Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

TheBlaze TV

‘She Has the Right to Stay Home’: TheBlaze Readers Respond to S.E. Cupp’s CPAC Boycott

Mar. 3, 2013 3:46pm Madeleine Morgenstern

TheBlaze’s S.E. Cupp said she would not be attending CPAC until gay Republican groups are embraced. (Photo: TheBlaze)

TheBlaze’s S.E. Cupp made headlines last week when she announced she was pulling out of CPAC over the annual conservative conference’s exclusion of gay Republican groups.

“I’m a conservative who believes that keeping the government out of my private life on a whole host of issues is totally consistent with supporting gay rights,” Cupp told TheBlaze.

Here’s some of what you had to say about her decision:

Hermit Boy
In response to all those people asking how letting gay people marry affects others, its not about letting them get married. It is about making us recognize their marriage. Once gay marriage is legalized, we will be required to recognize it. And its already starting.
- In 2010, Jennifer Keeton who was expelled from Augusta State University for her views against homosexuality.
- Last April, a Kansas State bill was proposed that would include a requirement that churches that rent out for weddings would also have to rent to gay couples. (was not passed)
- Kate Baker and Ming Linsley successfully sued (settled out of court) a Vermont Inn that would not rent to them for their wedding.
-NJ State Goverment ruled that the privately owned Ocean Grove pavilion had to rent to gay couples wanting to be married there
-Catholic adoption centers in Illinois and Massachusetts have closed after being told they must go against their beliefs and provide adoption services to gay couples.
- KSL, a broadcasting station in Utah refused to air a program called The New Normal about a woman being a surrogate for a gay couples baby. They were attacked for refusing to air the show.
Should I go on? This is not about gay couples marrying and quietly living out their lives. This is about forcing people who are against homosexuality to accept it against their convictions.

LETSBEABOUTIT
Here are my thoughts. I think SE has this one right. Some pointed out that there aren’t that many gay conservatives. Probably true. But which conservatives have the most opportunity to influence other gays who aren’t conservative? Easy answer, right? So we need to include these folks. Period. As to gay marriage, I think the government needs to approach it in as hands off a manner as possible. Let states determine whether it should be legal in their state. At the federal level we should merely recognize that a union formed in a state allowing gay marriage needs to be recognized everywhere. At the religious level, the first amendment applies, the federal government has no right to involve itself, either at the level of the courts or otherwise, in the decision that a religion, pastor, or congregation make about whether or not that religion, pastor or congregation will perform and/or recognize gay marriage. That’s what freedom of religion means in this context.

ArchiacSEAL
Live and let live. Look, I don’t care who you are (or think you are,) you are not going to change a gay person. Period. They have made their choice. And that choice is between them and God. Sin is a personal issue, not a collective one. We are not called to eradicate sin in the world, Jesus did that. When mankind tries to do it you end up with the Catholic inquisitions and horrible human suffering. Let each man deal with their own sin personally with God. If that means the end of this country, well, I am not going to put the blame solely on homosexuality.
We have committed and continue to commit so many more sins as a nation beyond homosexuality. Pornography is a major one. And I don’t mean just in porn flicks. Greed and corruption are another. Materialism is probably the biggest. In the end, this nation has SO much moral fixing to do that to just sit here and believe that homosexuality is the only problem is outright ridiculous. Honestly, I don’t believe America will ever return to God as a nation of individuals, we are too far gone for that. Moreover, we all know what happens at the end of this road.

Jram2506
Exactly what I was thinking. Being a conservative IS NOT being a republican. As for gay marriage, I feel it is NOT a conservative value. Period. Not to be discriminatory, just fact. I believe that we should have equal rights but not same definitions. Call it partnership or whatever, just not marriage. But the gay agenda is NOT about that at all. I feel CPAC needs to keep its message of conservatism alive and not worry about selling itself around winning elections with groups of small agendas. Already been done. ie…Republicans and Democrats.

Leprechaun224
Contrary to many posts here S.E. deserves the right to express her opinions any way she sees fit. At least she is taking a stand for something in which she believes.
For those who are steadfastly homophobic, I can only offer my condolences. I assume your positions stem from religious leanings and/or Bible teachings. Fine! But, which parts of the Bible do you accept or reject?
This part: LEVITICUS (20:13) states, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
Or this part: The “Thou shalt not kill” commandment (i.e., Commandment V if you are Catholic, Commandment VI if you are Protestant or Jewish)?
Be consistent in your faith at least.

Patriot72
S.E. is a libertarian Republican with fiscally conservative views and that is absolutely fine. The problem I have with her logic path is that she self-identifies as an holistic, big ‘C’ Conservative first, which is clearly not the case. It’s an attempt to remain relevant in the Republican party discussions. That is where, in my opinion, both libertarians and conservatives take issue with her, and rightly so. They get irritated with what they perceive as self-contradiction on her part. Should she be honest with both herself and the audience a lot of these perceived inconsistencies with her positions would not exist, leaving her as a reliable, staunch supporter of the party and ideologies in which she truly believes. Whether one agrees with someone else’s positions or not, consistently sticking to their beliefs will at least garner some measure of respect, something Ms. Cupp could clearly use.

Serenabit
I Love S.E. She is smart, articulate, and beautiful. having said that I am pleased to know that CPAC is holding fast on their principles. Compromise and wavering of principle such as this has caused the downfall of the Republican party and reduced it to “also-ran” status as of late. While I exercise my right to watch S.E. on The Blaze I still refuse to tune into MSNBC. She can have conservative beliefs, but if CPAC is too conservative for her, she has the right to stay home.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (295)

KevINtampa
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:58pm
What’s with all the periods?

Almost seems like the same poster with multiple accounts.This is the real truth. Period.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:07pm
  ……strange………. I didn’t even notice………….
  
