pjMom
backyardconservative
Carol
fuzislippers
iainswife
Obi's Sister
nicedeb
Pat Austin
Jill
Quite Rightly
retrieverheart
Sherry
just a conservative girl
Zilla
Is a Conservative Civil War Brewing?
The Conservative Political Action Conference is having yet another controversy this year. The Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America have decided to boycott. The organizers have invited GOProud to participate and the social conservative groups are none too pleased.
I have my belief systems and I am not ashamed of those beliefs. I believe that I have come about them honestly and with careful thought. That being said I realize that my belief systems is not something that everyone else is going to agree with. One of the things that I really do not have the patience for is people who would rather shut down speech instead of engaging in debate. When we shut down speech nothing will get solved. The only way to bring about awareness is to have the difficult and uncomfortable discussions.
One of the things that I promised myself when I started this blog was that I would stay true to my own voice even when it wasn’t popular. So this post will be no exception. I fully understand and respect the religious beliefs of the far right. In fact, I agree with much of it. But, what I don’t agree with is when the far right paints itself into a corner that appears like intolerance. It happens over and over again.
The conservative blogosphere has yet to finish its discussion on the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It is not a secret that the right and more specifically the far religious right is appalled that gays will serve in openly in the military. It is looked upon as a slippery slope that will eventually bring about the ruin of the Republic. Of course that is somewhat of an oversimplification in many cases, but it certainly is not in all cases. I have read some things that have blown my mind. I can only imagine what people who are not inclined to agree with the right are thinking when they read the same things.
The country is certainly at a crossroads. We are on the verge of insolvency and in danger of real shift in how we live in this country. If there ever was a time that we need more discussion, that time is now. You hear over and over again from the left that the republican party is a small tent. This is a perfect example of how it simply isn’t the case. Although the new meme of the left and the media is that the republican party is making it clear that it no longer has room for moderates in the party. It is one of the many inconsistencies that media never fully answers about its discussions of the Republican Party. But, that is a post for another time.
There are different types of conservatives. There are people who are socially conservative yet will still spend money like water. There are those who are fiscally conservative and more socially liberal. Then we have those that are conservative on both counts. So the party is a bigger tent than the media would like to admit to. But, one of the things that can tear the party apart is this type of stupidity.
I am not saying that any of these groups should change their strongly held beliefs. What I am saying is that they need to stop acting like if the rest of us don’t agree with them that it is acceptable to pick up their toys and go home. What we need to do is challenge each other not shut each other out. By walking away they are becoming exactly what the left accuses of them of; intolerant. If they truly believe in what they are preaching, then stand up and say it. Stand up and defend it. Stand up and show me where I am wrong. Talk to me, don’t shut down discussion.
I was at CPAC last year and some of this reared its head then as well. GOProud was there and gave some sort of presentation that I did not attend, so I can’t attest to what was said. CPAC has gone out of its way to be inclusive as possible to college students. There was an awards program for activists on college campuses across the country. College activists were given a short time to speak about what was happening on their campuses. One activist choose to use his time to state his displeasure of GOProud and was loudly booed by many of the college kids. The moderator asked the audience to respect our right to speech and give the young man his time to speak. Regardless of how I felt about what he saying, I respected his right to say it.
What these social conservatives are saying is that GOProud has no right to speak. To me, that is not a conservative value that I can condone. I don’t agree with every speaker at CPAC. The only way that would happen would be if I chose all the speakers and told them what to discuss. That doesn’t mean that I should not attend and take part of the experience. Who knows, I may end up learning more from the speaker that I don’t agree with than the ones that I do.
The one thing that I am sure of, if we want to put an end to Obamanation, we have to find a way to make room for all republicans. If we continue to tear each other down, we will see another four more years of President Obama. An outcome that is not acceptable. Hold onto your beliefs and stay true to them, but never forget that the answer to bad speech, is more speech.
forefather1, 
Potluck 
nicedeb 8:04 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
I agree, and if there were ever a time when conservatives of all stripes needed to form a united front in the face of the soft tyranny that confronts us, it’s now. It’s truly lamentable that The FRC, and CWA are isolating themselves this way. Disgusting, really. There’s little if anything in the gay agenda that I personally can support, but that doesn’t mean we can’t find common ground on many other (more important) issues. This “my way or the highway” crap smacks of intolerance.
fuzislippers 8:18 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
That’s exactly what they’re doing: isolating themselves. And if that’s what they wish to do, so be it. I support GOProud wholeheartedly, and if some groups don’t want to attend, that’s their choice. What will not happen, what must not happen, is that CPAC (or the GOP or the Tea Parties or even conservatives in general) cast out GOProud because of it. We are not leftists who give in to temper tantrums and boycotts, and we are certainly not going to stand against thoughtful, intelligent, funny, sweet, and wonderful conservatives who happen to be gay.
