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

Skip to comments.

Free Republic Founder Joins Boycott Of CPAC
Free Republic ^ | 12-21-09

Posted on 12/21/2009 12:14:29 PM PST by icwhatudo

The founder of the website "Free Republic", Jim Robinson, has joined a growing boycott of the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) due to a homosexual activist group sponsoring the event.

GOProud, a group that advocates same-sex "marriage," a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and "expanding access to domestic partner benefits" for homosexuals, is listed as a sponsor of the event at CPAC's website.

Mr. Robinson has joined a number of conservative activists including Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell, Jr., Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver, and Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan in their efforts.

On a reply to an article about the boycott, Mr. Robinson stated "I’ll join that boycott. If CPAC is no longer for conservative family values then I want nothing to do with them. They’ll have to change their name to HOMOPAC."


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: acu; afa; birchers; boycott; brilliant; conservatives; cpac; cpacsponsors; elections; falwell; gaypac; gayproud; genius; goproud; grovernorquist; homopac; jimrobinson; johnbirchsociety; keene; lavendermafia; libertyu; logcabin; logcabinrepublicans; obama; palin; rinos; sage; sarahpalin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301 next last
To: GOPJ; Jim Robinson
You make a good case - but the beauty of a boycott - by some - is it reminds everyone conservatives are part of the team - and need to be considered.

Well, I really can't boycott CPAC 2010 at this point... I paid for it back in early November in order to get the early discount. I had no idea who the sponsors were/are.

I have no more "clout" than the next attendee when I go to CPAC this February, but I will definitely demand to know why a group such as GOProud is one of their sponsors. This group certainly doesn't fit in with organizations like the Heritage Foundation, Young America's Foundation, the Eagle Forum, etc.

251 posted on 12/22/2009 5:31:14 PM PST by nutmeg (Rush Limbaugh & Sarah Palin agree: NO third parties! Take back the GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Bob J

It’s not just about “fundamentalist Christian doctrine”.

Homosexuality is a MENTAL DISORDER, a treatable mental disorder. It would be like paranoid schizophrenics lobbying not to take any medicine and that we should accept them as equal and forgive them the occasional murder.

Normalizing a mental disorder like homosexuality means they’re equally entitled to every benefit ascribed to normal marriage. Traditional marriage is good for a society and encouraged in many ways. Treated mentally damaged, often abused and neglected people who become homosexuals is a denial of reality. It would be if you had a kid cutting themselves, you don’t pat them on the head and say, “that’s fine honey, I respect your right to cut up your body”. Should that particular group have a CARVERPAC?

There’s a million reasons not to normalize homosexuality even before you bring religion into it, then it opens another can of worms. Force Churches to perform gay weddings or be sued?

What about lesbians?? What about chicks who experiment? What about some hetero frat boys getting married for medical benefits.

Politically, we must be opposed to normalizing homosexuality, for practical AND religious reasons.


252 posted on 12/22/2009 5:35:42 PM PST by word_warrior_bob (You can now see my amazing doggie and new puppy on my homepage!! Come say hello to Jake & Sonny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

There is no such thing as a homosexual conservative. The homosexual agenda is anti-God, anti-family and anti-freedom. Just like any other so-called conservative RINO, they’ll screw you in the end every time.


253 posted on 12/22/2009 5:36:16 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Join the TEA Party Rebellion!! May God and TEA save the Republic!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
There is no such thing as a homosexual conservative. The homosexual agenda is anti-God, anti-family and anti-freedom. Just like any other so-called conservative RINO, they’ll screw you in the end every time.

Yes!!! You write the truth. And, I stand with you in support of these moral, and public policy, positions. We will prevail if we stand together and resist the evil (yes, evil) that our opposition represents.

254 posted on 12/22/2009 5:59:04 PM PST by vox_freedom (America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
...and I will express my displeasure when I get to CPAC.

How about exchanging that word "displeasure" for "outrage"?
Oh, and bring a sign or make a T-shirt that expresses your position.

Do that for those of us who have supported CPAC in the past, OK?

255 posted on 12/22/2009 6:07:46 PM PST by vox_freedom (America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: vox_freedom; Jim Robinson
How about exchanging that word "displeasure" for "outrage"? Oh, and bring a sign or make a T-shirt that expresses your position.

Do that for those of us who have supported CPAC in the past, OK?

OK, "outrage" it is! I'll think about the sign and T-shirt... ;-)

256 posted on 12/22/2009 6:24:45 PM PST by nutmeg (Rush Limbaugh & Sarah Palin agree: NO third parties! Take back the GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

thanks nutmeg. It is all the more powerful when someone like you gives them the “what for.”
Merry Christmas to you.


257 posted on 12/22/2009 6:29:07 PM PST by vox_freedom (America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: vox_freedom
thanks nutmeg. It is all the more powerful when someone like you gives them the “what for.”

Well... I'll do my best.

Merry Christmas to you.

Merry Christmas to you as well! :o)

258 posted on 12/22/2009 7:27:48 PM PST by nutmeg (Rush Limbaugh & Sarah Palin agree: NO third parties! Take back the GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo; Jim Robinson

Way to go, Jim!


