Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Homosexual Mafia attacks the "Door to the Right"
TaxRelief ^ | October 19, 2004 | TaxRelief

Posted on 10/19/2004 5:17:28 PM PDT by TaxRelief

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-230 next last
Flame away!

Allowing the Homosexual Mafia and the MSM to win this battle will give the leftists the courage to continue their attacks, and next time they may take on one of the better known heroes of freedom such as Ann Coulter or Neal Boortz.

1 posted on 10/19/2004 5:17:30 PM PDT by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: William Terrell; upchuck; Domestic Church; Huber; kilowhskey; ScottM1968

An expansion of our previous discussion...


2 posted on 10/19/2004 5:22:10 PM PDT by TaxRelief (The homosexual agenda claims another victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief
I have never understood why some people are so passionate about making marriage illegal for homosexuals to the point of passing a constitutional amendment on the matter.

Why can't you have this level of passion towards getting rid of coruption in government, like getting rid of the IRS or other parts government that are directly invasive and are a danger to us and our freedoms instead of focusing on lesser matters like homosexuality.

3 posted on 10/19/2004 5:25:48 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
Why can't you have this level of passion towards getting rid of coruption in government, like getting rid of the IRS or other parts government that are directly invasive and are a danger to us and our freedoms instead of focusing on lesser matters like homosexuality.

The fundamental issue is judicial tyranny. Without that this marrige amendment would not even be an issue.

4 posted on 10/19/2004 5:28:06 PM PDT by briant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: briant
The fundamental issue is judicial tyranny. Without that this marrige amendment would not even be an issue.

If the fundamental issue is judicial tyranny than you are attacking a symtom, homosexuality, and not the problem, which is judicial tyranny.

5 posted on 10/19/2004 5:30:42 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

You need to understand cultural marxism. One of the goals according to Antonio Gramsci is to undermine the Family unit.

First, please read 1963 communist goals:
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/03212002.shtml


"Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times "

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml

Origins of Political Correctness
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html



III.Antonio Gramschi, 1891-1937
A.The New Order (L'Ordine Nuovo)
1.Italian Communist newspaper, founded 1919
2.Co-founder of Italian Communist Party, 1921
3.Pre-Prison Writings, ed. Richard Bellamy (Cambridge, 1994)
4.Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Intl. Publishers, 1971)
B.Lenin was wrong, and the Leninist revolution will fail
1.The workers will see the revolutionary government as a new boss
2.When the revolution fails, the west will re-import Capitalism
C.Gradual revolution: infiltrate, Co-opt, Subvert
1.Infiltrate the State: elective & appointed office; judgeships
2.Infiltrate the military: enlist & subvert from within
3.Infiltrate justice: undermine and discredit state constitutions
4.Infiltrate education: professors & administrators
5.Infiltrate & discredit religion: scoundrels as clergymen
6.Register, then license, then confiscate all privately held weapons
D.Form or infiltrate international organizations to promote goals such as
"global understanding," "economic development," "transfer of resources"
E.Both Capitalism and Judaeo-Christian culture must be destroyed before a
Communist revolution can succeed
1.Religious sentiment cannot be destroyed through legislation, as
Lenin believed, but must be redirected from the divine to the state
a.Terror will only drive Religion underground
b.Religion will then reemerge when Leninism fails
c.So Religion must be destroyed in the minds of men
2.Infiltrate religious academies and become priests and clergymen
a.Subtly promote heresy within religious organizations
b.Infiltrators must act so as to discredit the church
(1)Cause financial and sexual scandals
(2)See that this is given a high profile in the news
(3)Like-minded infiltrators in the media will cooperate
3.Once religion is discredited from within, continuously promote the
idea that only the state can solve the problems that have been
traditionally brought before the church
F.When propagating revolutionary ideas, cloak them in polite terms
1.National Consensus
2.Popular Mandate
3.National Pacification
4.Pluralism
5.Global Community
6.Economic Justice
7.Economic Democracy
8.Liberation Theology
9.Direct Action
G.Marxists "must enter into every civil, cultural, and political activity
in every nation, leavening them as yeast leavens bread."
H. Subvert the existing hegemonic culture and replace it with
a "counter-hegemony" that is based on the revolutionary
culture of the oppressed masses






