Tammy Bruce live now on web stream.

1100kfnx ^ | 11/20/2004 | Me

[filly]

Listen to Tammy Bruce Show live over the web.

[RaceBannon]

I dont need to listen to soeone who is a living contradiction of what is supposed to be right or not, in fact, if I listen to her, she can contradict right and wrong in the same sentence based on her LESBIANISM and BABY KILLING conservatism.

And anyone here can recognize that as a truth, she is holding mutually conflicting views on what a Conservative is, yet she is being embraced because she is a Free Market 2nd Ammendment PRO-2A activist?? Because she is pro-Israel?

Goodness! Where do Conservatives actually wake up and see that Conservatism is based on a sense of right and wrong about MORALS and WHAT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT AND WRONG and NOT ABOUT ECONOMICS? NOT ABOUT TRADE!!?

Right from the start, Conservatism is based on a moral responsibility that is aligned with who God is, and that is where Conservatism began and that is why it ever survived, only now it is being stretched through moral relativism to accept HOMOSEXUALITY as long as they are pro-2A and Tax Cuts and Israel!

Having the source of some sin and evil in this country being claimed as my ALLY in Conservatism, tells me Conservatism is not longer Conservatism!

[ontos-on]

Joe: She is not a man, and so sparks an interest from that fact. I know it is not fair, but when a man struggles for their sea legs, patience is not in big supply. Of course, we give more leeway to a woman--if she is the kind of woman who appears genuine and promising. I think Tammy is like that.

She is not like Andrew Sullivan because she keeps her sexual orientation as her own business rather than a platform for addressing the public. She has some development in this respect while Sullivan is stil an adolescent. This is an essential difference.

I know this might be controversial for some, but there is no question in my mind that Tammy Bruce is a deeper thinker than Rush or Sean and sheis not afraid to confront issues on the radio and expose her command to the free fire of the immediate. Rush and Sean--even though I may agree on more things with them than Tammy--are more programatic and repetitious than Tammy.

[ontos-on]

Please see my post immediately above as well my direct response here:

I can understand listening to people who arent perfect, but to listen to people who are openly engaging in open sin and rebellion

"open sin and rebellion" --- I know hardly nothing about her life style or relationships other than the fact that she is A LESBIAN,and I think that is significant in showing that she is not in "open rebellion" against traditional life and that she is not pushing a gay agneda for America. She specifically opposes the political homosexuals who seek to "shove it down our throat".

I think you are missing a lot when you fail to grasp this about her, it is very important. I think you should not be so condemnatory of others who you really do not know, just because she apparently fits into a category.

[Joe_October]

Her critics would have destroyed her if she were a man. We live in a world where we protect our women (even loud, gun toting women that don't need it.)

I enjoy listening to her but she is late to the party of radio hosts. I have not heard anything from her that I haven't heard many times before from Sean, Rush, and even Boortz. In that regard, she's just a cheerleader like Sean.

Maybe your insight is different than mine but I haven't heard anything new. And she gets a lot of things wrong since her conviction is not as deep. She is in the process of converting but on many things she is just wrong. Deep analysis would have already found her mistakes.

No one (on the radio) out analyzes Rush and by that I mean the team that makes Rush work. Much of his humor is sophmoric because that is what the audience wants but when he goes deep, it is a pure delight.

I would rather hear Horowitz if I want to hear someone who is in the process of converting.

[oldbrowser]

I explain to detractors and supporters alike that President Bush is the man who will keep this nation safest.

She may have alot of wrong ideas, but she does know who will protect all americans.

[ontos-on]

I agree with you on a lot of what you said, and I admit my impression is mainly formed from what I see on Fox when she is paired with a wide -eyed leftist. She does not lose her nerve and responds succinctly and penetratingly. IN order to do this, one has to have the ability to listen and think clearly. I have not been dissapointed when I see her on TV.

When I catch her on radio, it is refreshing because despite her sometimes clumbsy presentation, she responds more interactively with the callers and I like that when they are interseting.

I cannot tell you how often I have heard a Rush caller raise a line of approach that appears promising and pertinent, only to have Rush shut hom off and only use the caller for his programatic plan..This is not a big objection to Rush, I really like listening to him when I am in the car during the day. I agree that Rush has invaluable analysis and perspectives and that Horowitz is a truly deeper thinker than anyone else.

I just like Tammy too--more nativley intelligent than Rush but of course Rush has many other important qualities.

[RaceBannon]

Umm, did you read what you just said?

I know hardly nothing about her life style or relationships other than the fact that she is A LESBIAN,and I think that is significant in showing that she is not in "open rebellion" against traditional life and that she is not pushing a gay agneda for America.

Being an openly Lesbian talk show host, publically proclaiming her Lesbianism, unexcuseably Pro-Abortion...that is NOT Open Rebellion???

