Gay Republicans Are Like Jewish Nazis And Black Klan Members

Michael Musto of the Village Voice is outraged that anyone in the gay community would even consider voting for Mitt Romney:

Ever since the conservative gay group GOProud backed Mitt Romney for President last week–albeit by a very slim margin–the epithets and insults have been hurling at them like taunts at a gay kid.

But this time, the outrage is justified.

I always thought that any gay who backs a candidate that doesn’t support equal rights must have some very scary death wish…

He goes on to say that these Gay Republicans (once profiled in the disinformation documentary of that name) are like Jewish Nazis, Black Klan members, women who campaign for Rush Limbaugh, etc…


Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

51 Comments on "Gay Republicans Are Like Jewish Nazis And Black Klan Members"

  1. JohnFrancisBittrich | Jun 25, 2012 at 3:55 pm |

    Not a Romney fan. As a born-and-bred Bostonian he was a terrible Governor who used my state as a stepping-stone for his own political ambitions. BUT… He actually made lots of remarks and statements supporting homosexuals in the state. I really think he just has to play up the gay hate as a candidate in a national race to keep the support of the Republican base… Why groups like this GOProud are willing to stand with that base in support of ANYTHING, on the other hand… Now that’s a mystery.

  2. Julien_Champagne | Jun 25, 2012 at 4:27 pm |

    The fact that people are going to decide the fate of our nation based on Social Issues people should be able to decide for themselves is very concerning to me. These Social Issues are the main Facade that is what is turning the People’s attention to what the True issues are and blinding us from the criminality that is directly in front of our faces.

    • Signal Reference | Jun 25, 2012 at 9:02 pm |

      51% of the stupid people make decisions for 49% of the clueless. This is your america, this is your democracy. And people will die to maintain that. Pathetic and idiotic..

      we need to go back to community base. Communities decide their own laws and morals as long as it doesnt infringe on others rights or the earth..

      since when is it already for a new yorker to vote how someone in cali wants to live..

      the whole system is pathetic and ego driven. and u wonder why the world hates americans..its cause they do it to themselves..

    • Liam_McGonagle | Jun 26, 2012 at 11:29 am |

      I tend to agree.  I might even go so far as to question the validity of the term “Social Issue”–given the patent irrelevancy of the sexual mores of my neighbors three blocks down, whom I’ve never met and whose names I am ever likely to learn.  Not an issue at all, unless I’m so hopelessly inept and disengaged as a parent that total strangers have greater influence over my children than I do.

      But I still find it fascinating, as an exercise in mental and emotional identification, to try to understand WHY some dumbf*ck would give a sh*t about with whom a random and total stranger is sleeping.  Right now, I put it down to a desparate search for agency.

      It’s pretty clear that we live in a world where the options for 99% of individuals are pretty narrowly prescribed by harsh economic realities.  The average Joe’d be lucky to fight his way to a middle management position in some horrible, mysanthorpic corporate vehicle for the inherited greed, vanity and personal insecurity of an incomptent 1%-er.

      That doesn’t leave a f*ck load of time and energy to make in-depth historical and philosophical investigations into those few public issues where his or her opinion is even paid nominal lip service.  And there is next to zero chance that such a person will be able to defer or abandon his family and financial responsibilties so far as to run for office, even on the (extremely) off chance that he’d be able to attract enough contributions to make a candidacy viable.

      Given this grim, picture, the only realistic method of asserting that one’s individual autonomy is to kick the dog.  No, Fido didn’t establish the sh*tty mortgage underwriting policies that tanked the working end of the capital markets, but he is handy and is not likely to put up much of a fight, given that he’s been neutered and enured to an infantile dependence on his keepers since birth.  SOMEONE has to be punished, after all.

      And most of all, it allows one to feel like a man without actually having to act like one.

      I’m pretty sure that things will have to get unspeakably worse before they begin to get even the slightest bit better.  But I’m also convinced that when a real leader finally does emerge, it’ll be someone who understands very well why the average American might be inclined to waste their time on Social “Issues”–and not just write them off as stupid white trash.* 

      *Though a lot of them likely are stupid white trash, in my opinion.

