Geez Sean, I thought you had a semblence of some sense...... Let's review:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:19 PM, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]>wrote the following nonsense: Oh I also forgot a ban on gay marriage ======== Keith Responds: There is no other definition of and for marriage, other than the term's religious connotation. The premise that there is some kind of "civil definition" of marriage is incorrect. Marriage is in total, an ecclesiastical function; marriage always has been and continues to be. If one studies the history of marriage from biblical times, your assessment is incorrect. In the history of this Nation, the several States got involved in the contract of "Marriage", only because of the conflict of varying religious tenets, and in part, to regulate miscegenation back in the early to mid nineteenth century. As stated, marriage is now, and has always been between a man and a woman, and this is at the very core of traditional values in western civilization. The definition of marriage extends throughout recorded history of western civilization. The term, "same sex marriage" or "gay marriage" is an oxymoron, there can be no such thing, without literally changing the definition of marriage. That is the goal of these socialists and secularists; e.g.; to redefine the definition of marriage. This would be the equivalent of changing the definition of "Murder", or "giraffe"; or any other noun, adjective or adverb. Despite the concept that many individuals and entities are trying to sell the American public, most of which are from socialist-elitist movements here in the United States, and in this particular case, e.g.; the push for "gay marriage"; it is the militant gay movements within the United States, that has, and attempts to portray any individual that is opposed to gay marriage as somehow being bigoted, and equivalent to being racist, comparing themselves to the black community and the black leadership that pushed for racial equality who were treated unjustly during the mid to late 20th century. It is not discriminatory for Americans to be opposed to, and rejecting same sex marriages as being a part of normal, mainstream behavior, and refusing to condone the literal change and manipulation of the meaning of marriage. Far from it. There is no concerted effort to be discriminatory with regard to "same sex couples", if individuals so choose to live that kind of a lifestyle. Most Americans, and I dare say all conservatives are not at all objectionable to civil unions for homosexuals, albeit the gay militant movement tries to frame this as being some kind of "separate but equal" token of inequality. California has a "domestic partner" law, which allows for civil unions between homosexuals, which means that this whole hulabaloo over the passage of Proposition 8 was not at all about equal rights, but instead, forcing an alternative lifestyle down Americans proverbial throats: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 Ya don't see the news media focusing on this issue do ya??? ============ Sean "SugarShack" Virtual Truth then goes on to say: and an attack of Roe Vs Wade. ============ *Keith Responds:* The federal government has no business being involved in the regulation of abortion, period. This is an issue that the local and state governments should be dealing with. ---------------------- Sugarshack then goes on to say: all far right ideology even though the majority of the country did NOT support these views. The majority of America did not vote for Bush in 2000! *Keith Responds:* Sean, whether you like it, or don't like it, America is a conservative Nation. I will go into detail in another thread on this issue, but you are mistaken, and clearly, like a lot of far left extremist-elitists who "Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why"; you are crying over an election that President Bush clearly won. Every major news organization that is credible has admitted as much. ========================== On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Sean "Sugarshack" VirtualTruth <> again went into some kind of a rant: No the White House is forcing the Republicans to define themselves as either supporting hate speech and defining themselves as supporters of the content of the hate, etc, etc., etc.... =============== *Keith Again clarifies:* Sean, examples? What "Hate Speech" is it that you are referencing? This is where you are totally misguided! It is in fact, the far left ideologues who are so hateful, intolerant, and venomous! I can give example after example if you wish......Will be more than happy to do so. By example, look at any of Fritzie's posts!!! If you refer to Americans in general refusing to denounce normal, traditional family values, traditions, a "moral compass" for lack of a better term, then it is you that is the hateful one, not conservatives, who are predominately Republicans!!! or denounce the hate speech and those who support the hatred and believe in it's content. This also binds the Republican Party to Rush Limbaugh and the marginalization that Rush causes with Moderate Americans. Pushing Republicans further into the wilderness and irrelevance. If Republicans denounce Limbaugh they face the wrath of a vocal comedian who controls the radical religious right and xenophobic conservative base. > On Mar 13, 4:11 pm, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > No the White House is forcing the Republicans to define themselves > > as either supporting hate speech and defining themselves as > > supporters of the content of the hate, or denounce the hate speech > > and those who support the hatred and believe in it's content. This > > also > > binds the Republican Party to Rush Limbaugh and the marginalization > > that Rush causes with Moderate Americans. Pushing Republicans > > further into the wilderness and irrelevance. If Republicans denounce > > Limbaugh they face the wrath of a vocal comedian who controls > > the radical religious right and xenophobic conservative base. > > > > On Mar 12, 10:20 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The White House Misfires on Limbaugh By KARL ROVE > > > March 12, 2009 > > > > >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123682426946303905.html > > > > > Presidents throughout history have kept lists of political foes. But > the > > > Obama White House is the first I am aware of to pick targets based on > polls. > > > Even Richard Nixon didn't focus-group his enemies list. > > > > > Team Obama -- aided by Clintonistas Paul Begala, James Carville and > Stanley > > > Greenberg -- decided to attack Rush Limbaugh after poring over opinion > > > research. White House senior adviser David Axelrod explicitly > authorized the > > > assault. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel assigned a White House official to > > > coordinate the push. And Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gleefully punched > the > > > launch button at his podium, suckering the White House press corps into > > > dropping what they were doing to get Mr. Limbaugh. > > > > > Was it smart politics and good policy? No. For one thing, it gave the > lie to > > > Barack Obama's talk about ending "the political strategy that's been > all > > > about division" and "the score-keeping and the name-calling." The West > Wing > > > looked populated by petulant teenagers intent on taking down a popular > > > rival. Such talk also shortens the president's honeymoon by making him > look > > > like a street-fighting Chicago pol instead of an inspirational, > unifying > > > figure. The upward spike in ratings for Rush and other conservative > radio > > > commentators shows how the White House's attempt at a smackdown instead > > > energized the opposition. > > > > > Did it do any good with voters not strongly tied to either party? I > suspect > > > not. With stock markets down, unemployment growing, banks tottering, > > > consumers anxious, business leaders nervous, and the economy shrinking, > the > > > Obama administration's attacks on a radio talk show host made it seem > > > concerned with the trivial. > > > > > Why did the White House do it? It was a diversionary tactic. Clues > might be > > > found in the revelation that senior White House staff meet for two > hours > > > each Wednesday evening to digest their latest polling and focus-group > > > research. I would bet a steak dinner at Morton's in Chicago these > Wednesday > > > Night Meetings discussed growing public opposition to spending, omnibus > > > pork, more bailout money for banks and car companies, and new taxes on > > > energy, work and capital. > > > > > What better way to divert public attention from these more > consequential if > > > problematic issues than to start a fight with a celebrity conservative? > > > Cable TV, newspapers and newsweeklies would find the conflict > irresistible. > > > Something has to be set aside to provide more space and time to the War > on > > > Rush; why not the bad economic news? > > > > > Here's the problem: Misdirection never lasts long. Team Obama can at > best > > > only temporarily distract the public; within days, attention will > return to > > > issues that clearly should worry the White House. > > > > > Not even Team Obama can forestall unpleasant reality. And among those > > > America now faces is Mr. Obama adding $3.2 trillion to the national > debt in > > > his first 20 months and 11 days in office, eclipsing the $2.9 trillion > added > > > during the Bush presidency's entire eight years. > > > > > Another reality is that Mr. Obama's fiscal house is built on gimmicks. > For > > > example, it assumes the cost of the surge in Iraq will extend for a > decade. > > > This brazenly dishonest trick was done to create phony savings down the > > > line. > > > > > Mr. Obama's budget downplays some programs' true cost. For example, his > > > vaunted new college access program is funded for five years and then > > > disappears (on paper); the children's health insurance program drops > (on > > > paper) from $12.4 billion in 2013 to $700 million the next year. > Neither > > > will happen; the costs of both will be much higher and so will the > deficits. > > > > > Mr. Obama's budget also assumes the economy declines 41% less this year > and > > > grows 52% more next year and 38% more the year after than is estimated > by > > > the Blue Chip consensus (a collection of estimates by leading > economists > > > traditionally used by federal budget crunchers). If Mr. Obama used the > > > consensus forecasts for growth rather than his own rosy scenarios, his > > > budget would be $758 billion more in the red over the next five years. > > > > > Then there's discretionary domestic spending, which grows over the next > two > > > years by $238 billion, the fastest increase ever recorded. Mr. Obama > pledges > > > it will then be cut in real terms for the next nine years. That's > simply not > > > credible. > > > > > Then there's his omnibus spending bill to fund the government for the > next > > > six months, laden with 8,500 earmarks and tens of billions in > additional > > > spending above the current budget. What happened to pledges for earmark > > > reform and making "meaningful cuts?" > > > > > In the face of our enormous economic challenges, top White House aides > > > decided to pee on Mr. Limbaugh's leg. This is a political luxury the > country > > > cannot afford, and which Mr. Obama would be wise to forbid. Or did he > not > > > mean it when he ran promising to "turn the page" on the "old" politics? > > > > > *Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to > > > President George W. Bush.* > > > > > *Please add your comments to the* Opinion Journal > > > forum<http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=5441> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
