Julie-Annie agrees with the Democraps on most of them.
I've been around here since 1998 and I've never seen such garbage thrown at our candidates from our own site.
Stick around... some of them deserve it...
No more perverts in the White House!
Posted on 10/21/2007 10:09:49 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
I, a conservative Christian, am partly responsible for passing one of the most pro-gay agendas in American history.
Starting January 1, 2008, California will implement SB-777, a bill that goes far beyond the old standard of public schools not being able to do anything that would “reflect adversely” on homosexuality. Now, the new standard is you can’t do anything that would show either a “discriminatory bias” against homosexuality or anything that would favor heterosexuality.
Let me put this in simple terms.
Textbooks that now refer to “mother and father” or “mom and dad” or “King and Queen” will soon have to also include—with equal emphasis—“mom and mom,” “dad and dad” and “king and king.” There shall be no preference of any kind shown to heterosexuality. Kids, K-12, will learn that every form of family is just as “normal” as every other form. The textbooks that comply will no longer elevate as the ideal that children have both a loving mom and a loving dad, all they’ll need is “a nurturing caregiver”—or maybe a village. They’ll be taught “male” and “female” are mere social constructs that have nothing to do with sexuality or “plumbing.” Increasingly, children will be encouraged to explore their own “gender,” which means they’ll be encouraged to experiment with all forms of sexuality since nothing is “abnormal.” We’ll throw them condoms, pass out Plan B in the health center, and even put 6th grade middle school girls on the pill to ensure that we make sex “safe.” And when some get pregnant, and others get the inevitable diseases, we’ll just take them for an abortion or for treatments under HillaryCare—all during school hours, and all without their parents having a clue.
All this will happen because I—like millions of other conservative Christians in California—voted for Arnold. I voted for the Republican Arnold in order to avoid the Democrat Bustamante—but ended up getting quite of bit of Bustamante anyway. I’m not mad at Arnold, really. He told us who he was and what he believed in, and we were just glad we could vote for a candidate that had a real shot at “winning,” who could “stop Bustamante.”
Sound familiar? Now we’re told again that we have to vote for a candidate that can “win,” because we have to “stop Hillary.”
Consider this.
How many people do you know who still proudly call themselves “Republicans?” I know of increasingly few. There was a time when I was so proud of being part of the GOP. That was before all the scandals, the earmarks and the spending of “Compassionate Conservatism,” before the massive Prescription Drug Benefit and McCain-Feingold, the failure of Social Security reform, the poor communication that still continues regarding the War on Terror, the amnesty of Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the Harriet Miers Moment. I could go on.
It’s like we’ve been watching “How to Destroy a Great Party in Two Administrations.”
And now we have Arnold the Republican signing the most pro-gay agenda in our state’s history and Rudy the Republican who’s supporting abortion on demand, civil unions and gun control.
It’s déjà vu all over again: Beware of an Arnold dressed as a Rudy.
I may no longer be an enthusiastic Republican, but I am a proud conservative who’s angry at the political party that has moved away from me. I haven’t changed these past several years, they have.
In 2008, for a Republican to win, he must have the enthusiastic support of conservative Christians who will raise money, walk precincts, and get out the vote. But the reasons most Christians support the Republican Party are primarily moral, not economic nor even out of national security concerns. If Republicans lose their opposition to abortion and gay marriage they’ll lose much of the Christian vote. Sure, some will vote for the “lesser of two evils,” but it won’t be enough to win the election.
I just don’t see how Rudy can beat Hillary without a big Christian turnout—and he won’t get it.
In the end, if Republicans are foolish enough to nominate Rudy, I doubt many conservative Christians will make the mistake we did in California.
When I look at Rudy, all I see is Arnold.
The Frank Pastore Show is heard in Los Angeles weekday afternoons on 99.5 KKLA and on the web at kkla.com, and is the winner of the 2006 National Religious Broadcasters Talk Show of the Year. Frank is a former major league pitcher with graduate degrees in both philosophy of religion and political philosophy.
"Shut up, Rooty!"
from Richard Bachman's The Regulators
Hey! This would be a good thread for you to put up that priceless reply you put up about a week ago!!! I loved it!!! I forget who else was copying it and passing it around at that time. Do you remember what I’m talking about???
I think that Rudy, and his policies, are fair game. But, I also think that those who do support him should be heard, so long as they do so in a constructive manner, and only booted when they become abusive of the privilege. I doubt they can convince me to support him, but merely shouting down the opposition, instead of refuting their argument, achieves nothing.
If we drive out anyone who dares to go against the local orthodoxy, FR will end up being nothing but an echo chamber, mindlessly congratulating each other on how clever and conservative we are. On the other hand, if those supporters of Guiliani present their best arguments, and those of us who do not support him can clearly refute them, we may convince them to our side. We will, at the least, hone our own arguments.
