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

Skip to comments.

Has CPAC Gone Gay?
http://www.ThurstonHowell.NET ^ | February 22, 2010 | Thurston Howell

Posted on 02/23/2010 8:57:15 AM PST by publius321

When I attend many conservative functions in my early 20's, I was usually the young "whipper snapper" in the room. Now that I am 39 years of age, one troubling thing that I have noticed is that I am -STILL- the young Whipper Snapper in the room.

Morality is dying off with the “greatest generation”. As I look into this CPAC audience I noticed something a little different than the conservative functions to which I am accustomed. I see allot of...

(Excerpt) Read more at ThurstonHowell.NET ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: buttsexcpac; cpac; cpac2010; cpacisleftist; cpacperverts; gay; godblesssorba; homosexualagenda; ryan; sorba
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

1 posted on 02/23/2010 8:57:15 AM PST by publius321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: publius321

Well I’d say with Paul winning the straw poll they have at least gone a bit ‘fruity’. ;-)


2 posted on 02/23/2010 8:58:49 AM PST by Kartographer (".. we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius321

I see allot of young people cheering the cause of homosexuality and shouting their invective at the man standing for God’s laws.

To the Baby-Boom generation I say take a good look at your failure. For in your quest to “find yourselves” through many marriages and material things, someone was raising your children and it sure as hell wasn’t you. This is the face of the lost youth, the youth whose morality was inculcated by the public indoctrination system from Kindergarten through College. This country is in it knee deep if that is the new “conservative”. Watching this gave me a sick feeling, the kind that perhaps Moses had when he came down from Mt. Sinai to find the children of Israel whom God had just delivered – engaging in unabated debauchery and worshipping a golden calf they made for themselves.

To CPAC – shame on you. I learned something new this weekend. I learned that CPAC is not a conservative group. It has clearly been neutered and should be abandoned entirely by anyone who is a friend to the laws of God, the inspiration behind our constitution.

Conservatism is not about accommodation and appeasement. If people who engage in deviant behavior want to support conservative organizations, they should be given -asylum. However, to have deviant sexual behavior become a sponsor of a group pretending to be an organization representing conservative values is an absolute disgrace.

I think Mr. Sorba could have delivered the message in a more affable manner but the point remains. Watch the video below.


3 posted on 02/23/2010 8:59:27 AM PST by stockpirate (Hey Beck, Thomas Jefferson was a birther!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius321

I was there & homosexuality was not a theme.

I’d say anyone who can extrapolate a gay rights agenda from this year’s CPAC has some issues of his own.


4 posted on 02/23/2010 9:00:41 AM PST by jazminerose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

The behavior is consistent with polls that show a majority of young people supportive of gay rights and gay marriage.


5 posted on 02/23/2010 9:03:15 AM PST by Clemenza (Remember our Korean War Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

Paul’s student backers were shipped in to stack the vote. They’re the libertarian version of ACORN, but fortunately there aren’t that many of them.

But this gay business was a serious mistake.

As far as I’m concerned, real conservatism is like the St. Patrick’s Day Parade. If homosexuals want to join, fine, who’s going to stop them? Who’s even going to know who they are? But not if they want to carry signs demanding gay rights. Not if they are polical gays. Not if they’re going to set up a booth pushing gay marriage and boo speakers who depart from their party line.


6 posted on 02/23/2010 9:03:52 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: publius321
CPAC is going more and more Libertarian. It should just be called LPAC now.

Once the Libetarians infiltrate something, it's pretty difficult to take it back, but I think it's worth a try.

7 posted on 02/23/2010 9:06:50 AM PST by Allegra (It doesn't matter what this tagline says...the liberals are going to call it "racist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius321
Morality is dying off with the “greatest generation”.

Would that be the generation the voted for massive Social Security and Medicare entitlements, COLAs and most recently, prescription drug benefits? Theft was immoral last time I checked.

8 posted on 02/23/2010 9:07:36 AM PST by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
CPAC is going more and more Libertarian. It should just be called LPAC now.

Once the Libetarians infiltrate something, it's pretty difficult to take it back, but I think it's worth a try.

They're also trying to infiltrate the Tea Parties. It's time for REAL conservatives to stand up and stop them. We can't win the battle against Obama on fiscal issues only to turn around and see that moles in our midst have subverted us on the social ones.

9 posted on 02/23/2010 9:09:33 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: publius321

People have the Inherent right to be “Gay” but they do not have the right to cram their ideals down unwilling throats.

