Posted on 02/10/2007 1:39:11 PM PST by TitansAFC
I don't care what a liberal thinks... If that annoys you, good...
I have a feeling that a President Rudy would break more promises than President Bush, but hopefully after the primaries we WILL get a REAL conservative to vote for who will WIN, and we won't have to worry about broken promises.
Don't you RINO-lovers COUNT ON THAT.
TitansAFC's take on this is SPOT ON, and we TRUE conservatives are NOT going to just stand by and let FAUX Republicans run our party, and the country, into the ground.
For people who don't think that Rudy pushing for civil unions is a big deal, I don't think they understand the gay agenda. It is incremental, like a frog slowly being boiled to death. FIRST you convince the masses that "civil unions" are fine, and it esculates.
Here are some examples of how the gay agenda is winning, but I hope that people will do their own research, as well:
"On March 10, Catholic Charities of Boston had announced that it was being forced to shut down its highly regarded adoption services, since it could not in good conscience comply with the government's demand that it place children for adoption with homosexual couples. Caught between the rock of Catholic teaching, which regards such adoptions as "gravely immoral," and Massachusetts regulations, which bar adoption agencies from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, the Boston Archdiocese had hoped to obtain a waiver on religious-freedom grounds. But when legislative leaders refused to consider the request, the archdiocese was left with no option but to end a ministry it had been performing for a century.
snip
Is this a sign of things to come? In the name of nondiscrimination, will more states force religious organizations to swallow their principles or go out of business? Same-sex adoption is becoming increasingly common, but it is still highly controversial. Millions of Americans would readily agree that gay and lesbian couples can make loving parents, yet insist nevertheless that kids are better off with loving parents of both sexes. That is neither a radical view nor an intolerant one, but if the kneecapping of Catholic Charities is any indication, it may soon be unsafe to express.
"As much as one may wish to live and let live," Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote in 2004, during the same-sex marriage debate in Massachusetts, "the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination.... Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles."
The ax fell on Catholic Charities just two years after those words were written. Where will it have fallen two years hence?"
[url]http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby031606.php3?printer_friendly[/url]
ACLU Seeks Mandatory Homosexual Sensitivity Training 7/14/2005
By Robert Knight
Group goes to court in California, Kentucky to promote the “gay” agenda in schools.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing school districts in California and Kentucky in an attempt to force them to conduct mandatory homosexual appreciation sessions for students and staff.
In south Los Angeles, the ACLU of Southern California, along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), reached a settlement requiring mandatory attitudinal training at Washington Preparatory High School.
“The training is a model for the state,” said Christine Sun, staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, in a press release.
[url]http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=8541&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport[/url]
National Education Association's (NEA) proposed new pro-homosexual resolutions
June 1, 2001
In July, the National Education Association (NEA) will vote on new resolutions designed to encourage and promote the idea that teachers across the nation should increase their efforts in furthering the homosexual agenda in schools.
Specifically, the new resolutions encourage the development of curriculum to
“meet the needs of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender students (GLBT),”
solicit the “involvement of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender educators in developing” classroom instructional material,
disseminate programs that support GLBT students,
recognize GLBT teachers as “role models,”
encourage teaching students about GLBT people throughout history, and
coordinate with GLBT organizations to promote the “heritage, culture, history, health and care of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.”
excerpt: [url]http://www.karenholgate.com/ar010601.shtml[/url]
P.S. The Rudy lickers hit the abuse button just like the leftist scums on YouTube flag conservative videos...
I see as much hatred for the fiscal conservative wing coming from the social conservative wing.
My, how far we have fallen from the heyday of Ronald Reagan, and even Gingrich, where one could be both socially AND fiscally conservative. Sure, some (Reagan) seemed to focus more on the fiscal end of things and others (Santorum) on the social end, but we meshed together.
It seems that there is a contingent of social conservatives who sing a one note song about abortion, which is of course honorable, but then they support ANY pro-life candidate, even if he/she is a damned Socialist on economic issues, or a cut-and-runner on foreign policy.
On the other side of that coin, you have the fiscal conservatives who abhor the thought of losing their nudie bar down the street and get mad at anyone that dare mention abortion, or gay marriage.
It's disheartening. Can no one be both a social AND fiscal conservative, and still want to keep the illegals out and kick some terrorist a$$?
Well, repelling people certainly isn't helping your cause.
Do know that if you post that stupid long series of irrelevant graphics again, I'll continue to report it as thread-slowing spam. It annoys me as a conservative and as a LOTR fan who actually understands how off-base your analogies are. By trying to get it pulled I'll be doing conservatism a favor by helping you to not make us look bad - deal?
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, but if you think you are describing me, that is really funny.
I'm OK with his no vote on CAFTA, and his stance on the borders. But he does have that streak of "big-government conservative" about him. And looks like he supported NCLB.
I'm for Newt, but he either won't run, or will get his a$$ kicked by Hillary, I fear...
*Dole, '96.
Me too.
What an ABSOLUTE WASTE of an arm movement.
I have many libertarian tendencies. But, (and please do correct me if I'm wrong) isn't the "Big L" Libertarian Party in support of pulling out of Iraq, and doing nothing about illegal immigration? At least that was their platform in 2004.
LOL
..stewards who wanted to be kings...
Keep believing that.
I will vote for only local races if I am presented with a choice between a one-lb-bag-of-sh*t, and a two-lb-bag-of-sh*t.
I suspect I am not the only one who will so do.
The big L libertarian party's answer to illegal immigration is to end the welfare state. I support that. I voted for Peroutka. He was also for pulling out of Iraq, but for closing the border. I am starting to wonder what the point is of fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan when the country that the armed forces are supposedly defending is being given away without a fight. (Also, the American republic is dead.) I like Ron Paul in '08. So I might vote Republican. It will be futile, as the Lizard Queen will win regardless.
It's just gonna make things WORSE in the long run, and not just for one poor sap, but for EVERYONE.
If we say O.K., we'll vote for RINO-rudy THIS time, even though he has SO many liberal positions, then the door is WIDE OPEN to other so-called "conservatives" to try and play us for FOOLS in the future.
Voting for a RINO will set an EXTREMELY bad precedent that will put TRUE CONSERVATIVES in the WILDERNESS for YEARS to come, NOT just the four or eight painful years of a demonRAT presidency.
JUST SAY NO TO ANY AND ALL RINOS.
For the good of the party, and for the good of the COUNTRY!
"Hair of the Dog" was a crappy album (I could play most of it left handed), so I am not impressed by his knowledge of art or music...
They didn't create the figure of speech... and I'm a she.
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.