1969912 0 #1 August 28, 2007 The recent "rash" of prominent Republicans being outed as FudgePackers brings up some important questions. Which party, Democrat or Republican, packs the most fudge? Is the rate of queer ButtSex and disgusting public-restroom glory-hole blowjobs by party "members" important? If so, in what way? Should political parties be required to provide "truth-in-Buggery" statistics? Doing so would certainly reduce costs incurred by parties in an effort to detect and make public acts of faggotry by members of opposing parties. Just food for thought to be taken penis in..., er, tongue in cheek. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2 August 28, 2007 Wouldn't that be ALL of them (House and Senate, both sides of the aisle), since they pack it up OUR asses every chance they get?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 August 28, 2007 They are probably in equal numbers. Somehow, I would not think that being gay would implicate your beliefs with regard to war, tax cuts, etc. On ewould think that they are mutually exclusive. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #4 August 29, 2007 QuoteThey are probably in equal numbers. Somehow, I would not think that being gay would implicate your beliefs with regard to war, tax cuts, etc. On ewould think that they are mutually exclusive. The numbers are not bearing that out... but it is important to remember WHICH party supports everything out there that is anti-gay.... and plays that to their base incessantly.. defense of marriage act etc.....and pretends to be the most moral.....so when they get caught with their pants down and their cock in a glory hole...... it does make for much better press..... the whole holier than thou thing seems to be biting SOOOO Many of them on their ass... so I guess they must like that sort of thing. Live by the Karl Rove wdgie issue.. and die politically by the same issue when you are found to be as big a hypocrite as he is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #5 August 29, 2007 Well, it seems that you have posted about far more Republican gays than Democratic gays. There is a large contingent of "Log Cabin" Republicans. Know that there are PLENTY of gay Republicans. Gays in leadership positions. Many don't flaunt it. They don't use the "gay card" for or against and let their ideas stand alone. And, if the Republican party was as anti-gay as you suggest, why on Earth would there be ANY gays at all in it? There is no black faction of the KKK. There was no "Jews for Hitler" faction. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #6 August 29, 2007 Quote And, if the Republican party was as anti-gay as you suggest, why on Earth would there be ANY gays at all in it? I chalk it up to self loathing and all that societal imposed guilt and since I am not a psychologist I cant possibly define delusional for you. I suppose some in the Log Cabin groups actually believe the crap that the party has been spoon feeding them... about smaller government.... fiscal conservatism... you kpow stuff that used to define the republican party.. but has not existed now for quite some time. You see them at the conventions.. and you have to note the disdain and status of red headed stepchild status they get from the Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family.. you know the Morality and family values crowd.... who love the sinner.. not the sinOh.. and there were Jews who supported Hitler.. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EL09Aa01.html It was not so long ago that the orthodox rabbis of Berlin liked Adolf Hitler for precisely the same reason that many Muslims do today, namely as an antidote to moral decay in the modern world. No, this is not an out-take from The Producers. The story is told in Mark Shapiro's recent book, Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy: The Life and Works of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #7 August 29, 2007 QuoteWell, it seems that you have posted about far more Republican gays than Democratic gays. There is a large contingent of "Log Cabin" Republicans. Know that there are PLENTY of gay Republicans. Gays in leadership positions. Many don't flaunt it. They don't use the "gay card" for or against and let their ideas stand alone. And, if the Republican party was as anti-gay as you suggest, why on Earth would there be ANY gays at all in it? There is no black faction of the KKK. There was no "Jews for Hitler" faction. Nothing at all wrong with being gay. Everything wrong with being gay while courting votes with anti-gay rhetoric. One party seems to have a monopoly on this.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #8 August 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteWell, it seems that you have posted about far more Republican gays than Democratic gays. There is a large contingent of "Log Cabin" Republicans. Know that there are PLENTY of gay Republicans. Gays in leadership positions. Many don't flaunt it. They don't use the "gay card" for or against and let their ideas stand alone. And, if the Republican party was as anti-gay as you suggest, why on Earth would there be ANY gays at all in it? There is no black faction of the KKK. There was no "Jews for Hitler" faction. Nothing at all wrong with being gay. Everything wrong with being gay while courting votes with anti-gay rhetoric. One party seems to have a monopoly on this. The best examples of anti-gay rhetoric lately seem to be coming from Democrats attempting to embarrass Republicans with examples of queer homo's in the Republican party. One party also seems to have a monopoly on unhappy gay's, and that would be the Democrat party. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #9 August 29, 2007 QuoteIs the rate of queer ButtSex and disgusting public-restroom glory-hole blowjobs by party "members" important? If so, in what way? Should political parties be required to provide "truth-in-Buggery" statistics? Doing so would certainly reduce costs incurred by parties in an effort to detect and make public acts of faggotry by members of opposing parties. And QuoteThe best examples of anti-gay rhetoric lately seem to be coming from Democrats attempting to embarrass Republicans with examples of queer homo's in the Republican party. Are you SURE about where the ANTI-GAY rhetoric is coming from???? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #10 August 29, 2007 Another thought... maybe they're just trying to get rid of those last couple of differences between the parties? