Posted on 12/16/2006 3:59:48 PM PST by VictoryGal
Vice President Dick Cheney's pregnant lesbian daughter Mary will make a "fine mom," President Bush said, sidestepping his past comment that a child ideally would be raised by a mother and father.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
How revealing of you to falsely accuse me. Are you literate?
I did not call the poster stupid. Just the poster's comment. DUH.
LOL! I'll be your cashier.
You get free membership in the Gold Card Club...if your "girlie" wrists can handle the big stones.
Thank you, but I must first ask, how heavy are the boulders and how close to the target is permissible?
Considering we're going into their bedrooms to find them I guess as close as you want to get.
I wish we could add some sound effects to these threads. The sound a mob of udulating (spelling???) Muslim women would be a nice touch to these "stone the slut" threads.
ROTFLOL! That's right!
>> "fine mom"
Given the technical ambiguity that exists in this 'new age' of guardianship, wouldn't the correct comment be "fine parent"?
Also, "fine" is a striking alternative to "good" and "great".
President Bush has an elegance to him that some on this thread will never understand.
President Bush is a quantity they cannot understand; a statesman and a gentleman.
Most people I know ( from the far Right to the far Left ) don't care about this one way or the other. They probably should care. But then, we are all libertarians now...
This is somewhat off-topic, but I've always wanted to ask.
Re the line: "God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done."
Doesn't this make God the author of sin? Or at least the facilitator of sin? And isn't there a conflict between this and God's holding people accountable for their actions?
I would not wish one "the best" in some feel-good, relative sense... that is gay
Our soldiers are still fighting a war in Iraq. I'm sure that when you wish them well you are not being "so gay", eh?
In both cases, the above are "politicizing" the personal. In his support for traditional marriage, the President is making policy statement. In his wishing Mary Cheney and family well, he is wishing them well "personally".
The distinction is subtle for those who adhere to the liberal and far right mantra of "making the personal political, and the political personal".
But the distinction is very important to make.
Long ago, a fireman friend of mine was told that he was such a "meanie" that he should be barred from his job -- that of rescuing lives and preserving properties. He was a conservative.
And when it came to fires and saving lives, the liberal and conservative firefighters looked and acted in accord, the same, when they went in to save lives -- giving it their all.
The problem we've had in Iraq is that Democrats made the political "personal". Ergo, they were of the line that we should lose in Iraq just because of "political purity". And they move to impeach the President along the same lines that this person railed against my fireman friend.
Liberals and far right fascista operate upon an eerie resemblence to Hitler's "pure nation" dogma; that they themselve sit upon the throne of God denouncing any who appear "impure" in thought, word, and deed and certainly "politics" to be cast down into the hells of unemployment, sensitivity training, or removed from positions of caring for all.
lol! What tripe you've posted.
Join in The History Factory, they are demanding to do reviews on your ancestry too! Why you might even lose a contract or two because of nothing having anything at all to do with you, in the here and now.
Remember however, this is nothing new. And obviously, "these" posters are not in our ranks; despite their claims to be. They "pretend" just as the marxists do.
for the sake of a self congratulatory pat on the back as to their own purity.
And this is so well said. It's the "lamp" and clearest way to see through the niceties, and tributes to "conservatism" "republicanism" "Christianity" -- to see what is really what, and whom is whom.
Knowing who you are posting with is important. Usually, the liberals have done and said very indecent and grotescque things in order to "make" conservatives walk away in disgust.
On the other flip side of the same spectrium of "purist" whatnot, are those who play at doing the same, what amounts to pornographic renderings of truth, but call themselves by another name.
I do believe a new age is upon us: we are what we post. At least according to some very good analysis about legislations Democrats are puttering about.
By identifying themselves as "conservatives" and "Christians", they do hope their allies in the press will eventually quote them as representative of FreeRepublic.
It's really the same game that was played in the 90s; just a new lapel size on the suit.
I see that mentality more and more on this forum, especially since the 2006 election. People feel strongly about "X" and they conclude therefore that "X" is going to bring down the entire party unless some great change is made.
What they are unable to assemble is that "X" may be a genuine item of concern but in terms of priority in the minds of voters it's way down on the list below a, b , c, d, .....
Then what the president should do is follow his personal well wishes with a strong restatement of the broader and far more important policy of two parent--husband and wife--families.
Unless he makes the effort to place his personal comments in context, the clear implication is that his views have somehow evolved and he now fully accepts and even celebrates these corrosive frauds on traditional marriage.
The president isn't seen as an ordinary joe when he speaks on such hihgly controversial matters. His words are given considerable heft and weight.
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.