Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Austin Hill :: Townhall.com Columnist
Mike Huckabee: "Vote For Me, I'm An Evangelical"
by Austin Hill
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Pardon me, but have you seen my Republican Party lately? I don’t recognize it anywhere.

My mom worked for Barry Goldwater as she carried me in her womb, Ronald Reagan was elected Governor of my home state of California when I was two years old, and I’ve believed in the principles of Goldwater and Reagan all my life.

But given the surge of the “Huckabee for President” campaign, it would seem that many Republicans have abandoned Reagan’s vision in favor of something more reminiscent of President Carter.

As a former Governor, Huckabee has a less-than-conservative track record on a wide range of crucial policy issues, from taxation to immigration to judicial appointments. But Huckabee speaks fluently about Jesus Christ, and theology, and for some people this is apparently all that matters.

And this is why I’m confused. How can so many members of the Republican Party be so quick to abandon the principles of Ronald Reagan?

Huckabee is an anathema to the political conservative movement, a movement that has existed as long as I’ve been alive. But he also poses challenges for another group that has existed for most of my life - - the religious social conservatives.

While making the case for its own policy ideas, the “Christian Right,” as it is sometimes called, has always maintained that attending church regularly and studying the Bible does not disqualify one from participating in our politics. I have always agreed with this assertion, and have been fully supportive of it.

But now we have a presidential candidate who is saying something quite different. By both implicit and explicit means, Huckabee has been conveying that his Evangelical Christianity - - his personal faith, his having attended a Bible college, and his status as an ordained Pastor - - qualify him to be President! This is problematic for the presumed “leaders” of the religious social conservative movement, on at least a couple of accounts.

First, for all the obsessing about a Mormon interjecting his religion into our nation’s politics, Mitt Romney simply has not done this (indeed he has tried to avoid talking about his church as much as possible). Yet in the past several weeks, Huckabee has been interjecting his Evangelicalism into the political process at nearly every turn - - and that seems to be just fine for the “leaders” of the movement.

Huckabee has repeatedly invoked the name of Christ; has fired-off innuendo’s criticizing the theology of other candidates (primarily Romney’s theology); has dismissed any criticism of his behavior as “political correctness;” and has generally sought to present himself as the “most Christian” of the candidates. Yet the same “leaders” who are so afraid that Romney might “mix politics and religion” can’t even bring themselves to question Huckabee’s behavior as he forces theological arguments into the political debate.

Additionally, the reaction (or “non-reaction” as the case may be) to the Huckabee campaign from the religious social conservative movement affirms the worst suspicions of the critics. Rather than being a movement that proposes policies that are good for ALL Americans and then seeks to build consensus around those policies, the movement now appears to be fraught with a “double standard,” just as it also appears to support only candidates that profess the “right” theology - - policies and job qualifications not withstanding.

After reading this, many people will email me Bible verses, and tell me that I don’t get it, and tell me that Mormonism is more evil that I realize, and remind me that we want a “godly man” in the White House. And this illustrates my precise point: there is a time and a place for theological arguments, and this isn’t it. I’m writing here about politics, and advancing political ideals. This is what presidential campaigns are about, as well.

While one’s faith can, and should inform their politics, personal faith and personal politics are not the same thing. But it appears that now, in the year 2007, many Republicans view faith and politics as being very much the same thing. This dangerous mindset precludes the possibility of building consensus with anybody who doesn’t happen to go to the “right” church.

So what happened to the Republican “big tent” concept? And how did we arrive at a point where a candidate’s governing philosophies can be so easily ignored, simply because he has been to Bible college and professes the name of Jesus?

The current success of the Huckabee campaign spells trouble for both the Republican Party, AND the religious conservative movement. It is now my hope that there are other conservative Americans who are as disgusted with these conditions as I am, and are ready to bring about change.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Austin Hill is a Talk Show Host At Boise, Idaho's 580 KIDO Radio, and a frequent Guest Host on the Fox Newstalk Radio Network. He is the Author of "White House Confidential: The Little Book Of Weird Presidential History," And Co-Author of the forthcoming title "The Virtues Of Capitalism: A Moral Case For Free Markets" (Northfield/Moody Press, 2010).
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
There is a conservative
And the only viable candidate to address the problems rather than enumerate them:

FRED THOMPSON

The ONLY candidate that will handle the illegal alien problem satisfactorally. He also scores high in the other categories of government. Iraq, homeland Security, religion and state, abortion, etc.

VOTE FOR THE FRED!!

scooter, triple hernia for you
writes: Saturday, December, 29, 2007 12:27 PM
Questions to anyone...everyone I suppose
“a beautiful human activity” – does anyone doubt that sex between two consenting adults isn’t only a beautiful human activity, but let’s face the facts – feels good.

Further, the premise seems to imply that homosexuals in our society can sway us into homosexual sex; does this concern some of you quite a bit?
______________________________________________

The beauty of sex is in submission to God's will, or evolution's will. Homosexual 'sex' is perversion, nothing more, and can't be beautiful unless you consider a feces covered p3nis beautiful.

Nothing implies that homosexuals can pull us clear thinking people into homosexual sex. We are concerned about your disease spreading, your whining, your parades, your proselytizing of children. Why can you not understand that?

Bust a gut, scooter!!!
scooternyc writes: Friday, December, 28, 2007 8:17 PM
Luis
Once again, you've offered nothing to substantiate your claims.
_____________________________________________

Yes, I have: COMMON SENSE, which is.

As to your discrimination nonsense, we don't discriminate against women or blacks or Mexicans, and that is not exactly true, because they had nothing to do with the defintion of their condition. A homosexual/translesbian/trisexual/confused person needs to do nothing more than look between the legs to see what God, or evolution if you prefer, meant for that person, but is obstinate, persists in being perverse to that definition. COMMON SENSE APPLIES.

Questions to anyone...everyone I suppose
“a beautiful human activity” – does anyone doubt that sex between two consenting adults isn’t only a beautiful human activity, but let’s face the facts – feels good.

Further, the premise seems to imply that homosexuals in our society can sway us into homosexual sex; does this concern some of you quite a bit?

It’s funny, but muslims would like to sway me into extremism to kill infidels and yet I have no desire whatsoever to pursue such an idea or course of action. Certainly they can try and be persuasive, talk it up all they wish, even demand equal rights to speak about their religion here in America, but it’s hardly anything I worry about being forced into as you seem to think homosexuals want the same from the rest of us.

No homosexual I’ve ever known has ever wanted to force others or myself into thinking about sex as they do or living their particular lifestyle. I’ve only known them to want freedoms and equitable aspects of our societal benefits, can’t see anything wrong with that, can you? If so, how exactly?

Luis
Does it occur to you that we no longer discriminate women as second class citizens.

We no longer discriminate against a person's race.

We no longer discriminate against a person's ethnicity.

The discriminatory nature of your statements won't be satisfied by the elimination of all gay people because something else will take its place, just as all of the above statements for which society at one time utilized as scapegoats.

What will it be next, those who have brown eyes, or blond hair, or are taller than 6 feet, have an IQ above 150 or perhaps those who don't hold the same religious views as you do - where does it end.

It appears more and more that yours is a rant against diversity of any kind which doesn't agree with your narrow view of life.

Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.

Your statements couldn't be more ANTI-AMERICAN if they tried. How unfortunate for you that you hate this country and all its foundations, so much. It's the greatest nation on earth to live and you squander the greatest opportunity to live in it.