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #11 August 29, 2007 >The best examples of anti-gay rhetoric lately seem to be coming from >Democrats attempting to embarrass Republicans with examples of queer >homo's in the Republican party. As opposed to straight homos? All the straight homos I know are pretty conflicted, so maybe being a queer homo is a good thing in the long run. Let's see how those republicans are supporting their brother in arms: "Craig’s behavior is so reckless and repulsive that an immediate exit is required…He has to go." - Hugh Hewitt "I’m inclined to agree with Hugh Hewitt. The Senator did, after all, choose to plead guilty." - Mark Steyn, NRO "Hugh Hewitt calls for his resignation. At the least, he should confirm that he will not run again." - Captain’s Quarters "He’s a lying crapweasel. Should he resign? Well, yeah. If he cared about the dignity of his office, he would. But he obviously doesn’t, does he?" - Michelle Malkin "He’s pled guilty. And we’re just finding out about it today. I can only say he must resign." - Erick Erickson of Redstate Yep, one side is certainly engaging in some anti-gay rhetoric! >One party also seems to have a monopoly on unhappy gay's, and that >would be the Democrat party. Which unhappy gays would those be? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #12 August 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWell, it seems that you have posted about far more Republican gays than Democratic gays. There is a large contingent of "Log Cabin" Republicans. Know that there are PLENTY of gay Republicans. Gays in leadership positions. Many don't flaunt it. They don't use the "gay card" for or against and let their ideas stand alone. And, if the Republican party was as anti-gay as you suggest, why on Earth would there be ANY gays at all in it? There is no black faction of the KKK. There was no "Jews for Hitler" faction. Nothing at all wrong with being gay. Everything wrong with being gay while courting votes with anti-gay rhetoric. One party seems to have a monopoly on this. The best examples of anti-gay rhetoric lately seem to be coming from Democrats attempting to embarrass Republicans with examples of queer homo's in the Republican party. One party also seems to have a monopoly on unhappy gay's, and that would be the Democrat party. You are very confused. It's anti hypocrite rhetoric you are hearing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #13 August 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell, it seems that you have posted about far more Republican gays than Democratic gays. There is a large contingent of "Log Cabin" Republicans. Know that there are PLENTY of gay Republicans. Gays in leadership positions. Many don't flaunt it. They don't use the "gay card" for or against and let their ideas stand alone. And, if the Republican party was as anti-gay as you suggest, why on Earth would there be ANY gays at all in it? There is no black faction of the KKK. There was no "Jews for Hitler" faction. Nothing at all wrong with being gay. Everything wrong with being gay while courting votes with anti-gay rhetoric. One party seems to have a monopoly on this. The best examples of anti-gay rhetoric lately seem to be coming from Democrats attempting to embarrass Republicans with examples of queer homo's in the Republican party. One party also seems to have a monopoly on unhappy gay's, and that would be the Democrat party. You are very confused. It's anti hypocrite rhetoric you are hearing. Not very much compassion from the "Party of Acceptance", hmm?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #14 August 29, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Well, it seems that you have posted about far more Republican gays than Democratic gays. There is a large contingent of "Log Cabin" Republicans. Know that there are PLENTY of gay Republicans. Gays in leadership positions. Many don't flaunt it. They don't use the "gay card" for or against and let their ideas stand alone. And, if the Republican party was as anti-gay as you suggest, why on Earth would there be ANY gays at all in it? There is no black faction of the KKK. There was no "Jews for Hitler" faction. Nothing at all wrong with being gay. Everything wrong with being gay while courting votes with anti-gay rhetoric. One party seems to have a monopoly on this. The best examples of anti-gay rhetoric lately seem to be coming from Democrats attempting to embarrass Republicans with examples of queer homo's in the Republican party. One party also seems to have a monopoly on unhappy gay's, and that would be the Democrat party. You are very confused. It's anti hypocrite rhetoric you are hearing. Not very much compassion from the "Party of Acceptance", hmm? Well, you can accept hypocrisy if you wish. It would fit right in with supporting a lying President.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #15 August 29, 2007 QuoteThe best examples of anti-gay rhetoric lately seem to be coming from >Democrats attempting to embarrass Republicans with examples of queer >homo's in the Republican party. As opposed to straight homos? All the straight homos I know are pretty conflicted, so maybe being a queer homo is a good thing in the long run. "That dawg is a gay homosekshul!" Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #16 August 29, 2007 QuoteAnd, if the Republican party was as anti-gay as you suggest, why on Earth would there be ANY gays at all in it? faction. because republicans can be just as hypocritical as democrats many, if not most, politicians have a "do as i say, not as i do" attitude. niether party has a monopoly on that. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #17 August 29, 2007 >>And, if the Republican party was as anti-gay as you suggest, why on >>Earth would there be ANY gays at all in it? >because republicans can be just as hypocritical as democrats And because being gay is generally not something someone just decides one day to do. Republicans are as human as any other political types, and have the same sort of physical urges and desires as anyone else. (And has about the same likelihood of acting on them as anyone else, if recent history is a guide.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #18 August 29, 2007 Quote Well, you can accept hypocrisy if you wish. It would fit right in with supporting a lying President. "I did not have sex with that woman...." Wow, you're right...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
