Honestly, to what do YOU think the term "Jews for Hitler" is referring? Hint: They were real and I'll give you three guesses as to what year they supported Hitler.
As for Romney not being anti gay when Gov of MA, I give you my thread of a few days ago.
Not exactly a PFlag member, was he?
So now we are just hilling the silt atop the tomb?
This whole thread is disgusting.
I sincerely doubt that persons using the phrase are concerned with historical accuracy.
Have any of you watched "8: The Mormon Proposition."
There were parents whose gay son had killed themselves and who felt it was "for the best." Better dead than gay.
The most infamous kind of genocide is when you can convince people to do the job themselves. The most perverse kind of theocracy is when parents see death as best for their own children. It is easily as gruesome as any concentration camp. It is the extermination camp of the mind, of the society, of the party, of the church.
Incidentally, Mormons are far from the only demographic with blood on their hands; they are only a prominent illustrative example. There are many other nut-bar religious groups who both hypocritically proclaim salvation whilst insinuating themselves into people's psyches and then motivate them to suicide as the price of their "failure" to be a straight pious believer.
The thing is, the majority of those groups align themselves with just one party in the United States. And the good people in that party are wrong to permit it. The ends do not justify the means. It is not acceptable to count on their support because of an economic disagreement with one's political opponents. And supporting that party so long as it refuses to clean house is not something where reasonable people can agree to disagree. Supporting them is just flat unethical.
So if Jews for Hitler gets some panties in knot, how about saying that Gays voting for Romney/Ryan would be like African Americans voting for David Duke.
No, it is more like the German people have to choose between the communists and the nazis, knowing that the one or the other is likely to get control. The best defense against communism were the nazis and vice versa. Republican are nothing like the nazis, but both parties are coalitions which necessarily include some aspects which one would prefer to do with out. In the balance, the democrats are far, far, worse than the Republicans. And, yes, the democrats are something like the communists.
Have you given up all pretense of intellectual honesty at this point?
So here we are a few days in to this shower of indignation and it occurs to me the point of the thread is to cast opponents of the republican agenda as thoughtless demagogues and petty, unhinged bullies because of a turn of phrase.
The shoe doesn't fit.
But I will put on my theocratic ass-kicking boots for long enough to level some very level-headed charge:
The US Republican Party has blood on its hands.
Indeed it has showered blood on its hands over the last 30 years. Gay blood for its indifference to AIDS under doddering Saint Reagan. Foreign blood over the "hold-my-beer" adventurist indifference to WMD evidence under the juvenile frat-boy Bush Junior, and American/Allied blood in the same conflict over Bush's inept dismissal of qualified translators and other military experts whose only supposed disloyalty was being gay and the full use of whose expertise could have perhaps landed Osama's corpse in the ocean years before. And more gay blood on Republican hands for all the pious bullying and theocratic meddling they have directed at the vulnerable gay youth in the United States. And frankly proposing Sara Palin for high office is such a gross error in judgement it beggars belief. Anyone who would consider her qualified to be in charge of the red button might as well put a mad mullah in charge. They are made from the same kind of crazy.
I'm not interested in arguing about the niceties of polite language and etiquette lessons that are equal parts Rush Limbaugh and Emily Post. I'm interested to hearing an answer to those charges, if there is one, of what the Repblican Party has done and what it planned to do. Until then Republican sympathisers can shout "Out, damned spot!" but we can see what they're trying to wash away.
Too much stuff to answer it all. I would point out that when Palin was nominated she was far more qualified than Obama. She had been a successful Governor, while he had been a LOL "community organizer". LOL . His short period in the Senate was spent runnung for office and blindly voting the party line on every bill. He had never in his life been in s position to make actual decisions as she had as Governor.
She was Governor for half a term, in a state with less people in it than Houston,then she quit in a fit of pique because she was a big ole loser.
Stop taking that medication Ben, it's not helping.
Now of course you are going to blithely ignore Bankside, because of course, you have no leg to stand on.
Honestly sometimes I truly believe you ARE one of those redneck, fact ignoring, history inventing, religious whackjob women sent in here on some pointless quest.
Yeah chill man he was just doing his best to insult the other guy... relax would ya?
Hmmm. sounds completely Republican to me.
I find the most interesting thing in this thread is how a certain poster who whines about others acting like mods and trying to tell others what to do spends so much time and haiku telling everyone what they should do.
I'm going to describe the problem with a mathematical view: looking at "Jews for Hitler" as a vector, it's in the right direction but is too great in length.
I basically think the same thing...I get the Jews for Hitler reference and there is good reason for it....
Case in point...Uganda. Many Elected Republicans and American Evangelists had direct ties and many documented visits with the officials in UGANDA who adopted the DEATH TO GAYS legislation. When criticized by the world and some Americans a few of the bewildered Ugandan officals expressed surprise and oturage because they claimed they were acting on the advice of these Americans.
Take for instance this election. Buch and hsi policies got us into this mess. Obama was met with resistance fromt he Republcians who said NO to every effeort he made,...and now that we are making strides the American people want to return to the same policies that got us into this mess?
I have to say that it made me laugh out loud to read the NAZI reference, which, I suppose, we will now all be told was completely intentional.
Bringing NAZI into a thread about Jews for Hitler to criticize the people who were critical of the reasoning behind the OP's hissy fit?