Luis
Once again, you've offered nothing to substantiate your claims. You offer your own subjective ideas, which we all have the freedom to think and express, but they are in no way anything of substance to your claim.

If you claim that homosexuals have chosen their lifestyle, then you must have chosen your own, as well, therefore their lifestyle is just as normal as your own.

Now if you have another claim which you can substantiate then it seems worth reading, but so far you've offered nothing but what appears to be a rant against other human beings with whom you disagree with their choices - this doesn't make them anything except human beings who don't choose sex the way you do.

I can only presume there are millions who don't choose sex in the manner you do; they don't eat the same food you do; they don't drive the same car that you do; they don't live the way you do; they don't have the same job or income level.

None of these differences are worthy of condemnation from anyone, they're just different, not wrong simply because one disagrees.


scooter, you are forcing something...
scooternyc writes: Thursday, December, 27, 2007 4:17 AM
Luis
Actually, you're not providing anything that substantiates your claim.

If you're stating that it's god's word that gives your position credential, then you would have to substantiate the claim of which word? There are some 27,000+ Greek versions and some 10,000+ Latin versions - all of them are incomplete manuscripts.

I have no quarrel with you making the claim, I just would be interested in your facts by which you have reached the conclusion.

You claim that homosexuality doesn't come natural, I can only observe that it is a conclusion that you have drawn only for yourself, personally, as you cannot know if it comes naturally for anyone else. Unless they tell you, but still, that's just his/her word, it doesn't substantiate his/her true feelings from within that may not be revealed to you.
_________________________________________

...can't be forced.

Is it that you lack critical analysis abilities? We state very clearly that common sense, which is, is all that one needs to understand the homosexual sterility, disease spreading, incorrect use of genitals problem. They eyeballs applied to the genitals are really all that is needed. Homosexuals are not confused; they know what they are, but they choose to accept the lib/lefty encouragement, otherwise they have no justification for their perverions, no justification for trying to ruin the greatest country in the history of man.

You are trying entirely too hard to justify the perversion of a beautiful human activity, and the consequent whining for special rights, the consequent flaunting of the perversion, the consequent attempt to proselytize children.

Luis
Actually, you're not providing anything that substantiates your claim.

If you're stating that it's god's word that gives your position credential, then you would have to substantiate the claim of which word? There are some 27,000+ Greek versions and some 10,000+ Latin versions - all of them are incomplete manuscripts.

I have no quarrel with you making the claim, I just would be interested in your facts by which you have reached the conclusion.

You claim that homosexuality doesn't come natural, I can only observe that it is a conclusion that you have drawn only for yourself, personally, as you cannot know if it comes naturally for anyone else. Unless they tell you, but still, that's just his/her word, it doesn't substantiate his/her true feelings from within that may not be revealed to you.

And yes, you can dismiss the statement because it doesn't support your theory, but it is still true - if you choose one thing, you then have NOT chosen another thing. I can't have chosen to fly to New York and at the same time chosen to fly to California from the same starting point.

But we won't confuse the situation further, just your substantiated claim is what I'm most interested in reading about, the facts by which you have reached your conclusion, is all.

Thanks.

scoot, again trying too hard
scooternyc writes: Wednesday, December, 26, 2007 8:22 PM
As your writing reveals Luis
"Homosexuality is a perversion, heterosexuality is normal. One does not choose heterosexuality, normalcy. You are trying entirely too hard."

Actually you're professing an ignorance of observation within your own posts. GIBBERISH FROM YOU.

If you are making the statement that homosexuals "choose" their behavior, then it follows one must then "choose" heterosexuality over homosexuality and vice verse. NO, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW. YOU ARE WRONG. HETEROSEXUALITY COMES NATURALLY. HOMOSEXUALITY DOES NOT COME NATURALLY.

If you are stating that heterosexuality is "normal" because it is what is natural within you; then homosexuality is also normal as it is what is normal within someone who is homosexual. I AM STATING THAT HETEROSEUXALITY IS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH GOD OR EVOLUTION MADE THE GENITALS.

If you choose one thing, you are NOT choosing another thing; but it's still a choice. NOT AT ALL.

How can you be certain your particular choice is right for anyone but you? You can't. Each person must choose his/her own options based on what is natural from within. I CAN BE CERTAIN THAT HETEROXESUALITY IS NORMAL BECAUSE I SEE WHAT GOD OR EVOLUTION HAVE DONE, AND I SEE THE STERILITY AND DISEASE PRODUCED BY HOMOSEXUALITY.

But, again, you didn't answer the question: how did you come to this conclusion about homosexuals? I CERTAINLY DID ANSWER THE QUESTION--YOU SIMPLY DON'T LIKE THE ANSWER.

As your writing reveals Luis
"Homosexuality is a perversion, heterosexuality is normal. One does not choose heterosexuality, normalcy. You are trying entirely too hard."

Actually you're professing an ignorance of observation within your own posts.

If you are making the statement that homosexuals "choose" their behavior, then it follows one must then "choose" heterosexuality over homosexuality and vice verse.

If you are stating that heterosexuality is "normal" because it is what is natural within you; then homosexuality is also normal as it is what is normal within someone who is homosexual.

If you choose one thing, you are NOT choosing another thing; but it's still a choice.

How can you be certain your particular choice is right for anyone but you? You can't. Each person must choose his/her own options based on what is natural from within.

But, again, you didn't answer the question: how did you come to this conclusion about homosexuals?

Swamp, scoot: Go to Matt Barbers's
A little more homosexual/translesbian/trigenderal/mistaken gonads confusion: Go to Matt Barber's article about the male homosexual trapped in a female body. If it weren't so nuts, it would seem to be comedy fiction, but it is so nuts, so it must be homosexual/etc confusion. Defiance of God's or evolution's intentions for human genitals.

Swamp, wrong again.
Swampfox writes: Wednesday, December, 26, 2007 7:42 AM
Reparative Therapy
Scooternyc, it sounds like Luis has been through "the program" at either EXODUS or NARTH. The program is reparative therapy. The American Medical Community does not approve of such therapy. It does NOT work.
______________________________________________

Swamp, it might sound like Luis has been through "the program" at either EXODUS or NARTH, but he has not.

Oh, yes, someone with common sense who knows for what purpose God or evolution made the human genitals and discusses in clear terms the problems that homosexuals have, leading to a shortened life span, and the problems they cause, is either a suppressed homosexual or one who has been through "the program." That's what the Harvard homosexuals have scripted, and that is what the robots will say.

Now, is NARTH not the third moon in the orbit of Krastofranius, in the solar system of Gratzomakieeees? Oh, you clever homosexuals, so artistic, so wealthy, so....sick.

scoot, you are almost hilarious
scooternyc writes: Wednesday, December, 26, 2007 6:45 AM
Luis
Not sure if you realize it or not, but your statement "You made yourself homosexual" to the other blogger, insinuates that one can then choose to be heterosexual.

If so, then when and how did you choose to be heterosexual?

Why do you think you chose not be homosexual?
_______________________________________________

Your nonsense is almost hilarious: Homosexuality is a perversion, heterosexuality is normal. One does not choose heterosexuality, normalcy. You are trying entirely too hard.

scoot, I did answer
writes: Wednesday, December, 26, 2007 6:36 AM
Luis
You did not answer my question, so I will pose it once again:

How did you come to this conclusion about homosexuals and your disdain for them?

Thanks.
___________________________________________

But I did answer: You are being ridiculous because you EXACTLY what our attitude towards homosexuals is based on. It is repeated over and over in the previous posts. One does not have to be Christian, Frambusian, Buddhist, Taoist, Mohammedan or anything in particular to understand that the homosexual sterility says it all about what homosexuality is.

