Soon To Come…

I’m currently writing a term paper for a political science course about the true history of the Democrat party, one that Pelosi & Reid don’t want you to think about. I’ll post a much shorter version here once it’s handed in (it has to be 10 pages long).

Philip is still on semi-hiatus while his work picks up, Steve is up to his eyeballs in tax season, Chris is dealing with house stuff and I’m getting back to both jobs after being laid out with a cold that became pneumonia and is now a cold again. Fun stuff! In the meantime, we’re talking to a couple of folks about joining the ranks of the gayconservative.org staff.

One is good friend Mark Ciavola, founder of Nevada’s RightPride (for whom Chris and I have both guest-blogged). RightPride is a local chapter of gay conservative organization GOProud, and we here at gayconservative.org love our brothers and sisters and support them with everything we’ve got. Mark has become the talk of Las Vegas politics and has been invited to explain his political views by multiple outlets. The list continues to grow: click here to read a recent interview with Mark.

Then come back and tell us that the media isn’t biased. 😉

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Soon To Come…

  1. What the F is the Democrat Party?

    Oh, and the media is biased, just not in the direction you think it is…

  2. If that were true Robert, we’d be hearing a lot less about the 5 times a liberal politician was threatened and more about the million times its happened to conservatives.

    We’d not have to endure listening to people like Matt Lauer link violence to Sarah Palin.

    Here’s what’s happened. The great wisdom of the American people, like the 56 percent of Americans that believe the health care passing will hurt their coverage and will raise costs. How about that (yes for the first time) Republicans jumped ahead this week in the Congressional polls.

    I know, it’s because Americans want them to be MORE liberal, right? That’s why Scott Brown won, I forgot.

  3. “Oh, and the media is biased, just not in the direction you think it is…”

    LOL! Such a funny funny funny remark.

  4. “If that were true Robert, we’d be hearing a lot less about the 5 times a liberal politician was threatened and more about the million times its happened to conservatives.”

    What’s with the moral equivalence? Wrong is wrong. And for the record, I sincerely doubt it happens to conservatives more.

    “We’d not have to endure listening to people like Matt Lauer link violence to Sarah Palin.”

    Okay, forget about Matt Lauer. How about the Secret Service? They’re the ones who informed us that during the 08 campaign, they saw a drastic increase in death threats towards Obama that directly correlated with her stump speeches.

    “Here’s what’s happened. The great wisdom of the American people, like the 56 percent of Americans that believe the health care passing will hurt their coverage and will raise costs.”

    What’s your source? I have mine, and it’s conveniently one of your favorites:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/slim-margin-americans-support-healthcare-bill-passage.aspx

    According to that, most Americans think the passage of the bill was a good thing, in spite of the echo chamber at FOX News telling us that a majority of Americans wanted to scrap the bill. I also can’t help but notice that every single Republican has completely backed off of the meme of repealing this law. They know damn well it can’t be done. I can only assume that they stopped making those kinds of statements because they didn’t want angry teabaggers hurling bricks through their windows when the effort was unsuccessful.

    “How about that (yes for the first time) Republicans jumped ahead this week in the Congressional polls.”

    There seems to be huge discrepancies in the polling, because:

    http://www.dailykos.com/weeklytrends

    If you’re referring to Gallup, there’s a 14 point difference, which is huge. Research 2000 conducts these polls every single week. And unlike Gallup’s presidential polling, party polling is not done on a regular basis.

  5. “Yeah, because Keith Olbermann is sooooo unbiased.

    So is Rachel Maddow.

    And Larry King.

    Thaaaaat’s hilarious.”

    Olbermann and Maddow don’t brand themselves news, and are not the news media. And Larry King doesn’t give two shits about politics. I can all but guarantee you of that. I think it’s hilarious when the bottom of the screen says ‘Politics is King’, which, oddly enough, is only during an election cycle.

    Here’s an awesome little test next time you’re watching a news program (even FOX, if you consider that news. They brand themselves as such). Pay attention to the commercials. Then ask yourself how many of the advertisements feature products that you can go out and buy. When you start to notice things like commercials for natural gas, or offshore drilling, or a fucking turbine from GE, just know that they are indeed the corporate masters. I have no doubt that those companies routinely call up the heads of news networks and threaten to yank however many millions of dollars they have spent on advertising if they don’t kill a story they don’t like. I mean, how many stories aren’t reported by the news? How many of those do you think would cast a negative light on people with a vested interest in that network? Ask yourself why FOX News has never once reported anything negative about Saudi Arabia, and if it has anything to do with the fact that a Saudi Prince is the #2 stockholder in News Corp.