You just demonstrated why it is so hard to get these points across about how important it is to choose the characterof a person we look up to and seek advice from in our present world, let alone who we elect to ofice! (Schwarzennegar vs McClintock)

[ontos-on]

I think your meaning for "rebellion" is what is different than what I orignally understood. Someone like Sullivan and the homosexual activists are trying to push an agenda. Bruce is not going ot hide it, but also not push it. That is the right mix in my opinion. Unless you actually mean that contrasting perspectives are not to be allowed to surface in your society.

I respect your instincts here, but I think it important to specify if you actually believe a person should be free to be a homosexual and actually to say so without official condemnation resulting from that exposure? What is your view. Here it is important to be definite as to what rebellion you mean. I think you cannot import to it the meaning you mentioned when adding that you thought she is in "sin". Do you wan to police the public sphere to keep out the sinful???

[RaceBannon]

Under no circumstances should someone who is openly engaging in sin be considered as some sort of spokesman about values or considered someone we should listen to for entertainment or education.

There is no moral difference between listening to Tammy Bruce as a radio talk show speak on Gun Rights as it would be to listen to a Porno Star lecture us on tax cuts resulting in the middle class spending more to stimulate the economy and how that is a good thing.

By doing so we are granting legitimacy to a known major character flaw in that person, not rejecting that person because of that major character flaw that they willingly and unaplogetically continue in as if there is nothing wrong with it at all, and by doing so, we all just sit there and wink as if their open sin is ok, just as long as there is an R next to their name.

To know of the personal behaviour of the person, to ignore how wrong that open personal behaviour is just because we agree with some points on the political spectrum is not an excuse to allow that person to become a publically accepted spokesperson on values (LIKE SHE HAS WITH HER BOOKS) or any topic like Gun RIghts (LIKE SHE HAS WITH HER KNOWN PUBLIC VIEWS).

People are ignoring her other KNOWN public stances that they FREELY and LOUDLY reject John Kerry for in the last election: ABORTION.

[Gracey]

I will not listen to a Lesbian lecture me on family values and what is right and what is wrong.

---

I was going to send you a check... but after reading your "rigid" comments about Tammy Bruce, I'm flabberghasted that you can be so rigid and negative in your attitude. I've not heard Tammy Bruce shove her personal life on anyone. You Holier than thou types baffle me. It's very unchristian like to be so negative toward someone who is not exactly like you. Hope you're able to come around and have a HEART.

Tammy Bruce is one of US, politically speaking. Her personal life is HER personal life. When she shoves it down us, then and only then will I balk. She has a lot of talent and wisdom that many on FR only wished they had, politically speaking.

[ontos-on]

I do not know your agenda, but you certianly sound like a person who puts himself on a pedestal for judging other people. Who are you to be so lacking in an open mind that you are going to act as if you can judge the real inner meaning of a person's private acts?

I have a sense that you will not be open to these considerations, but I think you have the notion of making moral judgments all wrong. That capacity is for guiding your own actions, not for the purpose of judging others.

The intrusion you prescribe is that of an absolutist.

[RaceBannon]

Since I said nothign about myself or my own worth, your false claim of my agenda fails.

Your calling for an open mind only tells me you are a liberal, and not a conservative. If you are calling for me to be open to someone who is engaging in some wicked act just so I can hear them say, "TAX CUTS", then according to your logic, I can ask a CHILD MOLESTER to tell us about Privatizing Social Security.

Thanks for sharing! :)

[RaceBannon]

What I am going to post here is a clear statement on those whoshould serve in government and why we should choose moral leaders to be over us.

In our day, however, we have raised up people to represent us in the public arena, to vocally speak for us as a form of entertainment.

Tammy Bruce is one of those people.

And this article applies to who we should choose as a people to entertain us, to inform us, to provide us with a representation in the arena of ideas.

If we do NOT choose wisely who is to do such things, then we have already failed.

THAT is one of the core values of Conservatism...or at least it used to be...back when people valued what was right and wrong.

Here is the article:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=21

The Importance of Morality and Religion in Government



John Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

John Quincy Adams

Sixth President of the United States

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 61.)

There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), pp. 22-23.)

Samuel Adams

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.

(Source: William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1865), Vol. I, p. 22, quoting from a political essay by Samuel Adams published in The Public Advertiser, 1749.)

Fisher Ames

Framer of the First Amendment

Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.

(Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.

(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)

Benjamin Franklin

Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence

[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787.

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

(Source: James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)

* For more details on this quote, click here.

Thomas Jefferson

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States

Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. 5, pp. 82-83, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 19, 1785.)

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.)

I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)

Richard Henry Lee

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people.

(Source: Richard Henry Lee, The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, James Curtis Ballagh, editor (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1914), Vol. II, p. 411. In a letter to Colonel Mortin Pickett on March 5, 1786.)

James McHenry

Signer of the Constitution

[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

Source: Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.

Jedediah Morse

Patriot and "Father of American Geography"

To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.

(Source: Jedediah Morse, Election Sermon given at Charleston, MA, on April 25, 1799.)

William Penn

Founder of Pennsylvania

[I]t is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as to Caesar, that which is Caesar's.

(Source: Fundamental Constitutions of Pennsylvania, 1682. Written by William Penn, founder of the colony of Pennsylvania.)