Swamp, for the millionth time...
Swampfox writes: Wednesday, December, 26, 2007 10:16 AM
Luis' statement
Luis writes: God, whoever that is, maybe you mean evolution, did not make you homosexual. You made yourself homosexual and the homosexuualists love it, because you belong to them, even you who claim to be Republican.

Swamp, We breathe very well without the advice of a person who doesn't know what purpose God, or evolution if you prefer, created/designed the complementary human genitals. We understand very well how to relax, and when.

Indeed no one is out to 'get' us--they cannot.

Swampfox writes: Yet, you are out "to get" people who are homosexual.
_____________________________________________

Again, Swamp, for what seems like the millionth time: We are not out to 'get' homosexuals--we are out to stop the public perversions you call parades, we are out to stop the proselytizing of children, we are out to stop the whining for special rights. Please try and remember that that is all we are out to do.

Of course, we understand why that doesn't sink in: Simply because your handlers, the libs/leftie/Democrat Party tell you that conservatives are meanies, that they ARE out to get you, that the libs/lefties will get you all you want, including candy from the Boy Scouts, including homosexual 'marriage.'

Luis' statement
Luis writes: God, whoever that is, maybe you mean evolution, did not make you homosexual. You made yourself homosexual and the homosexuualists love it, because you belong to them, even you who claim to be Republican.

Swamp, We breathe very well without the advice of a person who doesn't know what purpose God, or evolution if you prefer, created/designed the complementary human genitals. We understand very well how to relax, and when.

Indeed no one is out to 'get' us--they cannot.

Swampfox writes: Yet, you are out "to get" people who are homosexual. You don't want to listen to anything I/we have to say. Everything you say could come right off the NARTH or EXODUS website. This coming year, please expand your reading list.

Reparative Therapy
Scooternyc, it sounds like Luis has been through "the program" at either EXODUS or NARTH. The program is reparative therapy. The American Medical Community does not approve of such therapy. It does NOT work.

Luis
Not sure if you realize it or not, but your statement "You made yourself homosexual" to the other blogger, insinuates that one can then choose to be heterosexual.

If so, then when and how did you choose to be heterosexual?

Why do you think you chose not be homosexual?

And of course, my first question went unanswered, how did you come to the conclusions about these homosexuals?

Luis
You did not answer my question, so I will pose it once again:

How did you come to this conclusion about homosexuals and your disdain for them?

Thanks.

Swamp, desperation on your part
Swampfox writes: Monday, December, 24, 2007 10:41 PM
Homosexuality sinful?
No, it is not a sin. God made me homosexual, just as he made some people short and others tall. Is being short sinful? Is being left-handed in a right-handed world sinful?

Luis, learn to take a breath and relax. No one is out to get you. There is no conversion therapy that will make you gay, if you are straight. Enjoy your sexuality with your partner, get married and have a huge family. Find some happiness, the time we all have on this earth is far, far too short.
______________________________________________

God, whoever that is, maybe you mean evolution, did not make you homosexual. You made yourself homosexual and the homosexuualists love it, because you belong to them, even you who claim to be Republican.

Swamp, We breathe very well without the advice of a person who doesn't know what purpose God, or evolution if you prefer, created/designed the complementary human genitals. We understand very well how to relax, and when.

Indeed no one is out to 'get' us--they cannot. The homosexuals and homosexualists are not going to 'get' us, they are not going to change the greatest country in the history of man, we will see to that.

Exodus has had great success in helping homosexuals understand the nature of their problem. We don't understand your nonsense of 'conversion therapy' to make anyone homosexual--HOMOSEXUALITY IS SIMPLY YOUR CONFUSION.

talk talk talk fiscal conservatism
Reagan, smaller government less spending. HOgwash. He ran up the biggest budget deficit in the history of the US. That is until George Bush came in and put the whole planet at risk with his 9 trillion deficit that is still rolling along unchecked. Give me Clinton any day who balanced the budget and left a SURPLUS!

Interesting!
Very interesting!

Candidate's religion
"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

This means that the government may not require that a person seeking government employment be of a particular religion or theological persuasion in order to be hired or sworn in to elective office. However, our Constitution does not prohibit citizens from choosing to vote for or against a candidate because of their particular religion or lack thereof. In the competition of ideas in the public square, you have to fight for what you think is right, defend your positions and try to convince as many people as possible of the validity of your views about all things the voters consider important whether religious or political. If voters think a candidate's religion is an important issue, then that becomes a perfectly appropriate topic for in-depth public discussion. It can also be a valid reason to vote for or against any candidate if the voter sees it as such. It is most assuredly not bigoted or narrow minded to do so. Informed, serious voters are obligated to take all aspects of a candidate's life and world-view into thoughtful consideration. Nothing is legally or morally prohibited from the closest scrutiny.

Voting for Mormons as politicians
In his big book on Mormonism, John Ankerberg proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Mormon theology is the opposite of what we find in biblical Christianity, so, if the Bible is correct, then Mormons are not really Christians. That being said, some of the kindest (but most depressed) people I have ever known have been Mormons, and I have known more than a few. As a biblical Christian theologian, I would not hesitate to vote for a Mormon were his political principles sufficiently consistent with the Constitution, and his character sufficiently sound. I will be voting for Ron Paul, however, because his political and moral principles are much superior to those of any other candidate of any faith or lack thereof. Neither Romney nor the Huckster comes remotely close.

Gestell...
Read my post again. I already do accept Swampfox as a human being and a Republican. All of us sin and no one can judge the final outcome of our sins except God.

As for the gay marriage issue, I was not speaking of God, but rather what people by voting will decide what changes or does not change as to the laws of this nation. God did give people free will to do what is right or what is wrong.

I also stated that swampfox and I would probably disagree about that. I believe that most people would agree with me right now but I cannot say that they always will.

Homosexuality sinful?
No, it is not a sin. God made me homosexual, just as he made some people short and others tall. Is being short sinful? Is being left-handed in a right-handed world sinful?

Luis, learn to take a breath and relax. No one is out to get you. There is no conversion therapy that will make you gay, if you are straight. Enjoy your sexuality with your partner, get married and have a huge family. Find some happiness, the time we all have on this earth is far, far too short.

Gestell, libs/lefties are nicer
Gestell writes: Monday, December, 24, 2007 2:12 PM
Reply to Swampfox
Give it up--you cannot be a Republican, and you certainlyi cannot be a conservative if you are gay. It's really that simple. Just read what Luis and all the true conservatives are saying. Your natural home is over here with us liberal Democrats. A gay or lesbian who tries to be conservative is definitely barking up the wrong tree. Conservatives and conservative Republicans have no use for you. You shouldn't exist, in their view, and the only reason you do exist is that you're an awful sinner, defying the will and the word of God. You can't fight that.

I extend an invitation to any and all gays who think they are conservatives or Republicans. Leave the party and the ideology that despise you and everything you are. Become a liberal Democrat; we're just a whole lot nicer than our opposition.
________________________________________

Gestell: We don't know how you know that we are conservative. Our opposition to the homosexual and homosexual plan for the destruction of marriage and the family, along with the feminists, is based on COMMON SENSE, which is, NOTHING MORE.

Yes, the lib/lefties are 'a whole lot nicer' to homosexuals, because they are pliable, manageable, gulls in a word, because you need their votes and their money and so you tell them that anal intercourse and their other filthy disease spreading habits are ok, you then will tax US wage earners for the money to pay for the problems that their diseases cause. And you will get them their homosexual 'marriage.' That certainly is a whole lot nicer, from the homosexual point of view.