  Report this comment
- Max jones
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:18pm
  Its like you look in your girlfriends phone and see a bunch of calls from different guys…..Keaton….You won’t believe this, but guys do still date girls.
  
  Report this comment
- KickinBack
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:21pm
  I don’t know about anyone else…But a couple years ago I spilled beer on my keyboard and the period key sticks…
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:49pm
  This topic sure drew KeatonC333 out. Your average 20 something would not normally be so loaded for bear.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 6:02pm
  Cupp is just another progressive posing as a conservative. Her credo is, “Become more like a Democrat so that you can win an election against a Democrat.” Fraud, fake, rationalizing progressive. Her and Rove should vacation together.
  
  Report this comment
- Zipit
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 6:04pm
  That was exhausting!!! I’m now on a “NO READY KEATY”, diet!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 6:10pm
  well well, walkabout sure is well versed in his gay lingo! : )
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 6:29pm
  Hi Zipit,
  
  LMAO !!!! : )
  
  Report this comment
- kenboo1
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 6:39pm
  She looks hot in glasses and hot when she talks about guns… But when she talks about gay marriage and I see a clump of disgust… The institution of marriage is based in religion for the sake of children and their identity… Could you see a monarchy functioning through generations without some sort of marriage decree? Marriage is for procreation (having children)… By definition Gays and lesbians are not oriented to having children (biological)… I understand their desire to support their partner, however, the marriage with children (someone stays home to care for the children) as well as covering the children and family values are not congruent with openly gay lifestyle.
  
  Report this comment
- TRUTHandFREEDOM
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 7:00pm
  ME? I think that the best solution would be a fair or flat tax per person so that no one is treated differently. That eliminates the tax issue. A child tax credit & over 70 being the only deductions. Next, marriage stands as a man and a woman. Any other union is just OBVIOUSLY different & a civil contract would be best. Hospital visits? Talk to the hospital!
  
  SE isn’t completely Conservative. She is intelligent, pro gun & fiscally conservative, but CPAC is home to the fully conservative voice of America. It’s not meant to be bent.
  
  I saw a misguided Catholic woman on FNC advocating that the new Pope allow gay & lesbian priests. Same thing. Take it some where else. The institution shall not be driven from its purpose. That’s kind of like turning off the lighthouse to lower the carbon footprint.
  
  Report this comment
- A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 7:31pm
  Come on Blaze..I can’t get put up there?
  
  Report this comment
- orangeman
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 9:07pm
  SE is my dream woman. Beautiful, intelligent, and conservative.I watch real news just to see what she has to say.She’s very intelligent. As the horrible mysoginstic rapper ” lil poopy” says : “s.e. holler at a youngin” im still single. keep doing your thing girl.
  
  Report this comment
- Native54
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 1:16am
  (QUOTE) “which parts of the Bible do you accept or reject?”
  
  Ceremonial laws are different than moral laws.
  
  In the article Leprechaun224 uses the same old ignorant rant against Leviticus … & rants against all those Christians 4 their hypocrisy. … It just shows how little people know about the Old and New Testament.
  
  It wuld b great if people wuld do a little more research on that tried old argument they use from Leviticus about shell fish, and such. In the New Testament the distinctions between ceremonial laws & moral laws were increased. Though most ceremonial and dietary laws were discontinued, the moral laws were not lessened after the Redemption of the New Testament.
  
  So, while the dietary laws were rescinded, the moral laws were increased.. saying that the Mosaic law has ended is not to say that God has no laws or moral codes for mankind. Even though the ceremonial law has passed, the moral law remains. The New Testament speaks of the “law of the Spirit” (Rom. 8:2) and the “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). One cannot say that something that was sin under the Law is not sin under grace. Ceremonial laws concerning diet or wearing mixed fabrics no longer apply, but moral laws (especially those rooted in God’s creation order 4 human sexuality) continue. Moreover, these prohibitions against homosexuality can also be found in the New Testament. When you find prohibitions in both the Old and New Testament, then you can be assured it’s not something that shoul
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 2:13am
  Native:
  I’ll humor you, and assume that the Bible is clear on this distinction (which it is not). But why does being gay fall under moral code, and wearing certain clothing not fall under the same category? How do you separate them all? And more importantly, what does the Bible have to do with gay marriage? You cannot make laws based on a religious text. This would be like forcing all American women to wear a burka because the Koran says so……
  
  Report this comment
- sillyfreshness
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 3:09am
  Homosexuality is a sexual deviance mental illness. It involves gender identity issues. It also involves people that want their sexuality to be their primary identification. I cannot support gay marriage until polygamy is legalized. I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
  
  Report this comment
- Amos37
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 6:52am
  The old testament’s law (the 10 commandments) were never done away with, only the sacrificial system… if you eat pork or catfish it is still going to clog your arteries, by the way. We just have a chance to REPENT of our sins now and be forgiven in Christ Jesus. However, you cannot be forgiven if you do not REPENT first, no matter what Cupp thinks or believes.
  
  Report this comment
- vadale
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 7:15am
  How can people claim it won’t affect me when it is their plan to make me recognize them or pay a penalty? You can do whatever you want. I just don’t want to be forced to say or do what you want me to. Why can’t you leave me alone. And besides, we all now know that their are groups intent on changing the number of people in a marriage from 2 to whatever. And they want to lower the age of consent to 10 years old. And make me recognize their foolishness under law.
  
  Report this comment
- JohnofOregon
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 10:27am
  If you are selectively conservative on fiscal issues but promote big government like cupp, or you are selectively conservative on constitutional issues like cupp (ie: 2cnd amendment good, first amendment religous liberty bad or free speech bad), if you don’t believe in spiritual accountability like cupp and you are socially liberal like cupp, a lot of people call that a “conservative democrat” or moderate democrat or republican.
  
