Posted on 02/20/2010 7:58:13 AM PST by Brices Crossroads
"While I was flipping through the autobiography, a woman approached the booth. Catherine Sumner, it turned out, was part of GOProud, a group of openly gay Republicans and conservatives that for the first time is taking part in CPAC. “Is this your flyer?” Sumner demanded, waving the white and green pamphlet. Thus launched a debate about gays in the military that pretty much ended when the booth attendee told her that homosexuality is a sin and she’s going to hell.
“It’s insulting,” Sumner, 31, who edits a military magazine, said turning away. “Across the board the reaction to GOProud’s presence here has been positive, but then you have guys like this. Even Dick Cheney came out and says he supports us. Conservatives have to be more inclusive, they have to be.” In fact, just one group, Liberty University, boycotted CPAC over the inclusion of GOProud, though the Catholic crowd weren’t the only ones unnerved by their presence: one booth down from GOProud’s set up in the fourth row, those manning the National Organization for Marriage, which works to ban gay marriage, kept casting nervous – and slightly envious – glances at the somewhat larger crowd surrounding GOProud’s booth.
The tensions didn’t end there. Along the back wall 2004 World Poker Champion Greg Raymer stood waiting for a talk radio interview. “Focus on the Family considers poker immoral,” Raymer said, gesturing towards the Focus on the Family booth down an aisle. “They have no right to tell me what to do.” Raymer is at CPAC representing the Poker Players Alliance..."
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
“”Inclusive” = John McCain, Lindsey Graham, George Bush, etc. And look where we are today!”
Please see
Gun Owners of America Endorses J.D. Hayworth - McCain Wrong for Arizona Wrong for America
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2455683/posts
“Just keep reminding people that Obamacare equals Romneycare times 50.”
Thanks for reminding me. I post some variation of that on almost every thread where Mittens is mentioned. it is providential that you mention the number 50. It so happens, as I am sure you are aware, under RomneyCare for only only a $50 copay, any woman can get an abortion and the balance of the cost is funded by the tax dollars of the good citizens of Massachusetts.
How about this slogan?
Obamacare equals RomneyCare times 50, which equals abortions for 50.
Sounds like an Math problem. The solution to this math problem = Palin.
You know, there comes a threshold where you step beyond being a “so-con” opposing gay marriage, a perfectly reasonable position, to having an intense personal dislike of gays as people, and presuming to be an arbiter of who’s welcome in the conservative movement and who isn’t based on your own personal tastes.
That personal dislike usually stems from a bunch of guys with fecal fixations trying to force normal society to call their lifestyle choice “acceptable.”
I think we should just start saying “Cheney/Palin 2012” just to watch the liberal melon-heads explode.
And really, it’s a small subset of gays and lesbians really pushing for this, the real radical activist ones. The majority of them don’t want to push it very much at all, would rather just not bring attention to the issue.
“the MARGINALIZATION of the prolife, profamily forces in CPAC is well underway.”
You understand, of course, that “marginalization” is a gradual process. It does not occur all at one. This is the first step. CPAC’s numbers will decline next year, and would have done so this year but for Obama. It is about to become extinct because most conservatives, and actually most people in general, don’t want someone’s sexual preference shoved in their face. They don’t go to a political conference for that.
“The majority of them don’t want to push it very much at all, would rather just not bring attention to the issue.”
True, most of the gays just want to live their lives inconspicuously and not trumpet private matters.
Are you kidding?
Government and the GOP, at all levels has been infiltrated by twisted homosexual deviates, control freaks, liars, thieves, crooks, and arrogant "Home owners association" types.
This is CPAC?? I thought it was FUDGEPAC.
It doesn't matter HOW "sexual proclivities" got into the political debate. You want to point a finger, sure, gays brought gay "marriage" into the debate when they asked government to give a legal sanction to something that's clearly not "marriage." Well and good. But point of fact is that they're here, and every political faction has to deal with them. It seems particularly foolhardy to me to childishly expel folks who are our allies on the other 9 issues out of 10.
Why don't you stop and think what you're objecting to here. You simply can't abide the fact they have a table at this event. A goddamn table! Is it too much to ask for you walk past the table and not speak if you feel that strongly about it? You're also not very adept at playing the "Constitution" card. You're the one who brought up "Tehran" - which if that doesn't imply "persecution," I don't know what would - in a silly attempt to equate the fact that they were present over the objections of so-con hardliners.
Yeah, "freedom of association," I get it. Good stuff. Don't like the concept of "persecution" here, even though you introduced it? Fine. Call it "punishment," "disassociation," whatever. But at the end of the day, it's a proactive purging of willing allies, and I think it's stupid. Especially when the people who are the aggressors in expelling them are playing victim.
Ping. And that includes DeMint. Her’s part of the moderate Pubbie crowd that knowingly and/or stupidly opened the door for our Dear Marxist leader.
What’s really interesting is both of those dividing issues stem from technology...abortion, birth control, fertility medicine/science. Our social divisions reflect the tensions between these relatively new technologies and the social constructs that have evolved over thousands of years. Old Kazinsky wasn’t far from the mark...just imagine how the science of the next 200 years will introduce new divides. We need new social constructs to handle these challenges without disintegration of social order.
Looks like the CPAC has been shanghaied by a bunch of maroons.. It’s hardly a conservative group anymore.. the question now, is it worth saving much less attending in the future if this is what you can expect?
Agreed. It is a fossil. it won’t even exist in a couple of years. As it is, Romney is probably bankrolling it to try to burnish his faux conservative credentials. Palin was very shrewd to skip it.
zot
Thanks, Jim.
Unconscionable that CPAC permitted “GOProud” to co-sponsor the 2010 event.
Our SARAH AMERICA and RUSH LIMBAUGH both wisely declined to speak at CPAC this year.
If all that marriage means is cohabitating and having limited power of attorney, then gay marriage is currently legal. Ditto for polygamy.
If marriage is defined by religion, which I believe it is, then the government should stay out of it in every way.
And if it is up to the church, then you are going to have to respect other people's religion. The alternative would be to protect marriage by making out of wedlock sex illegal, as it used to be. Before doing that you might consider that not all sin is illegal. My preference is that the government be blind to marriage status. All people should be treated the same whether they are married or not. If I were getting married today, I would be tempted to get married in the church, but not file the marriage license.
CPAC likes Romney
Rush likes Sarah
Whose endorsement is worth more?
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.