(06-29-2015 08:46 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:02 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Now that it's over, can we do away with the rainbow flags? They're so gay. And annoying.

No. unfortunately. The LGBT community hijacked the word gay and then rainbows...It most likely will not stop until everyone is forced to drive a Subaru, watch ice skating, and wear assless chaps.

You leave the Outback Legacy, BRZ, and Impreza out of your gay stereotypes thank you. They can have the Forrester.

(06-29-2015 09:11 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 12:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But most "Libertarians" voted for 100% GOP anti-Gay candidates while 'opposing the GOP's war on Gay people'. But they really didn't oppose it, because their votes had the same impact as a Pat Robertson voter...to pack the legislatures with people who wanted to harm us.

And the "Libertarian" response to this was 'just move' or 'the market will take care of it - eventually'. Well we got tired of moving and waiting for the market to take care of it.

This is really not directed at you GTS, but more broadly at the whole libertarian movement.

Libertarians put the wallet first -- me included. Not being able to marry your significant other because of gender? That sucks. But it is far better than a currency crisis or hyperinflation or skyrocketing taxes or high tariffs/"managed trade" or the "entitlement" system collapsing or regulating businesses to death to where the only things that can compete are megacorps with lobbyists or transnationals.

If I were gay .... I could still be with my partner. The only hitch would be the religious/personal significance and insurance/govt benefits. But if these morons don't fix entitlements so they collapse and take the dollar itself with it ... then that is some next level SHTF stuff there that doesn't just suck way more ... it sucks way more FOR EVERYBODY (except the hyper rich who can and do have multiple citizens and international accounts).

I take exception with one of Toms assertions. I dispute his claim that "most" Libertarians voted 100% for GOP anti gay candidates. That is a baseless assertion and if that is the type of hyperbole that the LGBT community is engaging in?..it pisses me off. I guess Tom thinks our GOP governor in NC is anti gay? Never mind he vetoed the bill to allow magistrates to decline to do their duty base on religion. Im proud actually that I voted for him now. Be very careful where you tread Tom. Libertarians are the MOST fervent supporters of your personal freedom. They are the last group you need to alienate with foolish, unfounded accusations.

(06-29-2015 09:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:46 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:02 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Now that it's over, can we do away with the rainbow flags? They're so gay. And annoying.

No. unfortunately. The LGBT community hijacked the word gay and then rainbows...It most likely will not stop until everyone is forced to drive a Subaru, watch ice skating, and wear assless chaps.

You leave the Outback Legacy, BRZ, and Impreza out of your gay stereotypes thank you. They can have the Forrester.

Libertarians are the MOST fervent supporters of your personal freedom. They are the last group you need to alienate with foolish, unfounded accusations.

Their political base is too small to ever make a real difference and they take the "let the free market handle this/economic matters are more important" attitude to this which is basically just as bad as the very people in favor of discrimination.

(06-29-2015 09:39 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Libertarians are the MOST fervent supporters of your personal freedom. They are the last group you need to alienate with foolish, unfounded accusations.

Their political base is too small to ever make a real difference and they take the "let the free market handle this/economic matters are more important" attitude to this which is basically just as bad as the very people in favor of discrimination.

Discount the Libertarian leaning independent voter if you wish.

(06-29-2015 08:46 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:02 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Now that it's over, can we do away with the rainbow flags? They're so gay. And annoying.

No. unfortunately. The LGBT community hijacked the word gay and then rainbows...It most likely will not stop until everyone is forced to drive a Subaru, watch ice skating, and wear assless chaps.

Trust me, we don't want many of y'all to wear assless chaps.

(06-29-2015 10:25 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:46 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:02 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Now that it's over, can we do away with the rainbow flags? They're so gay. And annoying.

No. unfortunately. The LGBT community hijacked the word gay and then rainbows...It most likely will not stop until everyone is forced to drive a Subaru, watch ice skating, and wear assless chaps.

Trust me, we don't want many of y'all to wear assless chaps.

Hahahah! So very true. I'm not a huge fan of 'em myself, though I can see the appeal to some.

Just want em on our young uns. Twirking in the streets.

(06-29-2015 09:50 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:39 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Libertarians are the MOST fervent supporters of your personal freedom. They are the last group you need to alienate with foolish, unfounded accusations.

Their political base is too small to ever make a real difference and they take the "let the free market handle this/economic matters are more important" attitude to this which is basically just as bad as the very people in favor of discrimination.

Discount the Libertarian leaning independent voter if you wish.

