Gays and Jews question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tytler makes frequent mention of the essay: "Essay on the History of Civil Society" by Dr Adam Fergusson

This may also be a potential source.

Tytler is, however, the author of a very famous quote indeed:

"a republic not of men, but of angels." - pg 219 Vol. 1 Book 2 Chapter 6
in regards to the attempts of men at "perfect" governments.

-Morgan
 
Tell me one thing you believe that you know is wrong, but you believe it anyway.
:confused:

Should I file that in the drawer marked "What the Hell was that about"? :what:

Perhaps these guys could help you with that: http://www.flat-earth.org/

I believe that there is a Flat Earth Society; and I know that they are wrong; but I believe they exist anyway.

How'd I do? :neener:
 
CaesarI

Thank you for your effort. Few make an effort at all, let alone the amount to which you have gone.

I do believe, without reservation, that the quote is indeed a fake; not only from your research but from my own. I, too, was unable to find any reference to a work entitled "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic" at any level. I also checked the Library of Congress and was unable to find any reference to this imaginary tome.

The portion you posted from Pg 470 Vol. 1 Book 4 Chapter 6 "There is no maxim more common ..." does sound like it may have been where the unknown author of the "quote" metamorphosed it from.

I have also not yet heard from the person I e-mailed.

I was also unable to ascertain what the earliest date might have been that the quote was used.

It is, indeed, a great saying. I guess the attribution will remain unknown and will take its place alongside the likes of the "famous" Hitler quote on gun control.

Thanks again,

J
 
Last edited:
Mark Tyson

I think you maybe might be perhaps kinda right -- I think.

Believing in something that one knows is wrong is not belief. Faith in something that is wrong is not faith. Hitler believed in the wrong he did and considered it right.

To say that, as an example, "I believe in God even though in my heart of hearts I also believe that He doesn't exist" is insanity at its very finest most shining moment.

The question is ludicrous at best; and it is poorly crafted in its composition and is a contradiction in terms. It calls for a negative response; with the exception of the Hitlerian types, of course.

Algebraically the question is ((-1 + 1) + -1) = -1 (I'm wrong)

In Hitler's world, the question would have been ((1 + -1) + 1) = 1 (I'm right)
 
Last edited:
CaesarI

Dr. Koenig replied to my e-mail. He is in Argentina and picked up his mail at an Internet cafe. His research materials are at home.
 
Well, after many dozens of posts of opinions, I think Sarge cut thru the BS And answered the question in a single post.

The reason gays and jews are Democrats is, you can't be a republican without running into people like Sarge all the time.

Its as simple as that.

After 1996 and the "Defense of Marriage" act, which Clinton signed and 2/3 of congressional Democrats voted for, I realized the democratic party did not stand for what they claimed. Obviously they couldn't care less about gay rights.

So, I went thru a process of questioning my political views, and long story short, came out of it an anti-tax, pro-capitalism, pro-gun rights, pro-human rights, minimal government advocate.

Which is exactly the position the republicans CLAIM to hold. But it doesn't take long before you notice that they don't vote consistent with that position (hell, even more of them voted against human rights in1996) and you can't go too long in republican circles til you run into someone like Sarge-- an old school religious or racial bigot who has no clue about logic, reason, and what Liberty is. Note, I said, someone "like Sarge". I'm not attacking Sarge. He's just the closest local example of the type of person I'm describing that we've all met.

So those in this thread who have heaped abuse upon the Demoncratic party, recognize that as long as bigotted personalities are prevelent and tolerated in the republican party, gays and jews will choose the supposed protection of the Democrats over the promised gas chamber of the republicans. And its not like the republicans dont' vote along the lines consistent with these bigoted views-- the campaign to criminalize homosexuality, porn, out of marriage sex, birth contorl, are all examples that go against the republican alleged principles, but are consistent with the religious agenda.

If the republicans were serious about what they claim, they would REJECT the christian movement. Christians are at their heart socialists (eg: we owe duty to god/the state, and to serve our fellow man). A secular Republican party could stand behind the constitution, not in opposition to it, as it rejects the religiously inspired bad ideas that plague it currently: the persecution of drug users, intolerance towards gays, jews, etc, the pro-military adventurism in defense of Isreal, etc.

