Posted on 10/19/2004 5:17:28 PM PDT by TaxRelief
History has shown that the neutral position is the most dangerous position to take. Unfortunately for Bill O'Reilly, the host of Fox News' O'Reilly Factor and the target of sexual harassment lawsuit, his attempts at reasonableness are neither liberal enough for the hard left nor conservative enough for the solid right.
Conservatives bite the hand that feeds them when they fail to recognize that O'Reilly, in his position as an independent moderate, provides the perfect doorway through which a maturing, political aficionado can pass as he discovers the dangerous liberal slant of the mainstream media. (Certainly, a budding neo-con does not wake up one morning to the sudden discovery that he is ready for conservatism "al Sean Hannity.")
O'Reilly's political positions--his support of abortion, homosexual adoption, homosexual marriage, fiscal conservatism and limited government; and his opposition to animal rights activists, "feminazis" and environmental whackos-- parallel very closely the interim stage that many moderates pass through on their journey from the young, brainwashed me-generation to the more logical realm of adult conservatism.
O'Reilly practices Catholicism exactly the way John Kerry does; He professes a distaste for abortion, but implies that abortion, other than partial-birth abortion, should not be limited by law. (If this logic was carried out to its conclusion with any existing law, we'd be in total disarray--I don't believe in euthanizing disloyal spouses, but who am I to interfere with your household?) Because Bill O'Reilly has only babies in his home, he has not yet experienced the introspection that parents are forced to encounter sooner or later as they help their children grow in faith within the church.
The political stance of O'Reilly, and others moving away from the left, has not slipped past the attention of the Homosexual Mafia or past the strategists in the Democrat Party. By way of example, John Kerry's stated position about the deficit is that it can be blamed solely on "big Republican" spending. Kerry obviously believes that the wider he makes the stated definition of liberalism, the more people who might otherwise be attracted to conservatism, he will be able to keep in the camp. Unfortunately for all of the left, however, more and more adults are doing their homework and recognizing the inconsistencies between liberal promises and the reality after a liberal is elected.
An exploration of the social history of America and the MSM (mainstream media) reveals overwhelming evidence that the Homosexual Mafia, more than forty years ago, rested on a strategy to control public opinion by infiltrating the media and moving into powers of position within newspaper publishing houses, TV production studios and Public Radio. For the first twenty of these years, it was not openly obvious that they had positioned themselves so well.
Eventually conservatives in positions of power began to recognize that the right was well behind the social engineering curve, so they rose up and attempted to fight back with reason and competition. But they were too late. The social control of the "civil rights" crowd , the monopolies of small city publications and the power of "political correctness" in the schools were too strong, and forced them to turn to new venues, the "new media"--talk radio, cable news, conservative publications, the internet and finally bloggers --was born.
As a key member of this New Media, Bill O'Reilly is now a serious threat to the radical leftists' civil-rights agenda, and apparently is more than the Homosexual Mafia can control. Al Franken, in his position not only as a spokesman for the Homosexual Agenda, but also as a general in his political army, went on a blatant attack of O'Reilly with his book and, more subtly, by naming his competing radio show The O'Franken Factor. Given that these latest strategies have not worked--they didn't even dent O'Reilly's ratings--Franken, according to the manager of a restaurant patronized by the liberal media, is in cohorts with Andrea Mackris, O'Reilly's staff member known for her "sexual rants and drunken propositions." Mackris hopes to publish a tome that paints O'Reilly as anything but conservative, Franken-style, in an attempt to break any remaining ties between O'Reilly and his semi-conservative followers.
Perhaps O'Reilly's recent iteration of his softened stance on the integration of homosexuals into normal society occurred because he recognized the impending threat from the Homosexual Mafia.
Unfortunately, O'Reilly has not realized that he is making a serious mistake by supporting a left social agenda. Other than people in transition from one political position to another, there is no established middle ground in the media. There is no established group of followers and their are no supporters of the "middle ground." Indeed, by definition, the moderates are transitional and wishy-washy, and they are therefore not in a position to rise up and defend Bill O'Reilly.
So, Bill O'Reilly is all alone.
It is up to the supporters of the New Media to rise to the occasion. Allowing the Homosexual Mafia and the MSM to win this battle will give the leftists the courage to continue their attacks, and next time they may take on one of the better known heroes of freedom such as Ann Coulter or Neal Boortz.
Conservatives and libertarians must get off their high horses and recognize that which those who wish to dictate the social agenda of America recognize:
If Bill O'Reilly is taken down, a "Door to the Right" will, for at least a while, be closed in the faces of those who are ready to begin a journey towards truth and the conservative, comfort zone of the New Media.
You forgot to state examples, by not doing so your statements are baseless.
Of course it really doesn't matter what I say to you because you will consider everything I say to you to be 'blatherings'.
Even more riddiculous is the fact that our country is even addressing this nonsense primarily.
Men sexualizing each others anuses and demanding society aknowledge their perversion as a ligitimate marriage?.
