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

Skip to comments.

Evangelicals and the Coulter affair
World Net Daily ^ | August 23, 2010 | Joseph Farah

Posted on 08/23/2010 4:54:09 PM PDT by Sola Veritas

.................I believe that's what Jesus meant when He told us to love our enemies. The ultimate demonstration of love for a Christian should be to evangelize the lost.

There is no indication Ann Coulter has ever used one of her paid speaking engagements to do this. In fact, I'm not even sure a paid speaking engagement is an appropriate forum for evangelizing.

Nevertheless, I have heard from a few Christians who compare Coulter's paid speaking gig to Homocon with Jesus sitting down with tax collectors and sinners.

That is not good discernment.

Coulter is a political activist, a pundit, a satirist. She is not Jesus. And she is not an evangelist. No one is likely to get saved at Homocon because Ann Coulter gives a conservative stump speech.

What will happen as a result of her appearance is that a compromise will be made with sin. Sin will be condoned or appeased. A conservative icon will find accommodation with a sin that would undermine the foundations of Western civilization, the Judeo-Christian ethic and the most basic biblical standards of sexual morality.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; annthemancoulter; coulter; faghag; farah; homocon; homosexual; homosexualagenda; wnd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-233 next last
To: little jeremiah

“In the leftist world view, hypocrisy is the very foundation upon which you stand.”

You missed the point all together. My point is that to vilify Ann for agreeing to speak to a group without knowing anything about what she is going to say is unwise.

If you had a child that was gay would you not speak to that child for fear of being accused of tolerating the lifestyle? Would you condemn a pastor for speaking to a gay because you feel that he would be condoneing the lifestyle?

I, for one, am not going to condemn Ann untill I know what she has said and if she in fact condones the lifestyle.


101 posted on 08/23/2010 8:14:29 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: donna
Everyone you talk to is a sinner.

There, FIFY
102 posted on 08/23/2010 8:16:26 PM PDT by Kozak (USA 7/4/1776 to 1/20/2009 Reqiescat in Pace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

And if Ann’s entire speach is pointing out the conservative agenda and reasoning behind that agenda trying to show them why the conservative agenda is a better way to proceed? What if she adds to that that she disagrees with the gay lifestyle and points out the Biblical problem with it. Would you still condemn her for speaking to them?


103 posted on 08/23/2010 8:19:07 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

See my post 103


104 posted on 08/23/2010 8:20:41 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; little jeremiah
My point is that to vilify Ann for agreeing to speak to a group without knowing anything about what she is going to say is unwise.

Really? She's doing business with them by accepting money and "performing" for them.

Did God approve of doing business in Sodom?

105 posted on 08/23/2010 8:23:05 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; little jeremiah

Coulter said she’s the Judy Garland of the right. Do you understand what she’s saying? Do you REALLY believe she’s going there to preach?


106 posted on 08/23/2010 8:25:17 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

The homosexual advance has been achieved by disarming one opponent at a time. It’s by approval or tacit acceptance. Just interacting with these disgusting creeps sends the wrong message.


107 posted on 08/23/2010 8:35:43 PM PDT by qwertypie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

I will repeat myself yet again, since you seem unable to grasp my simple points.

I am not - NOT - not - referring to homosexual practices. Got it? I am not saying or thinking that Coulter is or will be a sellout if she doesn’t tell them to seek counselling and leave the “gay” life.

I am focusing on the homosexual agenda - which the GOProud organization exists to promote, which is unconstitutional and anti-freedom of speech, of religion, of association and even of thought.

Since Coulter is happy to be a sort of “pet” of the GOProud homosexual activist organization, it seems quite iffy that she will tell them “Your agenda is leftist unconsitutional garbage”.

If she does, I will be the first one to say that I am pleasantly surprised.

Again, just to make it crystal clear, I am not discussing the vice of what homosexuals do in their sexual lives, but their agenda of forcing the normalization of homosexuality on everyone else via legal and extra legal methods. AGENDA. That is all I am referring to at this point.

