Posted on 06/09/2005 7:45:21 AM PDT by sidewalk
The Log Cabin is a Trojan horse. Their whole mission is to make the Republican Party embrace the gay activist ideology. They did not endorse President Bush in the last election. I also don't think they necessarily represent all Republican homosexuals.
The national Log Cabin Republicans refused to endorse President Bush's reelection in 2004. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210477/posts
Do you really believe that the *New York City* chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans is composed of solid conservatives?
As for which "auxiliary groups" are allowed to join the executive committee, I have no idea. But I would asusme that "Republicans for Elliot Spitzer" is not one of them, and neither should it be a group whose sole purpose is to push a particular agenda that is antithetical to the GOP platform.
Homosexuals are welcome in the GOP, and have the same right to join the NYC GOP executive committee as any other party leaders. But the Log Cabin Republicans should not receive a special place at the table.
Sorry, but not endorsing President Bush in the last election is pretty disloyal, if you ask me. Obviously their single issue of advancing the gay activist ideology trumps anything else their members may or may not stand for.
If this were true, then why did they not endorse President Bush? Obviously they do get caught up in their single issue agenda, or at least the leadership. The fact that Pres. Bush won the same percentage of publicly identifying homosexuals tells me that the Log Cabin leadership does not represent them, and probably even less so any closeted people.
If that is true, why bother identifying themselves as gays? Do the solid Republicans in Kentucky who like women with big boobs have a group, or do they leave their sexual preferences outside when discussing politics?
Shalom.
Well, first of all, it's not the NYC chapter that's being discussed. If I'm reading the article right, it's the State Party Executive Committee. MUCH of NY outside of NYC is conservative. I'm betting the Log Cabin Republicans are more moderate on social issues, but just as conservative as the rest of the party on fiscal issues.
But I would asusme that "Republicans for Elliot Spitzer" is not one of them, and neither should it be a group whose sole purpose is to push a particular agenda that is antithetical to the GOP platform.
"Republicans for Elliot Spitzer" would not be an official auxiliary group. The RNC recognizes the following as official auxiliary groups: College Republican National Committee; National Association of Urban Republican County Chairman; National Conference of Republican County Officials; National Federation of Grand Order of Pachyderm Clubs; National Federation of Republican Women; National Republican Heritage Groups Council; National Republican Legislators Association ; Republican Attorneys General Association ; Republican Governors Association; Republican Mayors and Local Officials; Republican National Hispanic Assembly; Republicans Abroad International; and the Young Republican National Federation, Inc.
If I'm not mistaken, though, several states do also include the Log Cabin Republicans as official state auxiliary organizations, as well as some other groups. I guess it just depends on what New York does.
As far as being "antithetical" to the GOP Platform . . . does the official platform admonish homosexuality? I don't remember seeing that.
Just wondering, what if a pro-life Democrat group had refused to endorse Kerry. Would that have been disloyal?
Agreed. If he is happy keeping the discussion to such topics the Republican party should be happy to have him.
Everything is up for discussion (one does not necessarily have to approve what is being discussed but should have the openmindedness to at least discuss it) and agendas and motives have to be constantly scrutinized, evaluated and disected.
That statement is wrong on its face. If you have to discuss everything then you'll never have time to resolve anything. Some things must be ignored as being irrelevant, useless, worthless, or just plain stupid so you can have time to focus on issues that matter. If someone wants to discuss a national law mandating smearing cow dung on our houses because of some reason he thinks is valid, the suggestion deserves no discussion whatsoever.
Having a knee jerk reaction doesn't help anyone.
But knowing truth from a lie and right from wrong is not only helpful, it is crucial.
looking at the larger picture rather than getting totally myopic in their focus on gay related issues alone.
If they are really interested in security, fiscal conservatism, etc, then they don't need to advertise their sexuality. They insist on coming to the table as gays because gay is their primary agenda. They may be quiet while working to gain acceptance, but they will ultimately look to pass a pro-homosexual agenda.
It's the same distinction between a Christian who is working to support the Republican Party and a member of the (former) Moral Majority. They may both act the same way today, but eventually the member of the Moral Majority will want to see their agenda implemented.
Shalom.
I'm not defending them having an organization. I'm just saying that they're not liberals, or at least not the ones I know.
Do the solid Republicans in Kentucky who like women with big boobs have a group. . .
Yes. We meet each Thursday night at the Jiggly Room. :-)
THAT's what all that noise is?
The B-Cup Loving Republicans up in my neck of the woods is having a hard time gaining membership. About a year ago we had several contentious meetings on whether Britney Spears could qualify as an official idol since her cup size changes so often. There were a few who thought that was really important but most of the membership just got tired of it and quit. We're trying to rebuild but ...
Shalom.
We had the same debate. The compromise reached was that we could only ogle the music videos and pictures when she still had her natural breasts. One member, a non-native Kentuckian of course, said that might be a bit weird since she was only 16. The group voted that it was still okay since that is WAY past marryin' age in Kentucky. :-)
For some people a "9/11" event, is the definition of the ultimate catastrophic, attack on our country, culture, society. To others, the attacks on the Culture, The Christian culture - if I can call it that - is just as important and perhaps, more devastating. We were just to dumb to see it until it his us on the head :)
"As far as being "antithetical" to the GOP Platform . . . does the official platform admonish homosexuality?"
What about if there was a group called Christian Conservative Republicans? Of course you would automatically think that they would adhere to the Republican philosophy. But, truth of the matter is, many self-described members of the "Religious Right" aren't really that fiscally conservative. That flies in the face of the platform as well.
I don't have a problem with no one receiving automatic seats on the committee, but it might should be an "all or none" standard. Of course, it is a different matter if the Log Cabin Republicans are not an official NY GOP auxiliary organization.
I didn't think her natural breasts were big enough for the Big Boob Republicans. Of course, now that she's pregnant ...
One member, a non-native Kentuckian of course, said that might be a bit weird since she was only 16.
OK, laughing too hard now. Have to give it a rest.
Shalom.
I'd rather vote for a gay constitutionalist than a straight statist, any day.
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.