• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Can furries be Republican?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tycho

Guest
Huh? Whether the RNC likes it or not, Rush Limbaugh is the voice of the party simply because no one in the party leadership has the cojones to say the things that he says.

I wasn't aware that "cojones" was Spanish for "hot air".
 

Telnac

Fundamentalist Heretic
I wasn't aware that "cojones" was Spanish for "hot air".
Hot air is far better than the hemming & hawing the real leaders of the RNC do. That's not to say that I agree with Rush Limbaugh all the time since he's pretty hardcore pro-life, anti-gay but I'd rather Rush Limbaugh be the unofficial leader of the Republican Party than John McCain, or others like him who have the spine of a jellyfish.
 

Takun

Wof Wof Wof Wof Wof
I'm a Republican, and a Christian to boot. You don't have to be a bigot to be a Republican, or a Christian for that matter. Frankly, I'm dismayed at how much power the bigots in the Republican party have. But rather than leave, I'd rather stay a Republican and do my best to change the party from within.

Going 3rd party is a waste of my vote. I learned that the hard way when my vote for Perot helped put Clinton in office in '92. Voting Democrat would mean voting for a wide variety of things I vehemently oppose and nothing I support.

Yeah, Republicans support stuff I don't, like the pro-life & anti-gay agendas so voting Republican is far from a perfect vote. But they are standing tough on opposing all the big spending, big government stuff Obama's doing that's dragged the economy to its knees and keeping it there. They support Arizona's tough stand against illegal immigration. Those two things alone will keep me voting Republican until the Democrats change their tune (which I don't expect will ever happen.)


1. You can't blame Obama for an economy he inherited just by being elected. Economists are divided on just how much stimulus was needed and if we need another. If we want to discuss whether the cause of the recession is from Clinton that's another story but Obama didn't drag an economy that was already on its knees, to its knees.

2. Some of the biggest recent expansions of government have happened under Bush. It'd be nice if the Republican party really did follow through with the small government mantra, but I really don't see it.

3. It seems counter-intuitive to me that they cut taxes and then increase military spending. I'm sorry if I can't believe that they are against big spending with what I've seen.
 

HotRodLincoln

You could have had an I6
Too poor to be a Republican, too smart to be a Democrat
 

Telnac

Fundamentalist Heretic
1. You can't blame Obama for an economy he inherited just by being elected. Economists are divided on just how much stimulus was needed and if we need another. If we want to discuss whether the cause of the recession is from Clinton that's another story but Obama didn't drag an economy that was already on its knees, to its knees.

2. Some of the biggest recent expansions of government have happened under Bush. It'd be nice if the Republican party really did follow through with the small government mantra, but I really don't see it.

3. It seems counter-intuitive to me that they cut taxes and then increase military spending. I'm sorry if I can't believe that they are against big spending with what I've seen.
1. Oh, Obama inherited a mess to be sure. But Obama's big government policies long predate Obama himself, and it's those very policies that created this mess in the first place. The roots of the recession don't date back to Bush, or Clinton for that matter. Fannie Mae was created by FDR, but it was the Community Reinvestment Act under Jimmy Carter that really transformed Fannie Mae into the beast it is today. Clinton required that Fannie Mae approve more mortgages for people who couldn't afford them, and once the interest rates plunged after the dotcom bubble burst, the market went nuts.

You see, the market isn't the problem. It's government tinkering with the market that is. They had the best of intentions: to help low income people get into homes. But the result was that people could get mortgages when they shouldn't have been able to, and they used these mortgages to buy homes & flip them a year or two (or less!) and make a ton of money. That ran up the cost of housing and led to the housing bubble that starting this recession in the first place.

...and the answer to our problems is more government intervention???

As much as Democrats may bitch about Bush's tax cuts (hell, even I bitch too since they weren't paid for by spending cuts), you can't deny the fact that the dotcom recession came to a screeching halt shortly after a flood of capital came flowing back into the market. Yes, the tax cuts were mainly for the rich. But look what the rich did with that money: they invested it, which pulled the market out of a free fall and quickly ended the recession.

Some economists say we're out of this recession... which I disagree! But even if that's true you can't claim we've had any real recovery. My financial situation certainly hasn't improved, nor has the financial situation of anyone I know... rich or poor.

2. I never said I was a fan of Bush. Tax cuts I agree with. Out of control spending... I don't. Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like, and he rubber stamped nearly everything set in front of him, even when the Democrats controlled Congress.

Bush is a social conservative, fiscal moderate. I'm a social moderate & fiscal conservative. I believe in tax cuts, provided they're tied to spending cuts. The only time in my memory Congress cut spending was under Gingrich, and that was when a Democrat was in the White House! The result: budget surpluses.

