I support the war.

narconut's picture

Yes, I am a republican and a Log Cabin Republican at that. I believe in small government and individual rights. I believe in equality for all, not just special interests groups. I believe Bush's mission in Iraq is not for oil, but to ensure that atrocities like the Holocaust never happen again. I believe in all this and at the same time am a lesbian. Is there anyone else here that shares the same sentiments?

Boygasm's picture


I dont think war is ideal, but Bush is being cocky about that. And you are right, its about Saddams dictatorship and his mischeivious plans are a bit scary to us.

I say
His wife didnt live up to her deal in satifying Bush, so he gets cocky with Iraq ;)

narconut's picture

although your statement is hi

although your statement is hilarious, i'm a 100% bush fan (no pun intended)

Boygasm's picture

U dig him?

You dig him? Hmm interesting :) But is war necessary to erradicate everybody to prove whos boss? Its murder. I would rather send a secrect undercover and remove Sadam instead of going to war. Period

greyboi's picture

A fan of a fanatic?...

The President still hasn't presented the "overwhelming evidence" that he said he had in November 2002. He hasn't demonstrated the "overwhelming evidence" that he said he had in after Sept. 11. He tries and tries to rush into war without questions, and labels those who complain about his child-like behavior as unpatriotic. We had to politically force him to attempt at relations with the U.N. Do we really need such a guy deciding the fate of our nation? Especially an evangelical Christian who views this all as a coming of the "New World Order"? Should diplomacy be based on an apocolypic worldview of dispensational fundamentalism? I think not!

thoughtsinelectricblu's picture

The whole picture is scary...

The whole picture is scary...and though I'm definitely not a Bush fan, I don't want to see another 'Hitler' or 'Holocaust'. War is something that would appear to be cemented very securely in our history...however I question whether or not it is always done with the purest of intentions...Jason

Gone to find myself, If I get back before I return...Please keep me here!

metrored's picture

George Bush IS The Dark Lord Sauron!!!

The only person I'm afraid of is Bush. With mass arab arrests/deportations and a heavy military presence (or investment) in the countries who's citizens didn't get arrested/deported plus Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in this country, still detained without trial or lawyer, total information awareness, the patriot act and war that was decided from the get go would happen, the biggest threat to this country and this world is an ex-party boy, Yale legacy who now is our president of the United States.

greyboi's picture

Wait... That word is a deadly one...

Just because I'm anti-war doesn't mean that I'm not for defending this country. I am all for a justified reaction in order to survive. What I don't like is "war", because this word implies contest in the sense of compettition. When someone is attacked and they strike back in a mode of securing saftety, this is an act of defense. When someone pre-emptively strikes someone under the banner of defense, this is an atrocity and should be considered an act of war. Should we engage preemptively with Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Lybia, and so on and so on...? The truth is that agression does not solve agression. It only harbors a strong backlash on the part of the afflicted party.

daharyn's picture

nope, not me.

I highly recommend disabusing yourself of the notion that Bush is not in this for oil. He can, after all, have genuine concerns about Saddam's human rights record (although his own record of allowing executions to take place in Texas doesn't aid him there) and want to line his pockets with oil money at the same time. We are talking about a president who decided that drilling in a national wildlife refuge was a good idea, after all.

I don't think one can effectively be a gay Republican. You can support specific aspects of their ideology, certainly, but how can you swallow it as a whole? Especially the rabid racist, anti-gay sentiment?

I happen to be reading David Brock's Blinded by the Right onto tapes right now... I would recommend it, since he does talk about trying to be an out gay conservative. It's been most interesting reading.


marcelle42's picture

Even as a radical leftist, I

Even as a radical leftist, I have to disagree. The issue with a two-party system is that each party is something of a conglomeration of stances on issues that may or may not have anything to do with eachother. My feelings on economics may or may not have any connection to my feelings on gay rights to my feelings on abortion, etc, etc.