You mean the moderate conservatives???

(06-29-2015 11:12 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Just want em on our young uns. Twirking in the streets.

Seriously??

How are you not banned yet?

(06-29-2015 09:32 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:11 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 12:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But most "Libertarians" voted for 100% GOP anti-Gay candidates while 'opposing the GOP's war on Gay people'. But they really didn't oppose it, because their votes had the same impact as a Pat Robertson voter...to pack the legislatures with people who wanted to harm us.

And the "Libertarian" response to this was 'just move' or 'the market will take care of it - eventually'. Well we got tired of moving and waiting for the market to take care of it.

This is really not directed at you GTS, but more broadly at the whole libertarian movement.

Libertarians put the wallet first -- me included. Not being able to marry your significant other because of gender? That sucks. But it is far better than a currency crisis or hyperinflation or skyrocketing taxes or high tariffs/"managed trade" or the "entitlement" system collapsing or regulating businesses to death to where the only things that can compete are megacorps with lobbyists or transnationals.

If I were gay .... I could still be with my partner. The only hitch would be the religious/personal significance and insurance/govt benefits. But if these morons don't fix entitlements so they collapse and take the dollar itself with it ... then that is some next level SHTF stuff there that doesn't just suck way more ... it sucks way more FOR EVERYBODY (except the hyper rich who can and do have multiple citizens and international accounts).

I take exception with one of Toms assertions. I dispute his claim that "most" Libertarians voted 100% for GOP anti gay candidates. That is a baseless assertion and if that is the type of hyperbole that the LGBT community is engaging in?..it pisses me off. I guess Tom thinks our GOP governor in NC is anti gay? Never mind he vetoed the bill to allow magistrates to decline to do their duty base on religion. Im proud actually that I voted for him now. Be very careful where you tread Tom. Libertarians are the MOST fervent supporters of your personal freedom. They are the last group you need to alienate with foolish, unfounded accusations.

While his statement was absolute hyperbole, there is a lack of urgency from libertarian-leaning voters when it comes to particular personal freedoms, and those particular freedoms tend to be traditionally liberal ones. It's why republicans can still get elected straddling both lines.

(06-30-2015 12:33 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:32 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:11 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 12:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But most "Libertarians" voted for 100% GOP anti-Gay candidates while 'opposing the GOP's war on Gay people'. But they really didn't oppose it, because their votes had the same impact as a Pat Robertson voter...to pack the legislatures with people who wanted to harm us.

And the "Libertarian" response to this was 'just move' or 'the market will take care of it - eventually'. Well we got tired of moving and waiting for the market to take care of it.

This is really not directed at you GTS, but more broadly at the whole libertarian movement.

Libertarians put the wallet first -- me included. Not being able to marry your significant other because of gender? That sucks. But it is far better than a currency crisis or hyperinflation or skyrocketing taxes or high tariffs/"managed trade" or the "entitlement" system collapsing or regulating businesses to death to where the only things that can compete are megacorps with lobbyists or transnationals.

If I were gay .... I could still be with my partner. The only hitch would be the religious/personal significance and insurance/govt benefits. But if these morons don't fix entitlements so they collapse and take the dollar itself with it ... then that is some next level SHTF stuff there that doesn't just suck way more ... it sucks way more FOR EVERYBODY (except the hyper rich who can and do have multiple citizens and international accounts).

I take exception with one of Toms assertions. I dispute his claim that "most" Libertarians voted 100% for GOP anti gay candidates. That is a baseless assertion and if that is the type of hyperbole that the LGBT community is engaging in?..it pisses me off. I guess Tom thinks our GOP governor in NC is anti gay? Never mind he vetoed the bill to allow magistrates to decline to do their duty base on religion. Im proud actually that I voted for him now. Be very careful where you tread Tom. Libertarians are the MOST fervent supporters of your personal freedom. They are the last group you need to alienate with foolish, unfounded accusations.

While his statement was absolute hyperbole, there is a lack of urgency from libertarian-leaning voters when it comes to particular personal freedoms, and those particular freedoms tend to be traditionally liberal ones. It's why republicans can still get elected straddling both lines.

At the end of the day its about results. And I'm sorry, the result of most "libertarian" voters is that LGBT equality under the law is harmed.

Saying that you 'support Gay rights and equal treatment under the law' rings hollow if you continue to consistently vote for candidates that do precisely the opposite.

