Posted on 09/05/2010 10:56:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
In the wake of a dispute between WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah and conservative author Ann Coulter over her decision to headline an event sponsored by GOProud, a gay conservative organization, Farah and GOProud Chairman Christopher Barron will square off in a debate later this month at WND’s convention.
Barron told The Daily Caller that Farah challenged him to debate over whether GOProud can be considered “conservative” after Farah argued on his site that there is no place within conservatism for an organization like GOProud, a group that promotes itself as “the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies.” TheDC is waiting for confirmation from WND about the debate’s details.
Farah dropped Coulter from a speaking engagement at WND’s annual “Taking America Back” convention in Miami for agreeing to speak at GOProud’s “Homocon” party in New York. (Coulter later said that Farah had never actually booked her for a speech, calling him a “swine” and a “publicity whore.”)
Farah contends that groups like GOProud are trying to commit a “coup” to unroot the conservative movement with an “agenda…to take the homosexual agenda inside the conservative tent.”
Barron insists that his group is genuinely conservative and said he looks forward taking on Farah in front of a WND crowd.
“Since we announced that conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter would be headlining our Homocon 2010 in New York City, Farah has attacked GOProud, attacked Ann, and challenged our work almost every single day,” Barron said in a statement to The Daily Caller. “I look forward to standing on the stage with Mr. Farah to defend GOProud, to debunk the misinformation he has spread, and to make the case for GOProud’s conservative mission.”
Barron added that conservatism stands at a major crossroads in its acceptance of gays into the movement. A number of high profile conservatives, including Lisa De Pasquale of the Conservative Political Action Conference, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and former General Counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee Craig Engle, have signed on as official sponsors of GOProud’s event.
The debate will be held on September 17 at 7:30 PM at the Doral Golf and Spa Resort in Miami, Florida.
Email Chris Moody and follow him on Twitter
Upset?
Hardly.
And not surprised by your behavior either.
You had more than enough chance to explain yourself.
Instead, you chose to ignore the chance to explain how it could possibly be ‘conservative’ and instead chose to push an agenda and insult people.
The agenda of the log cabiners is the liberal agenda, you never addressed that fact.
And it is incontrovertible fact in black and white for all to see.
How is it any different from what the Dems propose?
It isn’t.
I've already suggested you take this up with management. Have you done so yet?
In any case, why continue harassing me? And why does this upset you so very, very much? Maybe you don't like having arbitrary, politically correct speech codes enforced in your favorite forum. Eh?
If so, you should take that up with the management as well; and with those in the thread who peppered me and other dissidents with speech stifling threats. Since you didn't object to those threats then -- or now -- it is extremely odd that you are so insistently frustrated with my consequent inability to address your questions. Don't you think?
If you have a non-homosexual agenda POV, why can’t you discuss it? You apparently can disucss discussing it.
Censorious leftists? So conservatives are “let it all hang out anything goes” libertarians?
You are really greasing up the discussion with your duplicity.
It is possible for a homosexual to not be in agreement with the homosexual agenda. So in that way yes, a homosexual could be a conservative, albeit with a serious character flaw. Do other conservatives have character flaws sometimes? Why yes, yes they do. But a homosexual with conservative views would NOT be pushing the homosexual agenda, which means he would not be in agreement with the GOProud Legislative agenda, which you seem to have been stricken dumb about even before getting your knuckles rapped.
You’re still free to say that some homosexuals may theoretically be conservative, I just did!
Of course you aren't! You fully endorse the speech code which has enforced my behavior. Congratulations on "winning" the argument. Did you get your participation trophy?
You could have answered my questions before getting your knuckles rapped.
I’m not harassing you, merely replying to your comments to me.
Hi again, little jeremiah! You misdirected this query to me, although it obviously must have been meant for Jim Robinson. I'm pinging him for you.
And keep pinging the Boss. He may zot you yet. Go ahead. Tick him off.
Imho, here’s the thing. You may believe as you wish, but to promote the homosexual agenda is not acceptable, or healthy. As many of us have said before, “love the sinner, hate the sin”. Many of us have homosexual family members. As much as we love them, we cannot approve their choices.
Well now, if you're going to have speech codes, you should just stop at "not acceptable". I can be risky to consider other reasons. That can lead to dangerous things like though and argument. [shudder!]
As I explained upthread, I never thought I was arguing for "the homosexual agenda". I even thought I was arguing against a "homosexual agenda," in that guys who happen to like guys should be encouraged to reject "the" homosexual agenda and instead embrace conservative causes, and be supported when they did so.
See, I didn't think there is a genuine "homosexual agenda". I thought that was just leftists trying to intimidate gays into thinking (and hating) all alike, just as they do with racial minorities, women, economic classes, and every other group they can balkanize.
But I warn you, comrade, that my thinking then was in error. I have since been instructed in correct thought. There IS "a" ("the") "Homosexual Agenda," they DO all think alike (and apparently should) and canNOT be conservative, ever.
