Posted on 12/01/2009 11:42:08 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
Well, I guess if you consider quotes by Lewis and Goldwater as hostile toward you even participating in public life, then I guess you’re right. Sorry, too bad they aren’t around, you could tell them your self.
The government has already done that to most of the western States, land that properly should be returned. But my interest is that this is the capital of the United States. It should not look like Mogadishu, with drug gangs, scum like Marion Berry running the place, and a general disdain for the rest of the country in looking like crap.
Turning D.C. into a federal reserve will do nothing to reform the government. Federalism would do a lot for that. But a lot of self respect comes from being clean, tidying your room, and acting like a civilized person. Something our capital needs to do to.
It must have been a huge talking point this year, because a lib-in-law tried to inject it into conversation wherever she could.
That push has been pushed for a long time now, ever since "The Kinsey Report" came out. They were using this number over 20 years ago, and its just as bogus then, as it is now...
the infowarrior
The D.C. Council could have side-stepped such conflicts. Council member Yvette Alexander proposed an amendment that would have granted individuals and institutions the right to distinguish between same-sex relationships and man-woman marriage, based on religious convictions. The amendment was rejected.
And this
"Marriage equality" in D.C. would bring few tangible gains for gays and lesbians. Under a domestic partnership law in effect since 2002, D.C. same-sex couples already have access to almost all the available benefits of marriage. Nor are there many couples lining up for these benefits. A 2008 study reported only 802 registered D.C. domestic partnerships, in a city with 250,000 households and 3,500 same-sex couples,
are clear indications of what is really going on here. It is nothing less than a ham-fisted assault on traditional religious belief, and no honest, rational person can conclude otherwise...
the infowarrior
I think the 10% figure goes back to some mendacious number-crunching by Kinsey, who had an agenda.
It was basically BS, i know.
Let's examine this, shall we?
As I said, "imposing their will on others" is a hoary old codephrase for "daring to express an opinion." This codephrase is employed even if people of faith or their allies ( like this guy) use arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with religion to speak on issues that are not religious in nature.
So let's look at the circumstances under which a vaunted statesman like Goldwater might use such a phrase. Can you even tell me what specific issues Goldwater was commenting on when he said that? Because unless he was talking about a Catholic-sponsored law to make everyone eat fish on Fridays or a Jewish-sponsored law to shut down public transport on the Sabbath or something in that vein, he was doing exactly what I said: Falsely accusing citizens because they didn't agree with him. Maybe he should have just called them "bitter clingers" to boot.
BTW, according to one website I found the quote on, Goldwater gave the speech it comes from on 15 September, 1981. A big issue that year, as you may recall, was the confirmation of Sandra Day O'Connor, and Goldwater was ticked that the Moral Majority had dared...dared!...to oppose a nominee who had pro-abortion votes on her record. Despite the fact that abortion is not a religious rite, no religious belief is necessary to despise it and governments of every stripe from theocratic to atheist had banned it, Goldwater asserted that this was a case of a "religious faction" "imposing it's will" on others. In other words, he made a false accusation, and made it to shut people up who had every right to speak.
Don't get me wrong, he wasn't all bad. He hated the UN and helped create the Air Force Academy, among other good things. But in his later years, like our current crop of congressiweasels, he was willing to paint the free speech of honest, loyal Americans as an exercise in tyrannny and extortion.
So...either you really think that it's OK to do that sort of thing, that it's even conservative, or you don't. If you don't, take the quote off your page so no one mistakes it for your opinion. If you do, don't whine when you're called on it.
Yeah, Kinsey’s counts of homosexuals and other sexual deviants in the population were greatly inflated because his survey pool was almost exclusively drifters and inmates.
Don’t know why that text in my post is showing up red.
Actually, I included it on my page because I liked how it sounded. I did not research it like you did. Thanks for the interest in my page. I enjoy whine...and cheeses.
ok
So, does that mean that all the times you heard some leftist loser say conservatives were "trying to impose their religion on others," when they objected to something like cutting little kids up and throwing them in the trash, you didn't have enough discernment to realize it was pure horse hockey? Were you nodding your head in agreement? What other leftist talking points do you like the sound of?
In that speech, Goldwater said that allowing organizations like the Moral Majority to have any say was sure to lead to the country become a state like Iran or have bombs going off like Northern Ireland. Makes Ted Kennedy's stuff about Bob Bork seem almost tame.
If you have no problem with groups of religious believers lobbying their government like any other citizens, you should take it and that hatemongering horse hockey from Lewis down. If you do, leave it up.
No, it doesn’t mean that.
You seem to be on a roll, so I think I’ll leave my page as is so you can think of more stuff to say about me.
Merry Christmas
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.