Nope.
And that is why we have the big commotion over Ann Coulter's comment at CPAC: There was a candidate who dresses up as a girl and lived with two homosexuals...
Posted on 03/06/2007 2:53:37 AM PST by angloamericanus
Quick summary of the YouTube speech:
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton told the nation's leading gay rights group in an unpublicized speech that she wants a partnership with gays if elected president. Clinton also said she opposes the ''don't ask, don't tell'' policy regarding gays in the military that was instituted during her husband's presidency. ''I am proud to stand by your side,'' Clinton said in a keynote speech Friday to the Human Rights Campaign. Neither Clinton's campaign nor her Senate office made any announcement that she would be making the Friday address.
In the speech Clinton joked that she shares the same initials as the group and pledged to maintain the same close working relationship that last year helped defeat the federal constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage.
Senator Clinton said it would be safer for the nation if openly gay soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen could wear the uniform. ''This policy doesn't just hurt gays and lesbians, it hurts all our troops, and this to me is a matter of national security and we're going to fix it,'' Clinton said.
She also referred to her support of Civil Unions, Gay Adoption Rights and ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) which has religious groups worried about freedom of speech issues.
While I think that someday it may be possible to do away with "Don't ask, don't tell", that day isn't even a blip on the horizon. And I can honestly say that it isn't for anti-gay reasons, it was just that because it was an issue for some people, it broke down unity and created a lot of problems on many differant levels.
Nope.
And that is why we have the big commotion over Ann Coulter's comment at CPAC: There was a candidate who dresses up as a girl and lived with two homosexuals...
She ever asked the troops if this hurts them? I'd be surprised if they said, "yes".
Also, the only way gays could affect our national security is if they are anti-American to begin with or were being extorted to keep from being outted.
I believe her!
You seem obsessed with the topic of gays and lesbians....is there something we ought to know about you?
You are a Hillary supporter?
I didn't know that Milton Berle lived with Liberace and Rock Hudson.
Or maybe you are an Edwards supporter?
Milton Berle is ancient history, way before my time...
Did she speak to them with a li(th)sp?
Do away with dont ask, dont tell and you will get gays in the military allright. Thats about all you will get.
Straights dont want to get hit on by fruits night and day.
That was an enlightening speech. Replacing our troops with flaming homosexuals. Giving children to homosexuals to raise and do with as their own. Redefining marriage as any combination genders that may or may not be physically compatible. Criminalizing Judeo-Christian freedom of religious belief in regard to homosexual behavior. (Where have I heard all those proposed policies before?) She should put an R behind her name. She could commandeer almost half of Rudy's supporters on this site alone.
Lighten up. You'll live longer.
And crossdressing.
Seems to me that a lot of folks have transferred their Bush Derangement Syndrom to Rudy Derangement Syndrome.
"I am sick and tired of being called a snook"
Yes, the new Rosie O'Donnell wing of the Republican party who equate the Christians with the Taliban...
Some of these people must be a real snooze at Halloween. I wonder how many of the "I hate Rudy because he wore a dress crowd" are fans of Monty Python, Jack Lemmon, Flip Wilson, Harvey Korman, Shakespear, Benny Hill, and the Hasty Pudding Theater Group where many well-known politicans from both sides of the isle launched their careers in drag.
Let me make it simple for you. Rudy was promoting the homosexual agenda. He could have done that in a suit and tie, boxer shorts, or any other attire. Or no attire at all for that matter. He chose a dress. He wasn't emulating any great comedians for a worthy cause. He was promoting the "rights" of homosexuals, to be rewarded for behaviors that normal people cannot tolerate. So the pictures of him promoting the homosexual agenda show him doing just that, in the attire he chose. Would you prefer that the pictures of him at one of the 9/11 funerals should represent his support for the homosexual agenda? That wouldn't make much sense.
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.