The other issue in play is that because one's views will almost undoubtedly not line up perfectly with either party's platform, you have to choose which issues are more important to you. Gay rights are way way up there for me as to what's important politically, but that's not true for all people, not even all gays. And while I really don't agree with the Republicans on much of anything, I think gays can be Republicans.

As far as Bush and the war goes... I'm also a pacifist. Look for me on the Canadian border... or rather, don't look for me. ;)


greyboi's picture

That label...

"Radical" is fine (it means on the unorthodox extreme), but "leftist" doesn't mean left-wing. It's a perjorative term used by conservatives to denigrate people who think progressively. I have a few left-sided leanings, but I never stoop to calling myself a "leftist". It's kind of like calling those on the right "old fogies".

JB's picture

Multi Party Governments

Two party systems are to plain. IN canada our Parliment has Five differnt parties. We have a total of Seven parties (so far) to vote for in every election. each party has its benefits. Also provides for more usefull respresentitives to represent us in Parliment. Ones who are not so bound by strict party loyalties that they can't effectively do the job they were elected to. Also In Canada, we don't have religious groups medleing with the funding of parties that will garner them favor....

DiamondDog's picture

I call myself a libretarian.

I call myself a libretarian. I have a lot of republican beliefs, I have democratic beliefs. I will say being gay and a republican is not a contradiction at all. There is no democrat or republican that follows every plank of their party to the word without some question.

I know minorities that are republicans too. It's an overall belief system. Not all republicans love Jesse Helms or Ashcroft. And even Helms was involved in several very democratic programs.

daharyn's picture

my point was merely...

that by identifying specifically as a "log cabin republican", the original poster is tying together her sexuality and her politics, as well as buying into an entire political platform without questioning it. This I find to be shortsighted, in part because the Republican party is certainly not pro-gay.


vertigo's picture

The Lesser of Two Evils?

It is not better to "buy into" one party over another. Being a blind liberal is just as stupid as being a blind conservative.

What makes a conservative racist and less evil than a liberal one? The liberals are, on the majority, avid supporters of programs like Affirmative Action. One way of discrimating (racial slurs) is no better or worse than another (preferential treatment).

To further comment, there are very few people who actually give a damn about the wildlife refugees. Take the incredible rise in gas guzzling vehicles, like Hummers or SUVs. If people truly cared, we'd all be driving cars with hydrogen, fuel cell, hybrid, or other much more environmentally-friendly means of power.

metrored's picture

don't go there

I agree. Being a blind liberal is just as bad as being a blind conservitive. With that said, do you really want to spout the (racist) party line of affirmitive action is racist?

Oh also, just so you know, there is a whole lot more to racism than racial slurs. In fact, the most common and powerful racism in this country makes no use of slurs at all.

vertigo's picture

Truth Spoken

What you say is true.

A light comment invokes further analysis.

It is my belief that nothing, no decisions at all, should ever be influenced by race, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, gender, disability, or whatever.

I realize the consequences of this. There is no such thing as sports just for women or just for men. There are no special steps taken to serve disabled people. Physical requirements are the same no matter what scientific evidence about gender or racial influence says. It's a blind philosophy, and just as stupid as what I said earlier about being a blind politician. I've just seen too much discrimination in my life, on both sides of the line. A rule must apply to all situations. If you can't discriminate against the minorities, then you can't discrimate against the majorities. If you can't discrimate against gays, then you can't discrimate against straight people or bisexuals. As far as I'm concerned, its time that it stopped. All people are created equal. No one needs special treatment to do what others can. No one should ever be held back against their will or their desire. Perhaps I'm just insensitive, or communist, or whatever, but that's how I feel about it.

metrored's picture

no offence but

That does nothing but reinforce the status quo. On a policy level poor children in dilapidated schools will have no way of competing against their rich peers in brand new schools with well paid well educated teachers and whatever resources they could possibly need.
Nothing will be done about the racial and economic inequity that oppresses millions in this country.
And nothing will ever be done to challenge white privilege and class privilege in this country because the white economic elite that dominates this society will go to bed at night with the satisfaction that they as a group have decided that they aren't racists.

