I think the cop is probably a libertarian.

Jake...the point of the story is that Republicans are usually smarter than democrats....With regards to the underhanded tactics, well that sounds more like a democrat (note the lack of final -ic on this word...as there is very little "democratic" about the democrat party).

The more real-world situation would be that the welfare queen mother with her eleven children from eleven different men most of whom she can't name were driving down the street from one emergency room to another for various ailments such as a wart or a hangnail in order to received emergency treatment for these life threatening conditions..but since receiving medicaid the payments are no skin off of their backs......As they drive through a red stop-light...why should they stop since this IS an emergency....their 2001 Volvo (paid with this year's Earned Income Tax Credit which was one of Reagan's ONLY mistakes)...hits the poor working man (Republican) who is driving a 1987 Celica because it has a better insurance rate and gets good gas mileage and he cant afford a car payment at this time because of the high tax rate which is inpart used to support the above mentioned welfare queen....he is between his two jobs...and is thinking maybe he and his wife can start a family in two years if only can save enough money....this man is threatened by the welfare queen and her eleven children because of the damage to the Volvo....(LOL...but closer to reality)..

I realize that the money which goes to social programs is a small amount when compared to military spending which needs an increase and other governmental programs. This social spending though (welfare to people who often take no personal responsibility) is money
out of MY pocket and I resent having to pay it.

As for BONGO...well I always could tell that you would be much better off if you were to increase your DOSAGE and maybe a local Church would be willing to pay for your much-needed
lobotomy and rubber-room. I guess here I should add LOL for maybe it would be for the better in fact (LOL)...

How many of your whining democraps was planning return your tax-reduction back to the government?

How many of you whining democraps are funding your own retirement through savings...IRA's, 401K, company stock purchase programs, etc....taking personal responibility?

How many of your whining democraps realize that the "death penalty" should be completely 100% eliminated because all the money has already been taxed one time...it is only another burden on the productive members of society to support those who are not or are less productive...??

How many of your whining democraps realize that a cut in the cap gains tax..hopefully to 0%....would INCREASE revenue coming into the federal govenrment?

Finally, how many of you are willing to give credit to President Reagan for the great economy which we have enjoyed for the last ten years? This great economy started under President Bush largely because of Reagan and also some Bush (Sr) policies..but of course we had Cigar Man Slick Willie (Clinton, for Bongo) there to take credit as is his nature. The only thing good to be said for William Jefferson Clinton about the economy...he did not screw it up and his wife was not able to give up socialized medicine (Thank God)...

Mamo Verga
Cruiser posted February 14, 2001 07:53 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jake...the point of the story is that Republicans are usually smarter than democrats...."

The comments here posted here by so-called Republican-supporters contradict this statement consistently.

You are a case in point, Mamo.

I enjoyed Sun's subtle use of irony in his telling of the humour. The irony gets his point across very well. Perhaps Jake2001 might read it again with that in mind.

Instead of Mamo and Irish interpreting what the Sun guy meant by his story, why doesn't he explain his position himself?

Pro Republican? Pro Democrat? Undecided?

I don't get anything decisive from his post. His position still remains unclear to me. I assume he lives in California by his references to Hollywood Boulevard, etc. That's the only assumption I can make from what I read. Everything else is up for grabs.

The bottom line here is that gay money shouldn't be used to make gay sex illegal. But that's certainly high on the GOP's list of things-to-do.

A lot of gay Republicans rely on the good will of liberals to keep the religious right from bringing back shame and blackmail. At the same time, their money works to diminish the influence of liberals. These people will be caught in a web of their own making.

I don't want to go back to the 1950's. I strongly suspect that gay Republicans don't want that either. They don't have to become Democrats, but they shouldn't fund their own undoing.

"The bottom line here is that gay money shouldn't be used to make gay sex illegal. But that's certainly high on the GOP's list of things-to-do."

Dwight, I really suspect that these Republican supporters don't give a shit about such concerns as long as they believe that it won't touch their own lives. You are correct in pointing out that money is the main focus of this bunch.

[This message has been edited by Jake2001 (edited February 15, 2001).]

