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: cothrige

What I heard as I read your post was “Yeah. It’s ok to compromise values and morality. Everyone does.”


51 posted on 08/23/2010 6:05:59 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
As for Romney, well I don’t much worry about that. Lots of people picked losers, and there were worse out there than Romney.

I briefly supported Romney myself. After Hunter fell, after Thompson shuffled off, Romney looked like our last chance to stop McCain.

Then he did his little cost-benefit analysis and decided not to fight, which is when I realized that he didn't have the grit to really fight for anything. He wants a coronation.

I figure Ann was making a similar calculation. If she were to come out in favor of Romney now, I'd be very surprised (and disappointed).

52 posted on 08/23/2010 6:06:07 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Melas; All

“Homosexuality is in truth a safe sin to pick on because honestly, they’re few in number. We got plenty of fatties though.”

I am quite willing to take on “adultery” and/or “pre-marital or extra marital” heterosexual conduct. It is just as immoral as homosexuality. Read my “Profile” page.

BTW - You should know that while all “sin” has the same “eternal” consequences....not all “sins” in the Bible have the same “temporal” consequences. For instance, not all are considered bad enough to be capital offenses....at least in the Mosaic Law....which shows God’s aborrence of certain practices. Gluttony was NEVER a capital offense...adultery, homosexual acts, other sexual immoralities were.

I am not advocating killing adulterers or homosexuals. However, one that cares about God prespective needs to know that some sins, in this life, are much worse than others.


53 posted on 08/23/2010 6:06:32 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex

“I think that Ann is a Roman Catholic”

Her father was. I believe she claims to be Presbyterian.


54 posted on 08/23/2010 6:07:32 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

“Our freedoms are hanging by a thread and Farah wants to get into a pissing match with another fellow conservative.”

Why not? It is a lot of free publicity and attention.

It does nothing for the cause of conservative governance; but when was that ever the real objective?


55 posted on 08/23/2010 6:09:13 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex
I think that Ann is a Roman Catholic, but I am not certain if that is correct.

Ann Coulter is a Presbyterian...don't know which particular denomination. i believe you have her confused with another conservative blond*, Laura Ingraham, who converted to Catholicism.

*For the record, Ingraham is probably not a blond any more. While she was recovering from chemo from her breast cancer, her hair grew in gray. Coulter was more of a "dishwater" blond or possibly 'strawberry blond' when she was teenaged.

56 posted on 08/23/2010 6:09:52 PM PDT by Calvinist_Dark_Lord ((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus
Remember, it was Eve who was first deceived by the serpent, not Adam. He only went along with her.

Nothing happened until Adam ate the fruit. Eve wasn't given dominion over animals etc. Adam was. Everyone blames Eve but it was Adam who changed everything. People need to read that story carefully. Where does it say Adam wasn't standing there when Eve talked to the serpent?

57 posted on 08/23/2010 6:12:06 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

“Our freedoms are hanging by a thread and Farah wants to get into a pissing match with another fellow conservative.”

No, Farah sees, as do many of us, that moral issues count. Homosexual behavior is NOT a freedom to protect or side with. That is unacceptable compromise. If Coulter, you, are anyone think that homosexual behavior is OK enough that you will consider them “conservative” as long as they are for lower taxes and free enterprise, etc. is just plain over the top. In the process of making a very few friends in the homosexual ranks for what you call “conservatism”....you are going to lose a great number of persons like myself that won’t tolerate that kind of compromise. A significant part of the base of the GOP.


58 posted on 08/23/2010 6:13:55 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

I have to admit, you have a point there. I think Ann will survive this though. She’s a great writer and once she refocuses on what’s important most people will read what she writes and enjoy... unless they’re leftist scum, then they’ll either ignore what she writes or they’ll squirm.

I was a little bit angry at her through this but I’m already getting over it. It’s been kind of cathartic posting here on the subject.

