Posted on 02/19/2010 7:35:34 PM PST by DesertRenegade
Ryan Sorba, from the Young Americans for Freedom organization’s California chapter, was booed off the stage tonight at CPAC, for deriding CPAC’s choice to have GOProud attend CPAC, even going so far as to say he “condemns CPAC”. Not the sort of thing one would say when invited to speak at the biggest gathering of Conservatives who look to CPAC for guidance and networking.
(Excerpt) Read more at rightpundits.com ...
Do you mean a couple of homosexuals? They are practically never monogamous even when “married” so I don’t refer to them as a homosexual couple, but a couple of homosexuals.
Homosexuals already can do whatever legal stuff anyone else can do. If they want to file this or that, no one asks “are you homosexual, cause if you are, we will restrict you more than other people”. They already have the same rights as anyone else in that regard.
End of story.
another “Hall Monitor”...ha.
I see you’re trying to inject a little humor into the thread.
:-)
So you’re OK with the laws reguarding gays that we have on the books today?
wow, what a brilliant post..did you think of THAT clever comment all by yourself?
See we do agree on some things.
Have a nice day.
HEAR HEAR!
Even the name of this gay group, "GOProud (to be gay)" is in everyones' face.
If THEY are the "new conservative," I'm the old conservative. I have reached the limit of my patience with fake so-called "conservatives" whose goal it is hijack and re-define what "conservative" now means.
I think ACU must be sorry now. They were blindsided by the organized gay mafia. Let’s hope they make a different decision next year, as there is really no way of keeping these circuses from happening if an anti-gay-agenda speaker appears.
I hope you don't mind if it's "injected" (odd turn of a phrase considering the subject matter) at your expense...
So you’re OK with the laws reguarding gays that we have on the books today?
Too vague. Let's please be specific. I'm sure I won't disappoint you.
You are not informed, ie ignorant of our federal laws.
A SINGLE PERSON can not have their social security pension ( or military benefits or death benefits )designated to another person, or get the tax “benefits’ a married couple gets.
If you’re going to debate, at least get informed.
“Will and your “partner” be having flank steak?”
See - you try and “take a shot” at me and you don’t know me much at all.
Is that the best you can do, take a personal shot?
So, to you, anyone who is not with you all the way is gay?
ROTFLMAS
What an arguement.
Don’t worry, I’m secure in my own manhood.
Tough luck for them, then.
Too boo-hoo freaking bad.
If they’re not married, they’re not married. Life isn’t doled out exactly the same to each person.
No homosexual “couples” are ever monogamous anyway.
So you’re in favor of same sex marriage, then?
Science has come light years since the 80’s. There is a school of thought based on research in the Netherlands and here that homosexuality is not developed at a young age, but is progressive throughout their youth. Also not every youth that expresses homosexual tendencies actually participates in gay sex. Openly gay teachers espousing a pro-gay agenda could have undo influence. Keep it in the bedroom, bath houses or wherever, but keep it out of my child's classroom. I am not to sure Ronnie would not have altered his opinion after all the scandals involving Priests. See, we have a precedent for our concerns.Nor would he have changed his view that such a measure as Proposition 6 would have enabled the wreckage of an innocent life merely by false innuendo. Reagan was nothing if not a man who believed against bearing false witness. It was one thing to stand against openly gay teachers---and Reagan made a point of stressing the protections against those were in place already at the time---but it was something else entirely to sanction a false accusation of homosexuality.
I am sure Reagan would have amended his opinion had he known what is known now about how homosexuals develop their illness.
When i posted that comment i had presumed GOProud was conservative to be at CPAC on further reading they are very progressive and should not have been invited to CPAC..
Sorba was just stirring up sh*t and makes conservatives look like a bunch of hicks ( watch the video).
From some of the stuff i read CPAC is turning into a joke such as the christians would not talk to Poker player alliance because they are gamblers.
Sorba was not stirring up s**t. Why are you saying he did?
Why would Poker Players even have an alliance, other than to try to make others look weird? They were there to stir up s*** as well.
YOU: "So you’re OK with the laws reguarding gays that we have on the books today?"
ME: "Too vague. Let's please be specific. I'm sure I won't disappoint you.
YOU: (no answer so far)
The correct response would be, “I was wrong. I did not know that fact about the law. Thanks for the information.”
Instead you lash out emotionally , at the level of a 3rd grader...”Too boo-hoo freaking bad.”..and of course, the brilliant retort” Life isn’t doled out exactly the same to each person.”
My comments had NOTHING said or focused on ‘gay marriage’..it is about the inequities for single people...and to point out that you just say things without checking or knowing the reality. Then instead of acknowledging any mistake, you go on a tirade (again).
You then to follow with another post to show your total incapacity for basic logic....
“So you’re in favor of same sex marriage, then?”...Huh?
With debators like you, the conservative movement sure is going to win over a lot of people....( I know, I know...You don’t care....if they misunderstand you, you’ll just yell louder.)
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.