IV. Herbert Marcuse, 1898-1979
A. Bourgeois Capitalist civilization must be overthrown by
discrediting existing beliefs and replacing them with
revolutionary or proto-revolutionary beliefs.
B. Founding Father of Political Correctness
1. "Free Expression" is actually repressive, because it permits
the bourgeois capitalists and other counter-revolutionary
or anti-revolutionary individuals and groups to express their
beliefs and values - values that must be overthrown.
2. Advocates "the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly"
for conservative or Christian individuals and groups
a. Denounce them as hate groups, atavistic, fascist,
or intolerant.
b. Denounce conservative or Christian speech as hate speech
d. Do not allow colleges or universities to become "forums"
for politically incorrect speech
3. Advocates "Liberating Tolerance"
a. "intolerance against movements from the Right,
and toleration of movements from the Left."
b. "new and rigid restrictions on teaching and practices in
the educational institution" to indoctrinate students in
"progressive" values
c. Speech Codes on campuses
d. Reject the values of Western Civilization as "regressive"
e. Reject the "Western Canon" of literature as "regressive"
f. Promote Marxism as "progressive"
g. Denounce and discredit those who resist this "progressive"
agenda as "reactionary" or "fascist" or "racist" or
"the extreme right" etc.




IV. Herbert Marcuse, 1898-1979
A. Bourgeois Capitalist civilization must be overthrown by
discrediting existing beliefs and replacing them with
revolutionary or proto-revolutionary beliefs.
B. Founding Father of Political Correctness
1. "Free Expression" is actually repressive, because it permits
the bourgeois capitalists and other counter-revolutionary
or anti-revolutionary individuals and groups to express their
beliefs and values - values that must be overthrown.
2. Advocates "the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly"
for conservative or Christian individuals and groups
a. Denounce them as hate groups, atavistic, fascist,
or intolerant.
b. Denounce conservative or Christian speech as hate speech
d. Do not allow colleges or universities to become "forums"
for politically incorrect speech
3. Advocates "Liberating Tolerance"
a. "intolerance against movements from the Right,
and toleration of movements from the Left."
b. "new and rigid restrictions on teaching and practices in
the educational institution" to indoctrinate students in
"progressive" values
c. Speech Codes on campuses
d. Reject the values of Western Civilization as "regressive"
e. Reject the "Western Canon" of literature as "regressive"
f. Promote Marxism as "progressive"
g. Denounce and discredit those who resist this "progressive"
agenda as "reactionary" or "fascist" or "racist" or
"the extreme right" etc.



6 posted on 10/19/2004 5:34:43 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite (These Commies are ruining our country...........WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief

Flame? No no no (no); flames never solve anything, and often result in spin-off web sites (ewwww!).
Instead, I will tremulously hold out a little teeny tiny candle whose glimmery shimmery light doth inquire:
Shouldn't we deport the mafia at the borders, before they savage our culture and use bad language?
Please be kind . . .


7 posted on 10/19/2004 5:37:55 PM PDT by alcuin (getridofthateffinlooselipssinkshipsgesture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief

O'Reilly is not a supporter of abortion, he's pro-life and anti death penalty


8 posted on 10/19/2004 5:38:25 PM PDT by jamesissmall218
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

I'm not attacking anything. I don't think they should have an amendment to the constitution to punish judicial tyranny. But that's the reaction and, of course, it wont get through because a lot of conservatives see the error in changing the constitution to fight this problem.


9 posted on 10/19/2004 5:44:58 PM PDT by briant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
You need to understand cultural marxism. One of the goals according to Antonio Gramsci is to undermine the Family unit.