Swamp, further
Yes, the homosexuals and homosexualists want us to 'give it a rest,' they can't take the truth about homosexual sterility and disease. BUT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO 'give it a rest,' NO, THEY ARE GOING TO CONTINUE ADVOCATING AND WHINING FOR SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR HOMOSEXUALS.

We will continue reminding people about such things as the homosexual organ donor in Chicago who managed to pass his/her/its AIDS on to four people who received his/her/its organs. Why has the msm not published more on this subject? Who in his right mind would accept organs or blood from a homosexual? But no, the msm won't touch that subject.

We will continue reminding people about the exaggerated and distorted description of AIDS in Africa published by the UN. Distorted in the sense that anyone with a fever had AIDS, and see, it isn't a homosexual disease, oh no.

As to Gestell's remark that Christians only give fellowship when the homosexual admits that he is a sinner, there may be some like that, but they are shallow, uninformed and not the kinds of Christians we know who offer fellowship and support without any conditions, but Gestell knows most Christians are that way.

reply to Farmer's Wife
I can't really imagine a Christian who can imagine that if the "will of the people" changes, gay marriage might be ok. Look, Farmer's Wife, in your view, God himself is against gay marriage and--if you're capable of any intellectual consistency at all--against gays as well. So how in the world can a change in public opinion possible make God change His Mind? Answer me that, if you can.

Also, you're very tolerant, in the usual intolerant Christian way, when it comes to Swampfox. If he admits that everything he is and does as a gay is sinful, then you'll extend him fellowship. Pardon me for not being overwhelmed with your lovingkindness.

Swamp, you and once can go elsewhere
Swampfox writes: Monday, December, 24, 2007 2:09 PM
Luis
As onceamarine said, give it a rest.
______________________________________________

And as we told once, we do not miss a chance to refer to the homosexual sterility as the proof of the unviability of homosexuality and homosexualism, so we will not 'give it a rest.'

You know what you can do if you can't stand the truth: Go to the websites with libs/lefties who pose as tolerant, but only because they need your votes.

scoot, you know what the problems with..
scooternyc writes: Monday, December, 24, 2007 2:10 PM
Luis
Curious - is your disdain for homosexuals your own conclusion based on some criteria or is it because your god says it's so?

It's an interesting perspective you seem to share with this thread.
_______________________________________________

...homosexuals are.

Don't be ridiculous: You know perfectly well what our problems with homosexuals are, and those problems are presented in the post to Swamp.

Swamp, I've told you many times
Swampfox writes: Monday, December, 24, 2007 4:47 PM
To Gestell
I am gay. That is why I write about being gay. I don't know why Luis seems so upset about people such as myself.
__________________________________________

Swamp, you certainly DO know why we are upset about homosexuals, because we have told you many times, but, ok, once more: We will not have you whining the way your lib/lefty handlers want you to, libs/lefties who need you as a victim class for your votes and for the fabled rich Hollywood homosexuals' money, so that they can find justification for altering in any way this greatest country in the history of man, that has perdured for over 200 years when no other country has, constitutionally. You will not turn what is bad into good, you will not make white black or black white, you will not turn up into down and down into up, in short you will not subvert this country. Your homosexual parades are repugnant, not to mention violate the rights of innocent citizens with their children who may want to use the streets and sidewalks, who violate the rights of, for example firemen, who do not want to participate but are forced to, for example by the San Diego homosexual fire chief; your proselytizing of children in the schools as is being attempted in California, but that has occurred many times in the last 20 or so years; your disease spreading which costs taxpayers their hard earned money; your incessant whining for special rights.

Got it?

Swampfox, I am glad..
to have you as a republican. I am a white, female, Christian almost as old as HRC, but not quiet.

As to what Gestell says about us despising you because you are gay is not true for most of us. What many make the mistake of is forgetting that we all have sinned and still do sin. The Bible says sin is sin and other than blasphemy, no sin is unforgivable.

What you or I do about our personal sins are between us and our God. We might have differences of opinion on the gay marriage issue but again that is not a deal breaker for me. It is a matter that will or will not be changed at some point in time, according to the will of the people, hopefully, and not by activist judges.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

To Gestell
I am gay. That is why I write about being gay. I don't know why Luis seems so upset about people such as myself.

Democrats, no way.
I vote on the issues of National Defense and Illegal immigration. I am for the former and against the latter. Republicans are coming around on the gay issue.

Reply to Swampfox
Give it up--you cannot be a Republican, and you certainlyi cannot be a conservative if you are gay. It's really that simple. Just read what Luis and all the true conservatives are saying. Your natural home is over here with us liberal Democrats. A gay or lesbian who tries to be conservative is definitely barking up the wrong tree. Conservatives and conservative Republicans have no use for you. You shouldn't exist, in their view, and the only reason you do exist is that you're an awful sinner, defying the will and the word of God. You can't fight that.

I extend an invitation to any and all gays who think they are conservatives or Republicans. Leave the party and the ideology that despise you and everything you are. Become a liberal Democrat; we're just a whole lot nicer than our opposition.

Luis
Curious - is your disdain for homosexuals your own conclusion based on some criteria or is it because your god says it's so?

It's an interesting perspective you seem to share with this thread.

Luis
As onceamarine said, give it a rest.

More gross distortions of Huckabee
The Republican Party is confortable with religion, so long as you don't talk about it too much? So long as you don't acknowledge it beyond the nebulous?

There is more venom and distortion out there in regard to Huckabee than I have seen on any Republican candidate in a long time.

This spiteful column is just another disappointing and hateful distortion.

once, typical lib/lefty
There is the lib/lefty typical response: shut up. Does it make once uncomfortable to hear the truth? Why would a lib/lefty want to shut up an honest discussion, free speech?

once, you do not understand
onceamarine writes: Monday, December, 24, 2007 12:16 AM
Luis, shut the Fup, enough.already......

......change the subject. Go to bed. Watch TV, read a book or anything else but continue with something nobody wants to fear anymore about.

Wind your watch, let the cat in or out, feed the dog, but shut up about it.

And that goes for the rest of you. It's Sunday for Pete's sake. Rest it for another day.
__________________________________________

once, you do not understand: We are determined to stop the homosexual nonsense, whining. If you are uncomfortable about our posts, you know what to do. Or do you not know? If you don't, here it is: Go to the lib sites, and stay there.

Swamp, homosexuals love publicity
Swampfox writes: Monday, December, 24, 2007 12:21 PM
Gay issue
Both Democrats and Republicans will try to use the gay issue in 2008. In 2004 the Democrats tried to use Cheney's daughter and the Republicans used gay marriage referendums to turn out the vote. I wonder how we will be used this time around?
________________________________________

You will be used the way you allow yourselves to be used. And your lib/lefty handlers, who need you as a victim class, will tell you how you will be used. Brazen homosexuals love the publicity, thinking it helps the cause, but it doesn't, it just causes revulsion and more determination to fix the problem.

Gay issue
Both Democrats and Republicans will try to use the gay issue in 2008. In 2004 the Democrats tried to use Cheney's daughter and the Republicans used gay marriage referendums to turn out the vote. I wonder how we will be used this time around?

elbeau
That's reasonable. I just wondered if you were setting up to be angry for possibly wrong reasons if he lost. I see that you've reasoned it through.
By the way, I agree with you and would be put off if religion became the reason for a Romney loss. I do not plan to vote for him in the primaries, but think he'd make a fine president and will support him if he becomes the nominee.

