Its long but worth
skimming.
Quote
CHAIRMAN OF JOINT CHIEFS DEMANDS HOMOSEXUALS LIE TO MILITARY
Tuesday the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen deceived the Senate Armed Services Committee, repeating President Obama's demand to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) prohibition against open homosexual aggression within the ranks of the military. "We have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens," Admiral Mullen fibbed, revealing his personal belief that "allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do."
Sadly, the pro-homosexual Mullen has believed the lies of homosexual propaganda, and deceived himself, and now deceived Congress, all the while claiming he wants a more honest policy that discourages lying, when in fact Mullen actually demands homosexuals tell more lies to their military commanders when enlisting as open homosexuals. Here's a simple proof: Men who were created by God with male body parts are not women, and they lie to themselves, the world, and their commanders when they pretend to be, and act like, women. Women who were created by God with female parts are not men, and they lie to themselves, the world, and their commanders when they pretend to be, and act like, men.
Mullen's confused argument would permit men to deceptively act like women, and women to deceptively act like men, openly deceiving themselves, the world, and their military commanders, and boldface lying against God's very truth, that He created men to be men, and women to be women. But today's confusing homosexual propaganda equates "honesty" with men openly flaunting their femininity, and "truthfulness" with women openly flaunting masculinity. Who's really telling God's truth?
The Bible describes homosexual liars: "Who changed the truth of God into a lie...women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error." (Romans 1). Thank God Senator John McCain (R-AZ) denounced the Admiral's deceptive plan as destructive to the military, but Senator McCain needs your help to fight this open perversion, and protect our troops from open homosexual aggression...
SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.
CBS news interviewed homosexual Army Lt. Dan Choi, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point who currently faces discharge for publicly announcing he's gay.
"I think it's a very healthy thing for people to be able to tell the truth and to come to terms with who they are. I think it's a sign of maturity," Choi said, "At my very first day at West Point, I learned that the honor code says a cadet will not lie, will not tolerate those who lie," said Choi. "They didn't say that a cadet who was gay could lie whereas straight cadets didn't have to lie."
As a USAF Academy graduate knowing the honor code, I now personally confront Choi as a liar, who now openly violates his honor oath, since he deceives himself and the world, by claiming to be feminine, when God created him masculine, with a male body. LIAR. Choi should immediately be thrown out of the Army, not merely for sexual perversion, but for DISHONESTY AND LYING. The only reason he graduated West Point is that he never lied by openly claiming to be feminine while a cadet, when God created him to be masculine. THIS PROVES DON'T ASK DON'T TELL IS THE MOST HONEST POLICY, because it encourages people with sexual perversions not to openly lie about their sexual identity. But if DADT is repealed by Congress, men will claim to be women, and women will claim to be men, and the open season of dishonesty and lying will begin.
SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.
President Obama pledged in his State of the Union Address to promote open homosexual aggression within the ranks of the military, by directly recruiting Congressmen and Senators in 2010 to overturn the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law that saves troops lives and already guarantees equality. Ignoring a letter signed by over 1,150 retired military flag and general officers, who asked Obama to enforce the 1993 Clinton-era law that currently prohibits open homosexual aggression in the military, Obama instead sacrificed military readiness, unit cohesion, and safety of all American troops, to prioritize his special relationship with less than 1% of the American population who claimed to be homosexual in the last census.
"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay men and women the right to serve the country they love," Obama boldly misled, repeating the vow he made during a speech Oct. 10th before a gay rights group. (The truth is homosexuals already now have the right to serve, so long as they keep their sexual aggression to themselves.) "If you adhere to our common values, you should be treated no different than anyone else," Obama said oxymoronically, defining "equality" and "values" as a sudden endorsement of illegal acts of sod omy long banned by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Joint Chiefs sat stone-faced silent, aghast at Obama's plan, but powerless to publicly oppose their own Commander-In-Chief. We must be their voice...
SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.
As a former Navy Chaplain and Air Force Academy graduate, having served during wartime combat operations, in close quarters with Sailors onboard a combat cruiser, and having personally counseled both straight and homosexual sericemembers, I can personally attest the last thing our Sailors need is a lack of trust or suspicion toward their fellow shipmates. Our uniformed servicemembers very lives depend daily on their ability to trust each other, without worry about being ogled, made advances upon, or violated by those with whom they share common sleeping quarters and showering facilities, 24/7 both on and off duty. Friends, do you care about protecting our military's trust, unit cohesion, and saving our troops lives? Take action today...
SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.
Kevin Nix, spokesman for the pro-homosexual Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which is spearheading the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal effort, told the Washington Times the House bill now has 182 co-sponsors, just short of a majority. "We're just trying to get to 218 to show that the bill is ready," said Mr. Nix, who added that senators plan to introduce a bill shortly.
"We expect a bill introduction for the first time in 16 years," he said. "We definitely expect a hearing this year. There are still things that need to happen, but we are definitely on the brink of a bill in the Senate. We want repeal done in 2010. Done, to the president's desk for a signature." A spokesman for pro-homosexual Congressman Patrick J. Murphy (D-PA), who is leading the repeal campaign in the House, said he has commitments from 16 members in addition to the 182 co-sponsors, totaling 198 votes, just short of a majority.
SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.
In the Pentagon however, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway has emerged in internal deliberations as the most outspoken opponent of permitting gay men and women to serve openly in the U.S. military, according to the Washington Times.
"Most of the senior brass hold deep reservations about President Obama's pledge to end the ban on gays in the military, especially in the middle of two wars that have put extra stress on the military, down to the platoon level, where soldiers and Marines would be expected to bond with openly gay colleagues," the Times reported.
WHY KEEP OPEN HOMOSEXUALITY OUT OF THE MILITARY?
Four reasons: 1) Allowing open homosexuality especially hurts unit cohesion and would cost American lives in war, damaging the trust shared in close proximity, common sleeping quarters and showering facilities that are unavoidable in close combat. 2) Men and women do not share the same showers for obvious reasons, so why force men to share showers with openly homosexual men? This fact alone would hurt recruiting. 3) The rampant spread of the HIV-AIDS virus contaminates the blood often shared by necessity on the battlefield. Soldiers requiring blood-transfusions and medics would be immediately endangered. 4) "Gay promotion quotas" would soon be forced upon presently impartial promotion boards, causing a burdensome rise in sexually-charged "equal opportunity" complaints against commanders, especially those who offend gays by inadvertently speaking of their traditional Judeo-Christian faith.
SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.
But Marine Commandant General Conway has gone further than others in stating his opposition to a change in policy, according to a former official who was privy to private conversations on the matter. "He feels very strongly that [removing the ban] would be disruptive, and he opposes it," he said. But if Congress changes the law, the General must implement the law.
Obama campaigned during his election to end "don't ask, don't tell," the policy signed into law by President Clinton. The policy ended the practice of asking prospective recruits about their sexuality, allowing homosexuals to freely serve, but prohibited openly gay men and women from talking about their sexual urges while serving. Repeal would allow them to share their sexual urges with their fellow soldiers, creating needless and divisive tension in the ranks.
The House Armed Services Committee will likely hold a hearing on a repeal bill in the spring, meaning the earliest floor vote could come before the middle of 2010, as part of the 2011 Defense Armed Services Authorization or Appropriations spending bill. Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee had planned a hearing in 2009, but none was scheduled. The White House will likely soon submit a repeal bill to the Hill.
SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.
The four-star chiefs of the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Army have said little on the topic in public and have not been pressed by Congress to provide their professional opinions. All four declined to answer when asked for their personal opinions on the ban by The Washington Times, except to say they will abide by the law. They've been silenced for fear of upsetting Obama, who would likely force their immediate retirement.
"They are not going to talk until it's time to talk," said a senior officer inside the Pentagon, who added the chiefs will discuss any specific legislative proposal in private with the chain of command - meaning Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the president.
Adm. Mullen, who as Joint Chiefs chairman is the president's top military adviser, has expressed concern about carrying out the president's wish. "I think it's important, as we look to this change, that it be done in a way that doesn't disrupt the force at a time where it's under a lot of stress," Adm. Mullen told the Military Times in May. "And that, to me, means in a measured, deliberate way, over some time -- to be determined. And I don't know what that would be." (I know how and when....never risk our troops lives.)
SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.
The Times reports Gay rights groups cite recent polls that show the public now supports repealing the ban, unlike in 1993, when polls showed the opposite. That year, Congress stopped Mr. Clinton's bid to change what was then only a regulation. He ended up signing the ban into law. The Pentagon discharged 633 men and women under the ban in fiscal year 2008.
Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness and argues in favor of the ban, pointed a reporter toward a recent article she wrote for the American Thinker.
