Palin defends GOProud participation at CPAC

posted at 10:12 am on February 7, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

No great surprise here, really; Palin has quietly backed the end of DADT and expressed support for conservative gays and lesbians in the past. Speaking here with David Brody from the Christian Broadcast Network and excerpted by Breitbart TV, Palin doesn’t endorse GOProud but does defend their attendance at CPAC, and argues that the value of events such as CPAC is to debate the issues and provide as much information as possible to attendees:

Well, I’ve never attended a CPAC conference ever so I was a little taken aback this go around when I couldn’t make it to this one either and then there was a speculation well I either agree or disagree with some of the groups or issues that CPAC is discussing. It really is a matter of time for me. But when it comes to and David, perhaps what it is that you’re suggesting in the question is should the GOP, should conservatives not reach out to others, not participate in events or forums that perhaps are rising within those forums are issues that maybe we don’t personally agree with? And I say no, it’s like you being on a panel shoot, with a bunch of the liberal folks whom you have been on and you provide good information and balance, and you allow for healthy debate, which is needed in order for people to gather information and make up their own minds about issues.

I look at participation in an event like CPAC or any other event, along, or kind of in that same vein as the more information that people have, the better.

I’m not sure we’ve polled on this question at all, so this seems like a good time to do so. Should conservatives welcome GOProud, or should they skip CPAC if GOProud participates?


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 3 4 5 6 7 10

Third, you’re being a homo.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:10 PM

You’re a child molestor. And you eat your neighbors.

Just trying to share in your “freedom” here to write anything and everything about anyone whose opinions I disagree with. Following your example.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Nonesense.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Ask the kids from the first family who got left behind while dad was out hounding around if it was nonsense–a lot of fathering gets left undone. The kids aren’t likely to think the impact of dad starting a 2nd family as nonsense.

dedalus on February 7, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Raphael is filling in for him…Esteban got a feather stuck in his throat *whistles whilst rolling eyeballs*

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Oh NOOOO! I’ll have to take him over a sparkly top hat. I’m sure that will make him feel better!

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Facepalm.

This thread just dropped a disco Ball from the ceiling and caged male dancers.

It’s official. It’s raining Men.

portlandon on February 7, 2011 at 1:21 PM

What about sins that aren’t committed, but contemplated? Or just thought about casually?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Yes those too. If you have ever been in a Catholic Mass (I was raised Catholic) there is part in the Creed which states… “I have sinned in what I have done, in what I have failed to do, in my thoughts and in my words…” This is derived from Scripture…

This is why we don’t have many people following the Word of God and why Jesus said, “wide is the path that leads to destruction and many find it and narrow is the path that leads to salvations and few find it.” It is hard following Gods dictates. This is why Jesus had to come and be the ultimate sacrifice and take our sins upon Him . We fail if we try on our own. Jesus wants to see evidence that we accept Him as our Lord and Savior. THe evidence is that we know His Word and follow it to the best of our ability, repent when we fail and get up dust ourselves off and keep trying.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 1:21 PM

The meaning of the word “marriage?” A rose by any other name, etc.?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Yes. Words have meanings. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet but wouldn’t be a rose. There are other flowers just as pretty and sweet smelling not called “rose”.

Marriage has been around longer than religion and longer than politics. It’s a basic cultural unit: two people of opposing genders who co habit and procreate. There is no cultural history referring to a same-sex union as “marriage” in almost any culture in human history. It’s a new thing dreamed up in the last 50 years. It may be a good new thing. But it’s still new and different and I don’t like the semantic efforts to make it the same by insisting on an inapt label in the name of “equality”.

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 1:21 PM

First of all, you’re illiterate. Secondly, you’re lacking in pop culture. Third, you’re being a homo.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Writing anything lowdown and nasty about anyone whose opinions you disagree with is your penchant and method, Mad Con. I don’t respect you for that reason.

Anyone can write just about any lowdown and nasty thing about anyone else on the internet and it’s only due to the site’s moderation that others — including me — are not referring to you as one who consumes his neighbors or violates minors or some other wretched thing that can be written, regardless of fact-checking the statements.

You don’t merit anyone’s responses with any seriousness, not here, not ever. Others are correct to confront your nastiness and you are, indeed, not Conservative. You wear a clown costume.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:22 PM

portlandon on February 7, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Stop that, there will be no humor here!

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Some of you should think about getting together your own reality show which would be cancelled after the first episode, but what fun to watch only once!

Amjean on February 7, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Let’s see, JetBoy referred to me as “Frances” (the mule) and I responded with describing him as a “pig”.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:08 PM

You’re not bright.

You-Eh-Vee on February 7, 2011 at 1:24 PM

It’s rather amazing when you think about it. Though Sarah was spot on here, her comments from the same interview, about Egypt were the headline.

