billvon 3,132 #1 July 2, 2013 Remember when conservatives opposed things like anti-civil-rights legislation and Sharia type governments? ================================= Some US Conservatives Laud Russia's Anti-Gay Bill By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS July 1, 2013 at 2:41 PM ET NEW YORK — As the hub of the Soviet Union, Russia was reviled for rights abuses by many U.S. conservatives during the Cold War. Now some are voicing support and admiration as Russian authorities crack down on gay-rights activism. The latest step drawing praise from social conservatives is a bill signed into law Sunday by President Vladimir Putin that would impose hefty fines for holding gay pride rallies or providing information about the gay community to minors. "You admire some of the things they're doing in Russia against propaganda," said Austin Ruse, president of the U.S.-based Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. "On the other hand, you know it would be impossible to do that here." Ruse, whose institute is seeking accreditation at the United Nations, plans to travel to Russia this summer to meet with government officials and civic leaders. "We want to let them know they do in fact have support among American NGOs on social issues," he said. Among others commending Russia's anti-gay efforts was Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. "Russians do not want to follow America's reckless and decadent promotion of gender confusion, sexual perversion, and anti-biblical ideologies to youth," LaBarbera said on his website. In a sign of Russia's evolving stature among some U.S. social conservatives, the Illinois-based World Congress of Families plans to hold its eighth international conference at the Kremlin's Palace of Congresses in Moscow next year. Past conferences in Europe, Mexico and Australia have brought together opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage from dozens of countries. "The Kremlin used to be a no-no for conservatives," said Larry Jacobs, managing director of the World Congress. "We're going to redeem that building." The website for the September 2014 conference declares that Russia, "with its historic commitment to deep spirituality and morality, can be a hope for the natural family supporters from all over the world." . . . Stefano Gennarini, a colleague of Austin Ruse's at Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, suggested in a blog post that criticisms of the bill in the West were "hyperbole" and defended it as a reasonable effort to protect children. "Russians have consistently denied homosexual groups parade permits, sparing its children and the public at large the ludicrous and disturbing behavior on show in the squares and streets of Europe and America," Gennarini wrote He characterized the bill's proposed fines as a tax on public displays of affection by homosexuals, adding that "$155 is hardly unmanageable for homosexuals who want to kiss in public," he wrote. Gennarini, in an interview, said it would be "imprudent" for U.S. diplomats to criticize Russia's efforts to curtail gay-rights activism. He said people in other regions — notably Africa and the Islamic world — might look to the Russia as a positive example when considering laws of their own. Scott Lively, a Massachusetts-based evangelical lawyer and activist, conducted a 50-city speaking tour of Russia in 2007, and says the current bill reflects policies that he advocated at the time. . . . "Russia could become a model pro-family society," he wrote. "If this were to occur, I believe people from the West would begin to emigrate to Russia in the same way that Russians used to emigrate to the United States and Europe." . . . "Russians, even after glasnost, are comfortable with an authoritarian style," he said. "That wouldn't work in the United States." ======================= Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #2 July 2, 2013 Your thread title is ridiculous. Not only reading their own website mission statement, but in reading wiki too... "The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) is a US-based conservative pressure group. It describes itself as "a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.".[1] C-Fam was founded in 1997 and promotes the view that "the UN and other international institutions harm a true understanding of international law and in the process undermine the family and other institutions man requires for a just, free and happy life."[2]" They are conservative only if the mean is... Christian. Social Conservative... means Progressive Republican. Progressivism and U.S. Constitutionalism are antithetical. Your thread title is yet another example of why Washington was against parties. So some bigots who are christian are praising a tyrant and his country who are against homosexuals... Big Deal; that's not "Conservative." Stop continuing the D VS R game that Progressives have created. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #3 July 2, 2013 Remember when Russia was the surveillance state? Remember when it was Russia who held innocent people in a prison in a remote location? Remember when the US was considered the "good guys" of the world? Or, is it we were always them and they were always us and it was simply the mythology and propaganda which defined our point of view?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #4 July 2, 2013 >Social Conservative... means Progressive Republican. Cool! Usually it takes 10 or so posts to get to the point where people try to redefine words to make their point - and it usually comes from Gravitymaster or RushMC. >Stop continuing the D VS R game that Progressives have created. . . . and turn it into a game against progressives vs constitutionalists! Well played, sir, well played. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #5 July 2, 2013 quadeRemember when Russia was the surveillance state? It still is. QuoteRemember when it was Russia who held innocent people in a prison in a remote location? It still does. QuoteRemember when the US was considered the "good guys" of the world? Or, is it we were always them and they were always us and it was simply the mythology and propaganda which defined our point of view? "Good guy" status comes and goes. The USA has been an rebel colony, insurrectionist group, weak and irrelevant confederation, a slavery state, a nation of civil war, a growing and changing nation, a bully, an entrepreneur, a savior, a superpower, and lots of folks have had good or bad opinions of just about every part of our history. None of that changes the good that this country has accomplished, from invention, discovery, and exploration to freedom, capitalism, and tolerance. Not being perfect is no excuse to entertain relativism.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 July 2, 2013 QuoteNot being perfect is no excuse to entertain relativism. Perhaps. However, to be realistic is to realize the US was never perfect from the get go and that some of the "pride" in the US is by way of mythology about the country's history.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 July 3, 2013 Kennedy Not being perfect is no excuse to entertain relativism. Relative to the image we liked to see in ourselves from the end of the Vietnam War end on, we look like communist Russia right now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #8 July 3, 2013 billvon>Social Conservative... means Progressive Republican. Cool! Usually it takes 10 or so posts to get to the point where people try to redefine words to make their point - and it usually comes from Gravitymaster or RushMC. >Stop continuing the D VS R game that Progressives have created. . . . and turn it into a game against progressives vs constitutionalists! Well played, sir, well played. It is the same exact thing I have said over and over... you just have no concept of what a progressive is, regardless of everything I have continually posted. Goes in one ear and out the other... nor have you read, American Progressivism: A Reader. Perfect example of a man who calls himself a conservative ---- H(F)uckabee; would force his Christianity on others - homosexuality and abortion issues - where he is called a social conservative because of it... except in reality, by ideological classification, he is a progressive. Just with an R... like Teddy; who started their party, and was the first President of the ideology. Where now, there is no progressive party... because they have infected both parties; wherein, we technically have one party, as desired. P.S... Read the beginning of Federalist 39, about terminology. I'm right... and you're a low information voter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #9 July 3, 2013 >you just have no concept of what a progressive is, regardless of everything I have >continually posted. No, I disagree with your definition of progressive. It's a common tactic - redefine the people you don't like as villains, then say "I'm a hero, not a villain! Because I'm smart and educated and can see their villainy. If you don't see it. you must be uneducated." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #10 July 3, 2013 billvon>you just have no concept of what a progressive is, regardless of everything I have >continually posted. No, I disagree with your definition of progressive. It's a common tactic - redefine the people you don't like as villains, then say "I'm a hero, not a villain! Because I'm smart and educated and can see their villainy. If you don't see it. you must be uneducated." Glad we are playing on the same level, Bill. This thread title is as inflammatory and assuming as the one that I posted about a liberal pricipal. I can admit I was just posting that in that way to get people riled up, can you?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #11 July 3, 2013 Quote It is the same exact thing I have said over and over... you just have no concept of what a progressive is, regardless of everything I have continually posted. What??? WHAT???? Someone still disagrees with you, despite you presenting your opinion to them more than once? Well I never heard the like! Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #12 July 3, 2013 They are not my opinions or definitions, jakee... Just like with "Democracy" in the other thread: What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form? Were an answer to this question to be sought, not by recurring to principles, but in the application of the term by political writers, to the constitution of different States, no satisfactory one would ever be found. Holland, in which no particle of the supreme authority is derived from the people, has passed almost universally under the denomination of a republic. The same title has been bestowed on Venice, where absolute power over the great body of the people is exercised, in the most absolute manner, by a small body of hereditary nobles. Poland, which is a mixture of aristocracy and of monarchy in their worst forms, has been dignified with the same appellation. The government of England, which has one republican branch only, combined with an hereditary aristocracy and monarchy, has, with equal impropriety, been frequently placed on the list of republics. These examples, which are nearly as dissimilar to each other as to a genuine republic, show the extreme inaccuracy with which the term has been used in political disquisitions. Federalist 39 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #13 July 4, 2013 QuoteThey are not my opinions or definitions, jakee... So what is your opinion? QuoteFederalist 39 A) doesn't mention progressives. B) Do you think everything written in the Federalist papers is right and correct? You have an odd way of approaching philosophy!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)