"Consistently small numbers and percentages of people discharged due to homosexuality contradict any claim that a national security emergency justifies repeal of the law," she wrote. "And it is not convincing to hold up the small, dissimilar militaries of foreign nations, none of which have adopted the extreme agenda being proposed for our military, as role models for America's forces. Nor does it help to ignore the stated opinions of more than 1,150 retired flag and general officers and current military personnel." Our military is not a grounds for new and radical social experiementation, especially ones that endanger lives.
SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.
God Bless you, in Jesus' name,
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Sadly, I'm not surprised they would send an e-mail like that.
:gay sex:
I don't see why you're making such a big deal out of this. Both sides hatemonger with equal intensity and with equal frequency. Stop being so partisan.
Too much signing. Too much work being intolerant.
QuoteMen who were created by God with male body parts are not women, and they lie to themselves, the world, and their commanders when they pretend to be, and act like, women.
Have these people ever actually met a woman?
If ti's worth skimming, then bold the skimmy parts.
This is so out there it's actually funny. Also, for fun anti-gay rants and idiocies check out 10 reasons why homosexuals shouldn't serve in the military. Among other things: the outbreak of body art modifications and rowing gangs of black lesbians. :lol:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/10-reasons-why-homosexuals-shouldnt-be-allowed-to
Quote"In my opinion, the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would very likely create an unacceptable risk to those high standards. It will lead to alcohol use, adultery, fraternization, and body art. If we change this rule of 'Don't Ask, Dont Tell' what are we going to do with these other rules?" - Sen. Saxby Chambliss
:D
QuoteAs a USAF Academy graduate knowing the honor code, I now personally confront Choi as a liar, who now openly violates his honor oath, since he deceives himself and the world, by claiming to be feminine, when God created him masculine, with a male body. LIAR.
That is pretty scary-crazy right there.
:o NOT THE BODY ART!
Quote from: Berkut on February 09, 2010, 12:37:16 PM
QuoteAs a USAF Academy graduate knowing the honor code, I now personally confront Choi as a liar, who now openly violates his honor oath, since he deceives himself and the world, by claiming to be feminine, when God created him masculine, with a male body. LIAR.
That is pretty scary-crazy right there.
Do you know now why we gays get nervous around religious people? :P
This may be one thing but there is no week or even day without gay portals reporting some new scary crazy shit like this, often coming not from some ranting lunatics, but from elected officials and people in power.
Quotegay portals
aka, the anus
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 09, 2010, 06:38:08 PM
Quotegay portals
aka, the anus
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi195.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz63%2Fmaverickgtr%2Fintarwebs%2Fceleb_samwell.jpg&hash=f7b123e173f017303c448e0cbd46fd839a61b09d)
Okay...
Let's face it: Gay people aren't as good as straights. But mostly just Martinus. He's single-handly holding back his cause.
I ran into a GOP-loving gay man in the heart of the Castro last night. :o
He also loves Hillary. :wub:
So when's the wedding?
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2010, 02:08:24 PM
I ran into a GOP-loving gay man in the heart of the Castro last night. :o
He also loves Hillary. :wub:
GOP-loving gay men. :bleeding:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 11, 2010, 02:43:49 PM
So when's the wedding?
Bitch. <_<
Stating that one is a Republican in the Castro is considered much more vulgar than going down on someone in public.
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2010, 06:01:08 PM
GOP-loving gay men. :bleeding:
Your eyes didn't bleed when you met me.
I just think it's a matter of dignity and self-respect, that's all. I don't think being gay is incompatible with the conservative ideology per se - I wouldn't for example mind a gay person voting for the UK tories today. But a gay person supporting the GOP in this day and age is like a black person supporting a segregationist in the 1960s - that's just something you don't do if you have any self respect. It's not about being partisan, it's not about one-issue-voting, it's simply about not giving your support to someone who considers you a second class citizen.
You must be right; I have no self-respect.
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2010, 06:11:58 PM
You must be right; I have no self-respect.
We already knew that.
Quote from: katmai on February 11, 2010, 06:18:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2010, 06:11:58 PM
You must be right; I have no self-respect.
We already knew that.
Nobody with self respect would have rainbow colored hair.
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2010, 06:11:18 PM
I just think it's a matter of dignity and self-respect, that's all. I don't think being gay is incompatible with the conservative ideology per se - I wouldn't for example mind a gay person voting for the UK tories today. But a gay person supporting the GOP in this day and age is like a black person supporting a segregationist in the 1960s - that's just something you don't do if you have any self respect. It's not about being partisan, it's not about one-issue-voting, it's simply about not giving your support to someone who considers you a second class citizen.
Isn't it possible for a person to not see politics solely as a matter of group identity?