I hope they both kiss and make up.

On the other hand, I absolutely refuse to believe what some people have been saying, that this is somehow going to reflect bad on conservatives or Republicans going into the election.

The is not going to affect the election.


59 posted on 08/23/2010 6:14:36 PM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Melas

The homosexual movement is challenged because they are a anti-Christian, anti-America, political movement, embracing evil and sin, and promoting it in a movement.


60 posted on 08/23/2010 6:14:53 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: donna

My point exactly,,, Paul who knew Jesus, who was used to convey much of God’s word said he did what he didn’t want to do and didn’t do what he should... guess he was a sinner. We are all defective....And we in the church are great at shooting our own wounded;


61 posted on 08/23/2010 6:14:58 PM PDT by joelt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

“A private phone call to Ann would have been the best way to go. Why publicize it knowing that the Left will then use it to highlight some “rift” among conservatives?”

Go back through past posts by Farah on WND and he has one there explaining how he tired to get Ann to back down outside of the public spotlight. She would not.


62 posted on 08/23/2010 6:16:50 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: joelt
My point exactly,,, Paul who knew Jesus, who was used to convey much of God’s word said he did what he didn’t want to do and didn’t do what he should... guess he was a sinner. We are all defective....And we in the church are great at shooting our own wounded;

Paul repented and fought his sin. Homosexuals want special rights based on their sin.

63 posted on 08/23/2010 6:20:26 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas; rockabyebaby; dynachrome; MrCFdovnh; fishtank; little jeremiah; abigail2; ...
Poor Annie has been known to make some whoppers in her life, might as well add this one to the list........

SHAME! SHAME! Ms. Judy Garland Coulter

Homocon 2010(Pls join us)

Pls note: Homosexuality is an abomination UNLESS you're for lower taxes

64 posted on 08/23/2010 6:23:43 PM PDT by whatisthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
What I heard as I read your post was “Yeah. It’s ok to compromise values and morality. Everyone does.”

Well, we may come at things from different angles, but as I see it my values are more compromised under Obama than they would have been under Romney. So, if somebody thinks that is the best way to beat Obama I won't second guess that. I may not agree in every instance, but it does seem a valid way to approach things given the facts.

65 posted on 08/23/2010 6:27:49 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: whatisthetruth

it’s amazing how many think their agenda or the question of marriage is harmless.
It’s time people understood that this is a step in their agenda, this goes to adoption, teaching in school, forcing religious adoptions to give them kids, forcing churches to marry them, in the military.

etc etc etc

Seems money is more than principles to some infact many and it high time we had more folks on the radio and TV talking about this agenda as staying silent is what they want


66 posted on 08/23/2010 6:28:47 PM PDT by manc (WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
but as I see it my values are more compromised under Obama than they would have been under Romney.

Only you can compromise your values by the choices that you make. No one does it to you. YOU choose.

67 posted on 08/23/2010 6:34:35 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: marron
I figure Ann was making a similar calculation. If she were to come out in favor of Romney now, I'd be very surprised (and disappointed).

I can certainly see that, and would probably share your view on it, but I have to admit things could happen to change it. I suppose that things could fall out in just such a way that he could be the best bet and then I would be open to it. I like candidates I can really believe in, but given the choice between Obama and Romney, I am with Romney. Though, again, I hope it doesn't come down to that.

68 posted on 08/23/2010 6:38:00 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Our freedoms are hanging by a thread and Farah Coulter wants to get into a pissing match with another fellow conservative.

This is just a ridiculous, silly sidebar issue that's nothing but a distraction from the overall goal of stopping the Marxist Left.

I can't wait for Ann's Wednesday column that's going to blow Farah away to Timbuktu Farah to drop Judy Garland Coulter from his 'CONSERVATIVE' website once and for all.

69 posted on 08/23/2010 6:38:53 PM PDT by whatisthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Only you can compromise your values by the choices that you make. No one does it to you. YOU choose.

