Video: GOProud chief defends conservatism from MSNBC tool

posted at 7:42 pm on December 30, 2010 by Allahpundit

I wonder what inspired this booking. Did Uygur think Barron was going to come on and join him in a round of right-bashing because of the CPAC boycotts? Or was the point simply to have him on so that Uygur could laugh derisively for the benefit of MSNBC’s viewers when Barron inevitably defended conservatives? As background on this, read Gabe Malor’s post at Ace’s site this morning listing some of the socially conservative groups who still plan to attend CPAC notwithstanding GOProud’s participation. There is no “social con boycott” of the event; frankly, it does social conservatives a disservice to suggest that there is.

Barron does a nice job here but could have fielded Uygur’s question better about why so many Republicans voted against repealing DADT. There may be, as RCP argues, a generational gap on this question in Congress, with senators in their early 50s — even conservatives ones like Richard Burr — more prone to siding with the left on gay issues than older Republicans are. That’s perfectly in keeping with national polling showing more tolerance for gays among younger demographics. Which is to say, per Uygur’s critique, while the GOP hasn’t traditionally welcomed gays, it’s far more likely to do so in the future. Click the image to watch.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8

You know you can get banned for spamimg a thread…maybe you mom needs to pound you on the back, you seem to be spinning around in circles repeating yourself.

lovingmyUSA on December 31, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Having fun? You just described yourself, sweetie.

JannyMae on December 31, 2010 at 9:00 PM

there have been books written about it. of course you would just dismiss them all…just like the connection between darwin and hitler… – right4life on December 31, 2010 at 8:34 PM

I am sure that there have been books been written about “it”. There is one infamous one that is often used by people such as yourself. If gay haters can say that the NAZI Party was a homosexual movement, just think of all the people they would win over to their cause. It is strange that if the Nazi movement was a homosexual movement how was the German population supposed to grow/expand far into Eastern Europe As for the Darwin and Hitler connection don’t even go there. Darwin was an intellectual who presented to the world the “Theory of Natural Selection”……………….not the doctrine of genocide against people thought to be inferior or flawed.

BTW Frederick the Great of Germany was homosexual. Voltaire made that fact very well-known when he was removed from Frederick’s inner circle. I would suggest that you start reading books about him. He was an idol of Hitler …… so maybe you are right about Hitler’s sexuality.

BTW Hitler received the Iron Cross in WWI. The man who put him in for the medal was a Jew………..go figure.

SC.Charlie on December 31, 2010 at 9:02 PM

If gay haters can say that the NAZI Party was a homosexual movement…

It’s come to this. I hope it’s just right4life saying that.

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:07 PM

BTW Hitler received the Iron Cross in WWI. The man who put him in for the medal was a Jew………..go figure.

SC.Charlie on December 31, 2010 at 9:02 PM

I was reading sir Martin Gilbert’s history of the Jews in the 20th Century last night and Gilbert mentioned that.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2010 at 9:10 PM

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:07 PM

…if you thought that the Palin threads got crazy…

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2010 at 9:11 PM

al-Qaida is also a homosexual movement.

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:23 PM

right4life: I DO apologize for lumping you with aKzed.

I still do not apologize for defending my friends…ladyingray and lovingmyusa.
While I don’t always agree with them they’re good women.

I also will continue to welcome homosexual/lesbian conservatives to ‘the fold’ despite not being a fan of their…behavior

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2010 at 8:41 PM

well thank you, thats very decent of you.

I’m fine with gays in the conservative movement…my point is that you cannot support gay marriage, whether you’re gay or straight, and the loss of freedom it entails, and have my support.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:32 PM

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:23 PM

I thought they were more …into…sheep.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2010 at 9:33 PM

I have to get ready for work, so I want to say Happy New Year to all…we had better be ready for this next year!

lovingmyUSA on December 31, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Genghis Khan? All queer.

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:34 PM

As for the Darwin and Hitler connection don’t even go there. Darwin was an intellectual who presented to the world the “Theory of Natural Selection”……………….not the doctrine of genocide against people thought to be inferior or flawed.

SC.Charlie on December 31, 2010 at 9:02 PM

very interesting…I KNEW you wouldn’t agree…so list for me the LOWER RACES darwin is referring to:

“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).

isn’t eliminating LOWER RACES genocide?

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:34 PM

I’m fine with gays in the conservative movement…my point is that you cannot support gay marriage, whether you’re gay or straight, and the loss of freedom it entails, and have my support.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:32 PM

I support civil unions for homosexuals-not marriage.
We agree on that.
Thanks.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2010 at 9:34 PM

I have to get ready for work, so I want to say Happy New Year to all…we had better be ready for this next year!

lovingmyUSA on December 31, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Back at ya Girlfriend!

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2010 at 9:35 PM

and of course historians have long made the connection between darwin and hitler…

The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”

The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”

John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”

In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:36 PM

I support civil unions for homosexuals-not marriage.
We agree on that.
Thanks.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2010 at 9:34 PM

I don’t agree with civil unions…because they’re just marriage by another name.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:36 PM

It’s come to this. I hope it’s just right4life saying that.

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:07 PM

so tell me was Roehm gay? how about hess? hmmm??

and the odds are hitler was too.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:37 PM

I’m fine with gays in the conservative movement…my point is that you cannot support gay marriage, whether you’re gay or straight, and the loss of freedom it entails, and have my support.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:32 PM

The other day you posted a NYT link that said religious orgs that facilitate adoption could perhaps be forced to treat homosexual applicants the same as hetro applicants. I have some concern about that because I think it’s best for a child to have the benefit of a male/female environment. It’s preferred but not crucial, as other factors come into play.