259 posted on 12/22/2009 8:23:56 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
The way I see it CPAC is like a mall of ideas for Conservatives. Some of the shops in the mall represent traditional family values, other shops represent more libertarian leanings, some represent specific issues (like the NRA). Just because you don’t like one shop in the mall doesn’t mean you don’t shop at other stores.

Excellent analogy and great post in #248, mnehring.

260 posted on 12/22/2009 8:31:00 PM PST by nutmeg (Rush Limbaugh & Sarah Palin agree: NO third parties! Take back the GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Well, you spent a lot of time telling me how David Duke agreed with the JBS on some issues, how Ron Paul supported the JBS, How Rothbard (Is his first name Nutzie?) was friends with Ron Paul, but not how those views espoused by the JBS they agreed with are wrong.

Nor does that in any way imply that the JBS always (or ever) agrees with them in all they believe.

The same fallacy was used to brand Ron Paul a "neonazi" because some guys from Stormfront gave him a campaign donation.

If David Duke were to say the sky is blue, would that mean those who also see a blue sky are KKK members?

If I agree with you that we need smaller government, that Rights just aren't Rights unless they are Rights for all citizens, enforced with equal vigor, does that make me a JBS hater, too? (even though that is the position the JBS takes, too).

I think you are quick to condemn a group because of the people who might support it or even part of what the group stands for.

Where does that sort of reasoning leave the Republican Party?

Go read, as I have, what the JBS has had to say. Don't just jump up and yell "nutcase", "nazi", "klan", or "troofer", but read it. Go to their back issues and read what they said about the Clintons, about where that policy was leading. Read about Waco, OK City, Ruby Ridge, Flight 800, Vince Foster, the WTC Bombing ('93).

If you are not in complete denial, you will find that often they were right, long before people who had not been paying attention.

If they are at times a bit hyperbolic in their predictions, it is the desire to not appear to fulfil those predictions which may have slowed our enemies propelling our descent into Socialism.

It is those who deny the evidence before them who have sped it up.

You are fast to call me a "conspiracy paranoiac", especially in times where the government is (without Constitutional authorization) taking over sector after sector of private industry, siezing powers against the wishes of the people, and rotten with the reek of global socialism. Especially just after a conference was held where the leaders of the world who were ready to sign away our rights were only thwarted by the timely release of data and communiques exposing the AGW fraud for what it is--a position the JBS has taken for years (that AGW is a fraud) while warning of the dangers of 'cap and trade'.

UN (Global Socialist) dominion over entire economies (including ours) isn't 'New World Order' enough for you?

Paranoia implies that one is deluded into believing that an entity or entities are out to get them. Any Conservative worthy of the appellation can see that our philosophies are at direct odds with a government run by people pledged to eliminate the American way of life, and even when our "friends" run the show, government continues to head the wrong way.

261 posted on 12/22/2009 10:42:25 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
And here I thought you had read my reply at #200. Obviously, my words went right over your head. I used David Duke as an example of someone who uses well meaning rhetoric to hide his wacko extremism. The fact it was written by Murray Rothbard just reinforces tha facts. Whether its the JBS, lewrockwell.com, Stormfront, the KKK, the Libertarian Party, etc etc etc, they're all extremist groups located on the same political wavelength. They give traditional mainstream conservatism a bad name.

>>>>I think you are quick to condemn a group ... Go read, as I have, what the JBS has had to say.

Wrong. I've known about the Birchers since I was a youngster. Around the time Robert Welch and Revilo P. Oliver formed the JBS I was engaged in "duck and cover drills" in school, to protect us from the commie a-bombs. (That was the first and last time I found myself in agreement with the JBS. [/sarc] ) I've read what the Birchers said about President Eisehnhower, Bill Buckley, Reagan and conservatives in general. They made no sense back then, when they had 100K members and they don't make any sense today.

>>>>>You are fast to call me a "conspiracy paranoiac"...

Stop whining and stop playing games. The Birchers offer conservatism nothing.

262 posted on 12/22/2009 11:32:48 PM PST by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
They offer it a lot more actual substance policy wise than what establishment GOP has delivered since Reagan left office. However trying to get the Liberals running the GOP these days to listen is a different matter.

The only real thing I see wrong about the Birchers is they were decades ahead of themselves in a lot of their political predictions that's all. Today we have a two party system being controlled by Marxist and Socialist and some very, very, rich persons.

We have had several presidents who were willing to send this nations future and freedoms to hell for trade deals especially with The Communist government of China and that's both DEM and GOP presidents alike.

The GOP leadership of today many of which are pretending to be conservatives are very timid. So timid it makes you wonder why they are actually there? It seems all Barney Frank, Harry Reid, or Nancy has to do is yell boo at them and they fold like cheap seats. No one can seem to tell me how Barney Frank managed to get so called Conservative Republicans to vote for the bailouts? However thanks to some enlightened Republicans none dare now call them voting yes on such Traitors, Communist, Socialist, or Marxist, lest they be labeled as kooks and fringe right wing extremist by the very ones practicing Political Correctness AKA Cultural Marxism within the GOP this very day.