Yes, but unless you pencil in Jesus on every ballot, you are always compromising your values when you vote anyway. And there is no doubt that situations arise where one has a better chance of averting the greatest evil by voting for a less than optimal candidate. The moral question of whether a shot at avoiding the great evil, i.e. an Obama, or always voting for the candidate who is closest to perfect is one worthy of consideration. I am willing to concede that, given the situation, either is possible for a person of morality to take, and so regardless of whether a person chooses one or the other I am not going to second guess them for it.

70 posted on 08/23/2010 6:44:30 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
On the other hand, I absolutely refuse to believe what some people have been saying, that this is somehow going to reflect bad on conservatives or Republicans going into the election.

You may very well be right, and of course I hope you are. I fear though that anything is possible, and I do wish both parties would have found a way to avoid any public bickering. Couldn't hurt, I guess.

71 posted on 08/23/2010 6:46:05 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
How is she legitimizing this group?

By giving the impression they are mainstream and prominent conservatives can and are embracing it.

72 posted on 08/23/2010 6:47:36 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
And there is no doubt that situations arise where one has a better chance of averting the greatest evil by voting for a less than optimal candidate.

The last election was a choice of a quick death or a slow death for our country. I actually believe that our choices were made for us. We were just along for the ride.

I am not going to second guess them for it.

There is right and there is wrong. Only liberals see "nuance".

73 posted on 08/23/2010 6:55:38 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky

Post the link to the thread you posted and the quotes. Some people need to see them.


74 posted on 08/23/2010 6:56:57 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

Farah has a lot more compassion for Coulter than I would....and consider that Joe Farah risks losing money if he keeps Coulter as a WND coulmnist

The problem with Ann Coulter is that she is not a conservative. She supported Mitt Romney VERY EARLY in the 2008 GOP primaries.....attacked the Birthers (although Coulter claims she is a “Constitutional Scholar”...she apparently has no problem with Obama as President)....and now Homocon.

WND would be wise to dump Coulter....I am sure DailyKos or Huffington Post can use her services


75 posted on 08/23/2010 7:00:56 PM PDT by UCFRoadWarrior (JD for Senate ..... jdforsenate.com. You either voting for JD, or voting for the Liberal...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

You are sadly mistaken. God gave THEM dominion. Genesis 1:26: 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let THEM have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed THEM, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

You need to read carefully. The plural is used - THEM - thus giving Eve the rights of dominion as well.

The scriptures don’t clarify whether Adam was right there when Eve was deceived. It only states that after she had eaten of the forbidden tree, she then enticed Adam to eat. They were driven out of the garden for their disobedience, but, it was Eve who was first deceived. Adam went along with her and both received punishment for their sin of disobedience. They were both equally responsible, but, it was Eve who the serpent first deceived.

You need to read the story more carefully yourself, because you do err.


76 posted on 08/23/2010 7:02:03 PM PDT by Catsrus (Have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
How will Ann respond when it turns out that the birthers were right?
77 posted on 08/23/2010 7:03:23 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to GOD! Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

This whole issue is an example of the way goodie two shoes people run the better than thou mantra to play the “we are the way everybody needs to be” without room for tolerance. Sure, many of us believe that the gay lifestyle is opposed to Biblical teaching. Ann Speaking to that group is in no way legitimizing the lifestyle. No more then a pastor who speaks to that same group would. We don’t know Ann’s view of gays and certainly don’t know what she is going to say in her speech.

If we keep destroying the people on the conservative side of the spectrum is it any wonder that the left controls? The bickering and fighting does nothing to advance the goals of the conservatives in this country.


78 posted on 08/23/2010 7:04:05 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

You are actually quite wrong. The whole issue is why a supposed conservative speaker is going to speak at a convention of liberal homosexual agenda pushers who state upfront that their only interest is “gay” issues?

