Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyOctober 24th, 2012
Log Cabin staffer Casey Pick responds to the, ummm, colorful comments directed towards that organization and attempts to portray Romney in a less hostile light.
I knew what we were in for when Log Cabin Republicans made the decision to issue a qualified endorsement in favor of Mitt Romney for president. Congressman Barney Frank gave us a taste of it this summer, turning abusing gay Republicans into his personal crusade since the Democratic National Convention, with many liberals eager to take up his battle cry of “Uncle Tom.”
I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve been called a “Jew for Hitler” since the announcement, and certain “gay rights activists” have gone so far as to threaten physical violence if a Log Cabin Republican dares to show his or her face at a gay bar this weekend. We’ve even heard rumors of a bounty.
As too often happens, the bullied have become bullies themselves. The irony is that many of these same individuals often demand to know how Log Cabin Republicans can stand to be part of a political party that “hates” us.
Thankfully, there are also many in our community who, though they may disagree with our position, do recognize that bipartisan effort is necessary to winning equality for all. No matter who is in the White House, it is crucial that our community always has a credible voice speaking out on behalf of LGBT Americans. Log Cabin Republicans will be that voice to President Mitt Romney.
But while we considered many factors in our deliberations, the response from our critics was not one of them. Simply by being LGBT Republicans, there are some people we know we will never please -– no matter how many GOP voteswe secured to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” or how strong of a stand we take for the freedom to marry.
Our priorities were to represent our membership, further our mission of building a more inclusive Republican Party, and above all, stand for what we believe is in our nation’s best interests. We are proud Republicans, and we are proudly pro-equality, but we are proud to be Americans first. Especially after the economic crisis of the last four years, it is our firm conviction that the United States is in dire need of new leadership, leadership that Governor Romney is well suited to provide.
Observing the onslaught of hostility, it is apparent that too many in the LGBT community are laboring under a misperception of who Governor Romney is. As we said in our endorsement statement, Mitt Romney is not Rick Santorum.
Mitt Romney is the candidate who, when asked in a primary debate last year, “when’s the last time you stood up and spoke out for increasing gay rights?” answered, “right now.”
Mitt Romney is the candidate who, as a moderate governor of Massachusetts, appointed several openly gay individuals as judges and said “he has not paid a moment’s notice to his nominees’ … sexual orientation.”
Mitt Romney is the candidate who has campaigned on his record as a successful businessman and problem-solver, and whose aversion to running on social issues leaves antigay leaders like Maggie Gallagher frothing with frustration: “gay marriage should be helping put Romney in the White House. Instead, in his consultant-tested messaging, Romney is conveying discomfort with his own position,” she recently wrote.
Contrary to the irresponsible claims of certain activists, Governor Romney has no intention of reinstating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” or stopping same-sex partners from being able to visit their loved ones in the hospital. Far from a fire-breathing ideologue, Governor Romney is somebody we can work with to improve the lives of LGBT Americans, including on the vital issue of workplace discrimination. And beyond specifically LGBT concerns, Governor Romney has a plan to restart our economy and put America back to work -– something that will benefit us all.
We know this to be true because Log Cabin Republicans know Mitt Romney. We’ve spoken to the man, and worked with his campaign to make this endorsement something more than just a press release, something based on the promise of actual, tangible results if the governor is elected. In response to our endorsement, a campaign spokesperson said, “Gov. Romney is pleased to have the support of the Log Cabin Republicans and looks forward to working together for the future of our country.” That is hardly the reaction of an avowed homophobe.
Governor Romney is not perfect — we know that, and the qualified nature of our endorsement reflects that reality. On the issue of marriage equality, his stated position is offensive to us both as LGBT people and as conservatives who value our nation’s Constitution.
But Log Cabin Republicans believe we should never make the perfect the enemy of the good. We encourage all Americans, especially members of the LGBT community, to get beyond the caricatures, the memes, and the myths. Before you call us crazy –- or worse — take a moment to try and see what we see. It may surprise you.
