Coulter to Keynote for Homosexualist GOPride

Lifesitenews ^ | August 11, 2010 | By James Tillman

[The Pack Knight]

“In all those years as a Navy JAG officer...you are going to say that you never helped remove a homosexual from the military. You were so BIG on stomping out LTC Lakin over “violating” the UCMJ, but you don’t have a problem with homosexuals doing so?”

Good point. I’d say you’ve illustrated a major contradiction here. The word fraud comes to mind.

Come on now. Why don't you read the man's posts before you ascribe positions to him that he doesn't espouse? OldDeckHand said in post #177 that he doesn't believe that homosexuals should be allowed to openly serve in the military.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen to your righteous comment.

she is culpable for intimating that there is no problem with men having sex with each other. Same with Rush. Just because he understands illegal immigration does not mean he has a clue about the Scriptures...and he evidently does not if he admires Elton John enough to have him sing at his wedding.

What a foolish and depressing thing for Coulter to do. To make light of depravity is to condone depravity. She's becoming her own punchline.

Ditto for Rush. They obviously fear a decline in dinner party invites more than the judgment of God.

Who knew that all this time Ann Coulter just wanted to be Kathy Griffin?

[phelix]

The GOProud’s legislative agenda is almost straight up homosexual agenda. What do you think?

I think that refusing to verbally bash or exclude a group of people based on their ideology is not the same as advocating or promoting their position.

[tlb]

>>> Coulter is probably banned from posting on Free Republic now.

Now you mention it, that’s probably the truth.

And if she isn’t banned, reading this full thread with page after page of hysteria over a speech she hasn’t even given yet, PLUS the witchhunters trying to win arguments by getting the person outreasoning them banned, it’s easy to think she may simply have shrugged and deleted the bookmark.

Pathetic. FR at its worst.

[reasonisfaith]

So he’s as forked-tongued as the homocons, then.

[reasonisfaith]

So he’s as forked-tongued as the homocons, then.

[DJ MacWoW]

Pathetic. FR at its worst.

Another poster that needs to do some research. Did you know that at the founding of this country, sodomy was against the law? In Virginia, the death penalty was the punishment. Jefferson tried to change that to castration and failed. Laws were dropped in the 20th century when "modern" (ie progressive) thinking came into vogue. It usually signals the decline of a nation when perversion becomes the "norm".

As to Coulter, I'm not a follower or a fan of any pundit. I don't believe in idle nor idol worship. My opinions are mine and not because I get paid to have one. It's because I believe that conservatism is the right way.

[Sola Veritas]

“OldDeckHand said in post #177 that he doesn’t believe that homosexuals should be allowed to openly serve in the military.”

Indeed he does say that, but it is empty rhteoric to mislead. His “two consenting adults” talk is in contradiction to that. The military DADT policy is not just about being quiet about homosexual orientation, it requires that the service member does not engage in homosexual activity. Persons found to be engaging in homosexual conduct, even in private, will be removed from military service. So, the “two consenting adults” is a contradiction to his proclaimed support of DADT. He is a former Navy JAG and knows better than to say such things.

[little jeremiah]

So, what does “bash” mean to you? It used to mean hit, as with a baseball bat. Then various victim whine fest groups such as homosexuals started using it to mean “critizing” in any way shape or form.

Now the Repubicans shouldn’t even “exclude” people who identify primarily with their sexual fetish and have an agenda which is 90% promotion of said fetish?

Damn right such people should be criticized and excluded!

Man, did you not read that they want homosexuals in the military? You either did not read, or you agree with them.

WHICH IS IT?

[Quix]

I still wonder which of the star Conservatives are deliberate sleeper agents of the other side to twist and turn things at critical times . . . are they starting to show their deeper values?

I hope not.

BTW will not be as . . . frequently flinging words at Dads.

Nevertheless, The . . . others . . . won’t be entirely without my . . . observations. LOL.

[GSWarrior]

Ah - I’ve been posting it all over the place and annoying some people...