I understand 'cultural marxism', and unlike you I know the socialists in the country consider the homosexual movement to be no more than a tool and that when the socialists no long need them, the socialists with do their own version of 'the night of the long knifes' against homosexuals in this country.

If we can make homosexuals in this country understand this, then we could cut the socialists power base at their knees. But you and others are too short sighted to realize this.

Also, if you actually studied history, beyond the bible, you would see that rejection of homosexuality by christians in ancient Rome was because homosexuality was part of the pagan Roman culture and that the rejection of homosexuality by the christians of that time was part of their rejection of the pagan Roman culture as a whole.

10 posted on 10/19/2004 5:47:08 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

It is a matter of principle. Same sex "marriage" is not about freedom. People can shack up with whomever they want to. What the gay activists and the liberals want more than anything is to have the government affirm and legitimize homosexual activity. That is what is so illegitimate about civil same sex "marriage". People in a free country have the right to have differing views on the morality of homosexual activity. The government should at most remain neutral, not promote homosexual activity and demonize those who believe otherwise.


11 posted on 10/19/2004 6:04:50 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

You're missing the point, the problem, as previously pointed out is 'judicial tyranny', your efforts are misdirected.


12 posted on 10/19/2004 6:08:58 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob; diotima; tgslTakoma; Doctor Raoul; Constitution Day; Tax-chick; ...

TaxRelief's latest, and it's a good one!


13 posted on 10/19/2004 6:10:04 PM PDT by Huber (I have a PLAN for energy sufficiency through perpetual motion, and a PLAN to be popular in France...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

As with the Iraq War, there are multiple reasons why there should be a Federal Marriage Amendment.


14 posted on 10/19/2004 6:12:21 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
As with the Iraq War, there are multiple reasons why there should be a Federal Marriage Amendment.

Alright, list the reasons. Several people say it is a good idea, but no one has yet to state any concrete reasons for it.

15 posted on 10/19/2004 6:17:23 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

"I understand 'cultural marxism', and unlike you ...."

"Also, if you actually studied history, beyond the bible"

LOL, your reply is dripping with arrogance!!! I am pleased that I rarely encounter individuals with your attitude on FR.


I'm not religious and do not read the bible.

However, I fully support religious freedom, unless they are Islamofascits. I sense that you have a deep resentment for the bible and christianity in general, that's too bad.

I do understand the need to protect the family unit, and one of the ways to undermine it is Homosexual Marraige. Other ways include (from the Communist Goals of 1963):

24) Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25) Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography, and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.

26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as "normal, natural, and healthy."

40) Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.


How is this done?

17) Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism, and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in text books.

20) Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

21) Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.










16 posted on 10/19/2004 6:17:24 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite (These Commies are ruining our country...........WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

I've just stated one, i.e., the government should not promote homosexual activity, which many citizens believe and have a right to believe is immoral. And you just stated another -- unelected judges should not conduct this sort of radical social change without a clear and firm basis in the Constitution.


17 posted on 10/19/2004 6:21:13 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

Third, it paves the way for civil polygamy, polyandry, marrying of beasts and inanimate objects, and otherwise destroys the institution of marriage, which does serve a public purpose since it provides for stable families for children.


18 posted on 10/19/2004 6:22:50 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

Like I said, you're short sighted. You didn't even take the time to fully read my previous post to you. You missed the part where I stated how you could hurt the socialist agenda.


19 posted on 10/19/2004 6:22:54 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
I've just stated one, i.e., the government should not promote homosexual activity, which many citizens believe and have a right to believe is immoral. And you just stated another -- unelected judges should not conduct this sort of radical social change without a clear and firm basis in the Constitution.

Oh really, here is the last part of your previous statement.

The government should at most remain neutral, not promote homosexual activity and demonize those who believe otherwise.

