PDA

View Full Version : GOProud and Birchers ousted as CPAC co-sponsors (David Horowitz survives vote)




Agorism
07-29-2011, 10:41 PM
Well Grover Norquist has left their three person committee that we previously had a 2-1 majority on. Now we have no protection so the neocons are back.

-------------------------

GOProud and Birchers ousted as CPAC co-sponsors (David Horowitz survives vote)


According to official letters obtained by The Daily Caller, the gay conservative group GOProud and the ultraconservative John Birch Society won’t be co-sponsoring the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2012.

The decision was reached by a full vote of the American Conservative Union’s board of directors. The ACU organizes and hosts CPAC each year.

Representatives of GOProud and the John Birch Society were notified of the decision via mail Friday afternoon.

The decision comes after GOProud’s 2011 sponsorship sparked severe criticism from ACU board members, and prompted several social conservative groups to boycott the event. The controversy reached a boiling point when GOProud’s chairman called respected ACU board member Cleta Mitchell “a nasty bigot.”

Long considered a fringe group, the John Birch Society’s sensationalist accusations (such as saying Dwight Eisenhower was a “dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy“) once prompted William F. Buckley to effectively banish the group from the conservative movement.

Various blocs of CPAC board members find both GOProud and the Birchers highly offensive — and for entirely different reasons.

Meanwhile, one controversial conservative activist actually survived the ACU board vote.

Despite accusing Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist and ACU board member Suhail Khan, during his 2011 CPAC speech, of being in league with the Muslim Brotherhood, it was decided that conservative activist David Horowitz would not be precluded from participating in the future.

ACU’s decision to revisit past decisions regarding CPAC has been expected. After the departure of longtime ACU Chairman David Keene last year, it was predictable that ACU’s board of directors would address lingering questions surrounding past co-sponsors and speakers.

“As Chairman [Al] Cardenas said following his election [as chairman of the ACU], given controversies surrounding a few CPAC 2011 co-sponsors, we would take a look at what would be the most appropriate path going forward,” explained ACU communications director Kristy Campbell.

“Given the concerns raised by a number of our Board members,” she said, “Chairman Cardenas exercised his option to take these issues to a vote of the Board — which has been done in the past.”

Campbell stressed that although GOProud and the John Birch Society would no longer have a formal sponsorship role at the gathering, “individual members of these organizations are welcome and encouraged to attend CPAC. ”

CPAC is the largest gathering of conservatives each year. Past speakers have included leading conservatives, ranging from Rush Limbaugh to Ronald Reagan. The 2012 CPAC will take place in Washington, DC in February.

sailingaway
07-29-2011, 11:01 PM
So.... in 2011 they are banning the Birchers for suggesting Eisenhower was a communist back in the 1950s. But people who say.......

sigh....

This is a pain. I'm not a Bircher but from what I can see they don't have any more nuts than any other groups and they value the Constitution in a procedural sense, which I frankly suspect is the real problem the establishment has with them.

And GOProud?

Is this really to keep Ron and us out in an election year? Because it feels nasty. And we are the ones who would think so.

Brian4Liberty
07-29-2011, 11:28 PM
Transparent.

LibertyEagle
07-29-2011, 11:57 PM
Let me get this straight. One of the oldest truly conservative organizations in this country is not allowed to sponsor, but the red carpet is rolled out for a frickin' Marxist - David Horowitz? Great move, CPAC.

Carehn
07-30-2011, 12:03 AM
This is funny as hell.

LPAC is the new CPAC anyways. Or it will be if they keep driving off customers. Now the market has a choice in PACs to talk about.

COpatriot
07-30-2011, 12:12 AM
On the GOProud thing, Translation: "We don't like you, so get out." And then they get really offended and up in your face if you dare call them intolerant. Like the spoiled children they are, the SoCons throw a fit and subsequently get what they want.