Sarah Palin: Obama Let The 3 a.m. Call On Egypt Go Straight To His Answering Machine

gary4205 on February 7, 2011 at 1:24 PM

dang i thought page five would be different….

equanimous on February 7, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Yes those too.

So you’re convicted of thoughtcrime? Remember – the most brutal and repressive regimes on Earth all use this as a standard – that you can not only be convicted and punished for what you do (or don’t do), but also what you think.

Is that a bit…totalitarian? Yes. Yes it is.

And totalitarianism is a bad thing, isn’t it?

This is why Jesus had to come and be the ultimate sacrifice and take our sins upon Him .

Isn’t that scapegoating? Piling your sins upon a human sacrifice doesn’t in any take them away from you. It doesn’t unwind history to a period where you didn’t do it. You still did them, you still are responsible for them, and you still own them.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:25 PM

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Decent answer, I’d say were very close to agreement. I recoil when just because two people engage in what I know to be a perverse relationship they are entitled to more rights.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Yes. Words have meanings. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet but wouldn’t be a rose. There are other flowers just as pretty and sweet smelling not called “rose”.

But if you called a rose a tulip, it wouldn’t change the smell of the rose.

Marriage has been around longer than religion and longer than politics. It’s a basic cultural unit: two people of opposing genders who co habit and procreate. There is no cultural history referring to a same-sex union as “marriage” in almost any culture in human history. It’s a new thing dreamed up in the last 50 years. It may be a good new thing. But it’s still new and different and I don’t like the semantic efforts to make it the same by insisting on an inapt label in the name of “equality”.

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Well, heterosexual polygamy has also been around as long as any organized religion or even prior.

And those who practice it swear by it and call it “a marriage.”

Is it?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Writing anything lowdown and nasty about anyone whose opinions you disagree with is your penchant and method, Mad Con. I don’t respect you for that reason.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Nasty, nasty grown man using “boy” as an I.D. Also a coward.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Kay.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:29 PM

dedalus on February 7, 2011 at 1:18 PM

I’m not arguing about whether or not Newt is wrong, I would NEVER vote for him.
It’s nonsense IMO to equate Newt attending CPAC with a GROUP specifically formed to represent a perverse and abominable behavior. Nonesense.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM

He’s quite an agressive, unpleasasnt and vulgar guy… I’d just ignore him (about MadCon)…

I’d also advise, if I may, that you ease up on Palin because she is not for gay marriage or rights for gays that all citizens dont have. If you have evidence to the contrary then share it because even with DADT I’ve not seen her endorse that, I’ve seen where she has said we have bigger problems to deal with… don’t get disracted by this issue. Again, not an endorsement of homosexuality.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 12:30 PM

But I have not made any oppression of Palin or upon her. I did express my disagreement with her IF (and I wrote, IF) she maintains as this site claims she maintains (supports GOProud in relationship with CPAC, whatever — and I’ve tried at length to make it clear that there’s a difference between supporting the attendance at CPAC by anyone or any group and in GOProud being a formative part of who and what CPAC is this as in last year).

Never forget that Palin is a politician. Politician. Some good, some bad, all with methods in play.

I disgreed as to McCain’s vacillating positions and pride in being “a Progressive” (“Teddy Roosevelt’s my hero” — who was a Progressive, and other similar Progressive and disappointing statements from McCain) and I do question Palin somewhat in that she claims McCain represents her positions on most things (I paraphrase). Meaning, I won’t be taken for a fool by simply assuming that becuase Palin is charming on some things that her claiming similarity to McCain is to be overlooked, I want to know what her actual views on issues are, just as I do all politicians, before endorsing, supporting, financing and voting for her or any others.

That’s being reasonable, it’s not being a denigrator of Palin, it’s simply asking of and from her to be someone in politics I can support. So far, my vote is out and about this issue, I think she needs to clear it up to be taken seriously by Conservatives.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:30 PM

portlandon on February 7, 2011 at 1:21 PM

LOL

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:30 PM

a perverse and abominable behavior

Can’t heterosexuals be perverse and abominable in their “behavior?”

Assuming, you know, that what two consenting adults do to each other is your business and your concern to begin with?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:31 PM

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Stay tuned, the news is going to be on in about five hours! And the mailman, he might be along in two hours or so and you could actually SEE him walking up to your house (or apartment)! How many cups are in your cupboard?! Did you shut off the iron and gas burners yet? Are you SURE?

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Honestly I think America is far less conflicted about gay people, “rights” and privileges than our public discourse would suggest. Civil unions get broad public support. Same with abortion: people actually do by and large want it safe, legal and rare. Sadly it is in no way rare anymore, and I think that explains the poll drift toward self-identifying as pro-life.