Yukio Ngaby 8:20 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
Hmm. You beat me to the point Fuzzy.
fuzislippers 8:20 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
by mere seconds
Yukio Ngaby 8:19 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
The CWA and FRC are essentially silencing their own voices outside their own echo chambers. If they want to marginalize themselves, let them. The danger is if CPAC caves in. If that happens, a big problems comes about.
One of the main problems with conservatism is that so many are based in reactionary belief systems.
Yukio Ngaby 8:21 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
Oops. Should be “they WANT to marginalize themseleves, let them.”
fuzislippers 8:29 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
fixed if for you, dear Yukio :)
Yukio Ngaby 8:44 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
Thanks Fuzzy.
I didn’t know that you can modify my comments. Hmm. That gives me pause.
fuzislippers 8:46 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
We all can. I’m not sure why you’d be concerned. I’ve never done it before, nor has anyone else. Do you honestly believe that I would edit your comments to misrepresent what you say? If so, . . . well, I have no words.
Yukio Ngaby 8:51 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
No. I don’t think you would, nor anyone else here. The “you” was generalized (Like I didn’t know you can buy books online”)and not directed at you speficially Fuzzy.
However, the fact that WordPress comments can be modified gives me pause.
fuzislippers 8:53 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
heh yeah, that’s why I don’t comment on leftie blogs on WordPress. Who knows what they’d edit me saying.
Yukio Ngaby 8:56 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
Yeah. I didn’t know about that.
Learn and live cautiously, it seems.
just a conservative girl 9:05 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
CPAC has made it pretty clear that they won’t cave. One of things that they are saying is that GOProud is a sponsor, which they are not. They are just group that is attending and I believe giving a presentation. They did it last year and besides the booing that happened it wasn’t a big deal that I saw. Even with the booing, it happened just before Ron Paul spoke, so the vast majority of the people left were college students. Which from my understanding are far more likely to be behind equal rights for gays. It seems that the younger you are the more likely you are to support things such as gay marriage and the repeal of DADT. Most of GOProud’s platform is easy to get behind, one of the only things left that social conservatives should have a problem with is the stand against a constitutional admendment to ban gay marriage, because DADT repeal is a done deal now.
fuzislippers 9:13 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
I used to support gay marriage, but now I am more in favor of civil unions for everyone to keep religion out of the government’s grasp. The danger of gay marriage is what we are already seeing with DADT repeal: give an inch, people will take a mile. The ink’s not even dry on DADT and they’re already squawking about gay marriage for military members. From there, it’s going to be attacks and law suits against churches who don’t “marry” gay people (because of course the sprogs will seek those out, totally ignoring churches that would marry them . . . simply to continue their attack on Christianity).
This, to me, is a real danger because we’ve seen that they are never happy. For decades, we went along with the PC crap, thinking that if we did this or allowed that, they’d shut up and go away. Big mistake. Big. Look where all that accommodation has gotten us, on the verge of total tyranny in a society awash with immorality and godlessness. No. I stand against gay marriage for the preservation of religious freedom in our society, but I support civil unions. For everyone. This will be fair to all, and ensure that the government and its role in our taxation/benefits is restricted, that it cannot touch the sovereignty of churches.
just a conservative girl 10:12 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
I don’t see the difference between civil unions and marriage. To me the only difference is the word.
This is my view, for what it is worth. I am against same sex marriage. I believe that ultimately marriage is a religous institution and I would rather see the government recoginizing no marriage. I am also pragmatic. Gay marriage will happen in my lifetime or shortly thereafter.
fuzislippers 10:17 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
The difference is that pastors, priests, et al would not be forced by the government to perform marriages that run contrary to their churches’ teachings. It’s an important difference, actually. The primary argument for gay marriage is that gay couples are not afforded the same rights and protections that married couples are. This, to me, is a real problem. The way to address it, however, is not to tear down religion but to change the way we give those rights and protections.