White Bear Lake
07-30-2011, 12:22 AM
I read a Horowitz book awhile back. As a "conservative" he's annoying as hell. But he does provide good insight into the mindset of commies and other Berkeley radicals back in the 50s and 60s.

speciallyblend
07-30-2011, 12:26 AM
curious is ACU board member Cleta Mitchell “a nasty bigot.” ??

sailingaway
07-30-2011, 12:32 AM
Goldwater conservatives started CPAC then left when the neocons became too obnoxious. Look what it got us. Half of me says have our own convention across the street and the other half says, no, that IS our convention -- THEY can leave.

RP Supporter
07-30-2011, 01:11 AM
Horowitz is pure scum. I forget the exact wording, but I'm pretty sure he called Ron Paul a Jew hater and us his stormtroopers.

Still, no reason Paul can't still win this. Makes it all the sweeter.

Unelected
07-30-2011, 01:26 AM
David Horowitz is an avowed communist, but he's free to attend the CONSERVATIVE Political Action Conference, wile JBS is banned. This is pathetic.

libertyjam
07-30-2011, 05:13 AM
Let me get this straight. One of the oldest truly conservative organizations in this country is not allowed to sponsor, but the red carpet is rolled out for a frickin' Marxist - David Horowitz? Great move, CPAC.

^this

Cowlesy
07-30-2011, 05:20 AM
Pure comedy. Horowitz has called Ron Paul a multitude of hateful, nasty, bigoted things yet he can still attend? And the JBS who from when I talked to them at their booth are just trying to get back to the constitution?

wow...

muzzled dogg
07-30-2011, 06:13 AM
Lpac is a joke compared to cpac

Agorism
07-30-2011, 07:03 AM
Well we could boycott but it would probably be a moot attempt since attendance will be up in an election year. Attendance is normally 10000, and I think Paul normally wins with around 1500.

I can see attendance spiking 1500 in an election year even if all Paul supporters boycotted.

libertyjam
07-30-2011, 07:11 AM
Well we could boycott but it would probably be a mute attempt since attendance will be up in an election year. Attendance is normally 10000, and I think Paul normally wins with around 1500.

I can see attendance spiking 1500 in an election year even if all Paul supporters boycotted.

You mean moot, not mute.

FrankRep
07-30-2011, 07:34 AM
So.... in 2011 they are banning the Birchers for suggesting Eisenhower was a communist back in the 1950s. But people who say.......

John Birch Society - Myth vs. Facts (http://www.jbs.org/about-jbs/myths-vs-facts)


Myth:

JBS Founder Robert Welch called President Dwight Eisenhower a Communist

Fact:


Originally detailing some of Pres. Eisenhower's history in a 1954 letter sent privately to a few friends, Mr. Welch's research grew over several years into a full-length book entitled The Politician (https://www.jbs.org/shop/books/the-politician) (1963). Once the book was published, its very existence was ignored while critics continued to dwell on only one of several possible conclusions offered by Mr. Welch.

The book provides 300 pages and 150 pages of footnotes and documentation, including covering one of Mr. Eisenhower's most immoral and despicable acts of authorizing "Operation Keelhaul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Keelhaul)"; which used American soldiers to repatriate anti-communist Poles to their certain death or torture. Read the book (https://www.jbs.org/shop/books/the-politician) for yourself and discover what Mr. Welch did say and learn the role played by Mr. Eisenhower over his many years as one of our nation's military and political leaders.

====

http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/AP-1-2010/bensoneisenhower-t-ap.001.jpg

Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson: Robert Welch was Right about Eisenhower (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american/5207-benson-letter-backed-welch-against-ike)

16 November 2010 | A confidential letter from Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson said John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/) founder Robert Welch was right about the tragic effect of Eisenhower's policies toward Communism.

Carehn
07-30-2011, 07:49 AM
Lpac is a joke compared to cpac

Give it time. One day you may be wrong.