That being said it would be better if the Government got out of Marriage law all together with the only service the government providing being the recording of said contracts, and negotiation when a contract is canceled. (As marriage is a contract between two people as far as the government should be concerned) Also any legal contract worth it’s salt must be between people of legal age who are not dependents of the state or someone else.

I don’t even think the government should be involved in marrying people and should prohibit Judges from marrying people. The More we invite Government into the institution of marriages the more they use it as a tool to control people as tax law has done so far.

I do believe that no government should be able to tell a church who they can or cannot marry. If the Catholic Church prohibits gay marriage on it’s ground they have that right as a sovereign and independent from the government organization.

This is the true, limited government approach.


10 posted on 02/23/2010 9:11:36 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius321

What makes anyone think there were no gays/lesbians attending earlier CPACs? And I think the Log Cabin Republicans have attended before...


11 posted on 02/23/2010 9:14:46 AM PST by theDentist (fybo; qwerty ergo typo : i type, therefore i misspelll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill

>> Morality is dying off with the “greatest generation”.

Would that be the generation the voted for massive Social Security and Medicare entitlements, COLAs and most recently, prescription drug benefits? Theft was immoral last time I checked. <<

Also a lot of the “Greatest Generation” wanted their “kids to have it better than they had it during the 30’s and 40’s” which lead to the Spoiled generation known as the “Baby Boomers” whom a lot of them turned into little spoiled hippie, if it feels good do it, types of people.

One should not raise their kids to “have it better off than Myself” but they should be raised “to be able to survive and thrive in a cold cruel heartless world that is reality”.


12 posted on 02/23/2010 9:15:21 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

Rudeness and booing though?!?!
That’s picking up moral stance and bad behavior of the left.
#3 was apparently right - someone else was raising the kids and they havent done a good job.


13 posted on 02/23/2010 9:15:29 AM PST by WOSG (OPERATION RESTORE AMERICAN FREEDOM - NOVEMBER, 2010 - DO YOUR PART!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: publius321

How many more times can this topic be posted? Yawn.......


14 posted on 02/23/2010 9:15:51 AM PST by keving (We get the government we vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
We can't win the battle against Obama on fiscal issues only to turn around and see that moles...

Tell me, at what point before Obama did "social conservatives" give a tinker's damn about fiscal issues?

15 posted on 02/23/2010 9:17:26 AM PST by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jazminerose
I don't really have a dog in this fight, since I'm not affiliated with CPAC, nor have I followed their proceedings closely.

But as I understand it, GOPROUD as a group officially affirms homosexual conduct, and promotes a homosexual agenda, e.g. opposing DOMA and DADT.

Thus as an organization it backs a gay rights platform--- no surprise. To the extent that CPAC invited them to attend and participate, CPAC advanced their agenda. QED.

16 posted on 02/23/2010 9:18:53 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Unicuique suum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Governments in the western world have always been involved in marriage, and supported the institution, because marriage is the foundation of society.

The breakdown of marriage in the West is one reason why we have so many more dysfunctional people—especially among those on welfare. Because there’s no one to bring up the kids properly and teach them how to be good citizens. The public schools certainly aren’t going to do it. The government certainly can’t do it. Indeed, they don’t even want to it, because dysfunctional welfare families are solid votes for them.

So, yes, marriage is a religious thing, but it’s also a social matter. That’s why you have witnesses and records.


17 posted on 02/23/2010 9:20:06 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill
Tell me, at what point before Obama did "social conservatives" give a tinker's damn about fiscal issues?

Wake up, ya little turd. Social conservatives ARE fiscal conservatives. We ARE the backbone of the Republican base. We ARE the people who kept the Reagan coalition together. If you're too stupid to recognise that, then too bad.

18 posted on 02/23/2010 9:33:39 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: publius321
A libertarian attitude towards "morality" isn't something new. Indeed, it was Reagan's view and the policy of his Administration.

One of the reasons Reagan did so well, particularly among younger voters, is because of this unspoken compact with the religious right: "We will protect your right to live according to your beliefs and values and raise your children according to same. We will not allow you to impose them on the nation as a whole."

When Republicans and conservatives follow this model, we win. When we forget it, we lose.

19 posted on 02/23/2010 9:34:19 AM PST by E Rocc (: Giving economic power to BHO is like giving condoms to Tiger Woods.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazminerose; All

“I was there & homosexuality was not a theme.