That kind of 'support' isn't really that useful from a practical perspective. Sure, we're less upset with those that support Gay rights and equality in abstract terms...but we're looking for practical solutions. Our community is not some plaything to conduct experiments in economic theory with(such as 'hey - lets let one area of the country discriminate against LGBT persons for 40 years and see if the non-discriminatory area does better economically').

And then there's a major area of contention in that many Libertarians actively oppose measures, deemed critically important for our community, to make LGBT equality possible, such as non-discrimination ordinances. The attitude from the Libertarian community appears to be "just move" or "wait 100 years for society to come around". To us, it sounds cynical. And that they are worrying about abstract concepts at the cost of concrete issues that impacts our lives in very significant ways.

And then there's the issue of the GOP/Libertarian revolving door. Many Libertarian politicians will eventually move to the GOP and then immediately go full social conservative (see Rand Paul). But they almost never get called out on it by the Libertarians when they do so.

So to the Libertarians, understand that if given the choice of equality now using the courts or bigger government or waiting 100 years or telling our people to move - that we're going to vote for bigger and more government every time. If that means voting for Sheila Jackson Lee...we'll hold our nose and vote for her. If it means going to the courts and creating precedents that expand the state...so be it. The way you stop us from doing what we do...is to solve the problems that we face in a way that doesn't require us to consistently 'go nuclear' in order to do so.

You guys have an agenda. One in which our issues have very little real importance. We have an agenda too. One in which abstract economic issues have very little real importance. Its okay if we disagree. And I don't hate you guys. But you guys really haven't shown much worth as an ally.

For Libertarians and 'supportive' Republicans. I'm glad you don't want to vote for social conservatives...But understand that we note that you guys almost always end up doing precisely that. Don't begruge us when we do what we have to do because the candidates you support fail to solve the real and concrete problems our community faces.

(06-30-2015 12:56 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:33 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:32 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:11 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 12:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But most "Libertarians" voted for 100% GOP anti-Gay candidates while 'opposing the GOP's war on Gay people'. But they really didn't oppose it, because their votes had the same impact as a Pat Robertson voter...to pack the legislatures with people who wanted to harm us.

And the "Libertarian" response to this was 'just move' or 'the market will take care of it - eventually'. Well we got tired of moving and waiting for the market to take care of it.

This is really not directed at you GTS, but more broadly at the whole libertarian movement.

Libertarians put the wallet first -- me included. Not being able to marry your significant other because of gender? That sucks. But it is far better than a currency crisis or hyperinflation or skyrocketing taxes or high tariffs/"managed trade" or the "entitlement" system collapsing or regulating businesses to death to where the only things that can compete are megacorps with lobbyists or transnationals.

If I were gay .... I could still be with my partner. The only hitch would be the religious/personal significance and insurance/govt benefits. But if these morons don't fix entitlements so they collapse and take the dollar itself with it ... then that is some next level SHTF stuff there that doesn't just suck way more ... it sucks way more FOR EVERYBODY (except the hyper rich who can and do have multiple citizens and international accounts).

I take exception with one of Toms assertions. I dispute his claim that "most" Libertarians voted 100% for GOP anti gay candidates. That is a baseless assertion and if that is the type of hyperbole that the LGBT community is engaging in?..it pisses me off. I guess Tom thinks our GOP governor in NC is anti gay? Never mind he vetoed the bill to allow magistrates to decline to do their duty base on religion. Im proud actually that I voted for him now. Be very careful where you tread Tom. Libertarians are the MOST fervent supporters of your personal freedom. They are the last group you need to alienate with foolish, unfounded accusations.

While his statement was absolute hyperbole, there is a lack of urgency from libertarian-leaning voters when it comes to particular personal freedoms, and those particular freedoms tend to be traditionally liberal ones. It's why republicans can still get elected straddling both lines.

At the end of the day its about results. And I'm sorry, the result of most "libertarian" voters is that LGBT equality under the law is harmed.

Saying that you 'support Gay rights and equal treatment under the law' rings hollow if you continue to consistently vote for candidates that do precisely the opposite.

That kind of 'support' isn't really that useful from a practical perspective. Sure, we're less upset with those that support Gay rights and equality in abstract terms...but we're looking for practical solutions. Our community is not some plaything to conduct experiments in economic theory with(such as 'hey - lets let one area of the country discriminate against LGBT persons for 40 years and see if the non-discriminatory area does better economically').

And then there's a major area of contention in that many Libertarians actively oppose measures, deemed critically important for our community, to make LGBT equality possible, such as non-discrimination ordinances. The attitude from the Libertarian community appears to be "just move" or "wait 100 years for society to come around". To us, it sounds cynical. And that they are worrying about abstract concepts at the cost of concrete issues that impacts our lives in very significant ways.

