is the guy a fag or what???
Posted on 06/09/2012 9:24:53 AM PDT by Pining_4_TX
But the progress within Republican ranks has also been pivotal, not to mention fascinating. And a compelling character in that subplot just added a new twist to the narrative, one that suggests the rapidly changing political dynamics of this issue and its potential import to a party dogged by an image of being culturally out of touch.
That character is Paul E. Singer, 67, a billionaire hedge fund manager who is among the most important Republican donors nationwide. In just one Manhattan fund-raiser last month, he helped to collect more than $5 million for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.
He steadfastly supports conservative candidates. He also steadfastly supports gay rights in general and marriage equality in particular. Along with a few other leading Wall Street financiers, he contributed and helped drum up the majority of the money — more than $1 million — that fueled the campaign for same-sex marriage in New York.
He has given nearly $10 million of his own money to gay-rights initiatives, including the same-sex marriage efforts not only in New York but also in New Hampshire and New Jersey. And that figure doesn’t include his assistance in tapping a broad network of donors for individual candidates. He was pivotal in rounding up about $250,000 apiece for the Republican state senators in New York whose votes for same-sex marriage provided its margin of victory in the Legislature.
Now, Singer says, he’s providing $1 million to start a new “super PAC” with several Republican compatriots. Named American Unity PAC, its sole mission will be to encourage Republican candidates to support same-sex marriage, in part by helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
is the guy a fag or what???
Just another example of why the GOPe is the most dangerous threat to America that exists.
If someone wants to emphasize one more than the other, that may be a viable political strategy -- but you cannot throw one out and think that you are retaining the other.
Loose morality ends up causing social deterioration -- what the "solution"? -- Big Government to the rescue!
Profligate spending causes social corruption -- there's billions of dollars floating around! -- get some! Lie! Cheat! Steal! It's free money!
Homosexuals are part of the social problem. They should not be seen as an acceptable lifestyle choice. These are people with a problem. They are mentally ill. A political party which embraces that illness (hey! there's money here!) is a political party which is working toward the destruction of society.
Party that’s “...culturally out of touch....”?
Has gay marriage ever won a popular vote?
Has illegal immigration ever won a popular vote?
Which party feels that our public schools are sewers headed by bottom of the barrel SAT losers?
Which party has enough intelligence to know two faked birth certificates when they see them?
Which party thinks a female with executive leadership experience might be a better leader than than a fake everything with no real job in his resume - ever?
Perhaps the NYT maroons had best look in a mirror.
They’ll have plenty of time to do that following the demise of that fishwrap rag.
The price is special government protection for gays and preference for corporations complying government mandated to gay "rights" (read: preference) in employment and promotion.
Financially, crony capitalistic subsidies and punishment of competitors.
Fascism.
Mitt quote: ...gay couples raising kids. That’s the American way...
Homosexuals are part of the social problem. They should not be seen as an acceptable lifestyle choice. These are people with a problem. They are mentally ill. A political party which embraces that illness (hey! there’s money here!) is a political party which is working toward the destruction of society.
Your entire post is well said! Thank you.
Why do you think it would drive them out? Romney is the father of gay marriage, put homosexual activists lawyers on courts in Massachusetts, sought to discriminate against the Boy Scouts as CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympics and is taking millions from Singer. Yet, religious conservatives are still lining up to vote for him.
Embarrassing friends. Is Singer gay himself?
Let’s not forget, gays and gay militants (the bloc) have no children, so they have disposable income as well as money-raising-attention time, in amounts that those who raise children to be productive members of society just don’t have.
Ya think? ;-)
Ya think? ;-)
“Yet, religious conservatives are still lining up to vote for him.”
Not this one!
It’s fine to go after the conservative gay vote, those who aren’t pushing an agenda, and vote conservative because it is the best thing for the country’s and their future. For that, I fail to see the significance of blocking conservative gays off into their own demographic. That goes for any other special group of conservatives, blacks, Hispanics, truck drivers, Christians, and so on. When the Republican Party spends money and time building coalitions of special groups instead of standing for conservative principles, it becomes indistinguishable from the Democratic Party. I know there are wealthy gays and wealthy members of other special groups who bring a significant amount of campaign money to the table, and I see nothing wrong with that, so long as they aren’t paying for the implementation of agendas that are at war with conservative principles, like the gay agenda.
I’m glad that the “Fudge Packer Times” is printing the names of the sodamites responsable for the destruction of society. I will remember this Paul E. Singer. By all means, let the queers all come out in the open. The day will come when they will wish they had kept it to themselves.