Dear Austin, GET OVER IT
I am astounded (well, not too much) by the conversations within GOP ranks and by their favorite "ranters."
Your right Austin, all once was pretty and polite and aligned in GOP politics; my how nice are the memories of those days, AND ALL OF THOSE DEFEATS NATIONALLY!
Reagan, more than anyone else, made the GOP a "BIG TENT" political party AND A WINNER AT ALL LEVELS. Well, my darling boy, "BIG TENTS" are not "well run" affairs; the GOP, if it remains relevant, will not be all tea and crumpets with candidates annointed because it is considered to be "their turn."
The GOP has the problem now of deciding upon who can manage to bring enough of its now diverse base to the polls without alienating too many "indepedents" and "libertarians", and that base, oh shock, includes EVANGELICALS (but far beyond them "believers" of less committed pedigree).
The GOP this go-round has produced no taintless candidate potentials...not for "the old guard", not for RINOs, not for fiscal conservatives, not for EVANGELICALS...get my drift; get off the EVANGELICALS for finally accepting a candidate they feel is close enough to what they seek in one, or get cracking on the other "relatives" under this GOP tent for their choices of a "lesser than" candidate out of the remainder of the GOP field.
The GOP will not benefit from a "cutting off its nose to spite its face" mentality.

Romney' s words and tears like Clinton's
Mitt Romney, like the other slckster, bill clinton, is continuing have toi wiuggke out ot lies.

First he had had to backpedal on his hunting exploits, and now is explaining himself again after claiming an endorsement he did not receive and saying he witnessed his father in civil rights marches he could not have seen.

"It's a figure of speech," Romney said Thursday after media inquiries into the Republican presidential contender's statement during his recent religion speech that he watched his father, the late Gov. George Romney of Michigan, march with Martin Luther King Jr.

Romney similarly backtracked after telling a national television audience Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that "I received the endorsement of the NRA" in 2002 while running for governor of Massachusetts.

The gun rights group did not endorse either candidate, and gave a higher issues rating to his Democratic opponent.

Romney said Monday, "It was, if you will, a support phone bank, which is not an official endorsement."

It's always that one extra step that causes him the trouble," said Tobe Berkovitz, a longtime Romney observer and the interim dean of Boston University's College of Communication.

"You can't just say that African-Americans were accepted into the church and I was happy, you have to say you pulled over and you cried."

Right!!


Well said, Austin
Huckabee has disturbed me more than Hillary or any politician has for a long time. His treacly appeal reminds me of Jimmy Carter also, but the current pol he most resembles is John Edwards. They both play up their roots in poverty and their rise above it through education and hard work, but it's all the same old populist snake oil that seems to thrive throughout the South. They both remind me of Huey Long, but without the loud-mouthed obnoxiousness.

Edwards is such a pretty boy and so self indulgent that it's easy to see through his "two Americas" spiel. Huckabee has been far smoother and better played, but his criticisms of Romney's wealth and talent really don't make sense in terms of qualifications for being president. Do all our leaders HAVE to come from log cabins and be the first in their family to learn to read?

Huckabee's answers to issues strike me as a lot like Barack Obama's, changing the subject from hard questions to something he feels more warm and fuzzy about. A lot of his statements sound more like a New Dealer than a Conservative, and when you add his reliance on the religious divide between Evangelicals and Mormons, he's poison for the GOP.

Luis, shut the Fup, enough.already......

......change the subject. Go to bed. Watch TV, read a book or anything else but continue with something nobody wants to fear anymore about.

Wind your watch, let the cat in or out, feed the dog, but shut up about it.

And that goes for the rest of you. It's Sunday for Pete's sake. Rest it for another day.


Hal, of course you are sure...
...what they do in bed. You know it as well as any homosexual or homosexualist. Your lib/lefty/homosexualist agenda is based exactly on what they do in bed. Don't be ridiculous.

Hal, continued


Of course you know that the homosexuals/homosexualists have succeeded, temporarily, in getting their homosexualist agenda into the California public schools. That is proselytizing.

As to why homosexuals would want a kid, ask them. But it would make sense that they want their candy close to them, they want to make sure they 'continue' the homosexual line because they are sterile; in any case one of the big homosexual phenomenons is their desire to adopt.

So Focus on the Family, CWA, AFA, etc need money to build their Taj Mahals? You want them to work in ordinary offices? Who are you to decide where they should work? They can build the Taj Mahals with air? With sand? These organizations are not like the lib/lefty organizations that tap the taxpayer. These organizations have a serious job and it is to stop the homosexual/homosexualist attempts to destroy the family, to destroy marriage. We support them. By the way, you can check their books, if you want, about how much they spend on building their Taj Mahals--let us know what you find out.

Hal, here is what you are missing
Hal Donahue writes: Sunday, December, 23, 2007 4:56 PM
Luis
"Hal the unflappable is flapped: You have nothing to say about "Did I leave anything out?"

??? I am not at all certain what you are talking about want to enlighten us?

"We contribute because we know that that money helps in publicizing the homosexual perversions, and ultimately will stop them, in their public perversions at least, in their attempts to proselytize children at least. "

They only people I hear of "proselytize children" are your ilk i.e. priests. Why ever would a gay person male or female want a kid????

"homosexual perversions"? I am not at all sure what "they" do in bed; I do know that US citizens seem to be very into "sodomy" at "worse" and "oral pleasure" at best. I am sorry but if most of the US does it why can't they? Am I missing something?
_____________________________________________

You are missing the fact that heterosexuals who practice anal intercourse are not whining for special rights, are not proselytizing children, are not having parades showcasing their perversions. Heterosexuals who practice anal intercourse and other perversions deserve all of the filth and disease they get. They are also confused people. [continued]

Swamp, heterosexuals can be confused too
Swampfox writes: Sunday, December, 23, 2007 8:45 PM
To talent scout
ts:
That is not a guess at all, you know I have heard about anything you have.
Its called condescension and arrogance.

I have also heard of people born with out legs, arms, having two heads, having 4 arms.
Its all called birth defects because that is what it is.

It is not the normal, and is what I wish you had heard of. Normal
Sodomy is not normal
--------------------

Sodomy is not normal? Gee whiz, then a lot of heterosexuals aren't "normal". Or, is any sexual activity engaged by heterosexuals not sodomy?
_____________________________________________

We've told you this a few times already, but what the heck, why not one more time? If heterosexuals commit anal intercourse or any other perversion, they deserve the same diseases that homosexuals get.

Swamp, it is homosexuals who are...
Swampfox writes: Sunday, December, 23, 2007 10:09 PM
To Plumpbob
You are right the issue is not settled, yet. There are still the uninformed and undereducated out there who are still as dense as granite.
______________________________________________

...confused.

Swamp, surely you are not referring to those of us who criticize the homosexual sterility, the homosexual perversions as uninformed and undereducated, as dense as granite? Surely?

It is you homosexuals who are confused about why God, or evolution if you prefer, made the male and female genitals complementary.

Wrong question
SunThe1 writes: "Just curious: if Gov. Romney does not win the nomination, how will you know whether it was his politics or his religion (or something else)?"

I honestly don't care if Romney loses the nomination. I do care if he loses to Huckster, because Huckster is running his campaign based on his particular religion.

If Romney looses to Guiliani, McCain, Thompson, or anyone else, I won't shed a tear. I can see plenty of reasons people would vote for some of the others.