A civil union would require some sort of civil (not religious) ceremony or process, but it would not be a marriage in the eyes of God. Those who believe in God and who are, by their own faith, guided to the sacrament of marriage should be able to have that in their own church. Making “gay marriage” legal would bring governmental authority over religious bodies, that is not acceptable to me. The government should not be permitted to dictate that a Catholic priest “marry” a gay couple as that is not in accordance with their faith/beliefs.
just a conservative girl 10:51 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
I understand what you are saying Fuzzi, but I guess what I am questioning is how would it be legal to force the church? That would be unconstitutional would it not? I know that in DC gay marriage is now legal and I have gotten to know a minister through the tea party and he told me that he does not and will not perform gay marriage.
fuzislippers 11:05 PM on 12/29/2010 Permalink |
It would be “constitutional” the same way that the healthcare mandate is “constitutional” and the same way that every other infringement of our rights and freedoms is “constitutional” (i.e. not at all, but unless challenged legally and taken to the Supremes and actually deemed unconstitutional . . . .). And it wouldn’t be immediate. Keep in mind that this country has come to actually believe that the Constitution contains a “separation of church and state” (it does not) and that this can be “interpreted” in the “living” Constitution to mean everything from barring seniors from prayer in homes that receive fed funding to the forced removal of crosses from our nation’s war memorials. Do you really not think that the far left would challenge at every turn the resistance of churches to perform “legal” “marriage” ceremonies?
Yukio Ngaby 12:11 AM on 12/30/2010 Permalink |
The legal challenge to religion that you describe would undoubtedly lose. But if it didn’t, the result would drive so many people away from the Democrats that the Dems would then be in name and action a Left party– instead of just action. They would also be a party for only between 10-15% of the population.
The problem is that so many people attack gay marriage on the basis of marriage being a sacred institution. It may be, but what makes in sacred? The government’s recognition of it?
Essentially they are saying that the purpose of the Fed govt. is to determine what is sacred and then enact and enforce laws to uphold that version. That itself is an obstruction of the free exercise clause and attempts to enact a state-run religion– which is to be avoided at all costs.
Legal recognition of gay marriage will soon be a reality. The question is how to write the laws, so as not to open the doors to other forms of marriage that are easily corruptable– such as polygamy.
fuzislippers 8:32 AM on 12/30/2010 Permalink |
Yukio, I’m going to reply to you but post as a reply to the main post.
fuzislippers 8:51 AM on 12/30/2010 Permalink |
@Yukio (as noted I moved this over), your idea that they’d kill the party doing that is not realistic. They wouldn’t sue black churches or Latino ones (they sure wouldn’t go directly for the Vatican, for instance), they’d do exactly what they always do: go for white Christian individual churches. They’d find one that wouldn’t marry a gay couple, and they’d attack it relentlessly. The media would cover it lovingly, and perhaps there’d be purple shirts showing up to picket and shout insults at parishioners. Heck, they may even follow parishioners home and “demonstrate” in their front yards (they did this with some random “evil” banker they found in the phone book, remember?). And they’d do it until they finally got a progressive enough judge to rule that the church is violating their LEGAL civil rights and must perform the marriage. Because the attacks would be under the guise of “tolerance” and “civil rights” and “not offending anyone” and not under the umbrella of destroying religion (they’re careful about this, and even quickly back peddle when challenged, as we just saw in the instance of the Fed trying to ban Bible verses and Christmas decorations at a bank in OK–they know they have zero ground to stand on and hope, as always, that we just comply to make the pressure go away And we usually do.). They’ve been attacking Christianity for decades, and haven’t lost the democrat base because they’ve been careful not to step on their base’s toes and not to use the same tactics on their base that they do on we frothing at the mouth rightwing religious fanatics. They know that it was Latinos who voted down gay marriage in California, they know this because the numbers show it. Latinos are overwhelming Catholic, and gay marriage is totally against Catholic beliefs. But you won’t see direct attacks on the Catholic church . . . not until they have their position so sewn up that they can effectively do so without worrying about that voting block. Pretty much how they ended up pushing out the PUMA’s once they were not longer “necessary.”