Is that clear?


108 posted on 08/23/2010 8:41:00 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. C. S. L)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

I’m saying that it would be wise to hear what she has to say before we judge.

Is that clear??


109 posted on 08/23/2010 8:52:17 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

I have absolutely no idea what she is going to say and will not judge untill I do.


110 posted on 08/23/2010 8:53:42 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

We can’t judge what she’s going to say until she says it.

But anyone can judge her very acceptance of such a speaking engagement, her nastiness towards Farah, and her appearing comfortable with being a “pet” of the pro-homosexual agenda non-conservative GOProud homosexual activist group.


111 posted on 08/23/2010 8:54:34 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. C. S. L)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

I disagree with her appearing as it gives them recognition. I read their tweets. They’re thrilled she’s going to be there. This is a militant homosexual group. And she’s thrilled to be their Judy Garland. She said so. Gays love Judy Garland. There have been articles posted declaring that it’s tacit approval of homosexuals. Why are you not getting what is happening? Do you REALLY think she’s going to take their money and then tell them they aren’t “ok”? Do you honestly think she’s going to tell them about Sodom and Gomorrah?


112 posted on 08/23/2010 9:08:11 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Everything you’re saying is not only reasonable but inarguable.

And the old saying “you dance with the one that brung you” is also applicable.

The argument that she goes to liberal univesities is not an apt comparison, because it is conservative clubs or organizations in the universities who make the actual invitations. The “Young ACLU fans” or “Radical Faeries” or “Feminists for Crossdressing” are not the groups that invite her.


113 posted on 08/23/2010 9:27:44 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. C. S. L)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Yes, as a practical matter, I happen to think you are right. We need good, conservative candidates if we are to really have a hope of winning in the general election. And there are candidates in primaries which would be hard pressed to convince me to vote for them, and some are even too far out for me to ever consider. However, coming to a decision about which is better is often not a very black and white decision and does at times come down to a subjective process. I understand that, and so I am not too terribly hard on people who may act differently than I do, especially when there are reasons which commend their decision. I am not dogmatic about this, of course, but it is just my own personal approach.


114 posted on 08/23/2010 9:29:28 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Unless she whips out a Bible or tells them that they are not conservatives, she doesn't belong there as a conservative "icon". Her slams of Farrah are very telling. And I'm not a Farrah fan.

Gotta go to bed. Night!

115 posted on 08/23/2010 9:32:35 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: liberalism is suicide
Ah, the old “holier than thou” excuse.

I call'em like I see'em. This isn't about homosexuality, but about Coulter's failure to sufficiently shun homosexuals. Yeah, we're definitely getting into holier than thou territory on this one.

116 posted on 08/23/2010 9:35:59 PM PDT by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

I agree completely.


117 posted on 08/23/2010 9:39:39 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. C. S. L)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Melas

Just who is being “holier than thou”? Look in the mirror. You’re “judging”, are you not? With quite the attitude of superiority.

It’s not a question of shunning, it’s a question of pandering to a homosexual activist group whose only agenda is the radical homosexual agenda.

Chairman of the Board, Christopher Barron: “We are a gay organization, we only work on gay issues, we have never claimed otherwise. My God people.”
Twitter Aug 4, 2010 http://twitter.com/

The homosexual agenda is as far from conservatism as one can get.


118 posted on 08/23/2010 9:42:15 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. C. S. L)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Melas

And lack of convictions pays. Gotta keep that money coming in. Who cares what it looks like. A “conservative icon” addressing radical homosexuals? Pffft! Right? What’s it matter? They LOVE her! /s


119 posted on 08/23/2010 9:53:18 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

>>> I WILL NOT EVER COMPROMISE OF THE ISSUE OF HOMOSEXUALITY...UPON EVEN PAIN OF DEATH.

Speaking of drama queens.