Maybe it's in my interests to have a government build a library, or maybe it's in my interests to see a road project completed with user-pay tolls instead of general revenue. We can differ on what our interests are. What the Republican party is attacking, election after election, dredging up petty bigotry and ignorance whenever it might squeeze out a few votes for them, is our basic human dignity. Gay people don't have an argument with Republicans over whether there should be a local sales tax or not; we're fighting their idea that we don't deserve full human rights.
I've mentioned it in other threads: my lesson from visiting Mauthausen was not how unique or otherworldly the place is: to the contrary, I was alarmed by how familiar it was, and how effortlessly it fits into a beautiful countryside filled with happy prosperous towns, hundreds of years old. It taught me that a concentration camp could be just over the next hill, in any community, without our vigilance.
And of course NAZIism did not materialize out of thin air. It congealed from hateful stinking attitudes of many Europeans toward minorities that NAZI party leaders exploited. The Republican Party includes too many people that give off the same whiff, and too many people indifferent to that as long as it gets them elected.
On one hand I've been accused of "poisoning the well" by providing ammo for an argument to prove why any gay man might feel that way toward another.
On the other hand I appear to have (as a Moderator justified that distinction).
I've tried to inject some humor by indicating that it's a "West Coast/East Coast" Gay Thing.
West Coast Gays, who've been in the trenches trying to take back Marriage Equality that had already been given to them by the California State Supreme Court, and then in only a way that Californian's could do by referendum, was snatched away by serious financial support from the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons which former POTUS Candidate Romney serves as a Bishop) had any real bearing on this conversation.
Some East Coast Gays personally attacked me as a Moderator for giving credence to the West Coast Gay's argument (one, that is presumed that they couldn't have come up with on their own), until I brought up the fact that Romney is a Bishop in the Mormon church, and no one really want's to discuss that.
Here's my personal thing.
I have never agreed with the idea of denigrating some one because of their personal political choices.
That's what I personally hate about the direction that our political discourse has taken in our country.
But because I said nothing, both as a member of JUB, this forum, and as a Moderator, I apparently condoned one perception about what I stated previously in this thread, while not directly supporting a perception and perspective of why another fellow Gay Supported a different perspective.
Which is why this thread will remain closed, and the Obama Haters, and Obama Ball Lickers can go and fuck themselves.
If all that this forum is going to be, become, and perhaps remain is as an "echo chamber" of "like minded" Queers who are as intolerant of each other (either through geography, upbringing, or perspectives), as those who actively, politically, and financially hate us because we ARE QUEER, if that's the message, if that's the Welcome Sign outside the door of this forum, then it appears to me that most of you can't read:
And for some of you who don't understand that, there's any number of us back here who are more than happy to help clarify the meaning.Quote:
Welcome to Current Events and Politics.
The topics for discussion in this sub-forum tend to be for those who are passionate about the outcome, and many who participate here hold strong opinions and/or specific knowledge about those topics. CE&P is not for the faint of heart.
Like all other areas of this site, the JustUsBoys.com Community Code of Conduct governs member participation in CE&P. In addition to the CoC, appropriate interaction in this sub-forum is further explained in the following Guidelines. The primary objective of these Guidelines is to prevent specific behaviors from obstructing a free flow of discussion.
COURTESY & RESPECT
When debating, express your opinion about a person's ideas, not about them personally. Any post containing a direct personal insult will be removed or edited, regardless of the content of the rest of the post.
Do not engage in baiting; either creating threads for that purpose, or in posts toward other members. Do not disrupt the flow of conversation by making statements or insinuations that are deliberately inflammatory or which expand a disagreement from one discussion to another.
Never insult or impugn the character of another Jubber through posts, threads, PMs, or comments. If you find yourself having difficulty refraining from insulting, baiting or other negative impulses, please log off for a while to calm down.
It is a fundamental principle that content from post comments or private messages is not to be re-posted in the open forum. If you receive an inappropriate private message or comment, promptly report it to the moderators. (See the section titled “Personal Conflicts” in the Problem Resolution thread.)
Never intentionally misspell or misrepresent a fellow Jubber's screen name for any reason, most especially to bait or insult him/her.
Stay on topic in threads. There will be natural ebb and flow of conversation but blatant hijacking of threads is not permitted. Rather than hijack an existing thread, create a new one and link back to the original for background.
When creating a new thread, consider using Thread Prefixes to help other members recognize the intent of your post.
Please do not use the forum as a news ticker. It is reasonable to assume that members have access to their own news sources.
Do not include any email address or phone number as a part of your posts.
QUOTING FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES
Use citations where appropriate. Members are strongly encouraged to document their sources when available. If you have to spend time defending the veracity of your source, you're not likely to have a successful discussion of your topic. Source citation also helps keep everyone honest when posting supposedly factual information. Other readers may discount your position if you fail to back up your assertions. If the issue or source material is contentious, threads may be closed until documentation is provided.
When quoting from a published source, do not paste the entire content from that source into your post unless it is clearly in the public domain (not copyrighted). Snip an excerpt from the source, enclose the snippet within quote tags, and give proper credit to the original publication. An online link to the full content from the original publisher is required. Full “cut and paste” sources may be fully truncated by a Moderator, where only the link remains, so please provide your synopsis of the article for discussion.
Most particularly in the opening post of a new thread and as a general rule, any quote you republish must be augmented with your own opinion explaining why the quote is of interest. You should always include your own personal criticism, illustration, clarification, parody, or summary of the work you are quoting.
Everyone who participates in CE&P is expected to understand and follow the Code of Conduct and these Guidelines.
If you want to be a Moderator, or think that you can do a better job doing it, then start posting like it. :)
This thread remains CLOSED.