I’d say anyone who can extrapolate a gay rights agenda from this year’s CPAC has some issues of his own.”

Well I wasn’t there and from what I saw in this video, “conservatives” who -were- there seemed shamefully silent. It was as though they were willing to allow the gay advocates who were shouting this man off of the stage to have their way with him like Lott offering his virgin daughters to the frenzy of amorous Sodomites.

If I were there and stood by as this guy was ridiculed for taking his stand, I don’t know that I would be telling people that I was there.


20 posted on 02/23/2010 9:36:15 AM PST by publius321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill

“Would that be the generation the voted for massive Social Security and Medicare entitlements, COLAs and most recently, prescription drug benefits? Theft was immoral last time I checked.”

I totally agree with you. I am talking about “traditional” values. They don’t see the aforementioned litany of benefits as theft. Even though some have received more than they paid into SS, they see it as an entitlement.

It’s like saying that the people who got out of the Madoff Ponzi before anyone knew it was a Ponzi are thiefs.


21 posted on 02/23/2010 9:39:41 AM PST by publius321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jazminerose
I understand that Ryan Sorba was screamed at, hissed, threatened before he got any words out. Where were the people who sponsored and engineered this event? They allowed a noisy radical bunch to force him off. The Homosexual Agenda had no business being there.

CPAc apparently is not about conservatism. The hell with them.

22 posted on 02/23/2010 9:40:25 AM PST by molybdenum ((A nation without borders is not a nation......Ronald Reagan.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: publius321

“Well I wasn’t there and from what I saw in this video, “conservatives” who -were- there seemed shamefully silent.”

#####

Being called a “hateful homophobe” is second only to “racist” in the pantheon of leftist intimidation. This tactic works especially well agaainst young conservatives, who are not yet sure of their ideology.

You can even see traces of it in some of the propaganda posted on this thread.


23 posted on 02/23/2010 9:40:35 AM PST by EyeGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
"We ARE the people who kept the Reagan coalition together. If you're too stupid to recognise that, then too bad. "

Reagan did not pursue a "social conservative" agenda, with the exception of abortion. He didn't even mention the "cultural" issues during his pre-campaign addresses or during his campaign, with the exception of references to marijuana. Even those were ambiguous.

What did he do during his Presidency?

-Filled his FCC with libertarians who believed that broadcasting should be regulated through the use of the onn-off switch.

-"The Meese Commission"? A distraction at best with as much impact on the American culture as French rock and roll.

-"Just Say No"? Based on encouraging individuals to make smart decisions much more than on the rule of law.

24 posted on 02/23/2010 9:42:09 AM PST by E Rocc (: Giving economic power to BHO is like giving condoms to Tiger Woods.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

It’s also a Libertarian approach.


25 posted on 02/23/2010 9:42:38 AM PST by molybdenum ((A nation without borders is not a nation......Ronald Reagan.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
Well, of course there have always been gays and lesbians in attendance at CPAC and everyplace else --- at least, it's statistically probable in any group over 100 or so.

The questions seems to be whether they ought to be affirming homosexual conduct in a conservative forum.

Missing the mark in the sexual conduct department is a very common thing. Most of our conservative leaders and divorced and remarried, some multiple times. Many have been involved in episodes of fornication or adultery. Some have begotten or conceived children out of wedlock. Some have a proclivity for pornography or prostitution.

And rare is the conservative who would like the less edifying moments in their "Sins of Youth Period" to be more widely known and remarked upon.

Call it the sad truth if you want to, but call it the truth.

However, as a conservative I wouldn't want people to be soliciting positive affirmation or organizing the advancement of such things. Whatever (say) Newt Gingrich's marital history, I wouldn't want to register an organization called "Conservatives for Multiple Marriage Pride." Like I said.

26 posted on 02/23/2010 9:46:18 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Missing the mark, one way or another, mea culpa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Social conservatives ARE fiscal conservatives.

What a crock. Government spending for : Faith Base Initiatives, expansion of Ed. Dept. (No child left behind), prescription drugs, massive increases in spending vs. GDP, bailouts galore. All under Bush. Fiscal conservatives? Spare me.

27 posted on 02/23/2010 9:55:04 AM PST by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc; All
One of the reasons Reagan did so well, particularly among younger voters, is because of this unspoken compact with the religious right: "We will protect your right to live according to your beliefs and values and raise your children according to same. We will not allow you to impose them on the nation as a whole."