And then there's the issue of the GOP/Libertarian revolving door. Many Libertarian politicians will eventually move to the GOP and then immediately go full social conservative (see Rand Paul). But they almost never get called out on it by the Libertarians when they do so.

So to the Libertarians, understand that if given the choice of equality now using the courts or bigger government or waiting 100 years or telling our people to move - that we're going to vote for bigger and more government every time. If that means voting for Sheila Jackson Lee...we'll hold our nose and vote for her. If it means going to the courts and creating precedents that expand the state...so be it. The way you stop us from doing what we do...is to solve the problems that we face in a way that doesn't require us to consistently 'go nuclear' in order to do so.

You guys have an agenda. One in which our issues have very little real importance. We have an agenda too. One in which abstract economic issues have very little real importance. Its okay if we disagree. And I don't hate you guys. But you guys really haven't shown much worth as an ally.

For Libertarians and 'supportive' Republicans. I'm glad you don't want to vote for social conservatives...But understand that we note that you guys almost always end up doing precisely that. Don't begruge us when we do what we have to do because the candidates you support fail to solve the real and concrete problems our community faces.

In other words....I am selfish. I will vote for candidates that would destroy the nation as long as I get what I want. Sheila Jackson Lee. Damn.

(06-30-2015 07:07 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:56 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:33 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:32 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:11 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Libertarians put the wallet first -- me included. Not being able to marry your significant other because of gender? That sucks. But it is far better than a currency crisis or hyperinflation or skyrocketing taxes or high tariffs/"managed trade" or the "entitlement" system collapsing or regulating businesses to death to where the only things that can compete are megacorps with lobbyists or transnationals.

If I were gay .... I could still be with my partner. The only hitch would be the religious/personal significance and insurance/govt benefits. But if these morons don't fix entitlements so they collapse and take the dollar itself with it ... then that is some next level SHTF stuff there that doesn't just suck way more ... it sucks way more FOR EVERYBODY (except the hyper rich who can and do have multiple citizens and international accounts).

I take exception with one of Toms assertions. I dispute his claim that "most" Libertarians voted 100% for GOP anti gay candidates. That is a baseless assertion and if that is the type of hyperbole that the LGBT community is engaging in?..it pisses me off. I guess Tom thinks our GOP governor in NC is anti gay? Never mind he vetoed the bill to allow magistrates to decline to do their duty base on religion. Im proud actually that I voted for him now. Be very careful where you tread Tom. Libertarians are the MOST fervent supporters of your personal freedom. They are the last group you need to alienate with foolish, unfounded accusations.

While his statement was absolute hyperbole, there is a lack of urgency from libertarian-leaning voters when it comes to particular personal freedoms, and those particular freedoms tend to be traditionally liberal ones. It's why republicans can still get elected straddling both lines.

At the end of the day its about results. And I'm sorry, the result of most "libertarian" voters is that LGBT equality under the law is harmed.

Saying that you 'support Gay rights and equal treatment under the law' rings hollow if you continue to consistently vote for candidates that do precisely the opposite.

That kind of 'support' isn't really that useful from a practical perspective. Sure, we're less upset with those that support Gay rights and equality in abstract terms...but we're looking for practical solutions. Our community is not some plaything to conduct experiments in economic theory with(such as 'hey - lets let one area of the country discriminate against LGBT persons for 40 years and see if the non-discriminatory area does better economically').

And then there's a major area of contention in that many Libertarians actively oppose measures, deemed critically important for our community, to make LGBT equality possible, such as non-discrimination ordinances. The attitude from the Libertarian community appears to be "just move" or "wait 100 years for society to come around". To us, it sounds cynical. And that they are worrying about abstract concepts at the cost of concrete issues that impacts our lives in very significant ways.

And then there's the issue of the GOP/Libertarian revolving door. Many Libertarian politicians will eventually move to the GOP and then immediately go full social conservative (see Rand Paul). But they almost never get called out on it by the Libertarians when they do so.

So to the Libertarians, understand that if given the choice of equality now using the courts or bigger government or waiting 100 years or telling our people to move - that we're going to vote for bigger and more government every time. If that means voting for Sheila Jackson Lee...we'll hold our nose and vote for her. If it means going to the courts and creating precedents that expand the state...so be it. The way you stop us from doing what we do...is to solve the problems that we face in a way that doesn't require us to consistently 'go nuclear' in order to do so.