I’ve tried, Casey, and I’m sorry but I just don’t see your vision of this candidate. I’m truly glad you have a relationship with him, and I think I understand why you endorsed him, but the risks on DOMA and a Justice Department that would oppose my civil rights rather than see them as obvious are just too big a hurdle for me.
And, though you probably won’t agree, I think that four more years of a government that is hostile to business and which sees moving people from the private sector to the public sector as an economic solution just might be a fair punishment to those businesses who have empowered the radical fringe and held gay people hostage. Corporate America sold out to religious extremists and now they have to deal with the fact that this position makes my support impossible.
It’s very simple. If Romney wants my vote, he needs stop courting the vote of those who work tirelessly to keep me inferior.
[Note: Casey Pick’s name was originally incorrectly written as Chris Pick]
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
andrewdb
October 24th, 2012
Timothy –
Yes, yes, yes!
For exactly the reasons you point out (and my own evolving lack of patience with this stuff) I voted for a D for the first time in my life.
Sami
October 24th, 2012
We’ve spoken to the man, and worked with his campaign to make this endorsement something more than just a press release, something based on the promise of actual, tangible results if the governor is elected
I don’t know why it took me so long to figure out why they keep saying their endorsement was in exchange for a promise to support our rights, but refuse to give any actual details on what he’ll work with us on.
They’re endorsing Mitt frickin Romney, it makes perfect sense they’d follow their candidate’s example of big vague promises.
Sami
October 24th, 2012
After getting my joke in I read it with a more serious eye and noticed this:
Simply by being LGBT Republicans, there are some people we know we will never please -– no matter how many GOP voteswe secured to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tellâ€
Why is it the one victory they always hold up is that they got a handful of Republicans to join the overwhelming majority of Democrats in recognizing our right to serve?
Maybe I’m just a big mean bully, but I don’t think small concessions like that justify kicking out the most supportive president we’ve ever had and handing the executive branch to the GOP.
Sami
October 24th, 2012
Is their anyway to edit these comments? It looks silly posting 3 in a row, but I can’t believe I forgot about this juicy bit immediately following my last quote:
or how strong of a stand we take for the freedom to marry.
What!? The entire reason you’ve been mocked and Godwined is because you refused to take a strong stand for the freedom to marry like you did with Bush.
Part of me wants to believe they just threw that in to troll us.
Lucrece
October 24th, 2012
Spin,spin,spin, and martyr complex is all I see in that LCR release.
They’re people voting their pocket and cultural heritage (party affiliation tends to be a cultural affair in many areas, often passed down by family and friends)and wanting to still remain in the good graces of a community they’re contributing to keep oppressed.
That’s the very definition of partisan.
Lindoro Almaviva
October 24th, 2012
They must have watched a different edition of the debates that we saw because all I can remember is Rodney signing a declaration that he will defend marriage At all costs.
Bottom line is, these people are spinning the fact that they sold their rights Just to be Relevant
tim
October 25th, 2012
“We know this to be true because Log Cabin Republicans know Mitt Romney. “
No one knows Mitt Romney. That is the entire problem.
Ryan
October 25th, 2012
They start out with the NOM-approved “the gays are the real bullies”, and expect us to read further? Wow. This is GOProud, plain and simple. No difference at all.
Ben in Oakland
October 25th, 2012
What tangled webs we do weave, when first we practice to deceive… ourselves. Oh, Chris, you must truly be the Pick of the litter to make a comment like this.
“Observing the onslaught of hostility, it is apparent that too many in the LGBT community are laboring under a misperception of who Governor Romney is. As we said in our endorsement statement, Mitt Romney is not Rick Santorum..”