Some very principled Conservatives at least listened to JBS and JBS listened to them as well. That doesn't mean 100% agreement. One was Paul Weyrich. Weyrich didn't agree with a lot of their policy or at least some of it yet had the JBS leader on his show. My guess is Weyrich shared their moral values.

BTW most JBS I think would more likely be Constitution Party supporters rather then Libertarian. The Co-Founder of The Moral Majority Phillips I believe was a JBS member the other one Weyrich had close friendship ties I think with it's leadership. No other group helped Reagan get elected more than the Moral Majority did.

Reagan really didn't begin to draw that much dissent within Conservative ranks till his second term. Sad to say I think he may have delegated too much policy control to the very one who would later destroy about all the good the man had accomplished making way for New World Order as he called it.

I don't think Reagan was at the top of his game his second term like the first and I don't think it was something he could help. He trusted a part of the GOP that can not be trusted period.

263 posted on 12/23/2009 12:45:41 AM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Okay, it appears we have a problem with definitions.

I am not sure how you define "conservatism", but lumping people who are for originalist interpretation of the Constitution in with the KKK and Stormfront is a bit of a push, even if people who would abolish most of the Federal Government as having no Constitutional authorization are a distinct minority in American Politics.

You see, I, too was engaged in little 'duck and cover' drills. I recall sitting at the kitchen table while my Dad took a compass and drew little circles around likely targets to determine what our chances were if the Soviets decided they could survive a nuclear war.

I have also, in the time since, regardless of administration, watched as, then fought against the consistent erosion of our Constitutional Rights. Oh, it hasn't always appeared that way in Time Magazine, The Washington Post or New York Times, but then I do not consider those sources reliable now, and I did not then.

Were the people in the JBS concerned about deals with the Soviets? Why would that be?

Lest we forget, this country was founded by "extremists". The people who pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor--and who often lost all but the latter, were far from the political mainstream in the world in 1776, and were "extremists" in the colonies as well. Thank God for them. It is a pity we squander their legacy.

As for being anti-Communist (Marxist, Socialist as well), well, I am. I think the slickest trick pulled by the Communists was the slogan "Communism is dead!!". It is effective because people will not watch the subtle machinations which lead to totalitarian government, especially if they come from people who wave the proper standard as they proclaim "freedom" the whole while they rob us of it.

Would you have embraced the War on Drugs if a democrat had proposed it? (I'm anti-drug, but I'm also pro-4th Amendment) Would you have thought the Patriot Act was a good idea uder Clinton?

You see, I am an "extremist". I am a geologist who joined with a mere 31.4 thousand other scientists to sign a petition to our government to NOT sign the Kyoto accords (nor anything like them) because the issue of whether anthropogenic global warming existed was far from settled. Wackos? Conspiracy theorists? Nope, just scientists who did not agree with the "consensus" we were all assured existed. We were even given a buzzword handle: "deniers".

Then that fraud started unravelling.

In the meantime, though, we were treated like lepers.

Some things come out quickly, others take longer.

Whether you see a grand conspiracy or not, there is no denying the effects of the inexorable march of Communist/Socialist/Marxist philosophy, nor the infection of the National psyche with it.

Think about your youth.

Would anyone have tolerated the petty tyranny of a homeowner's association?

What would have been their reaction to DUI checkpoints?

No-knock raids?

Amnesty for illegal aliens? (especially during the Cold War)

The selection of any group to be held up as more sacrosanct than others by deeming a crime against their persons more punishable than the same crime perpetrated against another because it was allegedly motivated by "hate"?

How would the founders have reacted to 50% taxation? To support a semi-permanent underclass of tens of millions? To support those who are not legally present within our borders?

Social Security?

The National Instand Check System? (to purchase a firearm).

The Wall Street bailout?

As I have said, the Socialists (Communists) stated their goals, and set out to achieve them. Someone was paying attention in 1963 when these were added to the Congressional Record: 45 Communist Goals, and if you peruse the list, you will find that most have been achieved, regardless of who was in the White House.

It is comfortable in the middle of the herd, though, surrounded by others who can ignore what happens along the edges. When the sentinels bark, when the bleats of those taken down by predators are far away it is easy to ignore it and consider it a 'fringe' thing.

But it is on those selfsame fringes our liberties perish. We ignore that outcry at our mutual peril.

264 posted on 12/23/2009 2:58:38 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
thanks, for the information / thread / post.

265 posted on 12/23/2009 4:14:01 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (Zer0 to the voter: "Welcome to 'MY' DeathCARE ® Plan"...Sucker! ...now just die. :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
"I've known a few Birchers in my lifetime. With them you knew you were safe as were your kids around them. They were friends and neighbors you could count on." "Yep."

And I am not surprised youare Sarah Palins second biggest booster on FR.

266 posted on 12/23/2009 7:45:56 AM PST by Bob J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Bob J

Good morning Bob. I, like many others I suspect, await your response to post #147.