In what other ways will we lose our liberty if Fred and Ted marry?

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:38 PM

so tell me was Roehm gay? how about hess? hmmm??

and the odds are hitler was too.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:37 PM

What are the odds that you’re obsessed?

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:41 PM

In what other ways will we lose our liberty if Fred and Ted marry?

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:38 PM

did you miss this part?

Marc D. Stern, whose many years handling religious freedom cases for the American Jewish Congress have made him an expert in the area, can hardly be identified as a conservative agitator. Yet he firmly believes that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will make clashes with religious liberty “inevitable.”

“No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them,” Mr. Stern has written. But for other individuals and institutions opposed on religious grounds to same-sex marriage, its legal acceptance would have “substantial impact.”

He has in mind schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards, like kosher caterers and marriage counselors.

and you’ll find this interesting…

Doctors Deny Lesbian Artificial Insemination
‘You Can’t Opt Out of the Law Because of Your Religious Beliefs,’ Says Lambda

California’s high court on Monday barred doctors from withholding medical care to gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.

The ruling was unanimous, a contrast to the state Supreme Court’s 4-3 schism in May legalizing gay marriage.

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state’s law, which “imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations.”

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4941377&page=1

so honestly it looks like we’ll lose all our rights to disagree with gays in any way.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:44 PM

What are the odds that you’re obsessed?

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:41 PM

yeah I admit it, I am obsessed with freedom and liberty.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:45 PM

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:38 PM

My extremely heterosexual but never-married sister-in-law just became an adoptive single mother. I’m the only one who is against what she did-though not her ‘daughter’-because i think her selfish choice is denying that child the two parent(mother/father) family she needs and deserves.
It goes without saying that I don’t believe that homosexuals/lesbians should be approved as adoptive parents…for EXACTLY the same reason as I stated above!

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2010 at 9:47 PM

So people will not be able to discriminate against gays as easily? The freedom to be ….-trying to find another word for bigoted- ignorant and mean will be infringed?

You still think being gay is a “choice”, right?

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:47 PM

SC.Charlie on December 31, 2010 at 9:02 PM

and you do know that Galton, the founder of the EUGENICS movement was darwin’s cousin, right?

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:48 PM

So people will not be able to discriminate against gays as easily? The freedom to be ….-trying to find another word for bigoted- ignorant and mean will be infringed?

You still think being gay is a “choice”, right?

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:47 PM

so in other words, those who disagree with the gays lose their freedom…do you plan on putting them in jail…ala ‘hate crimes’?

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:49 PM

You still think being gay is a “choice”, right?

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:47 PM

ok, lets say its not. is pedophilia a choice?

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:49 PM

yeah I admit it, I am obsessed with freedom and liberty.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:45 PM

YOUR liberty, but not necessarily others. When things get inconvenient, you turn statist.

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:38 PM

My extremely heterosexual but never-married sister-in-law just became an adoptive single mother. I’m the only one who is against what she did-though not her ‘daughter’-because i think her selfish choice is denying that child the two parent(mother/father) family she needs and deserves.
It goes without saying that I don’t believe that homosexuals/lesbians should be approved as adoptive parents…for EXACTLY the same reason as I stated above!

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Actually, I might prefer a homosexual couple to a single applicant in an adoption. To raise a child alone is to spread one’s self too thin. It’s “doable”, but not optimal.

Also geography must be taken into account. If the gay applicants are from an area where they’ll be mocked, the child will be hurt, so in such a case, I’d prefer the single Mom.

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:53 PM

YOUR liberty, but not necessarily others. When things get inconvenient, you turn statist.

this is an obvious lie. gays have all the rights I do…hell they have special rights already..as proven by my post above.

now answer the question is pedophilia a choice?

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:54 PM

so in other words, those who disagree with the gays lose their freedom…do you plan on putting them in jail…ala ‘hate crimes’?

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:49 PM

I don’t like the idea of thought crimes.

ok, lets say its not. is pedophilia a choice?

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Why not compare homosexuality to mass-murder? Oh wait, you already have with the Nazis. *facepalm*

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:55 PM

this is an obvious lie. gays have all the rights I do…hell they have special rights already..as proven by my post above.

now answer the question is pedophilia a choice?

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:54 PM

If gays can’t marry, they don’t have the same rights as hetros. This is an easy concept.

Do you believe the Jonah myth? How old is the Earth? Ballpark?

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Why not compare homosexuality to mass-murder? Oh wait, you already have with the Nazis. *facepalm*

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:55 PM

was hess gay? was Roehm? I posted earlier quotes from Ellie Weisel, and Shirer…were they lying?

of course you can’t answer the question about pedophilia…because its just another sexual orientation…and if homosexuality is inborn, then so is pedophilia…and why don’t they get the same rights as gays do…after all, they can’t help it.

of course with people like the ‘safe schools czar’ apparently pedophilia is just fine.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:59 PM

If gays can’t marry, they don’t have the same rights as hetros. This is an easy concept.

Do you believe the Jonah myth? How old is the Earth? Ballpark?

