GOProud: NOT banned from CPAC; World Net Daily report not true

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2011 9:58 PM GMT
    http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/02/15/goproud-says-the-world-net-daily-report-is-not-true/

    and

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102150025

    Today GOProud denied that their organization had been banned from the CPAC convention in 2012. Via Twitter message to me, GOProud said “The WND report is not true.”

    Yesterday, World Net Daily reported that GOProud would not be welcomed back next year, but cited no sources for their report. I have asked CPAC for comment and will report that when it comes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2011 10:15 PM GMT
    Nothing like a little coitus interruptus...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2011 11:04 PM GMT
    Thank God. I was afraid they wouldn't be able to go and prostrate themselves to the very people who hate them. And what would have been awful. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2011 11:09 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidThank God. I was afraid they wouldn't be able to go and prostrate themselves to the very people who hate them. And what would have been awful. icon_rolleyes.gif


    The future still isn't certain. Based on the comments that the new chairman made it seems like he's going to at least try to get them removed.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Feb 15, 2011 11:23 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidNothing like a little coitus interruptus...


    Hmmm ...... I wouldn't get your all your collective coiti's all riled up just yet


    Today GOProud denied that their organization had been banned
    Strange ....... I thought that THEY were the group being banned

    I have asked CPAC for comment and will report that when it comes.
    When it "comes" then you can have all the republican coitus you want icon_cool.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Feb 15, 2011 11:36 PM GMT
    Outlets (including the vehemently homophobic World Net Daily) are reporting that members participating at a CPAC Board Meeting on Monday voted to ban GOProud from the convention next year. Though the handful of boycotts this year from NOM and SPLC-certified hate groups like the Family Research Council likely played a role in today's alleged decision, reports that GOProud Chris Barron trolled the convention floor calling fellow conservatives "bigots" will likely come-out as the key reason organizers are banning the group.
    http://www.thegayrecord.com/2011/02/goproud-banned-from-cpac-2012.html

    Sounds like he's preparin to suck Someone's dick ......... icon_neutral.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2011 11:58 PM GMT
    GQjock saidOutlets (including the vehemently homophobic World Net Daily) are reporting that members participating at a CPAC Board Meeting on Monday voted to ban GOProud from the convention next year. Though the handful of boycotts this year from NOM and SPLC-certified hate groups like the Family Research Council likely played a role in today's alleged decision, reports that GOProud Chris Barron trolled the convention floor calling fellow conservatives "bigots" will likely come-out as the key reason organizers are banning the group.
    http://www.thegayrecord.com/2011/02/goproud-banned-from-cpac-2012.html

    Sounds like he's preparin to suck Someone's dick ......... icon_neutral.gif



    What an asshole. He's pro-life? The depths of that man's self-hatred are unfathomable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 12:04 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    GQjock saidOutlets (including the vehemently homophobic World Net Daily) are reporting that members participating at a CPAC Board Meeting on Monday voted to ban GOProud from the convention next year. Though the handful of boycotts this year from NOM and SPLC-certified hate groups like the Family Research Council likely played a role in today's alleged decision, reports that GOProud Chris Barron trolled the convention floor calling fellow conservatives "bigots" will likely come-out as the key reason organizers are banning the group.
    http://www.thegayrecord.com/2011/02/goproud-banned-from-cpac-2012.html

    Sounds like he's preparin to suck Someone's dick ......... icon_neutral.gif



    What an asshole. He's pro-life? The depths of that man's self-hatred are unfathomable.


    What does pro-life have to do with being an asshole? People who are convicted that babies shouldn't be killed are assholes?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 12:09 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said

    What an asshole. He's pro-life? The depths of that man's self-hatred are unfathomable.


    What does pro-life have to do with being an asshole? People who are convicted that babies shouldn't be killed are assholes?


    Men who want to control women's bodies are assholes by definition. And playing into the already debunked "investigation" of Planned Parenthood only further exemplifies his assholiness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 12:13 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    GQjock saidOutlets (including the vehemently homophobic World Net Daily) are reporting that members participating at a CPAC Board Meeting on Monday voted to ban GOProud from the convention next year. Though the handful of boycotts this year from NOM and SPLC-certified hate groups like the Family Research Council likely played a role in today's alleged decision, reports that GOProud Chris Barron trolled the convention floor calling fellow conservatives "bigots" will likely come-out as the key reason organizers are banning the group.
    http://www.thegayrecord.com/2011/02/goproud-banned-from-cpac-2012.html

    Sounds like he's preparin to suck Someone's dick ......... icon_neutral.gif



    What an asshole. He's pro-life? The depths of that man's self-hatred are unfathomable.


