RNC Chairman a closet 'gay'

[Rufus_1611]

RNC chairman a closet 'gay,' charges Bill Maher
HBO star plans to out other top homosexual Republicans

"Political pundit Bill Maher last night accused the head of the Republican National Committee of being a closet "gay."

Appearing on CNN's Larry King Live, Maher said it's an open secret in Washington that RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman is a homosexual and that he has "never denied" it."...​

 

[Magnetic Poles]

RNC chairman a closet 'gay,' charges Bill Maher
HBO star plans to out other top homosexual Republicans

"Political pundit Bill Maher last night accused the head of the Republican National Committee of being a closet "gay."

Appearing on CNN's Larry King Live, Maher said it's an open secret in Washington that RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman is a homosexual and that he has "never denied" it."...​

I have read this before also. Perhaps Ted Haggard told Maher about it. :laugh:

 

[carpro]

Who cares? :sleeping_2:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Nice. Deal in smut and personal attacks. And then repeat them on the BB. And people say the Republicans are bad at this. Bill Maher is one of hte most arrogant, uninformed people in public life. He should stick to comedy. I saw a bit of him on LKL last night, and am still amazed at how he gets any interviews. He is a political hack who doesn't know much.

 

[TomVols]

1. We should consider the source. Maher, Coulter (Maher describes her as his best friend), Drudge, Franken.....anyone who uses these folks for serious information probably also refers to the National Enquirer as "the paper" (see "So I Married an Axe Murderer)

2. What difference does it make?

 

[Daisy]

If it were true then I suppose the hypocrisy of it all would make it interesting. It would also help explain the Logcabin Republicans.

If it's not true, then it seems a rather pointless slur.

 

[carpro]

If it were true then I suppose the hypocrisy of it all would make it interesting.

Why do you think so?

Was he running for office with the knowing support of Conservative Christians?

It was a pointless slur, true or not.

 

[rbell]

[unappreciated levity]
What a queer thread this is.
[/unappreciated levity]

 

[Rufus_1611]

1. We should consider the source. Maher, Coulter (Maher describes her as his best friend), Drudge, Franken.....anyone who uses these folks for serious information probably also refers to the National Enquirer as "the paper" (see "So I Married an Axe Murderer)

2. What difference does it make?

Maher is the source but so was GQ magazine and this information was repeated on a conservative site, WND. If we set aside Mehlman and look at the Haggard thing, the Foley thing (and the Hastert cover-up), the log cabin boys, the sodomite prostitute Jeff Gannon getting a White House press pass (and Bush giving him a hug), Condi Rice recognizing the mother of a sodomite as being another sodomite's "mother-in-law", Rove's dad, Jim Kolbe, Larry Craig, Ed Shrouck, Dan Gurley, Mary Cheney and possibly David Drier...how long before "conservative Christians" recognize that they are supporting a party that would appear to have a serious sodomy problem and is doing more to help the sodomite agenda then to hold it back? Are we going to forever be able to push back sodomy when the people that are supposed to be on the side of family values are doing it themselves?

 

[carpro]

Republicans are hardly immune from "individual" sin.

Do we now expect perfection from imperfect people?

When the support of sodomy becomes part of the party plank of Republicans like it has of democrats, then I'll worry about it.

 

[JamieinNH]

Maher is the source but so was GQ magazine and this information was repeated on a conservative site, WND. If we set aside Mehlman and look at the Haggard thing, the Foley thing (and the Hastert cover-up), the log cabin boys, the sodomite prostitute Jeff Gannon getting a White House press pass (and Bush giving him a hug), Condi Rice recognizing the mother of a sodomite as being another sodomite's "mother-in-law", Rove's dad, Jim Kolbe, Larry Craig, Ed Shrouck, Dan Gurley, Mary Cheney and possibly David Drier...how long before "conservative Christians" recognize that they are supporting a party that would appear to have a serious sodomy problem and is doing more to help the sodomite agenda then to hold it back? Are we going to forever be able to push back sodomy when the people that are supposed to be on the side of family values are doing it themselves?

