2016 Election
Yeah baby! Just give it up my brotha. Don't vote for dat dumbazz lesbian Hillary. Get on board with ma boy the Trumpster b4 it's too late and stop whining about a dumbazz lion who got shot. Animals get killed all the time. No biggie wiggie at all
Go Donald GO!!!!!!
Quote: kewljWith a number of candidates, looking like they will have the money to stay around for a while, longer than usual, this really looks like it could be a case where a number of candidates divide up the vote further into the primary season next year than normal and no one emerges with enough support to win the nomination. THAT and the deal making that would go with it, would be most entertaining.
Citizens United = Every candidate has a sugar daddy so they can keep the campaign going = nobody wins the nomination out right.
In the pre citizens united days, candidates had no choice but to drop out even if they thought they still had a chance due to lack of money.
Due to citizens united, EVERY primary, not just the early ones, will have tons of choices.
Tons of choices throughout the entire primary process guarantees nobody gets a majority.
There will be no clear front runner (over 50% of delegates) going into the convention due to citizens united.
Also the Christian right will battle the establishment to insure a fractured convention.
The party is so fractured and everybody has a sugar daddy, it would not surprise me that the 2 leading candidates total number of delegates does not hit the 50% mark.
Typical process in the past, candidate runs out of money, pledges his delegates to another candidate.
This cycle with the amount of money flowing into campaigns, nobody will give up their delegates.
Delegates means power at a fractured convention.
Most conventions are week long party commercials, pretty unwatchable, I'll be watching this time. A fractured convention should make great viewing.
Quote: JohnCenaI hate to be the bear of bad news to you my brotha ams228 but check out dis Trumpalicious poll! http://www.wkow.com/story/29684237/2015/07/31/walker-trails-in-first-iowa-poll-since-april-trump-in-the-lead
Yeah baby! Just give it up my brotha. Don't vote for dat dumbazz lesbian Hillary. Get on board with ma boy the Trumpster b4 it's too late and stop whining about a dumbazz lion who got shot. Animals get killed all the time. No biggie wiggie at all
Go Donald GO!!!!!!
This is great news.
The left wants Trump, the most hated candidate.
Can you see Rick Perry throwing his support behind Trump?
Rick will never forgive Trump for the required IQ test before he can debate comment :-)
Rick went to the glasses to show he is smart, Trump ruined all that with one hilarious comment.
Nobody on the left wants too see an establishment candidate like Walker
They are hoping for beatable Trump or Cruz or Huck.
Go Donald Go
Quote: terapinedHow is abortion or gay marriage a trap?
They are important issues too me, they involve freedom and separation of religion and state.
The gay issues are way overstated in national prominence. Very few are actually "for" being disrespectful and mean to gays; very few gays throw poop on non-gays in protest of anti-gay positions. The vast majority of us are just people who accept gays, perhaps don't understand them as much as we should, and wish them the best. Even the ones of us who think gay marriage is wrong and should have been handled state by state instead of by court decree, in spite of the way some would like to paint us.
So gay marriage is no longer a national issue unless a candidate is actively going to pursue eliminating it. The issue is that all of the candidates can get caught in the trap of talking too much about gay politics and not enough of what really matters; they fall into a trap because the liberal-leaning press wants to put them in a bad light.
In the same way, abortion itself is a major failure--we have a woman or girl who didn't bother to take care of birth control who ends up pregnant. She has failed to do the things necessary to keep from getting pregnant. Abortion is a remedy to behavior that we should work to change. Relax, I am not talking abstinence because we all know self-control is beyond many people. I am talking about education, availability, a little less "spreading it around", and working to not have to have an abortion.
Abortion politics is a trap in if someone has no intention to try and reverse the policy and gets caught spending too much time trying to solve a problem that has already been ruled on, whether we agree with the ruling ot not.
