Cindy McCain Loves The Gays!!!!- Page 3

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/21/10 at 2:35pm

Mommy Dearest

[madbrian]

Posted: 1/21/10 at 3:04pm

Throw Momma From The Train

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/21/10 at 3:04pm

The Fist Family

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/21/10 at 3:05pm

suds

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/21/10 at 3:14pm

Do Momma On The Train

Oh Dad Poor Dad, Momma's Come Out In Favor Of Same Sex Marriage And I'm Feeling Really Horny!!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/21/10 at 3:34pm

Republicants

Only that final consonant is a "U"

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/21/10 at 3:48pm

Republicunnilinguists

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/21/10 at 3:57pm

Dive, Baby, DIVE!

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/21/10 at 4:06pm

McCains Misbehavin'

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/21/10 at 4:34pm

Girls Will Do Girls part 47: The Grand Canyon State

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/21/10 at 10:41pm

Mommy's Grand Canyon

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 1/21/10 at 10:49pm

Tails from the Crypt

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 11:15am

And we have a winner!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 11:42am

Megan LOVES Her Mother!

[winston89]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 3:58pm

So Roscoe, let me see if I have this straight.


If there is a republican who comes out as gay friendly you think that they are lying and therefor shouldn't be trusted. Now do keep in mind that I am talking about a republican like Cindy or Megan McCain. Two people who, despite being republicans are not in a position for being elected to any office.

For arguments sake, let's say that the republican mayoral candidate of a notoriously gay friendly city...let's say San Francisco comes out in favor of gay rights just for the sake of gaining votes.

Shouldn't you be more shocked and scared of the person who might be in a position of power, the mayoral candidate rather then two women, who, despite being high profile republicans, aren't anywhere near a position of elected office?

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 4:18pm

I don't believe I ever said I was shocked or scared of Cindi McCain or the others who've jumped on the "see? we're gay friendly too!" bandwagon.

For what it is worth, I don't believe any of them. If they're really gay-friendly, they have no business being in the Republican party in the first place. And I rather doubt that there'll be too many of those Republicans in power in gay-friendly places being too gay-friendly any more -- it tends to come back to bite them later, especially if they have notions of running for even higher office. Bigotry gets more votes for Repubs.

On the other hand, one never knows. They might actually mean it. They'll need to do a lot more to prove their devotion to the cause than pose for a photo.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 4:23pm

Ok, I'll bite: Why do you insist on spelling it "Cindi"?

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 4:26pm

Reginald, old bad habit. I worked with a woman who spelled it that way, and she got really mad if you spelled it any other way, and I used to have to e-mail her a lot, and so now I just tend to spell Cindy with two Is.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 4:35pm

If they're really gay-friendly, they have no business being in the Republican party in the first place.

What if they were Republican before they were gay-friendly? Do they have to switch?

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 4:55pm

They can do as they like. But their affiliation with the Republican Party isn't exactly helping their gay-friendly credibility. Like being a Jew-friendly Nazi, there's a bit of a contradiction.

Updated On: 1/22/10 at 04:55 PM

[winston89]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 5:18pm

Roscoe, you forget that what is beautiful about affiliation is that you an agree with one thing and not another and still be part of a political party.

In other words, you can be either a republican or a democrat and support either side to the hilt, yet, when it comes to one particular issue or another you can disagree with a majority of the party.

It is possible for example, to be a republican who agrees with them in every way shape and form with their platform. Yet, not like how they handle the issue of same sex marriage.

On the other hand, you can be a democrat and not be a big fan of how they are dealing with the healthcare issues.

Let me use a couple of personal examples. During the presidential election, my grandmother had trouble at first voting for Obama due to the fact that he was black. Now, this was not a racial thing, just a sign of the time that she grew up in. Keep in mind the fact that this was someone who sat down with my mother and said that she wouldn't be complete unless she got married.

Now, she is liberal in every way pro union and all that wonderful stuff. Yet, did her having trouble at first voting for Obama make her any less of a Democrat? Of course not, it was clearly just her being a product of when she grew up.

My mother, upon hearing the term marriage being used in conjunction with homosexuality gets a bad taste in her mouth, not because she finds the whole idea appalling. But, due to the fact that she was raised to be and is very open minded. However, the word marriage is something that is used to be in conjunction with a man and a woman. We have had discussions and debates on this for the longest time. And, I believe that she isn't against homosexuals getting married. It is just that she grew up with a different terminology being used and having it change is a little unsettling for her. Doesn't mean she is a bigot. Just means that words change and have different meanings over time. And, people's views change.

Just like when my grandmother grew up in the 20's, it was a time that those who were liberal were trying really hard not to find a problem with blacks. So instead of taking the fully racist route, they just acted like there wasn't a problem with someone being black and therefor, never said anything.

For my mom, like I said words change and have different meanings over time. My mom is fully in favor of all the ideals and rights that would come with same sex marriage, however, she is not a fan of the word having a different meaning then it does now.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 5:25pm

I still want to know what you like about the health care plan. Not that it seems to matter anymore.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 5:32pm

If you understand the history of the Republican and Democratic parties, you can comprehend what is up with the diversity in both parties. Barry Goldwater Republican and Ronald Reagan Republican and George W Bush Republican are 3 different kinds of Republican. The party has changed greatly over time and is still changing. This is why Republicans will flaunt Abraham Lincoln, but can not flaunt the Civil Rights Act. This is why there are Confederate flag-waving Democrats and President Obama. This is why many Democrats became Republicans and vice versa (Hillary was a Barry Goldwater Republican).

Today, we clearly have a big tent Democratic Party--just look at the Senate regarding HCR. And the Republican party is certainly experiencing great tension between the Sarah Palins of the party and the Megan McCains of the party.

One would think the time is now for a 3rd and/or 4th party to emerge, but stuck in a 2 party system we continue to drudge on.

So, to generalize all Republicans is an ignorant exercise. Though, I understand leaning that way as the party platform says in print anti-equality stances.

But obviously not all Republicans agree with everything in the platform. I bet there are things in the Democratic platform that each of us Dems could find iffy.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 5:37pm

Erik, the House may just pass the Senate version. I feel like I would rather they pass that and fix it later than nothing at all. It's a start. Once people see that the sky will not be falling, maybe we can get to the public option one day.

[winston89]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 6:32pm

jrb_actor, what you said about there being different kinds of Democrats and Republicans was well said. Like I you can be a member of a given party and not agree at all with everything that is being done.