Actually, if they were to make this seperation-- and they might if the libertarians become strong enough that they want to coopt them-- then they could become a party that gays, jews ,and all pro-human rights, pro-constitution people could support.

Ironically, this means, that if you believe in the ideology the republicans profess, the best thing you could do is vote libertarian and make the libertarians strong enough to force the republicans to merge with them, or coopt the positions.

But listening to AM radio you find yourself agreeing with much of the positions, and then startled and alarmed when a religiously bigoted, or anti-gay screed comes out of the guys mouth filled with hatred, intolerance and ignorance.

Gays and Jews arent' duped by the Democrats lies-- they just don't see an alternative.
 
So those in this thread who have heaped abuse upon the Demoncratic party, recognize that as long as bigotted personalities are prevelent and tolerated in the republican party, gays and jews will choose the supposed protection of the Democrats over the promised gas chamber of the republicans. And its not like the republicans dont' vote along the lines consistent with these bigoted views-- the campaign to criminalize homosexuality, porn, out of marriage sex, birth contorl, are all examples that go against the republican alleged principles, but are consistent with the religious agenda.

Comical hyperbole equating Nazis with Republicans aside (stupid on several levels, BTW), your point is quite valid. When the "God Hates Fags" crowd stumps for Bush, who should we expect gays to vote for?
 
No, I stand behind the statement. There are republicans on record-- Pat Robertson for one-- calling for the death penalty for homosexuality.

Furthermore, the Nazis were the nationalist socialist party. The republican party is both nationalist and socialist. They profess support for the constitution, but still support the unconstitutional war on drugs. And many of them support the death penalty for drug dealers.

The death penalty for drug dealers is just as immoral as a death penalty for gays or jews.

Its worth noticing that the Democrats tend towards state ownership of the means of production style socialism... while republicans want private ownership of the means of production, but with state authority over it. This is the economic definition of facism.

And generally, the republicans actions are pro-authoritarianism. On social issues, they are strongly authoritarian, and on economic issues, their actions are authoritarian, though their rhetoric claims support for smaller taxes, etc.

Look at Reagan's asset forefieture laws, look at the broad support for "law and order" -- concepts not related to justice, and concepts the Nazis embraced to the exlcusion of justice.

Neither party is a pure expression of any of the isms... but calling liberals socialists, is just as much an exageration as calling conservatives fascists.

I think that unfortunately, many conservatives have not reconciled their professed support for economic freedom, liberty and the constitution with their support for the war on drugs, war in the middle east and christian values. But those things are in direct conflict.
 
The Democrats are bigots, too. They just don't act the part because they are using the <enter group> for their own personal and party gain. They have become the new Massah on the Democratic plantation. They enslave these groups through broken promises, vote buying through the welfare system, other handouts, and the destruction particularly of the Black family in America through the use of all of the preceding.

Blacks are once again at the back of the bus as the Democratic party now begins to shift its attention to the new voting block they wish to schmoose for their votes. Consider this:

Blacks did the dying, the marching, endured the water cannons, the lynchings, the shootings, and the beatings; and they never let their eyes fall from the prize. Their moment came in 1964 as Democratic resistance fell by the wayside. It was only after this time that the Democratic party became their defenders and started to buddy up to their leaders. Then came "The Great Society" -- the most damaging and demeaning concept, besides slavery, ever to confront Black society.

But, at about this same time, other groups who had not had to endure the water cannons, the lynchings, the shootings, and the beatings started seeing the largess of the "Great Society" and they wanted their piece of the action. "We're minorities too" they said, and the government went along with that. The march to the back of the bus began. Seat by seat they were shoved back by the ever increasing number of groups claiming -- no, demanding -- minority status; and the Democrats gleefully complied.

It was also at about this time that the Vietnam war was winding down and the influx of even more "minorities" landed on our shores. Southeast Asian immigrants, because of their displaced status, were given low interest loans for starting businesses and buying homes that Blacks had never gotten and could never qualify. One more step to the rear, please.

The Democrats made promise after promise to Blacks as the unwed birthrate escalated, fathers fled the home, and Black leaders shifted gears from decreasing racism to promoting it for their own self aggrandizement and monetary gain. Those same Black leaders clove themselves to the Democratic party and encouraged their followers to do the same.