    Theyrule.net is also a pretty cool site that shows you how certain folks sit on interlocking boards, and that a virtual oligopoly exists. And those millionaire and billionaire CEOs most certainly benefit from the conservative agenda. I also think it’s funny that the cons love to point to MSNBC. We all know the anchors have a bias, and that 95% of them are liberal or moderate (poor Scarborough is the only con). And we all know that MSNBC is under the umbrella ownership of General Electric. Anyone who thinks that a defense contractor has a liberal bias is either high or just dumb. They allow this type of programming to run because there is a profit in it. Let’s not forget that before there was a niche for liberal programs, this same network fired Phil Donahue for speaking out against the war and gave notorious hate monger Michael Savage a job.

  6. Michael Savage is a hatemonger? That’s rich. Savage is the right-wing polar opposite of Keith Olbermann. Except Savage has never called a left-winger “a mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”

    I have, many times, seen Fox report negative news on Saudi Arabia. The most recent was the woman who had been raped and, as a VICTIM, sentenced to five years in prison and 200 lashes thanks to Sharia. Fox was all over that story. King Abdullah had to issue an order of leniency, which meant her sentence was reduced, not pardoned. They regularly point out, too, that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. They’ve done that plenty.

    Oh…and if you think other MSM stations don’t have commercials for GE and other such companies, think again.

  7. “Michael Savage is a hatemonger?”

    Are you kidding me? Are you serious right now?

    “Except Savage has never called a left-winger “a mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”

    That would be the nicest thing Savage could say.
    He once told a gay man that he should get AIDS and die, after telling him to choke on a sausage and calling him a “sodomite”. That man is a complete racist, and yes, absolutely a hate monger. He is by far the most hateful human being I have ever heard (sorry, Ms. Coulter). It’s almost like he exists for the sole purpose of spewing excrement.

    “I have, many times, seen Fox report negative news on Saudi Arabia.”

    How recent are those examples? Because I know that this price openly bragged about making Rupert Murdoch back off a story concerning Muslims rioting in France.

    “Oh…and if you think other MSM stations don’t have commercials for GE and other such companies, think again.”

    Um, it was the “other MSM” that I was referring to entirely (I threw FOX in for good measure because I figured it’s all you people watch). That’s my point. Media is incentivized to be biased, and I just think it’s silly that the cons have (by and large, successfully) drilled this meme into people’s heads that there’s some kind of liberal bias in the media. It’s laughable to anyone with an IQ greater than the average speed of a VW Bus.

    Most media organizations have their news division under the umbrella of entertainment. Back before Clinton ruined the industry (actually that was the final nail in the coffin. You can really take it back to Reagan’s refusal to enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust Act), the news media was a losing operation in terms of revenue. Certain criteria needed to be met in order to keep your broadcasting license. Truth was valued back then, and broadcasters would routinely be fired for even being seen talking to people from sales. Today, it’s all about ad sales and loose standards. Why do you think the Citizens United case went largely unreported (and when it was, it was for about fifty seconds)? Because media will be the second biggest beneficiary of that monstrous decision. The Supreme Court just handed them the biggest cash cow they could ever have hoped for. It’s ridiculous. This country was already like 52nd in the world for a free press as it was. What do you think we’ll slip to now? I keep playing that Descendents song in my head; “This Place [Sucks]”…

  8. Actually Robert, days after the Citizens United case, GALLUP’s poll indicated that most Americans agreed with the free speech ruling. It’s still available.

    ABC released a poll like 2 months afterwards and after re-framing the question about 80 times to get the respoonse they wanted and then suddenly it was headlines.

    Now, after the President cried about it like a ninny and insulted the third branch of government during a state of the union address, you’re saying it was largely unreported?

    Robert YOUR guys are in charge now. The day of the ruling, Obama, Schumer, Feingold were all in the headlines damning the Supreme Court for it. It was not kept quiet about and the Supreme Court made a proper ruling since most of the justices have obviously READ the Constitution.