Oh, AND I LOVE BIG BROTHER! Shoot me in the head now, before I slip again into error!!
COMMUNIST GOALS (From The Congressional Record, Jan. 10, 1963)
19. Break down culture standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and T.V.
20. Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity, as "normal, natural, healthy."
You have that wrong. And you can’t fool us. The homosexual agenda is listed in the Communist Manifesto as one of the things to be used to destroy America. And you back it. It is a liberal agenda. It is a PC agenda. There is nothing conservative about it.
You have me confused with someone else. I am not pushing any homosexual agenda. I have stated over and over again that I am against gay marriage, I am against them pushing their agenda in the schools, that their lifestyle is physically unhealthy and that many of them seem to be psychologically stunted.
The only area where I differ from anyone else on this thread is that I think they are born that way. But I don't know. I don't think anyone knows for sure.
Someone has been pinging you over and over trying to get me banned because I have been arguing with them over whether we can ever get gays to vote conservative by emphasizing to them that they should be more concerned with economic freedom and America's security than with clamouring for special privileges. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that, however, some of the folks on here do not like to be disagreed with. I cannot help that. But I have never pushed any gay agenda. Ever. Any review of my posts.... MY posts, not someone else's accusations following a clip of a phrase they've extracted... will bear me out.
He didn't forbid it either. To say someone is not a real Christian because they are trying to get some Biblical mandates woven into law is disingenuous. They ARE Christians. They just aren't conservatives.
Additionally, the men who founded this country were for the most part Christians, and the Constitution which they wrote and signed did not allow for the huge tentacled leviathan which is now in existence.
Sure, but they didn't do that to protect Christianity (or to enshrine it.) They did it to protect the people from an intrusive government.
You need to read back, because I haven't said any such thing. There are elements of Christianity that are very compatible with conservatism. But they are not the same, as there are elements of Christianity that are compatible with liberalism. And when religion and conservatism are at odds, the Christian will go with his faith before anything else.
Or are you telling me that you would put getting a Republican elected before your religious beliefs?
He can read your posts. They are a matter of record. Too late to backpedal.
You also are confusing me with someone else. I have never pushed any gay agenda. I have said that they are probably born that way, but that our real priority should be to get them to vote conservative. I challenge you to find any post of mine that says otherwise. Go for it.
I said you hated Christians. I never said you pushed the agenda other than trying to claim "born that way". I haven't confused you with anyone. And anything you say now won't change past posts. The Boss always reads posting history before commenting. He's careful that way.
Post 71: Refusing to interact with gays is foolish. You're so afraid of them pulling us to their side, you make no effort to pull them to our side. Many of them COULD BE taught that demanding special rights will actually hurt the cause of freedom in the long run, and render their communities more vulnerable to oppression, not less. Many of them COULD BE taught that fighting higher taxes is more to their advantage than whining for cultural acceptance.
Post 171: Sweetheart, I LIVE in West Hollywood. I am surrounded by "butt bandits." And I have actually talked to them at length, and SOME of them can ultimately be led to understand that drilling ANWR will benefit them more in the long run than gay marriage, that Muslims will treat them far worse than Christians, should they ever get the chance, and that the military will do more for this country than the wardrobe department at WB.
Post 185: You don't actually read my posts. I'm not defending the gay lifestyle. As I said, I live here. I see it. I see all you've seen and more. What I'm defending is conservatives like Ann who are willing to try to reach them and teach them to wean themselves off the socialist plantation.
Post 269 (This is the one where I say I think they are born this way.)
Post 270: You also have not read my posts. I don't want gay marriage at all. I just want to include gays in conservatism. I want their votes for drilling ANWR, stopping illegal immigration, cutting government spending, and lowering taxes. And I want to do that without giving them a damn thing in return except what we all get: a stronger, safer country. Some of them can be reasoned with.
From post 310: But the fact is, you have not been able to find anything I have said that indicates that I am any more "pro homosexual" than you are. As a matter of fact, I also think the gay lifestyle is detrimental to their health. I also am against gay marriage. I also don't want it taught in schools. The only difference between you and me is that I think we should still reach out to them and convince them to vote with us.
From post 316: Here's an idea. You tell me: how do we go about winning gay votes for things like drilling ANWR, cutting spending, lowering taxes, and curbing immigration WITHOUT compromising on gay marriage? Because that's MY priority. What do you think about that as a priority? Go ahead and tell me.
Shall I go on? Or can anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty see what I have actually been saying about gays, rather than what a certain very dishonest bully has been accusing me of?
You said a Christian’s judgement is biased. So apparently only an atheist such as yourself can have unbiased judgement.
You can’t speak for Christianity because you only have an outsider, atheist view. Or any other religion. So your words are empty and meaningless.
I already explained my position, it doesn’t need any elaboration.
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.