Posted on 02/12/2011 12:42:10 AM PST by Nickname
Why are you so "keen" on throwing Andrew Brietbart under the bus? All I am saying is, we shouldn't be throwing our allies under the bus because they don't agree with our (the correct) morality. AB is still doing good for the conservative cause. But you can't seeem to see that.
well guess what , most of us are not in the conservative circle but if you want then by all means go ahead you join with them but you are in a minority as this thread shows
Never said I was going to "join" with them (I assume you mean libertarians like AB). I said they were our allies.
Whatever. I know I am in the minority because I think for myself.
I did not check, it just reminds of the ron pauls bots who tried so much to make their man popular , voting all the time texting on who won the debate etc
Surely by now one would think that accepting libertarians is accepting the homosexual agenda as libertarians accept the homosexual agenda .
it really isn’t hard to understand I would have thought
Actually, this issue is being discussed not because of what's commonly accepted (smaller and more constitutional government) but because of what is not (homosexual sex normalcy and promotion).
The libertarian argument is an old one -the ends justifies the means. You parrot the sentiment when implying over and over again that it is critical that perverse sex be accepted IF we wish to see smaller and more constitutional government. DUH! -I am not buying such lunacy and absurdity.
There is a difference between discriminating against a person and discriminating against an activity -the first one is illegitimate as far as politics the second case is not. UNLESS something is unalienable and or guaranteed by the Constitution it is a subject open to discussion and value determination premised upon its merits alone -that is why conservative do NOT do identity politics! Other than the guaranteed and unalienable there are NO sacred cows and that includes homosexual sex!
IF the homosexual sex practitioners want to bring their sexual proclivities out on public then too bad if they are rejected -such is life -wah wah... They can ride out on the homosexual sex horse they rode on on and the libertarians that always carry water for them can wipe the tears from their homosexual sex clouded eyes while they do so.
Yes, he and you both seem to be thick-headed. I am not "defending" AB. I am saying he is doing our cause some good, no matter what he thinks about gays. I am saying that you can have allies who don't agree with you 100%, yet who also want limited constitutional government.
think about that
I did. And I come to the conclusion that even if AB supports gays, his organization still does the conservative cause some good. Which, nonsensically, you seem to deny.
and no I’m not interested in carbon emissions by Sarah, hope you’re off your drugs by now
Wrong poster. I wasn't the one who said that.
Apparently moral and political clarity is a herculean task.
The libertarian argument is an old one -the ends justifies the means. You parrot the sentiment when implying over and over again that it is critical that perverse sex be accepted IF we wish to see smaller and more constitutional government. DUH! -I am not buying such lunacy and absurdity.
You are putting words in my mouth, and it is not helping your argument. I am implying no such thing.
My thesis is: don't discount Brietbart's work that helps conservatives, even if he supports gays.
Even if Brietbart has sex with a big 'ol queer on a regular basis (HE HAS NOT SAID SO, btw), even so, if his organization is attacking big government (and it is), he is doing our cause some good. I am saying Brietbart is an ally in getting smaller, constitutional government. I am saying you can have allies (NOTE THE WORD, ALLIES) that you don't agree with 100%, but you have some common cause with.
In no way does my thesis above support gays, faggotry, fisting, Maryland, Jennings, don't-ask-don't-tell, Mitt Romney or the man in the moon. It stands alone. It has nothing to do with the "gay agenda", and stop pretending it does.
You know we both can read your posts, right? If you want to talk about us privately, use FReepmail.
I may be a "newer signup", but I have been reading FR and supporting its mission since the early 2000's. So you can take your "they're newer signups" snobbery elsewhere.
Libertarians are referred to as liberaltarians on FR for a reason.
Yes, and a fool cannot tell who his allies are.
right you think we should join with libertarians , we all think minus one poster we should not
solved
I’m becoming convinced the 100 percent club does even really care about destroying obama in 2012 anymore. To me, numero uno goals needs to be ousting this communist traitor and his admn, not infighting amongst people who otherwise agree on 80 percent or better of issues.
Christ ,
AB has done good on fiscal and other issues but he is a liberal on social issues.
So you have no problem with those who are socially liberal I do as everyone on here does minus one.