120 posted on 08/23/2010 10:02:48 PM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
Ann Coulter is a Presbyterian...don't know which particular denomination

Yea, I think they're one of the ones that have lost their way on homosexual issues.

121 posted on 08/23/2010 10:06:18 PM PDT by whatisthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

The more I read Joseph Farah (and about him), the more I keep saying “He’s one helluva good man.”


122 posted on 08/23/2010 10:08:29 PM PDT by aSeattleConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
What if she adds to that that she disagrees with the gay lifestyle and points out the Biblical problem with it

It would be kinda rude don't you think to be a keynote speaker for a house warming party and then to say it looks like a pig pen? Not gonna happen.

123 posted on 08/23/2010 10:12:21 PM PDT by whatisthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
" There are TOO MANY extreme Libertarians on FR that call themselves “Conservative.” They ARE NOT, libertarianism does not equal conservatism."

Too bad Ronald Reagan is dead, I am sure he could have used instruction from you as to what a conservative is. Afterall, he was foolish enough to say the following:

"Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."

124 posted on 08/24/2010 3:37:22 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Obama. Chauncey Gardiner without the homburg.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: whatisthetruth

“It would be kinda rude don’t you think to be a keynote speaker for a house warming party and then to say it looks like a pig pen? Not gonna happen.”

I don’t think it would be rude at all. Unless they know something I don’t know, they have invited her to speak as a conservative and know what her views are. Ann, as I can tell, does not mince words and pretty much speaks her mind. If I were speaking, I would definetely speak as to my conservative values and how they relate to todays America but would also address the issues that I disagree with them on. From what I have seen of Ann she certainly isn’t timid about speaking her mind.

As I have said before, I will reserve judgement untill I know more about what she intends to say.


125 posted on 08/24/2010 5:01:23 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

“Do you honestly think she’s going to tell them about Sodom and Gomorrah?”

Like I said, I have absolutely no idea what she is going to say. I could also ask, do you have any indication that she will not?


126 posted on 08/24/2010 5:05:22 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
Good Morning!

I could also ask, do you have any indication that she will not?

Does she give sermons or entertain?

She is giving them legitimacy by recognizing them. Why is a "conservative icon" speaking to a radical homosexual group? And lashing out at someone that called her on it? Why is she happy about being the "Judy Garland of the right"?

The perception out there is that this validates them.

"This is how institutions evolve and emerge within a conservative culture," says Jon Henke, a libertarian-leaning blogger. "In time, gay people will be married, extending the valuable social institution of marriage to more people. In time, conservatives will argue that the positive impact that marriage has on the gay community is further evidence of the importance of the institution of marriage."

Change has come gradually, and it's worth noting that Coulter's decision to speak at HomoCon is merely the latest example of prominent conservatives (of all ages) lending, at least, tacit support to the cause of gay rights.

Or are you trying to tell me that she'll take their money then insult them? Would that be honorable?

127 posted on 08/24/2010 5:21:45 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Or are you trying to tell me that she'll take their money then insult them? Would that be honorable?

Well for the branch that's into sadomasochistic activities, it might be a step on the road to recovery to pay just to get insulted, instead of slapped around... ;)

128 posted on 08/24/2010 5:30:22 AM PDT by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: donna
Everyone you talk to is a sinner.

Well, everybody but one guy.

129 posted on 08/24/2010 5:34:10 AM PDT by gitmo ( The democRats drew first blood. It's our turn now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Farah is not looking at the bigger picture. He is allowing himself to be a distraction.

But the distraction is focusing attention on him and WND. Which may be what he really wanted all along.

130 posted on 08/24/2010 5:39:59 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

“Or are you trying to tell me that she’ll take their money then insult them? Would that be honorable?”

Honorable?? Unless they have given her specific do’s and don’ts, and she agreed to them, it’s honorable to speak about what she believes as they have given her the platform. I would suggest that if she has strong opinions or disagreements with their platform it would be a dishonor to herself not to address them.