      • Marxist Hypocrisy 101 | Aug 16, 2012 at 1:37 pm |

        “The average Joe’d be lucky to fight his way to a middle management position in some horrible, mysanthorpic corporate vehicle for the inherited greed, vanity and personal insecurity of an incomptent 1%-er.”

         . . . aaaand HERE’S the exact moment you stopped making sense, and veered off into incoherent and unsupported conspiracy theory rambling land. The fact that you then attempt to go on and pull the usual trick of exonerating the government from it’s own actions by scapegoating them on private business says everything.

        • David Howe | Aug 25, 2012 at 10:15 am |

          THe more you post, the more ignorant you look

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 13, 2014 at 9:06 pm |

            Perhaps try refuting some points? I can tell you, the folks around here will take an ad hominem attack like that and assume that you look ignorant.

  3. What does it matter what Republicans think? Their base is the Evangelical movement, which is heretical. They have placed the worship of Mammon over that of Jesus and thus every last one of them should be burned at the stake.

    Now you are asking me about how Gays and Republicans don’t get along? What does it matter what demon worshipers think?

  4. Julien_Champagne | Jun 25, 2012 at 5:44 pm |

    On another note, Why is it that people should be labeled at all? It is from these labels where Ego is formed, and Hate and Fear take control of you.

    • Signal Reference | Jun 25, 2012 at 9:00 pm |

       thank you julien. so nice to see someone else gets it

    • TruthVybes | Jun 25, 2012 at 9:47 pm |

      Indeed. Labels box perception and can create judgements from preconceived notions. Religion is to fear and guilt what psychiatry (labels) are to self-doubts. Nothing’s really black and white..

    • While I do understand you, I also must point out that
      without moderation by a certain measure of realism
      that naive point of view can get you hurt or killed. 

      Some people sincerely believe in those labels, and are
      very invested in them. In some parts of the world, it can
      still cost you your life to be gay.

      While wrong, stupid and terrible, it is also a fact.

  5. Liam_McGonagle | Jun 25, 2012 at 6:08 pm |

    Wow.  Went for the Nazi thing right out of the gate.

  6. > Gay Republicans Are Like:
    Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the NeoConmen

    in fact, American politics in general is totally gay

    •  Which reminds me of a zinger I used in my act long ago:

      “There’s only reason the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws nationwide…because it was the only way to legalize what Bush and Cheney were doing to the country.”

      • unfortunately
        it’s just not this country they been sticking it to

        • Marxist Hypocrisy 101 | Aug 16, 2012 at 1:23 pm |

           . . . in case you haven’t been paying attention for the past four years, the Obama regime has started illegal wars, dropped bombs on civilians, spied and even executed American citizens without trial and tried, made it possible for the federal governmentto dictate every nuance of an individual’s behavior through rampant taxation, and tied at every step of the way, to stamp out the US Constitution.

          It’s far past time to stop crying about a president who hasn’t been in opffice for four years, and never will be again, and focus on the people who are CURRENTLY doing damage.

  7. HopeyChangey | Jun 26, 2012 at 1:33 pm |

    Dear Michael Musto:

    Yes, it is indeed possible to be both gay and fiscally conservative. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp? There are many fiscal conservatives – both gay and straight – who are horrified by the way in which the Republican party has been hijacked by frothing ideologists and extremists who choose to focus on the “evils” of butt sex and abortion rather than on balancing the budget and creating new jobs. The reason that some gay men and women choose to vote for Republican candidates is because they are choosing to put their hopes for the economy above their personal fears/reservations regarding civil rights. In other words, they have prioritized their values and made a choice to compromise…a decision which I suspect they find extremely distasteful. Because in an idealized world, they would not have to make such a choice…The main problem here – once again – is the absurdity of our two-party system. Imagine a world where such compromises were unnecessary. If we were to eliminate the electoral college and make it the law that everyone has to vote – even if you only check off the box for “abstain” – then I suspect our political landscape would be transformed overnight. There could be three or fifteen or seventy-two different political parties. Don’t see a party which matches your specific set of ideals and values? Start your own! 