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Are you serious? Of course they can. The difference is that homosexuality in and of itself is perverse and abominable. Did I really need to spell that simple logic out?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Stay tuned, the news is going to be on in about five hours! And the mailman, he might be along in two hours or so and you could actually SEE him walking up to your house (or apartment)! How many cups are in your cupboard?! Did you shut off the iron and gas burners yet? Are you SURE?

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Never go full retard.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Our sexuality is given by God (or, for non -believers, by nature). We no more choose our sexuality than we choose our height or the symmetry of our face.

Sarah Palin is growing by the day in her current job of Becoming The President.

Bless her.

Basilsbest on February 7, 2011 at 1:36 PM

I agree. The problem I see is the constant assault by the left to assert their rights to muzzle any criticism based on religious beliefs unless of course those beliefs are Mohammedan.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:37 PM

The difference is that homosexuality in and of itself is perverse and abominable.

Says you. Not my preference.

But to homosexuals, it’s normal. So who are you to judge?

Heteros engage in the same “perverse” and “abominable” behavior you decry regularly.

Sounds like you’ve got a problem here.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:38 PM

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 1:34

Fogot to place your post as my response to at 1:37

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Yes me and the Bible and that’s why we disagree.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Are you serious? Of course they can. The difference is that homosexuality in and of itself is perverse and abominable. Did I really need to spell that simple logic out?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Hi muslim brotherhood.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Basilsbest on February 7, 2011 at 1:36 PM

If that’s true than the Bible is a lie.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:40 PM

a perverse and abominable behavior

Can’t heterosexuals be perverse and abominable in their “behavior?”

Assuming, you know, that what two consenting adults do to each other is your business and your concern to begin with?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Good Lt, you continue to change the subject to then attempt, like others do here (no surprise, however), the activist position for homosexuality.

Your primary blurring of the line is as to asserting the behavior of homosexuality is “equivalent” or “same as” heterosexuality. Which is not the case, but I do recognize that public education at present is working intensely to make that the acceptable perspective as to homosexual behavior.

Some HUMAN BEINGS can and do behave “perversely and abominably.” This is a different point than homosexual behavior being considered by some as a perverse and abominable behavior in and of itself.

You, perhaps, assume that “being heterosexual” is some choice made by some just as engaging in homosexual behavior is the choice of some others. We would not even exist as a species if that were the case, on a biological level alone. Few people actually think about “being heterosexual” versus other actions that run contrary to such — it’s a biological imperative on one level, often overlooked by activists to the contrary.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Basilsbest on February 7, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Forgot to add, so would evolution. Homosexuals are far less likely to reproduce.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Yes me and the Bible and that’s why we disagree.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:39 PM

The Bible also proposes that the entirety of humanity and animaldom except for 8 people were wiped off the Earth in a flood at one point.

Believe that, too? Can’t pick and choose here.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Isn’t that scapegoating? Piling your sins upon a human sacrifice doesn’t in any take them away from you. It doesn’t unwind history to a period where you didn’t do it. You still did them, you still are responsible for them, and you still own them.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:25 PM

That is exactly what Christianity is. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice because God got tired of the annual sacrificing of the spotless lamb to atone for our sins. He gave us the ultimate and perfect sacrifice His perfect Son. “While we were yet sinners He gave His life for us”. Yes we own our sins and just like God forgave David for killing Bathsheba’s husband Uriel, He took his son as a consequence of that sin. The goal is to make it to Heaven and to be with God not to sin and “get away with it by invoking Jesus” that is the reason for the evidence. I read the Gospels to know what that is especailly the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes. I look at how Jesus answered questions and how he acted to guide and inform myself on how to behave.

Don’t stretch what I said either i.e. I believe in my heart of hearts that abortion stops the life of a child growing in the womb of its mother, murder. But, it is not against the law to do that here so there are no totalitarian impositions on our part. We would work within the law to try to have this overturned but we aren’t advocating hanging a mother in the public square for killing her child. If one wants to engage in an activity that God forbids then that will cause one to not answer here on earth for it if its agaisnt a law and in Heaven before God .

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Are you serious? Of course they can. The difference is that homosexuality in and of itself is perverse and abominable. Did I really need to spell that simple logic out?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Hi muslim brotherhood.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Orthodox Judaism maintains the same position as does Christianity and Catholicism.

It’s in the Bible. If you’d like, I or a number of others here can identify to you the passages in both the Old and the New Testaments that make that clear.

These are ethics that guide the theological beliefs of many Americans. They DO NOT, however, call for the demise of people who engage in homosexuality, contrary to what Islam maintains.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Yes. Words have meanings. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet but wouldn’t be a rose. There are other flowers just as pretty and sweet smelling not called “rose”.

But if you called a rose a tulip, it wouldn’t change the smell of the rose.