  What’s all this conservative stuff. Interfering with 4, 000 years of the term marriage is very anti-first amendment. “Civil union” is the government created word. She is no different than nancy pelosi at the core.
  
  Report this comment
- Red Meat
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 10:56am
  Talentless Cupp fits right in on the Blaze. Has she apologized to Rush yet?
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 11:34am
  Orangeman,
  SE isn’t conservative that’s why she’s not attending the CPAC. Sure she is certainly not Liberal but she is hardly conservative either. So your first two discription of her are oppinions and beauty is in the eye of the beholder but the third one is blantantly incorrect not based on oppinion based on facts.
  
  Report this comment
- A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 1:47pm
  @NAUGHTYCAL
  
  Why isn’t she conservative? Simply because she thinks gay marriage should be legal? If she thinks it’s morally ok then you would be correct as far as that goes.
  
  Report this comment
- girlnurse
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 2:15pm
  @ORANGEMAN: S.E. is conservative?!! In what universe?
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 3:04pm
  Sillyfreshness:
  
  Homosexuality is not a mental illness anymore than heterosexuality is. It also has nothing to do with gender identity. There is a very big difference between a gay person and a transgender person. Example, I am gay. I am a man who is attracted to other men. I have no desire to be a woman. And my sexuality is certainly not my primary identity, but it is one of my identities. I am also a son, brother, boyfriend, friend, boss, employee, etc. It is actually people like you that make sexuality such a big deal because YOU are always focused on it.
  
  Vadale:
  
  Who is forcing you to recognize gay marriage? You can think whatever you want. But the government does need to recognize gay marriage because they are currently discriminating and affording benefits to one group and not another. And children cannot consent, they cannot legally sign a contract, and any sex would effectively be rape. This argument is stupid and irrevalent.
  
  John:
  
  Marriage has been around for thousands of years, but it has been in constant change, this is just a continuation of that change. Marriage once was the sale of a teenage daughter to a middle-aged man trough livestock and grains. You do not own the word, and Christianity does not either. If you really want civil unions, then fine. Call ALL marriages civil unions at the federal level, and allow people to get married in a church. But then gay people can still be married.
  
  Report this comment
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 9:14pm
  Harry – Except that heterosexuality is what causes the human species to continue to exist, which is what makes it natural.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 2:02am
  Git:
  
  Plenty of straight couples do not and cannot have children. Plenty of gay couples do have children. That argument is nonsensical.
  
  Report this comment
- lillymckim
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 5:11pm
  No one cares that she boycotts CPAC. Not since her shameful rant on Rush to bring attention to herself.
  She brought it upon herself I stand with Rush and “true conservatives”
  Conservatism is timeless. Wise up.
  
  Report this comment
donna426
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:58pm
I have tried to watch The Cycle to see how S.E. would handle the lib’s. She really had me convinced she was a conservative until I watched that show, and learned quickly she is a progressive just like most of the Republicans in Washington. Needless to say I don’t watch that show anymore.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TexVet61
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 11:29pm
  while I do think se is a beautiful woman, I pegged her for a progressive the first time I saw the blaze. as far as Gays, I would say its their sin, but when you enforce Gay marriage, then comes all the others, bigamy, etc… and all the gays sue to force christians to include them, WHY? if they truly believe they should be allowed to live as they see fit, why shouldn’t christians be allowed to live as THEY see fit? and if that means not recgonizing gays so be it. (and yes, I have gay co-workers that are very vocale, but they keep quite areoud me because I say forget HR, they preach to me, I preach to them). you don’t like it S.E., stay home
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 2:18am
  Tex:
  
  You aren’t being forced to recognize anything. If you don’t want to recognize gay marriage, fine. If your religion doesn’t want to recognize gay marriage, fine. But the government does need to recognize gay marriage, or they are discriminating against gay couples. You cannot offer rights and benefits to one group of people and not to another.
  
  Report this comment
- vadale
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 7:28am
  She is a libertarian. They are all caught up in trying to kiss up to the left so they won’t attack them any more. It won’t work for long. As soon as you take issue with a leftist they will attack anyway. These are the Ron Paul libertarians, that always ended up talking about legalizing drugs and gayness. What the heck does that have to do with effective governing I don’t know. But that’s all they talked about around here. We are sick of it.
  
  Report this comment
- girlnurse
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 2:18pm
  You are soooo correct DONNA! She is as Progressive as they come! So Glenn Beck embraced her???? HMMMMMMM. I thought he was the one who taught us all the evils of Progressivism???? Somethin stinks in Denmark.
  
  Report this comment
- A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 3:39pm
  @VADALE
  
  Effective governing involves governing the very least amount. Getting involved in issues (at the federal level) such as drugs and marriage is not allowed and if you are for limiting the power of people that want more so they can control you then you’d understand.
  
  Report this comment
- lillymckim
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 5:12pm
  She’s an opportunistic tool
  
  Report this comment
DrTesla
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:54pm
Another argument against gay marriage that you rarely see gays make is that the government recognizing gay marriage will make it difficult for us to oppose gays being able to adopt kids. I personally think it is wrong to send little Johnny or little Suzy Q to live with a gay couple since that is not the natural state and we have no idea what kind of impact that can have on kids. I tend to think little kids shouldn’t be exposed to having to explain to other kids whey they have two daddies or two mommies. Just seems like a weird position to put kids in, and kind of ends their innocence at a young age

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- IMCHRISTIAN
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:13pm
  I agree. They might love kids but not enough to give them up for a traditional upbringing with a Mother and Father.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:16pm
  how does it end their innocence? and secondly there has never been a study done that shows any negative effects on a child with gay parents. And considering the staggering number of single parent house holds and orphans in this world. i would say that any person that dedicated to parenting and willing to pay so much money for an adoption is a blessing!
  
  here are a couple studies done on gay parenting.
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01679.x/abstract
  http://www.salon.com/2012/10/19/study_gay_and_lesbian_parents_are_perfectly_average/
  http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/15/5/241.short
  
  They all essentially show no difference between children of gay parents and children with straight parents. And If I were an orphan in Africa, I would choose a little school yard teasing over civil war, starvation and disease any day!
  