Don't mean to burst your bubble, but it's not like I follow your posts here. You seem to have an exaggerated sense of importance.

[phelix]

[little jeremiah]So, what does “bash” mean to you? It used to mean hit, as with a baseball bat. Then various victim whine fest groups such as homosexuals started using it to mean “critizing” in any way shape or form.

................................

Per dictionary.com:
Figurative sense of "abuse verbally or in writing" is from 1948.

–verb (used with object)
1. to strike with a crushing or smashing blow.
2. Chiefly British, Canadian . to hurl harsh verbal abuse at.

................................

[little jeremiah]Man, did you not read that they want homosexuals in the military? You either did not read, or you agree with them.

................................

I reject your premise. I did read what they said. I do not support the agenda. We simply disagree about 'bashing' and 'shunning'. If that gets me banned - so be it.

[trisham]

Yes, that’s what I plan to do as well. I’ve never done that before, but I just cannot vote for Baker and Tisei. I can’t believe what dreadful choices we have.

[Dutchboy88]

"Oh well I figured that I would get a lecture! But you know what? I really don’t care, I just thought some people on here needed reminding when they get just a bit too judgmental. I don’t need to be lectured at. You know darn well what I was referring to!"

"Didn’t some guy many years ago go into places where there were tax-collectors, prostitutes, and other assorted sinners for a dinner party? You do remember him, do you?"

You may wish to read these words, then read your complaint about a lecture. It is you claiming to teach us, my FRiend.

I never mentioned Ann being a transvestite or a lesbian or anything other than a poor representative of the "conservative" views she claims to uphold. Please read carefully. And if you cannot hold onto these subtleties, then be prepared to be told.

[Dutchboy88]

"Ditto for Rush. They obviously fear a decline in dinner party invites more than the judgment of God.

Who knew that all this time Ann Coulter just wanted to be Kathy Griffin?"

You are right...a tragedy. The D list trash-mouthed tramp becomes a role model for a potentially useful critic.

[little jeremiah]

I help run two ping lists with a total of about 320 members and other people read the stuff too.

I don’t think I am important.

The topic is important.

And people who are biased towards the homosexual agenda are annoyed when the truth is pointed out.

[little jeremiah]

What on earth to you mean by “shunning”? I still don’t understand what you mean by “bashing”. You disapprove of criticizing homosexual behavior or agneda?

You want to welcome people pushing the homosexual agenda into the Republican party?

You’re not being clear at all.

[little jeremiah]

One of the things I have enjoyed about this site is that I felt all different types of conservatives could freely debate legitimate ideas with reasoned argument. I fear that time has passed.

---

Do you think the GOProud people are a type of conservative?

Actually, your assessment of FR is the exact opposite of reality. It used to be that homosexual agenda pushers were few and got banned after a while. Now FR is thick with them and they have free rein.

[GSWarrior]

I just want the issue resolved per the Constitution, whether I agree with the decision or not. I am not a Constitution scholar so I defer to the Supreme Court. Personally, the issue of homosexuals wanting marrying is not too high on my list of things to worry about. As Glen Beck stated, "we've bigger fish to fry."

But I respect the opinions of those such as yourself. You've chosen your battle. Go for it.

[little jeremiah]

Thank you -

The homosexual agenda is all about restricting, reducing and ultimately eliminating our freedom of speech, association and religion.

It has nothing to do with “tolerance”, it is about their dominating the rest of us.

This is not my viewpoint, it is clear from what they have stated and what has happened in places like Massachusetts - as soon as the judges (acutally one judge) say people of the same sex could marry each other, the head of the education dept in Mass. immediately ordered all schools to teach that homosexual “marriage” and “family” is just as good as normal marriage and family. Mass has one of the worst pro-homosexual school agendas in the country, and it is directly related to their same sex marriage by judicial fiat.

The agenda pushers want homosexuals in the military, hate speech, hate crimes, homosexuals in the Boy Scouts and on and on. This is about them dominating everyone else.

It is about the destruction of the freedoms delineated in the Bill of Rights.