    I am somewhat sympathetic toward the members of GOProud because – as a gay man myself – I know what it is like to wrestle with these issues of compromise, although I am (admittedly) coming from the opposite end of the political spectrum. I am predominantly progressive and voted for Obama in the hopes that he would be the true Champion of Change. Instead, we wound up with another war criminal who would rather help bail out Wall Street than Main Street and who would prefer seeing the health insurance companies make even more money rather than giving us the option for single payer…

    So I took all of my frustration and sadness and anger and did something unprecedented: I voted for Ron Paul – a Republican with whom I disagree as frequently as I agree. Because when push comes to shove, there are three issues which I agree with him on so strongly (bringing home ALL of the troops asap; eliminating the Patriot Act and the NDAA; and legalizing ALL drugs across the board) that I am willing to compromise some of my morals on other issues which I find less pressing.  

    At the end of the day, you have to make a moral choice…one which will allow you to look in the mirror without feeling any guilt/shame and which will allow you to sleep at night. And until we have true freedom of choice when it comes to electing our politicians – a day in which every single vote is tallied and scored – then we will have to continue making these unsavory decisions.  


    An Informed & Conscientious Voter Who Refuses to be Pigeonholed by the Likes of You 

    • David Howe | Aug 25, 2012 at 10:02 am |

      The moral choice is clear.  Spare me the false equivalencies and make yourself a two-column list.  I dare ya.

  8. I’m a bit torn here. As a non-standard independent voter…its hard to watch the vitriol spread into the gay press the way its already consumed the right wing press. Conservative culture hasn’t been about real fiscal austerity in decades…its been about lavish expenditures on military junkets and massive tax breaks for wealthy or business interests…with no strings attached to encourage hiring, wages, development or responsibility. Its been about the social wars of culture that bring us daily diatribes about the evils of women having choice over their bodies, gays having choice over being alive at all, and religions not being allowed carte blanche to operate as political outfits with a tax free status.

    So…while I disagree with the GOP and conservatism on almost everything…theres no excuse for throwing histrionic fits and accusing conservative gays of being black Klansmen or Jewish nazis. They may be deluded and wrong…but its not motivated by self hatred or self destructive impulses. Modern gays in the GOP have fallen prey to the same dodgy logic that most straight members of the GOP buy into. The constant babble about fiscal responsibility and cautious policy…which is great talk…but thats all it is…TALK. None of it resembles the actions of the GOP. Straight people who vote conservative aren’t doing it because they hate themselves…they’re doing it because they believe the rhetoric instead of the evidence. Likewise modern libertarianism…which is more bold chatter…with a slightly different angle…but with nearly the same fiscal results in real time policy… ‘fewer regulations’ on already underregulated companies, fewer expenditures on government programs that actually work when funded, fewer controls on an already unrestrained level of market freedom for the elite few.

    If the bold talk of fiscal responsibility had included any action that supported it over the last 40 years…I might very well be swayed to support a few GOP candidates as well…but since the new trend is toward appeasing an ever more crazy and isolated base made of religious fundamentalists and white power advocates…theres no excuse left for supporting them…even a little…ever.

    Shit…theres no excuse for supporting the DNC either. You can find the same business friendly, prison for profit, military junket loving, free market twaddle on the Dems side just as easy. The only thing you can’t find is frothing gay hate on the same level as the GOP. And that makes this a case of single issue politics…which gay Americans need to wake up and notice…because they don’t have anyone in their corner…they just have one side that isn’t actively against them. Single issue voting is one of the worst trends in American politics…and its made narrow elections a workable paradigm instead of the embarrassment they should be. Go third party if you really want something different…because real change isn’t coming from the two monolithic entrenched dinosaurs of stagnant apathy that make up our current government.

    • TennesseeCyberian | Jun 26, 2012 at 4:12 pm |

      I know a few gay people who are very fiscally conservative, and that seems to be the appeal of the Republican party to them.  As you say, though, the Republicans have been only slightly more thrifty for the last couple of decades.

      Just curious.  What do you mean by “gays having a choice about being alive at all”?  Are you referring to government funding for HIV treatments?