You guys have an agenda. One in which our issues have very little real importance. We have an agenda too. One in which abstract economic issues have very little real importance. Its okay if we disagree. And I don't hate you guys. But you guys really haven't shown much worth as an ally.

For Libertarians and 'supportive' Republicans. I'm glad you don't want to vote for social conservatives...But understand that we note that you guys almost always end up doing precisely that. Don't begruge us when we do what we have to do because the candidates you support fail to solve the real and concrete problems our community faces.

In other words....I am selfish. I will vote for candidates that would destroy the nation as long as I get what I want. Sheila Jackson Lee. Damn.

Fo Shizzle, both you and I know that the Dems and Republicans aren't different enough to warrant this sort of response. Any major trouble our nation would be in with a democratic leadership isn't significantly worse than the trouble our nation is with republican leadership; they're not that different in the overwhelming majority of issues.

(06-29-2015 11:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:12 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Just want em on our young uns. Twirking in the streets.

Seriously??

How are you not banned yet?

For what? Some rule broken? Accusing me falsely of making **** up or something?

There was a video posted a couple of weeks ago of the gays surrounding a near naked child twirking in the street and cheering.

(06-30-2015 07:33 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 07:07 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:56 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:33 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:32 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I take exception with one of Toms assertions. I dispute his claim that "most" Libertarians voted 100% for GOP anti gay candidates. That is a baseless assertion and if that is the type of hyperbole that the LGBT community is engaging in?..it pisses me off. I guess Tom thinks our GOP governor in NC is anti gay? Never mind he vetoed the bill to allow magistrates to decline to do their duty base on religion. Im proud actually that I voted for him now. Be very careful where you tread Tom. Libertarians are the MOST fervent supporters of your personal freedom. They are the last group you need to alienate with foolish, unfounded accusations.

While his statement was absolute hyperbole, there is a lack of urgency from libertarian-leaning voters when it comes to particular personal freedoms, and those particular freedoms tend to be traditionally liberal ones. It's why republicans can still get elected straddling both lines.

At the end of the day its about results. And I'm sorry, the result of most "libertarian" voters is that LGBT equality under the law is harmed.

Saying that you 'support Gay rights and equal treatment under the law' rings hollow if you continue to consistently vote for candidates that do precisely the opposite.

That kind of 'support' isn't really that useful from a practical perspective. Sure, we're less upset with those that support Gay rights and equality in abstract terms...but we're looking for practical solutions. Our community is not some plaything to conduct experiments in economic theory with(such as 'hey - lets let one area of the country discriminate against LGBT persons for 40 years and see if the non-discriminatory area does better economically').

And then there's a major area of contention in that many Libertarians actively oppose measures, deemed critically important for our community, to make LGBT equality possible, such as non-discrimination ordinances. The attitude from the Libertarian community appears to be "just move" or "wait 100 years for society to come around". To us, it sounds cynical. And that they are worrying about abstract concepts at the cost of concrete issues that impacts our lives in very significant ways.

And then there's the issue of the GOP/Libertarian revolving door. Many Libertarian politicians will eventually move to the GOP and then immediately go full social conservative (see Rand Paul). But they almost never get called out on it by the Libertarians when they do so.

So to the Libertarians, understand that if given the choice of equality now using the courts or bigger government or waiting 100 years or telling our people to move - that we're going to vote for bigger and more government every time. If that means voting for Sheila Jackson Lee...we'll hold our nose and vote for her. If it means going to the courts and creating precedents that expand the state...so be it. The way you stop us from doing what we do...is to solve the problems that we face in a way that doesn't require us to consistently 'go nuclear' in order to do so.

You guys have an agenda. One in which our issues have very little real importance. We have an agenda too. One in which abstract economic issues have very little real importance. Its okay if we disagree. And I don't hate you guys. But you guys really haven't shown much worth as an ally.

For Libertarians and 'supportive' Republicans. I'm glad you don't want to vote for social conservatives...But understand that we note that you guys almost always end up doing precisely that. Don't begruge us when we do what we have to do because the candidates you support fail to solve the real and concrete problems our community faces.

In other words....I am selfish. I will vote for candidates that would destroy the nation as long as I get what I want. Sheila Jackson Lee. Damn.

Fo Shizzle, both you and I know that the Dems and Republicans aren't different enough to warrant this sort of response. Any major trouble our nation would be in with a democratic leadership isn't significantly worse than the trouble our nation is with republican leadership; they're not that different in the overwhelming majority of issues.

