Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: thepresidentsbestfriend; Victoria Delsoul

Morris is an agent of disinformation, and the intent of this article is to participate in the pre-campaign gutting of any adversary who might rise against liberal candidates of the Republican Party.

We have watched the orchestrated gutting of Frist, Allen, DeLay, etc. The WP even said that was their objective with Allen.

Nonetheless, we will have a conservative candidate in the Republican Party. I will never vote for McCain in primary or general. Rudi could conceivable get my vote if he publically and totally renounces his pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-gay positions.

Without that I will vote for the conservative Republican of my choice by write-in during the general election.

I refuse to vote for an anti-life, anti-family, anti-freedom candidate. I simply will not do it. Period. Ever.


341 posted on 01/23/2007 3:35:07 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies ]


To: xzins
Rudi could conceivable get my vote if he publically and totally renounces his pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-gay positions.

Glad that you are willing to give Rudy a chance to explain his position once he decides to run. Regarding abortion, he already has said that he will nominate constitutional originalist judges to the Supreme Court. He has also said, “I don’t think abortion is a good thing. I think we ought to find some alternative to abortion, and that there ought to be as few as possible.”

Now, before you or anyone tells me that he is just fooling pro-lifers, let me tell you that Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, George W Bush, and Sen. Brownback were all pro-choice in the past. I trust you will give Rudy the same chance as those men to explain his position, and hopefully you'll be able to believe him, just as many believed Ronald Reagan when he changed his views from pro-choice to pro-life.

I agree, we need more information and clarification about his anti-gun stance.

The thing that baffles me is this “Rudy is pro-gay.” What does that mean?

Rudy is against homosexual marriage, though he's in favor of civil unions, just like President GW Bush.

So how is Rudy pro-gay? What does pro-gay mean? Is it his sense of humor and confidence is his manhood that he could laugh at himself by going in drag at a social party?

Does being friendly to homosexuals make someone pro-gay? I must be pro-gay as well, since a few of gay hairdressers are friends of mine.

Could you define, pro-gay for me?

Was GW Bush pro-gay when he was friendly to the Log Cabin Republicans, and when they endorsed his presidency in 2000? They did withhold their endorsement in 2004 due to GW's opposition to gay marriage. But was GW pro-gay in 2000? And was Bob Dole pro-gay when the Log Cabin Republicans endorsed him in 1996?

Is being anti-gay wanting to incarcerate gays and punishing them for their sins? How do you define pro-gay? Why is it wrong for someone to be friendly to gays or to anyone for that matter, as long as he or she doesn't compromise his or her values? How could we claim to follow Christ's teaching and hate everyone who isn't like as at the same time?

I will repeat this again... Rudy is against homosexual marriage, so how is he pro-gay?

Thanks to those fine principled conservatives who decided to sit it out last November and gave us a Democrat House and Senate, the danger of more aggressively pro-gay legislation is now a real possibility. I have read threads by those principled conservatives saying things like "that will teach them! Let them lose a few times until they get it right! If the Republicans won't do this or that, it's OK for them to lose a few elections."

In 1993 Clinton, with the help of a Democratic Congress and the likes of Barney Frank passed the Don't Ask Don't Tell legislation in which homosexuals were free to serve in the military, and the military wasn't allowed to ask them about their sexual orientation. With the help of the principled conservatives in November 2006, the Democrats are in position once again to expand on such legislation. Take a look at this:

“Frank, likely to become chairman of the Financial Services Committee, said Democrats could pass a number of bills that would expand gay rights.

Aside from ending "don't ask, don't tell," he said, Democrats want to impose federal penalties for hate crimes aimed at gays, lesbians, and transgendered people and to outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Perhaps the most important effect of the majority shift, Frank added, is that the GOP's plan to ban gay marriage through a constitutional amendment is dead. link

I'm sure principled conservatives patted themselves on the back for sitting it out last November and upholding their highly-held virtues by not voting for Republicans. This allowed a Democrat take-over of the House and the Senate. I imagine these same principled conservatives are more than eager to give us a Democrat President as well, all the while claiming that the GOP losing to corrupt Democrats is good for the country.
345 posted on 01/23/2007 7:23:11 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies ]

To: xzins

Thats exactly what I was trying to say.

There are some spinners out there trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes,somehow trying to convince them that a pro abortion pro gay candidate is the best way to go in order to get pro life judges etc.Makes absolutely no sense at all.


349 posted on 01/24/2007 10:23:59 AM PST by thepresidentsbestfriend (Explain to me again, why some in the GOP are throwing Jesus overboard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson