GOP Chairman Racicot Defends Meeting with ‘Gay’ Pressure Group [Alienating the GOP base]

www.cwfa.org ^ | Robert Knight

[reasonseeker]

I most emphatically do NOT condone it. I was just responding to a post where gays and aliens and other groups were lumped together indiscriminately because they don't generally vote GOP. I should have limited my remarks to gays and the GOP, because that is what I'm really addressing here when I talk about those on Freep who tell them to get lost. There are no illegal alien Republican clubs to my knowledge, like there is the Log Cabin Republicans for gays. The problem of illegal aliens voting is a different matter altogether.

[hardhead]

This guy is head of the GOP? Hold on to your hats - he sounds to me like a demoweasel 'Manchurian Candidate'. Is it he a democrap mole?

[savedbygrace]

Pity poor Marc Racicot. He's being called on the carpet by the hyper-paranoid, self-appointed guardians of the troglodyte wing of the Republican Party.

You really should edit your FR Homepage if you want to make comments like that. On your Homepage, you say, "I admire a well reasoned argument, but have little patience for irrational emotionalism, unsubstantiated allegations, ad hominems, hyperbole, hysteria, or obfuscation."

Either that, or make your "well reasoned argument." So far, you haven't.

[ElkGroveDan]

If I choose to recieve oral sex (sodomy) from my wife, is that bad?

The question was, should we create a special class of citizens based on chosen behavior?

Would you expect special status as a protected minority because of behavior you voluntarily engage in? Should we teach children in schools all about your "special lifestyle?" If we discover that this behavior is causing you some horrible sickness should taxpayers who don't do that be expected to fund research so you can get back to business with your "hobby?"

Those are some of the issues that conservative Republicans are concerned about and why we take issue with these groups who want to move their bedrooms out into the public square.

Thanks for the good example that helps highlight my point.

[RockBassCreek]

Nope. I haven't done anything other than write down some impressions. I don't know anyone else on this board to agree or disagree with them. Where is the other post?

[breakem]

You said your agreed with him. His comments included equating the Log Cabin Republicans with NAMBLA. It is that kind of ignorance that makes these therads and the FR which allows it laughable and sad.

[RockBassCreek]

I said his point was valid that when one forms a special group based on 1 point (e.g., "republican alcoholics") that that is not a group to support.

He actually made more than one point. I was saying that it is a valid point to make. It is valid. Whether its "Pubbie Prostitutes of America" or whatever, one must examine the one point and see if one really wants to be associated with it.

Now, do LogCabinRepub's support Nambla? I would think not. If they did, I'd bet they wouldn't exist in the Republican Party.

That's not to say I support homosexuality. What I do support is every American's right to vote and to be part of the political process.

[Luke21]

I am a Christian and I have no problem with the GOP meeting with homosexuals. I have a few gay friends and they often allow me to minister to them. They sometimes open up to the entire Gospel and begin to inspect their lives as a result.

There is a difference between receiving people, treating them fairly and as human beings, and endorsing the extreme elements of the gay lifestyle and agenda. These people are used to rejection and often their rhetoric reflects that. Going out of our way to offend them accomplishes nothing.

[Quick1]

You asked how necrophilia and pedophilia was different from homosexual sex. I explained how it was different.

I don't condone homosexual sex, and I don't agree that they should have "special" protections over anyone else, but I don't think you should prosecute everyone for the crimes of a few, so to speak.

I also don't agree that AIDS is still the "homo plague", as you were alluding to. The fastest rising group of infected individuals is heterosexual women.

Allowing people to freely have sex with whomever conesnting adults doesn't create a special class of citizens, IMHO.

[breakem]

We agree. Thanx for the clarification.

[jla]

I also think, along with this courting of the gays, the GOP will pull its pro-life plank before 2008, if not by 2004.

Won't be on this President's watch. But the RNC may be planning ahead to run another dynamic candidate like Bob Dole!

If the RNC alienates the Christian Conservatives they can expect to be on the outside, (of the White House), lookin' in, for a very, very long time.

[F16Fighter]

"The question was, should we create a special class of citizens based on chosen behavior?

Would you expect special status as a protected minority because of behavior you voluntarily engage in? Should we teach children in schools all about your "special lifestyle?" If we discover that this behavior is causing you some horrible sickness should taxpayers who don't do that be expected to fund research so you can get back to business with your 'hobby?'"

Well articulated.

I would expect only obfuscatory answers to your questions.

[tdadams]

See post #50, answer's the same. And thanks for adding nothing (except a gratuitous insult) yourself.

[savedbygrace]

You know, Terry, you are freely passing out the insults, but when I called you on your obvious hypocrisy, you accuse me of adding an insult. Incredible.

Your #50 says you didn't mean it as an ad hominem, but it is so obviously an ad hominem that your comment isn't believable. Besides, that's not the only violation of your homepage creed that is in that first post.

Maybe someday you can look back on what you've written and see the truth of what I'm telling you about it.

It appears you are an unrepentent hypocrite, Terry.

[tdadams]

You know, Terry

You might want to be sure you know who you're talking to first.

Let's parse what I wrote and see if it's really an ad hominem like you keep claiming.

[Racicot is] being called on the carpet by the hyper-paranoid, self-appointed guardians of the troglodyte wing of the Republican Party.

Hyper-paranoid: This group that met with Racicot is by any measure very reactionary and quite a bit more sensitive to any issue concerning homosexuals than your average Joe. The majority of people don't seem to be nearly as troubled by peaceful homosexuals living their life and minding their own business as these guys. So, hyper-paranoid, check.

self-appointed guardians: Has someone appointed them? No? Then they are self-appointed. Check.

...the troglodyte wing of the Republican Party: My dictionary gives as one of the definitions of troglodyte: A person considered to be reclusive, reactionary, out of date, or brutish. I believe this is a fairly apt description of this collection of neo-Puritans.

Perhaps if you don't like what I said about this ad hoc group of finger waggers, it's because the description is all too fitting, and it reveals what a sad bunch they are.