Coburn says gays are the greatest threat to our freedom

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

But you refuse to accept that they don't represent the Democrats and admit that. So I refuse to admit this doesn't represent the Republicans.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

What exactly is this "radical gay agenda"?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

State laws requiring restaurants to serve blacks are constitutional. That is not expressive association, protected under the First Amendment.

Yet you believe laws requiring strippers to cover certain body parts are constitutional.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

State laws requiring restaurants to serve blacks are constitutional. That is not expressive association, protected under the First Amendment.

Yet you believe laws requiring strippers to cover certain body parts are constitutional.

And? That is even farther from expressive association than not serving blacks.

How is not serving blacks more expressive than dancing naked?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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...

Well our law still stands.

It actually applies to EVERY business too, not just public ones.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

State laws requiring restaurants to serve blacks are constitutional. That is not expressive association, protected under the First Amendment.

Yet you believe laws requiring strippers to cover certain body parts are constitutional.

And? That is even farther from expressive association than not serving blacks.

How is not serving blacks more expressive than dancing naked?

One has something to do with social identity. For the record, though, I have said that neither is protected under the First Amendment.

What the hell does the First Amendment say about social identity? And then what is refusing to serve blacks protected under since you say laws prohibiting that are unconstitutional.

It's also not related to social identity to post some sort of political sign or banner outside your house, but that's protected.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be an absurd position to hold. Commercial activity and commercial association do not constitute "speech."

I couldn't disagree more. Is music not protected under the First Amendment? How about books? Both are sold.

Well going by your argument, a state could not ban CDs with swearing in them from being sold, but it could ban a band from swearing when playing live, if they are able to ban strippers from dancing naked.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be an absurd position to hold. Commercial activity and commercial association do not constitute "speech."

I couldn't disagree more. Is music not protected under the First Amendment? How about books? Both are sold.

Well going by your argument, a state could not ban CDs with swearing in them from being sold, but it could ban a band from swearing when playing live, if they are able to ban strippers from dancing naked.

No, my position is that pornography is not "speech" within the meaning of the First Amendment. Music and books are.

strip clubs aren't pornography. And what's the difference?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nudity is not speech. Get it?

The difference is that one is implicit in the original meaning of the First Amendment, and one isn't. Same deal with child pornography.

Well the First Amendment wasn't drafted to stop Marilyn Manson from tearing apart Bibles on stage, but that doesn't mean it doesn't protect him from any state banning him from doing so.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, it was. The founders clearly wanted to protect both religious and anti-religious speech.

But that's not "speech". It's an action, just like dancing naked.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My attacks on liberals are far from mindless.

You say liberals support Islam. That's pretty damn mindless.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Gay Rights advocates have destroyed much of the freedom of speech in Sweedon, but Gays aren' the greatest threats to our freedom.  Terrorists are the greatest threats to our freedoms.

Terrorists aren't a threat to freedom at all. Our lives and welfare yes, but not freedom, at least not directly. They can be used as an excuse to take away freedoms by power hungry admins like the Bush government, but they can't directly take away freedom.