How can government remain 'neutral' with a marriage amendment that denies one group rights that another group enjoys. There is a level of hypocrisy that cannot be ignored.

Now could you please state some positive reasons from a marriage amendment.

20 posted on 10/19/2004 6:28:44 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

It's a waste of your time to address that guy.


21 posted on 10/19/2004 6:29:32 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite (These Commies are ruining our country...........WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Huber
Because Bill O'Reilly has only babies in his home, he has not yet experienced the introspection that parents are forced to encounter sooner or later as they help their children grow in faith within the church.

I don't quite get this, in the context of O'Reilly's being pro-abortion (which someone disputed above, but I don't know, because as you know, we don't have cable).

In my opinion, a man who can be pro-abortion, when he's seen his own babies, is barely human.

22 posted on 10/19/2004 6:30:00 PM PDT by Tax-chick (A python asleep on the windowsill and a nasty smell were the first signs that all was not well ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
Third, it paves the way for civil polygamy, polyandry, marrying of beasts and inanimate objects, and otherwise destroys the institution of marriage, which does serve a public purpose since it provides for stable families for children.

Considering the polygamy issue has been brought up by the Mormons, who are heterosexuals, that is a strawman arguement.

I don't even know what 'polyandry' is, or even if it is a word. How you can compare savage beasts too two consenting, intelligent adults is beyond me. And I don't even know what you got the idea of marriage to 'inanimate objects' from.

23 posted on 10/19/2004 6:35:37 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

I don't think that he personally believes in abortion as a choice that he would ever make for his own family, but he may believe that reasonable people might disagree on such points as when life begins, etc. Frankly, I think that he is mushy on this, although somewhat on the right side of mushy.


24 posted on 10/19/2004 6:36:53 PM PDT by Huber (I have a PLAN for energy sufficiency through perpetual motion, and a PLAN to be popular in France...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: conspiratoristo; Badray; Bob J; Tolik; snopercod; Trueblackman

Meant to include you earlier. Powerful stuff from TR...


25 posted on 10/19/2004 6:42:17 PM PDT by Huber (I have a PLAN for energy sufficiency through perpetual motion, and a PLAN to be popular in France...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huber
reasonable people might disagree on such points as when life begins,

Pish-tosh! (And I know you're describing another person's beliefs, not your own, so that's not aimed at you personally :-)

"Reasonable people" of that type might decide their convenience or economic interest or whatever justifies the death of an unborn child ... but there's no scientific question that a unique human person exists from the moment of conception. And people who pretend otherwise are being disingenuous.

26 posted on 10/19/2004 6:43:16 PM PDT by Tax-chick (A python asleep on the windowsill and a nasty smell were the first signs that all was not well ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
"denies one group rights that another group enjoys"

What rights are Homosexuals denied?

27 posted on 10/19/2004 7:08:06 PM PDT by KingNo155
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: KingNo155

I asked first for positive reasons to the marriage amendment. All I have gotten so far is strawman arguements and silence.


28 posted on 10/19/2004 7:15:58 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jamesissmall218
April 7, 2001

Amy Nicholls, from Mansfield, Louisiana: "Mr. O'Reilly, I am extremely disappointed that you referred to the fetus as 'a potential human being.' They are in fact already human."

O'Reilly: "Ms. Nicholls, I respect your BELIEF, but that is not how the SUPREME COURT does it, and I have to deal with the law here. The abortion discussion will never be advanced until people find common ground. I used the term 'potential human being' BECAUSE THAT IS INDISPUTABLE. I hope you understand what I'm trying to do here."


I hope O'Reilly has progressed to the position that abortion is wrong. That would be good news, and good for all of America, too.
29 posted on 10/19/2004 7:18:02 PM PDT by TaxRelief (The homosexual agenda claims another victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief
So, Bill O'Reilly is all alone.

He's always been alone as far as I'm concerned...another a-lone talking head with a big fat wet finger in the wind.