Since that time, Black leaders and their minions have continued to encourage fealty to the Democratic party; and, in true Democratic Party form, call any Blacks who are Republicans "Uncle Toms", "House *******" and the like. Yet they complain about the same things year after year. Unfulfilled promises, "rampant" racism, disenfranchisement, vote blocking, minority hiring practices, and the like. At the same time, they shake down business enterprises for all they can get using White guilt as their truncheon.

All of the above, witnessed by me over many years was the primary cause I left the Democratic party. They are a sham party pulling the wool over the eyes of those they enslave through their increasingly expensive and failed government programs. They will do anything for a vote. They are a party that stands as the antithesis of the founding documents. Even their name is antithetical to the thinking of the founders of this nation. Those fine men rejected democracy for what it is -- mob rule of the masses. Yet Democrats daily tell us about the fine democracy we live in where the "will of the people" be done. Bull.

In the meantime, the Republican party walks around with both hands clamped firmly over their a$$e$. They are cowards of the worst sort, choosing consensus and compromise over courage.

Don Galt is not generally incorrect in his assessment of them.

They daily make nice to those bent on their destruction because they don't want people to think them incompassionate. They will go along to get along because they are scared to death of being called a name -- any name. They are in constant CYA mode.

"Oh. please Mr. Democrat, please don't call me a racist/homophobe/misogynist/anti-Semite/Nazi or any other name. I'll do anything, anything at all if you will just please not call me a name! I'll sponsor your bill that will bankrupt the country; but please don't call me a name!"

The Democrats ruled the country for sixty years and honed their political skills to a keen edge. The Republicans have no political skills beyond sliding down that keen edge a$$ first.

Look at what they have for "leaders" -- Frist, Lott, et al. They stand at the ready, falling on bended knee with ready apology for whatever the latest accusation -- real or imagined -- might be flung at them.

The entire mess needs to be scrapped and restarted in "safe mode" like some vast national Windows program. If the Libertarians could get their s--- together and stop wasting money on unviable candidates and untenable platforms, we might -- MIGHT -- just be able to save this nation. God (if we are ever again allow to acknowledge Him) help us all in the absence thereof.
 
Tytler Again

OK Gents...

In the original copy of the text, which I presumed to be authoritative, the source listed was NOT the Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic (which I knew to be a sham as it is an obvious plagiarism of Gibbon's classic work), rather it cited "an 1801 collection of his lectures"

Now... Low and Behold! I found "Plan and Outline Of A Course Of Lectures On Universal History, Ancient and Modern" Delivered in the University of Edinburgh. 1782!!!

Unfortunately... they won't send it to the local Library. It's at the University of Washington, and for local use only. Ugh! (I might drive down there and read through it over some weekend)

His Elements of General History is available however, and will be here post haste. I've ordered the earliest versions I could find, the 1820, and 1823 versions. The earlier ones are on microform, and not available for library transfer.

From what I can gather by the large, vast quantity of versions, and revisions of this text, it was a fairly widely used university text, and it can be surmised that many Americans in the early 19th century were educated by this particular text, though... a curious version
to which are added, a succinct history of the United States ; with additions and alterations by an American gentleman ; supplying important omissions, bringing down the narration of events to the beginning of the present year, and correcting many passages relating to the history of this country ; with an improved table of chronology ; a comparative view of ancient and modern geography ; and questions on each section ; adapted for the use of schools and academies, by an experienced teacher

:) took offense to Tytler's views of the American colonies, and made a post-mortem revision (I don't think Alex would approve).

A lot of people made additions to the book as Tytler got out of date, all the way into the 1850's at least. As is noted in his biography, Tytler was well thought of when he was lecturing at the time of the birth of our nation.

-Morgan
 
No, I stand behind the statement.

That's nice, but you are a few Republican-sponsored death camps short of having a point... :rolleyes:

Paraphrasing (not even quoting) a statement by one fruit loop who votes Republican hardly constitutes evidence of impending mass murder or grounds for Nazi-invoking hysterics.
 
Apparently, then, you don't believe in anything that you know isn't true.

Talk about an illogical statement... If you know something isn't true, how can you believe in it? Down the rabbit hole we go... :rolleyes:
 
Apparently, then, you don't believe in anything that you know isn't true. Are you, therefore, 100% right about everything?
That is the most laughable conclusion I've seen drawn in a long time.