Square peg round hole, move along!
Bologna...How many examples do you want? Each time I cited YOUR example and then explained why you were wrong.
For someone to base a relationship on nothing more than sex makes them no better than an animal.
You stated; Now I’ve pointed out that AIS is gender specific and you’ve not challenged that fact. CAIS is always assigned female, PAIS with predominantly female external genitalia is assigned female gender and PAIS with ambiguous genitalia or predominantly male genitalia is always assigned males gender. Case closed. Your argument is ridiculous. While NOT providing weblinks, NOR stating what the acronyms in your statement stand for.
Also, this is the FIRST time I have seen you state this. If you did reply this above statement to me in the last 6 months, I would not have gotten it because I have away from FR.
Finally, you came to this thread from the sole intent of flaming me because you disagree with me.
The "relationship" in question is called "same sex marriage"
Perversion is still perversion by any other name.
Main Entry: per·ver·sion
Pronunciation: p&r-'v&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : the action of perverting : the condition of being perverted
2 : a perverted form; especially : an aberrant sexual practice especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus
You missed my point, which was 'how relationships are not based solely on sex'.
Perversion is still perversion by any other name.
To put things in perspective, there are some people I know who consider hetrosexual sex outside of marriage to be a 'perversion'.
Question...
Why have you attempted to turn this thread, which is about militant homosexual leftist insurgency into a debate of your pet into a discussion of your pet theories on the endorsement of sexual deviancy?
Were you trained to ask 'loaded questions' or do they come naturally to you?
They come naturally when appropriate. Now why don't you go find a nice thread where the subject is actually "queer theory, nature or nurture?"
Huber: They come naturally when appropriate.
It is never appropriate to ask 'loaded questions', they are rude and as solely designed to start heat arguements of the worst kind.
Your point is well taken. I employed a liberal tactic to make a conservative argument. Instead, I should have simply and politely pointed out to you that your defense of homosexual legitimacy and victimhood changed the subject away from the article's topic, which, I believe, was the strategic objectives of militant queer activism and the purpose of the attack on O'Reilly. This point could have been followed by a polite request that you begin a new thread to discuss your topic without dominating this particular thread.
Thank you for the constructive feedback. :-)
"O'Reilly, in his position as an independent moderate, provides the perfect doorway through which a maturing, political aficionado can pass as he discovers the dangerous liberal slant of the mainstream media. (Certainly, a budding neo-con does not wake up one morning to the sudden discovery that he is ready for conservatism 'al Sean Hannity.')"
They’re all over the web, perhaps you should read them some time.
NOR stating what the acronyms in your statement stand for.
They were meant for you…a supposed authority on the subject. If you don’t know the common acronyms for YOUR example it’s clear you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) as you stated before, CAIS stands for Complete AIS and PAIS stands for Partial AIS. (Thus pointed out for the lay people and not the "Knowledgeably" Paul C. Jesup).
Also, this is the FIRST time I have seen you state this.
If you read my posts you will see I did.
If you did reply this above statement to me in the last 6 months, I would not have gotten it because I have away from FR.
Nope, just my first 3 posts to you.
Finally, you came to this thread from the sole intent of flaming me because you disagree with me.
You use disingenuous supposition, with cursory knowledge of a subject you can’t support, to erroneously justify “innate” practice of perversion. You sir are a fraud.
Stellar Dendrite: You need to understand cultural marxism. One of the goals according to Antonio Gramsci is to undermine the Family unit.
Paul C. Jesup: I understand 'cultural marxism', and unlike you I know the socialists in the country consider the homosexual movement to be no more than a tool and that when the socialists no long need them, the socialists with do their own version of 'the night of the long knifes' against homosexuals in this country.
If we can make homosexuals in this country understand this, then we could cut the socialists power base at their knees. But you and others are too short sighted to realize this.
Also, if you actually studied history, beyond the bible, you would see that rejection of homosexuality by christians in ancient Rome was because homosexuality was part of the pagan Roman culture and that the rejection of homosexuality by the christians of that time was part of their rejection of the pagan Roman culture as a whole.
I never claimed to be an expert on the subject, I was just pointing out a few examples and some loopholes that need to be addressed.
You use disingenuous supposition,
This from a person who came here solely to flame me.
with cursory knowledge of a subject you can’t support,
Well since you consider every thing I say to be 'blathering' it is kind of hard to get any point across to you.
to erroneously justify “innate” practice of perversion.
And how exactly is being born with birth defects a 'practice'?
You sir are a fraud.
No, it is you who are the fraud here. You sir came here with the sole intent of flaming me with baseless accusations, all the while you refused to back up your statements with evidence, like for example weblinks.
So you don't know what you are talking about?
Thanks, end of story.
So let me get this straight, if I was an expert you would claim I was a fraud and since I am not expert you claim I don't know enough to know what I am talking about.
Maybe you should change you name to "Clint Catch-22", you are really are showing everyone else here how immature you really are.
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.