Please direct your abuse at d55may.
To be added or removed from the VK list, FReepmail Darkwing104.
Posted on 05/08/2010 10:24:28 PM PDT by d55may
Since 25% of homosexuals (I dislike that they have hijacked the perfectly innocent word “gay” to describe themselves) already voted historically for R’s, no amount of placating them by pretending that they are not sexual deviants will garner any more votes.
You toss off the homosexual agenda as though it’s nothing. It is not a dumb political strategy to promote natural family and marriage and to condemn the homosexual agenda, it’s a suicidal political agenda to to the opposite.
No one is discouraging conservative thinking homosexuals (they are not “gay”), since already a certain percentage - apparently a goodly percentage - vote for R’s already.
What you’re promoting under the cloak of “practicality” is surrendering to the homosexual agenda. You condemn condemnation of homosexuality and that is hypocritical. You’re duplicitous and that is something I don’t cotton to.
That’s true.
In the meantime they are voting conservatively.
Should we ask them to stop voting conservatively until they resolve the contradiction?
Or should they continue to vote conservatively while they work on figuring out the cognitive dissonance between their thoughts and actions?
Please direct your abuse at d55may.
To be added or removed from the VK list, FReepmail Darkwing104.
You are pure, 100% lies.
You claim you are not ignorant of the homsoexual agenda. In that case, you are promoting.
There is no “IF”. Homosexuals are polluting public places and driving normal people away. This is fact. They also claim it is their “culture” and we are homophobes for trying to clean up bathrooms, rest areas, parks and beaches from people buggering each other in the bushes or even out in the open.
No conservative is saying homosexuals should not be allowed to bugger each other in the privacy of their own home - or outhouse, as the case may be.
You said:
“If what they do in these places seeks to deprive individuals of liberty to think or choose their own path, then that agenda should be opposed.”
If buggering each other in public is only an “if” situation to you, and pushing their agenda in schools is fine by you, then you are part of the problem.
Let them vote however they are led. The numbers are so small they don’t make much difference, from what I understand. I can encourage them to become true conservatives, but in no way can I condone their lifestyle choices. Sorry.
I haven’t heard from anyone except you and the zotted fellow (maybe you’re him??) that anyone is “running off” so-called conservative homosexuals.
This is a bogus straw man.
Since they’re at most 2% of the population, and they don’t all vote, and at most 25% vote for R’s already, what’s the big deal?
What is being pushed is pandering to them for their votes and to promote their agenda by shutting us up.
I have to wonder if “ZIT” instead of “ZOT” wouldn’t be more appropriate for a ZOT in such instances as this...
It’s not duplicitous.
It’s very straightfoward.
Don’t go out of your way to insult people that are willing to vote on your side, whatever their reasoning.
How much more direct and staightforward can I be?
“You toss off the homosexual agenda as though it’s nothing. It is not a dumb political strategy to promote natural family and marriage and to condemn the homosexual agenda, it’s a suicidal political agenda to to the opposite.”
I don’t toss off anything.
What is it do you not understand about the difference between A.) on the one hand condemning the homosexual agenda and promoting traditional families, and B.) on the other hand insulting and ridiculing homosexuals?
I’m not sure why you don’t understand the difference.
“No one is discouraging conservative thinking homosexuals . . . since already a certain percentage - apparently a goodly percentage - vote for R’s already.”
Discouraging is precisely what you are doing when you engage in personal attacks and ridicule.
In addition to discouraging those voters, you are reaffirming the insidious, disgusting, claim of the Left that they (the Left) are the best thing that’s ever happened to persecuted groups. And we both know that the Left does more in this country to perpetuate marginalization of persecuted groups than the Right could ever dream to do, because the Left has people on the right reaffirming and re-energizing the claim of intolerance who want to make personal attacks and ridicule rather than fighting the fight in the realm of ideas.
“What you’re promoting under the cloak of “practicality” is surrendering to the homosexual agenda. You condemn condemnation of homosexuality and that is hypocritical.”
That is not a true statement. Nowhere have I promoted surrendering to the homosexual agenda. No where did I condemn condemnation of homosexuality. What I condemned was personal attacks and ridicule. If you want to battle the homosexual agenda in a way that reflects credit on the conservative philosophy then I support you.
Sure was a long screed. Good zot. Why do these idiots feel the need to jabber away on FR when they know it’s zot-bait?
Ok.
Well think what you want.
I think my ideas are pretty clear based on my posts.
I’m not going to continue to debate it because I think we’ve pretty much covered all the bases, and I actually need to get some work done today.
I’ve enjoyed the debate for my part, and I thank you for giving your perspective.
Personal attacks? That means someone on FR criticizing (I guess that’s what you mean by “personal attack”) a particular homosexual.
You do toss off the homosexual agenda. You said “if” what they do infringes on peoples’ rights etc.
Man, they’ve been infringing on peoples’ rights for 25 years and it’s getting worse and worse. And you totally ignore that.
This paragraph of strange gobbledygook is impossible to understand:
“In addition to discouraging those voters, you are reaffirming the insidious, disgusting, claim of the Left that they (the Left) are the best thing that’s ever happened to persecuted groups. And we both know that the Left does more in this country to perpetuate marginalization of persecuted groups than the Right could ever dream to do, because the Left has people on the right reaffirming and re-energizing the claim of intolerance who want to make personal attacks and ridicule rather than fighting the fight in the realm of ideas.”
Makes absolutetly no sense whatsoever. If you claim that people on FR do not deal in the realm of ideas (or I’d say, principles, facts and truths) concerning homosexuality and the “gay” agenda, you aren’t reading the right threads and articles.
