Posted on 02/10/2011 6:25:57 AM PST by Notary Sojac
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) said Wednesday evening she has no objection to the participation of gay Republicans at this weekend's gathering of conservatives in Washington.
Palin said she didn't see anything wrong with the participation of GOProud, a group of gay Republicans, at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which runs Thursday through Saturday.
"I don't have a problem with different, diverse groups that are involved in political discourse, and having a convention to talk about what the answers are to their problems that face America," Palin said Wednesday on Fox News when asked about GOProud.
Palin isn't participating in the conference, and she's declined previous invitations, despite CPAC's role as a cattle call for possible Republican presidential candidates.
But other prominent conservatives have said they're skipping the conference. The conservative Heritage Foundation and other socially conservative groups withdrew due to the inclusion of GOProud. And with those groups out, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) followed suit. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also declined participation, though it's unclear if that decision is linked to GOProud.
Aside from DeMint, though, the other Republicans mulling a run for president are slated to speak or participate at the conference, hoping in part to boost their standing in the closely watched straw poll of attendees.
Palin suggested that conservatives had more important issues to worry about than which groups were attending the conference.
"People are losing their jobs; they're losing homes. We're still engaged in a war," she said. "There are so many life-changing, life-and-death issues out there in front of us. You know, we'd better be concentrating on what is really important here and not going kind of tit-for-tat as people are positioning themselves for 2012."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
No, your logic on Bachmann and Cain vs Palin is completely false.
Yes, you keep bringing up her first bill as Governor.
Why don’t you do some research? Palin was angry that she was forced to sign it but she was following the AK Constitution as ruled by the AK Supreme Court.
Read this and then tell me she “supported it”
No the country was and is great because the founders understood that power corrupts and crafted a government on the concept of checks and balances and limited power. You give a judeo Christan leader absolute power and that person will turn into a dictator just like every other human on this earth. Period. That is why these Christian men gave us freedom of religion and freedom of speech and 3 branches of government and it is also why they understood those rights came form God not corrupt man.
The roman empire collapsed because they switched from a republic to a dictatorship and citizenship become worthless. You do understand the greatest period of Rome expansion and growth was before Christ was even born right at a time that they worshiped many gods like Mars and Venus? In fact Rome was founded 750 years before Christ.
you keep saying states decide and yet it is the feds which is deciding on certain queer issues
I didn’t realize Sarah was a registered libertarian. Who knew?
Sarah hasn’t called herself a “libertarian” and neither did Reagan. Both, like many, say they have a few libertarian views but do not embrace all.
Stop inventing reasons to dislike her and just own it. You don’t like her, fine. No need to invent reasons for it.
I agree. Seems like they're entirely too occupied with pushing Sarah Palin under the bus.
I got dogpiled by these same people in another thread earlier this week. I'm not going to get sucked into responding this time. What these people say have NOTHING to do with whether Gov. Palin runs for President or not, and CANNOT prevent me from voting for her. It's just noise.
Posposed Seal of the United States
On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams "to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of America." Franklin's proposal adapted the biblical story of the parting of the Red Sea (left). Jefferson first recommended the "Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and a Pillar of Fire by night. . . ." He then embraced Franklin's proposal and rewrote it (right). Jefferson's revision of Franklin's proposal was presented by the committee to Congress on August 20. Although not accepted these drafts reveal the religious temper of the Revolutionary period. Franklin and Jefferson were among the most theologically liberal of the Founders, yet they used biblical imagery for this important task.
Aitken's Bible Endorsed by Congress
The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere." On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734-1802) petitioned Congress to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament which he was preparing at his own expense. Congress "highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States." This resolution was a result of Aitken's successful accomplishment of his project.
They included God in this country. Anyone who tries to say differently is dishonest.
Personal attacks are against the rules on FR. My comment to you was not a personal attack. If you feel it was, report it to the mods.
By extension of your arguments and many of the others on this thread, we should outlaw these practices worldwide and fight wars to defend the law.
Life is a right. I want to see it uniformly defended as such. However, my opinion is that SUCCESS is must more likely thru the states. Further, if you accept the premise that the Feds have this power constitutionally, then the next lib regime in there will have the power to determine these policies in THEIR favor.
To recap....
Not an attack
We Have the same goal
I Have different opinion on how to achieve the goal
What part of “They already have” doesn’t compute with you?
As to the mumbo jumbo about fighting wars and stuff. I don’t know what the heck you are talking about.
On DADT because that is the military.
As I said before the last 80 years has been a march to stronger central government. But that doesn’t mean the tide can’t be reversed, in fact this is a prime time to do it.
I think that is the most realistic way to roll back the progressive socialist tenets that have been built into the government including on the issues of gays and abortion.
If we leave it at the federal level, any gains our side makes will get reversed the next time congress changes hands. Or the 9th circus will throw it out.
"I'm OK with homosexuals marrying, serving in the military, and indoctrinating our school children."
"I'm against homosexuals marrying, serving in the military, indoctrinating our school children, or having any other special privileges, but other than that they have the same basic rights, not group rights, as any other citizen."
"I'm against homosexuals marrying, serving in the military, indoctrinating our school children, or having any other special privileges, and furthermore I think the government should take positive measures to oppose and punish homosexuality."
I would not vote for any candidate who adopted either the first, or the third, position.
yes it is but again you keep saying that the homosexual agenda is left up to the states, the feds rule the military.
you also seem to forget judges which overturn law and appease the homosexual agenda
do you think homosexuals should marry, get kids and serve openly?
just a yes or no would suffice
also have you read this?
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
the communist manifesto is hardly conservative is it
The GOP nominee will choose door #2.
People who think it is possible to nominate a candidate who supports #3 are deluded.
I see. So you’re okay with freedom of speech as long as they don’t say something you don’t agree with anywhere near you. Got it.
Agreed. So pull your funding from CPAC. No one is stopping you.
LOL I can’t stand Ron Paul and didn’t even know he had rallies. But apparently YOU do. :)
Um, I’m not the one who posted what you were responding to.
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.