For your original question, did you mean to say "Do you believe anything you don't have proof for?" or "Do you believe anything you don't know for certain is true?" ...?

Think about what you're saying ...
"If you know something is false, can you believe it?"
"If you respond 'No', then you must be claiming to be infallible."
 
Quite right. Most people do believe themselves to be infallible, though they don't admit it even to themselves. The point I am working towards is that nobody involved really wants debate. What everybody wants is to convert the other guy. Trouble is, the other guy believes himself to be just as infallible as you.
 
Golgo-13

Apparently, then, you don't believe in anything that you know isn't true. Are you, therefore, 100% right about everything?
Another ludicrous question.

Let's look at how this thing is crafted and then maybe you can give me an example of what you are trying to Dig out of the morasse.

"you don't believe" This means that one has doubt; or one is in possession of the knowledge that that which is on the table is untrue; or is of such sufficient doubt of its veracity or existence that true belief cannot exist.

be·lieve
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v. tr.
To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
To credit with veracity: I believe you.
To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

v. intr.
To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.

Idioms:
believe (one's) ears
To trust what one has heard.
believe (one's) eyes
To trust what one has seen.

"in anything" To break that down: any thing. So that means that there is an all inclusive (any) reference to all entities (thing) without exception.

anything

\A"ny*thing\, n. 1. Any object, act, state, event, or fact whatever; thing of any kind; something or other; aught; as, I would not do it for anything.

"that you know isn't true" To break this down to its basic principles:

"know" This would mean that I would have extant knowledge of whatever was on the table. I could swear to the veracity or existence of that entity because I know. There are those who know, those who know not, and those who think they know.

know
v. knew, (n, ny) known, (nn) know·ing, knows
v. tr.
To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
To have experience of: “a black stubble that had known no razor†(William Faulkner).

To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
To be acquainted with: He doesn't know his neighbors.
To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
To discern the character or nature of: knew him for a liar.
Archaic. To have sexual intercourse with.

v. intr.
To possess knowledge, understanding, or information.
To be cognizant or aware. [/i]

"isn't true" The opposite of "is true" or "untrue". That which is untrue is a lie, a prevarication.

un·true
adj. un·tru·er, un·tru·est
Contrary to fact; false.
Deviating from a standard; not straight, even, level, or exact.
Disloyal; unfaithful.

So if one were to believe in what one knows is untrue but takes that untruth as the truth; that person is delusional. That person would be prone to being convinced of the veracity or truth of any thing, regardless of stripe, and would believe that untruth to be true in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Thus my answer concerning the Flat Earth Society.

I believe they exist; I believe they are wrong; but I still believe they exist anyway.

THAT'S AS CLOSE AS ANYONE CAN GET TO AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION!


Perhaps you could enlighten the assemblage here gathered as to something that YOU believe in that you know to be untrue; but you believe in that something anyway.

YOUR TURN
 
Last edited:
Its good to know we can count on Sean's support when people are actually being rounded up for death camps! :D

The Nazis were still Nazis before they started building the death camps.

Fascism comes in many forms. To say that only people who heard massive numbers of jews into death camps are fascists is to... change the definition of fascism.
 
Jim Peel,
Nobody believes anything they know to be untrue. Everything you believe, you are convinced is true. Everything the people who disagree with you believe, they are convinced is true. Darned few people are interested in finding out who is really in possession of the truth; if, in fact, anybody is. The main point of all the wrangling back and forth seems to be to make the other guy concede that you (rhetorical you, not you personally) are right and he is wrong. Not only does that ignore the very real possibility that both guys erroneously believe in untruths, it just plain isn't bloody likely to happen.
Internet threads perfectly illustrate the point. Both sides argue endlessly back and forth about a point. Maybe throw in a few ad hominem attacks and a little sarcasm. Get a few people from both sides who couldn't find their a$$es in a dark room with both hands and a flashlight to jump in and say "Yeah! What HE said! With knobs on it!" Get distracted into side arguments like this one for a while. No matter what else happens, though, neither side is going to ever say "You're right, I'm wrong" on any matter that is at essentially belief-based. That means religion and politics in particular. Heck, look at the arguments that go on for pages and pages, often angrily, over matters that are comparatively fact-based, like cartridge performance or the history of some weapons system.
There's no answer you'll accept from me for the "Gays and Jews Question" other than "JimPeel, you were dead right and I was wrong."
But since I, like you, don't believe anything I know to be untrue, that is an answer you won't get.
 