But as bad as Bush was, Obama's 10x worse. Our national debt is spiraling out of control, and special interest giveaways disguised as stimulus packages are doing little to help the economy in the short term and will do great damage in the long run. All I'm hearing from Obama is that we haven't done enough spending!

3. Increasing military spending makes sense when the nation's at war. Even if you disagree with the war in Iraq (for good reasons, no doubt), we are still at war with Al Qaeda and to fight a war you need the resources to do so.

No, it's Bush's rubber stamping every spending bill that came to his desk that particularly irks me. Yes, I really hope Obama loses in 2012... but I hope his successor doesn't end up being another big-spending Republican like Bush. It'd be nice to have a Republican President with the guts to actually veto bills sent to them from Congress until all the pork gets cut out of them, and someone who insists that balancing the budget become a national priority again.
 
Last edited:

CrazyLee

Biggest buttplug ever
Okay, I get it, my question was worded poorly and sounded a bit dumb. One can certainly be a Republican and still be a member of a group that's largly gay (even if you're not gay yourself) and still believe in gay rights, just like how some Christians can be gay, or believe in gay rights.

I think I was more asking about guys like the person I mentioned who is a fur and draws gay furry porn (probably for TEH MONEY like someone said) yet quotes Rush and spews the kind of generic anti-liberal/obama hate retoric that usually comes from the more vocal members of the party. To me, that's hypocritical. It's like the comic posted here, the guy who writes that seems anti-gay marriage and anti-feminist which seems to go against the beliefs of many of the people in the fandom, and I would call him a hypocrit.

I would also think it a bit hypocritical to be a Republican or Christian and be gay, since the official stance of MOST of Christianity is that homosexual sex and marriage are wrong, and the unwritten stance of the Republican party is the same. You might be better off joining the Libertarians in that case, since they're fiscially conservative but believe in free rights. Like this person says:
It's like people who are furry, but ALSO religious, such as Christians. There are furry Christians. Not every republican or religious person agrees with what the majority of their "group's" stance and views on things. That's fair. However, I personally think it's still an oxymoron to associate yourself with those people; Let's say you're a fur. Let's say you're also gay. WHY the fucking hell would you want to associate yourself with a bunch of assholes who are typically AGAINST gay rights, and anyone who is "different" altogether? I never understood that.

I would find it hard being someone who supports gays and voting for a party that typically goes against gay rights, even if I agree with other beliefs of that party.

I consider myself independant although I usually vote Democrat, I want to keep my options open. My biggest beefs with the Republican party as it is today is twofold:

- The tendancy for the more vocal members of the party to treat politics as if it's "Us vs Them" and anyone who doesn't agree with them is THE ENEMY, which leads to the word Liberal or Democrat to become a hate filled insult, which leads to conservatives to blame the other side for everything, vote against anything democrats vote for, call members of the other party everything from traitors to commies, and basically act like fucking children. Yes, the dems sometimes do this too. Politics seems more like a circus than anything intellegent.
- The running of the party by the Religious Right. The constitution very clearly states a separation of church and state but I have seen the Republican party taken over by people who generally vote against gay marriage, abortion, and for things that support Christanity. The law should be neutral when it comes to religious matters. It bugs me to see things that are going on now in Texas when it comes to schooling and creationism.

I had a third point but I forgot it. Durr....

It's been suggested that the government get out of the marriage business altogether and ONLY give out civil partnership licenses (after passing laws that civil partners get the same rights as married couples) and leave marriages to religions who can decide for themselves whether they want to marry same-sex couples; I think that's a pretty good idea, frankly.
(my quotes screwed up, don't remember who posted this)

I say that religion get out of the marriage business. Keep marriage a contract between two (three? more?) grown adults, no matter what the gender. IF a person also wants a religious ceremony, that's up to them and their religion.

I'm a Republican, and a Christian to boot. You don't have to be a bigot to be a Republican, or a Christian for that matter. Frankly, I'm dismayed at how much power the bigots in the Republican party have. But rather than leave, I'd rather stay a Republican and do my best to change the party from within.
Sounds like a good plan. Although you sound a little more like a libertarian than a republican.

I had more quotes but teh quote thing screwed up.
Also, I'm fully aware that there can be more moderate Republicans or Republicans that are cool with gays, but that's not the official stance of the party.
 