The question is - will she suckup to them or will she tell them that 90% of their agenda is leftist and unconstitutional?


79 posted on 08/23/2010 7:07:42 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 78 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

Its probably because they are envious of the good looking and spend the rest of their time lusting for them.


80 posted on 08/23/2010 7:13:24 PM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus
Where was Eve when the garden was given to Adam and he named the animals?

The scriptures don’t clarify whether Adam was right there when Eve was deceived.

No it doesn't, does it.

she then enticed Adam to eat.

It doesn't say "enticed". It says that she gave it to him.

but, it was Eve who was first deceived.

Yes. And nothing happened until Adam ate it. Their eyes were not open until HE ate.

Genesis 3:6b-7a

She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened,

81 posted on 08/23/2010 7:17:44 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
There is right and there is wrong. Only liberals see "nuance".

I can't share this view. There is always right and wrong, but never in perfect shades, and never readily available without decisions. Not in politics anyway. There were many candidates up for President last election, and some of them on the GOP side were rather dubious. Giuliani was pro-abort, and perhaps one or two others, though like Romney some claimed to have changed their position. In the case of somebody arguing for abortion there is probably a pretty clear distinction to work with. But, when faced with whether this one guy's generally conservative position on immigration and very conservative position on taxes is more or less right or wrong than the guy with very conservative position on welfare and generally conservative ideas about affirmative action it is necessarily subjective. Throw in the questions about possible chances of winning, and averting the greater evil, and things can without a doubt get fuzzy. Where something is absolute I can make an absolute judgment, but where things are subjective I am forced to make distinctions and weigh options. If I have to make that decision I can forgive others for making it slightly differently, unless they go completely off the deep end and vote for Kucinech or something.

82 posted on 08/23/2010 7:18:09 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

“Moderate” aka “liberal-ish” or compromising reach-across-the-aisle conservatives lose.

Ever notice that?


83 posted on 08/23/2010 7:20:09 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 82 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

“This whole issue is an example of the way goodie two shoes people run the better than thou mantra to play the “we are the way everybody needs to be” without room for tolerance.”

First of all, just because a person points out serious errors does not make them a “goody two shoes.” That is sophistry. I cannot claim to speak for others, but I believe my views are widely held. I WILL NOT EVER COMPROMISE OF THE ISSUE OF HOMOSEXUALITY...UPON EVEN PAIN OF DEATH.

Bottome line folks....chose which side you are on. You can be for what is called “tolerance” that will lead to a screwed up America (or at least more screwed up). Or you can listen to what folks like Farah and myself are telling you....we are a sizeable number....much more than a handful of homosexuals that AT MOST make up 1-3% of the population (except in Hollywood). Were are telling you we won’t compromise.....IF you compromise on the homosexual issue, you will lose my(our) support....a substantial part of the base. The nonsense you have been reading about shifting opinions is just that....nonsense.

A country that allows sexual deviants or libertines to run amuck is NOT what I’m trying to “conserve.” The base word of “conservative.”


84 posted on 08/23/2010 7:25:38 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

“The question is - will she suckup to them or will she tell them that 90% of their agenda is leftist and unconstitutional?”

Really ??? You say we should hold our judgement untill after we hear what she has to say? What a noval idea.


85 posted on 08/23/2010 7:26:31 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Yes, I think that is generally true. People don’t usually rush out for wishy-washy. Obama, for instance, is a staunch ideologue. He is hard left, and people will rally around somebody who stands for something. That draws out people in larger numbers in support and tends to help in elections. Namby-pamby lukewarm candidates are normally not going to be effective, except in particular periods of time, or against other particular kinds of candidates. A real conservative would be best for us, but I would still take a less perfect candidate if I had to. It is still better than some choices.


86 posted on 08/23/2010 7:27:29 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
some of them on the GOP side were rather dubious.

Most of them were. Because Dem lites run it.