    I would prefer a one-on-one debate between Barack Obama and Sam Alito or John Roberts anyday on the matter of constitutionality.

    If that were allowed to take place, the entire art of liberal caterwauling would be flushed down the commode.

  9. “GALLUP’s poll indicated that most Americans agreed with the free speech ruling. It’s still available.”

    That poll is incredibly contradictory. On the one hand, those polled said that campaign giving was free speech. Then they turned around and said that the laws that apply to individuals should also apply to corporations (which means that corporations should be limited to $2,300 maximum). That kind of blows up your theory that most people think that being able to give unlimited amounts is a good thing. Further still, they said that limiting campaign donations was more important that protecting the “free speech right” of giving to campaigns.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/public-agrees-court-campaign-money-free-speech.aspx

    “ABC released a poll like 2 months afterwards and after re-framing the question about 80 times to get the respoonse they wanted and then suddenly it was headlines.”

    They didn’t re-frame anything. Look at the Gallup poll, it says the same thing. The question Gallup asked was worded very vaguely. “Do you consider money given to political candidates to be a form of free speech protected by the first amendment to the constitution, or not?” Nowhere does the question ask “Do you agree with the court’s decision [that corporations and unions now have the lawful ability to donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns]?”. The next two questions clarify the position of those polled. They don’t think that laws should apply differently depending on whether you’re an individual or an entity created by law. That’s just a ridiculous notion. The fact that you people agree with that notion is a little worrisome, but not surprising, given the predilection of corporate America, and what party they will no doubt donate to.

    ABC’s question is not at all ambiguous or vague:

    “Do you support or oppose the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections?”

    http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1102a6Trend.pdf

    Notice how the question ABC asked gives you additional information and in perfectly clear context? I would wager that at least 85% of the public had no idea that this case was even before the court. Then one day you get a call and someone asks, “do you think giving money to political campaigns is free speech”. Most people have no idea what that is in regards to. So in essence, the poll that you’re relying on says that the majority of Americans agree with the decision, knowing full well they don’t have all the information regarding that. That would be like me getting you on my side by telling you I shot someone in self defense, but completely omitting the part about how I broke into their house to rob them when they attacked me.

    “Now, after the President cried about it like a ninny and insulted the third branch of government during a state of the union address, you’re saying it was largely unreported?”

    The decision itself went largely unreported, yes. By television. It was in print, but who the hell noticed that when nine out of ten people get their version of news from the TV?

    “The day of the ruling, Obama, Schumer, Feingold were all in the headlines damning the Supreme Court for it. ”

    Again, television does not have headlines.

    “It was not kept quiet about and the Supreme Court made a proper ruling since most of the justices have obviously READ the Constitution.”

    How is it a proper ruling when the court overturned nearly a century of law? Where is the precedent in that? Show me where in the Constitution it says that corporations and unions are people. Because last I checked, rights were for people. That word that is used repeatedly in the Constitution, persons, means something. It does not mean corporations or unions. It means human individuals.

    “I would prefer a one-on-one debate between Barack Obama and Sam Alito or John Roberts anyday on the matter of constitutionality.”

    Yeah, you and me both.

    “If that were allowed to take place, the entire art of liberal caterwauling would be flushed down the commode.”

    I sincerely doubt that. No offense, but conservatives understand as much of the Constitution as I do about the fascination with NASCAR. Just look at the passage of the health care bill. People can’t stop screaming about how unconstitutional mandates are. I don’t particularly like that there is a mandate to purchase health insurance, especially since there’s (for now) no public option in the exchange and only one not for profit. But, it’s not unconstitutional. Congress has the authority to regulate commerce. And you have all these attorneys general trying to make a name for themselves by threatening phony lawsuits that are certain to be laughed out of court. They tried the same damn thing in Massachusetts, to no avail. By the way, who else thinks it’s hilarious that Mitt Romney is now calling mandates unconstitutional? The sad truth is, mandates are an advent of the Republicans! They demanded mandates in ’93 for Hillary’s proposal, and they got it in Mass. Now all of a sudden, they’re unconstitutional. You’ve got to appreciate the irony and the utter hypocrisy. This is nothing but posturing. You know as well as I do that Republicans love the idea of handing 33 million new customers over to the private insurance industry.

