Coburn says gays are the greatest threat to our freedom

[dazzleman]

Are we sure he really said this?  What was the context?  Honestly, I don't trust things that come from particular sources such as the one that provided this.

[dazzleman]

Are we sure he really said this?  What was the context?  Honestly, I don't trust things that come from particular sources such as the one that provided this.

DailyKos is a fairly reliable source. If you don't believe me, it's also in here.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9898884/

I would never read or trust DailyKos.  You may consider it reliable, but I don't.

If he said it, it was surely a ridiculous thing to say.  But then, extreme liberals say ridiculous things all the time, and I'm told over and over that they don't really represent the Democratic party.  So I'll say the same about Coburn and the Republicans.

[dazzleman]

Boy Scouts v. Dale. Their totalitarian push for social engineering has gone too far. They're even trying to pass a federal anti-discrimination law.

OK, I know what you mean.  I had forgotten about that.  I absolutely do not believe that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to accept gay troop leaders.  It should be their decision.

The problem is not with gays, per se, but with the radical gay agenda.  I absolutely don't support the radical gay agenda, but I do support gays having the same basic rights as others.

Still, the radical gay agenda is a threat to our freedom, as is the radical feminist agenda and certain segments of the NAACP agenda.  There is a difference between equal rights and even tolerance, and forced acceptance and glorification.

This is why I said I'd like to know the context in which Coburn made his statement.  As I'm sure it's presented by the DailyRag, it seems ridiculous, but there could be a lot more to it if one knows the whole context.

[dazzleman]

Boy Scouts v. Dale. Their totalitarian push for social engineering has gone too far. They're even trying to pass a federal anti-discrimination law.

You guys talk about state's rights all the time. Well, the Boy Scouts violated New Jersey anti-discrimination law. I guess state's rights only applies to conservatives?

I don't talk about states' rights in the same manner as some more extreme southern conservatives.  I have always said that the federal constitution trumps states' rights, and the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of association overruled the New Jersey anti-discrimination law.  I think liberal lobbying groups are pushing anti-discrimination too far.  You can't start legislating whom people hang around with on a social basis.

[dazzleman]

What exactly is this "radical gay agenda"?

Turning every single American citizen into a flaming homosexual. The homosexuals are the greatest threats to American freedom that exist.

Senator Coburn should be admired for speaking the truth.

Scoonie, you're finally making some sense.  It seems you've had an opebo-like conversion, only in the right direction.  Congratulations.

[dazzleman]

So does the Boy Scouts want to give up their right to meet in public buildings like schools?

Apparently not.

I think the issue would be different if we were talking about excluding children based on possible sexual preferences.  But when it comes to selecting troop leaders, they have a right to follow their own judgment.

[dazzleman]

No, they don't.

In Minnesota, a school can not refuse to hire a gay teacher solely because of them being gay. So if the boy scouts want to use public schools, they can't do so either. I assume the law in New Jersey is similar.

well the supreme court said otherwise...

[dazzleman]

Doesn't the state have the power to regulate who uses their buildings?

The state owns nothing.

[dazzleman]

Wow, this thread is a comedy goldmine, too. Let me guess, every thread that jfern posts is destined to turn into a laughfest, right?

Lovely how you'd rather mindlessly bash me than care that the Republican party is run by extremists.

The Republican Party is not "run" by Tom Coburn.

Thank you.  I love it how the Democrats squeal like little b&$ches whenever somebody says that they're run by Michael Moore or George Soros, but then they say the Republican party is run by extremists.

As I said earlier, we need to know the context of his statements.  I have reservations about the whole radical gay agenda, as symbolized by those whackos who march in drag in the Gay Pride parade.  They seek to force acceptance of a lifestyle that many don't really want to give approval to.  Tolerance is different than acceptance.  In truth, I have extreme reservations about the agendas of the groups that "represent" all of society's self-proclaimed "victim" groups -- gays, blacks, women, American Indians, etc.  I support equal rights in general for members of all these groups, but the agendas that are being pursued on their behalf go well beyond equal rights in a lot of cases, and seek to redefine the meaning of equal rights in a way that I don't approve.

[dazzleman]

I love it how the Democrats squeal like little b&$ches

OMG THE FAGS HAVE TURNED DAZZLEMAN GAY.

[dazzleman]

Bush is an extremist, dumbass. You can quit bashing liberals, who don't control jack sh**t right now, and wake the  up the damage the crooks who run your own party are doing. No more mindless bashing of liberals.

Dude, you really are pretty hilarious.  Do you really think I would take orders from you?  I'll bash liberals more than ever, just based on your last line. 

[dazzleman]

Pathetic, your party is in total control of the government, and you, just like them don't stand for anything, you guys just stand against liberals who have no power now.

Buddy, there are plenty of things I stand for, and liberals are either opposed to most of them, or have stubbornly pushed incompetent schemes to address them.  That's why I don't like liberals.

It's funny to see you burn with impotent fury.  Keep it up.

[dazzleman]

Name some things.

I have to admit that I'm very wary of getting drawn into a serious discussion with such an angry and negative person such as yourself.  It's like walking into quicksand, and there's no upside, since I don't think your mind is open enough to listen to anything I have to say anyway.

Having said that, I have made a series of substantive posts on a number of things, and in some cases disagreed with Republican posters on certain issues, most recently the issue of whether Rosa Parks should lie in state in the Capitol.

My attacks on liberals are far from mindless.  I sincerely believe that the "liberal" agenda has gone seriously off-track, and that even where liberal goals are laudable, their proposed means of achieving those goals are bound to fail.

If you really want to know what I think, you can read other threads in which you have not been involved.  I tend to be more expansive about my nuanced views in a less rabidly partisan atmosphere than the one you foster.

I am going to go out for a run now.  When I get back, if you think you are capable of having an actual discussion, rather than an angry two-way monologue, I will post some of what I strongly believe in.

[dazzleman]

So I have to look through all of your old posts to find some actual positions here? I didn't ask why you don't like liberals, I asked why you like Republicans/conservatives. I checked the first few pages of your posts, and didn't see much.

No, as I told you, if I think you are prepared for an actual dialogue, I will tell you some things I stand for.  Are you?

I'd also say I've never seen a single thing you've ever posted that didn't involve bashing of Republicans.  I can guarantee I have a lot more positive posts in there than you do.

[dazzleman]

The Christian right just like to have someone they can demonize. In the past it was anything from blacks to Unitarians. Luckily the march of science is on its way to proving that homosexuality is pre-determined in the womb. Sadly, the fundies dislike science immensily (For proving evolution, that black people are just like you and me and that the earth is round ) so they will take no notice of reality and wave some passages in the bible at me. Luckily I have passages I can wave back

I think you're confusing the average Christian with a fringe element.  And I don't think science can ever prove the origins of homosexuality one way or another.  Even if it did, that doesn't mean that some people will find it any more acceptable.

I'm not hostile to homosexuals, but I'm just making the point that I don't agree with your argument that if it's proven that homosexuality is innate, then it will be universally accepted.