Posted on 06/06/2015 4:55:12 AM PDT by HomerBohn
NR likes money. Weak knees on everything else.
William F. Buckley is spinning in his grave ... standing athwart this 'madness' and shouting STOP!
If Jonah’s mother had given up on family values, Monica would have been a crazed stalker hunted unto the grave and Billy would not have been impeached.
To be frank, I was never a fan of NR even in the Buckley days.
But what we do know, is that he took exception to an article by Mark Steyn and two weeks later Mark was off NR.
Hmmm, in a dust-up between Mark and Jason, who do you think would be the more rational? (If you didn't quickly say Mark Steyn, you maybe should be on the DU site....)
Kathy Shaidle in “Taki Mag” provides something of an overview on this stuff; at the end she kind of suggests this Steorts clown has something on somebody:
http://takimag.com/article/beta_male_suckiness_at_national_review_kathy_shaidle#axzz3cFY39Tc3
Yes. It was an online blog. Not an editorial position, but still coming from the managing editor on a public forum it was disappointing to say the least.
> Prior to the AIDS crisis, I worked at Studio 54, hung out with gay men, and learned it from the inside. While they kept much of their life hidden from me, it was still an open secret.
If homosexuals will really be honest with themselves about the new gay activism and homonazi movement their lives were not near the object of scorn today as the were when they stayed on their side of the street and we stayed on ours before they started trying to take over the Boy Scouts and forced people to bake them cakes and do weddings. So I ask if they didn’t start them down that path, who did? I believe its completely politically motivated and I bet when they discover who the real benefactors are they will question everything they’ve “accomplished”...
First, the author does exactly that. Maybe you should try actually reading the article.
Second, Steorts is the managing editor, and even though his is not the "official" editorial position of the publication, airing his view in a public forum using NRO goes a long way in explaining why he felt he had to call Mark Steyn into the street 15 months ago for retelling a very weak, old Bob Hope joke that Steyn used as a segue to launch his scathing attack the Gaystapo.
Now we know: Steorts didn't object to the joke. He objected to Steyn's column. The telling consequence of NR's refusal to defend Steyn was that the publication lost its [by far] most talented writer, and many of its subscribers as well.
John O'Sullivan's Law has prevailed against NR. RIP.
Well, part of the problem is that gay men often are big earners - put two of them in the same household and you have a lot of discretionary spending. And where else to spend it? On lobbyists, politicians and the like. So corrupt Washington took up their cause. Add in that they are some of the loudest, meanest mothers on the face of the earth and you have people getting out of their way while they mow down the opposition.
They don’t call themselves “mean queens” for nothing.
Alert for Steyn fans: he’s taking over Rush’s show next week for two days. I’m not sure which days but it’s always must listening when he’s on.
I'll have at 'go' at that one ...
"... and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, ..." Romans 1:27-29
Os Guinness has studied the American experience and the founding of its Republic. He understood, as did John Adams [Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.], that for such an ordered liberty to be sustained we must constantly work to support the foundation of the Golden Triangle of Freedom, of which faith in God the Creator is absolutely essential:
... the cultivation and transmission of the conviction that freedom requires virtue, which requires faith, which requires freedom, which in turn requires virtue, which requires faith, which requires freedom and so on.”
Only about one generation ago, BJ Clinton(!) signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Two generations ago, the very idea of "same-sex marriage" (sic) was ludicrous and unimaginable. That is because it is a complete rejection of the design of God, that is literally stamped into our very bodies, in our biology. To deny that is unnatural, Godless and debased. And the consequences of that are grave indeed.
Your become obsessed when you can never find satisfaction...
given the root of sexual desire is driven by the instinct for procreation most gays must live in a state of perpetual frustration...
“Using ridicule in an attempt to shut off debate is a leftist/liberal tactic. Why is the author of this piece trying to get away with such tactics?”
Why should a conservative magazine, founded to promote conservative values, have a managing editor who promotes the exact opposite? Why should a magazine that needs financial support from conservatives to stay afloat publish a long article by an editor at National Review promoting what NR is supposed to be arguing against?
Try promoting homosexual marriage on FreeRepublic. See how long you would be allowed to use this website to promote homosexuality.
That is the difference between FR & NR: one is serious about promoting conservative values, and one is not. I donate to the one that is serious.
Look for Skeeter to move fast on financing research to discover a method of re-plumbing perverts so they can conceive.
I agree. I read the article with initial interest to see if there was actually a legitimate argument to be made. There wasn’t.
It all centered around the usual social reasoning to allow it. He kind of made a weak stab at the significant religious side of the coin, and moved on to other pieces he could justify through unending wordsmithing.
Isn't this "mag" where John Derbyshire went after NR booted him?
Or maybe you should put a little more thought into what you're responding to before you sling around your silly little mini-tirades.
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.