Posted on 11/09/2006 7:51:01 AM PST by SirLinksalot
What I'd like to know is, besides Mehlman, just what percentage of the RNC is actually gay? Kinda cripples-up the old family-values message to have gays pooping out of the woodwork at awkward moments, which was what Foley was all about.
Georgie (If this son of a bishop isn't light in the loafers, I am Queen Marie of Rumania) looked like he was playing with himself -- he was glowing like a jack-o'lantern
Isn't it just wonderful? Soon the hordes of illegal aliens can come to our nation and enjoy "gay marriage." But you know me ... look at the bright side ... this might limit their numbers somewhat.
Count me in that camp: mad as hell at little Kenny.
A failure of that magnitude in any other capacity usually means instant resignation and not after Christmas. I guess in the government and its corollary institutions that isn't true.
The WSJ gays were triumphantly announcing on their little show this evening that the "immigration restrictionists" had lost this week. After breaking the picture tube, I wondered if they appended the tag line "...due to active undermining by one of our buddies who runs the RNCC".
Probably not....but then it wasn't true either. Ask Duncan Hunter, Brian Bilbray, the writers of the propositions in Arizona, etc.
But those of course are inconvenient facts for the liberals who masquerade as conservatives to make themselves palatable to the Republican party as it is today. Now that the Dims are back in power, look for the light in the loafer crowd to start a wholesale re-registration back to the Abortion Party.
In my ramblings around the Net, I found that
1. D.C. gays are gloating that soon, with the change of control in the Congress, the mayor of D.C. will be able to spring a an opinion letter from his corporate counsel to the effect that D.C. should recognize gay "marriages" performed in Taxachusetts. The mayor has been concealing the existence of this letter for two years, waiting for the moment juste to spring it on Washingtonians.
2. Other D.C. gays are looking forward to the days when they will be able to treat faith- and morality-based animadversions on homosexuality as civil-rights offenses tantamount to Jim Crow.
Got a jail cell waiting for you and me, fella.
Impermissible somethingorother .... the old Bolshevik shtick, throw 'em in jail and mumble something that sounds good, as your rationalization.
Then tell him that damned bridge of yours helped sink us all. We've got Nancy Pelosi turning over Iraq to the jihadis and Afghanistan to the Taliban, and next we'll have Barbara Boxer turning over the United States to some NGO packed with Marxists spray-painted green up at the U.N.
We're screwed, because of Don and his bridge and that damned Jack Abramoff. You can't lunge for the money and then come back and convince voters in swing districts that yours is the fiscally responsible party.
Hey, Dog, was that a local Pennsylvania issue? Could you replay that a little bit for us? I read all the nasty Liberal-tarian gloating over at Reason.com (which someone else acidly noted has begun to read like the Daily Kos), and they were ripping up Santorum's daughter Sarah, 8, for crying during her dad's concession speech, but nowhere was there any indication of why Santorum lost. They all hated Santorum's guts (most of them sounded like they're gay and/or atheists and thoroughly hated him for his values stands), but there was no analytical quality to their, ehrmmmm, discourse.
(Google Reason +Santorum +"your tears are so yummy" to find the blogpost, but warning -- major projectile-barf alert!)
Just trying to get SOME of Alaska's money back in the State. Feds draw off billions. California will get most of it now, and Massachusetts, but then they have got the lion's share for a long time.
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.