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:57 PM

yeah they do…they can marry someone of the other sex, just like I can…and marriage isn’t a ‘right’ anyway….it takes two (or more) to marry…rights don’t require someone else to do something.

why do you think Jonah is a myth? were you there?

as far as the age of the earth…why don’t you answer my question about pedophilia first. lets see if you have the guts…

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:01 PM

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:57 PM

and apparently since you’re a big darwiniac, why don’t you list the LOWER RACES darwin was referring to in the following:

“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:02 PM

What we have here folks is an excellent display of the sum total of the intellectual prowlness of HA’s chief mental midget. You are out of your league, go hide behind your mother or your wife, you ignorant beta male…
lovingmyUSA on December 31, 2010 at 8:13 PM

As one of those people “throwing Bible verses around,” I would like to encourage you to take account of your own words.

Re-read your posts of the last several pages. Quite apart from adding to the conversation/debate, you have contributed to its degradation. You disagree with right4life, fine. You take issue with the content or tone of his posts, fine. You want to rebuke him, fine! You have gone way beyond that. You are correct that Christ, the incarnate Word of God, is our standard as Christians, but you demand others meet His standard while refusing to meet it yourself.

Your posts continue to contradict the Scripture or biblical principles that you allude to, and you do not even realize it. You mentioned the parable of the parable of the Good Samaritan, but have you thought about how you are treating your neighbor, right4life? In between posts about limp male appendages and ejaculation that is.

Or is right4life not your neighbor because you “loathe people who attempt to “preach” the Bible to [you]”?
If you are unsure how to answer, then you might remember a certain parable that Christ told in response to the question “who is my neighbor?”.

Rather than a neighbor (or even a fellow Christian) you treat him like an enemy, except, oops – - I am pretty sure that Christ also had something to say about how we are to treat our enemies. Heads up! Here comes another dreaded Bible verse: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, ‘Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For He makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?”.

I am making the point of addressing you instead of your other interlocutor, because you are the one who throughout this entire thread has demanded that other Christians meet the standard of Christ, even as you flouted it in the very next parade of posts.

If a self-professed Christian is going to police the comments of other Christians and reprimand them for falling short of the standard set by Christ, then by all means have at it, but be prepared to be measured by that same standard.

Threshing Flora on December 31, 2010 at 10:04 PM

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:57 PM

still waiting for an answer about the question on pedophilia…and the LOWER RACES that darwin was referring to….

don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath…

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:06 PM

was hess gay? was Roehm? I posted earlier quotes from Ellie Weisel, and Shirer…were they lying?

of course you can’t answer the question about pedophilia…because its just another sexual orientation…and if homosexuality is inborn, then so is pedophilia…and why don’t they get the same rights as gays do…after all, they can’t help it.

of course with people like the ‘safe schools czar’ apparently pedophilia is just fine.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:59 PM

I won’t answer the pedo question because ….. do apples and oranges mean anything to you?

yeah they do…they can marry someone of the other sex, just like I can…and marriage isn’t a ‘right’ anyway….it takes two (or more) to marry…rights don’t require someone else to do something.

why do you think Jonah is a myth? were you there?

as far as the age of the earth…why don’t you answer my question about pedophilia first. lets see if you have the guts…

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:01 PM

For a gay to marry a member of the opposite sex, well that’s just not gay. You eliminate the distinction.

As for the Jonah myth, I think it’s sane to assume a person can’t live inside a whale. So just how old is the Earth? Ballpark?

By pointing out Darwin’s faults, you seem to think you elevate myth over science?

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 10:10 PM

I won’t answer the pedo question because ….. do apples and oranges mean anything to you?

uh huh isn’t pedophilia a sexual orientation? you just don’t have the integrity to answer the question…because the answer would blow your argument to hell…we both know it.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:12 PM

For a gay to marry a member of the opposite sex, well that’s just not gay. You eliminate the distinction.

well apparently they do it all the time…otherwise your belief that its inborn would mean homosexuality would be bred out of the population.

As for the Jonah myth, I think it’s sane to assume a person can’t live inside a whale. So just how old is the Earth? Ballpark?

first we don’t know its a whale…second you weren’t there..you have no proof. just an assumption. as much as you hate it, THERE IS A GOD IN HEAVEN..AND HE DOES WHAT HE WILLS.

By pointing out Darwin’s faults, you seem to think you elevate myth over science?

you think evolution is science?? LOL oh thats a good one…ok list the mutations that led to the eye, IN ORDER…

you can’t…no one can…but it doesn’t matter, you still believe the eye evolved…its called FAITH…and thats all evolution is…atheist faith.

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 10:10 PM

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:15 PM

sorry for the quote mess…

By pointing out Darwin’s faults, you seem to think you elevate myth over science?

you think evolution is science?? LOL oh thats a good one…ok list the mutations that led to the eye, IN ORDER…

you can’t…no one can…but it doesn’t matter, you still believe the eye evolved…its called FAITH…and thats all evolution is…atheist faith.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:17 PM

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 10:10 PM

you really want to argue evolution with me? make my day…

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:22 PM

uh huh isn’t pedophilia a sexual orientation? you just don’t have the integrity to answer the question…because the answer would blow your argument to hell…we both know it.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Pedophilia is not in the same zip code as a relationship of two consenting adults, but then again, you believe that a dude hung out in a whale’s belly for three days and evolution has nothing to do with science, and that the Nazis were a homosexual movement first and foremost, disregarding Mao and Stalin, who murdered more but were hetro. You are willfully ignorant, which is worse than just plain ignorant. Are you a liberal plant designed to make us look stupid?