Romneycare, before Obama thought of it. Romney is pro-abortion. Romney is a Rino. No more RINOS!

In politics, there is right and wrong. Too many don't take it seriously. They believe America is too big to fail. They are wrong.

87 posted on 08/23/2010 7:28:45 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Exactly. They were both guilty, but, you are missing the point. Adam could’ve refused to eat it, but, didn’t. Another point you are missing is that when God created Eve from Adam’s rib, they became one flesh. And, I seriously doubt that their act of disobedience took God by surprise. He knew exactly what was going to happen.

As a result, their eyes were opened to the fact that they were naked. I’m assuming they didn’t have to worry about shopping up until that point. And, the beautiful thing about God is that even though he put them out of the Garden, he also provided clothing to cover their nakedness. (coats of skin) This is also a wonderful spiritual lesson.

No, the Bible doesn’t say she enticed him, it merely states she gave of him to eat, and he willingly did so. The word enticed was my own, because it was Eve who the serpent went to first.

I’ve often wondered what would’ve happened if the devil (serpent) had first gone to Adam. Would the outcome have been different? That’s something we’ll never know, but, it is an interesting train of thought.

The point is that God held both of them culpable for their act. It sounds like the event took place in just a matter of minutes, because once Eve ate, then she gave to Adam to eat. So, yes he was there with her, but, I’ll have to look at another version of the Bible to see if there is something we’re missing here. If Adam was right there by her side when the serpent came upon her and beguiled her, why didn’t he raise an objection immediately? God punished both of them as well as the serpent, who it sounds like walked upright until he beguiled Eve.

And, God told Eve that her husband would rule over her since she was the first one to eat of the forbidden fruit and gave it to Adam.

These are just minor points, but, interesting as well. I guess in my mind, Adam was somewhere in the vicinity, but, not actually standing near Eve when she was offered the fruit. And, you’ll also notice how Adam tried to cop out and totally blame Eve - she was seduced, but, Adam ate it willingly.


88 posted on 08/23/2010 7:35:16 PM PDT by Catsrus (Have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods; All

“Here’s a question, Would we all be happier if Rahm Emmanuel spoke to HOMOCON? Isn’t everyone better off with Ann speaking to them?”

I’m all for Rahm Emmanuel speaking at Homocon...he is there type of person. Ann is supposed to be “nominally” a conservative. As I had said before....homosexuality and those practicing it CAN NEVER be considered TRUE conservatives and those that attempt to say that can are just plain damnable fools. Homosexual and Conservative and two words that shouldn’t or can’t properly be used together. It is an oxymoron. It is like saying “Conservative Abortionist” or “Conservative pedophile” because the abortionist or pedophile decides they are for limited government and low taxes. There are TOO MANY extreme Libertarians on FR that call themselves “Conservative.” They ARE NOT, libertarianism does not equal conservatism.


89 posted on 08/23/2010 7:38:10 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

The most important statement Mr. Farah made....
“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.”


90 posted on 08/23/2010 7:40:58 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior
"I am sure DailyKos or Huffington Post can use her services"

That reminds me. Didn't Huffington start out as a conservative as well? I always thought Coulter was the real deal but I have been disappointed before. If the homos pay her enough then I guess that's all that matters.

91 posted on 08/23/2010 7:46:33 PM PDT by strongbow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

So you would say that if I saw you talking to someone who I knew was a gay person I should assume that you agree with that person as to their lifestyle?


92 posted on 08/23/2010 7:51:44 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord

I was not sure what her religion was. For some reason, I thought that she might be Roman Catholic. Thanks for the correction.


93 posted on 08/23/2010 7:54:18 PM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas; CynicalBear
CynicalBear - why are you so intolerant of those who are intolerant of the legalization of homosexual agenda enforcement? You want tolerance but only one way - YOUR way. You whine about people wanting “everyone to be like them” but that's precisely what you're promoting!