Don?

Hello Don,

I assume by the posts you've written in this thread and one other that you are either gay yourself or a gay rights activist and I have no problem with either. In another post I corrected a statement that you made basing it on scripture and did search and found much on the subject but we won't get into that.

What I want to say is this: Get done with your pitty party and learn to understand debate and information! I have a few gay friends and the one thing that always holds true for each is when you start talking about something they don't like you're automatically "gay bashing" if you offer a different point of view. It's just information for consideration dude. Get over yourself!

The definition of a hypocrite would be a couple of posts I've seen here. When did being or voting Republican become synonymous with hearding people into death camps? You're gonna have to do better than just saying it's so bud.

"There are republicans on record-- Pat Robertson for one-- calling for the death penalty for homosexuality."

I did a search (I do this quite often) on Pat Robertson and and the death penalty for homosexuality and surprisingly (not to me that's sarcasm) there are references to Pat Robertson, his views on the death penalty and his disdain for homosexuality. The only references I can find regarding this subject in particular say that the Christian Coalition was instrumental in getting several people elected with strong religious beliefs and some were for the death penalty for homosexuality (but, of course, no reference to who specifically. What a surprise to me)

There are some here that have an aversion to homosexuality no doubt and I believe it to be immoral but I don't "gay bash." I find it hypocritical of you to make accusations of the sort about me and or others all the while bashing Christians. Alls fair in love and war dude so if you've taken offense to some of the things you think I or others have said about homosexuality just know that we Christians have taken offense to your Christian bashing.

I'm a Christian and am proud of it. What I believe and what you believe may be different but that's your choice as well as mine. I believe in what I believe and haven't seen anyone trying to force their beliefs down your throat (as you said) in anyway. If you've been oppressed take it up with your oppressors (the real ones not the ones you've created)

Anyway, have a nice day and take care,

DRC
 
Nobody believes anything they know to be untrue.
Is that kinda like
"Yeah! What HE said! With knobs on it!"
?
But since I, like you, don't believe anything I know to be untrue, that is an answer you won't get.
THANK YOU!

Ya gotta admit, though, that the Flat Earth answer was a pretty good one :D :D :D

At the now-defunct time.com Pathfinder boards, we were in a harangue about whether Clinton would do something sneaky like use some emergency or other to dodge giving up the throne (9-11 would likely have answered that question if it had happened one year earlier). I brought up the Presidential Executive Orders (PEOs) that give near monarchical power to the likes of FEMA et al in the event of a national emergency. I listed those PEOs and we had quite a discussion about them.

One guy posted the site where all PEOs and their text are posted. He showed me, to my satisfaction, that those PEOs had been cancelled and superceded. After I investigated the site, I was convinced that my premise was wrong. I then posted on the board that, in the face of uncontrovertible proof to the contrary -- to which I concurred -- that I conceded the debate.

The moderator posted that he thought it quite gentlemanly of me to do so and how rare such an instance is on posting boards.

There are those of who will, upon being convinced, admit that our former position was flawed or just plain wrong.
 
Last edited:
Tough crowd...

So far I have been called ‘despicable’, and an "old school religious or racial bigot who has no clue about logic, reason, and what Liberty is." Someone actually asked me with a straight face what is dishonorable about homosexuality. Perhaps worst of all, it has been inferred from what I wrote that I am a Republican! This obviously calls for a clarification.

Despicable, for my comment about NAMBLA? Perhaps, but I call them like I see them. In my experience, a significant percentage of the people who commit sex crimes against children have bisexual or homosexual tendencies. It is a percentage which we could do without. The crimes themselves are classified according to the specific acts committed- so people aren’t getting charged with ‘sodomy’ for committing rape. Sex crimes against children are particularly heinous, and offenders of any stripe should be punished severely enough that they are deprived of the chance to offend again- ever. Read into that whatever you want.

