Posted on 10/19/2004 5:17:28 PM PDT by TaxRelief
The amendment would not make marriage illegal for homosexuals, that's a lie often told.
Under the amendment, homosexuals would be just as free to marry as anyone else...a member of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is.
No, he did not. John O'Neill made himself "look good" by conducting himself with integrity and forthrightness. O'Reilly did not say to himself, "Gee, I think I'll do O'Neill a big fat favor by being rude, insulting and overbearing."
Do I want to roast marshmallows, you ask? I'll turn that freak on the spit if Franken asks me to.
No, he did not. John O'Neill made himself "look good" by conducting himself with integrity and forthrightness. O'Reilly did not say to himself, "Gee, I think I'll do O'Neill a big fat favor by being rude, insulting and overbearing."
Do I want to roast marshmallows, you ask? I'll turn that freak on the spit if Franken asks me to.
See post 53.
Don't forget Evolution, which is closely associated with Communism/Atheism
Do you have any proof that the document you posted exists? Or that any people in leadership in various liberal subgroups have signed on to the Gramsci plan?
Although it certainly seems likely that Gramsci suggested that Marxism could move in as society decayed, I question the original premise that there is an active and effective Marxist agenda governing all of these liberal groups. One group, maybe, but all of them? It just flies in the face of a simple observation of human nature; People who are power-mongers, but not united in a single cause, just aren't capable of that degree of cooperation.
"The government agencies that are a direct and greater threat to us and our freedoms. Or the homosexual movement that is a indirect and lesser threat to us."
Government agencies are far LESS of a threat than the destruction of our culture that the sodomite mafia intends. We can influence, change and even eradicate government agencies, the sodomites are far more dangerous as they are unofficial, in almost every walk of life and target the basic elements of our culture.
Having said that, the two fights need not be opposed, they can and should work together.
Read the testimony of Bella Dodd before Congress. Do some basic research. It is frightening, but worthwhile.
So which homosexual and leftist "historians" sold you that bill of goods? Since you don't know what's in the Bible and don't know what Paul and others were preaching at the time of ancient Rome, here is a brief essay to bring you up to speed. Christianity grew out of Judaism and most early Christians were Jews. God's judgment on homosexuality as an abomination runs through the Old and New Testaments in an unbroken line. Christians opposed homosexuality because God opposed it.
You're making the assumption that Fox News will continue to achieve the same level of success without O'Reilly. I contend that O'Reilly, or a clone of O'Reilly, is the critical ingredient in Fox's viewership levels.
In other words, Fox relies on an O'Reilly-like moderate host, to bring in new viewers and "transitional conservatives".
Liberals hate his guts, I do know a few of these illogical people and they HATE him with a passion.
Conservatives hate him with a passion unless they just catch him in the right show 4 times a year.
Could this be all RINOs then? I don't know, I kind of give the credit for him to a cult of tapped-out phone sex groups.
Transsexual conservatives?
Until modern times, I know of no religion that accepted homosexuality. I used to think Buddhist did, but a Buddhist Monk straightened me out on this. Talked with one from Gore's Temple in Hacienda Heights.
This is the first time in history where homosexuality was being openly accepted in at least strange versions of convectional religions.
We live in times where gay biker mimes for Christ could exist.
To the extent a man is liberal, to just that extent he is a liar. Mixing those lies in with truthful news and commentary does not make a news channel "balanced" -- it taints it, degrades it. And it also turns my stomach.
You know, you don't have to settle for living with that kind of anger. There are a wide range range of therapies, ranging from mild sedatives, to accupuncture to aromatherapy that can be very effective in a situation like yours. /lol
I an not even going to bring up homosexuality. But how do you define 'a husband' and 'a wife', given that some people are born with a varity of genitial birth defects. I am not even going to bring up the psychological gender birth defects, instead I am just going list one of the physical ones that could be used to kill the 'defining husband and wife' arguement.
'Androgen insensitivity syndrome' a person is born with XY chromosomes and testes, but has outward female genitial, though having not internal female reproductive organs. The person's cells are immune to testosterone, during puberty this cause a overproduction of testosterone which the body naturally converts to estrogen. Physically the person develops like an average girl in body measurements and usually has the mental view of being a girl.
Now how would you define this person, male and female? Or someone inbetween who you just deny the right/privilege (not sure which marriage is) to get married to anyone because of birth defects that they were born with?
GASP! Tell me Ann Coulter's not one! I don't think I could handle it!
Without God, nothing you do will come to anything. The Founders understood this. You have either forgotten or you never learned it. An immoral people cannot remain free.
I'm familiar with Bella Dodd's testimony, and there is no doubt that the Marxists have their very dangerous global domination agenda.
But given that power-hungry humans despise sharing their thrones, isn't it more likely that Marx, Gramsci and Engels were just good at predicting the demise of Western Society?
One can argue that the decline in society actually began in the 1790's with the French Revolution and the demand for "equal representation". Both Marx and Bastiat made similar observations, in the mid-nineteenth century, based on the changes that had occured in the previous fifty years; but where Bastiat argued in favor of the preservation of fundamental freedoms, Marx chose to embrace the decline of liberty and propose a use for it that would allow a select group to rise to power.
Based on this information, the Gramscians are no different than followers of Nostradamus.
"Do you have any proof that the document you posted exists?"
How about checking the congressional record?
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
"Or that any people in leadership in various liberal subgroups have signed on to the Gramsci plan? "
Did you read the articles I cited?
Do some research on Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse, and the Frankfurt School.
Read through their intended goals and then think about how the Media uses multiple fronts to push the agenda. It is glaringly obvious.....
Check out the testimony in front of the house unamerican activities committee (HUAC), and then the Venona Intercepts which vindicate McCarthy (a man the left still demonizes, but was correct in his crusade against communist infiltration).
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.