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Pedophilia is not in the same zip code as a relationship of two consenting adults,

why because YOU say so? how bigoted and hateful of you. here’s the definition of sexual orientation…tell me how pedophilia does NOT meet it…

Sexual orientation describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction to men, women, both genders, neither gender, or another gender. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation is enduring[1] and also refers to a person’s sense of “personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them.”[2] The consensus among most contemporary scholars in the field is that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice.[3][4][5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation

don’t worry, I know you can’t.

but then again, you believe that a dude hung out in a whale’s belly for three days and evolution has nothing to do with science, and that the Nazis were a homosexual movement first and foremost, disregarding Mao and Stalin, who murdered more but were hetro. You are willfully ignorant, which is worse than just plain ignorant. Are you a liberal plant designed to make us look stupid?

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 10:25 PM

nice lie…I didn’t say first and foremost, but when you’re losing the argument (badly) you have to set up straw men (ie lie)

you haven’t posted any proof that the story of Jonah is a myth…your word isn’t good enough…post some science, and lets see what you have, since you’re so ‘scientific’

mao and stalin, were like you, ATHEISTS…do you really want to go there?

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:29 PM

to make us look stupid?

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 10:25 PM

oh as far as making you look stupid, you’re doing a fine job on your own….don’t need any help.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:31 PM

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 10:25 PM

oh yeah, don’t forget to LIST THE LOWER RACES DARWIN REFERS TO

and that list of mutations, IN ORDER, that led to the eye…

should be easy for such a renowned ‘scientist’ like you….*smirk*

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:33 PM

There’s little air in a whale’s belly. Proof. It’s a myth designed to teach a lesson. If you believe in such literally, you have a logic problem. If you were born in Pakistan, you’d be a fundamentalist Muslim.

I’m agnostic BTW.

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 10:33 PM

There’s little air in a whale’s belly. Proof. It’s a myth designed to teach a lesson. If you believe in such literally, you have a logic problem.

I’m agnostic BTW.

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 10:33 PM

so? looks like you have a logic problem…you do know God is supernatural right, and can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants.

you have posted nothing to prove it didn’t happen…and since the bible is accurate, even in the small things…

Museum’s tablet lends new weight to Biblical truthDalya Alberge, Arts Correspondent
The British Museum yesterday hailed a discovery within a modest clay tablet in its collection as a breakthrough for biblical archaeology – dramatic proof of the accuracy of the Old Testament.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056362.ece

why should I believe you?

If you were born in Pakistan, you’d be a fundamentalist Muslim.

actually you’d be the fundamentalist muslim…going along with the popular opinion of whatever culture you are in.

and if you actually read or understood the bible, you’d know that no matter where I was, I’d be HIS…ie a christian…because HE foreordained it…get a clue.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:38 PM

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:38 PM
I’m Catholic and I’m not an everything-in- the-Bible is meant to be taken literally Christian.
My husband’s a Calvinist and holds a similar view.
Many conservative Christians think like we do.
Thanks.
Btw: I really do hope that you and yours have a Happy New Year!

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2010 at 10:46 PM

I’m Catholic and I’m not an everything-in- the-Bible is meant to be taken literally Christian.
My husband’s a Calvinist and holds a similar view.
Many conservative Christians think like we do.
Thanks.
Btw: I really do hope that you and yours have a Happy New Year!

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2010 at 10:46 PM

uh I didn’t say it is. like in revelation where the stars fall to earth..the stars are angels…

but I believe the story of Jonah is literal, don’t you? and if not, why not?

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:48 PM

Btw: I really do hope that you and yours have a Happy New Year!

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2010 at 10:46 PM

thank you, and happy new years to you!

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:49 PM

Jesus sure thought the story of Jonah was literal…

Matthew 12:40
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:52 PM

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 10:52 PM

As far as Jonah…like many Aspies(I’m on the autistic spectrum) I’m a ‘logic’ junkie.
Jonah just doesn’t seem logical to me.
I know that faith is believing in what I haven’t seen. I still can’t make Jonah work.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2010 at 11:18 PM

I still can’t make Jonah work.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2010 at 11:18 PM

Jesus sure believed it…I’ll take His word for it.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 11:22 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2010 at 11:18 PM

you do know your ‘logic’ is meaningless to God, right? you cannot explain the trinity with logic.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 11:24 PM

1 Corinthians 1:

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

I’ll gladly be HIS fool…

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 11:28 PM

yeah I admit it, I am obsessed with freedom and liberty.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:45 PM

YOUR liberty, but not necessarily others. When things get inconvenient, you turn statist.

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:53 PM

As do you. Unless I have misread you – maybe I have – you sound amenable to Christians being forced by the State to provide services that violate their consciences, to say nothing of their creeds and catechisms.

So doctors and nurses would have to perform or assist with abortions if they want to be licensed to practice medicine? Or churches would have to rent their facilities for a same-sex wedding ceremony or else lose their tax-exempt status? Or photographers or florists would lose their licenses for declining business? Or Christian evangelists will be jailed for “hate speech” for preaching against sin?

You think that can all happen and still leave us with a free society? It will not.

I know people hate Christians, and I know that we often given them reason to rail against us in justifiable anger, but this whole thing – what is left of this free republic – will fall without that cornerstone of religious liberty.
Religious liberty, like nothing else, creates a space between the individual and the State. If even that space is placed under the purview of the State, then there is absolutely nothing outside the State. Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.