I’m not laboring under any misperception of who Romney is. That’s the biggest pRoblem. No one knows. He flip flops more than a republican whore at a bondage convention. We’re still waiting for details of how all of his tax cuts for the rich and increased military spending is going to work out to reduce the deficit, because in the last 32 years, it never seems to have done that. But elect him first and then he’ll let us know.
Paul Ryan announces that obama’s foreign policy is the worst ever, and Mittens agrees with Obama that the latter is doing everything right, in fact exactly everything that he would do, except that it would Mitterific instead Of ObamaIicious. Or didn’t you watch the last debate? What exactly did Mittens have to offer, except his agreement that Obama did exactly what Mittens would do if only he were president? He sounds like he would have the courage of his convictions, if only he had any,
I think my perception of Romney is bang on. Do you want to talk about economic issues? Romney has eagerly signed on to a constitutional amendment in order to gain favor with the anti-ex-Gay industry, paying for their support with the easy coin of other people’s lives. This amendment will make sure that this American citizen and taxpayer will legally and constitutionally be forever second class, that my ten years of marriage are of no consequence, and can be demolished with the stroke of a pen. It will insure that We have to pay thousands for health insurance every month when my business has collapsed, while formerly Adulterous Callista can get it tax free from newt. We will pay more in taxes, including real estate taxes should We have to sell our home, or I die before my partner. The protections offered to sleazeballs like Newtie will forever be beyond our grasp. Newtie, however, can commit adultery again with some new floozy ( no slander HERE!) and drop Callista like used goods, and STILL get married again. Sanctity of marriage and all that. Maybe he can get his own planet and build a base on it.
Whether Mittens can accomplish that goal is another matter, but his intention to gain office by harming his fellow citizens and smearing rhetorical feces on our constitution is clear. Meanwhile, I have friends who have been devoted couples for decades who will end one of their lives in penury if the wrong one of them dies first.
And where is Shrub in all of this? He’s been invisible. Or, more accurately, has been reincarnated as Mittens, but without any of that nasty baggage. His tax cuts for the rich that haven’t created a single job since 2001, his record deficit spending and two unwinnable and unaffordable wars in concert with a republican congress for six years, his military budgets, his deregulation that led us to the worst depression in 80 years, and his fornication with the religious right. As far as I can tell, despite the lack of details, romneyism seems to be no different the bushalluia. It hasn’t worked, it can’t work, and until the deficit is seriously dealt with, like Clinton did, it won’t work.
But we’re supposed to buy Bush III as if we’ve never seen that broken down jalopy before.
All Romney’s previous support of gay people–better than Ted Kennedy, he used to claim– shows us is that Romney has only devolved, or has no principles, or never did.
As for Romney not being Santorum, I’d say that is damning with faint praise indeed. He’s also not Hitler, Pol Pot, or Jesus Christ. He’s not as bad as Santorum? He’s not as good as Obama, jerry Sanders, Gary Johnston, or Bill Weld, He’s not even as good as Chris Christie for chrissakes. He’s a republican who’s letting you have a crumb, possibly two, from his table, in exchange for taking your money and you not making any really big waves that might hurt him among gay potential republicans.
You ought to be trading your pottage for a mess of birthright, not the other way around. What I always say, and it applies to you and to Romney, is that always, power trumps politics trumps prejudice trumps principle, every single goddam time.
Ryan
October 25th, 2012
I was curios about the comments Romney supposedly made during the primaries, and found them on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWZUIw-JMa0
He doesn’t answer “right now” until pressed. He says some mealy-mouthed stuff about how he has no problem hiring gay people (cough Grenell cough) and then quickly changes topic to his opposition to gay marriage. And it should be noted that he doesn’t actually speak out for increasing gay rights, despite saying “right now” when pressed.
It’s also difficult to let Pick’s comments about the “economic crisis of the *last four years*” go by without comment, or the bizarre, silly notion that Obama is somehow “hostile to businesses” but that’s standard silly boilerplate GOP stuff, and whaddya gonna do, besides hope that 50.1% of the country doesn’t fall for it again?