The problem, however, is that groups like GOProud are violating the "compact."

Let's face it - the "Religious Right" is not "forcing its values" on anyone. That is simply bumper sticker fodder for social libertarians. Quite frankly, I know of very few social conservatives who actually want to "force their values onto others." They are most concerned with it being done to them - and let's face it, if there's values-forcing going on, it's being done FAR MORE by the social radicals than it is by the social conservatives.

The main issues that motivate the "religious right" - abortion and gay marriage - are both PUBLIC issues that belong in the PUBLIC domain. Neither have anything to do with "what you do in your own bedroom."

If you want to fornicate, that's your business. If you want to kill the child who resulted from your lack of self-control, that is OUR business. Murder is not "private" merely because it takes place behind closed doors. I can't blow somebody away in cold blood in my own home, and not be prosecuted just because the act was done privately. Likewise, murdering unborn children becomes the business of society - ALL of us - it's not an act that exists merely between a woman and her doctor.

Likewise, gay marriage involves the demand on the part of gay activists that the rest of society sanction their particular lifestyle to the point of redefining one of themost fundamental bedrocks of our social system. It is not a private issue. If gays want to do their thing behind closed doors, that's their business. It's when they start demanding that the rest of us grant the legitimacy of marriage to it that it becomes our business.

And as far as equal rights are concerned - it's NOT an equal rights issue. Any gay man has the exact same marriage rights as any straight man. Any gay man can marry any unmarried woman he chooses. No straight man can marry another man, even if were to want to. So, you might say, that doesn't take into account their preferences. So what? Nobody guarantees you that you're always going to get everything you prefer in life. Nobody has the civil right to have every last thing they could ever want.

What we see with both the abortion and the gay marriage issue is that social radicals (a minority, btw, if polls and elections mean anything) are forcing THEIR beliefs onto the rest of us. Sounds like it THEY who are violating the compact.

Further, let's not exaggerate the "libertarianism" of the Reagan administration. Reagan was against abortion, and surrounded himself with people who were. The policy of dishonourably discharging discovered homosexuals from the military still existed all throughout his administration. Reagan was no libertarian hero when it comes to taking action against public issues that libertarians disagree with conservatives about.

28 posted on 02/23/2010 9:57:22 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill
What a crock. Government spending for : Faith Base Initiatives, expansion of Ed. Dept. (No child left behind), prescription drugs, massive increases in spending vs. GDP, bailouts galore. All under Bush. Fiscal conservatives? Spare me.

Your error is conflating Bush with social conservatives. Bush was not a conservative, he was a populist.

I'm a social conservative, and I didn't support a single one of the things you listed. Most of the rest of the social conservatives I know, both on FR and off, didn't either. Clearly, you're blowing smoke out of your orifices.

29 posted on 02/23/2010 9:58:40 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Excellent post.

I would add that at the heart of it, most Americans are “social conservatives”.


30 posted on 02/23/2010 10:00:34 AM PST by EyeGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Good post there TQC !! We’ve already seen how public the issue of Homosexual Marriage has become when homosexual couples have already adopted healthy White infants when there are true married couples waiting in line for such children. The real tragedy is that what is best for the children is not being done.

We’ve also seen Catholic charities forced out of the adoption biz by being mandated by law to view homosexual couples as equally deserving as man-woman couples.


31 posted on 02/23/2010 10:18:52 AM PST by Monterrosa-24 (...even more American than a French bikini and a Russian AK-47.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
I'm a social conservative, and I didn't support a single one of the things you listed. Most of the rest of the social conservatives I know, both on FR and off, didn't either.

It's hard to be the "backbone" of the party that controlled Congress and the Executive for so long and yet not have your fingerprints on any of the reckless behavior that happened.

You can call me names, say I'm blowing smoke, tell me you had nothing to do with the Bush years. Whatever. But I would think now that the budgetary house is burning down (in part because of the spending that occurred in the eight years prior to Obama) and that the obvious problem is continuous massive government spending, that you would have more important things to worry about than gays in the party.

32 posted on 02/23/2010 10:30:04 AM PST by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: publius321

Morality is dying off.No dummimg is working along with being just to lazy to care it’s the 60’s anew.


33 posted on 02/23/2010 10:35:20 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

You can’t blame boomers, the countries leaders have been moving right since boomers started gaining some leadership in the late 1980s on.

When you look at the fatal destruction of America look at the period of 1935 to 1980.