FMCDH(BITS)

30 posted on 10/19/2004 7:20:18 PM PDT by nothingnew (KERRY: "If at first you don't deceive, lie, lie again!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief

James is 9 months old today. The difference between James today and James at birth is the result of time and food. The difference between James at birth and James at conception is the result of time and food. End of argument, for *reasonable* people.

People whose reason is clouded by free-sex ideology are a different story.


31 posted on 10/19/2004 7:21:39 PM PDT by Tax-chick (A python asleep on the windowsill and a nasty smell were the first signs that all was not well ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
If the fundamental issue is judicial tyranny than you are attacking a symtom, homosexuality, and not the problem, which is judicial tyranny.

Ya gotta start somewhere, dont'cha?

I have updated my FMCDH (From My Cold Dead Hands) sign-off with the addition of (BITS).....Blood In The Streets, which I foresee coming soon, due to the enormous increase of the Marxist progressive movement being shoved down the throat of this failing REPUBLIC through the Judicial tyranny of fiat law, the passing of unconstitutional laws by the Legislative and Executive branches of our government and the enormous tax burden placed upon the average American to support unconstitutional programs put forth by Marxist ideology.

FMCDH(BITS)

32 posted on 10/19/2004 7:24:54 PM PDT by nothingnew (KERRY: "If at first you don't deceive, lie, lie again!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Bump to that m'lady.

FMCDH(BITS)

33 posted on 10/19/2004 7:29:04 PM PDT by nothingnew (KERRY: "If at first you don't deceive, lie, lie again!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
The idea that marriage is based on "individual rights" is the crux of the problem.

The government doesn't belong in the legislation of human relationships. The only justification for government involvement in marriage was for the protection of children. Making marriage a special, coveted institution benefits society as a whole.

Marriage ensures, in 99.9% of the cases, that two parents, who are blood relatives, are mutually committed to the care and nuturing of their progeny.

34 posted on 10/19/2004 7:29:20 PM PDT by TaxRelief (The homosexual agenda claims another victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
And people who pretend otherwise are being disingenuous.

Agreed, however there are still well meaning people who see disingenuousness as a tool that can be used positively to diffuse conflict in order to allow constructive engagement and ultimately allow reason to filter through. Like you, I don't buy it, but I'm convinced that the Bill O'Reillys of the world may!

35 posted on 10/19/2004 7:32:45 PM PDT by Huber (I have a PLAN for energy sufficiency through perpetual motion, and a PLAN to be popular in France...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
Why can't you have this level of passion towards getting rid of coruption in government, like getting rid of the IRS or other parts government that are directly invasive and are a danger to us and our freedoms instead of focusing on lesser matters like homosexuality.

The IRS is not run by an army of social militants intent on destroying the fabric of society.

I agree that government intrusion is a serious problem, but most of these intrusions are a direct result of rules legislated by SCOTUS.

Welcome to the Judicial Oligarchy of America!

36 posted on 10/19/2004 7:38:27 PM PDT by TaxRelief (The homosexual agenda claims another victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite; Domestic Church

So, given that, as you say, there is a written agenda to which all the arms of Marxism subscribe, why do you suppose the Homosexual Mafia was the easiest group to activate?


37 posted on 10/19/2004 7:43:37 PM PDT by TaxRelief (The homosexual agenda claims another victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief
The IRS is not run by an army of social militants intent on destroying the fabric of society.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your statement. But I will tell you this, the IRS has been the MOST TYRANNICAL tool the socialists have used in this nation to destroy this society and our freedoms.

The federal income tax code is written to be a catch-22 to where it is impossible to follow all the regulations and where if one regualtion does not work, the socialists can use the opposing regulation to destroy and imprison their enemies, E.I. us.

38 posted on 10/19/2004 7:46:42 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Huber

People who have a position that approximates their agenda that disguises their position that distances their beliefs confuse me. Now I have a headache, and I'll have to go watch a John Wayne movie to clear my mind.