ItsTime
07-30-2011, 07:52 AM
I dont see how JBS stance of gay marriage and using big government force to end it is conservative.

erowe1
07-30-2011, 07:56 AM
This is funny as hell.

LPAC is the new CPAC anyways. Or it will be if they keep driving off customers. Now the market has a choice in PACs to talk about.

Supposedly the Values Voter Summit has already become the new CPAC.

FrankRep
07-30-2011, 07:58 AM
I dont see how JBS stance of gay marriage and using big government force to end it is conservative.

Explain this one:

Congressman Ron Paul says he supports the Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/

erowe1
07-30-2011, 07:58 AM
Where's the link for the OP? Whose words are we reading here?

erowe1
07-30-2011, 07:59 AM
I dont see how JBS stance of gay marriage and using big government force to end it is conservative.

Are you suggesting that JBS supports gay marriage?

FrankRep
07-30-2011, 08:00 AM
Where's the link for the OP? Whose words are we reading here?

GOProud and Birchers ousted as CPAC co-sponsors (David Horowitz survives vote) (http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/29/goproud-and-birchers-ousted-as-cpac-co-sponsors-david-horowitz-survives-vote/)

Daily Caller
July 29, 2011

http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/29/goproud-and-birchers-ousted-as-cpac-co-sponsors-david-horowitz-survives-vote/

ItsTime
07-30-2011, 08:01 AM
Explain this one:

Congressman Ron Paul says he supports the Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/

Um what is there to explain? Ron Paul wants the states to decide.

ItsTime
07-30-2011, 08:02 AM
Are you suggesting that JBS supports gay marriage?

ha, the opposite.

FrankRep
07-30-2011, 08:02 AM
Are you suggesting that JBS supports gay marriage?

The JBS doesn't want the Government to redefine marriage.

Ron Paul agrees:

Congressman Ron Paul says he supports the Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/

ItsTime
07-30-2011, 08:05 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTbKjhj5RNo

erowe1
07-30-2011, 08:06 AM
ha, the opposite.

I understand how supporters of gay marriage want to use big government. But I don't see how opponents of it do. What is it that JBS wants to do about gay marriage that you consider big government?

Feeding the Abscess
07-30-2011, 08:07 AM
The JBS doesn't want the Government to redefine marriage.

Ron Paul agrees:

Congressman Ron Paul says he supports the Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/

What the hell, I'll feed the troll.

Ron's answer in the first debate of this cycle on this topic was centered around the fact that he doesn't agree with government defining marriage in any fashion; this was when he was asked about his support of DOMA. Ron stated that he supports it for states rights, and even suggested that he wasn't aware of any provision stating that marriage be legally accepted as between a man and a woman. Methinks DOMA is DADT Part II.

But hey, what's nuance.

Feeding the Abscess
07-30-2011, 08:08 AM
I understand how supporters of gay marriage want to use big government. But I don't see how opponents of it do. What is it that JBS wants to do about gay marriage that you consider big government?

Using force of government to grant benefits to some groups and deny it to others. It's extremely simple, stop being obtuse.

FrankRep
07-30-2011, 08:09 AM
I understand how supporters of gay marriage want to use big government. But I don't see how opponents of it do. What is it that JBS wants to do about gay marriage that you consider big government?
That's correct. Gay Marriage supporters want to use the Government to Redefine Marriage. They are the ones who support Big Government.

erowe1
07-30-2011, 08:09 AM
Using force of government to grant benefits to some groups and deny it to others. It's extremely simple, stop being obtuse.

Exactly. You just described what supporters of gay marriage advocate.

If you mean to say that JBS advocates that, could you please provide a link or something? I'm not a member. But I've never heard that before.

FrankRep
07-30-2011, 08:10 AM
Using force of government to grant benefits to some groups and deny it to others. It's extremely simple, stop being obtuse.
Should the Government have the power to Redefine the meaning of Marriage?