34 posted on 02/23/2010 11:02:04 AM PST by ansel12 ( (anti SoCon. Earl Warren's court 1953-1969, libertarian hero, anti social conservative loser.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill

If you want to see social conservatism look at the first 150 years of America, your anti social conservative side made it’s big gains in the 1960s on unless you want to include FDR’s war against social conservatives with his social services which undermined families and churches and started replacing Christianity with the more (socially) libertarian state.


35 posted on 02/23/2010 11:10:20 AM PST by ansel12 ( (anti SoCon. Earl Warren's court 1953-1969, libertarian hero, anti social conservative loser.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

So you support homosexual marriage, polygamy and removing the age restricitions for marriage? All of these are desired by some churches, but the voters have a state set standard for legal marriage.


36 posted on 02/23/2010 11:14:27 AM PST by ansel12 ( (anti SoCon. Earl Warren's court 1953-1969, libertarian hero, anti social conservative loser.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill
It's hard to be the "backbone" of the party that controlled Congress and the Executive for so long and yet not have your fingerprints on any of the reckless behavior that happened.

Are you even listening to the nonsense you're spouting?

The backbone of the GOP is made up of material not unlike that which makes up the majority of Free Republic's membership.

The majority of Free Republic's membership, if you asked them, would most likely tell you that the GOP listens to its base about as much as Archie Bunker listens to Ethel.

There's a reason why the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008 - and that reason is that it ticked its base off royally. When that happens, all sorts of bad things happen to a Party, like fewer votes, less funds raised, fewer people being willing to volunteer. These all happened, as we have empirically ascertained.

In short, the GOP lost so badly because its out of touch insiders and big name politicians, for the most part, told the base to take a flying leap. And it paid for it in lost elections.

And here's something else to consider - most of these insiders and politicos are people who ideologically are very similar to folks like David Frum or John McCain - "pragmatic" folks who may be somewhat conservative unless they can be talked out of it. And they are also, generally, open to social liberalism. THAT is reality. The GOP's problems are largely the result of listening more to (perhaps incidentally, but perhaps not) social libertarians instead of listening to its own all-around (including social) conservative base and staying on the True Path.

Who are the usual culprits in Congress when it comes to going along with spending when you don't "have to"? The "moderate, pragmatic" wing of the GOP which just so happens to be...drum roll please...socially libertarian.

There's a reason for this. It's that when you stand for nothing morally, you're not going to stand for anything else either. Everything becomes optional, for the right price or the right persuasion.

Face it - social libertarians are simply untrustworthy when it comes to truly standing for conservativism. Sorry, but we don't see social conservatives like Jim DeMint or Rick Enzi going along with the Dems and voting to end the filibuster on the "jobs" bill. Instead, it took social liberals like Collins, Snowe, and (yes) Scott Brown to do so. In fact, it is almost ALWAYS the case that when some Republican or group of Republicans vote to backstab conservatives and conservative principles, the culprits come from the wing of the Party that just so happens to be socially liberal. There's always a "pragmatic" reason why they "have" to take a non-conservative route with those folks.

No thanks. Not interested.

37 posted on 02/23/2010 11:24:10 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: publius321
Now that I am 39 years of age, one troubling thing that I have noticed is that I am -STILL- the young Whipper Snapper in the room.

Okay, so being 38 is not old?

Great!


38 posted on 02/23/2010 11:38:00 AM PST by rdb3 (The mouth is the exhaust pipe of the heart. WHO DAT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Filled his FCC with libertarians

Do you have a source for those biographies?

39 posted on 02/23/2010 12:04:53 PM PST by ansel12 ( (anti SoCon. Earl Warren's court 1953-1969, libertarian hero, anti social conservative loser.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
A libertarian attitude towards "morality" isn't something new. Indeed, it was Reagan's view and the policy of his Administration.

Bull, Reagan was the darling of social conservatives, the libertarians had their greatest year in American politics in 1980 trying to defeat Ronald Reagan. They have never reached those levels again as when they were united against him.

40 posted on 02/23/2010 12:08:23 PM PST by ansel12 ( (anti SoCon. Earl Warren's court 1953-1969, libertarian hero, anti social conservative loser.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill
Tell me, at what point before Obama did "social conservatives" give a tinker's damn about fiscal issues?

From the time that they created this nation, until your libertine side started gaining more and more power in the 20th century.