I have complete confidence that most, nay, the vast majority of homosexuals and same-sex marriage supporters have no interest in using the State to these ends. They just want to live and love and be left alone…just like the rest of us.

But there will be a few (there are already) who will not be content with that. They will seek to leverage the power of the State to act punitively against those who do not share their views or mores.

And yet we would still be free?

Threshing Flora on December 31, 2010 at 11:37 PM

The arrogance of the left is stunning and speaks for itself. Nothing like being told how you SHOULD feel. Jerks.

princetrumpet on January 1, 2011 at 12:06 AM

Ya Know, I have gay freinds I’d take a bullet for.
Can’t say the same for these idiots liberals gay or straight

Texyank on January 1, 2011 at 12:37 AM

Should be “idiot liberals”
No. I haven’t been celerating. Happy New Year ! !

Texyank on January 1, 2011 at 12:40 AM

Why not compare homosexuality to mass-murder? Oh wait, you already have with the Nazis. *facepalm*

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:55 PM

You’re not going to get any logical thought out of that guy. Apart from being racist, he’s also unable to go five minutes without comparing homosexuality to every despicable crime he can muster.

MadisonConservative on January 1, 2011 at 12:41 AM

you do know your ‘logic’ is meaningless to God, right?

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 11:24 PM

He’s now decrying logic. Awesome.

MadisonConservative on January 1, 2011 at 12:42 AM

That was excellent. God, it’s great to have such a rich conservative coalitions. And, although I am ambivalent on the question of same-sex marriage (this piece raises great doubt about the potential societal harm in expanding the definition of marriage) I greatly appreciate the intellectual diversity making up the conservative movement.

jlerner on January 1, 2011 at 2:23 AM

The goal of the majority of homosexuals and the anti-religous coalition is to make a statement against homosexual behavior disqualify you from public life, get you fired, make you a pariah, and put you in jail.

They have almost accomplished this in other countries.

PrezHussein on January 1, 2011 at 3:33 AM

A. To call a gay person a “moral imbecile” is to show you are obviously NOT a Christian. and that you are of little spiritual or intellectual character–oh wait, you would be with the crowd throwing stones at the two lovers, wouldn’t you?

im·be·cile /ˈɪmbəsɪl –noun
1. Psychology . a person of the second order in a former classification of mental retardation, above the level of idiocy, having a mental age of seven or eight years and an intelligence quotient of 25 to 50.
2. a dunce; blockhead; dolt.

The dictionary defines “imbecile” so it must not be Christian either. Let’s pretend that I’m not Satan and have a go at this, what?

Morals have to do with right and wrong FYI. A moral imbecile (or ethical blockhead) is someone who has had his moral development retarded or stunted somehow. There are people addicted to perverted sex who not only want us to know about it but to celebrate it as well. These are people with stunted moral growth.

Regardless of your dislike for the term I employed, it is useful in describing sex perverts and if you don’t like it you can go pound sand.

B. You did read the whole article where the gay couple did not go along with this–that they said it could work both ways…an atheist, or a gay would have to photograph a Christian wedding, ect.

I don’t know which article you reference, but New Mexico fined the Christian photogs “$6,600 for declining to photograph a commitment ceremony between two lesbians.” That must be ok w/you? Freedom to dissociate oneself from others for whatever reason is one purpose of the First Amendment. The lesbians you allege said it would work both ways are moral imbeciles, in that Christians would not go about torturing lesbian photogs forcing them to photograph their weddings against their will, or at least I have never head of such a case.

If this is your argument, that Christians are free to abuse people who don’t wish to associate with them, then you, like the lesbians in question, are a moral imbecile. This is obvious to all but those similarly handicapped.

You DO know that Blacks were refused service at one time, right? It is against the law to refuse service because of your beliefs–unless you are Muslim–then you would have to get the hell out of their taxi’s… lovingmyUSA on December 31, 2010 at 6:06 PM

People don’t choose their race, they are born that way. Muslim cabbies who deny service to people with guide dogs are fined. People don’t choose to be blind. But men who develop an attraction to other men’s excretory organs are making a choice, in other words, the difference between them and blacks is behavior.

There are no behaviors endemic to any race. Your linkage of race and behavior is evidence that you are morally handicapped, you have developed the moral capacity of a child and stopped growing, but that is your choice, a failure of intellectual discipline that could be corrected if you had the will or energy for ethical self-improvement. Unlike intellectual imbecility that might have been caused by an accident, your moral retardation is the result of your negligence in developing the human moral faculty.

I hope that this is helpful.

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 4:07 AM

The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).

I sounds like it is just observing that ever since the beginning of time genocide existed among the human race. Something that is totally separate from the Theory of Natural Selection. Today you might say that the higher “civilized races” will be over-taken by the “lower races” because of the population growth of the lower races. However, I would replace race with intelligence. The nations with the what you might call higher intelligence and civilized have reduced their population growth.

SC.Charlie on January 1, 2011 at 6:15 AM

The nations with the what you might call higher intelligence and civilized have reduced their population growth.
SC.Charlie on January 1, 2011 at 6:15 AM

Yeah, they’re so off-the-charts smart Europe’s population (and civilization) is dying out because of low birth rates.