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2010, 06:11:18 PM
I just think it's a matter of dignity and self-respect, that's all. I don't think being gay is incompatible with the conservative ideology per se - I wouldn't for example mind a gay person voting for the UK tories today. But a gay person supporting the GOP in this day and age is like a black person supporting a segregationist in the 1960s - that's just something you don't do if you have any self respect. It's not about being partisan, it's not about one-issue-voting, it's simply about not giving your support to someone who considers you a second class citizen.
I think it's a matter of the Log Cabin Republicans believing in the basic precepts of the conservative movement and wish to reform from within and thus remain engaged with the movement.
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2010, 06:31:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2010, 06:11:18 PM
I just think it's a matter of dignity and self-respect, that's all. I don't think being gay is incompatible with the conservative ideology per se - I wouldn't for example mind a gay person voting for the UK tories today. But a gay person supporting the GOP in this day and age is like a black person supporting a segregationist in the 1960s - that's just something you don't do if you have any self respect. It's not about being partisan, it's not about one-issue-voting, it's simply about not giving your support to someone who considers you a second class citizen.
Isn't it possible for a person to not see politics solely as a matter of group identity?
Being denied a right to marry a person you love or to perform certain jobs (e.g. serving in a military) because of a person you love is hardly "solely a matter of group identity". It's about your civil rights.
I'm seriously unsure if you are just thoughtless or ignorant.
I'd forgotten about Obama the great defender of gay marriage.
Quote from: citizen k on February 11, 2010, 06:38:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2010, 06:11:18 PM
I just think it's a matter of dignity and self-respect, that's all. I don't think being gay is incompatible with the conservative ideology per se - I wouldn't for example mind a gay person voting for the UK tories today. But a gay person supporting the GOP in this day and age is like a black person supporting a segregationist in the 1960s - that's just something you don't do if you have any self respect. It's not about being partisan, it's not about one-issue-voting, it's simply about not giving your support to someone who considers you a second class citizen.
I think it's a matter of the Log Cabin Republicans believing in the basic precepts of the conservative movement and wish to reform from within and thus remain engaged with the movement.
Only that they are despised by the majority of their fellow Republicans (not that Democrats are much better, but at least they do not have institutionalized discrimination against gays written down as one of their main "political commandments").
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2010, 06:41:22 PM
I'd forgotten about Obama the great defender of gay marriage.
Last time I checked Democrats have not been coming with a "purity test" of 10 commandments, one of which expressly states they are opposed to equal rights for gays.
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2010, 06:43:07 PM
Quote from: citizen k on February 11, 2010, 06:38:28 PM
I think it's a matter of the Log Cabin Republicans believing in the basic precepts of the conservative movement and wish to reform from within and thus remain engaged with the movement.
Only that they are despised by the majority of their fellow Republicans (not that Democrats are much better, but at least they do not have institutionalized discrimination against gays written down as one of their main "political commandments").
Time is on their side.
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2010, 06:43:07 PM
Only that they are despised by the majority of their fellow Republicans (not that Democrats are much better, but at least they do not have institutionalized discrimination against gays written down as one of their main "political commandments").
Pages 5 (no gays in the military) and 60 (no gay marriage) of the 2008 National GOP platform, to be precise.
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2010, 06:39:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2010, 06:31:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2010, 06:11:18 PM
I just think it's a matter of dignity and self-respect, that's all. I don't think being gay is incompatible with the conservative ideology per se - I wouldn't for example mind a gay person voting for the UK tories today. But a gay person supporting the GOP in this day and age is like a black person supporting a segregationist in the 1960s - that's just something you don't do if you have any self respect. It's not about being partisan, it's not about one-issue-voting, it's simply about not giving your support to someone who considers you a second class citizen.
Isn't it possible for a person to not see politics solely as a matter of group identity?
Being denied a right to marry a person you love or to perform certain jobs (e.g. serving in a military) because of a person you love is hardly "solely a matter of group identity". It's about your civil rights.
I'm seriously unsure if you are just thoughtless or ignorant.
Neither?
Look I don't like things the current government is doing. In particular, I really didn't like how they legislated away our right to collective bargaining, which I suppose is about my "civl rights" as well.
But on balance, I like enough of the other stuff they've done (and don't think the other parties would have treated me any better), so I will continue to vote for them.
Surely however that doesn't mean I don't respect myself as a public servent.
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2010, 06:45:44 PM
Last time I checked Democrats have not been coming with a "purity test" of 10 commandments, one of which expressly states they are opposed to equal rights for gays.