And I imagine that Bay Buchanan would surprised to find herself labeled a liberal activist, as she was the one who said that Romney considered hospital visitation rights to be a benefit that should be left up to the states to decide. Of course, this is merely a day after she said that Romney thinks states should decide gay marriage…before immediately walking that back. It appears that she doesn’t know Romney’s positions on gay rights anymore than anyone else does, including the LCR. Hmm…
Jim Hlavac
October 25th, 2012
since I started to vote in 1976 nearly 100% of the candidates from whom I had to choose were anti-gay in one way or another. Some Democrats more so than some Republicans. I always voted pocket book issues — tax, economics — why should I change now? It made no difference in many ways, who was in office, how I personally, and we as a group, progressed on the Rights for Gays front. And if the Republicans get in, and all of sudden ignore the economy and go after gays, well, that should awaken pretty much every voter in the nation. But, still, having never voted for a Democrat for president, why must I now, merely because the current one changed his mind somewhat in just the past few months? And meanwhile, there’s quite a number of very anti-Democrats — even if not the president – but still, I find neither of the parties particularly pro-gay without being hauled into court — and I note that DADT was done in by Log Cabin Republican lawsuits — and that the Congress and president didn’t join the Lob Cabin bandwagon until the court’s reality was in their face. And so who did more to undo DADT? the Log Cabin fellows who pressed the suit — or the politicians who caved into the inevitable. Meanwhile, just the other day a very conservative judge just couldn’t find anything in Liberty or the Constitution to trash gay folks anymore. While Mr. Obama is only worried about Section 3 of DOMA — and I want every damn comma and semicolon of that law repealed and expunged — not one measly section. Meanwhile, cut the taxes and stop the deficit — and worry about the sissy smooching later. For if the country is broke, it won’t make a dang difference.
Ryan
October 25th, 2012
Jim, do you realize that cutting taxes even more will increase the deficit? The “no tax and spend” Republicans increase our debt every time they get into power. The only thing more annoying than their continued fiscal irresponsibility is their supporter’s continued forgetfulness of it. You’re obfuscating a great deal, here. The notion that LCR and not the president and the Democratic congress who killed DADT is not supported by the evidence, and is even more thoroughly debunked by hypothetical President McCain’s vehement objection to repeal.
DN
October 25th, 2012
He lost me at “no matter how many Republican votes we secured for DADT repeal.”
Hey, jerk – if it weren’t for the vast majority of Republicans, you wouldn’t have needed those few breakaway senators to pass repeal.
And I’ll also point out that DADT repeal had more than the fifty senate votes necessary without a single Republican vote (the vote was 65-31 with six Republicans voting to repeal – ie 59 (FIFTY-NINE!) Democrats were on board).
If it weren’t for that party’s obstructionist use of filibusters these past four years, we wouldn’t have needed your six votes.
To claim that the Republican party is oh so in love with gay people when all they can muster is six votes? And then LCR has the gall to walk around telling gay people we should be *thankful?*
Yeah no thanks. Shove it up your collective butts, LCR.
Hue-Man
October 25th, 2012
I’m changing Willard’s name to “Wimpy” as in: “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today”. The Popeye cartoon character – already a good start – represents much of what Willard/Wimpy has campaigned on: flip/flop issues, deficit reduction plans that don’t add up, and conflicting positions on LGBT issues. How many times have we heard “Just trust me”?
Sami
October 25th, 2012
And so who did more to undo DADT?
The democratic party who had every single one of their senators and all but 15 of their representatives, the exact same as the number of republican representative, who voted for repeal, supporting repeal. Funny how the ‘same thing both sides!’ types who whine about the democrats having bigots still never bring up just how few they have compared to the other side.