  Report this comment
- DrTesla
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:41pm
  I don’t think kids should be guinea pigs in a kind of society science experiment. Woman and men are different and bring different things to the table than a gay couple probably will be able to replicate.
  
  I think it would be extremely embarrasing to a kid to have two mommies or two daddies, and he or she willy rpobably be picked on for it. why set up a kid for that?
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 6:08pm
  Kids get picked on for anything and everything in school… I still believe that the love and benefit that comes from having parents far outweighs a little bullying.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 6:14pm
  What Keats doesn’t mention are who the adopter are in the gay community. Are they the cream of the crop or joe average?
  
  Report this comment
- DrTesla
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 6:20pm
  i guarantee you every study that shows no impact on kids with gay parents was financed by people who hold that opinion already. the study is just propaganda.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 6:33pm
  I don’t think the “American Journal of Orthopsychiatry” or ” the Department of Psychology” have that much of an agenda… It should be common sense.. The only difference between gay people and straight people is sexual preference.. Not parenting ability. oh and it isn’t just one study.. there are literally hundreds that have yielded the similar results.
  
  Report this comment
- Remember_Benghazi
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 6:40pm
  Gay parents might not be traditional but there are plenty of crappy straight parents out there. Is a loving gay family honestly worse than an alcoholic mother or an abusive dad? Gay people can’t indoctrinate kids into being gay themselves, no more than you were indoctrinated into being attracted to the opposite sex. If a family is caring and can provide for their children, isn’t that far more important than how that family is organized?
  
  Report this comment
- taxpro4u03
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 7:17pm
  Just spit-ballin’ here — but can anyone show me unbiased scientific substantive evidence whereby other primates engage in what we call homosexual behavior as a standard, and not simply ‘in passing,’ i.e. observation in the natural setting? — Seems to me on the scale of one to ten every single human being falls GENERALLY to the right – 0 being bi-sexual no predominant preference one way or the other — 10 being completely hetero (in act as well as ‘desire’ – if we are HONEST) and 1 being completely homosexual.. Just curious.The objective is to DEVIATE the normalcy bias to the extent we as a society ‘agree’ to PAY for it ($) – most rational people would agree – tolerance? Yes — but don’t FORCE the rest of society to PAY for it. ;-) The IDEA of ‘marriage’ is a CONTRACT, first between two consenting (adults) of sound mind — the gubmint gets involved in the CORPORATE capacity, granting certain ‘benefits’ upon its OWN determination to grant a ‘license’ to do that which you’re FREE to do anyway — so — it IS about — MONEY. :-) ‘Shades of Grey’ –
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 2:26am
  1. Gay couples can already adopt children.
  2. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that being raised by gay parents has any negative effect on the child, but plenty of evidence that shows that gay parents can raise healthy, normal children.
  3. Two loving parents, regardless of gender, are infinitely better for a child than one parent or none at all.
  4. The emphasis in adoption should be the quality of the parent, not the gender.
  
  Report this comment
- VanceUppercut
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 11:48am
  How does it feel to know that in fifty years you people will be remembered in the same light as those people who said interracial marriage shouldn’t be allowed because it was a sin against God? How does it feel to know that no matter what you do or say, you are on the losing side of history?
  
  Report this comment
Flyingfish
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:53pm
Gay couples have the right to get married just like anyone else…..and anyone else has the right to not do business with them based on their own beliefs.

This PC crap needs to end. People on both sides of the argument needs to get over themselves.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Big Pauly
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:14pm
  Buzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wrong!!!
  
  Report this comment
- IMCHRISTIAN
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:21pm
  Marriage is defined as a marriage between a man and a woman since the beginning of time to have children and each has a responsibility to that child. As far as civil rights I think each person is responsible for themselves as individuals. We should all find peace and love one another but all should not be forced to abide to another ones choice that we don’t believe in.
  
  Report this comment
- Former11BRAVO
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:35pm
  Wrong is right! (Oops!)
  
  You MAY NOT choose to do business with whomever you wish any longer! Ever hear of discrimination suits? No? Then STFU! You have NO IDEA what you’re talking about!
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 2:33am
  Yes, marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman (or several women). But this is no basis for an argument, Slavery had also always been around, too. That didn’t make it right. And the meaning of marriage has been constantly changing; at one time it referred to a middle-aged man purchasing a teenage girl from her family with grains and livestock.
  
  And discrimination laws stem from the 60s when we had whites only restaurants and water fountains. When a group of people is discriminated against everywhere, they cannot just “take their business elsewhere”. This grew to include other groups that were also discriminated upon. Whether such laws are necessary in today’s society is a different matter, but as long as everyone is treated equally under the law, I have no problem one way or another.
  
  Report this comment
- carbonyes
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 4:25am
  FLYINGFISH, ENCINOM, KEETON and OTHERS
  Most of you are ignorant beyond measure! Your posts minimally show your ignorance of history and also your lack of understanding of spiritual matters as well as ignorance of “studies done by groups ‘commissioned’ to do studies of affect on children adopted by lesbian or gay relationships. Invariably the desired outcome is presupposed by the commissioned group before the study begins and any factors which may negatively affect the desired outcome are excluded from the results. Most if not all of the ” professional” organizations have been taken over by the left for many years, and could not come up with a fact based, unbiased study if their lives depended upon it.
  The blatant lack of understanding of the negative affects of a homosexual relationship and its affect upon the stability and wellbeing of society is utterly amazing, which evidences the extent of the decay of our society in and of itself.
  Every society and government that has embraced the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle and worse yet, or commensurate therewith promoted the same, has fallen apart, decayed and in been destroyed from within first and then externally, as the moral fiber, or in essence the lack thereof, has
  removed the underpinnings and no foundation remains – INVARIABLY. The Founding Fathers declared the same to be so based upon their own understandings of history as well as their wisdom, which far exceeds anyone here – anyone.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 3:17pm
  Carbonyes:
  
  Just because you don’t like their findings doesn’t mean there was anything wrong with the study. Tell you what, you show me a study that shows that there is any negative effect on a child with same-sex parents. If you can find anything, I bet it will be from a group that actively campaigns against homosexuality and gay marriage. Think about it, what is wrong with a loving couple raising a child together? Aren’t two parents always better than one, or none?
  