Yes, it would, because that smell would now be identified as “tulip”, not “rose”. Names are just labels applied to concepts. The goal in appropriating an existing label is to make people think there is no actual difference in the two concepts. That’s patently false.

Re: plural marriage, yes there were historical examples of it but modern life has evolved. We don’t use leeches in medicine anymore, either, and for good reason. Plural marriage worked when women were their husbands property, chattel to be accumulated like goats or cattle. Plural marriage doesn’t work when women are full members of civil society.

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 1:43 PM

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 1:40 PM

That’s about the sophistication of the left; equating Christianity with Mohammedanism.
For your information your leftie buddies always take the Mohammedan side while trying desperately to crush Christianity.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Like a good leftie you keep swinging the target of conversation.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Says you. Not my preference.

But to homosexuals, it’s normal. So who are you to judge?

Heteros engage in the same “perverse” and “abominable” behavior you decry regularly.

Sounds like you’ve got a problem here.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:38 PM

The day you or those who disagree with you can conceive of and birth a child from your lower or upper intestine, do let the rest of us know.

On a biological level alone, homosexuality is most certainly NOT the equivalent or “same as” heterosexuality, nor is it “normal” in that or a number of other regards.

You and yours may CONSIDER it to be “normal” but some Liberals actually consider themselves to be Conservative, so, you know, it’s a matter of what is maintained or promoted by some versus what is substantiated by a number of other substantial points.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Right, but that doesn’t address the question. We know that adultery is not a crime. The question is should it be in your opinion? More specifically, if our laws are based on the Christian bible as I so often hear, should it be a Federal crime?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Sorry, I missed this. If we know adultery isn’t a crime then why bring it up criminalizing it in reference to gay unions when no one is suggesting criminalizing gay unions? I made the point about it not being criminal because it seemed to me you were suggesting that the only reason there is opposition to recognizing gay unions as marriage is a religious basis and so asking then why not make all laws related to the Bible. It’s a silly suggestion. There is a very large difference between thinking something should be classified as criminal and the government recognizing it and being religious is no requirement to be able to think a gay union isn’t marriage.

So no I didn’t address your question because your question didn’t address the point to begin with.

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM

So I take it plural marriage should be allowed in your opinion?
Can’t pick and choose now.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:47 PM

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Good job!

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Never go full retard.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Zzzzzz…

Wait, it’s up to the eleventh grade now!?! Oooh, show tunes.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Forgot to add, so would evolution. Homosexuals are far less likely to reproduce.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Ah. Social Darwinism, the Christian version.

Homosexuals are less likely to reproduce, therefore, they’re immoral and sinful.

And hetero couples (or singles) who don’t reproduce are…well, fine. Unless the singles are gay. Then there’s a problem. Or something.

Your primary blurring of the line is as to asserting the behavior of homosexuality is “equivalent” or “same as” heterosexuality. Which is not the case, but I do recognize that public education at present is working intensely to make that the acceptable perspective as to homosexual behavior.

I’m just saying that the same “perversity” that you assert is somehow exclusive to homosexuality is just as present in heterosexuality, and therefore, cannot be used as a standard with which you can condemn it.

Some HUMAN BEINGS can and do behave “perversely and abominably.” This is a different point than homosexual behavior being considered by some as a perverse and abominable behavior in and of itself.

Again, that’s your view. But a homosexual does not hold that view.

And being that having sex isn’t a crime, and also that you’re not allowed to mandate or tell people who they’re allowed to recreate themselves with, your view isn’t relevant.

You can’t say it’s bad, but OK when heteros do it just because they’re heteros, and then turn around and condemn homosexuals as individuals and humans for engaging in the same behavior. And at this point, it bears repeating that it’s none of your business either way what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own company.

We would not even exist as a species if that were the case, on a biological level alone.

So evolution is right, then. WE HAVE ACHIEVED A BREAKTHROUGH HERE.

Few people actually think about “being heterosexual” versus other actions that run contrary to such — it’s a biological imperative on one level, often overlooked by activists to the contrary.

And yet, there is homosexuality in nature and has been homosexuality throughout human history.

And yet, the human race has survived and thrived throughout.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:49 PM

You’re right that there are still laws on the books in many states. That was not the question, however. Do you think that adultery should be a crime? MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:58 PM

A. It is still illegal in many states. I have no problem with it being illegal in all fifty states.
B. It is also grounds for divorce, with other civil penalties.
Akzed on February 7, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Akzed on February 7, 2011 at 1:50 PM

That’s about the sophistication of the left; equating Christianity with Mohammedanism.
For your information your leftie buddies always take the Mohammedan side while trying desperately to crush Christianity.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Do you live strictly by the bible?

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Forgot to add, so would evolution. Homosexuals are far less likely to reproduce.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Ah. Social Darwinism, the Christian version.