Marriage is a sacrament to most Christian religions. This is why I favor a civil form of union that does not include the sacrament and that can be extended to gay people without opening the door for further attacks on Christianity. But you’re right, the government currently does recognize marriage as a legal status, and because of that, it really is a matter of civil rights. If we let atheists marry, and we do and should, then there is no reason not to extend that to others who do not see marriage as a sacrament.
Your point about putting the government “in charge” of what is sacred is a good one. There is little doubt that this is indeed part of the reason for the total resistance to any talk of civil unions. If the government “rules” that marriage is open to gay people, then churches will be forced to perform them. Period. It may take ten years, or a hundred, but that’s the way with progressive creep. They get this, and then they push for that, and then before you know it, we are a totalitarianism dictatorship (but the sprogs would call it something less repellent like a “Socialist Republic” or a “Communal Democracy” or some such garbage).
Yukio Ngaby 7:13 PM on 12/30/2010 Permalink |
But the judge’s ruling (1) would be challenged and eventually taken to the Supreme Court. where the case would be lost (2) would effect Black and Latino churches– do you believe there are no gay rights advocates within the Balck and Latino communities? The Dems are not going to the floor for the gay vote, and risk losing the Latino vote (which isn’t really theirs anyway– let’s look at the demographics of Texas and Arizonia for starters) over it. It just won’t happen.
I don’t see how government recognition of gay marriage is going to lead to a totalitarian dictatorship. Gay marriage will be recognized because a majority of Americans will want it to be recognized– that doesn’t mean that a majority of Americans want to see gay marriages performed in their own churches, nor that they want their churches ruled over by judicial and executive fiat. Pragmatic Leftists want to avoid direct challenges to religious authority (and even the end around you describe is a direct challenge and would be recognized as such), because they know they will lose the fight.
Fuzzy, look at what happens when you get progressive creep in the form of the Obama Admin. and Pelosi– you get a Republican tsunami. People are not sheep blindly following the media and the Left. They have beliefs and values that they will vote form and eventually stand up for. The only question is will the GOP make good on their promises and follow up this rejection of the Obama/Pelosi agenda.
fuzislippers 9:35 PM on 12/30/2010 Permalink |
I didn’t say the government’s recognition of gay marriage will lead to a totalitarian dictatorship, Sometimes I really do wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse. Here’s what I wrote:
“If the government “rules” that marriage is open to gay people, then churches will be forced to perform them. Period. It may take ten years, or a hundred, but that’s the way with progressive creep. They get this, and then they push for that, and then before you know it, we are a totalitarianism dictatorship (but the sprogs would call it something less repellent like a “Socialist Republic” or a “Communal Democracy” or some such garbage).”
Let’s break it down (I’ve used caps for what I think caused your misunderstanding of my meaning):
“If the government “rules” that marriage is open to gay people, then churches will be forced to perform them. Period. It may take ten years, or a hundred, but THAT’s the way with progressive creep.”
Here I am saying that the challenge may not work immediately, that it may take a long time. Then, in an obviously inept attempt to explain the length of time it may take, I state”that’s the way with progressive creep.” The “that” here refers not to gay marriage being legalized but to the slow, steady, patient “creep” that sprogs engage in constantly (the best example is ObamaCare, after a hundred years of trying, they came close to getting socialized medicine. After that failed, sprogs assured their base that what they did get was all they could, it was a “starter home” on the real goal, and that they will continue to build on that foundation.). Does that make sense now?
Then I wrote:
“They get this, and then they push for that, and then before you know it, we are a totalitarianism dictatorship (but the sprogs would call it something less repellent like a “Socialist Republic” or a “Communal Democracy” or some such garbage).”
Here, I am using the first part of a well-worn phrase “this, that, and the other thing.” So the “this” is not gay marriage, but “this” thing, whatever pet target the sprogs have in their sights at any given point. One thing that might be is the banning of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, or perhaps the removal of crosses from war memorials, or perhaps it’s banning children from flying the American flag on their bikes. “This,” as I intended it, was not specific, but any of a number of seemingly small things that sprogs attack and dismantle, chipping away at America.