You are intolerant of anyone who doesn't share your social liberalism. If you were really tolerant you'd have a “live and let live” attitude about social conservatives.

But no, you recite the leftist talking points about “tolerance” and “inclusiveness” but it boils down to “free speech for me (leftist social issues) but not for thee (conservative social viewpoint).

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Your talking points are typical leftist spew that is so internally inconsistent that if you were to actually practice what you preach you'd implode. You drone on and one about tolerance, yet you cannot tolerate. You drone on and on about inclusiveness, and reject every vestige of moral absolutes.

Real conservatives are upfront and not hypocrites like all leftists. We say some things are right, and some things are wrong. Some wrong things can be tolerated, and some cannot. Pointing error or mistake or evil is a duty. You claim that no one should “judge” or point out wrong, and yet that is all you do!

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

94 posted on 08/23/2010 8:00:10 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 84 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; All

“So you would say that if I saw you talking to someone who I knew was a gay person I should assume that you agree with that person as to their lifestyle?”

It is the acme of absurdity to equate talking to someone individually with addressing a convention gathered specifically to promote homosexual rights under the banner of conservatism.

One cannot justify Ann’s stance unless they are also saying that being homosexual is intrinsically OK. Homosexuality is intrinsically wrong....always has been and always will. Ann is NOT there to convert these persons from their immoral and harmful lifestyle....she is there to make money. She is NOT there to be an apologist for the entire conservative stanch which includes opposition to the homosexual agenda.


95 posted on 08/23/2010 8:02:48 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. But there have been many R candidates who were so flawed that they lost - and never because they were “too” conservative; it was invariably because they were to middle of the road/moderate/compromising principles to get along. Or had few conservative principles anyway.


96 posted on 08/23/2010 8:03:07 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 86 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas; Catsrus; DJ MacWoW

I concede the debate.


97 posted on 08/23/2010 8:04:39 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Mexico is the U.S. version of Hamas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

I’m not saying anyone should have no opinion. I’m just saying that after she gives her talk then it will be clear whether she is going to promote conservative principles or not. What she’s said and done so far is pretty interesting.

And the GOProud legislative agenda is out there for all the world to see, and it has only one pinch (2nd Amendment rights) of anything conservative; and who knows if they have any restrictions on that anyway, they don’t say much about it.

Everything else is either pure homosexual agenda crap or heavily tainted. They admit openly that their organization is “all gay issues”.


98 posted on 08/23/2010 8:06:21 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 85 | View Replies]

To: Melas

Ah, the old “holier than thou” excuse. The sin of gluttony should be attacked. However, I’ve never heard of a glutton’s rights movement demanding that their life style be approved of by everyone else


99 posted on 08/23/2010 8:11:01 PM PDT by liberalism is suicide (Communism,fascism-no matter how you slice socialism, its still baloney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus
Exactly. They were both guilty,

Exactly nothing. Eve's action condemned nothing. Adam was the "head". When he ate is when the fall happened. Not before.

Adam could’ve refused to eat it, but, didn’t.

And when he ate is when the sin was committed.

Another point you are missing is that when God created Eve from Adam’s rib, they became one flesh.

Eve was a part of Adam, not the whole. She was not yet created when Adam was given the garden and named creation. It was given to him. As she was.

because it was Eve who the serpent went to first.

There is nothing that says that Adam wasn't present.

That’s something we’ll never know, but, it is an interesting train of thought.

It absolutely is. What if Adam had rebuked Eve for eating it, as he should have done, and he did not?

The point is that God held both of them culpable for their act.

Did he? He pronounced a curse on Eve but didn't say why. With Adam, he did.

Genesis 3: 17.

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,

And, God told Eve that her husband would rule over her since she was the first one to eat of the forbidden fruit and gave it to Adam.

Where does it say : since she was the first one to eat of the forbidden fruit and gave it to Adam.?

100 posted on 08/23/2010 8:12:14 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | 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