Money has always been the focus, whether you are Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, etc. Look at how money, wealth, and materialism has transformed the former Gay Mecca of San Francisco. The Liberal establishment of San Francisco has all but disappeared. Each year, hundreds of gay youth runaway from their homes. Many of those youth are drawn to San Francisco because they bought into the Liberal illusion that San Francisco's thriving gay community was a place where they (youth) could be with their 'own kind'. Upon arrival in this Gay Promise Land, the harsh realities of the cold and mean streets of San Francisco set in very quickly. A 14 year old boy (typical runaway age for gay youth) may seek shelter in one of San Francisco's shelters for youth, but he soon learns that nightly beatings from homophobic boys in those shelters is commonplace. You would think in a city such as San Francisco there would be a shelter specifically for gay youth. Not one shelter for gay youth. Most gay runaways prefer to live on the streets and take their chances, rather than subject themselves to nightly harassment, verbal abuse, and beatings/bashings in shelters not equipped or staffed by gay friendly people. So, how does a 14 year old gay boy survive on the streets of San Francisco? Get a job? Yeah, right. Where does he live? How does he feed and clothe himself? There are plenty of other 'street boys' to show him the ropes. They quickly acquaint him with the economics of street survival. What does a 14 year old gay boy have to offer a city such as San Francisco? The one thing a young gay youth has that is always in demand in San Francisco is his youth and sex. Both work in perfect harmony with each other. What strikes a young 14 year old gay boy upon reaching San Francisco's Castro and Haight-Asbury districts is that Gay people have lots of money. They see the nice homes and the nice cars. They see Gay wealth all around them. During the daytime, Gay San Francisco looks like a great place to live. Once the sun sets, San Francisco is transformed into something else. San Francisco's thriving Gay community of Liberals can be a very cold and detached place to live these days, especially for a runaway youth who was drawn to this Gay Mecca as a place where he could be with people of 'his own'. Somebody forgot to tell this young gay youth that 'his own' were only other runaway gay youth surviving on the mean streets of San Francisco.

It seems to me that money, wealth, and materialism are the main focus for all Gays regardless of political idealogy. If consistency is the hallmark of a political ideology, Liberals only need to look no further than its own backyard in San Francisco to see how inconsistency discredits them as a nobler, progressive, and worthy cause. But, of course, Liberal Gays will always deny they have been corrupted by the same money, wealth, and materialism.

Posted By Irish:
"It seems to me that money, wealth, and materialism are the main focus for all Gays regardless of political idealogy. If consistency is the hallmark of a political ideology, Liberals only need to look no further than its own backyard in San Francisco to see how inconsistency discredits them as a nobler, progressive, and worthy cause. But, of course, Liberal Gays will always deny they have been corrupted by the same money, wealth, and materialism."

I think the point here is that in a lot of cities that formally embraced the independence and liberal values of gay ghettos, you now have an overflow of conservatives (gay and straight) taking over.

This last election, most of the posts here, and the points that you are bringing up all support this fact. It is not so much that "liberals" have sold out. They have been bought out and driven out by very powerful and very rich conservatives. The changes that you are mentioning are happening in several cities across the country as a result.

Blaming liberals shifts the focus from the main core of the problem. In an environment where money, conformity, and power are the bottom line -- you are going to have a conflict between independence (liberalism) and control (conservatism). Right now, those with the money (and materialistic/conservative values) are using their influence to drive independently owned businesses, social reform programs, and the freedom that came with more liberal agendas out of the cities.

The majority of "liberals" that you are accusing of looking the other way were never really truly committed to liberal politics at all. The yuppies and middle-of-the-roaders who voted for Bush and love the changes that are taking place in major cities that used to boast more bohemian environments were (for the most part) never overwhelmingly supportive of liberal movements.

Many people who call themselves "liberals" are, in reality, registered Republicans, conservatives, and cruisers who post at places like CFS condemning a lot of the freedom that this board is supposedly supporting. Denial, rationalizations, and hypocrisy can make strange bedfellows.

[This message has been edited by Jake2001 (edited February 15, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Jake2001 (edited February 15, 2001).]

A Voter News Service poll worker was conducting an exit poll at a precinct in San Francisco's Castro District during the last General Election. The VNS exit poll worker asked one guy who he had voted for in the Presidential Race.

The voter replied..."That's none of your damned business."

The VNS exit poll worker marked his tabublation sheet with a vote for George Bush.

The VNS exit poll worker continued to take his exit poll of voters coming out of the precinct. For every voter who told him it was none of his damned business who they voted for, the VNS worker marked his tabulation sheet with a vote for George Bush.

How did the VNS exit poll worker know who voted for Al Gore? If a person voted for Al Gore, that person would tell the VNS exit poll taker how they felt about Al Gore or how disappointed they were Bill Clinton was not running again.

Dedicated to ALL Liberated and 'FREE GAY MEN'

[This message has been edited by SunDogg (edited February 16, 2001).]

Is there a theme or something to these posts?

I still don't get what this guy's position is or how his stories are about supporting "liberation" or "freedom."

Mamo and Irish must have the inside track.

The right wingers are feeling their oats these days. Don't be surprised if their new slogan is "Put a fag in jail." Clarence Thomas just kicked off a Campaign to Restore America targeted at gays, liberals, and working women. He claims that gay-bashing is protected by the Constitution.

We should notify gay Republicans that one side of them is going back into the closet. I'm not laying any odds, but I'll bet it's the Republican side.

Jake, my good man, your endless liberal polemics are only exceeded by the intellectual dishonesty of your views. I'll make it easy for you to understand.