  10. Saying “Democrat party” only makes you look bad btw.

    And if that “history of the ‘Democrat’ party” you’re talking about involves racism then I’d suggest you drop it before you sabatoge your grade. History lesson, the racist Democrats were all conservatives, which is why they were from the south, then Nixon began the slow process of converting them from Democrat to Dixiecrat and eventually to Republican by appealing to their opposition to LBJ’s support for Civil Rights. They developed a “states’ rights” motto in order to hint to conservative Democrats that they would allow them to re-enact racist policies in their states. Since conservatives were and still are from the south, this process was referred to as the “Southern strategy” and is the reason for the southern conservative dominance in the GOP. Talk about making Sean Hannity’s head explode! lol

    Let me guess, your only reply will be mockery right? Unfortunately for you the only way out of this is to somehow make the case that the south, the historical center of racism, is still Democratic!

    Was that enough for you guys or do I have to copy and paste it? 😉

  11. Well, excuse me, Tom…DemocratIC.

    Having lived in the South I can tell you that 90% of all the black people I knew voted Democrat simply because that’s the party black people are supposed to vote for. I’m not kidding. I can’t tell you how often I’ve heard that.

    I got marked down one point for a couple of typos, BTW. That’s the only point I lost on that paper.

  12. Tom keeps insisting that all conservatives are racists because they used to be Democrats. Yet, when you tell him how successful Republicans were since 1994 with voters, he hails a Democratic 50-year reign as evidence of what Americans want.

    He used to overstate polls. Yet, he won’t pay attention to the ones today…

    The best poll that portrays Obama positively is the GALLUP. Todays daily tracking has him at a 46% approval and a 46 disapproval.

    The next poll shows more than half the country would not elect him to a second term.

    The next poll shows that Republicans are ahead of the Democrats by 6 points for the Congressionals — AND ITS ONLY APRIL.

    So what now, Tom? Is over half the country racists? Oh I bet, they used to be Democrats right?

    LOL.

  13. I don’t believe anyone is a racist for opposing Obama. But you have to pick and choose your talking points Steve. Either the GOP evolved from the backwards racists OR your side had a 40+ long losing streak 😉

    No Steve, I’m not calling anyone racist. I’m not even calling Republicans racist. I’m just clarifying history for you. The next time Sean Hannity repeats that more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act with that unfortunately retarded smile of a special needs child, you’ll know exactly what’s wrong with his point.

    And why aren’t a getting these follow up emails even though I signed up? There’s something wrong with this site. And just curious, what was your paper about Mel?

    Oh, and don’t make me tell you how many people vote Republican just because “they’re Christian” or “I feel like I could have tea with them!” lol.

  14. Oh, I know plenty of people who vote Republican for those very reasons. I know people who will vote for a Republican regardless of the candidate’s stance on issues just because they’re Republican. There’s stupidity on both sides of the aisle. But to expect that because I’m gay or my friend is black that we’re both supposed to vote Democrat and getting angry, hurling insults and calling names when we don’t is the essence of intolerance.

    The paper followed the history of the Republican and Democratic parties (which began as a singular party under Thomas Jefferson).

  15. You raise a good point Mel. But when blacks vote for Democrats just because they’re Democrats, they do so for a reason. Even if that reason is wrong, it at least has to do with the rational belief that their policies benefit them (though I think they’re wrong), but when Republicans vote based just on religion or likability, they make no pretensions in discarding their “god-given” ability to think rationally. They substitute their ability to think independently with whatever the bible says or they just vote with whoever’s “most like them”, like Sarah Palin. Yes, some Democrats voted for Obama just because of “Yes We Can”, but it’s more widespread among Republicans I believe.

  16. Tom, I am just getting bored with being called a racist and having anyone defend true freedom and democracy being labeled that way. It’s time liberals come up with another moniker other than racist or homophobe to describe their opposition, I might die.

    Sean Hannity’s points about civil rights and freeing slaves, etc. is that those acts complied with the Constitution, as he and most conservatives do. So naturally, those things would align with what is perceived as modern day conservatism….or what you call “neocon.”