Even homosexuals came from the union of male and female. Once the sanctity of male/female marriage has been compromised its societal importance will gradually be rendered moot. Both sides of an equation must balance. If they don’t it’s no longer an equation. This will transfer to a wide range of other social ills that will render the United States non-unique and subsequently disaffectual in the world. Its armed forces - even if they can then be funded will be sufficiently diluted by homosexuality and political correctness to be able to take and hold the field.
We are on an extremely dangerous road whose logical conclusion is a dead end.
God help us.
The conservative movement hasn't been about single issue special interest groups. If someone gets so upset about a single issue, let them for their own "kill the fags" party and compete for votes.
Dick Cheney and Andrew Breitbart couldn't have cared less who was living with who.
I hope you were being sarcastic.
There needs to be a focus on the young whose attitudes have not yet been poisoned by the mainstream media’s glorification of homosexuality. Children should grow up with a firm conviction that there are plain and simple Biblical principles at stake. It is just too late to do much with some of the adults who seem to have developed a tolerance for defying God’s teachings.
I have considered preparing a pamphlet designed to appeal to young readers and their parents as a medium for explaining the Biblical bases for opposing homosexuality - easy to read translations of the Word’s relevant passages beneath a simple title (”God and Faggotism”) designed to lightly shock and to arouse the attention of young readers.
The key is to get to the young while they are just developing attitudes that will shape their world views as adults.
I think there’s a fundamental issue here that always goes unsaid. Are conservatives willing to associate with gays? The answer often appears to be “no” If a gay couple moves into your neighborhood and invites you to a house warming BBQ, do you attend? If a gay person offers to help you promote a candidate, would you approve? I suspect that in many cases the answer again is “no.” Am I wrong?
Hey, I’ve got an idea. Let’s take our marching orders from the New York Times!
Figures. The Party nominates a Massachusetts liberal for nominee, and the GOP accelerates its slide toward degeneracy. Looking more and more like the end of the road for this lifelong Republican voter.
If you don’t oppose the radical leftism of the homosexual agenda, perhaps the most radical element of leftism of all, then you are not a conservative.
J Edgar Hoover wasn’t queer and he wasn’t a cross dresser.
J. Edgar Hoover, a real law and order conservative - social conservative - was queer.
He was a social conservative like Nixon was anti communism. Their reputations surpassed reality.
The Republican Party and the Conservative Movement has long been infiltrated by queers and their Homosexual Agenda supporting Sycophants.
Ken Mehlman, Mark Foley, Jeff Gannon and Larry Craig embarrassed the Conservative Movement by being exposed as gay and now even Dick Cheney advocates Gay Marriage.
The GOP, in order to survive, must divorce itself from queers and purge from the party all those who support the Queer Agenda.
In short, there is no conceivable way to separate social institutions from economic factors, or economic factors from social institutions.
Then, of course, there is the fact that "same sex marriage," is an oxymoron. The whole concept of marriage involves the endeavor to sanctify human procreation, and institutionalize the multi-genreational concept of the family--which is the basic building block of both a healthy society & a healthy economy.
William Flax
Cultural marxism always leads to economic and political marxism.
If they were really Conservative, we would not know they were queer.
You are twenty or thirty years too late. Poll high school students today and you will mind them to be for homosexual marriage and all the other social ills, by a pretty good margin.
Either what is in the article is true or it is false. If it’s true, then what does it matter who said it? Apparently Mr. Singer makes no secret of his goals.
Either what is in the article is true or it is false. If it’s true, then what does it matter who said it? Apparently Mr. Singer makes no secret of his goals.
Reality is not divisible. The attack on the respect for normal & traditional attitudes towards sex roles & family formation, is a clear attack on the foundations of any civilization; the continuity of any culture; on the future of a people. When you undermine the foundation, you undermine--indeed, wreak absolute havoc on--what is built on that foundation.
For a slightly different aspect of the same attack on heritage & future, see Is Pursuit of 'Diversity' A Return To Babel.
William Flax
One does not need to purge any of their personal associations in order to recognize that what is being sought by this particular "big spender," is a direct attack on the validity of the traditional processes by which families are formed, and the multi-generational pursuits of a people, crystallize.
Let us not speculate on whether the "big spender," has a personal problem, or has merely bought an obviously flawed argument. The fact is that the argument is hopelessly flawed. Calling an effort to sanctify the muscular exercises in which some people engage, "marriage," is simply on the same level as trying to legislate a geocentric universe. It simply will not fly.
William Flax
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.