Both are traps not because a lot of time gets spent on the 3% who are gay and the ones who fail in taking care of themselves. It isn't that they are unimportant; it is that they take a role that is much larger than they should.
Keep talking my brotha. Who you gonna vote for? Don't tell me that dumbazz lesbian Hillary!
Get on board with The Trumpster who shall prevail!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/31/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-source-says-classified-info/
I get, my Liberal friends, there is nothing to see here. The items weren't classified when she put them on her server so they really don't count as using the server to store classified information. I understand that.
On the flip side, when they became classified, where they still on her server?
How did this highly politically experienced (lawyer, former First Lady investigated quite a few times, Senator, and Secretary of State) not KNOW BETTER?
We have a server at our office. Sensitive material, the really sensitive stuff, is not on that server and it is not backed up in the same place, as the general stuff. This lady was Secretary of State where classification of documents changes from time to time. She is supposedly brilliant. She didn't know enough about her job to know some material would later potentially be classified and that keeping it on her own server was, at best, a stupid idea?
Where will she keep important info if she is elected President? iCloud?
Quote: RonCThe gay issues are way overstated in national prominence. Very few are actually "for" being disrespectful and mean to gays; very few gays throw poop on non-gays in protest of anti-gay positions. The vast majority of us are just people who accept gays, perhaps don't understand them as much as we should, and wish them the best. Even the ones of us who think gay marriage is wrong and should have been handled state by state instead of by court decree, in spite of the way some would like to paint us.
So gay marriage is no longer a national issue unless a candidate is actively going to pursue eliminating it. The issue is that all of the candidates can get caught in the trap of talking too much about gay politics and not enough of what really matters; they fall into a trap because the liberal-leaning press wants to put them in a bad light.
In the same way, abortion itself is a major failure--we have a woman or girl who didn't bother to take care of birth control who ends up pregnant. She has failed to do the things necessary to keep from getting pregnant. Abortion is a remedy to behavior that we should work to change. Relax, I am not talking abstinence because we all know self-control is beyond many people. I am talking about education, availability, a little less "spreading it around", and working to not have to have an abortion.
Abortion politics is a trap in if someone has no intention to try and reverse the policy and gets caught spending too much time trying to solve a problem that has already been ruled on, whether we agree with the ruling ot not.
Both are traps not because a lot of time gets spent on the 3% who are gay and the ones who fail in taking care of themselves. It isn't that they are unimportant; it is that they take a role that is much larger than they should.
Gay marriage and abortion are still huge issues because of the Christian Right.
If this was back in the Reagan years where reasonable republican establishment candidates were running, yea these are minor issues
But you now have Presidential Candidates that are making these huge issues.
Huck wants to use federal troops to stop abortion.
A position like this among republican candidates 20 yeas ago would be absurd.
Now nobody bats an eye because these days we are used to those type of extreme views from presidential candidates.
Now its common so it should be discussed.
Scott Walker still supports amending the U.S. Constitution to allow states to ban gay marriage.
How is amending the constitution not an issue to be discussed at a debate.
Its the presidential candidates that make this an important issue.
Too me its about tolerance and freedom.
The gay population is a lot bigger then you think.
I would estimate 25% guys in my workplace are gay and I work in a big building.
Maybe its only 3% where you work, I work in corporate travel with about 200 people. I work with a lot of gays. Good talented people. They just want to be happy by having the right to marry. Does not effect me or you one iota. Let them have the right.
Too me its a no brainer
I want to vote for a candidate that feels the same way.
Too me its a character issue.
Quote: JohnCenaTerapine,
Keep talking my brotha. Who you gonna vote for? Don't tell me that dumbazz lesbian Hillary!
Get on board with The Trumpster who shall prevail!
I will vote for the candidate that supports gay marriage
I will vote for the candidate that supports women's rights
I will vote for the candidate that supports immigration reform.
I will vote for the candidate that supports the affordable health care.
Will you vote for Trump if he goes independent insuring another President Clinton?