FO was outed as a dishonest debater when, after being constantly refuted, he resorted to logical fallacies and rhetoric, like "a vote for x is actually a vote for the Dems. Why are you supporting the Dems?" To see similar arguments used by others here makes me think they are likewise incapable of constructing an honest rebuttal. Things such as childish nicknames, repetitious spin slogans, cut and paste hit pieces, and out-of-context misrepresentations only make me suspicious of the persons using them, even if they are done in support of a candidate I tend to favor.
I am left thinking, "If X is such a good choice, why do his supporters need to lie about Y?" and "If FReeper Z had used the same rhetorical tactics in support of Rudy, he'd be banned. Why is it tolerated in support of another candidate?"
Try reading for comprehension. I said candidates referring to all of the non-democrat candidates.
Buddy, this is not a liberal site.
Thanks for the tip.
Except for further exposing Rooty`s liberalism, the management of this forum, AKA. the owner/operator of this forum, disagrees with you. And so do I. FR is not a liberal debate society. We are a conservative forum. We promote conservative candidates, advance conservatism and defend the Constitution. And we oppose everything associated with liberalism.
Thats it, in a nut shell.
>>>>>"If X is such a good choice.... Why is it tolerated in support of another candidate?"
This is pure bull crap. The basic concept of FR says, anyone who promotes, supports or defends a liberal or liberalism, is the enemy of conservatism. An open target for serious political attack.
Every member of this forum, in good standing, is free to support any good conservative candidate of their choice. My rationale for supporting Fred, is clear and concise, and based on sound conservative reasoning. Along with my 40 years of political involvement and experience, I know what I'm talking about.
Obviously, you find my politicking unfair and biased. As a conservative, all I can say is, you're right. I'm biased towards conservative candidates. Especially, viable and reliable conservative candidates.
If you missed the theme of my post, it can be summed up in one word. CONSERVATISM.
Serious political attack does not consist of making up cutesy derogatory names. It consists of refuting the opposition's ideas. Anyone whose argument consists of calling Guiliani "Rooty Toot" is a political light weight, to be taken about as seriously as saying your ol' lady wears army boots.
Obviously, you find my politicking unfair and biased.
No, bias is fine; I'd expect any politically aware person to have an established view. What I find is that your politicking is juvenile and unconvincing. It is pure Argument from Authority: Conservatism is what you say it is, so your way or the highway. That's fine, if all you want is backslaps from a bunch of Yes Men and cronies. It's very thin gruel for political debate, however.
Anyone who hunkers down in a forum where their view is the only one voiced is due to be bitchslapped by reality, just as many here were in Nov. 2006. The fact is, in the Real World, Rudy has a lot of support in his quest to be nominated. If you want to truly stop that, you'd be better served by honing your arguments against the opposing ones than by merely banishing them from your presence and pretending they are vanquished.
Since August 2006, along with other FReepers in the anti-Rudy contingent, I've been attacking Rooty on the issues. Haven't seen you on one of the thousands of anti-Rudy threads, denouncing his liberalism. Calling Rudy, "Rooty", is fun. It always ticks off the liberals and exposes them for all to see.
>>>>>What I find is that your politicking is juvenile and unconvincing. It is pure Argument from Authority: Conservatism is what you say it is, so your way or the highway.
Then you haven't followed my posts. Far from being juvenile, I enjoy exposing the liberalism of the leftwing and have been doing so for decades. Have no intention of stopping anytime soon, btw. Like I said, its the policy of Free Republic to advance conservatism. Not liberalism. Your argument is pure fallacy and as unconvincing as any.
>>>>>The fact is, in the Real World, Rudy has a lot of support in his quest to be nominated.
You're free to hold any political position you like. So far, your rhetoric borders on centrist-moderatism. Not conservatism.
Fred is the only viable option. Duncan for Sec of Defense under Fred.
Julie-Annie agrees with the Democraps on most of them.
I've been around here since 1998 and I've never seen such garbage thrown at our candidates from our own site.
Stick around... some of them deserve it...
No more perverts in the White House!
No more perverts in the White House!
I know, but I'm sure calcowgirl didn't mean it intentionally. She's the 2nd coming of Alamo-girl.
Thank you for your encouragements!
I’m not impressed.
Darned right!
Thanks, EEE. The ultimate compliment! :-)
Feel free to look up Argument from Authority, then come back and discuss fallacy. Meanwhile, I shall prefer to know my opponents instead of merely shouting them down.
Btw, whenever you feel compelled to defend Rooty Toot, I encourage you to look me up.
I assumed you were including Rudy in that list. If you're not --- and you're in effect saying Rudy is a democrat by any realistic taxonomy --- then I was wrong and I stand corrected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.