All I have a problem with is Huckabigot running his campaign based on evangelical fears about Mormonism.

Barney Frank congratuates mitt on taxes
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) Praised Romney For Refusing To Endorse Bush Tax Cuts: “I was very pleased [Romney did not endorse the tax cuts] … Here you have a freshman governor refusing to endorse a tax cut presented by a Republican president at the height of his wartime popularity.” (Wayne Washington and Glen Johnson, “Romney Weighs In — Carefully — On Bush Tax-Cut Plan,” The Boston Globe, 4/11/03)




Romeny: a big tax Massachusetts lib-3
· Beacon Hill Institute: "When it is not lurching for the last dollar, the grabbing hand of government loves nothing more than the label conveniently called a ‘fee.’. (Christopher Boyd, “Fees Put A Crimp On Tax Cuts,” Beacon Hill Institute’s NewsLink http://www.beaconhill.org/NewsLink/NLV81/v8n1Feesincreases Boyd.html , Vol. 8, No. 1, Fall 2003)


The Boston Globe: Romney’s Fee Increases “May Have Enhanced [Massachusetts’] Reputation As ‘Taxachusetts.’”

“This time it’s fees, not taxes. Still, Massachusetts may have enhanced its reputation as ‘Taxachusetts.’

A survey of states grappling with spending crises has found that Massachusetts imposed more fee hikes than any other state in the nation this year — at least $500 million.

Governor Mitt Romney and the Legislature, faced with a multibillion dollar shortfall, made it more expensive to get a marriage license or a divorce, file a court case, buy a house, renew a driver’s license, or tap into a host of other state services.” (Rick Klein, “Mass. Is Called No. 1 In Fee Hikes,” The Boston Globe, 7/24/03)


Romney Refused To Endorse President Bush’s 2003 Tax Cut

“Governor Mitt Romney Refused … To Endorse Tax Cuts At The Heart Of President Bush’s Economic Program …” (Wayne Washington and Glen Johnson, “Romney Weighs In — Carefully — On Bush Tax-Cut Plan,” The Boston Globe, 4/11/03)

Romney: a big tax massachusetts lib-2
Romney Raised State Fees By Over $500 Million In 2003 Alone, Far More Than Any Other State In The Nation” That Year.

A 2003 survey of states by the National Conference Of State Legislatures found Massachusetts imposed at least $501.5 million in fee hikes, far more than any other state in the nation that year.” (Steve LeBlanc, “Romney, In Change Of Heart, Signs No-New-Taxes Pledge,” The Associated Press, 1/5/07)


Beacon Hill Institute: Romney’s Fee Increases Worked To "Eliminate" The Benefits Many Massachusetts Residents Received From 2003 Bush Tax Cuts.


"If the Bush tax cuts revive the stalling economy they will do so in spite of the large fee increases levied by states across the U.S. with Massachusetts leading the way.

If anything, these state fee increases not only diminish, but, for some people, even eliminate, the tax cuts passed by Congress and signed by the President." (Christopher Boyd, (Fees Put A Crimp On Tax Cuts),

Beacon Hill Institute’s NewsLink

http://www.beaconhill.org/NewsLink/NLV81/v8n1FeesincreasesB oyd.html> , Vol. 8, No. 1, Fall 2003)




Romney: a big tax massachusetts lib-1
Fees and taxes have increased more than $700 million a year under Governor Mitt Romney and Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, a leading budget specialist said yesterday.

Michael J. Widmer — president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which closely tracks state finances — said the state has raised roughly $740 million to $750 million per year by increasing fees and corporate taxes gained from what the Romney administration describes as ‘closing loopholes.’”


(Brian Mooney, “Analyst Puts Increase In Fees, Taxes At $700m,” The Boston Globe, 9/27/06)


Romney Approved Hundreds Of Millions In Higher Fees And Fines Including Raising The Cost Of Getting A Marriage License, Filing A Court Case, Buying A House Or Renewing A Drivers License.” (Steve LeBlanc, “Romney, In a Change Of Heart, Signs No-New-Taxes Pledge,” The Associated Press, 1/5/07)

Didn't realize that
this thread was about homosexuals. I thought it was about a presidential candidate.
But since we seem to be talking about it, I'll put in my two cents.

According to the scriptures, Homosexuality is a sin, and a bad sin. Not unforgivable, if one were to repent, and stop the activity. I don't hate homosexuals, but I do hate the activity. It is wrong!! Romans chapter one pretty well covers it.

I also hate it when they feel that they must talk about it, flaunt it, parade it, insist it be taught to children as okay, when it goes against Christians and what Christians want taught to their children.When they take over places like Disneyworld and have deviant sex in front of children, or whoever is there. That take over a ballgame, and do the same things. That have huge parades and perform these same acts in public.
This would not be tolerated if it were hetrosexuals, nor should it be. But so many homosexuals want to display it, and push it on others, who weren't really paying attention until they became so completly insistent that everyone should accept them and let them do what ever their deviant little minds could think of to do. I know that is when I actually got angry. Before, I felt it was an awful sin, but didn't try and push my feelings on any one.
But they had to cross the line, then cry foul, when people said "enough".

Well, that solves it Swampfox,
You have plainly stated your motives.

To aDNA
I am a Fnnn....ing Republican. Darned if I know why. Its my firm belief that the "gay issue" will not be solved at the ballot box or in the courts. Sadly, it is when people such as myself will stand up and sign their letters to the editor of their local newspapers and let them be published.

Right aDNA
My own norm is ignore people like swampfox.

Problem is they are always sticking this in everyone's face.

And I am happy to tell him what an abomination it is.
Glad it makes him happy too

To Plumpbob
You are right the issue is not settled, yet. There are still the uninformed and undereducated out there who are still as dense as granite.

Pete Williams of NBC news was the press secretary for the Pentagon in the first Iraq War....... he's gay. What horrors. Cheney hired a gay Republican to be his press secretary.

Swampfox
Perhaps you are genuine, and perhaps you are a ringer for liberals.


The Huckabee...
supporters seem to have formed their own cult. I can't see a lot of difference between their kookiness and that of Ron Paul supporters. Nominating either of these guys will turn the election into a coronation of the Democrat, whoever that is.

talent, talent, talent
Well, talent scout, you know that some are not sincere, and just want you to spin your wheels and say something that can be used to some political ends. He wants to make Thompson look bad, perhaps, by endorsing him. But Fred Thompson is a complete conservative dreamboat.

Pray for swampfox, but don't fall for any balogne.


To all
I give a darn about gay marriage. Talent scout, people such as you, Elvis and Luis are the best thing that we have going for our cause. I would not dream of stopping you from trying to explain yourselves. I not a gay fanatic ............ I am just someone who happens to be gay who. I pray that you all find happiness in your lives.

You do not knwo mine at all
aDNA writes: 9:23 PM
Swampfox's real motive, & yours
Swampfox is phishing for hassles on his homosexuality.
-------
ts:
He is eat up with this stuff.
This thread had nothing to do with sodomy.
Every thread such as he changes it to that cause its all they think about.
--------


aDNA writes:

Lookit, everyone's a stinkin sinner. Everyone includes YEW.
----
ts:
You look at this
Its true all men have sinned. BUT
I am not here trying to justify a single one of my sins either.
That all these people can do, like swampfox.
------
aDNA writes:
But he is not really looking for the answer to the problem of sexual addiction; so what is his real motive? I have one guess but could be incorrect.
-----
ts:
He is here to justify it knowing many of us reject it and looking for an argument so he can make accusations as if he is so righteous.
Not only is sodomy a sin, its an abomination

Thank you, troops!
For a real Christmas wish, from a real conservative candidate,


(Scroll down, "Holiday Message")

http://www.fred08.com/FredCast/FredCastSummary.aspx#

Sending our love to our troops,
aDNA and family

Hill can't write
Notice how he doesn't get into specifics, nobody does when attacking Huckabee. I bet Hills next article will be about how he believes in space aliens because Romney told him to.