Quote: terapinedA fractured convention should make great viewing.
A fractured, broken, bankrupt country unable to control its own borders or its debased currency; less so.
Quote: terapinedGay marriage and abortion are still huge issues because of the Christian Right.
If this was back in the Reagan years where reasonable republican establishment candidates were running, yea these are minor issues
But you now have Presidential Candidates that are making these huge issues.
Huck wants to use federal troops to stop abortion.
A position like this among republican candidates 20 yeas ago would be absurd.
Now nobody bats an eye because these days we are used to those type of extreme views from presidential candidates.
Now its common so it should be discussed.
Scott Walker still supports amending the U.S. Constitution to allow states to ban gay marriage.
How is amending the constitution not an issue to be discussed at a debate.
Its the presidential candidates that make this an important issue.
Too me its about tolerance and freedom.
The gay population is a lot bigger then you think.
I would estimate 25% guys in my workplace are gay and I work in a big building.
Maybe its only 3% where you work, I work in corporate travel with about 200 people. I work with a lot of gays. Good talented people. They just want to be happy by having the right to marry. Does not effect me or you one iota. Let them have the right.
Too me its a no brainer
I want to vote for a candidate that feels the same way.
Too me its a character issue.
Every poll shows the gay vote is right around 3% in general elections. See Democrat pollster Larry Sabato.
Quote: bobsimsEvery poll shows the gay vote is right around 3% in general elections. See Democrat pollster Larry Sabato.
How do they determine a voter is gay.
We have gays in the office where its pretty open
We have gays where they prefer to fly under the radar.
I am not 100% sure who is gay and who is not in my office.
Its personal and really none of my business.
With the terrible stigma due to the Christian right, how can anybody know the % when many remain in the closet?
Gay marriage and abortion ARE important issues.
Republicans pretending they are not is just the acknowledgement that they lose on those issues....
Quote: RonC"Dozens of Hillary Clinton emails from a new batch released by the State Department Friday contain retroactively classified sections, dealing with everything from post-coup Honduras to meetings with Middle East allies."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/31/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-source-says-classified-info/
I get, my Liberal friends, there is nothing to see here. The items weren't classified when she put them on her server so they really don't count as using the server to store classified information. I understand that.
On the flip side, when they became classified, where they still on her server?
How did this highly politically experienced (lawyer, former First Lady investigated quite a few times, Senator, and Secretary of State) not KNOW BETTER?
We have a server at our office. Sensitive material, the really sensitive stuff, is not on that server and it is not backed up in the same place, as the general stuff. This lady was Secretary of State where classification of documents changes from time to time. She is supposedly brilliant. She didn't know enough about her job to know some material would later potentially be classified and that keeping it on her own server was, at best, a stupid idea?
Where will she keep important info if she is elected President? iCloud?
Come on! She said it already. She said she is not intelligent enough to use more than one email address!
I love how liberals just think they can wish away the server, the IRS scandal, all of it as "not important" just because they say it is so. Irony of course is Hilary tried to bring down Nixon who erased tape yet she erased emails.
The NY Times may be thinking she needs to go in their own way.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx
While there are going to be many pockets of 25%, or even more, of any one type of person, the overall percentage of LBGT's seems to be around 3%-5%.
I am fine with not supporting a candidate that does not support gay marriage, but letting it become a huge issue in the election simply takes away from more important issues. Spend 5% or 10% of the time on it; don't get trapped into spending 90% of the time on it because then you run out of time to talk about other issues impacting more of us. I am not saying it is not an issue, and any attempt to frame it as such is simply another tactic to try and make me say what you would like me to say.
I'm clear on it--I am not in favor of gay marriage. It is the law of the land based on a flawed Supreme Court decision. I think it would have been legalized over the years in most states, so the Supreme Court stepped on the States when they shouldn't have... The idea of States is not for every one to be the same; they are supposed to operate almost like individual countries. Whatever. It is over and done with. Go get married or not, I could care less at this point. You have the right to do so.