And that means Dems not treat gays abysmally?
Anyway, whatever happened to the notion that people have multiple identities? Is my gay identity supposed to/required to trump all others?
Quote from: citizen k on February 11, 2010, 06:46:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2010, 06:43:07 PM
Quote from: citizen k on February 11, 2010, 06:38:28 PM
I think it's a matter of the Log Cabin Republicans believing in the basic precepts of the conservative movement and wish to reform from within and thus remain engaged with the movement.
Only that they are despised by the majority of their fellow Republicans (not that Democrats are much better, but at least they do not have institutionalized discrimination against gays written down as one of their main "political commandments").
Time is on their side.
I think you are missing my point. Have you not read what I said about the UK tories? They have been openly anti-gay as well - they aren't anymore, because you can't stop the progress. But I would find a gay person voting for the tories when Section 28 was being passed equally without dignity and self-respect as a gay person voting for the Republicans, when they enshrine their support for DOMA, opposition to gays in the military and opposition to other civil rights for gays as part of their core political dogma.
I respect myself as a male who is not a member of a protected minority which is why I have difficulty voting for Democrats.
Quote from: ulmont on February 11, 2010, 06:48:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2010, 06:43:07 PM
Only that they are despised by the majority of their fellow Republicans (not that Democrats are much better, but at least they do not have institutionalized discrimination against gays written down as one of their main "political commandments").
Pages 5 (no gays in the military) and 60 (no gay marriage) of the 2008 National GOP platform, to be precise.
I meant the Republican Purity test which consists of only 10 points, one of which is about support for DOMA.
QuoteHonolulu, Hawaii (CNN) – After the divisive measure gained almost no traction among Republican National Committee members, a "purity test" for GOP candidates was withdrawn Friday before it could be voted on at the party's winter meeting in Hawaii.
Instead, RNC members voted to adopt a watered-down resolution that "urges" party leadership to "carefully screen the record and statements of all candidates who profess to be Republicans" and to determine "that they wholeheartedly support the core principles" of the Republican Party platform.
The new resolution was offered by Bill Crocker, national committeeman from Texas.
The purity resolution – which was first circulated among party members last November and immediately drew criticism from Republicans within the committee and on Capitol Hill – would have required candidates to support at least eight of 10 conservative principles in order to receive financial support from the RNC.
Jim Bopp, the Indiana committeeman and chief sponsor of the purity resolution, insisted that Friday's compromise was not a defeat.
"For the first time in history we are calling upon all Republican leaders to consider the positions of candidates on issues," Bopp told reporters after Friday's general session.
Read the full text of the RNC's resolution after the jump:
But even those who supported the softer measure as an alternative to Bopp's litmus test said the new language is not binding and would have no practical impact on the party's financial decisions.
"There is nothing mandatory in there, and there is nothing required," said Oregon GOP chairman Bob Tiernan. "I am not going to take that back and make my candidate sign it. That is ridiculous."
California GOP chairman Ron Nehring, one of the state party chairs who voted unanimously earlier in the week to oppose the purity test, called the new measure "a nice statement" but said it is "purely advisory."
Others said the issue of candidate support needed to be addressed, especially in the wake of the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district. In that race, a moderate Republican supported and funded by state and national GOP officials was driven out of the contest by conservative activists.
"Most of the GOP and all of the grassroots, all of them have been upset about the Republican Party giving resources to moderate candidates," said Virginia committee member Morton Blackwell. "Unless Republicans can persuade the new grassroots activists that something has changed, then the idea of incorporating them into a permanent Republican majority will not happen."
Even after the purity test was set aside, it was clear that the resolution remained a source of tension between committee members.
When Bopp was speaking to reporters, Tiernan interrupted to dispute Bopp's claim that the new resolution requires party leaders to only support conservative candidates. Bopp turned to Tiernan and snapped: "Shut up."
During Friday's meeting, resolutions committee chairman Henry Barbour addressed the controversy, telling members that certain resolutions "are beginning to water down our message."
"We need to focus more on defeating Democrats in November," Barbour said.
RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who opposed the purity test, did not mention the measure during his remarks to the committee.
Instead, Steele trained his fire on Democrats and blamed their recent losses in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts on "arrogance" and political overreach.
"The Democrats are in effect daring the American people to stop them," Steele said. "They are playing with fire, and they are going to get burned. And we are going to help burn them."