Huckabee is the only conservative candidate. The establishment fears him because they don't own him. I hope voters know the truth.

Thompson/Hunter 08
Thompson is who I will vote for. He is a true and persistant conservative. He has always voted conservative.

He has Nat'l Right to Life endorsement and another Right to Life Assn.
He also got the endorsement of Steve King, congressman from Iowa, that has fought so hard against illegal immigration, and for Ramos and Compean. He says Fred Thompson has the best plans for this country all the way around, and is a true conservative.

If Huckabee were to be nominated, I will NEVER vote for him, because I would be voting for a man that I KNOW is a liar and a fake. That uses Jesus Christ, to get votes.
There may be others that make mistakes, but are sincere, but I can't vote for someone that I already know is a liar and cheat. That would be rewarding him for his actions, and put this nation at risk.

Swampfox's real motive, & yours
Swampfox is phishing for hassles on his homosexuality.

Lookit, everyone's a stinkin sinner. Everyone includes YEW.

But he is not really looking for the answer to the problem of sexual addiction; so what is his real motive? I have one guess but could be incorrect.



No it is not normal
Swampfox writes: 8:45 PM

Sodomy is not normal?
The arrogance is on your side. You have said that you don't even want to know a gay.
-----
ts:
I prefer not to know one, thats true.

------


Swampfox writes:
You have said knowing one is one too many. Obviously, you don't even want to understand the issue. My guess is that you want all of us just to disappear or at least shut the heck up.
------
ts:
The problem from my perspective is you cannot accept I do understand it and reject it as perverted sex.
Not changing either for you, or any man.
-----
Swampfox writes:
My guess is that you want all of us just to disappear or at least shut the heck up
----
ts:
No guess at all on what you prefer.
You are a fanatic in shutting up anyone who does not accept your chosen perversions.

Misinformation from SwampFox
SwampFox, ever the source of misinformation about homosexuality, wrote this:

"There is an entire industry called reparative therapy for homosexuals. Masters and Johnson in the 1960s claimed that they were successful around 71% of the time in converting gays to being straight. They were just dumb. Professionals in the mental health field today realize that such therapy doesn't work and can be harmful."

Some professionals do say this. They have no scientific basis on which to do so. Other professionals still practice some form or other of treating homosexuals. It's controversial -- which means, SwampFox, that among professionals, THE ISSUE IS NOT SETTLED.

But, of course, it's ordinary for social progressives in every field to claim "The issue has been settled" as a means of stifling debate and shutting up their opponents. They do this because they're not capable of winning an actual debate using intellectually honest means.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Onceamarine Hey!!
Don't know if you're still around or not. I was gone for awhile, came back on and found yur message.
It is COLD here, but not like some places in Oklahoma. We are close to the Arkansas border, and the snow and stuff didn't get this far east and south. Just very cold and windy. Was almost 70 yesterday morning. by 6:00 pm, it was 29, with a windchill of 19.
Wish you the very best of Christmases, and a Happy New Year.

Swampfox--what you need to know @ Fred
Fred Thompson supports a federal amendment forbidding court fabricated homosexual marriage. He allows for state voters and legislatures to govern themselves in the matter. (Voters always support preserving marriage by 70%, even in MA and CA.)

Does that sound fair enough to you :)

I hope that helps, and I would be proud to support Fred Thompson with you. Please visit a Calvary Chapel church in your area sometime too.

Love and Christmas wishes,
aDNA

To talent scout
ts:
That is not a guess at all, you know I have heard about anything you have.
Its called condescension and arrogance.

I have also heard of people born with out legs, arms, having two heads, having 4 arms.
Its all called birth defects because that is what it is.

It is not the normal, and is what I wish you had heard of. Normal
Sodomy is not normal
--------------------

Sodomy is not normal? Gee whiz, then a lot of heterosexuals aren't "normal". Or, is any sexual activity engaged by heterosexuals not sodomy? The arrogance is on your side. You have said that you don't even want to know a gay. You have said knowing one is one too many. Obviously, you don't even want to understand the issue. My guess is that you want all of us just to disappear or at least shut the heck up.

Negative at 47% Romney
Clinton, Romney lead pack in 'level of core opposition'
47% say they will vote against each no matter who else appears on ballot.

Posted: December 22, 2007
8:15 p.m. Eastern



© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


Despite what they do to garner support, Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Gov. Mitt Romney each have 47 percent of voters who say they would vote against the two candidates, regardless of whom their opponent might be, according to a new Rasmussen poll.


http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59342

Thompson
Something that I have not said, but in the last couple of weeks, I have been at one of Thompson's small gatherings (150 people) and met and talked to one of his advisors. I guess that I passed a Secret Service inquiry. There were all around us. You might like to know that I did not even bring up the gay issue with his advisor. At this time, I will be voting for Thompson. He will probably do something about illegal immigration and will remain strong on national defense.

I am comforted knowing you are
Finding comfort
-------


Swampfox writes: 7:47 PM
To talent scout
How comforting is your response at 7:19, what especially touched me was at the very end:

By the way everyone does not have a body that defines their sex. I guess that you have never heard of an hermaphrodite or more accurately an Intersexual.
-------
ts:
That is not a guess at all, you know I have heard about anything you have.
Its called condescension and arrogance.

I have also heard of people born with out legs, arms, having two heads, having 4 arms.
Its all called birth defects because that is what it is.

It is not the normal, and is what I wish you had heard of. Normal
Sodomy is not normal

Critiques of Romney
Interesting story saying "Romney must be stopped" here:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/23/romney.editorial/ind ex.html

Apparently, there's also stories out about his company, Bain Capital, having investments in and trying to influence several major conservative commentators.

Romney very much does come off as the establishment candidate. Of course, the issue with Romney is, as it has always been, is whether or not he can be trusted.

While I agree with Mike Huckabee on the vast majority of issues, I would like to take this opportunity to convince other conservatives on the matter of his "electability." Look at the swing states, such as Michigan and Ohio (no, not Pennsylvania or California, for as much as we might like to delude ourselves into believing that we have a chance in those states). They've lost a ton of jobs due to free trade. Running with a populist we can keep Ohio and possibly lock up the Midwest by taking states such as Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

With Mike Huckabee, you're getting someone who is pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-Iraq war, pro-balanced budgets, and pro-2nd amendment. You're also getting someone who can take a more nuanced set of positions in being for deporting illegals and building the fence, while not punishing their children who have not committed the sins of their fathers. This element of compromise does not compromise our principles, and his willingness to seek energy independence and "go green" along with his populist message will help chip away votes from the Democrat nominee. It'll also stave off the "It's the economy stupid" rhetoric of the Democrats when people see mortgage foreclosures, which an economically libertarian message does nothing to assuage.

Huckabee's a winner. The only question is do we possess the courage and wisdom to nominate him? I sure hope so.

To Elvis
I am sure that there is more than one book of gays saying all sorts of things. There is an entire industry called reparative therapy for homosexuals. Masters and Johnson in the 1960s claimed that they were successful around 71% of the time in converting gays to being straight. They were just dumb. Professionals in the mental health field today realize that such therapy doesn't work and can be harmful.