Like I said it’s just sad that the one and only victory they have to hold up is that they got a handful of Republican senators to join the overhwelming majority of democrats in supporting our right to serve. That oine small concession does not justify throwing out the most LBGT suportive preasident we’ve ever had and handing the executive branch to the GOP. Well, unless you’re on the GOP finance comittee, then stabbing the rest of us in the back like that makes perfect sense for your career.
Markanthony
October 25th, 2012
Timothy-
According to LCR web site, the comment comes from Casey Pick, not Chris.
Jay
October 25th, 2012
Oh, so we are laboring under a misrepresentation of who Romney is? I wonder why. The man has absolutely no principle. He has said the most homophobic things in public, including pledging to support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and yet we are supposed to believe that he is really our friend? He embraces homophobes like Tony Perkins and Bryan Schwitzer in public, but meets with the LCR under cover of darkness.
The most ironic thing about the meeting is that Kolbe, who was outed in 1996 after voting for DOMA, complained to Romney that his foreign-born partner may be deported because of the very bill he voted for. Boo hoo. (Romney apparently nodded, but made no response. He was probably chuckling over the knucklehead who was willing to throw gay people under the bus in order to keep an Arizona house seat and now has the temerity to complain about his own vote.)
Robert
October 25th, 2012
DN-
You make great points, only one tiny correction, there were 58 Democrats and ONE Independent. Yeah, semantics, but Sanders is NOT a Democrat….
Priya Lynn
October 25th, 2012
Timothy said “I think that four more years of a government that is hostile to business and which sees moving people from the private sector to the public sector as an economic solution just might be a fair punishment to those businesses who have empowered the radical fringe and held gay people hostage.”.
Its really grating to have you constantly assume your stereotypical beliefs about Democrats and Republicans must be reality. It is Republicans who moved people from the private sector to the public sector, not Obama:
“But there is one area of job creation where President Bush clearly outshines President Obama: the public sector. Public sector employment is now down 608,000 workers since January 2009, a 2.7 percent decline. At the same point in President Bush’s term, public sector employment was up 3.7 percent. If, over the past 40 months, public sector employment had grown at the same pace as it did in President Bush’s first term, there would be 1.4 million additional people at work right now. That’d be enough to bring the unemployment rate down by nearly a full percentage point.”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/01/493849/obama-bush-jobs-record/
You’ve also criticized liberal gays for believing log cabin republicans vote republican because they are only concerned about their finances when the reality is once again far different fromt the stereotype – the vast majority of log cabin republicans (and republican voters) are not amongst the very top income earners and are in fact voting against their own best economic interests.
Rowan Bristol
October 25th, 2012
From playwright David Wright:
“I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they’re voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights. Fine. Then look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say, ‘My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your dignity as a citizen of this country, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood.’ It’s like voting for George Wallace during the Civil Rights movements, and apologizing for his racism. You’re still complicit. You’re still perpetuating anti-gay legislation and cultural homophobia. You don’t get to walk away clean, because you say you ‘disagree’ with your candidate on these issues.”
Priya Lynn
October 25th, 2012
And as far as the Obama administration being “hostile” to business goes:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/22/1063181/obama-anti-business-charts/
Kevin
October 25th, 2012
I have actually donated money to LCR in the past. There work for marriage and on DADT was fantastic. I also agree that LGBT people need to have some leverage to actually lobby and work with the GOP. We make a mistake if we ignore 50% of the voters.
That said, I am hostile to the endorsement of Mitt Romney. I am also hostile to Mr. Pick for creating a group of straw men arguments for the LCR’s decision to endorse a bigot. For the record, it was not the liberal gay lobby who started the ball rolling on hospital visitation being a “benefit” it was the Romney camp. It wasn’t liberals who stated that Romney would support DOMA, it was Romney. I am pretty sure that liberal Democrats did not hold a gun to Romney’s head and force him to sign the NOM pledge. He did that of his own free will. It wasn’t the liberals who asked Romney to resurrect pro-miscegenation laws in Massachusetts to try and undercut marriage equality, or push efforts to repeal it through the state house. Finally, I doubt that it was Obama who made Romney gay bash a young man in college, he did that all on his own.