WHAT?
Listen: Homosexuality is in and of itself perverse, Heterosexuality isn’t. That’s not to say it can’t have perversity in it, CAPICHE?
True animal homosexuality only exists in confined areas as far as I’ve ever heard.
And a lot of Mohammedans also don’t think killing Kuffirs is wrong either, SO WHAT?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM

But I have not made any oppression of Palin or upon her. I did express my disagreement with her IF (and I wrote, IF) she maintains as this site claims she maintains (supports GOProud in relationship with CPAC, whatever — and I’ve tried at length to make it clear that there’s a difference between supporting the attendance at CPAC by anyone or any group and in GOProud being a formative part of who and what CPAC is this as in last year).

That was not my impression from your first post so thank you for clearing that up.

Never forget that Palin is a politician. Politician. Some good, some bad, all with methods in play.

Yes she is a politician but not an ambitious self serving power hungry ecotistical one. She serves because she has a “Servant’s Heart” She saw things happening in her community and instead of just complaining about it she jumped in to do something about it and has ever since. She takes on Obama for the exact same reason. If she didn’t who would? I’ve not seen anyone take him and his agenda on, because no one else seems willing to call that spade a spade. Who would you support then?

I disgreed as to McCain’s vacillating positions and pride in being “a Progressive” (“Teddy Roosevelt’s my hero” — who was a Progressive, and other similar Progressive and disappointing statements from McCain) and I do question Palin somewhat in that she claims McCain represents her positions on most things (I paraphrase). Meaning, I won’t be taken for a fool by simply assuming that becuase Palin is charming on some things that her claiming similarity to McCain is to be overlooked, I want to know what her actual views on issues are, just as I do all politicians, before endorsing, supporting, financing and voting for her or any others.

That’s fine you don’t have to but the only perfect person got nailed to a cross so tell me who is your perfect candidate who is willing to take charge and lead the fight?

That’s being reasonable, it’s not being a denigrator of Palin, it’s simply asking of and from her to be someone in politics I can support. So far, my vote is out and about this issue, I think she needs to clear it up to be taken seriously by Conservatives.Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:30 PM

I think she was perfectly clear. You don’t have to agree but, don’t exclude from a debate if you want to grow and have all the info you can have. Sooner or later we will know exactly what GOProud intends to do within the GOP and then we will act accordingly with the info we have.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM

You can’t say it’s bad, but OK when heteros do it just because they’re heteros, and then turn around and condemn homosexuals as individuals and humans for engaging in the same behavior. Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:49 PM

First off, “homosexuals” are not a fifth race or a new species or some third gender. You’re heterosexual human beings who opt to engage in a distinct set of physical and cultural behaviors. So defaulting to the “homosexuals” versus “heterosexuals” effort at discussion is faulty. Every human being is born with sexual organs and a gender and they’re designed to function in heterosexual relationship with another of the opposite gender.

No child is BORN engaged in sexual behaviors. The behavioral aspect of sexuality is developmental at a later age. And homosexual behavior is not the ‘default’ or “normal” function of gender.

If this were not so, then we’d be seeing six hour old infants groping one another and worse and some of them would be asking for Freddie Mercury solos played on the intercom in the delivery ward.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:55 PM

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 1:51 PM

What relevance does that have??

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:55 PM

That is exactly what Christianity is.
CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Lemme clue you in here and summarize Good Lt’s theology:

“There is no God, but if there were He would be just as I imagine He should be,” -Good Lt.

Akzed on February 7, 2011 at 1:56 PM

The day you or those who disagree with you can conceive of and birth a child from your lower or upper intestine, do let the rest of us know.

Actually, I’d prefer not to keep you informed as to things that go on in my life, if that’s OK.

I know you have great interest in what certain sectors of society do behind closed doors, but that’s none of your business.

That is exactly what Christianity is.

So Christianity is just a crude form of scapegoating.

Compulsory scapegoating.

How…moral.

Yes we own our sins and just like God forgave David for killing Bathsheba’s husband Uriel, He took his son as a consequence of that sin

So an innocent person was killed by God because… of the sin of a father.

You call this morality? This is a mockery of morality and justice, particularly for the victim (who did nothing wrong).

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:59 PM

The day you or those who disagree with you can conceive of and birth a child from your lower or upper intestine, do let the rest of us know.

Actually, I’d prefer not to keep you informed as to things that go on in my life, if that’s OK.

I know you have great interest in what certain sectors of society do behind closed doors, but that’s none of your business.

Typical leftie, just dismiss the point with a joke.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Hi muslim brotherhood.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 1:40 PM

This is the lie and the perversion of facts that I was speaking of. Christians don’t behave like Muslins do with homosexuals. Give me one example today of a Christian Church; Evangelical, Catholic, Lutheran etc that has formed itself into a political party and hung someone for being homosexual like the muslims mullahs governing Iran have… name one… when you lie you’ve given yourself away as having nothing…

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 2:01 PM

What relevance does that have??

