'The collapse of antigay religion'

Perhaps the best thing that ever happened to gay rights was when the Republican party targeted gay marriage as their wedge issue in the 04 election (largely to distract folks from the quagmire they'd created in Iraq). That really mobilized the gay rights movement, and seems like ever since they've been politically kicking the right's ass on just about everything--to the point where even former gay-hatin churches are now in retreat and modify mode.

Doubt this is where Karl Rove envisioned that strategy taking us.

 

I'm always disappointed Walpurgis Night doesn't get more play.

 

It is and that's part of the battle going on within the Republican Party right now: To what extent do we compromise our principles for the sake of winning? In an ideal world, they'd limit the vote to white males who own property.... the way it was for many decades.

Of course, if you compromise too much for the sake of winning, the question can be asked: "What have you actually won?" If we're not allowed to deport Hispanics, have sweatshop factories that boost business profits, ban abortion, execute people, have more tax breaks for the rich, eliminate medicare, keep our guns, build the world's largest army, institute school prayer, etc. If we can't do any of that, what's the gain in being elected in the first place?

Thus, it will be interesting to see what kind of candidates emerge in the 2014 and 2016 elections. Do they nominate hard-line, right-wing candidates who reflect their idealogical core? (How often do I hear the argument "He's not conservative ENOUGH" in Republican primary debates?) Or do they nominate more moderate candidates in an attempt to appeal to "swing voters" and squeak out some narrow victories?

My guess is that if they get routed a couple more times in national elections, party leaders in the south and west may well say "Screw it. This is hopeless. We're outnumbered and we'll never win while holding to our principles. Welcome to the Confederate States of America 2.0"

 

Too trolly.

 

There is no way this is not intentional trolling. Why do the mods still allow this fuckhead to freely perform this schtick?

 

Because there a few mods who must support racism, sexism, and homophobia. Seems to be the only rational explanation, as those dorks accuse others (but never Mark) of ruining the board. The mods love to protect the stupid.

 

A journalism boards that supports censorship? Cute.

 

Please define "intentional trolling" and I will tell you yes or no. I honestly do not know what that term means.