Because I did not mean gay marriage with “this,” it’s safe to say that I also did not mean gay marriage by “that.” Here again, I meant any of the same list of sprog targets (to which insisting that gay marriage be performed in churches will surely be added). My point being that they have long used patience in dismantling our society and our Constitution, and that the end result, their stated aim, is the “fundamental transformation” of America. That end, I assert, will be a totalitarian dictatorship that they will call something warm and fuzzy to trick people into thinking they’re still free.
I said that is where we are heading now and have been for decades (actually about a hundred years). Every millimeter the sprogs get is a step closer to what they think of a socialist utopia and what we all know would be tyranny. The creep I am talking about has been happening in our schools, our government (local, state, and federal), our media, and in our courts. You know this. You also know that I know this. I will, however, in future, not rely on our previous discussions or understanding to make a point. Instead, I will spell it all out to the best of my ability and hope that it’s clear.
Yukio Ngaby 2:43 AM on 12/31/2010 Permalink |
Geez Fuzzy… I seem to remember when I said “I didn’t know you could change my comments” and then you immediately believed I was worried of specifically you of changing my words around.
Yes, I realize that you’re saying that gay marriage is a symptom of an over all “Progressive creep.”
“I said that is where we are heading now and have been for decades (actually about a hundred years). Every millimeter the sprogs get is a step closer to what they think of a socialist utopia and what we all know would be tyranny. The creep I am talking about has been happening in our schools, our government (local, state, and federal), our media, and in our courts. You know this. You also know that I know this.”
The problem is that you seem to believe that there is a specific goal behind Progressive creep (the totalitarian dictatorship/socialist utopia), where I believe that changes in history grow out of local causes, historical circumstances, and political agendas that reflect specific times and places (this is not relativism, BTW). That is not to say that political ideals and goals don’t play a part, but I don’t believe that there’s an overall gameplan in effect. There are certain viewpoints and theories championed and then pushed, but that’s a far cry from what you seem to be describing– a deliberate, fully-controlled push along a thought out plan.
Rather, I believe that there is a specific economic and political theory (Marxism, or linquistically watered down into socialism) that guides the American Left’s positions, but are subject to the specific circumstances of the time (remember back in the 50s and 60s when the Israelis were the good guys for the Left? The movie “Exodus,” etc. Yet, now the Israelis are the bad guys…). It’s fluid, largely reactionary, and, being revolutionary, aligns itself with what the American Left perceives as the underclass of the time (amusingly, this means that success disqualifies the Left’s favors). Thus its goals, values, and agendas depend on circumstances of the time and place, and not on a specifc shared goal being reached by calculated measures.
My resistance to the Left is because of the massive amounts of needless damage it can cause in its unrealistic idiocy, and not because I see them setting up a tyrannical dictatorship. The amount of damage thay can cause could be catastophic, but what would likely emerge afterward would not be their goal. Look at Cambodia, for instance…
Yes, there are some who believe that a Marxist dictatorship is the way to go, and that it can be reached in progressive stages. Simply sharing that belief does not make people into a homogenous bunch all agreeing on the courses of action forward. Look at the Soviet Union’s turbulent history. Look at China’s history. Who was initially being killed in the Cultural Revolution and why?
This idea of creeping anything really just does not have any historical prescedent. Change generally happens as a sort of “natural” evolution according to what works (this is not Social Darwinism, but more like functionalism) or by abrupt violence. This is not to say that political pragmatism is always good (feudalism was very stable and lasted centuries), nor that abrupt violence is always bad (the American Revolution, the Civil War). Besides, people plan on things for their lifetimes, and large political groups have trouble maintaining shared agendas for even a few years.
So when you talk about gay marriage as being a part of an overall creeping Progressive attack on religion, I have to disagree. Yes, there are some people who will try to exploit it for a Leftist anti-religious agenda, but they’ll fail. Religion has always had its detractors, and will continue to weather the storm of Leftist and Ayn Randian atheists– both of whom see it (correctly) as an enemy to their political and ethical agendas.
The reason that gay marriage will succeed is not because of the Left’s value system, but because the majority of Americans will eventualy want it to succeed. Which is the way things should work in a republic.
“I will, however, in future, not rely on our previous discussions or understanding to make a point. Instead, I will spell it all out to the best of my ability and hope that it’s clear.”