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:55 PM

How do you select when you need to follow it strictly and when you can just pick and choose?
I dont see the existential threat from gays.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Typical leftie, just dismiss the point with a joke.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Keep believing it.

That will make it true.

QED

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Every human being is born with sexual organs and a gender and they’re designed to function in heterosexual relationship with another of the opposite gender.

The organs probably are. But gender is much more complicated and emotional, and often hormonal as well. For example, there are some people born XXY (an extra chromosome) and there’s little rhyme or reason why some of them identify as male and others identify as female. Gender is more than just our body parts, it’s also social constructs of how women and men are supposed to behave (and sometimes, misbehave). Some people are just misfits. We are not all born the same.

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Just dismiss the religion that’s the basis of Western Civilization and believed by many great historical men as bunk without even really understanding it BRILLIANT!

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Lemme clue you in here and summarize Good Lt’s theology:

“There is no God, but if there were He would be just as I imagine He should be,” -Good Lt.

Akzed on February 7, 2011 at 1:56 PM

You’ve repeated this in another thread, probably because you think it’s clever. Without realizing how ironic it is.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Are we speaking about the same post here?
Existential threat? Have you read anything to understand what I mean?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 2:04 PM

So an innocent person was killed by God because… of the sin of a father.

You call this morality? This is a mockery of morality and justice, particularly for the victim (who did nothing wrong).

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Of course you would see the son as the victim since you do not believe in an afterlife. the fact is that the son was given a great gift and went straight to the comfort of God’s embrace. The father was denied his son’s love for his actions.

unseen on February 7, 2011 at 2:04 PM

The Bible also proposes that the entirety of humanity and animaldom except for 8 people were wiped off the Earth in a flood at one point.

Believe that, too? Can’t pick and choose here.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Yes and those people saw Noah building that ark for 120 years and mocked him, belittled him got nasty with him. Though informed as to why Noah was building it and nevr helping they only tried to get in when the flood came and they were drowning.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Typical leftie, just dismiss the point with a joke.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Address my point and stop dismissing what I said.

Just dismiss the religion that’s the basis of Western Civilization and believed by many great historical men as bunk without even really understanding it BRILLIANT!

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Address my points and stop dismissing what I said with logical fallacies (appeals to authority).

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Address my points and stop dismissing what I said with logical fallacies (appeals to authority).

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:05 PM

LOL oh the irony.

right4life on February 7, 2011 at 2:06 PM

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 2:02 PM

So, the odd people are the ones that understand that “gender roles” are a social construct, but hen believe that you are born with one.
Unfortunately, that’s part of “liberal” orthodoxy.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:02

Well you keep believing what you do then. That will NOT make it true.

QED

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM

So an innocent person was killed by God because… of the sin of a father.

You call this morality? This is a mockery of morality and justice, particularly for the victim (who did nothing wrong).

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:59 PM

this is just idiotic. you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

right4life on February 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Are we speaking about the same post here?
Existential threat? Have you read anything to understand what I mean?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Dont play games here.

If you dont follow the bible strictly , why the fuss about gays.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Yes and those people saw Noah building that ark for 120 years and mocked him, belittled him got nasty with him.

The average lifespan of a human without modern medicine in those days was not 120 years.

Hate to break this to you.

Though informed as to why Noah was building it and nevr helping they only tried to get in when the flood came and they were drowning.

So God killed infants and innocent children in this mass murder because…others were sinning?

Again, I ask you, this is what you use to discern “morality?”

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Give me A logical point then, not a rambling string.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM

this is just idiotic. you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

right4life on February 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Explain.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Explain.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:08 PM

it would be a colossal waste of time with you.

right4life on February 7, 2011 at 2:08 PM

“There is no God, but if there were He would be just as I imagine He should be,” -Good Lt.

Akzed on February 7, 2011 at 1:56 PM

You’ve repeated this in another thread, probably because you think it’s clever. Without realizing how ironic it is.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM

That kind of struck me, too.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Give me A logical point then, not a rambling string.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM

What you call “rambling strings” I call “points” and “assertions of yours that I questioned and/or addressed.”

Can you reciprocate?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:08 PM

it would be a colossal waste of time with you.

right4life on February 7, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Humor me.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Yes she is a politician but not an ambitious self serving power hungry ecotistical one. She serves because she has a “Servant’s Heart” She saw things happening in her community and instead of just complaining about it she jumped in to do something about it and has ever since. She takes on Obama for the exact same reason. If she didn’t who would? I’ve not seen anyone take him and his agenda on, because no one else seems willing to call that spade a spade. Who would you support then?

(…)

That’s fine you don’t have to but the only perfect person got nailed to a cross so tell me who is your perfect candidate who is willing to take charge and lead the fight?