  Also, speaking as someone with a master’s degree in ancient history, homosexuality had no role whatsoever in the fall of any empire or society. Before the Middle Ages, male-male sex was pretty much universally accepted. So in Greece, Rome, Egypt, Persia, Babylon, etc this was accepted from the start of the empire to the end. No one cared. These arguments are outright falsehoods.
  
  The founding fathers were very wise and intelligent. That is why they came up with the mantra of all men are created equal, which you seem intent on ignoring. They said nothing about homosexuality or gay marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 7:45pm
  Carbonyes…”The blatant lack of understanding of the negative affects of a homosexual relationship and its affect upon the stability and wellbeing of society is utterly amazing,” Go ahead! show me just one shred of evidence to back up that claim! just one!
  
  Report this comment
DrTesla
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:50pm
Was nobody has mentioned is S.E. Cupp as recently as 2009 in one of her NY Daily News COlumns stated that she “strongly opposed” to gay marriage but supports civil unions.

In her criticism of CPAC, she gives the impression that she has never opposed gay marriage. I also stumbled upon a column she wrote bashing Obama as a flip flopper on gay marriage but it appears she has flip flopped on the issue as well.

She is fond of saying conservatives should naturally support gay marriage if we are about government getting out of our personal lives but that is a confused belief as marriage perks involves more government in your life. It would make more sense to argue government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all than you to argue gay marriage somehow gets government out of personal lives of gays. It makes more sense to argue for gay rights along the lines of equal protection although that is kind of absurd than it does along the lines of big government vs small government.

If gays had babies, I could see their argument for gay marriage but I think the point of government involvemnet in man-woman marriage is the fact only women get pregnant and thus it is an assymetrical relationship, and marriage perks are about encouraging the man to stay with the woman they knocked up. CLealry this kind of situation does not apply to gay relationships, and marriage perks really isn’t about rewarding couples for being in love and having sex with each other.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- KevINtampa
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:11pm
  Well, Obama is right. She, like the rest of the country including Obama, has come around to the understanding that homosexuality should be advocated for just as much as heterosexuality.
  
  Let’s face it, being homosexual is just as natural as being heterosexual. Once we come to grips with that we will then have to come to grips with the fact that being bisexual is just as natural. Obviously we will need to consider how current marriage laws persecute bisexuals; and hence open the doors to polygamy.
  
  It’s funny how yin and yang work. While I used to consider myself a moderate on this issue of gay unions, the more extreme the left goes, the more I think Sharia is not such a bad idea.
  
  I’d rather live under Sharia where there are at least clear lines to what is moral and good, than under the left’s undefined lines of what is depravity and sin. Of course, neither is optimal.
  
  Cupp is a perfect example that the Overton Window is working.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:28pm
  Kevin… just to be clear you would rather live in a country under Sharia Law where POLYGAMY IS LEGAL! Where you can be arrested for premarital sex, adultery and drinking wine, and where women are property. Instead of living down the street from a married gay couple?
  
  Report this comment
- DrTesla
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:46pm
  I disagree with you that being gay is just as normal as being heterosexual. Just b/c it occurs with some frequency doesn’t mean that homosexuality is the normal state. That would be like saying epilepsy and cancer are normal b/c they happen despite being abormal and not desired conditions.
  
  I don’t associate progress with support of, or opposition to, gay marriage. I also think people who think Republicans will pick up a lot of votes if they support gay marriage are pipe dreaming. We can’t outgay Democrats at this point, and flipping on it as Cupp did for pure political purposes will be seen as cynical anyway.
  
  Report this comment
- KevINtampa
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 9:02pm
  @KEATON
  
  What I was getting at is that a society that flounders about constantly changing the definition of morality will undoubtedly one day become a place of harsh lines where one’s personal morality is mandated. Might as well skip all of the death and carnage that an unmoral society will sure as the sun is shining inflict on itself and skip right to the decree of a mandated societal morality system and philosophy.
  
  If you don’t see that as the obvious eventuality down this path of constantly declaring the once immoral as moral you are so blind it’s useless even acknowledging your thoughts on any matter.
  
  Yuri Bezmenov was right. If you really want the truth read his book or watch his lectures. Our society been systematically demoralized and it’s obvious how it has happened if you just open your eyes.
  
  Report this comment
MisterSarcastic
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:47pm
oooooooOOOO K.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Nocommies17
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:42pm
Where is this right to marriage in the Constitution ? S.E. Cup as smart as she is , she is make a liberal argument, it just makes me wounder, with so many progressive ideas enter all areas. Has she been infected ? the laws have been applied equally. My question would why would they get preferential treatment ? By letting them redefine marriage at the federal level, you will allow tramping of the tenth amendment, usurped the power of congress. Something is wrong here !

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- dfhall
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:53pm
  Why is S.E. Cupp even working for the Blaze? She is obviously not a conservative or a Republician let her stay at MSNBC and CPAC has the right to invite who ever they want.
  
  Report this comment
- LoveBringsTruth
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:53pm
  Its because she is a lesbian. I don’t understand that CPAC invites a lesbian to speak then she pulls out because they aren’t other lesbians or gays. Make no sense. She is a communist progressive to the bone. She is just playing a roll. She is an infiltrator along with Will Cain, Mytheos Holt, Madeline Morgenstein and Bill Hollowell.
  