The next President will pick a couple of SC justices, but they won't overturn the ruling even if they are opposed to it. First, they won't make it through confirmation by stating anything along those lines and second, the SC rarely turns over anything they have decided. I'd be more concerned, as a Liberal or Conservative, on which way new justices will go on the next big issues. Of course, some go rogue...
Not supporting gay marriage is not a character issue and I am tired of that crappy argument. I can support gays being treated fairly and having civil unions much like marriages but I am wrong if I don't support gay marriage? I don't get what happened to the ability to disagree with one another without being disagreeable. Now it seems to be "if you don't agree with me, you are piece of crap"...
As I've said before, I have a gay BIL and he is not a huge supporter of gay marriage. He's just as gay as the next guy (I guess, I don't really know) but he isn't out protesting for gay marriage. Does that make him somehow "less gay"? Does he want equality? Yes. Do he and is former partner agree on politics? No, one is very much further than the other on the left side. There is room for disagreement in this country. Get over yourself if you don't think there is...
If a candidate doesn't support gay marriage but is the one candidate who would do everything else that you'd like to see done and another supports gay marriage but isn't right for you on any of the other issues, which will you support?
I believe becoming so attached to one issue is dangerous. I intend to look at all the issues and go from there.
Quote: ams288The next President will likely get to appoint more than a couple Supreme Court justices. We don't need another Scalia up in there.
Gay marriage and abortion ARE important issues.
Republicans pretending they are not is just the acknowledgement that they lose on those issues....
Abortion has been settled for forty years. It isn't going anywhere.
Gay marriage is legal based on the recent decision. Only the candidates who intend to try and overturn it need to pay more than passing interest to the issue--spending too much time on it gives the other side an advantage by giving them control of the dialogue.
Simple statements--"I opposed gay marriage, it is now the law of the land, and I am not going to fight this issue"--should be just about enough time on the issue.
There are so many issues; all I am saying is don't get mired on just two of them. It is what the Left wants.
Quote: RonC"The American public estimates on average that 23% of Americans are gay or lesbian, little changed from Americans' 25% estimate in 2011, and only slightly higher than separate 2002 estimates of the gay and lesbian population. These estimates are many times higher than the 3.8% of the adult population who identified themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in Gallup Daily tracking in the first four months of this year."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx
While there are going to be many pockets of 25%, or even more, of any one type of person, the overall percentage of LBGT's seems to be around 3%-5%.
These numbers just blow my mind. Saying 25% is not just "uninformed" or "low information." It is "clueless." 9% get it right but 1/3 of the population thinks over 1 in 4 people are LBGT. I mean, really. Just look around. Sure gays tend to live in "pockets" same as many other groups. (we used to call this a "ghetto") But even if you live in a pocket you know you live in a pocket. But that still does not explain things. 1/3 of the population off by a factor of 5?
Is America clueless or math-challenged that they do not understand 25% means 1 in 4?
Quote: RonC
I'm clear on it--I am not in favor of gay marriage. It is the law of the land based on a flawed Supreme Court decision. I think it would have been legalized over the years in most states, so the Supreme Court stepped on the States when they shouldn't have... The idea of States is not for every one to be the same; they are supposed to operate almost like individual countries. Whatever. It is over and done with. Go get married or not, I could care less at this point. You have the right to do so.
I'm sure when your parents got married, it was considered a legal marriage in all states.
That's not the case with my parents marriage.
Some states did not recognize the marriage.
After my father graduated from Yale and ready to start his career, they had limit on what states we could move to because of ridiculous marriage laws.
Its just not right to have a marriage recognized by the US Navy overseas on a US base and then have a limited number of states we can move to.
That's my personal experience.
Its just not right to have some states recognize a marriage and some don't.
We are 1 country, not 50 countries.