Also, look at the GOP platform. You aren’t brokering influence, you’re being played. You say that Romney isn’t Santorum. Maybe not, but the party’s platform is straight out of the Santorum playbook. This isn’t the platform of fair minded folks like Goldwater or Vaughn Walker. This is an evil document enshrining hatred against you.
Romney does not have a right to our vote, and you do not have a duty to endorse him because he met with you and made no concessions. He needs to earn your vote, and I think he has clearly failed to do that.
As I see it, you aren’t just alienating liberals, you’re alienating moderate and conservative LBGT people as well. This is also a slap in the face to those members of the GOP who are helping LGBT people. Their commitment is belittled by your willingness to endorse a blatant homophobic bigot.
Robert
October 25th, 2012
Priya Lynn-
I am SO glad you mentioned that snarky and inaccurate line about public sector jobs. It was BS and we all knew it the minute we read it. Glad you commented on it. The fact that most public sector jobs were lost via the states, and not the federal government is not noted by the author. If we had not cut spending to the states (which decimated their budgets) we would not have lost all those firemen, teachers and other state workers. It’s hard to blame the President for the loss of those Public Sector jobs when one’s party was responsible for cutting the budgets that made those losses occur.
Bunch of lyin liars. (Sorry Kincaid, it’s true).
Priya Lynn
October 25th, 2012
No problem Robert. I’m really surprised by the degree to which people blindly assume their stereotypical beliefs about Republicans and Democrats are facts when in reality the exact opposite is often, if not usually, true.
Lord_Byron
October 25th, 2012
First off I am going to define the context of the word-use here
Whore: A person who will do anything for money and/or for what they are seeking to obtain.
Under that context, without it being libel, I can call Mitt Romney a whore for the presidency. Then again pretty much all politicians are to an extent whore, but Mitt Romney takes it to a whole new level. He can have three different positions on a subject all on the same day.
Timothy Kincaid
October 25th, 2012
Priya Lynn and Robert,
So if I read you correctly, Bush moved people from private sector jobs to public sector jobs and then the Republicans cut budgets to the states sending public sector jobs back to the private sector? Is that it?
But it is nice to see you’ve found each other.
Priya Lynn
October 25th, 2012
Timothy, none of those state public sector jobs went back to the private sector. Government employment grew under Bush and shrank under Obama, but don’t let that stop you from telling people based on your stereotypes that it was the other way around.
Robert
October 25th, 2012
No, Timothy, that isn’t what I said. I said that Under President Obama, the public sector has lost jobs due to the budget cuts enacted by the Congress which in turn made States cut their budgets and slash public sector jobs. They are down under this administration, but not due to the actions OF this Administration but the republican party which cut funding to states. We LOST PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS, we did not gain them as your piece suggests.
YOU, Timothy Kincaid, claimed that this Adminsistration moved jobs from th Private Sector to the Public Sector, and that’s plainly a LIE. Public Sector Jobs are down under this Administration and Priya Lynn provided you the link. You just refuse to see and admit the truth because you are busy defending the indefensible.
Andrew
October 25th, 2012
Tim, I can’t tell whether you’re being deliberately obtuse or whether you’re actually dim. Needless to say, I find some of your GOP-based extremist ideas highly, well, offensive when it comes right down to it. I don’t have the right not to be offended, but I surely have the right to express that, so I have.
Priya – I often think you are a crazy person with massive blinders on. Which may or may not be true. But you have perfect vision here, and you see true. Great catch, and good for you.
As for Pick, well, I think the assessment about people putting their money ahead of individual rights is pretty accurate… but it’s in total keeping with the modern Conservative ideology – because here’s the thing…
If you have enough money, the rules don’t apply to you.