  It’s not that I don’t support opposing view points, its that when those opposing view points are confronted with FACTS they don’t change their view point.
  
  I’m not going to boycott Beck but I will call out the weasels that work for him.
  
  So what did Will Cain, Mytheos Holt, Madeline Morgenstein and Bill Hollowell do?
  
  Will Cain – Refuses to change his stance on fast and furious government. He believes the govt did not purposely develop this opp to attack the 2nd amendment.
  
  Mytheos Holt – He wrote an article protecting the Republican/Romney establishment during the republican national convention during the delegate votes with Ron Paul.
  
  Madeline Morgenstein – Used Saul Alinsky tactics against readers who QUESTION WITH BOLDNESS Obama birth certificate while ignoring the Selective Service Card or Obama’s trips to pakistan.
  
  Bill Howowell – The newest recruit to The Blaze Communist Club – wrote an article under the guise of propaganda declaring Obama a christian, because some other network said so. Ignoring Obama’s own words declaring his muslim faith in various speeches and interviews.
  
  Please ask for these people to be fi
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:00pm
  the right to marriage is not in the constitution, nor is the right to deny marriage. There is however a separation of church in state in the first amendment of the constitution. which is what this argument is about, and denying someone marriage based on religious view is unconstitutional. As for the tenth amendment.. The constitution also includes a supremacy clause.. It reads..
  “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
  
  So, to be blunt, Federal law trumps state law in the constitution.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:23pm
  The right to marry can be found in the unlisted rights contained with in the 9th Amendment. The bill of rights is not a complete list and was never intended to be considered as on. Also its a Federal issue when Federal benefits are at issue or when States ignore the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Plus Christian views and opinions have no place in define the civil rights of citizens (1st Amendment).
  
  Report this comment
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:31pm
  KEATONC333: Show me the words (Separation of church and state) in the 1st Amendment please. Amendment 1. Cogress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. You commies like to twist sh!! all the time. We KNOW better so you can’t convince anyone here with your loony toon BS…
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:40pm
  civil war… you have to think about the first sentence a little.. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
  It is saying that law should have nothing to do with religion.. It prohibits any law being made regarding religion, either for or against.. there for, religion and law making are separate.. ergo. separation of church and state
  
  Report this comment
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:48pm
  Like i said no one here will bye the loony toon commie BS.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 6:12pm
  ha its isn’t loony toon commie b.s…. Its just takes the ability to read a comprehend a sentence.
  
  Report this comment
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 6:28pm
  Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and State: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/656342/posts
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 6:55pm
  Civil war.. your link proves my point.
  
  Report this comment
- JohnnyRaiden
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 9:26pm
  Marriage being a religious institution means the government can’t legally pass laws that define it one way or another. The government having a hand in marriage at all is unconstitutional, meaning government, at any level, claiming it as legal or illegal is unconstitutional law.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 7:53pm
  JohnnyRaiden
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 9:26pm
  Marriage being a religious institution means the government can’t legally pass laws that define it one way or another. The government having a hand in marriage at all is unconstitutional, meaning government, at any level, claiming it as legal or illegal is unconstitutional law.
  ______________
  So Atheists can’t get married? What about inter-faith marriages that may go against one or more religions and are married by justices of the peace? Catholic aren’t allowed to get re-married so any catholic who has is not really married?
  
  Report this comment
watashbuddyfriend
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:41pm
What difference does it make?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TurboCat
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 2:39am
  It’s not good for kids and not good for society.
  
  Report this comment
Keatonc333
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:40pm
Love how the blaze picks the few on here that are rational to prop up as an example of their audience! Some other responses?
GRIMMSTER
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:59am
There is NO such thing as “gay rights” none, it is no where in the constitution or bill of rights,if S.E. had’nt added the “gay rights” to her statement, i could believe her. But since you did S.E. and you seem to believe “gays” deserve “special rights”, then piss off you moron…..
THE_JERK
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:15pm
Cupp adheres to the principle, “Become more like a Democrat, so that you can win an election against a Democrat.” In the end, she is a Democrat, and probably a closet lesbian.
WYOWUMIN
Posted on March 1, 2013 at 9:31am
S.E. Cupp is, in my opinion, Meghan McCain with a brain–sort of. She’s an arrogant, know-it-all, snot who takes herself and her “brilliant” opinions far too seriously. She’s the reason I won’t watch Real News.
JOEY G
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:27am
right on…she is a do-do..who cares what she thinks….ass bandits belong at the dem/commie hdgts..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DLV
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:52pm
  Keaton- you fall into this crowd yourself. Nice try.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:06pm
  heres more! just for fun!
  THE_ALMIGHTY_CREESTOF
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 4:48pm
  Sorry, but my gut reaction has always been that gays are no different than pedophiles and those who practice beastiality…they have unnatural sexual urges they either can’t or won’t restrain themselves against.
  SOCIALISTSLAYER
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 4:57pm
  I told you she was a Communist – Now we know she’s Gay ( A Sodomite) as well!
  VAARNG_GUARDSMAN
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 6:35pm
  That’s cool, conservatives who believe in traditional marriage and morals, can pull out of the Republican Party. SE Cupp, is a liberal-nazis.
  TEOTWASWKI
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 7:06pm
  Bye Bye SE don’t let the door hit you in the A$$ on your way out.
  GLOCKU
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 3:28pm
  She is Godless, nuff said.
  THE_JERK
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 6:09pm
  S.E. Cupp is a closet lesbian liberal.
  GO2DOC
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:50am
  Like all those who are unprincipled, she must have lesbianic tendencies. What else can one conclude? Really, SE? Is it truly that hard?
  WELCOME BLACK CARTER
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 7:11pm
  S.E is a sodimite AND an atheist…
  Sorry Ms Cupp I feel I can no longer let you be involved in my fantasies any longer. I have to let you go. I am so done with you.
  