Buy Danish on January 1, 2011 at 8:33 AM

Buy Danish on January 1, 2011 at 8:33 AM

That’s okay, they are importing Muslims hand over fist to be their little worker bees. I think it’s working out well don’t you? Everyone should read “America Alone” by Mark Steyn. I am looking at you S.C.Charlie.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 9:43 AM

I still can’t make Jonah work.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2010 at 11:18 PM

If God can create dust from nothing, and in turn create a living breathing man from that dust, why is it so hard to believe he could command a whale to swallow a man and then vomit that man, still alive, upon a beach?
Listen, imagine some guy’s fishing there on the beach and this big fish comes up to the shore. Vomits this man onto the beach. This man is laying there on the beach now in a pile of fish vomit. He gets up, coughing and spitting, turns to the fisherman and says “God has sent me to warn this city! Repent or be destroyed!”
I think it would be a great way to get the message out that this man came from God. But, you know, some people want to see the clouds part and angels descending from the sky before they believe. God has a weird way of messing with our thinking, like instead, vomiting some guy from a fish, hanging around with prostitutes and tax collectors, being born in a manger or dying on a cross between two thieves.

1 Corinth. 1:27: But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

JellyToast on January 1, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 9:43 AM

I saw a headline last night about France waiting for its traditional New Year’s Eve car burnings. I’ll have to check and see if this lovely tradition continued.

Buy Danish on January 1, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Oh how sweet! The French car burning tradition continues.

Buy Danish on January 1, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Buy Danish on January 1, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Is it still disaffected youts or have the “regular” people joined in now that the belt tightening is upon them? I’ll go back and look at your link, I’m probably asking questions answered.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 10:08 AM

Buy Danish on January 1, 2011 at 10:03 AM

I don’t want to rain on your parade by that was dated 1/01/2010. It’s still interesting when you consider how much crap we get for fireworks. The other thing I noticed is that the article states that the burnings are in poor neighborhoods. I fail to see the “wisdom” of preying on your own demographic. They are ready to rule the world.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 10:08 AM

Oddly enough the story doesn’t say anything about who these torch carriers are. This is the story/headline I saw yesterday but only just read (via Pamela Geller). You’ll be pleased to know that arrangements are being made for millions and millions more of these car torchers to come to Europe (see the link to the Euro-Med alliance).

Buy Danish on January 1, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Cindy – oops, you’re right – that was last year’s story. It’s going to be difficult to get news on this year’s car burnings cause they’re keeping the tradition a secret. More here.

Buy Danish on January 1, 2011 at 10:20 AM

Okay, that’s just funny. Do they think these folks were going for the Guinness World Records’? They better hope that this idea doesn’t encourage the disaffected youts to go on to some other tactics that they can’t ignore or hide. Although I think hiding burning cars is pretty tricky.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 10:42 AM

lol at this thread becoming uber-religioso when we’re supposed to be discussing a secular movement in a secular political party that pushes for secular policy-oriented reforms.

Que sera sera. Big ups to Chris Barron in this clip. If you’re not a gay conservative, you have no idea how prevalent this type of sh*t straw-man argument infects the debate.

“You’re a PALIN supporter?! but she wants to burn you alive!”
“How could you BE a republicunt, you self-hating f@g!”

And so on and so forth. And this type of invective comes from do-gooder lakefront liberals: white “humanists” with money and such genteel sensibilities (except if you’re homeless and hanging out by their cars; then the genteel bit flies out the window).

You might not agree with homosexuality; fine. I’ve resigned myself to an “agree to disagree” stance long ago. But allies — including the gay conservatives that make comments sections like these so red hot — are necessary if you want to advance conservative, fiscal policies.

Otherwise? The left will continue their compartmentalization and identity politic scare tactics — and to great success. “You’re [minority]!?! How could you EVER vote Republican!” The social shunning is very real and very palpable.

I applaud people like Chris standing up.

lansing quaker on January 1, 2011 at 11:09 AM

lansing quaker on January 1, 2011 at 11:09 AM

We can’t have too much talk, even if it doesn’t change minds. That’s what is so great about blogs.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 11:33 AM

lol at this thread becoming uber-religioso when we’re supposed to be discussing a secular movement in a secular political party that pushes for secular policy-oriented reforms.

The essence of conservatism is that we “are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.” Aside from Franklin, the founders’ view of the Creator was derived from Christianity.

But allies — including the gay conservatives that make comments sections like these so red hot — are necessary if you want to advance conservative, fiscal policies. lansing quaker on January 1, 2011 at 11:09 AM

You would overthrow conservative principle to attract a portion of the vote of 2% of the population.

What other sexual minorities would you care to see set up tables at CPAC?

Conservative Swingers?

Conservative Threesome Aficionados?

Conservative Polygamists?

And if you wouldn’t want those banners flying at CPAC, please tell us why not. If you would like to see that development, please tell us why.

Thanks.

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 11:46 AM

You would overthrow conservative principle to attract a portion of the vote of 2% of the population.

What other sexual minorities would you care to see set up tables at CPAC?

Conservative Swingers?

Conservative Threesome Aficionados?

Conservative Polygamists?

And if you wouldn’t want those banners flying at CPAC, please tell us why not. If you would like to see that development, please tell us why.

Thanks.

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 11:46 AM

I’m sorry; I may have mis-read your comment since my eyes were rolled all the way back into my head. But you can rest assured that it wasn’t post-coital; it was just at your flagrant abuse of straw-men.

If you’re not going to listen to your local gay conservative, you won’t gain any knowledge. That “2%”? Extrapolate that into a number of relatives, co-workers, besties and so on and you go far beyond that pithy number.

“I have a gay friend/sister/brother/cousin/co-worker and I’m totally against all the HATE from those People of Walmart!”

