Posted on 02/07/2011 7:21:00 AM PST by pissant
Well then, you basically admit that you don't know what you're talking about with respect to my actual attitudes towards Sarah Palin. Yet you do so anywise. Hmmm...
Note also, casting aspersions at Palin supporters is not the same thing as casting aspersions at Sarah Palin herself. Back in 2008, Duncan Hunter was a close second (after Fred Thompson) as my choice for the nominee. However, that didn't keep me from thinking that Duncan Hunter's supporters were a bunch of no-talent jerks, for the most part. Why? Because of the way they acted towards everyone else who didn't support their particular candidate first and foremost. The same is increasingly starting to Palin's supporters on here.
I'll ignore the name-calling. You either have selective amnesia, or are too young to remember CLINTON'S imposition of "Don't ask don't tell." EVERY conservative should oppose that subversive doctrine, and support a return to how George Washington treated sodomy in the military: court martial and drum 'em out of the service. If you think that opposing DADT is the same as "imposition of the radical gay agenda", well the kindest thing I can say is that you haven't thought it through.
Well guess what? In the context of today's discussion about the issue, repealing DADT is NOT about going back to the 18th century, it's about mainstreaming homosexuals into the military openly. There's no evidence - none whatsoever - that Sarah Palin wants to deal with sodomites the same way you and George do/did. Quite the opposite, when we consider that Palin retweeted Tammy Bruce's (an open lesbian who has been pushing for open serve for a while now) comments about it. Like it or not, the evidence suggests that Palin is for, or at least is not opposed to, allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Those are the facts - whether you choose to accept it or not makes no difference.
Some people try to turn the tide by staying with an organization feeling that they can influence it for the better. Others feel that actions speak louder than words and walk away from what they see as a polluted pit. Which action is correct depends on the level of pollution. There have been quite a few articles that are very unflattering about the head of CPAC. I’m for walking away but that doesn’t mean that others opinions on staying aren’t valid.
Thanks for opening my eyes. On the strength of a single interview, I will now abandon Sarah Palin, since she can't possibly be a social conservative. Wow, what would I do without you to give me "the facts" that can't possibly be wrong.
Yikes. How could she not have been prepared to handle that question?
The Christian conservative boycott of CPAC has been big news in conservative circles, and she was talking to a Christian conservative news network. You’d think she would have seen that question coming before she even sat down.
BUMP!
BINGO.
Who knew that you and I were so tight?
I’m just now catching up. A popcorn worthy thread, I must say.
She may have. And if so, it helps to recall that Palin is a politician, after all, and not without talent in that department.
One of the oldest plays in the political playbook is the bafflegab response to a question the politician doesn't want to answer. Instead, ramble on about something that sorta seems to address the question, but really doesn't.
Either way it doesn't work out for her, though. If that response was natural stream of consciousness stuff it looks unintelligent.
And if it were an attempt at bafflegab, it suggests that she was dodging the question -- and tacitly supporting GOProud in the process. Which, from her standpoint, is probably better than saying it outright and alienating her adoring base. But it opens her up to speculation like this.
It's probably a no-win situation ....
Twisted pretzel logic.
Fagan and Becker would be proud.
I would love to tour the Southland.
As I recall in the 2008 election, she said that she has "gay friends". Wouldn't you say that is somewhat legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle? I think Palin personally believes that homosexuality is wrong (based on her belief in God), but would she legislate in favor of homosexuals or against them? The issue WILL be brought up if she is President (and before).
Objection. You can't conflate the modern Libertarian party with libertarianism. The two are no more identical than a republic is to the Republican Party. What do you despise so much about the cause of liberty and self-government? That is little-L libertarianism. Nothing more.
I know the differnce between a libertine and a Libertarian. Like I said, I've done enough research on Libertarianism to know what I'm talking about. Here's a good article attempting to give credence to Christian libertarianism (I see a huge amount of flaws in the argument).
"What about morality? Good question. What about morality? I’m a proponent of biblical morality. It’s God’s law, after all. I believe that mind-altering drugs are bad, that homosexual acts are detestable to God, and that God hates sin. I don’t support sin. I just don’t think the government should get involved in punishing it. Let’s let God sort it out on judgement day. The government doesn’t need to enforce morality."
Link to Christian libertarianism
Here's the basis for Libertarian belief: "Those who embrace libertarianism believe that there is no ultimate authority to which men and their civil society must answer other than themselves and the words of their own constitutions and laws. Men are "free," and there should be as few restrictions on "freedom" as possible."
Either we're made in the image of God and are to abide by His laws, or with go with the Libertarian philosophy that man is sovereign over his own body, and that man's laws should reflect that (you know, morals based on "consent" and "community standards").
Thanks for the link; other than reading about GW punishing the behavior in the military, I haven't read about the Founders' view on homosexuality as it relates to law. I would defer to them, as I do on all things political.
A Founding Father hater are ya, or am I misinterpreting your use of the word "defer"?
There's that big "L" again. And what is the "Libertarian rights card?" Do you mean my position that the State has no authority to drag people from their homes because they commit sexual sins? I don't think the Founders believed any different; otherwise, why the 4th Amendment? We can agree that homosexuality is against the laws of both man and God without according the state authority to drag men from their homes.
Obviously you suffer from "sodomitesbeingdraggedfromtheirhomesphobia". I wasn't aware that sexual deviants have ever been "dragged" from their homes (they usually molest little boys in public restrooms and public park shelters). Besides, as mentioned, they've come out of their sodomy chambers and dragged valuable American institutions such as marriage, the traditional family (through adoption), the military, religion, education and youth mentor groups right down into the sewer that they live in.
I discussed with a friend last night the WHY of Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome, here is what we came up with:
1. After the RNC Speech they were scared shiftless that she was able to “Energize the base” 1000X as much as their toadie Juan McCain, and this became a threat and thus became their “public enemy #1”.
2. She doesn’t prescribe to the their ideal of “Institutional Liberal Feminism” and thus is seen as a “Heretic” in the eyes of the “Religion of the 60’s radical Feminist”.
3. She is seen as a threat to the “Pro-Choice” movement, specifically the “Pro-Abortion” Radicals who inhabit that organization because of her willingness to actually have the audacity to give birth and care for a child who has Downs Syndrome instead of just aborting it like the genetic councilors ie. eugenicists prescribe.
4. The Love/Hate paradigm. Before Sarah Palin was nominated for VP she was a bit of a Hero in the minds on some of the left, but for all the wrong reasons. They Loved her for taking on the “Good Ol’ Boys Network” in Alaska performing a good olde fashioned house cleaning and dealing with the political corruption surrounding the oil companies who had bought off the RINOs in Alaska. She was actually doing these things because it “Was the right thing to do” and because it was the Conservative thing to do. The lefties thought she was doing it out of “Social Justice” because it involved punishing Republicans ie. (RINOS), but it was just Plain(Palin) Justice. When she accepted the VP nomination, those on the left who liked her saw it as a complete betrayal and when they realized what her true conservative ideals were, they went from Love straight to Hate and Loathing because they were ashamed they “loved her before they hated her”.
Those are my theories on why Palin Derangement Syndrome exists.
LOL
I’d ask you to diagram her sentences in response. But that would be impossible.
That must point to some list of wild posts.
She's right. No, there is no need to "reach out" to the homosexualistical agenda.
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.