I am old school, allright- but my mother was pounding "Fight for the underdog!" into my head from the Cuban missile crisis forward. The seeds she planted led me to a profession where we actually DO something about it, instead of just debating the subject endlessly. PS- I have a pretty good idea of what Liberty is, too, and I didn’t learn it ‘political science, 301". Liberty begins where you can step outside your door and walk the streets free of fear, regardless of your race, color, religion or ethnic group. Liberty’s teeth are the means by which you may secure this freedom on an individual basis, without government’s permission or intervention. Liberty extends to being able to state your opinions in a public forum, regardless of whether they are politically correct or not. Liberty ends where the consensus of popular opinion inhibits your ability to do these things. Liberty does not require a majority to exist.

"Religious" bigot? My religious beliefs and practices are similar to those of the Jews, who were the other half of the original question. The significant difference is that I acknowledge Christ as the Savior. If the conservatives were really "down" on the Jews, Israel would have ceased to exist a long time ago. Unless, of course you are one of those zealots who believe they were God’s chosen people. Count me among them.

"Racial" bigot? I am married to a lovely girl who is a member of the most disaffected minority in the United States- the American Indian. Once her Apache/Commanche temper subside over the insults you have hurled at me, she will have a good laugh at the sheer inanity of the accusation. I have no quarrel with any ethnic group, other than the one which is bent upon erasing us from the earth at this particular moment in time. Perhaps we should resolve our differences for a little while and make sure that they don’t succeed.

And finally, my comment regarding the erosion of personal honor which logically follows the degradation of moral fiber. In my obsolete world, moral fiber and honor go hand in hand. Lillian Hellman stated my case clearly enough when she said "I will not cut my conscience to fit the fashion of the times." There are absolutes of right and wrong, and all the blogging in the world won't change that. I simply choose to acknowledge this as a fact.

The point that I set out to make in my original post was that the homosexual vote is already committed to those in politics who will support the remodeling of society to fit their lifestyle- and that the odds practically zero that they will vote for the conservatives who typically support second amendment issues. It is a moot point, and yes I do sometimes get tired of hearing about it. Apparently some here inferred that I am a hard-line Republican from what I said. Wrong again. I have always voted for whatever candidate had the best record of supporting my right to keep and bear arms, and had the best chance of winning- so long as they do not blantantly compromise the moral foundation upon which this nation was built. I see nothing in politics today which convinces me that this is no longer a valid approach to the problem.

I had seriously considered pulling up stakes here, but you folks obviously need an opinion based in reality once in a while. The mods have been kind and utterly unbiased on this subject, and for this I offer them my sincere appreciation.

Anybody wanna talk about guns???
 
I posted here about my real world experiences working with Republicans of all faiths, minorities, and sexual orientations, but found it to be a waste of time so I'm editing it all. Apparently I am a very naive person who just doesn't understand the reasons for hatespeak against people like myself. I see all people as equal and worthy of my respect as human beings. I love my country, vote Republican, and am a Southern Baptist. I am sick of liberal anti-American agendas, but I don't hate the human beings who vote according to their own liberal values. I am astonished at the hateful attitudes toward people like me who have never personally wished any ill toward a person of any minority, faith, lack of faith, or personal sexual orientation. Perhaps a few classes in tolerance would be in order for some of you who are crying about how oppressed you are. I am sure that your hateful feelings come from years of feeling considerable pain, but projecting your hate upon decent loving people is not right.


Regards, Keys :cool:
 
Last edited:
Sarge I didn't call you as a person despicable. I said the comparison of gays to child molesters was despicable. If a lot of murders are commited by people using guns, we don't tar all gun owners for those crimes, do we?

Liberty begins where you can step outside your door and walk the streets free of fear, regardless of your race, color, religion or ethnic group.

Noble sentiment - why not add sexual orientation to that list? It's as personal a matter as religion.
 
I vote basically as Sarge does--regardless of political party. But the reality is, parties matter. And there is no doubt that most in the GBLT, etc. community are Democrats. Many are LOYAL Democrats. And of course the Democrats for the most part have long embraced an anti-gun agenda. This is all the more reason to be inclusive. One way to break up the power of the Democrats is to steal their core. To the extent loyal Democrats can be alienated from their party on the issue of guns, this will benefit the RKBA. It might not benefit the GOP, since these folks may go to third parties. But from our perspective it will be a positive move. Take out one loyal die-hard Democratic activist over the RKBA and make them a libertarian and you've
done a great deal to help the cause.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.