That type of thinking and that type of attitude is very prevalent. Yes, it affects votes. Yes, it affects policy since the liberals compartmentalize and feed off of such base attitudes and perspectives.

There’s a giant swath of voters that have been made to believe Republican = anti-gay and many want no part of that process. So when people like Chris of GOProud stand up and fight that narrative? It helps. It works. Just like when people like Michelle Malkin do and she’s called a “slave to the white man” and all of that vitriol trying to compartmentalize her based on race and gender.

So stick with your straw-men all day long. Gays touch every aspect of life through “who you know” and it’s good to have outspoken representatives of conservatism — like GOProud — that live by example.

Yes, Virginia. You can be gay and conservative, and voting Republican is not damning your neighbor to Hell as the Left would have you believe.

That. is. the. point.

lansing quaker on January 1, 2011 at 12:04 PM

lansing quaker on January 1, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Avoided the issues I raised, supplied incoherence instead.

A straw man argument is a misrepresentation of one’s opponent’s position. Please describe exactly how I used a straw man argument.

If you’re not going to listen to your local gay conservative, you won’t gain any knowledge. That “2%”? Extrapolate that into a number of relatives, co-workers, besties and so on and you go far beyond that pithy number.

Huh? 2% is 2%. I don’t see how dividing it into subsets multiplies it.

And please tell me what the “gay conservative” has to teach me. I don’t think he has anything to teach me about conservatism that I couldn’t get elsewhere, he has only to teach me sex techniques in which I have no interest. There is no untapped store of “gay knowledge” we need to tap that is the sole source of information we need to win elections.

So anyway, do you draw the line at “Gay Conservatives,” or will you be arguing for open inclusion of “Swinger Conservatives” etc once they start to squeak for attention? If so why? If not, why not?

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Here’s an eyeroll for toy, Akzed: 9_9

2% can easily become 15% or 20% because of connections. As a gay conservative (that you can learn from) I receive many charges in the vein of “how can you vote against the interests of your own people!~!!1!”

Conversely, there are many fine, straight, WASPy folks who vote liberal because they could never vote for a party that hates their “fellow” gayfolk.

Again: what GOProud — and Chris Barron, vis-a-vis this clip — does is smash that narrative that no gay could ~ever~ be conservative. They could never vote anything Republican, for it is foul and hateful.

I dunno what kind of favors you’re passing out at the Purity Party (I didn’t get an invite), but in the world of secular politics reality it just a teeny-tiny bit different. Most everyone has a gay acquaintance. Nobody usually has a “swinger” acquaintance.

Enjoy your delicious straw-men.

lansing quaker on January 1, 2011 at 12:25 PM

I think this is a great clip. Destroys the narrative that gays can’t be conservative or rep. He’s totally spot on about liberal intolerance too. Reading through the comments there was the comparison of homosexuality and pedophelia: since p. is a choice and p. is an orientation then h. must be a choice since h. is an orientation. Despite the obvious issues with the preconds and logic,, it doesn’t really matter to me as a conservative if h. is a choice. It’s between two consenting adults. What business is it of mine?

unrealcitizen on January 1, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Despite the obvious issues with the preconds and logic,, it doesn’t really matter to me as a conservative if h. is a choice. It’s between two consenting adults. What business is it of mine?

unrealcitizen on January 1, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Then why do we have to have “gay” anything? Why don’t gay conservatives just call themselves conservatives, or at the very most, “conservatives who happen to be gay?” The very term “gay conservative” connotes a person who is defined first by their sexual “orientation.” If they just want to live their lives in peace, and they want people out of their bedrooms, then why are they trying to foist their lifestyle on everyone?

I have no objection to homosexuals living their lives the way they want to. I have an objection to their forcing me to give approval to what’s going on in their bedrooms. If it’s just something between two consenting adults, then why is it that I can’t go anywhere on the internet without seeing “gay” this or “gay” that?

When the gays start infiltrating the schools and trying to influence children, then it’s no longer about “two consenting adults.” And when they start suing people to force them to provide services to them, based on “discrimination,” then it’s no longer about “two consenting adults.” It’s about propaganda.

A lot of us can see where this is headed, and we object to it, but because we want to retain the right to disagree with the gay lifestyle being fine and dandy, and something that ought to be promoted as “normal,” we get labeled with
“bigot,” “homophobe,” “hater” etc. by people who profess to be conservatives.

Liberal debate tactics sicken me.

JannyMae on January 1, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Then why do we have to have “gay” anything? Why don’t gay conservatives just call themselves conservatives, or at the very most, “conservatives who happen to be gay?” The very term “gay conservative” connotes a person who is defined first by their sexual “orientation.” If they just want to live their lives in peace, and they want people out of their bedrooms, then why are they trying to foist their lifestyle on everyone?

JannyMae on January 1, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Because as much as I love a colorblind world (as opposed to the liberal edubrainwashing) in lieu of a “race-conscious” one, this doesn’t fly.

We live in a world of constant “ME”-ness. I’m me, you’re you, and the world must accept ME.

I don’t ascribe to that philosophy, but to be ignorant to it is ridiculous.

In a political world replete with “George Bush doesn’t care about black people!” or “Republicans hate gays!” a group that stands up — like GOProud — and says “we’re here, we’re queer, and we’re conservative!” helps to break down those silly liberal memes.

In a perfect world, we would all just be “Americans.” But we aren’t in that world — we live in one full of “African-Americans” “Jewish-Americans” and the “LGBT.”