ItsTime
07-30-2011, 08:12 AM
Should the Government have the power to Redefine the meaning of Marriage?

Should government deny people from entering into a contract?

Feeding the Abscess
07-30-2011, 08:13 AM
Exactly. You just described what supporters of gay marriage advocate.

I described the current situation. Granting benefits to certain groups and denying it to others is the very definition of big government. Libertarian and even ancap "advocates" of gay marriage support it on the grounds that if marriage benefits are to be offered, they should be offered to all consenting adults wishing to be married. Don't want government sullying marriage? Then get the government out of it.

erowe1
07-30-2011, 08:13 AM
Should government deny people from entering into a contract?

You mean entering a contract with the government or with each other?

If you mean the latter, that's irrelevant, because the government does not prevent same-sex couples from entering contracts with each other in any state.

Feeding the Abscess
07-30-2011, 08:14 AM
Should the Government have the power to Redefine the meaning of Marriage?

The government gave itself the power to define marriage. By what right does the government do this?

erowe1
07-30-2011, 08:17 AM
I described the current situation. Granting benefits to certain groups and denying it to others is the very definition of big government. Libertarian and even ancap "advocates" of gay marriage support it on the grounds that if marriage benefits are to be offered, they should be offered to all consenting adults wishing to be married. Don't want government sullying marriage? Then get the government out of it.

Yes, granting benefits to certain groups and denying it to others is big government. It is also what government-based marriage is. Government-based marriage does that whether it be defined as a man and a woman or same sex couples. It doesn't matter what the definition is, it will always classify some people as "married" and some people as "unmarried," and grant differing benefits and/or responsibilities to those groups.

This is the same as every other government program, such as Social Security.

So, we have this political movement that wants to expand this government program of government-based marriage by changing the definition of marriage to include more people. This is similar to expanding the government program of Social Security by lowering the retirement age to grant it to more people.

Which position is the big government position, the one that wants to expand the government program or the one that fights against that?

Edit: Also, did you see my question asking for a link to JBS's position on gay marriage so that I can see how it's big government?

erowe1
07-30-2011, 08:18 AM
The government gave itself the power to define marriage. By what right does the government do this?

It has no right to do that. Hence the proponents of government-defined gay marriage are wrong.

Feeding the Abscess
07-30-2011, 08:23 AM
Yes, granting benefits to certain groups and denying it to others is big government. It is also what government-based marriage is. Government-based marriage does that whether it be defined as a man and a woman or same sex couples. It doesn't matter what the definition is, it will always classify some people as "married" and some people as "unmarried," and grant differing benefits and/or responsibilities to those groups.

This is the same as every other government program, such as Social Security.

So, we have this political movement that wants to expand this government program of government-based marriage by changing the definition of marriage to include more people. This is similar to expanding the government program of Social Security by lowering the retirement age to grant it to more people.

Which position is the big government position, the one that wants to expand the government program or the one that fights against that?

Enforcing a contract (even with special tax breaks and other responsibilities considered) is not the same as an entitlement program.

Cost-benefit analysis is a poor form of governance.

erowe1
07-30-2011, 08:27 AM
Enforcing a contract (even with special tax breaks and other responsibilities considered) is not the same as an entitlement program.

Cost-benefit analysis is a poor form of governance.

We're not talking about a contract between two individuals. We're talking about a contract between individuals and the state itself that awards certain benefits. So, yes, it is the same as an entitlement program.

Or are you trying to propagate the tired p.c. myth that if a government doesn't award marriage to same-sex couples, somehow that means it is interfering with their private lives and preventing them from doing something privately that it doesn't prevent heterosexual couples from doing?

Feeding the Abscess
07-30-2011, 08:29 AM
It has no right to do that. Hence the proponents of government-defined gay marriage are wrong.

My position is not one of a proponent of gay marriage. My position is one of removing government discrimination. A government that picks and chooses which contracts to enforce is immoral.