Last edited:

Takun

Wof Wof Wof Wof Wof
1. Oh, Obama inherited a mess to be sure. But Obama's big government policies long predate Obama himself, and it's those very policies that created this mess in the first place. The roots of the recession don't date back to Bush, or Clinton for that matter. Fannie Mae was created by FDR, but it was the Community Reinvestment Act under Jimmy Carter that really transformed Fannie Mae into the beast it is today. Clinton required that Fannie Mae approve more mortgages for people who couldn't afford them, and once the interest rates plunged after the dotcom bubble burst, the market went nuts.

I agree!


You see, the market isn't the problem. It's government tinkering with the market that is. They had the best of intentions: to help low income people get into homes. But the result was that people could get mortgages when they shouldn't have been able to, and they used these mortgages to buy homes & flip them a year or two (or less!) and make a ton of money. That ran up the cost of housing and led to the housing bubble that starting this recession in the first place.

...and the answer to our problems is more government intervention???

I agree this went poorly too. I have to ask by what you refer to by more government intervention. I feel it comes out to be a buzzword all too often. I'd like some concrete things you are against. I see a lot of government programs working and see more places they could be of use as well. I see complaints of government intervention and then the BP spill take place and people complain asking where the government was to prevent it. The mining collapses we had awhile back are another that come to mind. I see a lot of "government intervention is bad except when it is working out for me in that case it is good."

As much as Democrats may bitch about Bush's tax cuts (hell, even I bitch too since they weren't paid for by spending cuts), you can't deny the fact that the dotcom recession came to a screeching halt shortly after a flood of capital came flowing back into the market. Yes, the tax cuts were mainly for the rich. But look what the rich did with that money: they invested it, which pulled the market out of a free fall and quickly ended the recession.

I am not too familiar with this, though I remember it vaguely. I have not read anything on it.


But as bad as Bush was, Obama's 10x worse. Our national debt is spiraling out of control, and special interest giveaways disguised as stimulus packages are doing little to help the economy in the short term and will do great damage in the long run. All I'm hearing from Obama is that we haven't done enough spending!

And we aren't going to start paying off the debt. Everything I've heard and read urges spending to get through the recession before addressing the debt.

3. Increasing military spending makes sense when the nation's at war. Even if you disagree with the war in Iraq (for good reasons, no doubt), we are still at war with Al Qaeda and to fight a war you need the resources to do so.

Yes, I don't want our troops over there under equipped but I rather they not be there at all. I am in favor of defense but we've lost more lives than in the attack we retaliated against, ran up a huge war budget, and for what? Sending over troops for 3 tours of duty or more?


No, it's Bush's rubber stamping every spending bill that came to his desk that particularly irks me. Yes, I really hope Obama loses in 2012... but I hope his successor doesn't end up being another big-spending Republican like Bush. It'd be nice to have a Republican President with the guts to actually veto bills sent to them from Congress until all the pork gets cut out of them, and someone who insists that balancing the budget become a national priority again.

I hope the GOP can put up a good candidate as well. I'd like to see the party taken back from the social conservative joke of party it's becoming. I'd say a lot of work needs to be done, in both parties.
 

Ozriel

Inglorious Bastard
Does it matter?
 

Zrcalo

I STALK PRINCIPLES
no.

because everyone knows that republicans live in the fictional land called "texass"
 

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?
You see, the market isn't the problem. It's government tinkering with the market that is. They had the best of intentions: to help low income people get into homes. But the result was that people could get mortgages when they shouldn't have been able to, and they used these mortgages to buy homes & flip them a year or two (or less!) and make a ton of money. That ran up the cost of housing and led to the housing bubble that starting this recession in the first place.

The banks made money off this too, because they could immediately sell off the debt for a quick buck too. I don't see how CRA can be blamed for the housing bubble (particularly when the volume of loans being given out were well above and beyond anything CRA required once Gramm-Leach-Bliley came around) when the banks were profiting from their actions regardless. After all, isn't it one of the core principles of the free market that everyone can and should be expected to act in their own best interest?
 

JoeStrike

WAY older than Mr. Black
You see, the market isn't the problem. It's government tinkering with the market that is.

Yeah, thank God the government wasn't tinkering with the market by really enforcing environmental laws and making sure BP obeyed them. Can you imagine what kind of disaster we would've had in the oil industry if that had happened..

Sarcasm aside, 'the free market is sacred' is the kind of BULLSHIT we have to get over in this country. You can blame Fannie Mae all you want but FM didn't start hustling mortgage securities that turned out to be worthless - that's the kind of shit 'the free market' loves pulling on the rest of us.
 

Cavy

Member
Sarcasm aside, 'the free market is sacred' is the kind of BULLSHIT we have to get over in this country. You can blame Fannie Mae all you want but FM didn't start hustling mortgage securities that turned out to be worthless - that's the kind of shit 'the free market' loves pulling on the rest of us.