    What does pro-life have to do with being an asshole? People who are convicted that babies shouldn't be killed are assholes?
    I'm "pro-life"!

    but what I am MORE... is PRO CHOICE! Its NONE of MY FUCKING business as to what a pregnant woman CHOOSES to do with her OWN BODY.

    Mind your own damn business.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 12:13 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said

    What an asshole. He's pro-life? The depths of that man's self-hatred are unfathomable.


    What does pro-life have to do with being an asshole? People who are convicted that babies shouldn't be killed are assholes?


    Men who want to control women's bodies are assholes by definition. And playing into the already debunked "investigation" of Planned Parenthood only further exemplifies his assholiness.


    Once a woman is carrying a child she is not just doing whatever she wants with her own body anymore. It's debatable when this happens exactly, but one thing is for certain I'm completely against late term abortions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 12:15 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said

    What an asshole. He's pro-life? The depths of that man's self-hatred are unfathomable.


    What does pro-life have to do with being an asshole? People who are convicted that babies shouldn't be killed are assholes?


    Men who want to control women's bodies are assholes by definition. And playing into the already debunked "investigation" of Planned Parenthood only further exemplifies his assholiness.


    Once a woman is carrying a child she is not just doing whatever she wants with her own body anymore. It's debatable when this happens exactly, but one thing is for certain I'm completely against late term abortions.
    Late term is TOO LATE. I agree with you here. (to that point)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 12:21 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said

    What an asshole. He's pro-life? The depths of that man's self-hatred are unfathomable.


    What does pro-life have to do with being an asshole? People who are convicted that babies shouldn't be killed are assholes?


    Men who want to control women's bodies are assholes by definition. And playing into the already debunked "investigation" of Planned Parenthood only further exemplifies his assholiness.


    Once a woman is carrying a child she is not just doing whatever she wants with her own body anymore. It's debatable when this happens exactly, but one thing is for certain I'm completely against late term abortions.


    No one is in favor of late-term abortions but there are times when they are medically necessary. If I could get pregnant, I would probably not have an abortion and probably wouldn't have had one when I was younger, but that's my decision. The state has no more right to determine what a woman does with her body and anything incapable of surviving outside of her body than ti does to determine whether or not you engage in sexual relations with another man.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 12:21 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said

    What an asshole. He's pro-life? The depths of that man's self-hatred are unfathomable.


    What does pro-life have to do with being an asshole? People who are convicted that babies shouldn't be killed are assholes?


    Men who want to control women's bodies are assholes by definition. And playing into the already debunked "investigation" of Planned Parenthood only further exemplifies his assholiness.


    Once a woman is carrying a child she is not just doing whatever she wants with her own body anymore. It's debatable when this happens exactly, but one thing is for certain I'm completely against late term abortions.
    Late term is TOO LATE. I agree with you here. (to that point)


    The dilemma, even one I struggle with, is when in fact the fetus should be considered a baby.
  • tongun18

    Posts: 593

    Feb 16, 2011 12:47 AM GMT
    TropicalMarkI'm "pro-life"!

    but what I am MORE... is PRO CHOICE! Its NONE of MY FUCKING business as to what a pregnant woman CHOOSES to do with her OWN BODY.

    Mind your own damn business.


    To play devils advocate, and in all sincerity Tropical, do you extend this to women who continue substance abuse or other dangerous behavior in spite of their pregnancy?


    mocktwinkie saidThe dilemma, even one I struggle with, is when in fact the fetus should be considered a baby.


    Whatever we decide on we I think we need to apply that rationale across the board for consistency's sake with the law. If a pregnant woman is killed while carrying a 3 month old fetus, does that translate to two counts of homicide? What if she intended on getting an abortion?

    My personal opinion, while I think there should be exceptions for rape, incest, and the woman's health, I tend to disagree with allowing abortions for other reasons regardless of the fetus' stage of development. The Constitution states:

    PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    Emphasis added.

    I think that (assuming the fetus is allowed to develop to term) at least leaves open the possibility that the unborn child has a Constitutional right to life.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Feb 16, 2011 12:51 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    but what I am MORE... is PRO CHOICE! Its NONE of MY FUCKING business as to what a pregnant woman CHOOSES to do with her OWN BODY.