So good on GOProud helping to smash such memes. I would rather be a “gay conservative” over an “LGBT” libtard any day of the week.

lansing quaker on January 1, 2011 at 1:41 PM

A lot of us can see where this is headed, and we object to it, but because we want to retain the right to disagree with the gay lifestyle being fine and dandy, and something that ought to be promoted as “normal,” we get labeled with
“bigot,” “homophobe,” “hater” etc. by people who profess to be conservatives.

Liberal debate tactics sicken me.

JannyMae on January 1, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Many things are legal that are not normal. Giving a marriage license to a gay couple doesn’t convey community approval, any more than than it does for many straight couples who marry irresponsibly.

dedalus on January 1, 2011 at 1:49 PM

lansing quaker on January 1, 2011 at 12:25 PM

1. You have not shown that I misrepresented your argument. That’s what “straw man” means.

2. Pandering to the sodomy lobby will alienate more people than it attracts.

3. You couldn’t win a debate on a middle school debating team like this.

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Many things are legal that are not normal. Giving a marriage license to a gay couple doesn’t convey community approval, any more than than it does for many straight couples who marry irresponsibly. dedalus on January 1, 2011 at 1:49 PM

False. Any licensure is a form of community approval. A license makes approved something that is otherwise disapproved.

Get caught practicing dentistry without a license and see if the community approves.

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 1:52 PM

1. lol

2. lol

3. lol ad hominem

What I find most illustrious in your Purity Party (table for one?) comments is that you cannot discuss GOProud, Chris Barron, or how either vehicles promote conservatism.

Not a lick. Instead it’s all the typical talk you hear from either left or right, missing the point entirely.

munch munch munch on your straw-men. ♥

lansing quaker on January 1, 2011 at 1:58 PM

lol is not an argument.

An observation of your incompetence in debate is not ad hominem. The debate referee would make the same observations when describing why you lost the debate.

You fill a much needed gap around here.

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 2:04 PM

False. Any licensure is a form of community approval. A license makes approved something that is otherwise disapproved.

Get caught practicing dentistry without a license and see if the community approves.

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Then there is community approval for a porn business that produces and distributes explicit content? Not in most communities.

dedalus on January 1, 2011 at 2:06 PM

An observation of your incompetence in debate is not ad hominem. The debate referee would make the same observations when describing why you lost the debate.

You fill a much needed gap around here.

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Did someone order a rofflecopter?! I didn’t know! Let me strap on my lollerskatez and jetty away to it!

AK (more like jk!?), it’s cool. You’re hosting your Purity Party and desperately want people to attend. Yet sensible people — conservative, liberal, feral, and so on — that understand how the Left operates via socio-identity politics?

They’re just not that into you.

Keep fightin’ the good fight, souljah.

lansing quaker on January 1, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Then there is community approval for a porn business that produces and distributes explicit content? Not in most communities. dedalus on January 1, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Of course. It it can get a license it’s approved by definition.

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Thanks for never addressing my points, genius.

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 2:15 PM

D=

lansing quaker on January 1, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Of course. It it can get a license it’s approved by definition.

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 2:14 PM

It’s approved by the government to operate as a business for the minority of people who want the product. Like booze, tobacco, gambling, or fatty food it may be legal while also being bad for you and subject to community disapproval.

dedalus on January 1, 2011 at 2:20 PM

You’re not going to get any logical thought out of that guy. Apart from being racist, he’s also unable to go five minutes without comparing homosexuality to every despicable crime he can muster.

MadisonConservative on January 1, 2011 at 12:41 AM

the fascist is calling me a racist, I bet you have lots of black friends don’t you? the difference is I can prove your a fascist by your support of gay marriage…while you cannot. it just shows what a jacka** you are.

right4life on January 1, 2011 at 3:11 PM

He’s now decrying logic. Awesome.

MadisonConservative on January 1, 2011 at 12:42 AM

uh huh madfascist…then use your ‘logic’ and explain the trinity. I breathlessly await your awesome display of ‘logic’ LOL

right4life on January 1, 2011 at 3:12 PM

I sounds like it is just observing that ever since the beginning of time genocide existed among the human race. Something that is totally separate from the Theory of Natural Selection. Today you might say that the higher “civilized races” will be over-taken by the “lower races” because of the population growth of the lower races. However, I would replace race with intelligence. The nations with the what you might call higher intelligence and civilized have reduced their population growth.

SC.Charlie on January 1, 2011 at 6:15 AM

BS. racism is built into the theory of evolution…hell the full title of the book is…

The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races

and of course you have to ignore all those other historians who recognized the connection between darwin and hitler….here’s one more you can ignore….

A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” (Brookes, Martin.,”Ripe old age,” Review of “Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41

right4life on January 1, 2011 at 3:16 PM

I think this is a great clip. Destroys the narrative that gays can’t be conservative or rep. He’s totally spot on about liberal intolerance too. Reading through the comments there was the comparison of homosexuality and pedophelia: since p. is a choice and p. is an orientation then h. must be a choice since h. is an orientation. Despite the obvious issues with the preconds and logic,, it doesn’t really matter to me as a conservative if h. is a choice. It’s between two consenting adults. What business is it of mine?

unrealcitizen on January 1, 2011 at 12:41 PM

nice straw man argument…no wonder you have to make up a straw man since you cannot win the argument any other way.

it doesn’t matter if h and p are a choice, or a inborn. why should h. be given special rights and p. not?

right4life on January 1, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8