This belief is not only insensitive, its oppressive. It's pretty ignorant also.

Communists work to eliminate socioeconomic class, a goal formed purely on class distinctions in society. You do not seem to be a communist.

greyboi's picture

We must not forget...

I am a libertarian also and I hold conservative views, but I think that affirmative action will balance out the legacy advantage that many white youth are afforded. Affirmative action does not single out race, but includes location, income-level, and major.

People who oppose affirmative-action say that we should begin the work at K-12. I agree, but we must take into mind that K-12 schools are paid for through property taxes and poor ghetto-like towns down produce enough taxed income to make good K-12 schools.

If things were equal, as many claim, then affirmative action wouldn't be such a strong issue for so many people.

Secondly, I would like to say that I do not view affirmative action as a permanent resolution. It only works for a situation. When the situation is remedied, it should be removed. It it is not removed it is an abuse and yes, then it becomes "preferential" treatment.

metrored's picture

funny you said that

I find you comment interesting since as far as college admissions goes, the group that has historically benefited most from affirmative action, white females, not only no longer reap its benefits in college admissions but are hindered by the fact that so many better qualified white females are applying to colleges that they are having a harder time getting accepted than their male counterparts because schools are trying to maintain a gender balance.

I also find it interesting that affirmative action is being attacked in college admission now that it no longer works for white women regardless of the fact that is vital for the enrollment of underrepresented minorities in many if not most colleges and universities.

It saddens me that so many people have now decided that affirmative action in college admissions has served its purpose now that it no longer serves mainstream white interests.

greyboi's picture

What about...

Title IX? Some would argue that that is reverse discrimination against men. I think it affords women an opportunity that they traditionally didn't have. However, when women sue under Title IX because the entrance requirements to football are "too competetive", then we know that the law is being bent. Gender balance is not such bad thing. It only becomes a bad thing when it's a single-sex school or lowers athletic standards under the banner of discrimination.

metrored's picture

I'm not arguing against gende

I'm not arguing against gender balance. My point was that now that affirmitive action no longer benifits white women in the college admissions process and it is under attack.

I don't follow Title IV to the point that I would have any stong feelings toward it nor do I have any real evidence for or against it. I'd probably support Title IV though But that's more of a gut thing.

greyboi's picture


That's an interesting observation.

metrored's picture


Just came together in my head recently cause I read an article in on on the local papers about how white females were having such a hard time getting into schools. And now affirmitive action programs are in serious jeopardy. If that's part of the reason ten I'm not surprised but at the same time I'm terrified.
In both texas and california public university system, black and hipanic enrollment has plumetted. I think its now on the rise in California, but only beacuse black and hispanic students were told to somehow indicate their race on the admissions applications.
If this were a nation wide thing then it would be devestating to the African-American community as well as the hispanic community. Racial and economic disparity in this country is increadible and it's not getting any better. Affirmitive action programs are the closest thing out there to recognizing that.

greyboi's picture

California is all but getting better...

I myself live in Cali and I know that things are all but improving.

Hispanics make up the vast majority of the state (that's excluding the unregisted illegal immigrants), but white males make up the majority of accepted college applicants. The state had ruled a long time ago that affirmative action is illegal, and that led to nearly 89% drops in minority enrollment. I can count the amount of hispanic and black people I have on my campus on my hand where I live.

metrored's picture

so we're on the same page

so we're on the same page

vertigo's picture

Why Does it Matter?

Why does it matter?

Why do you have to group people? Why do we have to care what the racial divisions are? Why do we still, after so many thousands of years of existence, still do stupid things like that? Why can't you just look at a person, no matter what you see about them, and think of them as the same. Short, tall, disabled, able-bodied minority, majority, gay, straight, bi, female, male, blonde, brunette, redhead regardless! It's not right. It shouldn't matter.

greyboi's picture

It was put in..