If only we stop living in candy land and coming back to reality, then we can see this side of the free market.
 

Fenrir Lupus

Politically incorrect.
Community Reinvestment Act under Jimmy Carter
OH MY GOD, SOMEONE ELSE MENTIONING THAT OTHER THAN ME! I MUST BE DREAMING!

I say that religion get out of the marriage business. Keep marriage a contract between two (three? more?) grown adults, no matter what the gender. IF a person also wants a religious ceremony, that's up to them and their religion.

See, the thing is... Calling it a marriage should be up to the people involved. The contract shouldn't be called marriage, because it should be open to everyone regardless of relationship. If I want, say, joint custody of a child with someone who is no more than a friend, or what about giving them the right to determine if/when treatment stops if I am unable to make that decision... and binding of assets... That's not "marriage," that's a contract. Marriage isn't a creation of government, the contract that typically accompanies it is. That contract isn't the marriage itself. I should be able to get married without a contract (or a license, for that matter)
 

Fenrir Lupus

Politically incorrect.
The banks made money off this too, because they could immediately sell off the debt for a quick buck too. I don't see how CRA can be blamed for the housing bubble (particularly when the volume of loans being given out were well above and beyond anything CRA required once Gramm-Leach-Bliley came around) when the banks were profiting from their actions regardless. After all, isn't it one of the core principles of the free market that everyone can and should be expected to act in their own best interest?

The bank's best interest would have been to not give money to people who won't give it back.
 

Telnac

Fundamentalist Heretic
OK, I see I've created a monster. I'll be happy to debate the CRA, its affect on Fannie Mae, the culpability of the banks & Wall Street and who's really to blame for all this mess...

...but not here. I think it'd be best to instead respond to debate threats on these subjects in the Off Topic forum than to continue to derail this thread. If you'd like to debate me, please create a thread for that purpose and I'll happily throw myself into the fray.

So back on topic...

Why would it be hypocritical to be a gay Republican just because many other Republicans have an anti-gay agenda? Unlike multi-party parliamentary governments, the two major US parties are coalitions of varying interest groups. Someone may be a Democrat because they're a union member, and the Democrats are pro-Union. Does that make that person a hypocrite if they also happen to be pro-life?

I don't know anyone, including Rush Limbaugh, who agrees with 100% of their party's platform. That doesn't make anyone a hypocrite. What makes someone a hypocrite is if they loudly proclaim that gays are degenerates, then is later on caught having fun with their gay lover. No, someone can be a proud gay Republican so long as they make it clear that they don't agree with the anti-gay elements within the Republican Party.
 

Telnac

Fundamentalist Heretic
Can they? Yes.

Are they? Probably not.
Well, a fair number of furries responding to this thread have said they are...

...including myself. :cool:
 

haynari

Member
Well in my personal opinion, there needs to be a strong third party, which takes the best ideas from both parties and combines them into one super party that most democrats and republicans can support. I have had talks with a bunch of my friends (All of us are political fanatics) and we seriously think that there will be the rise of a new party, NOT THE TEA PARTY, that will bring about the unity of good ideas and will become a heavy opponent for the election, within the next 12 years.
 

RayO_ElGatubelo

My gif animation doesn't work
I wonder, what would happen if the Republican party split into a Libertarian party, which would abandon the notion of social conservatism and the morally obsessed clusterfuck they have now?
 

Fenrir Lupus

Politically incorrect.
Well in my personal opinion, there needs to be a strong third party, which takes the best ideas from both parties and combines them into one super party that most democrats and republicans can support. I have had talks with a bunch of my friends (All of us are political fanatics) and we seriously think that there will be the rise of a new party, NOT THE TEA PARTY, that will bring about the unity of good ideas and will become a heavy opponent for the election, within the next 12 years.

/facepalm /facepalm /facepalm

Ok, you go look up the nolan chart and tell me where the compromise is. I'll be sitting here laughing my ass off at you.
 

haynari

Member
Ok. well maybe we could have both parties be not as far to either side and we could work with the parties rather than just bickering and getting nothing done. it takes so long for anything to get done because both parties are being super stubborn and not wanting to compromise on anything.
 

Fenrir Lupus

Politically incorrect.
Ok. well maybe we could have both parties be not as far to either side and we could work with the parties rather than just bickering and getting nothing done. it takes so long for anything to get done because both parties are being super stubborn and not wanting to compromise on anything.

Any compromise between sanity and insanity is insane.
 

Kobu

Member
Back to the initial question, I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't share all of the same views of the party that I associate with. Republican is just something people choose to associate themselves with because they agree with most of it's views. Not necessarily all of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top