131 posted on 08/24/2010 5:45:28 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Hegewisch Dupa

Ha! I never thought of that! lol


132 posted on 08/24/2010 5:45:39 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
Unless they have given her specific do’s and don’ts, and she agreed to them, it’s honorable to speak about what she believes as they have given her the platform

And you don't think it's dishonorable to accept their money and "diss" them? I do. She should not have accepted. It sends the wrong message. She's not an evangelist either. That's not why she's appearing.

And you completely ignored that people see her appearance as acceptance of militant homosexuals. It recognizes who they are. You ignored that it gives them credence as "conservatives" when they are not.

What one generation condones, the next practices.

You have also ignored her reaction. Calling people fake Christians because they disagree with her is over the top and uncalled for. And usually a guilty reaction.

133 posted on 08/24/2010 5:59:57 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

“And you don’t think it’s dishonorable to accept their money and “diss” them? I do.”

No I don’t. They knew before they invited her that she is not afraid to speak her mind. They also have adequate information as to her views on the conservative agenda. Unless they know, which I don’t, that she agrees with some or all parts of their agenda they have invited her to speak about what she believes. If that includes disagreement with parts or much of their agenda they have given her every right to speak her mind.

“That’s not why she’s appearing.”

Unless you have information that I don’t, we can have no idea as to why she has agreed to speak. I certainly don’t have any inside information on her reasons or objectives. I have simply stated that until I know what she intends to accomplish I will reserve judgment.

“And you completely ignored that people see her appearance as acceptance of militant homosexuals.”

I haven’t ignored that at all. I simply disagree that accepting an invitation to speak somehow indicates ones acceptance of their agenda.

“Calling people fake Christians because they disagree with her is over the top and uncalled for.”

Now there’s a comment that one could discuss at length. The definition of what a Christian is varies on ones viewpoint and beliefs. I could go on and on how I disagree with the Catholic faith and practices. Does that give me the right to say that they are not Christians? What truly is a Christian? Does it mean that if one believes that Jesus is part of the trinity, one with the Father, and that the belief that He is our only Savior without regards for our works makes one a Christian? There are many denominations and differing beliefs that all claim to be Christian. Even the definition of “followers of Christ” leaves openings for differences. While I agree that calling a person a fake Christian is ill advised perhaps, I would need to understand what the person who made that statement believes a Christian to be and what the person she said that to believes as well. I think the term Christian has all too often been loosely applied.

All in all, I believe that to judge a person before knowing what that persons intentions or motivations are should be considered premature.


134 posted on 08/24/2010 6:53:49 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
No I don’t. They knew before they invited her that she is not afraid to speak her mind. They also have adequate information as to her views on the conservative agenda. Unless they know, which I don’t, that she agrees with some or all parts of their agenda they have invited her to speak about what she believes. If that includes disagreement with parts or much of their agenda they have given her every right to speak her mind.

They love her. I'll go get the Tweets if you want to read them. She's either going to "diss" them AFTER she gets thier money. How nice! Or she's going to play nice with them. Either one is unacceptable. "Conservative icons" shouldn't be giving recognition to radical liberal homosexual groups.

Unless you have information that I don’t, we can have no idea as to why she has agreed to speak.

Use the whole quote: She's not an evangelist either. That's not why she's appearing.

So you think she's an evangelist?

I have simply stated that until I know what she intends to accomplish I will reserve judgment.

She intends to entertain radical homosexuals and get paid.

I haven’t ignored that at all. I simply disagree that accepting an invitation to speak somehow indicates ones acceptance of their agenda.

Because it doesn't reinforce your POV. Others see it quite differently in the article that I posted.

I think the term Christian has all too often been loosely applied.

You even have to excuse and explain away her untoward reaction. You Coulter fans are too much. You just can't admit/accept that she could be wrong. I'm so glad I'm not a "fan" of anyone.

135 posted on 08/24/2010 7:08:30 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

“You Coulter fans are too much.”