267 posted on 12/23/2009 8:46:20 AM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

Comment #268 Removed by Moderator

To: Baynative; mnehring
I am praying everyday that someone will take the lead at CPAC and rally every one to clean the congress and dump the RINOs along with the libs. Until then, I have no choice but to march with the underground resistance.

Well, as I tried to explain in my (very long) post in #247, the last 6 CPACs that I've attended have been FAR from RINO-fests. Overall the speakers and side sessions represent and "preach" bedrock conservatism.

mnehring posted an excellent analogy in #248, comparing CPAC to a mall... a mall of ideas (shops) for conservatives:

"Some of the shops in the mall represent traditional family values, other shops represent more libertarian leanings, some represent specific issues (like the NRA)."

I don't recall any of the "shops" being pro-RINO, unless you consider the occasional speech by Huckabee, Romney or Gov. Tim Pawlenty to represent CPAC "pushing" liberal/pro-RINO ideas.

Let me take this opportunity to wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas, FRiend! :o)

269 posted on 12/23/2009 9:38:02 AM PST by nutmeg (Rush Limbaugh & Sarah Palin agree: NO third parties! Take back the GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
You're entitled to your opinion. Just so happens your opinion contains a great deal of historical revisionism when it comes to the John Birch Society. Like many other fringe political groups, the Birchers have done nothing to advance the cause of conservatism.

Over the last five decades the JBS has engaged in undermining every aspect of political conservatism. They've engaged in character assassination of some real patriotic Americans. Calling both Truman and Eisenhower communist dupes. While its true that Truman was a liberal Democrat, he was no communist dupe. Ike was/is a great American hero to all but the wacko extremists.

As I've already mentioned, the JBS's despicable behavior forced conservatives icons Bill Buckley and Russell Kirk to justifiably renounce Welch and his fellow Birchers. Even Barry Goldwater steered clear of the Birchers. Also, I don't know anyone who thinks FDR knew about the actual attack on Pearl Harbor, as the Birchers have stated. Do you?

The fact that the JBS vehemently opposed Reagan's two campaigns for Governor and his three serious runs for President should be enough proof for any fair minded conservative to conclude that the JBS is a bunch of fringe malcontents. After first supporting Reagan in his efforts to promote conservative policies as a viable alternative to liberalism, both Paul Weyrich and Howard Philips joined others on the fringe like Richard Viguerie and Ron Paul in denouncing Reagan. With Ron Paul going so far as saying that Reagan's Presidency was a "failure". A failure? LOL Crackpot Ron Paul calling President Reagan a failure is the height of idiocy. Proving once again why Paul belongs in a straight jacket and heavily medicated.

Reagan wasn't perfect, far from it. He also is not above criticism, but rejecting the good works from Reagan starting in the 1950`s through the early 1990`s, work advancing traditional American values and beliefs, exposes the Birchers for the kooks they are. To reject Reagan's eight years as Governor and eight years as POTUS as anything but successes for conservatism and Republicanism, is just more crazy talk. The JBS can't be taken seriously.

Truth be told. There are many posters on this forum who have attacked Reagan in the hopes of making liberal Republicans like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney look better and more appealing to conservatives. What you are doing is no different. Except you're attacking Reagan to make a bunch of fringe extremist kooks with a long history of opposing Reagan, look better. Sorry. Both are examples of despicable behavior and not in keeping with the conservative values of FRee Republic.

The floor is yours. I've spent far too much time nailing the truth to the Birchers. It was fun, but enough already.

270 posted on 12/23/2009 10:47:00 AM PST by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

Comment #271 Removed by Moderator

To: Servant of the Cross
Why should I? I made the comment that Norquist doesn't run CPAC and people respond with volumes on how he is a Muslim jihadist traitor who has a *gasp* middle eastern wife. Just another day in neighborhood.
272 posted on 12/23/2009 12:52:26 PM PST by Bob J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
When someone who calls him or herself a conservative shows up at CPAC to praise this and that and tell me to contribute I'd be yelling, "WHAT WERE YOU DOING ON DECEMBER 23rd?" - "Where were you when you could have been SCREAMING out the bullets from the health care bill?"

Are you referring to the "conservative who shows up at CPAC to praise this and that, etc." as one of the speakers (ie Newt Gingrich) or one of the attendees (ie my husband and me)? I'm not quite following you here...

273 posted on 12/23/2009 4:04:21 PM PST by nutmeg (Rush Limbaugh & Sarah Palin agree: NO third parties! Take back the GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

Comment #274 Removed by Moderator

To: Stultis

Anyone unfortunate enough to identify as “gay” and is also conseravtive would keep his/her sexual identity problems and life to himself.

By advertising and focusing on sexual problems/orientation/practices (of an unnatural kind, even) is sick.

They should just be regular conservatives, pure and simple. They’re focusing on the “gay” stuff, and adding “conservative” as an afterthought. They are just trying to ride on the coattails of the GOP to further their “gay” cause - they just didn’t like how the LCR were doing it.


