George Rekers. Co-Founder of Family Research Council. Anti-Gay activist who has been on national television.

And uh ... oh yea, he got busted with a male prostitute in Europe. And yes, they fornicated.

I thought the he was only there to carry his luggage?

(05-07-2010 12:47 AM)RobertN Wrote:  I thought the he was only there to carry his luggage?

Oh, he was carrying his bag alright. . . . . http://www.instantrimshot.com

Just more substantiation that my disdain for social conservatives is well-placed.

(05-07-2010 01:02 AM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 12:47 AM)RobertN Wrote:  I thought the he was only there to carry his luggage?

Oh, he was carrying his bag alright. . . . . http://www.instantrimshot.com

Oh my!

:rolltide:

LOL. I like seeing stories like this. (More on the story below...)

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-06/...rent-boy/1

I'll never understand why people are so bothered by what someone else's sexual preference is, and make a lifelong campaign about it.

Some have suggested that the most homophobic are in fact hiding internal homosexual tendencies themselves, and their anger is a way of desperately trying to 'deny' themselves. When you read cases like this, you gotta wonder if there is something to that.

Sexual projection is going to kill what's left of the the social conservative movement, and that's for the better of fiscal and small government conservatives like myself.

(05-07-2010 08:30 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Sexual projection is going to kill what's left of the the social conservative movement, and that's for the better of fiscal and small government conservatives like myself.

The problem is that I think they are going to take the republicans down with them, and right now the republicans are the only alternative to fiscal insanity.

(05-07-2010 08:30 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Sexual projection is going to kill what's left of the the social conservative movement, and that's for the better of fiscal and small government conservatives like myself.

I wouldn't assume that to be true.

Restraint isn't a simple on/off switch. If you can't exercise restraint in one area, you probably won't exercise it in most areas.

The demise of social conservatism preceded the demise of fiscal conservatism...for a reason:
The latter is rooted in the former.

As an example, The Tea Party makes few avenues of conservative social approach. And as more of Gen Y moves into "family" territory, many because more fiscally and SG conservative, however Gen Y is firmly rooted in social liberalism.

Social conservatism as it exists today is dying. A new social conservatism will probably emerge, incorporating a pro-life / pro-gay platform to go along with more traditional family values.

I have a fair amount of visibility to the above as I am dotted line to Recruiting at my company. The future is arriving, and the Baby Boomers are not nessessarily writing the HR and other political policies any longer.

I don't get politicians who make their core issues things like homosexuality and abortion and such. Just an example of government over-reaching its boundaries, IMO.

(05-07-2010 09:37 AM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  I don't get politicians who make their core issues things like homosexuality and abortion and such. Just an example of government over-reaching its boundaries, IMO.

Abortion over-reaching? Hmm, protecting the life of citizens, somehow that always struck me as the MAIN purpose of gov't.

(05-07-2010 09:53 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 09:37 AM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  I don't get politicians who make their core issues things like homosexuality and abortion and such. Just an example of government over-reaching its boundaries, IMO.

Abortion over-reaching? Hmm, protecting the life of citizens, somehow that always struck me as the MAIN purpose of gov't.

It is between them and their God. It is NONE of your business Jesus man. Comprende?

(05-07-2010 09:53 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 09:37 AM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  I don't get politicians who make their core issues things like homosexuality and abortion and such. Just an example of government over-reaching its boundaries, IMO.

Abortion over-reaching? Hmm, protecting the life of citizens, somehow that always struck me as the MAIN purpose of gov't.

Human or not, they're not citizens until they are born.

Abortion is too controversial to even be a part of a platform. I agree with the Republican Liberty Caucus which states that in its platform, and denotes that proper beginning point is to turn it over to the states.

(05-07-2010 11:07 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 09:53 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 09:37 AM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  I don't get politicians who make their core issues things like homosexuality and abortion and such. Just an example of government over-reaching its boundaries, IMO.

Abortion over-reaching? Hmm, protecting the life of citizens, somehow that always struck me as the MAIN purpose of gov't.

Human or not, they're not citizens until they are born.

True. I was struggling for the right noun. How's this: Protecting the lives and well-being of innocent people.

(05-07-2010 11:10 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 11:07 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 09:53 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 09:37 AM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  I don't get politicians who make their core issues things like homosexuality and abortion and such. Just an example of government over-reaching its boundaries, IMO.

Abortion over-reaching? Hmm, protecting the life of citizens, somehow that always struck me as the MAIN purpose of gov't.

Human or not, they're not citizens until they are born.

True. I was struggling for the right noun. How's this: Protecting the lives and well-being of innocent people.

well, that makes my post seem like a waste of time.

(05-07-2010 11:08 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Abortion is too controversial to even be a part of a platform. I agree with the Republican Liberty Caucus which states that in its platform, and denotes that proper beginning point is to turn it over to the states.

The only way to turn it over to the states is to overturn Roe V Wade. Congratulations, you just made abortion a part of your platform. More accurately your first sentence should actually read:

"Abortion is too controversial to not have it be a part of the platform."

It's a polarizing issue that the American people won't ignore. There is no way for politicians to avoid taking a stance.

(05-07-2010 12:14 PM)Know Nothing Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 11:08 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Abortion is too controversial to even be a part of a platform. I agree with the Republican Liberty Caucus which states that in its platform, and denotes that proper beginning point is to turn it over to the states.

The only way to turn it over to the states is to overturn Roe V Wade. Congratulations, you just made abortion a part of your platform. More accurately your first sentence should actually read:

"Abortion is too controversial to not have it be a part of the platform."

It's a polarizing issue that the American people won't ignore. There is no way for politicians to avoid taking a stance.

The more controversial the issue is the more local the solution should be. That's the heart and soul of federalism. And I love how you social cons are against the projection of force in economics ... but when it comes to how people live their life outside of money you're all too happy to use government force to mandate how they need to live. Philosophically, there is NO DIFFERENCE between a fiscal liberal and a social conservative.

(05-07-2010 12:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Philosophically, there is NO DIFFERENCE between a fiscal liberal and a social conservative.

This one's easy:
You are 100% wrong.