I’m not a Coulter fan. I have thought many times that things she says are reactionary, flippant, and many times abbrasive, even to the extent of being dingy.

My whole premiss is that untill I know what a persons reasonings and purposes are I will withhold judgement.


136 posted on 08/24/2010 7:28:37 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

That’s all? Nothing about the rest of it?


137 posted on 08/24/2010 7:46:02 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
My whole premiss is that untill I know what a persons reasonings and purposes are I will withhold judgement.

And it doesn't matter what the reasoning or purpose is if the action is the wrong one. Humans can reason away all sorts of wrong choices.

138 posted on 08/24/2010 7:48:14 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
[What I really don’t understand is this need to throw aside good people who are on our side]
You mean the fiscally "conservative" Log Cabin RINOs who - per the evidence of the imploding, systemically corrupted, and demoralized financial infrastructure -  weren't?
[because we are unhappy with one issue.]
The issue is demoralization and ideological subversion.
 
"What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.
 
It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages.
 
The first stage being "demoralization"...."
---KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov

139 posted on 08/24/2010 11:45:48 AM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
You mean the fiscally "conservative" Log Cabin RINOs who - per the evidence of the imploding, systemically corrupted, and demoralized financial infrastructure - weren't?

I am sorry, but I am afraid I don't quite follow what you mean here? I don't think I am familiar with the phrase "Log Cabin RINO." Would you bring me up to speed on that?

But, in the meantime, I should say that I think people may be getting the wrong idea about my position on these things, given some of the responses. I don't think people should stop pursuing the values that matter to them, most especially conservatives. My values are conservative values, and so I would like to see them promoted whenever possible. And Ann Coulter usually does this, probably as often as do other people in the public square. She gets things wrong, of course, and always has, and I am perfectly okay with disagreeing with her. Heck, I have done it many times. I am just stating that I think some of the rhetoric is too strong given that she is right most of the time.

140 posted on 08/24/2010 2:12:17 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

>>I don’t think

You got that much right.


141 posted on 08/24/2010 7:19:30 PM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill

Wow, you make it personal quick. Did I say something about your mother or something?


142 posted on 08/24/2010 7:55:47 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: aSeattleConservative; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; whatisthetruth
The more I read Joseph Farah (and about him), the more I keep saying “He’s one helluva good man.”
That may be.
Just as many of us here still think that ANN is "one helluva a good woman."
But if you're going be intellectually consistent, and blast ANN for having the temerity to "address an openly gay group..."
...then I look forward to your similarly blasting your "good man" FARAH, for doing virtually the SAME THING.
From WND editor appears on gay-themed radio show to blast Ann Coulter for speaking to gay conservatives:
For a guy who says he plans to fight “the homosexual agenda” “until the last breath” and thinks God will “collapse” America for accepting gay marriage, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah sure has been doing a lot of gay media lately.

Farah appeared on two radio shows that are hosted by gay talk show personalities this week to blast Ann Coulter for headlining an upcoming party sponsored by GOProud, an organization that represents gay conservatives...

-- snip --

...Apparently, only Ann isn’t allowed to speak to gay audiences...

Blast away! ;)
143 posted on 08/24/2010 8:23:04 PM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: All
See also, Michelangelo Signorile's post -- about Joseph Farah's recent appearance on his radio show:
WND's Farah: "My Eyes Have Been Opened"
And, from Michelangelo Signorile's bio page:
...By the late 80s, Signorile became involved in gay politics and AIDS activism, running the media committee of the direct action group ACT UP in New York and helping to publicize protests and bring attention to the life-threatening issues surrounding AIDS. Soon thereafter, Signorile became a co-founding editor and columnist of the now-defunct OutWeek magazine — a lively New York City lesbian and gay weekly — writing often about how invisibility and the closet were hurting the gay movement and adversely affecting the AIDS epidemic. It was during that time when he found himself at the center of the often misunderstood and highly volatile issue that Time magazine unfortunately coined “outing."