There is no gay liberation movement today. It died a slow agonizing death because it lacked a consistent and cohesive vision on the basis of ideology. The earlier Civil Rights movements of the 60s and 70s resulted in the achievement of political and economic empowerment for ethnic minorities and women because they shared one ideological vision of liberation. In marked contrast, the gay rights movement has beaten a hasty retreat from its vision of sexual liberation for everyone. Instead, the gay rights movement has embraced integration and assimilation into existing social and political structures which are decidedly heterosupremist and homophobic. It is difficult to identify with a movement whose primary focus and goals are to win 'official approval' for gay marriages, gay families, and acceptance into the military. Since the 1969 Stonewall Riots, our dream of sexual liberation has been co-opted by tradeoffs and minor adjustments in the economic and political spheres of empowerment. What happened to the sexual empowerment of all people?

Liberation and freedom cannot be achieved only in the economic and political arenas. There must be sexual empowerment for everyone as a complementary facet of the same vision and the same dream. To achieve sexual liberation, our vision must be to liberate the repressed sexual potential of eveyone rather than to seek special treatment for a special kind of person who has adopted a 'gay identity --- Gay People.

Granted, there might be a genetic basis for why people are homosexual or why people are heterosexual. But, as we have seen over the centuries, people change or adapt their sexual behavior depending on the circumstances, the political climate, or over the course of their lives. There are myriad social and cultural variables that differ from person to person, and these variables represent the potential for varieties of sexual expression that lie within the reach of everyone.

Conjuring up Conservative Gay Republicans as arch-villians and bogeymen does not explain why the Liberal Left has all but disappeared from the gay liberation movement. Endless liberal polemics only widen the ideological gulf that currently exists within the Gay Community.

IrishRedHead
Cruiser posted February 16, 2001 11:36 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jake, my good man, your endless liberal polemics are only exceeded by the intellectual dishonesty of your views. I'll make it easy for you to understand."

Sweet of ya', Irish. I'll try hard to follow. Since you and Mamo appear to be the spokespeople for this Sun character and Republicans, it seems that I must defer to you for all the direct responses. Don't know what that's all about. But, go on.

"There is no gay liberation movement today. It died a slow agonizing death because it lacked a consistent and cohesive vision on the basis of ideology. The earlier Civil Rights movements of the 60s and 70s resulted in the achievement of political and economic empowerment for ethnic minorities and women because they shared one ideological vision of liberation. In marked contrast, the gay rights movement has beaten a hasty retreat from its vision of sexual liberation for everyone. Instead, the gay rights movement has embraced integration and assimilation into existing social and political structures which are decidedly heterosupremist and homophobic."

Isn't this what Republicans are promoting? Why blame liberals? Your intelligent point, if there is one, escapes me. Yeah. Things have changed. We now have a Republican president elect. Conservatives are moving in and re-establishing control. Get it?

"Since the 1969 Stonewall Riots, our dream of sexual liberation has been co-opted by tradeoffs and minor adjustments in the economic and political spheres of empowerment. What happened to the sexual empowerment of all people?"

This assertion establishes you as a non-liberal? Republicans are more about "the sexual empowerment of all people" than liberals? If anything, your point confirms how the new trends towards what you identify as "integration" and "assimilation" have taken us in a decidedly regressive direction.

"Liberation and freedom cannot be achieved only in the economic and political arenas. There must be sexual empowerment for everyone as a complementary facet of the same vision and the same dream. To achieve sexual liberation, our vision must be to liberate the repressed sexual potential of eveyone rather than to seek special treatment for a special kind of person who has adopted a 'gay identity' --- Gay People."

Is this a whitewashed attempt at denouncing gays who ask for recognition as people who demand "special rights?" In one statement you imply gays have gotten off track with their vision by encouraging "integration" and "assimilation." Then, you accuse gays who do not do this of seeking "special treatment." Make up your mind, Irish.

"Conjuring up Conservative Gay Republicans as arch-villians and bogeymen does not explain why the Liberal Left has all but disappeared from the gay liberation movement."

Neither do your posts.

"Endless liberal polemics only widen the ideological gulf that currently exists within the Gay Community."

According to you, the ideological gulf is not really the problem. Your post suggets that we have to learn to be more inclusive of everybody without integrating or assimilating or demanding special rights while realizing that we need sexual liberation without making that the issue for gays only even though gays are misguided in making corporate trade-offs with heteros their focus yadda-yadda-yadda-yadda-yadda-yadda.

Here's a tip. The next time that you imply that you have all the answers or are expert on any subject, try clarifying things in a manner that is not wishy-washy or reveals how blatantly you contradict yourself.

You are either a dope beyond compare, or a bona fide looney.

Having fun, aren't we?

Jake, don't despair. If you pay close attention you will see that you are not as outnumbered as you may think.

As for the discussion. I think [hope] the pedullum is about to reverse its swing. Society loves the appearance of change. Sadly, the problem is that both the Dems and the Repubs are dillegently whittling away at our liberties to garner votes and increase their own political power base.

FWIW, I think Bush is doing fine so far. I actually went with Nader, but boy did I pop a bag of popcorn to watch the old familiar antics of the Clinton haters. I think he owes much of his political success to this demented collection of K-mart republicans. It wasn't that the people loved Clinton so much. It was that they were repulsed by the obsessive quality of his detractors. The very people that keep him in the spotlight.

It really is quite priceless.

Later all