275 posted on 12/23/2009 7:28:17 PM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

Comment #276 Removed by Moderator

To: Reagan Man

Boy you managed to bash many good conservatives in one post. Poppy and son will be so proud of you as will RNC Chairman.


277 posted on 12/23/2009 9:14:55 PM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
And I am not surprised youare Sarah Palins second biggest booster on FR.

LOL! If that's the case, a lot of people have really been slacking lately!

278 posted on 12/23/2009 10:57:26 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Anyone unfortunate enough to identify as “gay” and is also conseravtive would keep his/her sexual identity problems and life to himself.

Why?

I don't doubt that most gay conservatives would simply participate in and support mainstream conservative orgs, support conservative parties, vote for conservative candidates, etc, without making a point of relating their political and sexual orientations.

But why should we expect, or even hope, that "anyone" (i.e. all) would take that approach?

Consider that nearly all homosexual groups are implicitly or explicitly liberal, and often as not far left, and often politically partisan. Consider that there is therefore strong social pressure on gays to adopt a leftist ideology, or at least shut up about it if they don't. Wouldn't it then be exceptionally odd if at least some politically conservative homosexuals did not openly challenge that template? (Just as, for instance, black conservatives do in a very similar context.) Of course making such a challenge requires them to associate their sexual orientation and their and politics.

We certainly applaud African Americans who explicitly and pointedly challenge the idea that leftism is normative for blacks. Why all the hate and vitriol when gays do the same?

279 posted on 12/23/2009 11:57:47 PM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
There is no such thing as a homosexual conservative. The homosexual agenda is anti-God, anti-family and anti-freedom.

You're obviously free to so declaim on your own site. But I continue to think it absurd on it's face to hold that someone can't possibly be conservative just because their sex drive is differently wired.

I don't think there is any such thing as "the" homosexual agenda, any more then there is any such things as "the" black agenda, or "the" female agenda, or any such identity group driven ideological absolutism.

Certainly there are plenty of leftist homosexuals who loudly and emphatically agree with you that gays can't possibly be conservative. But why agree with that ideological absolutism? Why not challenge it instead? Or at least refrain from actively shunning and attacking those who have the personal conviction to do so?

I'm convinced that conservatism offers the most rational, practical and productive approach to self, societal and political governance for all individuals. I don't see any valid reason to exclude gays from that generalization.

280 posted on 12/24/2009 12:13:36 AM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

1. Comparing blacks to homosexuals (regarding the word “gay”, it is a good English word meaning happy and carefree which has been hijacked by homosexuals, along with the rainbow) is very offensive to black people.

People are born black (or white, etc) and it is a neutral characteristic that has nothing to do with character or behavior, and cannot be changed.

People who are homosexual can change, are not born that way, and such behavior is far from benign or neutral. “Homosexual” describes behavior and acts, and as such, requires volition.

I have a very good African American friend (she was born in Africa with an African father, is now American) and she finds such comparisons disgustingly offensive.

2. Anyone who advertises their sexual perversion simultaneously with their political affiliation is promoting said sexual perversion as an agenda.

That’s simple, clear, and common sense.


281 posted on 12/24/2009 6:05:03 AM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

If you don’t think there’s “a” homosexual agenda, you’re either (a) blind, (b) mentally challenged or (c) you like the homosexual agenda.


282 posted on 12/24/2009 6:06:49 AM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Comparing blacks to homosexuals [...] is very offensive to black people.

Oh, please. The liberal game of knee-jerk offendedness won't work here.

I was very clear in comparing the situation of conservative homosexuals and conservative blacks in one specific aspect: both are faced with most organizations and individuals claiming to speak for their identity group being liberal or leftist, creating an expectation that members of the group conform to this or shut up.

I put it to you that this specific comparison is obviously apt and accurate. If anything there is even more of an attempt by the left to "templatize," blacks, if only because their numbers (and potential votes) are greater.

People are born black (or white, etc) and it is a neutral characteristic that has nothing to do with character or behavior, and cannot be changed.

You and I, as conservatives, believe that race and ethnicity are properly neutral wrt to political ideology. Liberals and leftists (and other bigoted extremists) obviously believe no such thing. They believe, and loudly and persistently insist, that blacks should be liberal and left, and vote Democrat, because they are black.

And guess what. Lots of blacks buy that. Indeed most blacks appear to conform to this expectation. As a group, blacks consistently vote overwhelmingly for liberal Democrats, by over 90 percent. (Even though objective polling indicates their views on most issues are more often in line with those of conservative Republicans.)

So you and I, as conservatives, are pleased and encouraging when conservative blacks speak out and openly challenge the template. You and I, as conservatives, consider it important -- given the constant campaign by race hustlers, the MSM and the intelligentsia to "templatize" them -- that at least some conservative blacks do so.

Yet suddenly, when conservative homosexuals do exactly the same, you inconsistently insist that the leftist template is correct. You join help the left in shunning and marginalizing them for their deviancy from political correctness. You can't even bring yourself to say, "hey, I don't agree on the sex thing, but I'm happy to have you on our side politically."