If the Navy allowed my father to get married to a local (my mother) overseas, and believe me they fought it tooth and nail, but you cant fight love. Love won.
Your parents had the freedom to move to any state when they were married, I'm sure.
That's not the case with my family back in the late 50's
I am not gay but you can see through my personal history why this is an impotant issue to me.
Quote: terapinedI'm sure when your parents got married, it was considered a legal marriage in all states.
That's not the case with my parents marriage.
Some states did not recognize the marriage.
After my father graduated from Yale and ready to start his career, they had limit on what states we could move to because of ridiculous marriage laws.
Its just not right to have a marriage recognized by the US Navy overseas on a US base and then have a limited number of states we can move to.
That's my personal experience.
Its just not right to have some states recognize a marriage and some don't.
We are 1 country, not 50 countries.
If the Navy allowed my father to get married to a local (my mother) overseas, and believe me they fought it tooth and nail, but you cant fight love. Love won.
Your parents had the freedom to move to any state when they were married, I'm sure.
That's not the case with my family back in the late 50's
I am not gay but you can see through my personal history why this is an impotant issue to me.
...and that is fine, so long as I am allowed to say that I am not in favor of gay marriage because I think marriage should be between a man and a woman (a definition that fits your parents). I am not going to go fight gay marriage, I am not going to expend energy trying to reverse it, I just don't agree with it.
I do think it is okay for states to have different laws. They are supposed to be United States, not one single thing governed by a large centralized government. You do get to choose what little country (state) you live in. We were created more like 50 little countries than one big one in many ways. You know the conditions in your state; either stay and fight them or move somewhere else. Sending money from Maryland to Washington, DC to be mismanaged and then having it parceled out with part of it taken to sustain a ton of bureaucracies is not a good thing.
Quote: RonC
You do get to choose what little country (state) you live in. .
That's only true if you are willing to go to jail.
They were married on a US Naval base, not in the USA.
We had to pick a state to live in, we were not already living in a state.
If my parents moved to Virginia in the late 50's . they could be arrested and face prison.
Think of it, a Korean war veteran married on a US Naval base could be arrested simply for entering Virginia.
Its just absurd that a vet at the end of his tour after serving his country is barred from living in any state in the union.
ALL States should have been open to ALL vets
From Wikipedia concerning the Lovings case which could have been my parents case is they chose to move to Virginia.
"The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, wrote:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. They did so, moving to the District of Columbia."
The federal govt must step in due racist judges such as Leon M Bazile that had the power to imprison people simply due to his racist views on marriage.
1967 the govt did step in. This is the precedent for gay marriage legal in all 50
Quote: terapinedThat's only true if you are willing to go to jail.
They were married on a US Naval base, not in the USA.
We had to pick a state to live in, we were not already living in a state.
If my parents moved to Virginia in the late 50's . they could be arrested and face prison.
Think of it, a Korean war veteran married on a US Naval base could be arrested simply for entering Virginia.
Its just absurd that a vet at the end of his tour after serving his country is barred from living in any state in the union.
ALL States should have been open to ALL vets
From Wikipedia concerning the Lovings case which could have been my parents case is they chose to move to Virginia.
"The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, wrote:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. They did so, moving to the District of Columbia."
You can pick the state you want to live in.
Things have changed since the 50's.
Quote: RonCYou can pick the state you want to live in.
Things have changed since the 50's.
The point I was trying to make is why it was so unjust that a legal gay marriage is allowed in some states and not others.
That's why I support the supreme court in making gay marriage legal in all 50 due my parents situation where it was not legal in all 50 at the time they got married.
1967 the Govt stepped in as they should have so all people including Vets have the right to live in what state they choose without threat of prison simply due to their marraige
This is the precedent for the Supreme Court decision.
