Posted on 07/01/2011 2:28:17 PM PDT by Antoninus
ping
Well, it is not an active argument as it does not argue a position. Yet, while it implies a lack of position; it is really a passive argument in that it is premised in advocating resignation and or acceptance. So in that regard, it seeks to promote while at the same time seeks to discount and label as illegitimate any opposition to that which supposedly "does not matter" and is wasted effort.
Well then why even make a statement? Further, why not "how does it hurt you if Bill and Steve are not legally able to get married over the hill?"
In a nutshell, these homoactivists are transparently obvious as are the useful idiots that carry water for them... They fool no one except maybe themselves which is fitting as that is what homosexual sex is all about lies and delusion.
Now that’s really a good one!
Looks like an excellent tagline. ;-)
I've been thinking of writing a book myself.
This is a very interesting conversation.
There are some really interesting threads covering this subject all over FR... so many great ideas and so much information.
I meant to do a courtesy ping, but since you know All, you’d find it anyway.
:-D
You, friend, are funny.
Exactly Norm! :)
LOL! Never a dull moment...
The world is going insane and it looks as though a gigantic war between Good and Evil is around the corner - but thankfully I see humor daily, even so.
I am so very much not a RINO. But say Sarah palin is our nominee. I welcome anyone (legal) who votes for her! I am totally uninterested in their sex lives!
Your entire post is a straw dog. I was not ever supporting the plank of the gay organization. I don’t like the GOP (Rinos) or the Log Cabins.
But I could not care less who votes for our conservative (G-d willing) candidate. And I especially do not wish only non sinners to vote for him/her! We can’t win that way!
Guess what, sport? You give a homo a seat at the table then he gets a say in the platform, the policies, etc of the party. Get it yet?
You may not be a RINO, though you sure sound like one, but you are definitely a RINO enabler.
Argh, I sometimes why I even bother on these posts. everything I say is twisted around by the over-focused excitable anti gay lobby here.
First, again: I am against the gay agenda. Period.
To answer your specifics: no, I am not a libertarian. And yes, I am fine with the atheists and the purely fiscal conservatives here on FR. These people are part of us, and they wish for Constitutional principles like we do. I don’t want a Christian nation, I want a Free Republic. (But I am grateful for the Christian faith that drove our founding!!)
Homosexuals make up 3% of the population and they are damned in their sin? Then why so worried about them? Among us other people, there are even higher numbers of damned sinners, trust me. Maybe you can cast stones, but a lot of us are imperfect.
I said anyone who believes as we do will be helping us. Not liberals. But anyone who votes for our conservative candidate is a good thing. There will be very few pure people voting in the next election. No one is perfect.
I said that if you believe in our founding documents, you are welcome on our side. I did not include the legalese to state “as it now stands” so therefore I do not agree with the founders that homosexuality is a capital offense nor that slavery should be left to the states. Duh.
If someone calls himself a conservative and believes in our Constitution and fiscal conservatism, I don’t care if he believes in G-d or who he has sex with.
~Yaelle
*****************************
Unbelievable.
- trisham
*****************************
So if, say, Sarah Palin is our nominee, you would like to limit the votes we accept for her to Christian heterosexuals only?
***********************************
Do you think that would be Constitutional?
Quite possibly. I've been reading up on John Lindsay, a progressive Republican turned Democrat. What if he's an archetype of the kind of Establishment GOPer we're dealing with? How do we break this losing cycle?
The big problem is that the Dems are the party of government, and the GOP is not. If we want government to change, shouldn't we invade the Dems instead of vote third party?
If we had fiscally tightfisted, socially conservative Democrats in the bureaucracy and the judiciary, this country would be a lot better off and the GOP wouldn't dare play with the Larry Craig Republicans. While a lot of us should still fight on in the GOP, perhaps those tempted to go third party should instead go "rogue Democrat" -- challenge Democratic state legislators in primaries in "safe" districts, be "the weird guy" at party meetings, become delegates to the county, state and even national assemblies, etc.
That bipartisan strategy is how America was subverted. Going Third Party just lets both the Dems and the GOP become even more nutty.
Your idea has appeal. I've thought for a while that for Pubs like Mike Huckabee, if they really are as pro-life as they claim, but agree more with Dems on economic and foreign policy, it would make more sense for them to join the Dems and work to make two pro-life parties, one socialist and the other free-market, which is the way it was until sometime around 1980 (even Ted Kennedy was once ostensibly pro-life!). Likewise for Pubs who are one-issue, portfolio-only Pubs.
Unfortunately, most people attracted to politics are opportunists, and take the path of least resistance to get power and attention, depending on the prevailing winds wherever they are when they first get into the game.
As far as real, complete constitutional conservatives going Dem, I couldn't do it, myself. Living a lie the way some RINOs do would be too much to take, and I don't see how you could go into the Dem party with your Gadsden flag flying and have any hope of making inroads there.
I think the answer is for constitutional conservatives to stand firm on the most important matters of substance, but not rule out any strategic option (any more than it makes sense to rule out either the literal or figurative nuclear option in war or politics). Also, it's important to force each candidate to prove he's acceptable to us, rather than letting them take conservative support as a given while they try to sell themselves to liberals and the mushy middle. Otherwise, we become as owned by RINOs as, say, blacks are owned by Dems.
When there's no acceptable candidate for one office, I give my support to conservatives running for other offices. Only the constitutionalist conservative agenda is worthy of support.
So if, say, Sarah Palin is our nominee, you would like to limit the votes we accept for her to Christian heterosexuals only?
***********************************
Do you think that would be Constitutional?
*************************************
No, nor do I wish it. As long as the voters are legal voters, I welcome ANY voters for our candidate. Some seem to only want certain people on our side.
I despise all the ball-less RINO candidates. They would probably do a McCain and curtsey to let Obama win again.
However, I will grant you this - I don't like the GOP or the Log Cabin Boys, and I don't like political machinations like the subject of the original post. So we can agree there.
My point, as usual, was not to push a gay agenda but to welcome ANYONE who wants to vote conservative. GOP = not so conservative. Even if we are scared to leave the GOP right now, we know that they do not represent conservatism at this point. It is up to us conservatives to DRAG them along to victory because they are loser milquetoast.
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.