Rufus_1611,

You bring up some good points, I am sorry to say that some here won't listen to you because you're talking about their "Republican" party.

Some have blinders on, now matter what the issue.

I think you're right to ask about this. Just as you put it, how can we get a party, that is suppose to be on our side, to help us, if they are filled with homosexuals themselves.

Politicaly, it really doesn't matter, but as a Christian, it should, if as a Christian we are to look to the Republican party as the party to help us out with our cause. And even that is debatable, in my opinion, the Republicans are no better than the Democrats, and therefore we should find a 3rd party that will better align with our beliefs.


Jamie

 

[Pastor Larry]

I would remind us that having a homosexual in a party does not mean that the party itself is pursuing a homosexual agenda. We need to be more careful in our thinking.

I think as Christians we should worry less about parties and more about the gospel. The hope for America in not in politics, it is in the pulpits.

 

[TomVols]

The Log Cabin Republicans have been around a lot longer than Mehlman's tenure as GOP head. I find no hypocrisy.

There are openly gay members of both parties. It is what it is.

 

[Rufus_1611]

The Log Cabin Republicans have been around a lot longer than Mehlman's tenure as GOP head. I find no hypocrisy.

There are openly gay members of both parties. It is what it is.

Wouldn't it be neat if it became something it currently isn't? Wouldn't it be neat if this party that is supposed to represent Christian ideals and family values would actually do that? What if they preferred that their men be husbands of one wife and if their party members wanted to be a sodomite, or a pederast then they could encourage them to find another party? Then if a "man" like Jim Kolbe comes out and says he likes other "men" then the party could say, our Lord finds that to be an abomination and we don't desire to walk with you? However, if the party leader likes to give press passes to a non-journalist, sodomite, prostitute and then proceeds to hug on him in public and if the party chairman is indeed an abominable sodomite himself, then it might explain why sodomites in both parties is what it is.

 

[tinytim]

Which is worse?
Standing for homosexuality
or
Standing against homosexuality?

The problem occurs when those that stand against it are hypocrites... but I would bet that the majority that are against it are not closet homos.

And those that are hypocrites make us conservatives just as sick as it does liberals.

 

[Daisy]

Why do you think so?

You know all too well the delight in contemplating & smirking at other people's hypocrisy.

Was he running for office with the knowing support of Conservative Christians?

He was working behind the scenes to garner the support of Conservative Christians.

It was a pointless slur, true or not.

"Homosexual" as a statement of fact is not a slur nor is "gay" if it is true. When it is not true, it is an insult both to the gay community and to the person falsely labeled.


Of course, if it's true and he's never denied it, then there is no hypocrisy (unless he is pushing an anti-gay agenda which he feels won't apply to him) and no slur.

 

[mcdirector]

I tend to believe what the person says about him/herself instead of what other people say about the person.

I felt that way about Haggard. I'm glad he confessed though since that is the first step in getting right with God.

AND we are all hypocrites. We all state the things we believe in and in most cases we really believe those things. We are inconsistent in our human & sinful nature though.

 

[tragic_pizza]

homosexual agenda.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[JamieinNH]

I think as Christians we should worry less about parties and more about the gospel. The hope for America in not in politics, it is in the pulpits.

It's funny. I agree with your statement above, and yet if you look over the last few months of posts in the political forum, I wouldn't get that impression from you.


Jamie

 

[Pastor Larry]

I think I have been pretty clear and consistent on this topic, Jaimie. I am not sure what made you think otherwise. In fact, not too long ago I got beat up because I said that God was in charge of all elections and all leaders were established by God. Christians are way too tied up in politics and social issues.

I do think we have a responsibility to stave off corruption as much as possible.
Neither party is worth anything, but as a whole, the Republicans generally share Christian values more than the Dems. However it is only slightly more. The big thing to me is still judicial appointments. Overall, Republicans make better appointments than Democrats do, and Republican congresses are more likely to approve decent judges that Democratic congresses will. As long as we have a judicial branch that legislates, we might as well try.