Quote: RonCThe gay issues are way overstated in national prominence. Very few are actually "for" being disrespectful and mean to gays; very few gays throw poop on non-gays in protest of anti-gay positions. The vast majority of us are just people who accept gays, perhaps don't understand them as much as we should, and wish them the best. Even the ones of us who think gay marriage is wrong and should have been handled state by state instead of by court decree, in spite of the way some would like to paint us.
Ya know, Ron C, I learn new things from you all the time. What is this "throwing poop on non-gays" ??? (we call them 'breeders' BTW...lol).
I am also with you on not understanding the gays. Sometimes I have a most difficult time understanding the gay guy residing on the other side of my bedroom (we do the dick van dyke thing of separate beds). And don't even get me started on those lesbians. I have no hope of understanding them. :/
And after nearly a year of being in a gay marriage, I am also beginning to think gay marriage or any marriage is wrong. :/ (just kidding on that last one...mostly kidding).
Quote: RonCYou can pick the state you want to live in.
Things have changed since the 50's.
Should heterosexual couples have to deal with the same issue and have their marriage questioned state by state? If not, why not?
Quote: kewljYa know, Ron C, I learn new things from you all the time. What is this "throwing poop on non-gays" ??? (we call them 'breeders' BTW...lol).
I guess it all goes back to a likely disproven story about militant gays throwing poop on Christians...the main point is that militants on either side are, well, pretty much idiots. They don't represent you or I...
Quote: kewljI am also with you on not understanding the gays. Sometimes I have a most difficult time understanding the gay guy residing on the other side of my bedroom (we do the dick van dyke thing of separate beds). And don't even get me started on those lesbians. I have no hope of understanding them. :/
And after nearly a year of being in a gay marriage, I am also beginning to think gay marriage or any marriage is wrong. :/ (just kidding on that last one...mostly kidding).
Welcome to marriage! I predict gays will suffer from all of the same marital issues as "breeders"...but I don't wish them on anyone!
Quote: rxwineShould heterosexual couples have to deal with the same issue and have their marriage questioned state by state? If not, why not?
If the states issue the marriage licenses, the states should make the regulations on marriage. If we want the feds to issue the licenses, then the laws can be consistent from state to state...is it really a "state law" if the federal government tells you what it should be?
Gay marriage had the momentum; it would have been legal in many, if not most, states in a few years. The feds (SCOTUS) simply took the power away from the voters and government of each state and decided how it should be.
That's okay...well, until they make a decision that you don't like about a state issue...
Quote: terapinedThe point I was trying to make is why it was so unjust that a legal gay marriage is allowed in some states and not others.
That's why I support the supreme court in making gay marriage legal in all 50 due my parents situation where it was not legal in all 50 at the time they got married.
1967 the Govt stepped in as they should have so all people including Vets have the right to live in what state they choose without threat of prison simply due to their marraige
This is the precedent for the Supreme Court decision.
Huge step taking marriage from one man and one woman to same sex.
Like I said, it is what is--the law of the land now.
Let's talk about unsettled things, like immigration and the economy (plus many more).
This is kind of how we get sidetracked from real issues we can do something about to ones that we may not like, but are what they are...
Quote: RonCIf the states issue the marriage licenses, the states should make the regulations on marriage. If we want the feds to issue the licenses, then the laws can be consistent from state to state...is it really a "state law" if the federal government tells you what it should be?
Gay marriage had the momentum; it would have been legal in many, if not most, states in a few years. The feds (SCOTUS) simply took the power away from the voters and government of each state and decided how it should be.
That's okay...well, until they make a decision that you don't like about a state issue...
Concerning laws and prohibitions, I've been seeing stories on new laws concerning small drone use. For instance writing laws that prohibit someone from flying into your property and pointing a camera in your window.
This is fine with me, as I can see the potential harm, so there's a reason to regulate certain uses. OTOH, I still don't see gay marriage destroying 'regular' marriage or any other particular harm. People just being against it because they don't like it, is what I see mostly.
Of course, I am against flying the rainbow flag over state capitols as well as the confederate flag, but that's based on government should symbolize all the people it represents in a general way as possible.