41 posted on 02/23/2010 12:10:24 PM PST by ansel12 ( (anti SoCon. Earl Warren's court 1953-1969, libertarian hero, anti social conservative loser.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Well since “my side” consists of strict constitutional constructionists and since the only government spending we view as legitimate is that authorized in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, what is it there that you consider libertine?


42 posted on 02/23/2010 12:25:44 PM PST by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

The boomers were our last great warrior generation.

Almost 9.5 million served, they gave us a fighting force in Vietnam that was mostly volunteer fighting men instead of the primarily draftees that fought WWII and Korea.

Those boomer volunteers never lost a major battle in Vietnam, they were unbeatable on the battle field but their dads and grandfathers that ran the nation sold them down the river and even ran a Hollywood, TV, and News industry that mocked them.


43 posted on 02/23/2010 12:35:52 PM PST by ansel12 ( (anti SoCon. Earl Warren's court 1953-1969, libertarian hero, anti social conservative loser.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Face it - social libertarians are simply untrustworthy when it comes to truly standing for conservativism.

I'm not sure what a "social libertarian" is or why you think I am one. I'll answer to libertarian and that requires no modifier. The only thing I stand for in terms of politics is the U.S. Constitution and the only thing I require from politicians is that they follow it.

44 posted on 02/23/2010 12:39:11 PM PST by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill
Well since “my side” consists of strict constitutional constructionists and since the only government spending we view as legitimate is that authorized in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, what is it there that you consider libertine?

I'm not talking about your fantasy of who you are and the perfect purity of your cause in fantasy, theories land.

I mean who your side is in the real world, the libertarian view and the most radical leftists views are in sync on destroying the fabric of America and it's culture, and the left has made enormous gains in it's pursuit of libertarianism in the social culture, especially since the 1960s with the foundation laid in the 1930s to the 60s.

Libertarian Party Platform:

Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political borders”.

Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.

Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.

Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.

Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.

Advertising drugs, prostitution, pornography; zero restrictions.

Military Strength; minimal capabilities.

45 posted on 02/23/2010 12:46:38 PM PST by ansel12 ( (anti SoCon. Earl Warren's court 1953-1969, libertarian hero, anti social conservative loser.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I mean who your side is in the real world, the libertarian view and the most radical leftists

In the "real world" Ron Paul and Saul Alinski are as far apart as you can get. If you think they're interchangeable, you are deluded.

As far as political parties go I don't belong to the LP. I understand the Republican party has a balanced budget platform. How's that working out for you?

46 posted on 02/23/2010 1:02:02 PM PST by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill

The radical left and partly leftist libertarians share the same goal of ending and erasing the social conservatism of America, they have made huge gains in that battle in the last 80 years, especially since the 1960s.

If I understand you correctly you cheer many of those gains, isn’t that correct? Please try a yes or no answer before you go into your explanations of why you are different than the libertines that share your goals and cheer those same advances.


47 posted on 02/23/2010 1:11:08 PM PST by ansel12 ( (anti SoCon. Earl Warren's court 1953-1969, libertarian hero, anti social conservative loser.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

The ironic thing is, the gays march out and proud at the Dublin St. Pat’s Parade. They even have drag queens, I believe.


48 posted on 02/23/2010 1:33:38 PM PST by Clemenza (Remember our Korean War Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Those boomer volunteers never lost a major battle in Vietnam, they were unbeatable on the battle field but their dads and grandfathers that ran the nation sold them down the river and even ran a Hollywood, TV, and News industry that mocked them.

The boomers also gave us a GOP congress, and provided the margin of victory for Reagan. "Greatest Generation" voters gave us the Great Society, decades of liberal Dem control in the house and Senate, and a bloated bureaucracy that will likely never be partially rolled back.

More boomers served in uniform than carried a protest sign. This is lost on many, but not on this Gen Xer.

49 posted on 02/23/2010 1:36:05 PM PST by Clemenza (Remember our Korean War Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill

“What a crock. Government spending for : Faith Base Initiatives, expansion of Ed. Dept. (No child left behind), prescription drugs, massive increases in spending vs. GDP, bailouts galore. All under Bush. Fiscal conservatives? Spare me.”

No, spare us. “Social conservatives” (i.e. decent, God fearing people people who have a clue about the intent of our founding fathers aside from a couple jefferson and Franklin quotes taken out of context on which the fallacies you left winged Republicans depend) rejected the litany of Bush policies you put forward as well.


50 posted on 02/23/2010 1:41:49 PM PST by publius321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 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