      • I wouldn’t say they’ve been slightly more thrifty at all. Anymore…its just a difference between where the money will wind up going…either major party is heavily vested in taking massive piles of cash and sending it to their allies…so no matter who we vote for…its just semantics…the debt will climb and huge amounts of money will be flung every which way.

        On the gays thing: I mean that the rhetoric coming from the right wing fundamentalist fringe includes chatter of deportation, jail or death camps for homosexuals. Forced therapy, sterilization, etc. Its important to note that the GOP mainstream hasn’t embraced these extreme comments…but its equally important to note that they haven’t rebuked or refuted the commenters either. The party is open and welcoming towards the worst kind of violent rhetoric…especially toward gays.

        • TennesseeCyberian | Jun 26, 2012 at 5:19 pm |

          Are any of these religious calls to exterminate gays documented on the Internet? If so, do you have any links handy?

          • So you’re unaware of any harmful, violent, commentary by conservatives toward gays? Really? I gotta sit still and google past articles where various religious nuts have spouted off? Okay.




            or just use the term Westboro Baptist in a search. For that matter, look up the Aryan Nation or W.A.R and track their stances on homosexuals. I mean, in all deadly seriousness…to wonder if people hold these stances and want gays dead, re-educated, jailed etc…is to suggest that you’ve lived in a media free environment most of your life.

            Seriously…use google, be creative, you can find thousands of these articles yourself. What you won’t find is GOP mainstreamers coming down from their perches to disavow any of this. They won’t agree with it or join in the frenzy (most of the time)…but the usual response is to not mention it at all and make vague policy statements that seem anti-gay enough to keep the fringe happy.

          • TennesseeCyberian | Jun 26, 2012 at 6:41 pm |

            I have seen a lot of coverage of the Westboro Baptist Church and that video of the kid singing “ain’t no homos gonna get into heaven.”  Those guys don’t like gay people, but I’ve never heard of Westboro making physical threats (other than warning that God will fuck gay people and American soldiers up.)

            I’d never seen the Jane Velez-Mitchell show because I don’t have a television. 

            No sense in getting snippy with me.  I was just curious if you were referring to specific instances of “conservatives” putting a stop to “gays having choice over being alive at all.”  The articles you linked to don’t really involve deporting, jailing, or killing anyone, just nutters saying “I really don’t like gay people” and a political flyer saying unflattering things about gay people.  The evidence in the video was what I was asking for, though it’s a stretch to link fringe preachers to Republicans who don’t seem to give a fuck about them.  Have any Democrats ever denounced Dan Savage, who is much more influential than any radical pastor?

            People who taunt fundamentalists often ask: If the Bible is true word-for-word then shouldn’t we put gays to death?  Apparently some fringe preachers are prepared to cover their asses and say, “Yes.”  My next question for them would be, “When was the last time you ate pulled pork?”  If that didn’t stump them, I’d go for the cheeseburger.

          • One pastor in the headlines…in a compilation of the latest tidbits from the last few months…there are a lot more like him, and Dan Savage isn’t calling for their deaths. Likewise I mentioned more than just death calls, but imprisonment calls (recriminalization of homosexuality), which were also commonplace, and forced therapy…which is extremely popular among the fundies (Check up on Mrs. Bachmann) . If you’re going to ask someone for evidence from the internet that people espouse these views rather than looking them up yourself…don’t get injured and defensive when it turns out to be available for anyone with a computer and a search bar. I may sound snarky…but its mostly from a sense of exhaustion when I know I’m about to provide someone what they ask for…when it won’t change their mind because they don’t want it changed. I don’t watch TV news either. I read my news…online…from dozens of source sites…usually aggregate sites that gather strings of articles linked by theme…so I can scan thru them and read the most interesting faster. The examples above are a drop in the bucket…I shouldn’t have to document the past centuries worth of rhetoric on your behalf just because you haven’t been keeping up with easily available info. The only way to not know about the environment of open hostility is to avoid it passively by never reading anything related to it. If you want to keep better tabs on the topic, the info is out there to be had…and it isn’t hard to find.