  And thats all from the first thread of the article!
  
  Report this comment
- Small World
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:32pm
  Keaton333 is so gay! Do you think if we stopped responding to he/she/it would go away?????
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:41pm
  small chance small world! : )
  
  Report this comment
- Native54
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 2:52am
  And the whole argument surrounds the immutability of a characteristic. As one thinker commented …. “The statement and conclusion that all crows are forever black becomes mute and bogus when we find one white crow. The point? A billion observations can lead to a induction. But it only takes ONE contrary observation to invalidate the whole chain of given reasoning.” … It’s behavior. Should we change the very structure of a foundational element in society over a behavior, and sexual proclivity? Absolutely not!!
  
  The reasoning of immutability concerning a sexual appetite, where there are proven “FORMER” adherence to the lifestyle … is similar to peeing on my leg and telling me it’s raining.
  
  Report this comment
GoodStuff
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:37pm
The presence of SE Cupp is one of the biggest reasons I cancelled TheBlazeTV.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- dealer@678
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:27pm
  I didnt cancel The Blaze but i dont watch Real News because of her. And Amy being pro abortion is a downer too
  
  Report this comment
Big Pauly
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:35pm
You don’t like something c-pac supports, stay home. It’s cool. But don’t force me into supporting something that’s against my values. You stay home from c-pac to express your thoughts. I don’t watch your show anymore to express mine.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- may40
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:41pm
  Couldn’t agree with you more. We don’t force our views on them and they don’t force their views on us. Part of being a free country.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:41pm
  To not support something doesn’t necessarily mean you have to oppose it though.
  
  Report this comment
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:42pm
  She works for MSNBC nuff said.. http://weaselzippers.us/2013/03/03/tax-bills-for-rich-families-at-30-year-high/
  
  Report this comment
- Big Pauly
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:12pm
  @ keyton. I oppose something if I disagree with it, and I’m put in position to have to defend it. Point – I could care less who people have consensual sex with. I am not your judge and jury. But to claim that two people of the same sex have the right to marry, is just wrong. Marriage has always been a religious institution between a man and a woman. Only in the past 50 years as morals have declined, has this subject been discussed that gays should marry. This attacks my religious beliefs which I will oppose.
  
  I don’t give a rip if gays are granted common law partnerships with rights and benefits that married people get. Just don’t call it marriage, because it’s not. Saying differently diminishes the institution of marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:36pm
  marriage actually hasn’t always been between a man and a woman.. there were gay marriages in ancient Rome, Greece and China… That being said I know you feel strongly on the issue and I respect that.. But i think we need to acknowledge the difference between “Marriage” and “Holy Matrimony.” Holy matrimony is an ecclesiastical ceremony, with no legal significance. While marriage is a legally binding contract with the state. And for the record. Once gay marriage is made legal in this country, any church who wants to deny hosting a gay marriage will have my full support!
  
  Report this comment
- TH777
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 6:39pm
  @Keatonc333: Now that’s where most of the problem lies. A major portion of the gay community want to be able to get married anywhere their little hearts desire. Their wish is to step on other peoples rights. I don’t believe in gay marriage. To me there is no such thing, but….if gays want to get “married” then you need to accept the places that will perform such “marriages”. Don’t try to force it upon people who do not want to be a part of these “marriage’ ceremonies. I truly believe you understand what I’m saying. It’s a shame that most of the gays want it “all their way”. They are not just happy with being able to marry. They want it all. To me, that’s just ego.
  
  Report this comment
- JohnnyRaiden
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 10:14pm
  Not only churches ,but let’s say photographers or bakeries. Will they be legally required (forced at the barrel of a gun) to do something they don’t believe in? Silly question, since it’s playing out right now in the states that allow gay marriage. Gay marriage means the state will trample the religious rights of others.
  
  Report this comment
bertr
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:33pm
As long as the federal government regulates marriage(which it does) then you’re going to give the country over to the left if you split sides on this one. Speaking to both sides here, I hope its worth it,

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DogTags
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:36pm
  The federal government does not regulate marriage. Marriage is strictly as state issue.
  
  Report this comment
- bertr
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:49pm
  I think the IRS would disagree with you Dogtags
  
  Report this comment
- bertr
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:54pm
  That being said, I’d be more then happy to give up my joint filing “privilege” if we were able to get marriage deregulated, but I’m not convinced that the majority of people on either side of the argument here are interested in doing that. I wish i were wrong about that.
  
  Report this comment
- DogTags
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 8:34am
  You need to get a better understanding of federalism. The IRS does not regulate marriage. It regulates tax collection. Marriage is strictly a state issue.
  
  Report this comment
Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:32pm
They have the same rights, if not more, than everyone else. What goes on behind closed doors should stay behind closed doors. I certainly don’t need to be hearing about anyone else’s sexual escapades.
No way should sexual preferences be compared to race, religion, ethnicity, etc.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TurboCat
  Posted on March 4, 2013 at 2:49am
  That’s right. Isn’t anything private anymore? I try not to think about it, and wish they’d quit whining.
  
  Report this comment
DogTags
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:30pm
Frankly, I’d prefer if she stayed home and kept her mouth shut. Her atheism will eventually lead her to side with secular humanists (liberals) every time. Having no faith in God will always turn conservatives into liberal apologists. Look at David Souter, Franky Schaeffer et al.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- neverending
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:29pm
  amen to that one. She wants to stay home so why doesn’t she just stay home and shut her big fat pie hole? I am as sick of listening to her as I am obama.
  
