Replies

If one has no problem with then homosexual agenda as like him then he is for having fisting being taught in schools. Yes Jennings has taught fisting in schools Homosexuals want their version of sex taught in schools and yes it does go on in places like MA Being fiscal conservative but socially liberal is hardly conservative is it. So the question is do you think the homosexual agenda of don't ask, marriage, getting kids, being taught in schools etc is conservative? A simple yes or no will suffice

No. And you need to learn to stay on topic.

We aren't discussing Jennings, fisting, MA, DADT, or any of the other things you've thrown in my face, including calling me a homosexual.

We are discussing how Brietbart and libertarians can be our allies in the cause of smaller and more constitutional government, and how people like you can't see that.

no that is the problem with you , you cannot seem to understand that allowing homosexual groups into CPAC is allowing the homosexuals cause,

FHS can’t you read their manifesto, it’s all about homosexual rights

no libertarians are socially liberal, joining with them and having them tell conservatives what we should accept os pure crap

BTW, Why are you so keen on defending AB,?
I mean you read a post about him which you d not agree and now you are on here all day and yesterday saying how we should accept them ,

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

We are discussing how Brietbart and libertarians can be our allies in the cause of smaller and more constitutional government, and how people like you can't see that.

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.