It’s always good to be as clear as possible, Fuzzy. We’re dealing with very abstract ideas here, most of which can be easily misunderstood (by both of us) and have more than one interpretation.
fuzislippers 9:23 AM on 12/31/2010 Permalink |
So you think that the myriad socialist progressive “community organizing,” GOTV, media (social and fringe), PACs, and other groups aren’t working toward a single goal? You think they just sprung up spontaneously in response to socio-cultural conditions? You think that there isn’t big money being thrown at “revolution” (be that passive and progressively integrated or literal and violently achieved)? You think it’s an accident of our time? Really?
Yukio Ngaby 9:31 AM on 12/31/2010 Permalink |
No I’m not saying that it all “just sprung up spontaneously in response to socio-cultural conditions.”
But there’s a difference between being united in a common belief that has an pot-of-gold ideal at the end, and following a blueprint to a specific goal.
“You think that there isn’t big money being thrown at ‘revolution’ (be that passive and progressively integrated or literal and violently achieved)?”
Where did I say there’s no money being thrown at Leftist agendas?
“You think it’s an accident of our time? Really?”
Where have I said accident? I am not saying that it is random molecules banging together that makes socialism.
There is a difference between detailed plans, and believing in a political philosophy and accordingly having your views and actions shaped by it.
fuzislippers 9:47 AM on 12/31/2010 Permalink |
Right, and having those views and actions funded by, taught (don’t forget the fun Alinsky summer camps that tax payers are funding), followed through. Discover the Networks (founded and run by former radical leftie David Horowitz) has a good overview of the various groups working to bring down American capitalism and our lifestyle, values, beliefs. It’s worth checking out even if you don’t agree that there are inter-related groups working toward the same goal: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/
For the record, I don’t think that every liberal or every Democrat is a part of it. I very much believe that many Americans (I call them citizen liberals) are still Democrats in the old sense, but the party’s changed (I would say infiltrated). It’s now the stomping ground of radicals and progressives, commies and socialists. Isn’t it strange that “old school” dems are now called “blue dogs” while radical socialist progressives are called “democrats”? That’s some shift, especially considering that fewer than 20% of Americans are progressives. Must have “just happened.”
Yukio Ngaby 10:10 AM on 12/31/2010 Permalink |
I’m not saying there isn’t a concerted effort– but that, again, is not a plan. Uniting behind a political and economic philosophy does not equal marching according to a master plan.
What you seem to be describing is something coordinated with military precision over the scope of 100 years all inching forward to bring about a specific end.
I don’t see that. I see a political / economic philosophy that has undergone a great deal of change, that has been reassessed by many different people in many different ways, that has changed its allies and pet agendas multiple times. There is no continuity aside from the Marxist view of economics requiring a centralized, planned economy.
Yes, groups push toward their anti-capitalist goals. But what does this prove? That they exist? That they’re well-funded? Have I suggested that they did not or are not?
fuzislippers 7:58 PM on 12/30/2010 Permalink |
Seriously great vid from RightScoop of GOProud chairman pwning MSNBC buffoon on subject of gays in the GOP: http://www.therightscoop.com/goproud-chairman-gets-better-of-msnbc-host
Yukio Ngaby 2:58 AM on 12/31/2010 Permalink |
Great find. Nice vid.
What I really liked was the way that the anchor (Cenk was it?) refused to look at the GOProud guy as anything but gay. All of the GOProud guy’s views, values, thoughts, beliefs, etc. were expected to be completely wiped away, and that he would solely be defined by fact that he’s homosexual. That is so typically Left…
And I love how the whole point of this interview was for the host to rail on about how the GOP hates gays. That’s what the Left is left with. They can’t argue on policy anymore because Obama and this Congress have been absolute failures, so they have to push manufactured images– Left equals all that is good and tolerant, Right is all bad, bigoted White males and corporations. LOL.