            Point being…only one party encourages, husbands, and welcome the crazy fringe of death camp fantasists. I just got finished up above decrying the gay press for indulging in similar conduct (although not nearly as radical as calls for death)…so mentioning that Dan Savage is mean and rude isn’t a good way to dodge the issue that the GOP makes its doors open for a specific breed of lunatic…the violent homophobe. To date…Dan Savage hasn’t resulted in a major shift of public policy…the religious right voters have.

            Only one party puts forward state by state efforts to re-criminalize homosexuality, ban gay marraiges/unions/benefits/discrimination protections etc. To draw a correlation between conservative fringe elements delivering extreme hate speech and a party that remains the only vehicle for anti-gay legislation…is not a leap of faith or a leap of logic. So…not to be harsh…because you seem like a decent fella, but the GOP track record speaks for itself.

            Since, after asking for info on statements by people, then deciding that isn’t sufficient…you may not recall some of the more candid comments from actual Republican politicians…elected, in office, career members of the GOP. Feel free to look up Jesse Helms thoughts on homosexuals during the AIDS crisis…then tell me again that death camp/deportation fantasies are limited exclusively to fringe cults and have no welcome place at the GOP table. It isn’t just the lonely religious fringe…its also the elected reps of the lonely fringe.

            End point…the hate is out there…and it makes anything Dan Savage ever spewed pale in comparison…and it only has one home…in modern conservatism. Now I may hate the DNC for being a pack of worthless milquetoasts who paint themselves as opposed to social conservatives but couldn’t really give a shit…but at the end of the day the GOP hasn’t removed the welcome mat for open calls for violence against homosexuals…despite many opportunities to distance itself from extremes inside the parties elected members. I don’t see them changing that pattern of welcoming behavior anytime soon, so this just adds one more item to the long long list of reasons who I won’t touch any member of the GOP with a borrowed ten foot pole.

            As a reference source, you can also visit the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) for information on organized hategroups, their policy stances, violence rates against a wide array of minorities, information on politicians recent and past rhetoric etc. Its a very helpful site in that respect…although more from a number crunching perspective than a case by case perspective.

            LOL…the Old testament quoters. I always hit em with “Ahhh… I see…the Old Testament still counts as literal. So will you be telling your flock that bacon and sausage for breakfast will send them to hell…or will you be shutting the fuck up anytime soon?” 🙂

          • TennesseeCyberian | Jun 26, 2012 at 10:02 pm |

            Believe me, I wouldn’t ask if I wasn’t going to carefully consider your response.

          • TennesseeCyberian | Jun 26, 2012 at 10:03 pm |

            I appreciate you taking the time.

          • TennesseeCyberian | Jul 9, 2012 at 5:05 pm |

            I know this is a dead discussion thread, but in case you check your Diqus account directly:

            I’ve been reading the SPLC reports for about a year, albeit with skepticism. I came across this today, from a gay academic (note the end of the post):


            Then there is this, linked in the comments:


          • You’ll note that the second complainant seems to have forgotten that assigning the title ‘hate group’ to a hate group…generally based on teh extreme nature of speech/print involved and the policy changes being campaigned for (and lets not forget the certain cases of direct violence actually committed (Southern baptist Army Of God bombing campaign etc))…is not the same as denying the right to print/speak their manic ramblings. What it does do is catalog those ramblings, heighten awareness of their violent nature, and help to prevent financial and public support for such groups by exposing them loudly. All of this is inside the boundaries of constitutional law. Basically…the linked comment seems to completely ignore that free speech works two ways. Neo-nazis can organize and babble…and others are entitled to make note of them, organize against them and babble against them. It reeks of the standard reverse op where the embittered and frustrated racist/sexist/homophobe decries his detractors for calling him out. Additionally, being denoted as a hate group is comparatively hard to accomplish…and the FBI has no such list because ‘hate groups’ are inconsequential until they become active in violent or serious crime that crosses state lines. Why the commenter even mentioned the FBI to lend credence to himself I cant even imagine…it only seems to prove that he has a weak grasp on any real points and has to fall back on implication by association (ie. if the FBI doesn’t do it…it can’t be worthwhile as an activity.)