Im not the one that said they would vote for SJL. I hope you are not trying to infer that her views echo this the view of the people.

(06-30-2015 11:33 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 07:33 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 07:07 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:56 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:33 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  While his statement was absolute hyperbole, there is a lack of urgency from libertarian-leaning voters when it comes to particular personal freedoms, and those particular freedoms tend to be traditionally liberal ones. It's why republicans can still get elected straddling both lines.

At the end of the day its about results. And I'm sorry, the result of most "libertarian" voters is that LGBT equality under the law is harmed.

Saying that you 'support Gay rights and equal treatment under the law' rings hollow if you continue to consistently vote for candidates that do precisely the opposite.

That kind of 'support' isn't really that useful from a practical perspective. Sure, we're less upset with those that support Gay rights and equality in abstract terms...but we're looking for practical solutions. Our community is not some plaything to conduct experiments in economic theory with(such as 'hey - lets let one area of the country discriminate against LGBT persons for 40 years and see if the non-discriminatory area does better economically').

And then there's a major area of contention in that many Libertarians actively oppose measures, deemed critically important for our community, to make LGBT equality possible, such as non-discrimination ordinances. The attitude from the Libertarian community appears to be "just move" or "wait 100 years for society to come around". To us, it sounds cynical. And that they are worrying about abstract concepts at the cost of concrete issues that impacts our lives in very significant ways.

And then there's the issue of the GOP/Libertarian revolving door. Many Libertarian politicians will eventually move to the GOP and then immediately go full social conservative (see Rand Paul). But they almost never get called out on it by the Libertarians when they do so.

So to the Libertarians, understand that if given the choice of equality now using the courts or bigger government or waiting 100 years or telling our people to move - that we're going to vote for bigger and more government every time. If that means voting for Sheila Jackson Lee...we'll hold our nose and vote for her. If it means going to the courts and creating precedents that expand the state...so be it. The way you stop us from doing what we do...is to solve the problems that we face in a way that doesn't require us to consistently 'go nuclear' in order to do so.

You guys have an agenda. One in which our issues have very little real importance. We have an agenda too. One in which abstract economic issues have very little real importance. Its okay if we disagree. And I don't hate you guys. But you guys really haven't shown much worth as an ally.

For Libertarians and 'supportive' Republicans. I'm glad you don't want to vote for social conservatives...But understand that we note that you guys almost always end up doing precisely that. Don't begruge us when we do what we have to do because the candidates you support fail to solve the real and concrete problems our community faces.

In other words....I am selfish. I will vote for candidates that would destroy the nation as long as I get what I want. Sheila Jackson Lee. Damn.

Fo Shizzle, both you and I know that the Dems and Republicans aren't different enough to warrant this sort of response. Any major trouble our nation would be in with a democratic leadership isn't significantly worse than the trouble our nation is with republican leadership; they're not that different in the overwhelming majority of issues.

Im not the one that said they would vote for SJL. I hope you are not trying to infer that her views echo this the view of the people.

I actually have voted for her, many times. She's a horrible person, btw. She abuses her staff. She's a media hog. People who know her - dislike her - immensely. And I'm talking about Liberals too.

But she's effective and she supports the full inclusion of LGBT persons into society as full and equal citizens. And unlike many of our 'supporters', she's actually reliable. Virtually every elected GOP person here in Texas (as well as in the US House) works 24-7 to sustain abuse of our lives, our citizenship, and our families. I do, note that there are a few more non-hateful GOP officials in the US Senate. So, we hold our noses and vote for her. Understand that for most of us, our full and equal inclusion as citizens is ultimately our only concern.

Don't wonder why people support SJL. Wonder why the GOP invites people to vote for her.

By the way, there is exactly one GOP state representative in Texas that isn't hideously anti-Gay. She's my state Rep. (Sarah Davis) Here's the part of this that might make you guys pause....A lot of people who vote for SJL actually split tickets and vote for some Republicans. So its not just doctrinaire liberals that vote for SJL.

The kind of Republican that can function in inner loop Houston would be a Republican that not only supports our issues, but is willing to publicly and loudly stand up and oppose their leadership (not just a press release) when they promote hateful garbage. Sarah Davis qualifies. But she's awfully lonely in Austin. And she'd be awfully lonely in DC too.

(06-30-2015 01:53 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

god the irony is palpable.

No it's not. That is just plain dumb.

Gays are a single issue voters. They aren't putting their personal issue aside and voting for others to get something they want. ******* nerve to whine and cry and ***** that others vote what they find important.