers in their hats, as though they were going to attend some costume ball, making noise and broke up the meeting. They broke it up.

Gary Allender
We were not polite. We were not quiet. We were not asking for favors. We were just trying to delegitimize their authority. And we felt that they were oppressing us. And here was finally a chance to talk back to them.

Alix Spiegel
The protesters yelled at the psychiatrists. They called them sadists. They called them oppressors. But the protesters had an entirely different word for Irving Bieber, a word which, in the accounts that circulated after the event, got a disproportionate amount of attention. To the protesters, Dr. Bieber was not just your run of the mill sadist oppressor. No, sir. Irving Bieber was a mother [BLEEP].

Dr. Bieber was one of the aforementioned psychiatrists who held that homosexuality is a disorder. And that's how it was. It was not a dispassionate, free environment in which people could present scientific arguments and counter arguments.

[∞∞∞]

I was listening to that yesterday too. I guess you missed the portion where experiments were conducted which showed psychiatrists couldn't distinguish heterosexuals and homosexuals from each other.

You also missed the portion which spoke about the bias early psychiatrists had - and the early science which itself was biased or simply bad - that formed these opinions.

edit: Made up numbers, but if 98% of humans are heterosexuals and 2% are homosexuals, it only means heterosexuality is the dominant trait (in non-genetic terms unless proven otherwise). It also doesn't mean that homosexuality is abnormal; it's simply normal within 2%.

[css75]

[quote="∞∞∞"]I was listening to that yesterday too. I guess you missed the portion where experiments were conducted which showed psychiatrists couldn't distinguish heterosexuals and homosexuals from each other.

That statement certainly makes the point that it is a decision/choice not a genetic thing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Gil Dobie]

I was listening to that yesterday too. I guess you missed the portion where experiments were conducted which showed psychiatrists couldn't distinguish heterosexuals and homosexuals from each other.

You also missed the portion which spoke about the bias early psychiatrists had - and the early science which itself was biased or simply bad - that formed these opinions.

edit: Made up numbers, but if 98% of humans are heterosexuals and 2% are homosexuals, it only means heterosexuality is the dominant trait (in non-genetic terms unless proven otherwise). It also doesn't mean that homosexuality is abnormal; it's simply normal within 2%.

1. Science can be bad
2. Science can be bias

And not only on this topic but other topics as well.

[93henfan]

Being conservative is a choice. Being gay is not.

You're judged according to the choices you make, not who you are as a person.

Nobody plays the victim card quite like Republicans though...

Being gay is a choice, there is no objective scientific data to support that, there is no gay gene.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Is there a straight gene? Did you choose to be attracted (I assume) to women?

[kalm]

I was listening to that yesterday too. I guess you missed the portion where experiments were conducted which showed psychiatrists couldn't distinguish heterosexuals and homosexuals from each other.

That statement certainly makes the point that it is a decision/choice not a genetic thing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Huh?

[Gil Dobie]

Wait a minute, you're not post partisan, you're actually a liberal? Or are you just asking for a friend?

Clearly, when I'm speaking of post partisan I'm referring about an allegiance to party or side of the aisle rather than self identification as a philosophical liberal. Liberal to me simply means open minded and pro-freedom. In theory, every well reasoned and thinking person would prefer to be considered a liberal versus a conservative. As I've quoted often:

"A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling stop!"

I really don't know many liberals or conservatives that are open minded. Liberals are not open minded about the status quo and conservatives are not open minded about change. There is a happy medium when the two groups can compromise. Or when a person has a balance between what they think is a good change and what is a good policy that doesn't need to change. My personal belief is that most people are in the middle area, where common sense resides.

[93henfan]

Clearly, when I'm speaking of post partisan I'm referring about an allegiance to party or side of the aisle rather than self identification as a philosophical liberal. Liberal to me simply means open minded and pro-freedom. In theory, every well reasoned and thinking person would prefer to be considered a liberal versus a conservative. As I've quoted often:

"A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling stop!"

I really don't know many liberals or conservatives that are open minded. Liberals are not open minded about the status quo and conservatives are not open minded about change. There is a happy medium when the two groups can compromise. Or when a person has a balance between what they think is a good change and what is a good policy that doesn't need to change. My personal belief is that most people are in the middle area, where common sense resides.

You're so wishy-washy.