And, yes, there is far too much promiscuity among gay males. They also suffer from far, far too much depression. Have you ever wondered why?

By the way I am a gay conservative who will vote for a Republican in the primary in my state of South Carolina. It will not be Huckabee. In 2000 and '04 I voted for Bush. In fact I have never voted for a Democrat for President. I find national defense and illegal immigration the issue that get my vote.


Right, Elvis

The economy will be the big one next year this time come November. Immigration and religion will play second fiddle to the economy, Period. In fact I believe religion will be behind immigration as it directly affects the economy and people will have time to think about that.

Like they say about relatives who over stay their welcome. After just so many days they start to smell. Well that is going to happen with the illegal migrants we have on board this country. They will begin to stink like old fish in the sun.

This should surprise no one. In about every second or third election the economy is the number number one issue. The pocket book becomes a bigger issue than the good book or even good government. When things are rocking along then the other issues come up, but not in November 2008.

People will not be looking at your attitude towards religion or homosexuals or even cross dressing and who your friends once were. I'm talking about the main bulk of voters, not us special interest people. When the economy starts to hurt average Joe's, and he/she gets worried about making payments on their purchases, well, that's all they will have on their little minds.

We are looking at a major economic shake out, and that means a major interest in ""the economy, stupid"".


To talent scout
How comforting is your response at 7:19, what especially touched me was at the very end:

Swampfox writes:
How many gays or lesbians do you even know?
------
ts:
Knowing one is one too many

By the way everyone does not have a body that defines their sex. I guess that you have never heard of an hermaphrodite or more accurately an Intersexual. Here is a link to Intersexuality in Wikipedia.

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

Re: It's your choice
"fred
was on the wrong side of abortion.. "

Really? Gee! How do you explain this?

"Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson has won the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee, the largest U.S. antiabortion group... ."

Hal, here is what I am talking about
Hal Donahue writes: Sunday, December, 23, 2007 4:56 PM
Luis
"Hal the unflappable is flapped: You have nothing to say about "Did I leave anything out?"

??? I am not at all certain what you are talking about want to enlighten us?
______________________________________________

Here is what I am talking about:

Hal Donahue writes: Saturday, December, 22, 2007 7:36 AM
Luis
writes: Friday, December, 21, 2007 9:43 PM
"Did I leave anything out? "

Princess nailed you, spot on. You just can't stop talking about them can you? The moth circling the flame. I certainly hope you don't claim to be a Christian too - that would make you response perfect LOL
_____________________________________________

1. We don't know who the Princess is to whom you refer. benighted of bowwow? du? matthew? skinnywhite? Len?????? Robert? Hal? Some other homosexual or homosexualist? Some other subversive? [tip, though probably useless for a sophisticate like you: the phrase 'spot on' is a trite, overused Anglicism--don't use it]

2. No, when the homosexuals or homosexualists try to defend the indefensible, we cannot stop pointing out their disease spreading, their filthy habits, their proselytizing of children, their nonsense parades, their sterility. They will not subvert the greatest country in the history of man--hang on, the best is yet to come for you traitors, 'lieutenant colonels' and all.

3. Don't be silly: Of course you hope we are Christian! But you can hope all you want about whether we are Christian or Franbusian or Martian or Buddhist or, horrors, SUPPRESSED HOMOSEXUALS!!!!...but it doesn't take Christianity or Frambusianism or Martianism or Buddhism or suppressed homosexuality or anything except common sense, which is, to know for what purpose God, or evolution if you prefer, and we are sure you do prefer evolution, created the complementary human genitals.

more than one book
more than one book ....but that one was by homosexuals themselves!
your marriage question..is skipping the subject,
swampfox!i have seen many homosexuals interviewed
and most of them are very promiscuses(sp?) hundreds of different affairs! by the way..you have the courage to talk about it...but your no more GAY than anybody else! the original meaning--happy,cheerful,etc!with all the aids,etc. a good word was messed up by the political correct! my full explanation would take hours...so good night.
elvis

Hey, nanna, Merry Christmas.....

...which means the mass for Christ. Regardless of our Christian church and different beliefs thereof, we can all enjoy Christ's mass and go to midnight services or first thing on the 25th.

How is Oklahoma.??. Cold I expect. It's kinda like Amarillo. You go to a matinee movie in your short shirt sleeves and come out to a blizzard. I don't often admit I was hatched in Oklahoma city.

Anyway, to you and yours, all my and our best this Christmas. Stay warm and safe, ya'll.(you all for our Yankee friends)( Gosh, it's got to be colder than pee running down a she wolfs hind leg in January where they live)

AND Happy New Year Folks.


Sun, you are wrong
SunThe1 writes: Sunday, December, 23, 2007 5:15 PM
Luis
You appear to be the one getting the hernia. Why so worked up? Perhaps there is homosexuality in your family, but it's repressed and turned into hate of same...I think there's a psychiatric term for that.
______________________________________________

The classic homosexual answer to criticism: YOU ARE A REPRESSED HOMOSEXUAL!!! Except that you are wrong.

Well if you want me in this
Swampfox writes: 7:15 PM
Luis and talent scout expand your reading lists this coming year.
------
ts:
Ok
I do not need to read anything, in fact you need to read my book on this subject.
Its a short story.
Your body defines your sex.
The mouth or the anus are not sexual organs.
Your perverted mind is the problem, thinking otherwise.

Shouldn't take you over a day to read that and a life time to let it sink in.

Re: The polical history of Mormon
The Mormon Church has always been heavily in volved in politics. During the run-up to Utah's Statehood in the 1890s two political parties veyed for power in the State, the People's Party (primarily Mormons) and the Liberal Party (primarily non-Mormon "gentiles"). After Statehood was insured by the Woodruff Manifesto, the Liberal Party members mostly became Republican, while the People's Party largely merged into the Democratic Party.

With the Woodruff Manifesto of 1890, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for mostly economic and political reasons, disavowed polygamous marriages, one of the Mormon Church's base religious tenets. Even today, splinter sects of the church continue to adhere to the Mormon's original promotion of polygomy.

fred
was on the wrong side of abortion..as was romney
if your anti blanket abortion as iam...but in 1994..both romney/thompson were liberal to a degree. fred worked for lobbies that were pro abortion and other factors,too!there are other issues in my opinion that qualify fred as a little less than hard core conservative! i like me better than i like all of em! but iam not a perfect candidate(what am i talking about..iam not a candidate at all!)quit looking for the perfect candidate...that is silly! but the economy is going to be the biggest issue next year !!!!!
and i will stick to mitt for that reason not exclusive reason..but the biggest reason!just sang silent night in church..great words!good night.......elvis

Really, is this meant to convince me?
Swampfox writes: 3:37 PM
To talent scout
I guess that you don't think that you are born left-handed or right-handed either, talent scout.
-----
ts:
Everyone is born with a body that defines their sex.
Pretty simple if one did not prefer stupidity.
--------

Swampfox writes:
If you are heterosexual or homosexual and you cheat on your partner you are not being faithful.
-----
ts:
If you lie you are unfaithful.
That word describes all who say they are born sodomites.

--------
Swampfox writes:

My guess is that you know huge number people who have committed heterosexual adultery, gone through the divorce process and left their children.
------
ts:
Nah, this is not close to a guess, its what it is.
I do not accept your lies and it made you mad at me, smile.


-------
Swampfox writes:
How many gays or lesbians do you even know?
------
ts:
Knowing one is one too many