283 posted on 12/24/2009 7:18:46 AM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
People who are homosexual can change, are not born that way, and such behavior is far from benign or neutral. “Homosexual” describes behavior and acts, and as such, requires volition.

Not so much. "Homosexual" describes sexual orientation. You can be "homosexual" even while being a lifelong celibate. "Behavior and acts" are not required (aside from the non-overt behavior of a sexual arousal response).

Does the sexual arousal response require "volition"? Can you seriously affirm that?

I can only speak as a heterosexual male, but I have never known it to. To the contrary, it requires volition -- and often a great deal of it -- to suppress the response. Likewise it would require volition -- indeed far greater volition than I have ever experienced or can even imagine experiencing -- to reorient my arousal response from females to males.

As to the "born that way" question, although I consider it irrelevant to whether homosexuals and be conservative, and irrelevant to the specific sense in which I compared the circumstance of black and homosexual conservatives (see preceding message) I'll give my views such as they are.

I've only questioned a couple of psychiatrists on this topic, but both answered in conformity with my inexpert expectations. They both said that homosexuality is not a single, simple condition. They said that certainly some individuals are "born" homosexuals, but that some aren't.

I suspect that the large majority of self-identified homosexuals are "born that way". But if I'm off in my guesstimation of percentages, it doesn't bother me. I welcome gays into the conservative movement regardless of how they got gay.

284 posted on 12/24/2009 7:47:30 AM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Merry Christmas, Mister Bircher!


285 posted on 12/24/2009 10:18:22 AM PST by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

Merry Christmas to you to Mr Carter.


286 posted on 12/24/2009 11:26:03 AM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

lj: Comparing blacks to homosexuals [...] is very offensive to black people.


Oh, please. The liberal game of knee-jerk offendedness won’t work here.


lj: No liberal crap on my part, only on yours. My friend and many other blacks do not like their inherent race which is benign, to be compared to sexual deviancy.


I was very clear in comparing the situation of conservative homosexuals and conservative blacks in one specific aspect: both are faced with most organizations and individuals claiming to speak for their identity group being liberal or leftist, creating an expectation that members of the group conform to this or shut up.


lj: If a homosexual holds conservative viewpoints, he will eschew the homosexual agenda. Black conservatives will also eschew liberalism that is spouted by blacks or people of any other color.


I put it to you that this specific comparison is obviously apt and accurate. If anything there is even more of an attempt by the left to “templatize,” blacks, if only because their numbers (and potential votes) are greater.


lj: Exactly so, leftists love to put people in boxes and give them false or separate identities - divide and conquer!


lj: People are born black (or white, etc) and it is a neutral characteristic that has nothing to do with character or behavior, and cannot be changed.


You and I, as conservatives, believe that race and ethnicity are properly neutral wrt to political ideology. Liberals and leftists (and other bigoted extremists) obviously believe no such thing. They believe, and loudly and persistently insist, that blacks should be liberal and left, and vote Democrat, because they are black.


lj: I am a conservative. I don’t know about you, since you are spouting quite a bit of sexual identity political pro-”gay” agenda nonsense.


And guess what. Lots of blacks buy that. Indeed most blacks appear to conform to this expectation. As a group, blacks consistently vote overwhelmingly for liberal Democrats, by over 90 percent. (Even though objective polling indicates their views on most issues are more often in line with those of conservative Republicans.)


lj: I agree.


So you and I, as conservatives


lj: I am conservative, you are a mixed bag apparently.


, are pleased and encouraging when conservative blacks speak out and openly challenge the template. You and I, as conservatives, consider it important — given the constant campaign by race hustlers, the MSM and the intelligentsia to “templatize” them — that at least some conservative blacks do so.

Yet suddenly, when conservative homosexuals do exactly the same, you inconsistently insist that the leftist template is correct.


lj: Your efforts to paint opposition to the “gay” agenda and homosexual identity as equivalent to race as leftist are not only a stretch so big you’d have to be a Chinese contortionist to succeed, but are also transparently false.


You join help the left in shunning and marginalizing them for their deviancy from political correctness.


lj: WTH?? I am “shunning and marginalizing” them? Sounds like leftist psycho-manipulation-speak to me! Homosexuals are busy marginalizing themselves right into the sewer!


You can’t even bring yourself to say, “hey, I don’t agree on the sex thing, but I’m happy to have you on our side politically.”


lj: I say exactly that. If any homosexual is conservative and leaves his pervesion in the bedroom where it belongs, I have no problem with such people voting conservative and espousing conservative ideals and convictions. But as soon as they publicly affirm and promote perversion, they have left conservatism, are promoting the “gay” agenda which is all about domination and fascist control. And by supporting the “gay” agenda, so have you.


287 posted on 12/24/2009 6:34:29 PM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

lj: People who are homosexual can change, are not born that way, and such behavior is far from benign or neutral. “Homosexual” describes behavior and acts, and as such, requires volition.


Not so much. “Homosexual” describes sexual orientation. You can be “homosexual” even while being a lifelong celibate. “Behavior and acts” are not required (aside from the non-overt behavior of a sexual arousal response).