As for the JBS question, I was not aware that it was directed to me. I don't have a link to JBS' position. I'm sure Frank does.

erowe1
07-30-2011, 08:34 AM
My position is not one of a proponent of gay marriage. My position is one of removing government discrimination. A government that picks and chooses which contracts to enforce is immoral.

That's my position too. And you can't hold this position and then turn around and say you also want the government to award marriage to same-sex couples.

You keep bringing up contract enforcement. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Frank wasn't the one claiming that the JBS takes a big-government position on this issue. It's those who do claim that who should back it up.

Feeding the Abscess
07-30-2011, 08:55 AM
http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/2011/06/26/new-york-is-no-hero/

sailingaway
07-30-2011, 09:22 AM
That's my position too. And you can't hold this position and then turn around and say you also want the government to award marriage to same-sex couples.

You keep bringing up contract enforcement. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Frank wasn't the one claiming that the JBS takes a big-government position on this issue. It's those who do claim that who should back it up.

I don't think he wants government to award anything to anyone. I think he is saying government should be out of it altogether. Should not say what marriage is, for straight people OR for gay. Which is essentially Ron's position. His defense of DOMA is based on the fact that right now the government is NOT out of it and he thinks it is not for the federal government to decide for all.

AGRP
07-30-2011, 09:26 AM
So much for "big tent" Republicanism the statist neocons cried about when they were voted out of office :rolleyes:

erowe1
07-30-2011, 09:28 AM
I don't think he wants government to award anything to anyone. I think he is saying government should be out of it altogether. Should not say what marriage is, for straight people OR for gay. Which is essentially Ron's position. His defense of DOMA is based on the fact that right now the government is NOT out of it and he thinks it is not for the federal government to decide for all.

So what's the problem with JBS then?

FrankRep
07-30-2011, 09:34 AM
So what's the problem with JBS then?

The JBS has stood by Ron Paul in his support of the Defense of Marriage Act and agrees that the Government shouldn't have the power to redefine marriage.

Congressman Ron Paul says he supports the Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/

Ron Paul: The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

Ron Paul: Protecting Marriage From Judicial Tyranny
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

erowe1
07-30-2011, 09:46 AM
http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/2011/06/26/new-york-is-no-hero/

That article is one big non sequitur.

First, he very correctly points out that the language commonly used for the issue often covers up the fact that the anti-gay marriage position doesn't actually ban anything or limit anyone's freedom to do anything or to enter any private contract with any other person apart from the state. As he says:

The controversy therefore isn’t so much about marriage — at least not in any holistic sense — as it is about a certain very specific set of legal rights granted by the state.

He then, again correctly, says:

As a matter of principle, market anarchists would like to free marriage altogether from the coercive clutches of the state, to erase the entire arbitrary, state-created legal framework around wedlock.

and

A question thus arises as to why a market anarchist would advocate for gay marriage instead of against state involvement.

But then, out of the blue, with no connection to anything he had written up to that point, he simply asserts:

But the two positions aren’t mutually exclusive, and, given the special benefits allowed to married couples, notions of legal fairness — i.e., fairness under the law — require the extension of civil marriage to gays
and goes on to pontificate about that, with no referrals back to any of his earlier caveats.

What does this notion of legal fairness have to do with smaller government, more freedom, or market anarchy?

And why does this notion of legal fairness require a change in the definition of marriage anyway? It's not as though marriage, as currently defined, applies differently to gay or straight people. When I and my wife entered our marriage contract with the state, there was no question on the form asking us if we were gay or straight. Obviously, so long as civil marriage exists, the benefits it provides will include some (the married) and not others (the unmarried). But redefining marriage so that more people get these benefits won't make it any less unfair, although it will make the cost of government greater.

erowe1
07-30-2011, 09:47 AM
The JBS has stood by Ron Paul in his support of the Defense of Marriage Act and agrees that the Government shouldn't have the power to redefine marriage.

