Posted on 08/19/2010 11:30:20 AM PDT by DesertRenegade
It caused Sean Hannity to pull out of last February's Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., where he had been slated to appear as keynote speaker. When Hannity withdrew from the CPAC lineup, Glenn Beck stepped in. (Though this has not been previously reported, my source is highly placed and utterly reliable.)
It was also a big reason Gov. Sarah Palin opted not to speak at CPAC, long the nation's largest and most influential annual gathering of conservatives.
It caused WorldNetDaily, as well as major conservative institutions like Liberty University, to drop their planned sponsorship of the event.
"It" … is GOProud, the homosexual activist organization masquerading as a "traditional conservative" group, whose acceptance as official sponsor of CPAC caused many traditionally minded individuals and groups to pull out – on principle. GOProud is being embraced by many big-tent Republicans, ever-hoping they'll win elections and power by compromising on the core values that underpin a free America.
Yesterday, "it" caused WorldNetDaily to drop conservative superstar Ann Coulter from the speaker lineup of WND's upcoming "Taking America Back" conference in Miami. Why? Because Coulter is scheduled to be the much-ballyhooed keynote speaker at GOProud's big "HOMOCON 2010" bash next month. Although WND warned Coulter repeatedly that she would be giving major legitimacy to what is really a gay-activist group and its subversive agenda, and that if she went ahead we would not in good conscience be able to feature her at our conference, she didn't relent and we were forced to disinvite her.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Possibly, but I would venture to guess that both of the groups I've mentioned believe that they closely adhere to the constitution and the intents of the founding fathers.
The reality is, political views are sort of like a Gartner Group Magic Quadrant.
Picture a square divided into four equal, smaller squares. The top two squares are labeled "fiscal conservative" and "social conservative". The bottom two are labeled "fiscal liberal" and "social liberal". If you plot each person's political views on the quadrant, they'd be all over the place.
It's not logical to think that conservatives are going to agree on every issue. It is destructive to demand that they do.
Having said that, I am all for supporting/voting for the most conservative (both fiscally and socially) candidates. But no matter how conservative the candidate, I will disagree with them at times.
It’s all about appeasement of evil and compromising values to gain votes from people who will betray us at the drop of a hat. It never works.
Fallacy. If you are not socially conservative you are not fiscally conservative either as all socially liberal policies cost more fiscally in the long run.
So you really have the top right block being "Conservative", the top left block being "Conservative in name only but really advancing the liberal agenda". The bottom right block being "Liberal but trying not to let anyone know it" (It has a very blurred line between it and the top left block), and the bottom right block being "Anti-American communist but trying to get people to say we're only liberal".
Most peoples opinions fall into the upper right block once they stop and think about it.
The only “conservatives” they are seducing are the Ann Coulter type media whores who believe they MUST be controversial at all times.
Ann is a conservative who talks issues that are important to conservatives. Being a conservative isn’t being a huckster. Now if you are a liberal trying to act conservative (like Steven Colbert) then you are a huckster because you are trying to be something you are not.
You must be a liberal who posts on a conservative site who is in fact acting like a huckster.
By the way, learn to spell, your use of English is terrible. As is your spelling.
Reminds us we can’t trust David Keene. He is the one who engineered the appointment of Senior Amnesty Mel Martinez by giving him a laughable “perfect 100% ACU rating. It took Keene months to figure out the right votes to use and he did it for Bush and Rove so they could get their amnesty through. Now Keene is trying to legitimize homosexuals as true conservatives.
That's pretty funny, newbie.
By the way, learn to spell, your use of English is terrible. As is your spelling.
Even funnier.
Please point out all the errors of usage in my above post, as well as all spelling errors.
Here's a hint - I mistyped "than" in place of "that."
You fill in the rest.
By the way, the spelling error in your tagline is even more amusing than your post.
And who knows; maybe some GOProud members and NAMBLA members are one and the same!
Maybe we are not defining socially liberal the same way. When I say socially liberal, I mean being "pro choice", "pro gay marriage" things like that. I'm not refering to the funding of those things with taxes - that would fall under the fiscal side.
So you really have the top right block being "Conservative", the top left block being "Conservative in name only but really advancing the liberal agenda".
Again, that depends on what you mean by socially liberal. I don't think we are talking about the same thing.
I would agree that in some cases, the social liberalism has overridden some voters desire for fiscal conservatism. I've also been told by fiscal conservative/social liberal type folks right here on FR that they don't want "us" (meaning those who are both socially and fiscally conservative). So it is true there is quite a bit of antagonism on their part toward us.
It's high time to abandon these people.
I would agree we should fight for candidates that are both socially and fiscally conservative. We may not always get that, however, because the populace is all over the place in the "quadrant".
And wouldn't you have much rather had McCain win the election than Obama? I know I would have.
Without social conservative votes, they'll be lucky to get 20% in a general election.
I've told that to those FR folks who want to rid the party of social conservatives.
Now if you are a liberal trying to act conservative (like Steven Colbert) then you are a huckster because you are trying to be something you are not.
<><><><><><<
I believe the correct word for Colbert is comedian/entertainer. Huckster? Only if one believes that he is trying to make people believe he is conservative.
My dogs know better than that.
Stick with the Word of God and you'll have both, consistently.
Maybe we are not defining socially liberal the same way. When I say socially liberal, I mean being "pro choice", "pro gay marriage" things like that. I'm not refering to the funding of those things with taxes - that would fall under the fiscal side.
Nope. We are referring to exactly the same thing. Allowing evil to exist ALWAYS results in calls for government to sponsor evil. Being "pro-choice" ALWAYS results in allowing government funds to be spent on abortion. ALWAYS. Sometimes incredibly directly, sometimes in a round-a-bout fashion. But the end result is always the same.
Okay, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
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.