I think while we still have politicians like Huckabee, Santorum, and Cruz out there, it will definitely continue to be an issue.
I like the "grown ups" of the party like Jeb and Kasich who realize they're on the losing side and just try to deal with it and move on.
Quote: ams288We keep hearing from the right that gay marriage just isn't an issue anymore but there are pages and pages of new posts in this thread proving that isn't the case.
I think while we still have politicians like Huckabee, Santorum, and Cruz out there, it will definitely continue to be an issue.
Exactly we have multiple politicians calling for a constitutional amendment either banning gay marriage or saying it should be up to the states to decide so it is hardly a case where the politicians are accepting their defeat and stating a personal opinion. Same with the abortion issue where man candidates are calling for right to life amendments to overturn Roe V. Wade.
Quote: TwirdmanExactly we have multiple politicians calling for a constitutional amendment either banning gay marriage or saying it should be up to the states to decide so it is hardly a case where the politicians are accepting their defeat and stating a personal opinion. Same with the abortion issue where man candidates are calling for right to life amendments to overturn Roe V. Wade.
Kind of ironic that this country was started by puritans fleeing religious tyranny
I am a atheist. My life should be free of religion.
Yet the religious right demands we follow their views regarding abortion and gay marriage
Is the Christian right practicing tyranny demanding those that are not Christians conform to their views.
I'm fine with a Christian against abortion and gay marriage.
That's their personal business. Its none of their business if non Christian males get married or a non Christian female has an abortion.
Yet they make it their business. Religious tyranny.
Quote: ams288We keep hearing from the right that gay marriage just isn't an issue anymore but there are pages and pages of new posts in this thread proving that isn't the case.
Pretty much all of them from liberal supporters who now that they have won their issue want to keep discussing it same as some old guy talking about his high school football days.
But on the subject, if states have to recognize marriage licenses issued in other states, why do they not have to recognize conceal carry permits issued in another state?
Quote: AZDuffmanBut on the subject, if states have to recognize marriage licenses issued in other states, why do they not have to recognize conceal carry permits issued in another state?
'Cause your lobbiest haven't been able to pull it off yet.
I suppose you could also ask why the 2nd Ammendment isn't free of other regulations and limits. (of course even the 1st is limited in several ways, especially as regards to public harm. yelling fire for no reason, slander, libel, free speech zones)
Quote: rxwine'Cause your lobbiest haven't been able to pull it off yet. [.q]
Lobby should not have to pull it off. License in one state is supposed to carry to all for other things like marriage or driving.Quote:I suppose you could also ask why the 2nd Ammendment isn't free of other regulations and limits. (of course even the 1st is limited in several ways, especially as regards to public harm. yelling fire for no reason, slander, libel, free speech zones)
The "fire" thing has always been kind of silly to me. As are many other claims of "free speech." Free Speech as is in the 1st was meant to be speech regarding the government. The Nancy Pelosis of this world act and claim the exact opposite in calls for campaign finance laws. But the intent is pretty clear.
The 2nd should be free of most limits.All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Quote: AZDuffmanPretty much all of them from liberal supporters who now that they have won their issue want to keep discussing it same as some old guy talking about his high school football days.
OK what about the several candidates calling for constitutional amendments to ban same sex marriage. You act as though GOP candidates don't continually bring it up of their own volition.
Quote: TwirdmanOK what about the several candidates calling for constitutional amendments to ban same sex marriage. You act as though GOP candidates don't continually bring it up of their own volition.
And they are posting here? The comment was about posts here.
There are calls for Constitutional Amendments all the time, They have gone nowhere for 50 years. Last amendment took what, 200 years to pass?
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd they are posting here? The comment was about posts here.
There are calls for Constitutional Amendments all the time, They have gone nowhere for 50 years. Last amendment took what, 200 years to pass?
