Posted on 03/16/2008 11:53:01 AM PDT by jdm
Have a good night.
What an incredibly cheap insult to those who died on 9/11, and those who have fought to keep our country free in Iraq and elsewhere.
I can’t disagree with her.
“But I do not see a Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin/Che/Hugo variable here. Those turkeys have been consigned to the trash heap of history”
Yes they have been dumped BUT their Masters are alive and well and have never left the battlefield - they let the mojoHeads do the dirty work.
Try inserting Sorus/CarlyleGroup/Rothchilds/NWO/BilderberGroup/Siemens/EU or FourthReich .... - for these “folks” are the same ones who have funded this effort for over 200 years and have never stopped being the “man behind the curtain”.
Also, “think of him as suitable for POTUS”, it is sickening what is occuring but its’ war so what can one expect.
That these folks are easily described as Marxist/Socialist is just what makes them neoCommunists.
As you say “elitist” and “I find the groups allied against us to be incongruous at best” is the very tactic Gramsci advocated to destroy the Western Civ/religiousFamily structure in the later stages of the atheist/Communist assault.
The folks allied/arrayed against US/WesterCiv intend and effort to stay “camoflaged by confusion and disassembling” so as to make any focused targeting difficult and preventing “rallying the troops” to some coherent action.
It seems you got the picture well enough in focus.
Hang on for a rough ride these next months/years.
And that is just one reason why the homosexuals and their agenda is more damaging to America than the terrorists.
Your tagline is quite right.
I would not have posted on this, but your mention of free speech struck a chord. My liberal spouse is the T/V watcher, myself the computer. I glanced up at the tube and saw something about this. I cannot remember whether it was on Sixty Minutes or CNN, maybe neither.
A presenter was a man with an impressive visage. He was a healthy forty years or so. He looked like a cross between Hugh Garner and Cary Grant. He had on a gentleman called Visconti.
He reads off what the lady had said about homosexuals. Then he veered on to Visconti. It seemed he had a touch of hysteria (just a tad) as he brought Visconti into the picture. I could not stand to watch and said to the figure on the screen
"Why don't you scream and hit someone with your purse?"
A low shot I will admit.(He could not hear). What I really should have said, before this rant is this. The lady only has her opinion. All she did is give her view.
If this is a crime, then trouble looms. It has loomed in Canada and we are paying a price.
Since you brought up God....First, as a Christian, I can tell you that according to the Bible, not everyone is a child of God. It's just not so. There are requirements to meet first. Second, the Bible calls homosexuality a sin.
Amen. Well stated.
EHRLICHMAN: What's it called?
NIXON: "Archie's Guys." Archie is sitting here with his hippie son-in-law, married to the screwball daughter. The son-in-law apparently goes both ways. This guy. He's obviously queer--wears an ascot--but not offensively so. Very clever. Uses nice language. Shows pictures of his parents. And so Arch goes down to the bar. Sees his best friend, who used to play professional football. Virile, strong, this and that. Then the fairy comes into the bar.
I don't mind the homosexuality. I understand it. Nevertheless, goddamn, I don't think you glorify it on public television, homosexuality, even more than you glorify whores. We all know we have weaknesses. But, goddammit, what do you think that does to kids? You know what happened to the Greeks! Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo. We all know that. So was Socrates.
EHRLICHMAN: But he never had the influence television had.
NIXON: You know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. Neither in a public way. You know what happened to the popes? They were layin' the nuns; that's been goin' on for years, centuries. But the Catholic Church went to hell three or four centuries ago. It was homosexual, and it had to be cleaned out. That's what's happened to Britain. It happened earlier to France.
Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another. They're trying to destroy us. I know Moynihan will disagree with this, [Attorney General John] Mitchell will, and Garment will. But, goddamn, we have to stand up to this.
EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality.
NIXON: Huh?
EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality. And with its use on television, it has such leverage.
NIXON: You know what's happened [in northern California]?
EHRLICHMAN: San Francisco has just gone clear over.
NIXON: But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time--it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco.
Decorators. They got to do something. But we don't have to glorify it. You know one of the reasons fashions have made women look so terrible is because the goddamned designers hate women. Designers taking it out on the women. Now they're trying to get some more sexy things coming on again.
EHRLICHMAN: Hot pants.
NIXON: Jesus Christ.
Of course terrorists are a threat and will continue to be, but at the same time, the family is the bedrock of society. It remains to be seen how far the meaning of family can be stretched before the stability of society becomes serious threatened.
In “The Radical Case for Gay Marriage,” an article which appeared in the “Village Voice” in September, 2003, Richard Goldstein writes:
“It’s understandable that advocates for gay marriage would portray it as a tribute to normalcy, and in the short term it probably will look like that. But as gay people grow accustomed to this option they will shape it to suit their particular needs. You’ll see leather weddings, boi-on-boi unions between queers of the opposite sex, trans matches that defy the boundaries of gender—all in cahoots with rice-throwing, trip-to-Niagara realness. Queers won’t stop being queer just because they can get hitched. The tradition of open relationships won’t cease to exist, nor will the boundless exploration of identity and desire. Marriage won’t change gay people, but merely affirm them as they are—and that, in all its profane glory, isn’t so different from what straight people have become.”
Notice the part about “the tradition of open relationships won’t cease to exist...” This means no monogamy.
In a contest between terrorists and gay rights advocates, it remains to be seen which is more corrosive, but both have a negative impact on society.
I first saw this story on the Hot Air site, and I glanced over the reader comments on page 1 and 7.
While I do think it’s a little over the top to say that homosexuality is more dangerous than fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, I was dismayed to see the number of Hot Air posters bashing this Kern woman.
I take it that Hot Air is primarily a conservative blog, and I cannot figure out why so many conservatives would be so quick to give homosexuality a pass and to bash Kern.
I think maybe one or two guys in that thread at Hot Air did say they were liberals, but I can only assume that the others who bashed Kern and who didn’t state their political leanings/affiliation must be conservatives.
I’m aware that some people are only fiscally conservative, but to me, a true conservative is someone who holds to traditional morality.
It just makes me want to puke when I see conservatives at a conservative blog defending homosexuality.
Someone in a post above said that her son is not homosexual.
But what would it matter if her son were a homosexual?
If I had a son and he was homosexual, I would still be against homosexuality. I would love my son, but I wouldn’t approve of his homosexuality.
I might not approve of homosexuality, and her son MAY not be (in his words, he has chosen celibacy which sounds suspiciously like “I am evil, so I will have sex at all. Whatever his choice), but I would also think twice before making ridiculous statements like she made when her son may be feeling that brunt of it.
I don’t care how you feel about homosexuality, it is stupid to compare that to terrorism. Some people are SO against it, it clouds their judgement about all things.
There was no reason to get upset and rude with me.
I already stated in a previous post that I thought her comparison was over the top.
You said,
“but I would also think twice before making ridiculous statements like she made when her son may be feeling that brunt of it.”
I don’t agree. She has the right to voice her opinion whether or not her son is homosexual.
As someone above noted, he was interviewed and he denied being homosexual, so this is a moot point.
No one in their right mind can state that homosexual sex is good or beneficial to society...
I've heard that said in different way but I like your way the best! I wish I had said that.
Do gays not see the irony in this?
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.