            Still, at the top of the first linked article, while the author later complains of the conduct inside the SPLC, he at no point debunks any of their numbers…he makes an assertion that the people he has dealt with were self serving bigots in their own right…but he doesn’t have any rebuttal of the numbers…or of the incidents cataloged by the SPLC (which are hard to deny…since they pretty much are made up of people damning themselves with their own words.)

            As for organizations that seem to feel maligned for being added to the list (League of the South etc)…there may indeed be a tiny fringe that is far more radical than most. That alone isn’t sufficient for inclusion as a hate group, or every organization in America would be added by default…whats left unmentioned in the complaint is the process of clarification that must have ended in some adamant refusal to reject that fringes conduct (an exceedingly common occurrence when the mother organization harbors a lot of people who agree but don’t dare say it aloud. In the case of the League…you’d be astonished by the sheer volume of Southern ‘historians’ who will state that are not in any way racist…and then cite the belief that negroes are unfit to care for themselves and require owners for their own well being. Yes…I’ve actually had that conversation first hand. Cognitive dissonance is a conservative specialty.)

            SO we have 1) a blogger who may agree with the SPLC on all other things…but had unsatisfactory (and un-detailed) differences with the staff…and 2) a nearly infantile screed by a commenter with a pretty clear axe to grind that he doesn’t grind well.

            Which leaves us with a the question…what does that have to do with direct evidence of violent homophobic fantasism and policy direction being tolerated and discreetly encouraged among the modern conservatives?

            I’m kind of left with the impression that, despite ironclad, measurable, easily viewable evidence provided by the words of people themselves…you’re still reaching for a way to shift topic into minutia and hope thats sufficient as a rebuttal.

            I’m not saying we can’t do it all again…comb the web and list reams of anti-gay screeds including calls for death, deportation, forced re-education etc…but is there something specific you’d like? If you want to raise the bar…we can go a little higher, if you want to alter the qualifications beyond giving substance to my statements at the top, we can do that too. And I really don’t mean to make this to sound snarky…but the only way to dodge the bullet here is just to say “OK…there are people with violently anti gay opinions…they gravitate exclusively to the political right because they are partially welcomed instead of shut out on principle, and their speech and writing indicates a desire for violent, vindictive attacks on human beings based on their sexuality.”

          • TennesseeCyberian | Jul 14, 2012 at 11:08 pm |

            My post was not intended as a “rebuttal,” it was simply interesting and reminded me of your SPLC recommendation. There was nothing to rebut. I asked you to give me examples of anti-gay violence or explicit calls to violence coming out of churches. You gave me one very helpful link (the others don’t qualify) and recommended the SPLC. I thanked you for the former, but have questions about the latter.

            Whatever their virtues may be, the SPLC drums up irrational fears of various “ism”-wielding boogy men and they reap impressive salaries for their efforts. They attract and exploit those on the left who cling to fear.

            I never claimed that conservatives don’t harbor anti-gay sentiments, but I do stand behind the conviction that the fear of an impending homophobic Christian holocaust is based on exaggeration and fantasy, like Obama’s alleged “death panels.” For every Matthew Shepard, there are dozens of violent crimes motivated by race-hatred, gender-hatred, class-hatred, religious-hatred, etc. etc. Gays aren’t special because some people hate them. I have nothing against pro-gay stances, but it does irk me when pro-gay rhetoric bleeds into hyperbolic accusations against the mean ol’ “conservatives” who allegedly harbor genocidal intent. It’s a cheap shot full of hot air and hysteria. And kind of girly for a man’s man.

            As per your request:

            “there are people with violently anti gay opinions…”


            “they gravitate exclusively to the political right”

            With the exception of Muslim fundamentalists who hide behind the left’s “tolerance.”

            “their speech and writing indicates a desire for violent, vindictive attacks on human beings based on their sexuality.”

            Agreed, but we all have our dreams, don’t we?

            You talk about cognitive dissonance on the right, and I won’t deny that for a minute. People are strange animals. But would you not agree that the same sorts of irreconcilable elements exist on the left?

            Like homosexuals and feminists who defend Islam. Or “Peace in the Middle East” marchers who recoil at the first hint of anti-Semitism. Or wealthy whites who condemn white privilege. Or American blacks who admonish whites to disavow white privilege but do not disavow the Western privilege that keeps them from starving like Africans. Or a nationally syndicated anti-bullying activist who publicly wishes death upon his ideological opponents and curses at grade-schoolers who don’t like him.

            Anti-bigot scare tactics are silly. So is simplistic left/right, in-group/out-group sneering, even if it is a lot of fun. I see no rational means by which a few gay-bashing bumpkins can be used to condemn all conservatives, and no good reason for the fear of their existence to pile up a fortune for the minority-defending white people who run the SPLC.

          • Marxist Hypocrisy 101 | Aug 16, 2012 at 1:33 pm |

            “Point being…only one party encourages, husbands, and welcome the crazy fringe of death camp fantasists”

            Given their history of idolizing and/or obfuscating the atrocities committed by death camp junkies like Vladimir Lenin, Fidel Castro, the Sandinistas and so forth, if we’re going to erroneously claim that only one party fantasizes about death camps, that would be the Leftists and the Democrats.

            After all, Franklin Delano Roosevelt is the only president of the of the past 100 years to employ them.

          • David Howe | Aug 25, 2012 at 10:13 am |

            wow.  that’s quite a conflation you’ve got going there.  Just admit that you’re a bigot and defend it.

          • Here’s a single link that may indicate the collusion between American Religious Right and actual organized violence (state sanctioned or otherwise).

            May not be what you’re looking for, but it is something.


          • TennesseeCyberian | Jun 26, 2012 at 10:12 pm |

            Very helpful. This article makes me think of the response to Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage. It also reminds me of the video of Ugandan Pastor Martin “eat da poo poo” Sempa, which, if you haven’t seen it…


          • That’s rich.

            That’s some of the funniest shit I’ve seen in days and it’s only made funnier by the fact that they seem to be entirely serious.

          • TennesseeCyberian | Jun 27, 2012 at 1:27 am |

            Oh, they’re serious.  Jason Russell of Kony 2012 fame is a supporter of Martin Sempa.

          • David Howe | Aug 25, 2012 at 10:12 am |

             and the argument from ignorance continues.  And you’re running interferance for these people.  “unflattering”?  nice job of rationalizing the hate that you asked to see.

          • Marxist Hypocrisy 101 | Aug 16, 2012 at 1:29 pm |

            If you’re going to cite the Westboro baptist nutjobs as being indicative of Conservative ideology, I’m going to take  your logic one step further and claim that Liberals are even MORE anti-homosexuality given their frequent policies of appeasal and apologism to Islamist groups and murderous scumbags like Fidel Castro.

            See how that works?

          • David Howe | Aug 25, 2012 at 10:08 am |

             Ho hum.  Another false dilemma.  Anne Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, every Republican candidate in every district in this whole country.  Argument from Ignorance.

          • Or for a fast check that won’t exhaust your time…heres a media compilation for the last few months


          • David Howe | Aug 25, 2012 at 10:06 am |

             Good God, man.  Come out from under your rock.

    • Vox Magi is an Idiot | Aug 16, 2012 at 1:25 pm |

      “free market twaddle on the Dems side just as easy.”


    • David Howe | Aug 25, 2012 at 10:05 am |

      Yet another false dilemma.  whatever it takes to excuse your Republican vote, I guess.

  9. The problem with labels, hell the problem with language for that matter –

    Anyway, here’s this. They were “lesbian” (sorry for the use of quotes, didn’t
    know how else to convey the imaginary importance some infuse that word with) 

  10. Marxist Hypocrisy 01 | Aug 16, 2012 at 1:18 pm |

    And one could just as easily turn around and make similar claims about black and japanese voters upporting the party of segregation, lynchmobs and internment camps.

    • David Howe | Aug 25, 2012 at 10:00 am |

      Deflection and lies.  That’s quite an operation you’ve got going.  You realize that Democrats no longer support segregation, right?  They haven’t for quite some time.  etc.

Comments are closed.