Regarding the dead horse you are beating aka “personal attacks and ridicule” - I already said no one is personally attacking individuals (unless they deserve it), and it seems you are whining about people on FR (you say “conservatives” so I guess you mean the ones not on FR as well) are “intolerant” and you think no person on FR should engage in “ridicule”, well, you are the very personification of Political Correctness!
Yes, your ideas are pretty clear.
“Ignore the homosexual agenda and criticize people who criticize homosexuality and the homosexual agenda” - in the name of getting a tiny percentage of homosexuals to vote R when they either already do, or won’t anyway.
Crystal clear.
Ok well if you don’t understand it then I guess you can take some time and read it again. You’re right it is a little convoluted, but it makes a valid point.
In any event, I’m not going to continue to debate you all day. Like I said below, my ideas are pretty clear based on my posts.
I respect your opinions, even though I disagree. Have a nice day.
zotz
I agree with you, PRS. I love the boys over at HillBuzz for everything they have done in exposing Obama, and especially in educating their fellow PUMAs, and Democrats in general.
I’ve not seen anything saying that PUMAs are to blame for McCain losing the election — frankly McCain ran a HORRID campaign, and stayed quiet about things he should not have. He should have gone for Obama’s jugular on many issues (esp. his associations with criminals, and communists), but he didn’t. That’s a HUGE reason why he lost — having a staff that was pretty much sabotaging Sarah at seemingly every turn certainly didn’t help the campaign either. So, I don’t understand why the boys at HillBuzz would think the Republicans are blaming THEM for McCain’s loss. I think about 99.9% of us realize that there are MANY reasons he lost, but the PUMAs? Well, I just don’t see how that would figure into the mix at all! They HELPED his campaign in many ways, and brought him more votes...
The fact is there will always be people who don’t approve of one’s lifestyle for whatever reason. THAT’S LIFE - and it’s NOT just people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered who deal with this on a daily basis! It’s NOT fair, but that is life. There are also people who delight in making fun of other people — and no matter what “group” or “lifestyle” you associate with this is going to be true. I’m tired of people bashing Christians, and Birthers, and Red-heads, and women, and short people. I’m especially tired of liberals looking at me like I’m the scum of the Earth because my husband and I have four daughters (the jokes do get old — you know what causes that, don’t you???).
But, guess what? It’s better to ignore these people because their ignorance shows poorly on themselves. As Eleanor Roosevelt so wisely stated:
“Remember, no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Don’t let the people who would try to tear you down for ANY reason get to you. Trying to control the actions of others doesn’t get you anywhere good.
And, as you said, if it’s over-the-top then report the posts to the mods. If the mods on whatever site don’t do anything about it, then perhaps the best thing would be to not go to that site anymore, and find other outlets for posting your opinions.
Regarding things here at FR — I think the boys over at HillBuzz need to keep in mind the sheer volume of people and posts here. Yes, we have quite a few people (myself included) who according to our religious beliefs do not “approve” of their lifestyle. However, the majority of us do not make fun of these people, nor do we wish them harm...
It’s only when GLBTs insist on forcing their lifestyle onto others (in various ways), and insist on “Special Rights” (see “hate crimes” which attempt to make the murder or beating of one person “worth” more than the murder or beating of another) that people get really upset, and for good reason. If we are truly all equal and people truly want to be treated that way then the ridiculousness of valuing one life more than another has to stop.
BUT, this is NOT just exclusively a “problem” with the GLBT community... The Communists are trying to make slaves of us all! And, there is not one group of people that will be “safe” from THEIR abuses.
Yes, people should grow up and perhaps take others feelings into consideration — however, the politically correct nonsense has to stop. It is creating an atmosphere that IS hurting freedom of speech. Gay jokes, like Irish Jokes, or Polack jokes, or any other “joke” is just that — humor. Some people appreciate more sophisticated jokes, but there will always be a portion of folks who enjoy sophomoric humor.
Didn’t mean for this rant to be so long! I probably missed a few things, or didn’t express myself all that well. However, I wish the boys at HillBuzz wouldn’t go down this road. To paint an entire website as they are attempting to do based on the postings of a very SLIM portion of the hundreds of thousands of registered users is being rather irresponsible on their part, IMHO.
Freedom of speech is a good thing — even if we don’t agree with some of the things people choose to say about others. The alternative is much, much worse than having our feelings hurt or being offended on occasion... I appreciate the fact that here at FR we truly do believe in Freedom of Speech, even for childish jerks.
Ironic I know on a thread where someone got zotted, but there is a difference between expressing an opinion and joining and posting something in an effort to malign this website and the majority of posters...
Wow. That is surprising to me! I suppose it’s about avoiding pregnancy, but I find it hard to believe that anal sex is a big part of teen sex! Maybe things have changed (a lot) since I was in school 20 years ago...
I think young folks can understand the threat, however, you also have to keep in mind the prevalence of the “immortality mindset” that almost all teens possess to one extent or another. I think that is why their eyes were glazing over. It’s not that they can’t comprehend disease, it’s that they don’t understand their own mortality, IMHO.
So, it is your opinion that only God-fearing people can be conservatives? Which particular believers can be, and which can’t?
I am a Christian, and have a very good personal relationship with God and my Savior Jesus Christ. But, if you are saying that ONLY those with faith in God can be “conservative” then I would have to disagree with you.
Conservatism does NOT require adhering to a certain religion. Atheists could even be good Conservatives... I don’t see where one HAS to believe in God to be a conservative. One doesn’t have to have faith in God in order to live a righteous life (I wouldn’t try it, or recommend it) but it’s not like they cannot understand conservative ideals as it relates to politics.
ZOT!
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.
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.