(…)

I think she was perfectly clear. You don’t have to agree but, don’t exclude from a debate if you want to grow and have all the info you can have. Sooner or later we will know exactly what GOProud intends to do within the GOP and then we will act accordingly with the info we have.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Nice to have a reasonable conversation here.

I don’t have any “perfect candidate”. I was entirely opposed to McCain last election but once he was the nominee in 2008, I supported him, and did vote the GOP ticket despite my mistrust of McCain for the Presidency. He would, of course, have been an improvement than what we have now and that, along with Palin as V.P., is why I managed to vote the GOP ticket in 2008.

I’ll vote for the GOP ticket again in 2012 and will, I repeat, will support the nominee whoever that is. Fully support them. I can name a few (but won’t) among the GOP currently who I would really like to NOT see run for the Presidency who are being considered to do so, who I really disagree with on very big issues, but, when the alternative is considered (another Obama term), I can’t tolerate THAT so I will proceed with support for the GOP ticket and a vote for same in 2012, *even if*.

In fact, I’d like to see many people on the Right try to do likewise and cease the denigration of Republicans who are being considered to run in 2012 at this time. The infighting is what ruins the GOP time and time again and it’s always the Libertarian (Leftwing) among the GOP who create the problems for the party and ultimately for the nation when we either elect the Leftwing as Republicans or we lose to the Democrats accordingly.

I dislike the cultism of the Left and particularly as it relates to Obama. I don’t like seeing that same cultism take hold among the Right and I work against the more Leftwing in the GOP accordingly, who form various demigod campaigns that run ripshod over other candidates and devote so much energy to denigrating other likely GOP voters. It turns many likely voters off.

I’m not sold on Palin but I’m certainly not opposed to Palin. I do agree that she has taken on Obama and confronted many aspects of his ruin and I am quite glad for that and respect her for doing so.

About the GOProud thing, I can only repeat myself yet again: ATTENDING CPAC by individual or group is not the issue — no one I know or would ever agree with maintains that someone or ones “should not attend CPAC” nor never would — but the offense by GOProud is their involvement in the formative nature of CPAC: they are a homosexual activist group — that’s their sole purpose and the leadership of that group has said as much publicly (been in most of media, that statement by them) is homosexual activism.

So what that has to do with qualifying for being a formative member of organizing CPAC is certainly the contradiction of terms of the event itself. That’s been and remains the issue for Conservatives.

There’s no need to wait-and-see what GOProud has in mind, they’ve clearly enunciated what their goals are and what they’re about: homosexual activism. That’s their objective. And they “advise strongly” that no social issues be included by the GOP on platform. Except their own.

I can’t support that and I don’t. It’s not a confused or clouded issue and I strongly disagree with Palin if she “supports” THAT (as I’ve described).

If she’s merely said she “supports” “attending” the event — GOProud “attending” CPAC11 — then fine, that’s supportable, but they’ve already exceeded mere atttendance. They’ve been involved in determining who is to be included in the event itself, and who would not be. And THAT is homosexual activism at work there.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Weird note on Genesis: characters are stated to have hundred+ year lifetimes.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Why people identify soley with their sexuality, race, religion, ESPECIALLY nationality has never made any sense to me. That being said, Sarah is displaying her prudence that comes naturally to seasoned and wise political leaders. If folks want to identify with such things and still want to be conservative, sure come on over and see what’s going on. In the end it may change some views. I don’t think this is going to ruin conservatism in of itself. To me it’s a non issue, really.

long_cat on February 7, 2011 at 2:11 PM

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM

The post is about Gopride participation in CPAC. I believe homosexuality is a moral wrong.
Just as a group formed to proclaim , say, adultery named ‘Proud adulterers for the GOP’ shouldn’t be allowed in CPAC so also Gopride shouldn’t.
WHAT EXISTENTIAL THREAT?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:06 PM

It’s both nature and nurture, not exclusively one or the other. You’re born with sex organs and hormones that start pumping furiously at puberty making you feel things about other people. You’re taught gender constructs about what men and women are like and how they ought to think, feel and behave. You’ll then synthesize this information and make decisions about how well you think these gender constructs apply to you–sometimes they seem to fit well, other times it seems hopeless to even try.

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Why people identify soley with their sexuality, race, religion, ESPECIALLY nationality has never made any sense to me.

long_cat on February 7, 2011 at 2:11 PM

So you’re not a ladies’ man, then?

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Weird note on Genesis: characters are stated to have hundred+ year lifetimes.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Yeah, but no penicillin or vaccinations or cures for typhoid, rubella, cholera, pneumonia, bacterial infections, etc., and no refrigeration or or working sewage or clean water supplies, etc.