Does the sexual arousal response require “volition”? Can you seriously affirm that?


lj: I spent several years on FR debating and discussing and informing people as well as learning a tremendous amount about homosexuality and the homosexual agenda. Due to psychological factors which include an absent or distant father, early molestation and seduction, and cultural norms that promote sexual experimentation, people develop same sex attraction, often feeling that they’ve “always been that way”.

It is a deep topic, and one I am tired of. You are a koolaid drinker who believes the homosexual propaganda. So be it.

The proof that homosexuals are not born that way is that there are countless numbers of former homosexuals.


I can only speak as a heterosexual male, but I have never known it to. To the contrary, it requires volition — and often a great deal of it — to suppress the response. Likewise it would require volition — indeed far greater volition than I have ever experienced or can even imagine experiencing — to reorient my arousal response from females to males.


lj: You likely did not have the psychological, familial or behavioral factors that help create homosexuality. You probably were not molested or seduced as a child or adolescent by an older homosexual, as a great number of them have been.


As to the “born that way” question, although I consider it irrelevant to whether homosexuals and be conservative, and irrelevant to the specific sense in which I compared the circumstance of black and homosexual conservatives (see preceding message) I’ll give my views such as they are.


lj: Again putting homosexuals and black people into the same box. There are no former black people. There are plenty of former homosexuals.


I’ve only questioned a couple of psychiatrists on this topic, but both answered in conformity with my inexpert expectations. They both said that homosexuality is not a single, simple condition. They said that certainly some individuals are “born” homosexuals, but that some aren’t.


lj: It’s hard to believe that you know nothing of the historical takeover of the psychiatric profession. They were bullied into removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders, for one thing. And anyone can claim that homosexuals are born that way, but to date, no one has any proof other than their own statements.


I suspect that the large majority of self-identified homosexuals are “born that way”. But if I’m off in my guesstimation of percentages, it doesn’t bother me. I welcome gays into the conservative movement regardless of how they got gay.


I’d welcome them if they never mentioned their sex life, orientation or attractions, and did not start or join organizations loudly announcing the same. And espoused conservative principles, and did not use conservative or Repub. organizations to promote the “gay” agenda.


288 posted on 12/24/2009 6:50:19 PM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
lj: If a homosexual holds conservative viewpoints, he will eschew the homosexual agenda.

Which is what GOProud is trying to do, in part with their participation in CPAC. They're rejecting the "homosexual agenda" mapped out by the left, and asserting that conservatism is as good for gays as for anybody else. But most here are protesting against their participation in CPAC.

IOW, they (and you) seem to be saying that gays should not (or for some reason cannot?) eschew the (leftist) homosexual agenda without miraculously developing an attraction to the opposite sex. I.e. they cannot simultaneously be both conservative, or even anti-left, and homosexual.

To me that seems as stupid and irrational as claiming, oh, let me think of a "behaviorial" analogy if that suits you better... O.K. Folk music. I like folk music, and bluegrass, and blues, and even the occasional "hippie jam band". Are most people who like the same kind of music leftoids? Heck yeah. Does that mean that I must suddenly start disliking folk music just because I'm conservative? Obviously not. It means I may not listen to certain songs or performers. I will get upset or roll my eyes at political diatribes delivered from the stage. It means I will reject the leftist "folk music agenda". But it doesn't mean I will (or should) develop an aversion to the music, or suddenly start preferring Pat Boone recordings.

Breifly back to my comparison of the situation of black conservatives and gay conservatives, you now have me confused. From your comments I can't tell if you're still offended, as you seem to be in some places, or if you concede the point as to the limited comparison I actually made, as you seem to agree with it at other points:

Exactly so, leftists love to put people in boxes and give them false or separate identities - divide and conquer!

In any case I'll repeat, even though it should have been obvious initially, that I was not comparing being black to being gay in any general sense. I was comparing a specific circumstance shared by both groups: that leftists and their cultural stooges aggressively promote acquiescence to leftism as normative and necessary to group membership. IOW, blacks are constantly told they should be liberal and left because they're black, and gays are told they should be liberal and left because they're gay.

I think both these assertions are false. You and many other freepers here seem to think only the first is false, but that the other is essentially true. I consider that position inconsistent.

289 posted on 12/24/2009 7:11:54 PM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

I really don’t have time to debate point by point, and after reading your latest response, have lost interest in doing so. Fair debate is one thing, nonsense is another and is very boring.

You are creating straw men in my stead. I am not saying that homosexuals must be healed of all same sex attraction to qualify as conservatives, and you are smart enough to know that that is not at all what I said or meant.

Now you are comparing musical taste to homosexuality, another pathetic attempt to normalize the pathological condition of homosexuality.

You are misusing your intelligence to push the normalization of homosexuality. There is no point in any further discussion.

I will boil it down to very simple points, that anyone who is not duplicitous can easily grasp.

1. The condition of homosexuality - same sex attraction disorder - is a psychological and sexual aberration and dysfunction, and societal evil, and a moral and character failing.