Affirmative action was orginially put it, BECAUSE people grouped people, so even after slavery, the Holocuost and concetration camps minorities weren't able to get jobs due to workplace discrimination. They did this because America wasn't and still isn't as "colorblind" as we'd like to be. Dr. King said we were issued a "blank check". You cannot put someone late in a race and expect him to have a fair chance in finishing.

metrored's picture

because colorblindness is inherently racist

It's very easy to say that but in the context of college admissions, race has a correlation to access to resources and SAT scores (which are better at determining one's race and class than one's scholastic aptitude). There is a whole lot of racism in this country's educational system that holds back minority groups in this country. To ignore race is to ignore that institutional racism.

Hispanic enrollment didn't drop because hispanics stoped applying. It's because they couldn't get in. That's racist.

greyboi's picture


If you come from an economically disadvantaged background, even if there are resources available, you won't be able to afford them. Not everyone has parents who are willing to spend eighty dollars on tests, 200 on studying materials and ,500 on test preparation classes. Not everyone has a private tutor or parents who have a college education who have instilled their vocabulary in you from birth.

guideingforce's picture

From my understanding all of

From my understanding all of the money from proporty taxes go into a pool and are then distrubuted equally among the schools. Some do get extra money due to test scores and such, but I do think that the proporty taxes are split equally per student.

metrored's picture

I don't know where you're fro

I don't know where you're from but I only know of one state that has their funding formula set up that way and even there the policy is very new and very controversial.

In most of the country school districts raise money through local property taxes and some additional state funding. In Pennsylvania for example that addictional fundig is nowhere near enough to bridge the 2000 dollar per student gap in funding between the Philadelphia and its average suburban neighbor

greyboi's picture


The poorer communities have lower property taxes, so they in the end have poorer schools. Property taxes are based on what city you live in, not state. State funds make up little of what the community puts forth. Also, state funds require that students perform at a certain level to get them. If students are not given the equal chance to perform in a equal learning environment they are not given an opportunity to recieve funding to improve that learning environment. It's another vicious cycle of bureaucracy.

guideingforce's picture


What I'm saying is this. Yes, those living in poorer communities will have lower proporty taxes. But, if that were all that funded schools, that wouldn't affect how much money they get. For instance, if school A is in the ghetto, and school B is in the suburbs, they should both get the same amount of money from proporty taxes. All of the money from proporty taxes is pooled into one big account at the schoolboard, and then divided up according to students. If a school has more students, they will get more money; less students, less money.
Now, there ARE grants and things of that nature that schools need that are awarded according to achivement, but proporty taxes should be divided equally with regard to studens. Like, I think each student gets about 1500 each dollars in my school district. This money goes to the school to spend as it needs to.

metrored's picture

I think equalizing school fun

I think equalizing school funding is incredibly important but pooling property taxes isn't necessarily the perfect solution. For example, Texas introduced a funding scheme that would evenly distribute property taxes. as far as I've read, the poor schools benefited incredibly but the wealthy districts that used to have more money than they knew what to with people are complaining because class size is going up and the quality of their schools are going down. On a personal level I don't see a problem with this but in that type of situation I feel like that funding system wouldn't last too long.

one proposal that I've heard would be to not use property tax at all but instead to use sales tax money to fund schools. Another thing that is being proposed in my state (and hopefully will pass not that we no longer have a republican governor) is a bill that would alter the state funding formula to properly compensate school districts with low property tax yields.

even though either way many state governments tend to prefer to blacme the educational problems of urban centers on the administration teachers and students instead of "throwing money at the problem." These same people send their kids to either private schools of suburban ones. Also I think in the end race has something to do with it since, at least in the Pennsylvania, people of color are concentrated in the urban centers and state legislatures tend to be dominated by republican men who seem to find it easier to ignore the pilight of black and brown people or fatten their wallets than to truly help.

greyboi's picture

We must look beyond the local level and beyond mere financing.