Color me…heathen skeptical.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Look above at the posts, I’ve already addressed your points, try again.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Why people identify soley with their sexuality, race, religion, ESPECIALLY nationality has never made any sense to me.
long_cat on February 7, 2011 at 2:11 PM

People like to feel reinforcement of their chosen behavior.
Either that, or they just like having a set of people that they know that they can complain about a topic without risking disagreement.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:13 PM

I got up this morning at ~6:45AM PST, because I was thirsty. I quickly noticed that the power had gone out at ~1:22AM PST. Before resetting four different clocks in my residence and getting a drink of water, I remembered to choose to be gay today. Gosh it can be such a chore. Like, combating mildew build-up in the shower.

Jeddite on February 7, 2011 at 2:13 PM

I believe homosexuality is a moral wrong.
Just as a group formed to proclaim , say, adultery named ‘Proud adulterers for the GOP’

Homosexuality =/= adultery

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Look above at the posts, I’ve already addressed your points, try again.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 2:12 PM

I don’t know if you noticed, but I responded to them with some questions and other points.

And you dismissed my responses as out of hand without addressing them or explaining why.

Just sayin’

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Humor me.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:09 PM

why?

right4life on February 7, 2011 at 2:14 PM

You’re not bright.

You-Eh-Vee on February 7, 2011 at 1:24 PM

No, I’m “Lourdes.”

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 2:15 PM

I got up this morning at ~6:45AM PST, because I was thirsty. I quickly noticed that the power had gone out at ~1:22AM PST. Before resetting four different clocks in my residence and getting a drink of water, I remembered to choose to be gay today. Gosh it can be such a chore. Like, combating mildew build-up in the shower.

Jeddite on February 7, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Well, un-choose it!

:-P

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:15 PM

why?

right4life on February 7, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Because I have no doubt the world can benefit from your wisdom.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:16 PM

The post is about Gopride participation in CPAC. I believe homosexuality is a moral wrong.
Just as a group formed to proclaim , say, adultery named ‘Proud adulterers for the GOP’ shouldn’t be allowed in CPAC so also Gopride shouldn’t.
WHAT EXISTENTIAL THREAT?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Who gets morally wronged by homosexuality the way adultery does?

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Yeah, but no penicillin or vaccinations or cures for typhoid, rubella, cholera, pneumonia, bacterial infections, etc., and no refrigeration or or working sewage or clean water supplies, etc.

Color me…heathen skeptical.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:12 PM

It’s fiction, and no less unbelievable than miles of water being added to the Earth’s surface and then magically disappearing.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Yeah, but no penicillin or vaccinations or cures for typhoid, rubella, cholera, pneumonia, bacterial infections, etc., and no refrigeration or or working sewage or clean water supplies, etc.

Color me…heathen skeptical.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Neanderthals (so-called) were in much better shape than we were and had bigger brains…so much for evolution….

The Neanderthal, a cousin of the modern human who disappeared about 30 millennia ago for still unknown reasons, was far more massive and had a larger brain.

The Cro-Magnons who left cave paintings of large animals in the monumental Lascaux cave over 17,000 years ago were the Homo sapiens with the biggest brain. They were also stronger than their modern descendants.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-brains-smarter.html

its called devolution.

right4life on February 7, 2011 at 2:17 PM

To those who said they believe that adultery should be a crime, I would now like to ask if it should be a crime to not keep that Sabbath holy?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Got up this morning and started drinking, once again I chose to be an alcoholic.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Because I have no doubt the world can benefit from your wisdom.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:16 PM

and I have no doubts that you will continue to provide a few laughs…

right4life on February 7, 2011 at 2:18 PM

That is exactly what Christianity is.

So Christianity is just a crude form of scapegoating.

Compulsory scapegoating.

How…moral.

No more an acknowledgement on God’s part that we can never be good enough or perfect to work our way to Him.

Yes we own our sins and just like God forgave David for killing Bathsheba’s husband Uriel, He took his son as a consequence of that sin

So an innocent person was killed by God because… of the sin of a father.

Yes that child went straigt to Heaven to be with God where we are all trying to go and David suffered that loss and felt that anguish, that his actions denied him the companionship and fellowship of that son.

You call this morality? This is a mockery of morality and justice, particularly for the victim (who did nothing wrong).Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:59 PM

I call this Gods perogative. I don’t question God and this is nothing less than what God did in the Old Testament… He commanded the complete annihilation of a whole group of people, he killed Uriah for touching the Ark, He made the Jews wanded around for years in the desert… I do fear God as the Creator and the one who makes the rules. Rules that have very good and perfect reasons for existing. And if more people would fear God we wouldn’t have the mess we have now.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Homosexuality =/= adultery

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:13 PM

No, it doesn’t. How exactly do you think that addresses the point made in the comment you responded to? The commenter obviously considers both to be morally wrong. They don’t need to be equal for the point made.

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7 10