    Mind your own damn business.



    Who is going to mind the business of the unborn child? Pro-Life isn't about the mother, it's about the life of the baby who can't defend itself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 1:15 AM GMT
    tongun18 said
    TropicalMarkI'm "pro-life"!

    but what I am MORE... is PRO CHOICE! Its NONE of MY FUCKING business as to what a pregnant woman CHOOSES to do with her OWN BODY.

    Mind your own damn business.


    To play devils advocate, and in all sincerity Tropical, do you extend this to women who continue substance abuse or other dangerous behavior in spite of their pregnancy?


    mocktwinkie saidThe dilemma, even one I struggle with, is when in fact the fetus should be considered a baby.


    Whatever we decide on we I think we need to apply that rationale across the board for consistency's sake with the law. If a pregnant woman is killed while carrying a 3 month old fetus, does that translate to two counts of homicide? What if she intended on getting an abortion?

    My personal opinion, while I think there should be exceptions for rape, incest, and the woman's health, I tend to disagree with allowing abortions for other reasons regardless of the fetus' stage of development. The Constitution states:

    PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    Emphasis added.

    I think that (assuming the fetus is allowed to develop to term) at least leaves open the possibility that the unborn child has a Constitutional right to life.


    I agree with you heavily on this. I've always said that if I had to take an official position it would be pro-life across the board, simply because in my opinion, it is the lesser of the two evils. I also agree, in cases of incest and rape or the mother's life being threatened, there should be an exception.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 2:04 AM GMT
    To Mr Pro-like Mock. You are then contributing large amounts of money to the care of these children?

    Robin Williams did an interesting skit once of a pro-lifer protesting. All the rhetoric over and over and impassioned. Then he said,
    " What, it's born? The baby got born? Ok, I'm out of here....."

    If you going to foist a huge number of babies on the public, be prepared for an expected tax increase. Or shall they go to workhouses? You're not old enough to remember the horrors of the earlier years before abortion was legal and available. I'd suggest you google some history on the subject. Women did extremely dangerous and often fatal things to themselves.

    I'm pro-life. But like TropicalMaek stated, it's none of my damned business. UNLESS I'm willing legally commit to pay for a baby's upbringing, which involves large amounts of money for each one.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 2:09 AM GMT
    Pro-life is such a vague term.

    Pro-sperm, pro-zygote, pro-fetus, pro-baby--these are much more specific terms.

    In the future, there will be an option for pro-skin-cell-turned-stem-cell.
    http://poor-blogger.blogspot.com/2006/07/pro-life-pro-sperm-pro-zygote-pro.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 2:19 AM GMT
    tongun18 said
    PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    Emphasis added.

    I think that (assuming the fetus is allowed to develop to term) at least leaves open the possibility that the unborn child has a Constitutional right to life.


    Then is a woman who miscarries guilty of negligent homicide? Will careful medical histories be taken to ensure she didn't have a glass of wine or smoke a cigarette?

    I cannot believe that you guys have the gall to decide what is right for a woman. Obviously, none of you have know anyone who had an abortion. Usually, it is a very difficult choice and not undertaken lightly.

    This is further stunning by the hypocrisy that each and every one of you has at one time or another argued against what little social safety net exists in this country. Are you willing to take financial responsibility for a child for 21 years if the mother cannot afford to raise it?

    Until minimally 28 weeks when a premature baby can survive on it's own, its' none of your damn business. God knows none of you want to pay taxes to support that child when it's born. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 2:21 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    tongun18 said
    TropicalMarkI'm "pro-life"!

    but what I am MORE... is PRO CHOICE! Its NONE of MY FUCKING business as to what a pregnant woman CHOOSES to do with her OWN BODY.

    Mind your own damn business.


    To play devils advocate, and in all sincerity Tropical, do you extend this to women who continue substance abuse or other dangerous behavior in spite of their pregnancy?


    mocktwinkie saidThe dilemma, even one I struggle with, is when in fact the fetus should be considered a baby.


    Whatever we decide on we I think we need to apply that rationale across the board for consistency's sake with the law. If a pregnant woman is killed while carrying a 3 month old fetus, does that translate to two counts of homicide? What if she intended on getting an abortion?