Full text of the RNC resolution adopted Friday: RESOLUTION CONCERNING PARTY SUPPORT OF CANDIDATES WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee have recently supported primary or special election candidates who professed allegiance to the Republican Party but who, as their circumstances changed and to serve their own interests, turned against the Republican Party and became or supported a candidate of another party; and
WHEREAS, many Republican leaders and Republican organizations were undermined and lost credibility as a result of the actions of such candidates; and
WHEREAS, there will be many more decisions regarding the support of candidates, and many more opportunities to enhance or diminish the credibility of Republicans and Republican organizations, in the coming election cycle; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee urges its leadership and the leadership of all Republican organizations to carefully screen the record and statements of all candidates who profess to be Republicans and who desire the support of Republican leaders and Republicans organizations, and determine that they wholeheartedly support the core principles and positions of the Republican Party as expressed in the Platform of the Republican Party adopted at the 2008 National Convention; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee urges that no support, financial or otherwise, be given to candidates who clearly do not support the core principles and positions of the Republican Party as expressed in the Platform of the Republican Party adopted in the 2008 National Convention.
As approved by the Committee on Resolutions, January 28, 2010.
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2010, 06:52:04 PM
Quote from: ulmont on February 11, 2010, 06:48:08 PM
Pages 5 (no gays in the military) and 60 (no gay marriage) of the 2008 National GOP platform, to be precise.
I meant the Republican Purity test which consists of only 10 points, one of which is about support for DOMA.
I know, but it's in the national platform twice as well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2010, 06:50:33 PM
I respect myself as a male who is not a member of a protected minority which is why I have difficulty voting for Democrats.
At the risk of engaging with your argument, I would like to note that "male" is a minority in the United States, and that all races, national origins, genders, and religions are protected by the applicable laws.
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2010, 06:48:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2010, 06:39:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2010, 06:31:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2010, 06:11:18 PM
I just think it's a matter of dignity and self-respect, that's all. I don't think being gay is incompatible with the conservative ideology per se - I wouldn't for example mind a gay person voting for the UK tories today. But a gay person supporting the GOP in this day and age is like a black person supporting a segregationist in the 1960s - that's just something you don't do if you have any self respect. It's not about being partisan, it's not about one-issue-voting, it's simply about not giving your support to someone who considers you a second class citizen.
Isn't it possible for a person to not see politics solely as a matter of group identity?
Being denied a right to marry a person you love or to perform certain jobs (e.g. serving in a military) because of a person you love is hardly "solely a matter of group identity". It's about your civil rights.
I'm seriously unsure if you are just thoughtless or ignorant.
Neither?
Look I don't like things the current government is doing. In particular, I really didn't like how they legislated away our right to collective bargaining, which I suppose is about my "civl rights" as well.
But on balance, I like enough of the other stuff they've done (and don't think the other parties would have treated me any better), so I will continue to vote for them.
Surely however that doesn't mean I don't respect myself as a public servent.
Surely you are not comparing something as fundamental as not being able to marry because of on an immutable inborn trait to a labour law regulatory issue applicable to members of a given profession that people are not forced to perform? :huh:
That's so offensive, I'm left speechless.
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2010, 06:57:56 PM
That's so offensive, I'm left speechless.
We would never be so lucky :(
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2010, 06:49:01 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2010, 06:45:44 PM
Last time I checked Democrats have not been coming with a "purity test" of 10 commandments, one of which expressly states they are opposed to equal rights for gays.
And that means Dems not treat gays abysmally?
Anyway, whatever happened to the notion that people have multiple identities? Is my gay identity supposed to/required to trump all others?
What other identity do you have that Democrats not only are opposed to, but actually are opposed to even granting it any protection against discrimination, however arbitrary it may be? you are protected because of your race, your gender, your nationality, your religion (or lack thereof), your financial status (protections of property rights are some of the strongest, actually).
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2010, 06:48:43 PM
Look I don't like things the current government is doing. In particular, I really didn't like how they legislated away our right to collective bargaining, which I suppose is about my "civl rights" as well.
:rolleyes: Being allowed to form labor cartels to extort concessions is hardly a "civil right".
Quote from: Martinus on February 09, 2010, 03:12:38 AM
This is so out there it's actually funny. Also, for fun anti-gay rants and idiocies check out 10 reasons why homosexuals shouldn't serve in the military. Among other things: the outbreak of body art modifications and rowing gangs of black lesbians. :lol:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/10-reasons-why-homosexuals-shouldnt-be-allowed-to
Rowing black lesbians! No crew team will prevail against them!!!!