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 ...
We will have to agree to disagree.
I don’t have a transsexual fixation, you do.
I didn't bring up the subject, you did.
“....That is a tactic used by the left and encouraged in Kirk and Madsen’s book.......”
This was a tactic used my me because the original poster I was referring to had made a couple of posts implying I was gay because of the posts I had made.
So if I reply the same way I’m a bad guy? But its OK for the other guy to do the same here? You do know they have a word for that.
Since you asked - because I have served....
DADT - I support “Don’t Ask, Don’t tell” and wish it was enforced more strictly. A lot of folks on both sides of the issue don’t realize one big thing about the Military - “Everybody Is The Same”(EITS).
By making gays “legal” they become a protected group and soon have their own special protection under EITS. If you ever come to my neck of the woods we can sit down and have a few beers I can go over everything I am worried about in the bad things that will happen if DADT is repealed.
Same-sex adoption? Did you mean gay people adopting children of the same sex? I am against gay adoption as the Duke case has shown - it’s not a good idea. Kids are messed up enough these days, we don’t need to add to that.
Same sex marriage? I really don’t care if two individual want to form a private union and right now they can do so if they wish in every state. They do it through private contracts and powers of attorny. “Marriage” is a religious contract while a person has to get a local “license” to get married. So what is gay marriage? It’s one of their “agenda issues” like pushing their other agendas in our schools. So I am against gay marriage.
So you see I am probably pretty close to where you stand on the issues.
I appreciate the effort and time you took to explain your reasoning.
It helped me to better understand your perspective.
The ancients regarded sexuality differently- they were not Christian societies. The Romans, however, did not regard it as completely acceptable- they had laws against such behavior. I hate citing Wikipedia but y’all can read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Scantinia
Check out my post #37. I wasn't advocating castrating homosexuals, I was merely making the point to some guy that was wrongly trying to invoke Jefferson as some sort of libertarian on this issue. I was pointing out to him that Jefferson actually was quite, ah, UNlibertarian on it, hence, his attempt to use the old "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" argument was illegitimate.
Nope, yourself. You think people don’t remember what you’ve said about yourself?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own set of facts.
Obviously modern Conservatives have no impact whatsoever on folks who lived 2000 years ago.
At the same time Roman orgnies, and the court of Philip of Macedon were hardly places of high decorum.
Now, regarding sex in Rome ~ if it involved your typical Roman middle-class, that's one thing. If it involved the supervisor of a a latifundia and the female slaves, that's quite another. No need to study the ancients ~ just look at American history.
Again, a statement was made that modern Conservatives (and Christians) cause homosexuals to engage in lewd behavior. To that I say "Bwahahahahahahahahaha".
Exactly.
And some still think we will be able to reconcile all this BS in to one big happy party.
Because CPAC, as a conference, is no longer about maximising freedom while supporting traditional values and American patriotism?
Let's face it, CPAC has devolved into a place you go if you want to try to get hooked up into the insider network and become an inside-the-beltway Party wonk with all the perks that come with it. If you're one of those little goobers who wore a sport coat and tie to the football games and stepped on everybody else to climb the ladder so you could be President of the Podunk U. College Republicans, then CPAC is the place for you.
For folks like that, little issues like "what effect will a radical social agenda called for by this group have on the freedom and social stability of everyone else who doesn't belong to this group?" don't mean much. Worrying about principles and values and things like that is merely an impediment to gathering more power to yourself and your clique by trying to "expand the tent." In other words, CPAC is not about conservatism, but about influence trading.
Granted, some conservative politicians still find it expedient to go there, get their name out, make a great speech, and whatnot (Rubio comes to mind), but for true, real, actual grassroots conservatism, CPAC is not friendly territory, and hasn't been for a while (roughly coinciding with the period that David Keene has had significant influence on the conference).
And since most of the laws at that time had a much harsher punishment - execution - he was being quite gentle for his time with mandating only castration and, IIRC, exilie from the state or colony (I think Virginia was a colony at that time but I could be wrong).
I believe it's a necessity if we are to get enough votes to control the legislative bodies in this country so that WE set the legislative agenda and the Democrats are left to get drunk and mess around.
Once you control the legislative agenda you can move on to more important issues ~ e.g. finding a cure for homosexuality, development of palliative care drugs for people suffering from Liberal delusions, permanent employment for the unemployed, higher savings rates, even lower taxes, rolling back regulation to 1790, fixing the Supreme Court, annexing Canada (at least the good parts), and getting rid of Fidel Castro.
Just keep in mind that history shows that when Republican homosexuals act out we lose votes. No one cares what the Democrats do ~ they're just a bunch of trashy people anyway.
Social Security and tort reform are going nowhere as long as the public votes the way it does, so let's figure this out ~ no homosexual acting out among Republicans obviously requires no homosexuals in the leadership roles!
Will you let dragons into the village just so long as they promise to never act like dragons?
Death to “their” dragons and their running dog lackeys.
Yet, that does sum up the “big tent” premise, which says that those who are committed to X are ‘welcome’ in the Republican Party just so long as they never act like they are committed to X.
It is a completely unsustainable premise.
It applies to abortion advocates as well as the deviants referenced in this article.
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.