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.

(Source: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824. Updegraph v. Cmmonwealth; 11 Serg. & R. 393, 406 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1824).)

Benjamin Rush

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)

We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp. 93-94.)

By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.)

Remember that national crimes require national punishments, and without declaring what punishment awaits this evil, you may venture to assure them that it cannot pass with impunity, unless God shall cease to be just or merciful.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America Upon Slave-Keeping (Boston: John Boyles, 1773), p. 30.)

George Washington

"Father of Our Country"

While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.

(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)

[T]he [federal] government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, and oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.

(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1939), Vol. XXIX, p. 410. In a letter to Marquis De Lafayette, February 7, 1788.)

* For the full text of Geo. Washington's Farewell Address, click here.

Daniel Webster

Early American Jurist and Senator

[I]f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity.

(Source: Daniel Webster, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1903), Vol. XIII, p. 492. From "The Dignity and Importance of History," February 23, 1852.)

Noah Webster

Founding Educator

The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts.

(Source: Noah Webster, History of the United States, "Advice to the Young" (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 338-340, par. 51, 53, 56.)

James Wilson

Signer of the Constitution

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.

(Source: James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, p. 106.)

Robert Winthrop

Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives

Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.

(Source: Robert Winthrop, Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1852), p. 172 from his "Either by the Bible or the Bayonet.")

[RaceBannon]

Friendships



While the Christian is to exhibit genuine love for all of mankind, the Word of God makes it clear that a believer is to be discriminatory in the choice of his close companions (see Psalm 119:63).

Solomon saw that, “He that walketh with wise men shall be wise, but a companion of fools shall be destroyed” (Proverbs 13:20). The Apostle Paul likewise noted, “Be not deceived: Evil companionships corrupt good morals” (1 Corinthians 15:33). As Dr. John Whitcomb has observed, “All things being equal, bad apples make good apples go rotten, and the good apples do not make the rotten ones any better.”

Thus, while the Christian is to be cordial towards all, especially towards those of like precious faith, he, nevertheless, is to be selective in his choice of close companionships. The best way to do this, of course, is to have the right interests, and to allow our interests to govern our close friendships.

[ontos-on]

I WROTE:

I do not know your agenda, but you certianly sound like a person who puts himself on a pedestal for judging other people.

YOU RESPONDED:

Since I said nothign about myself or my own worth, your false claim of my agenda fails.

---------------------------------

This is very interesting. You seem to have the conceit that you can make moral judgments about people you hear on the radio or in print and then you can posture as their judge and jury; and then, when you are called to account for that:

AS WHERE I WROTE:

Who are you to be so lacking in an open mind that you are going to act as if you can judge the real inner meaning of a person's private acts?

IT IS THEN THAT YOU WANT TO ASSERT RELIEF FROM THE EYES OF OTHERS:

your false claim of my agenda fails.

WHY?

Well, you say the reason is because:

"Since I said nothign about myself or my own worth"

Sir, you have said an awful lot about yourself. You probably want a black and white moral universe where YOU have no doubt in judging others. If there are black and white moral judgments to be made, they are reserved for one who has access to all the pertinent facts and the struggles and meaning of the heart of the individual moral actor. You are usurping a role as JUDGE to which you are not entitled. You demonstrate this in your posts. You cannot shrink back and say you have proclaimed nothing. But I am not making a moral judgment about you or weighing whether and to what extent your actions and behaviors are sinful.

This is the difference between judgments per se and one specific type of judgment: moral judgments. You too easily ignore that difference and that is why your self-righteous approach is not helpful and provides our enemies with an embodiement of the cariacture to which they eagerly wish to paint all of us.

[TommyDale]

While she may espouse many conservative beliefs, she cannot be a true conservative if she lives a liberal alternative lifestyle as a lesbian. Sorry, the two don't go together.

[RaceBannon]

And so, judging me in return makes me wrong for judging the public character and behaviour of this person?

We ALL have the right to make judgements on the PUBLIC behaviours of ANYONE.

ANYONE concerning their public behaviours, and especially their own public pronouncements about themselves and their own personal behaviours.

Your judgement of my answers is just that: A pronouncement of my character based on my public pronouncements of what I believe based on what I observed and heard of Tammy Bruce.

You are judging me the same way I am judging her, and yet you call me someone who is out of line for judging someone?

By the way, I used to think the ONTOS was a kewel system, wish I actually got to fire one! :)

[ontos-on]

did you stop to think one moment on the distinction I made in the last post?

[RaceBannon]

Did you stop to think for a minute on how you looked like a total hippocrite passing judgment on me for making states based on my observation of Tammy Bruce's known character and statements about her sexuality while at the same time you were passing judgment on me in the same way yourself based on what I posted on this thread?

[ontos-on]

Rational Discussion requires one to read the prior posts and try to understand what is being said. I even gave you a second chance, but to no effect. This is clearly beyond you, so you resort to name calling.

But you obviously have never read any books because you are unacquainted with the names you have heard other people being called and which you wish to use. Over and out.