Welcome to PatsFans.com

Family Reserach Council Claims Obama Has A ‘Plan’ To ‘Impose Homosexuality’

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Dec 1, 2009.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    HAhahahahahahHA!

    I don't even knwo where to begin with this one....straight comedy!

    claiming that President Obama wants to “impose homosexuality and silence Christianity in workplaces"

    how are we going to impose gayness? and if we do, who will fight in our non gay military, and will I have to get divorced? If we silence christianity, how will most GET divorced? or fight against a Gihad?

    Think Progress Family Reserach Council Claims Obama Has A ‘Plan’ To ‘Impose Homosexuality’
  2. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    these are the same people who galvanized and got the C-student-in-Chief close enough to get "elected."

    Stupid is as stupid does.
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2009
  3. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    69
    Ratings:
    +113 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey


    Those people would have never voted for Gore or Kerry or Obama. They were and are galvanized to vote for whoever is the farthest right. The independents are the ones that swing elections.
  4. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    But what happens to conservativism when Obama turns everyone gay?

    I've gone crosseyed....
  5. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,002
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +186 / 6 / -23

    Homophobic bigotry, the 28%'ers just lost another 3-4%... their most influential person of their party is jumping up and down, and jiggling like a bowl of jelly..
  6. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,385
    Likes Received:
    246
    Ratings:
    +350 / 8 / -3

    #12 Jersey

  7. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Do I really need to rehash the profound affect the evangelical vote had on the 2000 election? It was unprecedented, and completely pulled the election to 50-50 status. Karl Rove and Kathy Harris did the rest.
  8. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    They got him the nomination, they didn't get him the election.

    Blame Nader and the 1.634% of the vote in Florida or 3.9% of the vote in New Hampshire for drawing off the extreme left leaning voters who normally vote Democrat.

    Even if half of that 3.9% in New Hampshire or the 1.634% in Florida votes for Gore instead of Nader Gore wins.

    But keep blaming it on the same tire excuses, don't blame it on the guy who siphoned off needed votes from the hardcore supporters...:rolleyes:
  9. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    In affect, yes they did.

    Agreed here. Nader voters share some of the blame. Certainly.

    What's a tire excuse?

    Anyhow, the main blame falls with the Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, and Gore's dumbass concession call. There's plenty to go around, but the history of the 2000 election is well-documented.

    Quite amazing the systemic injustice to democracy on a number of levels, actually.
  10. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    So you blame a bad crop running that year entirely on them? They selected one of the two major candidates running but they weren't the ones who caused the election to go one way or the other :rolleyes:


    They deserve more than a share, they deserve full blame from any supporters of Gore/Lieberman. Him being in it was stated right from the start in June of that year to be a major force in the election especially when he got endorsement after endorsement from the core of the party.

    Hardy har har...you know what I meant. A TIRED excuse.

    None of that had anything to do with the win...the only blame is on the voters who voted more for Bush than for Gore.

    But keep on trying to blame the wrong people, it's easier than facing the truth and the facts. Gore lost, get over it.

    Blah blah the same tired cry of injustice whenever the votes don't go the way of the losers...democracy doesn't truly exist here, we live in a republic on multiple levels of government so our vote has not truly counted for centuries.
  11. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    No, see... What I do is read the news, remember it, and apply it to my argument. You should try it some time. Mmm-kay?

    Spin it any way you like. The evangelicals turned out in record numbers to support Boy King over Gore in 2000.

    frontline: the jesus factor: evangelicals: the evangelical vote | PBS

    Bill Clinton in 1996 won the majority of freestyle evangelicals. But in 2000, George Bush won the majority of freestyle evangelicals. It shifted by about 10 percent away from Gore towards Bush, which, in an election that close, it was a very important shift.​

    But then, they didn't. Any every recount scenario that included all ballots would have proved this beyond any doubt.

    "Facing truth and facts." Now there's some irony. What you have a hard time "getting over" is that the idiot you supported back then accelerated the demise of the U.S. empire with unprecedented deregulation, fraud and hegemony. He didn't win more votes than Gore, and his handlers stole a razor-thin election for him by stalling in the courts.

    For the record, that was a 7-2 Supreme Court ruling that Florida's limited recount standards were un-Constitutional, yet a 5-4 vote against doing anything about it because there just "wasn't enough time."

    And there we are.

    This forum has been over the 2000 election many times over. But you're new here, so you figure you're enlightening us all on the RW talking points long-since debunked.

    The Nader tally did not change the fact that Gore won Florida, regardless of how badly you wanna deflect away from Katherine Harris' role (and Bush lawyers' role) in handing her ideological ally the election.

    But it is funny that instead of demanding democracy, you'll just punt to sentiment along the lines of "it's always been that way." Meanwhile, if Gore won under the reverse circumstances, you and yours would have gone beserk and grabbed your muskets for revolution.
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2009
  12. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Whatever you say Press...whatever you say.
  13. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Yeah, I know. ...
  14. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey


    Atually it was thinkprogess.org, a liberal public policy group that had the misspelling in the link as they were the ones who reference the FRC....

    Center for American Progress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    If you had clicked on the link, it would have been evident but I guess it's easier to jump to conclusions, especially wrong ones.

    Thanks for playing anyhow......
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2009
  15. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    you believe ThinkProgress is a "policy group?"
  16. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    A public policy advocacy group, run by Jon Podesta, bankrolled by George Soros that pushes liberal causes. If not that, what would you call it?????
  17. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,625
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13


    No I think of it as a radical left wing propaganda machine funded by George Soros.
  18. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    But then, I didn't ask you, I asked Philly.

    Your creepy opinion is well-documented.
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2009
  19. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    I would call it a monitor for never-ending RW, pro-war fraud, linking their own quotes, videos and memos against them.

    Someone has to do it, because God knows the mainstream television networks don't.

    Still, they don't set policy.
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2009
  20. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,002
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +186 / 6 / -23

    Know will get bashed for posting this from Media Matters but FRC has extensive documentation of the work of this fundamentalist group, another extreme religious group tryting to make policy decisions, if the AG had any balls would pull their tax exempt status along with the Catholic Church's, make them pay taxes on their lush oceanfront property...

    Family Research Council Is Fervently Anti-Gay | Media Matters Action Network

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>