    My personal opinion, while I think there should be exceptions for rape, incest, and the woman's health, I tend to disagree with allowing abortions for other reasons regardless of the fetus' stage of development. The Constitution states:

    PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    Emphasis added.

    I think that (assuming the fetus is allowed to develop to term) at least leaves open the possibility that the unborn child has a Constitutional right to life.


    I agree with you heavily on this. I've always said that if I had to take an official position it would be pro-life across the board, simply because in my opinion, it is the lesser of the two evils. I also agree, in cases of incest and rape or the mother's life being threatened, there should be an exception.


    The logical conclusion of your beliefs is hat your sex life is immoral because your spilling potential babies all over the place. And, as I and others have asked, are you willing to have your tax dollars pay for that child? If not, you really have no right asking a woman to carry a fetus to term and be responsible for it for 18 years.
  • tongun18

    Posts: 593

    Feb 16, 2011 3:13 AM GMT
    Christian73 said

    Then is a woman who miscarries guilty of negligent homicide? Will careful medical histories be taken to ensure she didn't have a glass of wine or smoke a cigarette?

    I cannot believe that you guys have the gall to decide what is right for a woman. Obviously, none of you have know anyone who had an abortion. Usually, it is a very difficult choice and not undertaken lightly.

    This is further stunning by the hypocrisy that each and every one of you has at one time or another argued against what little social safety net exists in this country. Are you willing to take financial responsibility for a child for 21 years if the mother cannot afford to raise it?

    Until minimally 28 weeks when a premature baby can survive on it's own, its' none of your damn business. God knows none of you want to pay taxes to support that child when it's born. icon_rolleyes.gif




    Ok, time out. There is no need to get so offended so quickly, I was merely stating my opinion in the hopes of generating genuine discourse. Please, lets allow for cooler heads to prevail.

    Christian, you've sort of jumped to an extreme right off the bat there, no one here has come close to suggesting a miscarriage should be construed as negligent homicide. You're right, that would just be insane.

    And I do know a few people who have had an abortion, every single one of them regrets the hell out of their decision.

    Do we at least agree that abortions should not be used as a means of birth control? Or would that too be a point of contention?

    Back to my earlier question regarding consistency in the law: If the 28 week standard is to be used, does that mean a man that kills a woman only 27 weeks pregnant can only be charged with one count of homicide?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 3:17 AM GMT
    tongunDo we at least agree that abortions should not be used as a means of birth control? Or would that too be a point of contention?

    Perfectly fine with me...except that Planned Parenthood also does family planning and contraception. There you have it--not only are the Republicans in Congress pro-fetus, they are primarily pro-sperm, i.e. there should be no barriers between the sperm and the egg.
    Who promoted abstinence-only (i.e. ineffectual) programs in the US and Africa at American taxpayers' expense?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 3:22 AM GMT

    "Who promoted abstinence-only (i.e. ineffectual) programs in the US and Africa at American taxpayers' expense?"


    Good question.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2011 3:24 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    tongun18 said
    TropicalMarkI'm "pro-life"!

    but what I am MORE... is PRO CHOICE! Its NONE of MY FUCKING business as to what a pregnant woman CHOOSES to do with her OWN BODY.

    Mind your own damn business.


    To play devils advocate, and in all sincerity Tropical, do you extend this to women who continue substance abuse or other dangerous behavior in spite of their pregnancy?


    mocktwinkie saidThe dilemma, even one I struggle with, is when in fact the fetus should be considered a baby.


    Whatever we decide on we I think we need to apply that rationale across the board for consistency's sake with the law. If a pregnant woman is killed while carrying a 3 month old fetus, does that translate to two counts of homicide? What if she intended on getting an abortion?

    My personal opinion, while I think there should be exceptions for rape, incest, and the woman's health, I tend to disagree with allowing abortions for other reasons regardless of the fetus' stage of development. The Constitution states:

    PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    Emphasis added.

    I think that (assuming the fetus is allowed to develop to term) at least leaves open the possibility that the unborn child has a Constitutional right to life.


    I agree with you heavily on this. I've always said that if I had to take an official position it would be pro-life across the board, simply because in my opinion, it is the lesser of the two evils. I also agree, in cases of incest and rape or the mother's life being threatened, there should be an exception.


    So a fetus is less human and deserving of the right to life based on the way it was conceived? Your logic doesn't add up. Pick a side and stick with it, dude.