  Report this comment
hi
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:27pm
Hermit Boy proves that by allowing gay marriage, we will lose our religious freedom and freedom of speech.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:48pm
  WOW! No.. no he doesn’t! Allowing gay marriage has no threat on your religious freedom.. a Church has every right to deny a Gay marriage, as hermit boy pointed out, saying a church must hold a gay marriage is unconstitutional… That is the protection you get from the first amendment! and no where did hermitboy mention a church being forced to do anything…
  
  Report this comment
- drs1969
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 10:14pm
  People know d*mn well that the Feds would attack all churches for discrimination, if they could.
  
  Report this comment
wilbstal
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:25pm
Next step is the numbers 666 stamped on your forehead. not me jackson

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
wilbstal
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:21pm
This has been hashed to long and far. Dont force this filth on me or anybody else. Beleive what you want but stop trying to force every one else to follow your beleifs. get a life stop forcing, God says its wrong end of Discussion for all times

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- grimmster
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:32pm
  @Wilbstal.
  The key word in your post is of course,”force”.There is no such thing as “gay rights”,or “gay marriages”,reconized in the constitution,except for “the pursuit of happiness”. So called “gays” want their marriages to be reconized for one reason, taxes,thats it,yet not one fagg has come foward and admitted it,right or left, doesnt matter what side “gays” are on, they all want to “force” their ideals on the rest of us.I dont give a rats ass what you do behond closed doors, but dont try and force me to support whatever it is you do, do,so get bent S.E.
  
  Report this comment
IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:14pm
I am a christian and to me a marriage is between a man and a woman and has always been from the beginning of time and to change the definition of marriage would be a sin.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Steel
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:12pm
The Republican Party is not only abandoning its principles, but its most ardent supporters as well. Pretty soon now, the two parties will merge and call their new organization “Left Wing Loons, Inc.”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- wilbstal
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:23pm
  good no gays stay out dont muddy the waters i dont care if we ever win an election any where as long as we are Moraly straight
  
  Report this comment
- ssbstspd
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 10:33pm
  aweasome comment steels
  
  Report this comment
tommysoap
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:08pm
What the morons don’t get is that Homosexuality is immoral and perverted on several levels. Not only according to religion but according to the sciences of genetics, chemistry, and biology as well, since if the majority of humanity opted for this “alternative” humanity would degenerate, as opposed to regenerate, Cupp is simply another nose picker, albeit an attractive one.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
KickinBack
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:04pm
Like one Blaze poster wrote before…It’s *C*pac..C..conservative..not *R* Republicanpac…She can save her boycott for the RNC. Let the conservatives have theirs.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- KickinBack
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:37pm
  Oh and by the way, why on earth would a true conservative take a job at MSNBC. It’s not like you’re going to change any minds there.
  
  Report this comment
Small World
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:03pm
Hell with S E Why no Pam Geller.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- PIGSWILLNEVERFLY
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:36pm
  Why don’t you hire Pamela Geller for Blaze TV……SHE IS AWESOME! If anyone should be at CPAC it should be Pamela. Please let se go….to where ever in blaziz better suits her. She is annoying.
  
  http://www.atlasshrugs2000.com
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:30pm
  Pam Gellar is a racist. Her arguments are soaked in hatred. She would be perfect for the Blaze.
  
  Report this comment
- Small World
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 5:48pm
  @ Encinon…You must be a Muslim.
  
  Report this comment
- Realman30
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 10:06pm
  Pam Geller would be an excellent addition to this forum. Kick S.E. Cupp to the curb. She can then work full time at MSNBC. Then, every night, she can play ‘I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours’, with Randy Maddow.
  
  Report this comment
VaARNG_Guardsman
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:03pm
Gay people can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want to….there is no discrimination. I see my comment didn’t make the list. I said SE Cupp is a Liberal-Nazis.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
neverending
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 3:55pm
Wow – I was getting worried that we would not have another s.e. story and her big flippin fit over CPAC but sure enough here is another. Hey Blaze – brick kerry just gave millions more to morsi and you are worried about this twit?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- gyro
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:03pm
  naughty naughty
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:15pm
  Charts are hard to understand. Most people would rather gossip.
  
  http://www.tradingeconomics.com/egypt/foreign-exchange-reserves
  
  Of course when the SHTF they will be saying WTF?
  
  I expect riots, currency devaluation, or war (possibly). But let’s talk about Kim Kardassian or gays or …
  
  Report this comment
- Leopold
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 4:39pm
  If one does not have a strong conservative foundation, sooner or later one will fall.
  
  S.E. probably has some conservatism in her way of thinking, but as an Atheist she does not have a source from which to draw conviction for her conservatism.
  
  She is now trying to fit into both worlds. The liberal and the conservative.
  
  Again, with no strong foundation from which to draw strength for ones conviction, she is being tossed from here to there. Unless she has a real change of heart by becoming a Christian eventually the liberal in her will win over. Because liberals do not have a Godly source from which to draw conviction and strength they seek acceptance from another source, Liberalism. To be a conservative Christian means to be willing to stand alone.
  
  Sorry folks to burst your bubble but only a true Christian will have the strength to stand against the liberal title wave that is coming.
  
  Ecclesiastes 10:2
  The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
  
  Report this comment
- drs1969
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 10:18pm
  Two sides of the same unconstitutional Big-Gov. fiat money system. If there was no Federal Reserve, there’d be no money for either.
  
  Report this comment
Mike76
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 3:50pm
I don’t understand why S.E. Cupp doesn’t just stop pretending that she’s a “Conservative.” She has more Progressive talking points than the DNC.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Hotconchick
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 3:56pm
  Amen…I never have liked her and since she is part of the State Run Propaganda Machine I like her even less.
  
  Frankly I’m glad she is on there so I never have to see her, I wish the Blaze would stop reporting about her.
  
  Report this comment
- neverending
  Posted on March 3, 2013 at 3:57pm
  Yeah no kidding.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.