2. The condition itself is sometimes chosen (I’ve read homosexuals saying this very thing - they chose to be “gay”) and sometimes not, often not.

3. Homosexual acts, OTOH, are voluntary. Anyone could have all kinds of sinful, aberrant, immoral or just plain weird thoughts and desires cross their mind. Actually, everyone has all kinds of thoughts that cross the mind like clouds in the sky. Do we follow every single desire or thought? No. So every homosexual act - just like every sexual act - is chosen. People can tell themselves “go for it” or “no way”.

4. There are countless former homosexuals, thus attesting to the fact that it is not an inborn genetic or other type of inalienable condition.

5. Homosexuals who push the “gay” agenda are not welcome as conservatives since the “gay” agenda and all that it implies are Nazi like leftist agendas meant to destroy the freedoms we enjoy as described in the Bill of Rights; those who do not, are.


290 posted on 12/24/2009 7:24:27 PM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
Jim is a true patriot, in the ranks of other good men throughout our nation's history.

The pimps, the leftists and the perverts who object to Jim's very wise position, are the same ones who also object to America and her traditionally moral culture given to us by our forefathers. They simply hate America as a rule.

291 posted on 12/29/2009 1:36:51 AM PST by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillDon
It’s not ideological purity, but it’ll have to do for now at least.

Insanity; Doing the same thing over and over hoping to get a different result.

No thanks.

292 posted on 01/07/2010 4:52:43 PM PST by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
When did being a conservative change to mean adhering to fundamentalist Christian doctrine?

A better question is; When did Godless Libertarianism become the arbiter of Conservatism?

293 posted on 01/07/2010 5:08:36 PM PST by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
I’m sure the GOProud have nothing to do with the stupid gay parades flaunting their silliness.

Out With Log Cabin, In With GOProud
Posted by GayPatriot at 10:58 am - April 10, 2009.


I am thrilled to help announce the birth of a new
national gay conservative organization, GOProud.
As long-time readers know I have been very
critical of the national Log Cabin Republicans for many years.

294 posted on 01/07/2010 5:17:53 PM PST by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: word_warrior_bob

“It would be like paranoid schizophrenics lobbying not to take any medicine and that we should accept them as equal and forgive them the occasional murder.”

It would be like paranoid schizophrenics lobbying to be enlisted in the military where sane people have to bunk, fight, shower and often submit to them, for years at a stretch.

It would be like paranoid schizophrenics demanding the right to adopt children or having them turkey baster style, and raising them in their horrifying households.

It would be like paranoid schizophrenics forcing a pro-schizophrenia curriculum on the local schools, teaching children that schizophrenia is perfectly ok, we are all at least a little schizo, and you should not have to take any meds.

I don’t hate paranoid schizophrenics. But I would not ever support any of the above agenda.

At best the homosexuals need serious help. At worst they are tyrannical haters of normalcy and traditional American families and values.


295 posted on 01/14/2010 12:56:25 AM PST by Marie2 (The second mouse gets the cheese.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

I think there is a difference between them being in the “mall” and being a co-sponsor. I think that difference is what prompted Liberty’s withdrawal.


296 posted on 01/14/2010 12:57:36 AM PST by Marie2 (The second mouse gets the cheese.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

It is notable that a major communist goal is the abolition of the nuclear family.


297 posted on 01/14/2010 12:58:50 AM PST by Marie2 (The second mouse gets the cheese.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

“just because their sex drive is differently wired.”

It goes way beyond the sex drive. The longer it’s indulged, the more prominent the effects. It warps the entire soul.


298 posted on 01/14/2010 1:01:19 AM PST by Marie2 (The second mouse gets the cheese.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

“I don’t think there is any such thing as “the” homosexual agenda. . .”

Here are a few of its recent fruits:

- Catholic Charities in California can no longer place kids for adoption in our state because it is against their beliefs to place kids with homosexual couples. They had operated successfully in California for decades and placed thousands of children.

• A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney’s costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony.

• A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship. Even though she referred the client to a supportive psychologist.

• Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.

• A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.

- We have homosexual sex promoted in our public schools starting in kindergarten.

- Wanda Sykes is regularly lecturing teenage boys on a tv PSA that it is not ok to use “gay” as a perjorative, and that they’d best shut up and submit to the current dogma.

- Big Brothers/Sisters now places at risk kids with same sex homosexual adults. Even though homosexuals molest at a far higher rate than heterosexuals. They will not of course place straight men with minor girls or straight women with minor boys.

- The Sea Scouts have lost their decades old slip for their ship in Berkeley because the Scouts don’t allow homosexual men to be troop leaders. Troop leaders take kids on overnight camps that last as long as two weeks.


299 posted on 01/14/2010 1:23:40 AM PST by Marie2 (The second mouse gets the cheese.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Someone else who is boycotting CPAC for different reasons:

"Ronald Reagan would not have been welcome at today's CPAC or a tea party rally, but he would not have wanted to be there, either. Neither do I."

300 posted on 02/19/2010 2:50:38 PM PST by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301 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