-- snip --

...Currently, Signorile hosts a radio show weekdays (2-6 p.m. ET) on Sirius Satellite Radio's OutQ [where he recently interviewed Joseph Farah].

You can just cut and paste from your previous posts about ANN "legitimizing" GOProud...
...and re-post them here, about how FARAH is now similarly "legitimizing" OutQ. :o)

144 posted on 08/24/2010 8:37:18 PM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

If you’ve been on FR since 2003 and don’t know what Log Cabin “Republican” RINOs are - then you’re an idiot.


145 posted on 08/24/2010 8:47:37 PM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
If you’ve been on FR since 2003 and don’t know what Log Cabin “Republican” RINOs are - then you’re an idiot.

I ask you a polite question about a phrase I do not know, and you say I don't think. Then you post and say I am an idiot. Obviously, your nature "is too full o' th' milk of human kindness." Of course, any ignorance I may have can be remedied by simply reading a book, but nothing you can do will ever be able to help your personality. If you really want to help advance the conservative cause maybe you could start by not calling yourself one. With people like you supporting us we haven't a chance. I do hope you have a wonderful and blessed day, and many thanks for so clearly showing forth all those Christian virtues which you find, to your great displeasure, to be so lacking in others.

146 posted on 08/24/2010 9:55:25 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
>>I ask you a polite question
 
Yes or no - You've been on FR for 7 years and don't know what Log Cabin "Republicans" are, or what a RINO is?
 
 
Yes =  you should shut your vociferous pie-hole and try improving your reading comprehension & search skills - as the topics have been covered many times on FR.
No =  you're just a disengenuous a$$hole who's trolling in favor of the homosexual agenda.
 
Which is it?
 
 

 

147 posted on 08/24/2010 10:37:27 PM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: RonDog; wagglebee
Okay, RonDog - the link about "Farah: "My eyes have been opened" is a quote from the homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile. It isn't Farah himself. Do you trust what the radical homosexual activist Signorile says? I don't, I'd like to hear what Farah himself says.

Signorile says, from your link:

------------------------------------------

"Yesterday on the show I interviewed World Net Daily's Joseph Farah about his battle with Ann Coulter over her speaking at the gay Republican group GoProud's "Homocon" event in September.

Farah eventually admitted that the left was right all along about Coulter and her lies ("My eyes have been opened") and had to acknowledge that his comrades on the right -- from Coulter and Laura Bush to Glenn Beck and Elizabeth Hassellbeck -- are now shifting on support for gays ( he said conservatives always "give up.") He also seemed a little bewildered about Prop 8 and its future when I suggested that the people might well vote for marriage soon as polls are shifting across the country. The right's mantra of course has been that the people were usurped by the judges, but now would they accept it if people voted for marriage? No, he said, but clearly realizing he was contradicting himself. At that point, he turned to Jesus. Listen in to some highlights from the interview."

-------------------------------------------

Which I find hard to follow (what the heck does he mean about the left is right about Ann Coulter and her lies??) I'll give it another read in a bit. Meanwhile, here is another quote from the radical homosexual activist speaking his mind:

An excerpt from:

In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda: "Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):

-------------------------------------

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."

"Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

148 posted on 08/24/2010 11:13:34 PM PDT by little jeremiah (.Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

You don’t know what the term “RINO” means? Seriously?


149 posted on 08/24/2010 11:17:41 PM PDT by little jeremiah (.Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
You are, of course, missing the point.

Regardless of WHAT Farah said on that "gay" radio program, the very fact that he agreed to be there severely undercuts his argument against ANN appearing at Homocon, IMHO.

He may be correct, that going on that radio show allows him access to a group of "gay" activists that might not otherwise hear his message [my words]...
...but that is PRECISELY why Ann agreed speak to the folks at Homocan.
150 posted on 08/24/2010 11:56:16 PM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-233 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