Let's say student A went to wealthy school A and is applying to University X in Boston (but came from New York), while student B went to poorer school B and is applying to University X (but came from Texas). No matter how their local property taxes are divided, if student B came from a poorer school district, because he/she came from a poorer neighborhood than student A, student B is at a disadvantage. This is why affirmative action also includes location as a factor.

Second scenario. Jamal Portis and Kyle Richards came from equally affluent neighborhoods and are applying to University Q. They have the same grades and equally stunning applications. When stuck before the admissions advisory board. Kyle is chosen over Jamal, not based on mere merit, but because "his name sounds like he would fit better on this campus". Jamal is rejected merely because he has a "black-sounding" name. (This often happens in job applications, too.)

metrored's picture

You're cool

You're cool

greyboi's picture

No, you're cooler.

No, you're cooler.

metrored's picture



linds's picture


Our new university president is in the center of the affirmative action debate (he was the president of the Univ. of Michigan).

I know I wouldn't be attending Barnard -- hell, graduating from Barnard in just 97 days! LOL -- if they did not allow location to play a role in their acceptance decisions. With the grades and test scores I had, if I had lived in Westchester county, or suburban New Jersey, or California, I wouldn't have had a chance. I have tutored high school kids out here, and they have resources I would never have dreamed of! There's more money on the coasts in general, anyway, and that plays a factor in school funding and in property taxes. I came from a semi-rural public high school in the Midwest, where there were fewer opportunities, and that was most certainly taken into consideration when my application was processed both here and at other institutions. (Of course, even with some preference for location, only 1% of my graduating class at Barnard alone comes from my home state.)


greyboi's picture

A good site to view would be...


Gay republicans and libertarians do have their home on the web. Andrew Sullian, Dale Carpenter, and Bruce Bawer are kings of the gay Right.

suffragettecity's picture

Don't know if I agree

Things like the USA PATRIOT Act don't exactly respect individual rights, and I don't know if expanding the government's abilities to spy on US citizens and efforts to outlaw abortion, maintain anti-sodomy laws and erode civil liberties are what I'd call "small government."

And if Bush wants to prevent something like the Holocaust from happening in Iraq, then why doesn't he end the UN sanctions his dad put in place which have, to date, killed over 1,000,000 people in Iraq? Oh, and not to mention the fact that scores of other innocent people will be killed by Amerikan bombs and trigger-happy soldiers and Marines, just like in the last Gulf War. Maybe it's because when the "other side" kills people, it's murder, but when "our side" kills, it's liberation, right?

If you don't think this war is for oil and hegemony, you're ignoring the legacy the United States has had since the 1950s. Amerika is an imperialist nation, and one way in which the government makes its imperialism more palatable to US citizens is to use lies and candy coat it. Thus, an act of military aggression meant to topple the defenseless government of an oil-rich nation that doesn't kowtow to ours and replace it with a subservient puppet regime is called a "regime change meant to replace the evil despot Saddam Hussein" (who was put into power by our own beloved government, by the way - but you won't see that on the 6:00 news).

The United States government is in no moral position to criticize any other government for "human rights violations" or being "undemocratic." It's often been said that everything the US government criticizes other countries for, it does as well - the only difference is that the Amerikans are better at hiding it.

As for what the predominantly wealthy white male Republicans like to call "special rights" and "quotas and preferences," don't you think that after 500 years of slavery and genocide followed by racial discrimination and institutionalized poverty, Blacks and Native Americans kind of deserve something like Affirmative Action? It's the least the US government can do. Affirmative Action isn't meant to discriminate against whites (who are born privileged), it's meant as a very small reimbursement for the oppression leveled on Blacks and Native Americans by the United States government.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to respect conservatives as having their own "opinions" anymore. Bush is a a psychopath and an authoritarian, and so are those who goose-step behind him. A lot of liberals may be misled, but their hearts are in the right place, at least to some degree.