Alfonzo Rachel on how Conservative Republicans should articulate their message

[freedom462]

Alfonzo Rachel of Zo Nation explains the conservative Republican take on diversity and his interpretation of the conservative belief on equal rights for homosexuals and his explanation of why it is the authoritarian left where the actual hate comes from.

After watching this video, who here thinks that everything Zo says in this video is 100 % correct and who here would say that they share all the personal opinions he expresses in this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU0MR0vxmsA&feature=c4-overview&list=UUWq53_f3zgMcWuE-XFKSpyQ

[Thorliveshere]

Zo nails it again!! He’s on the money.

Personally, I’m working with Freedomworks and working on political cartoons....we’ll see how it goes. :)

[freedom462]

Another link:

</https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU0MR0vxmsA&feature=c4-overview&list=UUWq53_f3zgMcWuE-XFKSpyQ>

Forgot to add the parts needed to make it a working link the first time, here is a working link.

[doc1019]

.

[freedom462]

Pinging some of the more prominent libertarian minded posters around here along with some of the more prominent posters on gay agenda issues - how closely does this video reflect and accurately describe your sentiments on this issue? Does Alfonzo Rachel accurately capture how you feel about it?

[freedom462]

What does that dot mean?

[doc1019]

Marking for later read.

[freedom462]

Figured I would ping a few more from both the libertarian and the homosexual agenda group of posters.

[DoughtyOne]

I believe the guy has it about right.

Ultimately God will judge these people. I don’t have to approve of everything they do to accept them.

Should our nation cave on everything they ask for? No. Emphatically no.

I know some very good homosexual people. I don’t approve of how they live part of their life. Hey, I don’t approve of everything I do. God is going to judge each of us.

I’m not here to make someone else miserable. On the other hand, I don’t want to be constantly bombarded with homosexual propaganda, and I am not accepting of homosexual indoctrination of our children.

Schools should not be indoctrinating our children with regard to anything, let alone adult homosexual behavior.

I don’t want young kids indoctrinated with heterosexual behavior either.

Our schools are far too preoccupied with anything but, real education.

[freedom462]

One thing I would add to what you posted - it IS a serious misconception that a libertarian based school would be all about celebrating homosexuality and adultery and promiscuous sex in general.

No, a libertarian based school would teach what you need to get a job your natural born skills make you best suited for, and that’s it. Does celebrating feminism, homosexuality and adultery help you find productive work? What, it doesn’t? Than it’s not in the curriculum. That is how an actual libertarian school would run.

[ottbmare]

I’m not a libertarian, but I don’t have a problem with what he said. P

[max americana]

I’m not a libertarian but a rightwing extremist. He nailed it correctly.

Also...faggots disgust me.

[freedom462]

Fair enough, in my original ping I meant to include both libertarians and those who post in gay agenda threads, and figured you were the latter.

And it is one thing to believe homosexuality is a sin and an abomination towards G-d - pretty much everyone here believes that wholeheartedly. But what is it about gays as people that makes you so mad? I note that you are indeed in Hollywood, is it that the gays there are also unpleasant people in general? Does the disgust stem in part because they also have terrible personalities and are narcissistic and totally selfish?

I ask this because there is a difference between homosexualism and homosexuals as individuals. Many conservative Christians, to my knowledge, do not have serious issues with homosexuals as individual people as long as they are not self absorbed and narcissistic and do not consider their sexual orientation their only real identity and insist using their identity to harass others and infringe upon others’ freedom of belief and association. Granted, many, if not most homosexuals are indeed like that, particularly in Hollywood, so i figured maybe that is the issue here.

[Dead Corpse]

Good post... Kudos.

[Dead Corpse]

For me, it’s the Gay Lobbies “You MUST accept me!” attitude.

Well, no. I don’t. I will evaluate you as an Individual and not on your group identity. If you are found lacking, then I want nothing more to do with you regardless of whatever laws you attempt to put in place to force me to do otherwise.

Do what you want. Do not involve me in things I have no interest in.

Such a simple thing, that so few seem to grasp fully.

And no, I don’t care if you are gay. I’m straight. That’s all you need to know about me and all I want to know about you unless you care to act like an Adult.

[cdcdawg]

Overall, a pretty good summary. I have seen several of his videos. I pretty much agree with him, and am glad he’s out there, even if his style of delivery isn’t my cup of tea (pun intended).

[Steve_Seattle]

In my personal contact with homosexuals - whether on the job (before I retired) or just in everyday encounters with people I know or believe to be gay - I never raise the issue and I treat them as I would everyone else. (I remember at a business lunch a few years ago, some of the female attendees were asking a relatively new male employee (who I had reason to think might be gay) about whether he had a girlfriend yet. He seemed uncomfortable with the topic, so I steered it to something else.)

But "gay activists" can fill me with rage, particularly those like Dan Savage who make a point of being as crude and nasty as possible, and those who wish to use the law to punish anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda.

Zo has it right about another thing - how quickly liberals resort to gay slurs ("tea bagger," "closet homosexual") to demean conservatives. I think many liberals are "closet honophobes." I first heard the expression "flaming fag" from my older sister, who is a staunch liberal.

And I agree with Zo that it's best to avoid vulgarity when dealing with or referencing homosexuals, though I can't claim to have always lived up to it.

Zo resorts to kind of a "natural law" argument against homosexuality when he speaks of polarities, and I think it is basically sound. I've used this analogy before, but I regard gay marriage - and all that it implies - as being akin to bad art. As much or more than being "sinful," it just DOES NOT LOOK RIGHT. It is goofy. And I think, deep down, most liberals agree, but "homophobia" is such a handy weapon to use against conservatives that they just can't resist. Of the three sexual alternatives - heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality, homosexuality is the one that makes no sense at all. As Zo points out, it represents an utter disconnect between one's body and one's "sexual" behavior. (I maintain there is no such thing as "gay sex" - it is an abuse of language.)

[Steve_Seattle]

One other topic that Zo kind of touched upon: the idea that gay marriage will magically take away gays’ sense of alienation. I think he is right in suggesting that it will not, that it is a placebo which will only temporarily salve gays’ sense of estrangement from themselves. And most gays do not want to be married anyway. So I expect further efforts by gays to somehow force acceptance, an impossible task but a very dangerous one from a civil liberties point of view. And I’m not sure Zo has an answer to that. I’m not sure if he is saying that we should oppose gay marriage through the ballot box, or just in our minds. Or should our emphasis be restricted to preserving our own right to disagree with gay marriage laws without being subject to civil or criminal penalties?