Congressman Ron Paul says he supports the Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/

Ron Paul: The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

Ron Paul: Protecting Marriage From Judicial Tyranny
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

I'm still having trouble seeing how that's a big government position.

Agorism
07-30-2011, 10:30 AM
One Mommy blogger will be pleased.

Theocrat
07-30-2011, 10:37 AM
I'm curious. What does CPAC have against JBS?

FrankRep
07-30-2011, 10:42 AM
I'm curious. What does CPAC have against JBS?
The John Birch Society and the Neo-Conservatives have been at War for years.

CPAC must have new leadership with Neocon leanings.

====

February 9, 2011 - American Conservative Union Elects Al Cardenas as New Chairman (http://www.conservative.org/american-conservative-union-elects-al-cardenas-as-new-chairman/8503/)

Businessman and attorney Al Cardenas was elected Chairman of the American Conservative Union (ACU) Wednesday in Washington, DC, succeeding David Keene, who had held the post since in 1984. Founded in 1964, the ACU is the oldest membership-based conservative organization in the United States.


February 17, 2011 - New ACU chief Al Cardenas puts Ron Paul on notice (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huston/110217)

I had an opportunity to interview Mr. Cardenas about his new role with the ACU and this naturally led to questions of the current controversies going on at CPAC. I focused on the Ron Paul fans that caused so much ruckus this year and Cardenas seemed to put the Paulites on notice that they may not be invited again.

LibertyEagle
07-30-2011, 10:45 AM
Hi ya, Frank. Nice to see you back. :)

sailingaway
07-30-2011, 11:06 AM
So what's the problem with JBS then?

I don't really know their position.

LibertyEagle
07-30-2011, 11:10 AM
I don't really know their position.

Frank posted it above.

sailingaway
07-30-2011, 01:10 PM
Frank posted it above.

I know. I meant, I have my own position, I don't need to know theirs.... sorry if that's rude. My comment was about what another poster was saying, not about the JBS position.

Humanae Libertas
07-30-2011, 01:19 PM
I'm still having trouble seeing how that's a big government position.

Not really, DOMA actually defines what marriage is. I thought the point was not to let government dictate what marriage is.


Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means
only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,
and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is
a husband or a wife.''.

HarryBrowneLives
07-30-2011, 01:35 PM
David Horowitz = Neocon Scum = Should have stayed with the Liberals

LibertyEagle
07-30-2011, 02:00 PM
David Horowitz = Neocon Scum = Should have stayed with the Liberals

He is; they just have an R by their name now.

Ricky201
07-30-2011, 02:22 PM
Fuck CPAC. LPAC all the way!

libertybrewcity
07-30-2011, 02:32 PM
They wouldn't dare deny Ron Paul access to the conference.

NewRightLibertarian
07-30-2011, 02:53 PM
I will be there next year raising a stink about this, mark my words. This is fucking bullshit.

sailingaway
07-30-2011, 02:58 PM
Well, we can revisit this after Ames. There is something to be said, assuming Ron does well at Ames, for pulling a Mitt Romney, saying, we won two years in a row. Bin there, done that, denied the proper headlines, don't think much of excluding people you have differences with, think we'll skip it this time.

Except Ron feels he should speak to audiences like that because they are often the ones who need it most...

But the campaign doesn't have to address it yet.

I would not attend then raise a stink while associated with Ron, though.

erowe1
07-30-2011, 03:27 PM
Not really, DOMA actually defines what marriage is. I thought the point was not to let government dictate what marriage is.