Now to me accepting him on social liberal views is not alright as the homosexual agenda is not about one ting it is a wide range of things which they want
LOgcabins etc should not be accepted at all, they are all about their sick perversion
they bring with them this
read it please
and then ask yourself is that what you wanthttp://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
yes you never said that.
Thank you. It is progress of a sort. I'll take it.
I know. But I guess it's just so much easier to beat the drums. It's the most charitable thing that I can think of to explain the opposition to our reasonable position.
Well, sometimes a person has to call a spade, a spade. So I did.
Have a good evening.
Instead of attempting to ridicule what you do not understand I suggest attempting to understand it -it is more than just perverse sex we discuss here. It is not so easy to dismiss as the elites that tend to consider the masses, the bible thumpers, stupid and ignorant might suggest. Regardless, I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not some elitist talking down to the simple minded that just don't get it.
Anyway, from my perspective, and I assume others would agree, there are some things non negotiable e.g. freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
The promotion of homosexual sex is directly a frontal attack upon BOTH of the non negotiable mentioned. I would suggest that true conservatives oppose the homosexual sex promoters for these very reasons and those true conservatives that do not simply have yet tpo realize what a threat the homosexual activity normalcy political promotion represents. All one needs to do is look at other countries where the assault has progressed further to see where the ultimate destination is if one follows the government imposed homosexual sex normalcy path...
Well you didn’t answer the questio I asked though.
Do you believe in laws made to prevent discrimination at privately owned busineesses against people whi identify themselves by perverted sexual acitivity?
Should the government be in the business of dictating to private citizens how their business should deal with this issue?
And should a government punish citizens who do not hold the same perverted moral views that claim that people have a right to be perverts and that we all must accept thier behavior as normal?
Should soldiers be forced to either agree to deal wiith open perverts and to bunk and shower with them or be punished?
Amd most importantly why should ‘We the People’ not make an Amendment that makes our opposition to this insanity crystal clear?
Indeed-
“Purge the party”.
The line has been drawn in the sand.
Sorry, wita, but we lacked sufficient information.
My issue was not related to goproud, or any other group, but homosexuals in general who believe strictly in conservative principles and morality. There are some. They eschew radical, or even mainstream groups bent on changing the world and know within themselves that their tendencies, toward same sex attraction are not normal, and they attempt to live a “normal life”.
They can’t explain why they are what they are, other than the usual excuses, which they do not ascribe to. So they live as best they can with their weaknesses as most heterosexuals do as well. They do not seek special rights, they are married to women, they have children and raise families, and are generally in the closet to attempt to preserve a semblance of normality.
In other words, the broad brush does not cover everyone equally. Every group, including the GOP, has radicals on the left and radicals on the right and a rainbow in between. Party purity, is a wish, and I have had it, but I think it a death wish on occasion. As previously stated, the way to recognize a homosexual not out to radically change the world to his or her view, is to not recognize them at all because you won’t know their sexual proclivities. They will be in the closet.
It is pretty apparent that GOProud has an agenda that flaunts something that shouldn’t be flaunted and has nothing whatsoever to do with pride. Hence IMHO they are not conservative, other than some principles thrown in which they very well may believe in but are not much more than eye wash or a needed distraction under the circumstances.
Thanks, good points. After I made the post to which you are responding I realized that you and I were saying that were they to be individual members of the GOP no one would know their sexuality nor care. However, by flying under a banner that has an agenda that is expressly connected to their sexual preference they are minimizing their effectiveness within the GOP rather than maximizing it. However, on the broader stage, having a homosexual group affiliated with the GOP modifies the general opinion put forth by the Democrat Media that the GOP is homophobic.
Like you, at least I think this is what you said, I think the GOP can be a Big Tent party without diluting its core values. We can embrace shared values without insisting that all participants be “purer that Caesar’s wife” and by following “Hate the sin but love the sinner.” If a homosexual group supports smaller government and lower taxes we can share those values without approving homosexuality. If they want, or do not want, the government involved in determining what is and what is not a marriage there is no need for us to support their point of view, but it is also foolish to reject their support for smaller government, lower taxes etc., over it.
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.