Guess what… It’s not going to work.
fuzislippers 9:36 AM on 12/31/2010 Permalink |
Yep, the contrast between a thinking (free thinking) adult and a foot-stomping child was stark. Let’s just hope that the koolaid-swilling loons who watch that channel regularly see it. This reaction (astounded, condescending, rude) is typical of how gay conservatives are treated, it seems. I read HillBuzz (it’s a great site, btw), and am constantly taken aback by how the boyz (gay Hillary supporters who learned first-hand how little the Dems care about anyone or anything) are treated for being gay conservatives. Treated by the left, that is. They write often about how warm and welcoming conservatives are to them. Tammy Bruce relates similar stories (as a lesbian conservative). For that matter, so do black conservatives. The left really is down to identity politics, hoping against hope that it can beg, bribe, and bully people they see as one dimensional (black, gay, Latino) to see themselves that way. It’s sad. And I agree, it’s not going to work. Especially with great heroes like Barron from GOProud representing conservatism so very very well. Maybe he should head up the RNC?
Yukio Ngaby 9:43 AM on 12/31/2010 Permalink |
Identity politics is a cornerstone of the Left– although they certainly didn’t invent it in American politics. It allows them to identify and then court what they perceive as the underclass, which is absolutely essential for their revolutionist-minded political philosophy.
Those who don’t fit in, or deny their roots or whatever, are treated in a hideous manner by the Left. Witness Jeneane Garofalo’s rants, if you can stomach them. I barely can.
fuzislippers 9:51 AM on 12/31/2010 Permalink |
No, she’s intolerable. But all too representative of the far left. I do, though, love how they sprinkle in calls for civility between racist, vile, hate-filled attacks (not Garofalo, I mean the far left more generally.).
Chicago Daily Observer » Blog Archive » How bout a truce:) 8:47 AM on 12/31/2010 Permalink |
[…] represented do not necessarily represent those of the Chicago Daily Observer.] Good discussion at Potluck on GOProud.I'm for civil unions. Small government trumps […]
NYE Laundry « Politicaljunkie Mom 4:02 PM on 12/31/2010 Permalink |
[…] stuff happening at Potluck. Just a Conservative Girl asks if a civil war brews for the GOP. And Pundette asks if NYC unions did intentionally slow the […]
GayCons: Defusing the Bomb SENTRY JOURNAL | SENTRY JOURNAL 9:20 PM on 01/02/2011 Permalink |
[…] due to the inclusion of GOProud, a gay conservative organization. Words like “civil war” and “crossroads” have been used to describe the rift. I’m not buying […]
RightHandMan 6:53 PM on 01/03/2011 Permalink |
I linked to this story in my latest: http://www.sentryjournal.com/2011/01/02/gaycons-defusing-the-bomb/
forefather1 2:02 AM on 02/03/2011 Permalink |
I’ve been reading this very interesting discussion I watch in amazement as the homosexual agenda advances here in the states as it has in Europe. I am old enough to remember when it was in the medical books as a medical and mental disorder, as well as a felony in the law books. A sexual deviancy, I think it was labeled.. I also remember when pornography was considered an evil worth fighting by a society that felt victimized by this crime. I’m sure that it was the pornographers and their money that advanced the ‘industry’, to the point where they have their way with this country, right before our eyes, and the eyes of our children and their children. It’s the same with the homosexuals, no? The game of influence. Pay off this one and that one, threaten this one and that one.
Anyone can see how sick and perverse the porn industry is. It is tolerated and accepted because it makes a lot of money for the Democrats mostly, and I’m sure quite a bit is left over for the Republicans also. Contributions, taxes, pay offs. Enough so that no one hears of anyone taking any kind of stand against pornography these days, does one? Even though it is one of the main selling points of our enemies abroad as to why we are worthy of destruction. The debate over porn has been ‘corraled’ into such unworthy words as ‘freedom of speech’, victimless crime’, and other such terms that help the losers in the battle not feel like such losers. When one looks into the pornographic world even just a peek…one sees the enslavement going on. One sees the many victims of this great deception.
The homosexual agenda is a lot like that too. There is no debate about the negatives of a society accepting this ‘on the fly’ agenda. What if they are wrong about things. What if the Christian belief that it is an abomination to God, and that He will judge a nation that goes down that abominable road happens to be correct? Christians put God’s Word on things before any doctors’s or lawyers’ ‘new’ findings, and therefore are greatly concerned about where the nation is headed in these matters. I think when God judges a nation that nation usualy gets it’s ass kicked in public. What I’m trying to say is that the Republican party is talking to the God of Abraham,(not Lincoln) Issac, and Jacob, (the Christian God) when it ask God to bless the U.S.A. Let’s be very cautious about things that can get our collective as well as our individual asses kicked.