No. As long as the government is involved in marriage it has to define what it is. You can't award a spouse the spousal benefits of Social Security without delimiting when someone is someone else's spouse. It's either get the government out of it, or define what it is. DOMA doesn't add anything that wasn't already there. It only delimits what was there so that it didn't get any bigger. Some people seem to be of the opinion that it's ok for the government to define marriage as long as they define it the gay way. But if they use the traditional definition, then somehow that's big government.

sailingaway
07-30-2011, 03:31 PM
No. As long as the government is involved in marriage it has to define what it is. You can't award a spouse the spousal benefits of Social Security without delimiting when someone is someone else's spouse. It's either get the government out of it, or define what it is. DOMA doesn't add anything that wasn't already there. It only delimits what was there so that it didn't get any bigger. Some people seem to be of the opinion that it's ok for the government to define marriage as long as they define it the gay way. But if they use the traditional definition, then somehow that's big government.

It is big government for them to do it at all. And an infringement on religious liberty, for someone either way.

Govt needs to get out of it.

erowe1
07-30-2011, 04:28 PM
It is big government for them to do it at all. And an infringement on religious liberty, for someone either way.

Govt needs to get out of it.

Agreed. I just don't see how DOMA made it any more big-government than it was before.

Agorism
07-30-2011, 05:36 PM
Somehow "winning LPAC" doesn't sound very exciting...

Just saying. btw Ron Paul can still win whether JBS is there or not although he prolly loses a few votes without their attendance.

wannaberocker
07-30-2011, 05:50 PM
How can they not like "Goproud". I saw the founder of GoProud on CNN once and he absolutly ripped the leftist. It was great to watch and the guy seemed like a very libertarian sort of a guy. CPAC get your act together.

sailingaway
07-30-2011, 05:59 PM
Somehow "winning LPAC" doesn't sound very exciting...

Just saying. btw Ron Paul can still win whether JBS is there or not although he prolly loses a few votes without their attendance.

Ron can win, but what does he get for it? He did it twice. The Iowa caucuses will be right about then, won't they? Before or after? Because I suspect that will be more important. But if they are after, Ron maybe should win again.

Agorism
07-30-2011, 06:08 PM
Ron can win, but what does he get for it? He did it twice. The Iowa caucuses will be right about then, won't they? Before or after? Because I suspect that will be more important. But if they are after, Ron maybe should win again.

It's fun to win the day.

Although next year the entire GOP caucus will be united around one candidate like when McCain won so even if Paul makes an effort to win, it will be a distant second place if he's not the nominee. Kind of defeats the point of it in this type of scenario.

We won the 2 CPAC's that mattered for us already I think so the future changes aren't that big of a deal most likely.

sailingaway
07-30-2011, 06:14 PM
I think he'd win, he had more votes than Romney in the year people voted for Romney. But it costs money and once he can clearly do it to the point where people say it means nothing, maybe the campaign would rather spend the money some other way.

Peace&Freedom
07-30-2011, 07:17 PM
GOProud, JBS and even the evil neocons should all be included at CPAC, as it is not just a convention, it is really a showcase of the strands active within the Republican party---thus all those strands should be represented. As for DOMA, yes, it does not add to the government's definition of marriage, but it does define marraige, and is therefore a flawed intervention of government in marraige (I much prefer Paul's proposed Marriage Protection Act). The JBS's position defends DOMA, which does not add to government power, but still perpetuates the selective government benefits and privileges currently in place. We need the government entirely out of marriage, period, not more groups added to the umbrella, nor the 'this group-yes, that group no' situation.

Eric21ND
07-30-2011, 07:35 PM
I can't stand Horowitz. Makes Levin seem jovial and fun listening.

AGRP
07-30-2011, 07:40 PM
David Horowitz = Neocon Scum = Should have stayed with the Liberals


He is; they just have an R by their name now.

4:40


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg8M2JBIoqo

AGRP
07-30-2011, 07:57 PM
GOProud, JBS and even the evil neocons should all be included at CPAC, as it is not just a convention, it is really a showcase of the strands active within the Republican party.

Freedom is the Republican brand and Ron Pauls/the constitutional interpretation of gay marriage needs to be represented in that the government has no place in marriage to begin with and that its up to local communities.