It's not the first time I've considered that other people are better suited to realpolitik, while I should limit my efforts to reproduction ...


39 posted on 10/19/2004 7:49:15 PM PDT by Tax-chick (A python asleep on the windowsill and a nasty smell were the first signs that all was not well ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief

I haven't come up with an answer for that. Do you have any ideas?


40 posted on 10/19/2004 7:52:58 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite (These Commies are ruining our country...........WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
...a unique human person exists from the moment of conception.

You know that and I know that, but does a person raised by liberal parents, who attended public schools, who reads the MSM, who received a degree from an American college and who has little religious education have any hope of knowing that?

Bill O'Reilly provides the perfect portal for getting "the brainwashed" into the real world. He helps them to begin the process of questioning the premises that buttress their liberal bastions.

41 posted on 10/19/2004 7:53:20 PM PDT by TaxRelief (The homosexual agenda claims another victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief

You may be right ... but it's like the people who "believe" in the minimum wage, when every bit of empirical evidence shows that it hurts the poor and minorities most ... or people who "believe" in higher tax rates, when every bit of empirical evidence shows that lower tax rates produce more revenue.

How ignorant are adults allowed to be, before we can conclude that they're deliberately rejecting reality?


42 posted on 10/19/2004 7:56:44 PM PDT by Tax-chick (A python asleep on the windowsill and a nasty smell were the first signs that all was not well ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

You may have asked that , but you haven't answered my question; What rights are homosexuals denied?


43 posted on 10/19/2004 8:03:26 PM PDT by KingNo155
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief

If O'Reilly goes down in flames, I'll be the first to arrive with a bag of marshmallows. The way he's treated John O'Neill and the SwiftVets/POWs is only the latest in a long string of outrages.


44 posted on 10/19/2004 8:03:32 PM PDT by Bonaparte (twisting slowly, slowly in the wind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

Agreed. The IRS is an overt institution that enforces the subjugation of citizens, but there are many less obvious government departments that are possible even more controlling. Child Protective Services, for instance--in libertarian lingo--has the power not just to confiscate your property, but to steal your kids as well.


45 posted on 10/19/2004 8:06:01 PM PDT by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief
Bill O'Reilly provides the perfect portal for getting "the brainwashed" into the real world.

I don't know enough about Bill O'Reilly to judge this point, but I agree with the premise. There is a place for "transitional conservatives." I was always a Republican, but not always conservative. I went through a number of stages (all of which are not clear, in retrospect :-), before arriving at my current positions.

O'Reilly just seems too OLD to be lingering in "Maybe-land."

46 posted on 10/19/2004 8:06:55 PM PDT by Tax-chick (A python asleep on the windowsill and a nasty smell were the first signs that all was not well ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte

He has been extremely dismissive of John O'Neill, to the point of inconsistency with many of his own positions.

But that is a recent situation, since this whole thing began to brew. How much of it was a human reaction to FEAR of the liberal attack machine? How much of it was just a stupid attempt to stave of the inevitable?

If we make the mistake of turning our backs on Bill O'Reilly, this will be a huge victory for John Kerry, Al Franken and the rest of their ilk.


47 posted on 10/19/2004 8:11:41 PM PDT by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: KingNo155

You answer my question and I will answer yours.


48 posted on 10/19/2004 8:12:45 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte

I liked the guy for about 5 months in the beginning, then got sick of him and turned him off.

I have no clue how he gets the ratings he has at all. It seems to be a greater mystery than the pyramids.


49 posted on 10/19/2004 8:14:48 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
O'Reilly just seems too OLD to be lingering in "Maybe-land.

I don't think moral progress is related to age. In my experience, it is more closely related to the ages of one's children and/or serious life tragedies.

50 posted on 10/19/2004 8:15:12 PM PDT by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-230 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson