Gays in the closet, fine.
Gays kissing in public and clamoring for “gay marriage” and pushing their agendas on me and my business and my house, FUGGEDABOUDIT!!!
Get out of my face with that, ok?
As for Christie, the moslem loving, gun banning, gay marriage “conservative”, I want nothing to do with him.
screw that b.s.
We know we lost 2006 simply because the public perceived that the Republicans were overrun with homosexuals. They, the public, don't vote for homosexuals in the Republican party ~ at least not knowingly
So, how many times can you lose 2006 before you figure it out.
Now if the gay folks want to give us money, and write fawning articles about our candidates, or even vote ~ all of that's fine. We do not want to have them identified as chief spokespersons for our candidates, nor do we want them to be our RNC chairmen or women or whatevers.
They keep their distance we'll be writing tax laws that protect the rich guys ~ but they gotta' stay back.
There should be no disagreement on this matter.
CPAC is wise to hold the line against any militant group with a radical social agenda that is repugnant to the majority of its membership
That is what voluntary member organizations are for
for groups that hang their hats and make political decisions on single issues, and disgree with CPAC, there is always the big plantation of the democrat party.
Buh Bye.
Strange how you never see pundits opine about how the Dems should be more inclusive of pro-life people and gun owners.
Being more "inclusive" of gays will yield a minimal number of additional Republican voters, at the cost of MANY people walking away from the Republicans.
So this is a complaint that CPAC won’t provide a forum for a liberal governor and isn’t providing a big tent for leftists promoting abnormal lifestyles which produces the obligatory name calling (homophobia). Jonah Goldberg walks like a liberal and quacks like a liberal. I’d say he’s a liberal probably with the slight caveat that he’d like to have more deductions on his tax return.
Jonah Goldberg. Probably a Christie Republican.
Cuck Fristie.
The author mixes two different subjects together : Christie and gays, so I am not going to bother w those two on this thread.
My problem with CPAC is they invited one candidate who lost a major election, one who lost the same primary, and another who just made believe she was running for that same office just to get attention. So why are they relevent?
Is conservism just about losing?
Now inviting Cruz is good. he won Texas and he is fresh and new. Scott Walker is a really good choice. Try presenting a picture of success not failure.
Shut up, Jonah.
Hezekiah King of Judah
18 In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, Hezekiah son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. 2 He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years....He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father David had done. 4 He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles....
5 Hezekiah trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel. There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him. 6 He held fast to the Lord and did not stop following him; he kept the commands the Lord had given Moses. 7 And the Lord was with him; he was successful in whatever he undertook. He rebelled against the king of Assyria and did not serve him. 8 From watchtower to fortified city, he defeated the Philistines, as far as Gaza and its territory.
2 Kings
Yeah, people like Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and Allen West. /s
Christie: wrong on gays, wrong on guns. Huntsman wasn't invited either....
The problem is that CPAC is the first bottleneck in the Republican presidential pipeline, and at precisely the moment the party should be making every effort to be — or at least seem! — as open as possible to differing points of view, it’s chosen to exclude the most popular governor in the country. (He has a 74 percent approval rating in deep-blue New Jersey.) Why? Because, a source familiar with CPAC’s internal deliberations told National Review Online, Christie has a “limited future” in the Republican Party due to his position on gun control.
As it should be.
So was Mike Bloomberg, Jonah. I for one am glad that the "C" in "CPAC" still stands for Conservative.
Christie does not, alas, qualify. And since social conservatism is the basis for all conservatism since it teaches us the difference between right and wrong, CPAC is better off excluding those philosophies which destroy the traditional family unit.
In other words, Jonah, pound sand.
CPAC unwise to invite ANY non-conservatives to ANY of their gatherings, ever! No more RINOS!
It’s not a REPUBLICAN convention. It’s a CONSERVATIVE convention. And Christie is not a conservative. He’s a moderate/liberal. And the gay groups aren’t either. GOProud and the Log Cabin types are moderates and go to disrupt and cause problems and headlines.
From the above link, click on program for day by day details
There is no republic or democracy in your next life. I don’t mind ‘my side’ losing elections in this life.
Definitions wont change there.. Two guys living together are called Roomates. If they like each other- Friends. If they sleep together, Friends with benefits.. which is how this all started- Gays want their benefits.. could be easily handled without twisting any definition with civil agreements...
Leni