You can effectively construct nearly every right you want or need with enough money. Marriage? Screw it – get an attorney and construct a trust and series of springing powers of attorney. Cost? $3-5k Employment rights? Start your own business and be the boss – Cost? Variable. And the more money you have the more rules simply don’t apply – tax law? Get an off-shore account, or better still, use your relationship to shelter funds in an asymmetrical earner pairing.
So, you see, the LCR’s interests are decoupled from the larger LGBT communities, because they are aspirational – they think they’ll all be as rich as Mitt Romney, and then they’ll get to make the rules. Tough luck for the rest of us.
But, that, at it’s core, is the modern Conservative ideology – one big middle finger: “I got mine, screw you”.
But… as I’ve pointed out, that’s not going to happen. Say it with me. If you bring home someone, and find out they’re a Log Cabin Republican, don’t boink them.
Andrew
October 25th, 2012
hope the “boink” is a suitably less colorful expression than the F-bomb, even if it is no where near as satisfying.
Priya Lynn
October 25th, 2012
Uhh, thanks Andrew…I think…
Timothy Kincaid
October 25th, 2012
YOU, Timothy Kincaid, claimed that this Adminsistration moved jobs from th Private Sector to the Public Sector, and that’s plainly a LIE.
What I actually said was:
… and which sees moving people from the private sector to the public sector as an economic solution…
Priya Lynn
October 25th, 2012
Although you may deny you intended it, the implication of that statement was that it had done so – it didn’t.
Priya Lynn
October 25th, 2012
And there’s no reason other than stereotypes to think the Obama administration believed that.
Robert
October 25th, 2012
Please. What is the difference Timothy? You said it in prettier words so it doesn’t mean the same thing?
Can’t you lie better than that? You can’t claim it isn’t what you said by showing that it IS exactly the same thing as what you said.
I thought you had at least a SMALL amount of integrity, but I guess I could be wrong.
Timothy Kincaid
October 25th, 2012
Priya Lynn, I meant what I said, not what you imagine I implied.
Robert, I’m speaking about ideology, philosophy, and economic theory.
Timothy Kincaid
October 25th, 2012
But, as I said, it’s nice to see that you’ve found each other.
Timothy Kincaid
October 25th, 2012
Andrew, you are always welcome to disagree and to express when you are offended.
For the record, I’m neither obtuse nor dim – nor do I think you are obtuse or dim. I just disagree with your reasoning and your underlying principles on a number of issues. Of course, we probably do agree on most things, but during the week before an election I find that the smallest difference between most anybody suddenly take on the importance of nuclear policy.
But your comment raises an interesting point. I often hear or read from those with strong opinions (on both sides of most issues) that their views are so obviously correct that those who disagree must be stupid or uneducated or blinded by hate, greed, envy, etc. etc.
That’s natural, I guess. We all do it. But it is very foolish to go too far down that road.
Most often, those with whom we disagree are neither stupid nor callous (I’m not speaking of the professional anti-gays or the hate groups here). Most often they are attempting to make sense of the world based on what they know and the experiences they’ve had. Just like us.
And we lose out if we dismiss them; we lose the benefit of their experience and we lose the possibility of sharing our experiences with them. Which leaves both sides with limited knowledge to apply to a situation and consequently each coming to opposite conclusions.
Priya Lynn
October 25th, 2012
I know what you say now Timothy, but I think its a virtual certainty that when you said “and which sees moving people from the private sector to the public sector as an economic solution” you believed they had done that and intended your readers to believe they had done that. I’m extremely confident your beliefs about what Democrats and Republicans have done and what their plans are is based much more in tired old stereotypes than it is in facts.
Seeing as you’d like to maintain that you didn’t make that implication and that you only believed the Obama administration thinks moving people from the private sector to the public sector is an economic solution I, and I think other readers, would like to know on what basis, on what evidence do you make the claim that this is the Obama’s administration’s belief?