    Take health care for example. Would it be racist Democrats or liberal Republicans that impose policies on individuals to pay fines for choosing in a free society to not purchase health insurance? Racist policies would place limits on the liberties of those on the basis of what they look like just as fines on those making a choice places limits on their liberties as consumers.

    Affirmative action is an extreme idea which counters what its supposed to prevent. Just as forcing people to buy health insurance counters allegedly providing it for those who want it and cannot afford it.

    Once you peel all the layers away from it, wrong is wrong. Of course nobody should be turned away from a job because they’re black. But nobody should be forced to hire someone for that explicit reason either.

    Nobody should go without health care who needs it. But nobody should be forced to buy it if they don’t want it either.

    That medium acknowledgment is what we call a bipartisan position.

    And when taxes are lowered everywhere and all people have the freedon to work and earn and spend as they choose, more wealth is created. By being free Americans, wealth is spread around in a free market democracy.

    When wealth is created, so are the chances for enriched social services. But when policies are instilled from the government — when it chooses to act as our masters instead of our servants — then bureacracies are created and our taxes pay for senseless bureaucrats that are just as likely to be bought off and bribed as any crook you think you can point out on Wall Street.

    At the end of the day, freedom and liberty is not tied to liberalism or anything this Congress stands for.

    Bush made some questionable choices with spending, yes. Clinton made some as well. GHWB was the first Republican in history to raise taxes. Little by little, it’s been a conditioning for Americans to accept a little bit of socialism at a time.

    But be honest Tom — Obama makes Carter look like Abraham Lincoln.

    Obama is responsible for the creation of the tea parties. We should thank him. Because he is so insane along with Pelosi and Reid (back in the days you said Coulter and Hannity were extremists for warning about this type of situation) with forcing galloping socialism down our throats, Americans can now look back all the way to FDR and figure out how wrong entitlement programs are and what they have done to this country.

    Obama merely woke a sleeping giant. And it cannot be undone….

    So now liberals are going to have to come up with something else other than labeling that commonsense of America as “racists.”

    And I suspect that somewhere in your mind that even you are understanding it. Yes, you make fun of the tea partiers, but in 50 years when this plays out in history books, it’s going to reveal itself for what it really is.

  17. Steve, I’m not calling anyone racist. I have even repeatedly stated that I do not believe someone to be racist for opposing Obama. If calling someone a racist is the worst thing you can do in America, then accusing someone of doing so is the second worst. I’m tired of repeating this Steve. STOP accusing me of accusing others of being racists.

    “ean Hannity’s points about civil rights and freeing slaves, etc. is that those acts complied with the Constitution, as he and most conservatives do. So naturally, those things would align with what is perceived as modern day conservatism….or what you call “neocon.””

    No Steve. You’re just making stuff up at this point. But even if they did make that point, it wouldn’t negate their persistent repeating that “more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act than did Democrats”, a dishonest tidbit Hannity said just recently. He and Coulter have been frequently making the point that they were on the right side of Civil Rights. All I’m doing is debunking their delusion.

    “Take health care for example. Would it be racist Democrats or liberal Republicans that impose policies on individuals to pay fines for choosing in a free society to not purchase health insurance? Racist policies would place limits on the liberties of those on the basis of what they look like just as fines on those making a choice places limits on their liberties as consumers.”

    Oh puhleez Steve you know that that’s just outrageous bullshit.

    And forcing people to buy health insurance only prevents others from having to pay for them when they go to the emergency room without it.

    Not that I don’t agree with you;)

    Cmon Steve don’t use bullshit. You’re better than that.

  18. “And forcing people to buy health insurance only prevents others from having to pay for them when they go to the emergency room without it.”

    That’s rationalizing socialism and the most interesting thing you said. You’re saying that since it’s socialism to pay for someone else’s health care we should correct that in a way that does it anyway yet imposes higher taxes and employs more government workers?

    You saw what happened with social security. New bureaucracies and government workers and big government just couldn’t keep their hands out of it.

    Enriched social services which flourish by the creation of wealth should be there to help people in need. But they should not be required by a government acting as Master instead of Servant.

    And your analogy of allegedly debunking Coulter and Hannity is not a solid argument. It’s spin.

  19. “And your analogy of allegedly debunking Coulter and Hannity is not a solid argument. It’s spin.”

    Nope. It’s solid argument.

    And calm down why doncha.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s