Rowan Bristol
October 25th, 2012
“Most often, those with whom we disagree are neither stupid nor callous (I’m not speaking of the professional anti-gays or the hate groups here). Most often they are attempting to make sense of the world based on what they know and the experiences they’ve had. Just like us.”
And their conclusion is that we have to be harmed. That we do not deserve to have our names on our children’s birth certificates; that it should be okay to fire us based on who we love; that families should not be protected unless they fall under specific gender norms, which conveniently look like the norms they themselves are a part of. they oppose protecting children like us from harm. They oppose treatment for disease, and endorse people who have advocated for our marginalization, imprisonment, and death.
Just like us.
Timothy Kincaid
October 25th, 2012
Priya Lynn,
You are entitled to have “virtual certainty” about anything that crosses your rather colorful imagination. Though you may want to consider that when you insist that you know the contents of my head better than I do, it makes you look like a crazy person.
And I’m done with this conversation. So please go ahead and get the last word. Or last several hundred.
Rowan Bristol
October 25th, 2012
I remember watching the McLaughlin group with my father, and asked him why they had a mean-spirited racist like Pat Buchanan on all the time, when not only was he a deplorable human being, but his arguments were just bad.
He said that we had to see how the other side thought, so we could better confront them.
Thank god we have Timothy Kincaid. It’s the McLaughlin group all over again.
Priya Lynn
October 25th, 2012
Timothy, if you didn’t believe the Obama administration had moved jobs from the private sector to the public sector in the last four years there was no reason for you to say “and which sees moving people from the private sector to the public sector as an economic solution†– you simply aren’t believable when you claim that isn’t what you were thinking, especially when you subsequently decline to tell us on what basis, on what evidence you would choose to believe that is the Obama’s administrations philosophy.
I don’t think I know the contents of your head better than you do, I just think that after you implied Obama had moved jobs from the public sector to the private sector and I showed you that wasn’t the case you saw a “get out of your own jail free” card based on a technicality and that was preferable to admitting you were wrong. I’m sure I’m not the only one who sees that.
Robert
October 25th, 2012
Timothy, you are a fairly dishones writer. You did NOT mean what you say now that you meant. I have rarely seen you post something that you hadn’t thought out well, except teh Barney bashing posts. If you had meant those things, you would have stated that you meant those things. You did not. You spoke strictly about the numbers and jobs moving from one sector to the other. Your facts, as you presented them in this post, are wrong. At least some people will admit when they make mistakes. It makes you look like a very little man with big issues about truth and honesty by implying things now, in the comments, that you never touched on in the original post.
And then you go on to be shitty to one of the posters because they wont let you get away with the BS. All whilst bemoaning Party Polotics in a differing thread. I think you are not dim, but desperate to be right, even when you provide contradictory statements.
Man Up when you screw up. I thought personal responsibility was supposed to be one of those “conservativ” values you keep yammering about. You, like the LCR and Romney, will say anything.
Timothy Kincaid
October 25th, 2012
You know, I have no idea what to say. Just… wow
charlie
October 25th, 2012
I am with you and this coming from Republican. People can say “well, it is about the economy and jobs,” but Mitt Romney is ok with someone being fired just for being gay so I’d say think about that because he’d be ok giving your job to some God fearing Mormon and not even giving you welfare, unemployment or healthcare. And if you are an ally or friend of someone gay then a vote for Mitt is a vote against your friend. Plenty of Jews voted for Nazis because of the economy and nationalism and how did that turn out for them?
Robert
October 26th, 2012
I know Timothy, sometimes it’s hard to face the facts. Love how you only took part of my line about conservative values, as if you had quoted the entire thing, you would have been pilloried for being obtuse.
You act like those conservative values of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY are important, until you say or do something that requires the use of that idea.
And many times when I read what you write, I too say, just…wow.
As I said, man up and accept responsibility for what you write. Sometimes it is completely different that what you later claim you meant.
Maybe that should tell you something.
Leave A Comment