Wow that is some hilariously bad misrepresenting of facts. The last amendment passed a little less than 25 years ago not 50 and while it took 200 years from submission to ratification that is in no way representative of most amendments. The next longest time was just under 4 years for the 22nd amendment limiting to 2 terms.
Also about the First Amendment only protecting political speech why? What gives you that idea? No Supreme court agrees with you and I really doubt you will find any significant quotes of founding fathers that agree with you. It is ridiculous that you think the second amendment is meant to imply that there shall be no restrictions on guns but the first only protects political speech. Never mind all of the supreme courts that have disagreed with you clearly you are right because you think that is what the First Amendment is meant to say.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd they are posting here? The comment was about posts here.
There are calls for Constitutional Amendments all the time, They have gone nowhere for 50 years. Last amendment took what, 200 years to pass?
???????
Did you check the thread topic?
Its your side that brings it up
We are commenting on republican candidates still fighting gay marriage.
Of course some candidates have accepted the ruling and are moving on
and some have not and want to be President.
Discussion of their views definitely falls under the topic
Walker has proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow states to ban same-sex marriages.
Ted Cruz of Texas, has called for regular elections for Supreme Court justices due to the gay marriage ruling
Huck "We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”
Lets take your logic a step further.
There are calls for Trump to be President, He is going nowhere politically. The odds are a gazillion to 1 he get elected. Yet we talk about him.
Quote: TwirdmanWow that is some hilariously bad misrepresenting of facts. The last amendment passed a little less than 25 years ago not 50 and while it took 200 years from submission to ratification that is in no way representative of most amendments. The next longest time was just under 4 years for the 22nd amendment limiting to 2 terms.
If you read what I wrote it should be clear that I know the last one passed 25 years ago by the point I made it took 200 years to pass. Before that we are talking nearly 50 years. I forget which amendment started it, but this is why most of the modern ones have a 7-year sunset provision so that they cannot be pulled off the table, The Equal Rights Amendment failed due to this shelf life provision. My point is that it is near-impossible to pass amendments by design. Hundreds have been proposed since ratification.
Quote:Also about the First Amendment only protecting political speech why? What gives you that idea? No Supreme court agrees with you and I really doubt you will find any significant quotes of founding fathers that agree with you. It is ridiculous that you think the second amendment is meant to imply that there shall be no restrictions on guns but the first only protects political speech. Never mind all of the supreme courts that have disagreed with you clearly you are right because you think that is what the First Amendment is meant to say.
Why do I say this? Because concern of political retributions was among the Founder's greatest concerns. If is for this reason that a free press is in the same amendment along with assembly and to petition for redress of grievances. Each and every one of these things is about politics and process. Not about say strippers in an all-nude club in Erie, PA and their free expression. Not about 7 dirty words you cannot say on TV.
The Revolution was fought not for commercial speech but to allow the people to be part of the political process. SCOTUS has stretched the meaning, same as establishment of religion has been stretched, but the intent was primarily about political speech.
Quote: terapined???????
Did you check the thread topic?
Its your side that brings it up
We are commenting on republican candidates still fighting gay marriage.
Of course some candidates have accepted the ruling and are moving on
and some have not and want to be President.
Discussion of their views definitely falls under the topic
It is a topic. It is an issue. The best thing the Left can do is keep talking about it and try to paint all Republicans as somehow hating gays because they disagree with a ruling of SCOTUS. This is a perfect tactic to avoid discussion of more important issues--gay marriage moved way down the list of important issues once the ruling was made. People can still be against it, but little is going to happen that they can change concerning the matter.
Quote: terapinedWalker has proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow states to ban same-sex marriages.
As AZ as pointed out, amendments are hard to get passed. Since gay marriage already had momentum in many states, an amendment attempt would fall flat.
Quote: terapinedTed Cruz of Texas, has called for regular elections for Supreme Court justices due to the gay marriage ruling
Again, an amendment would be required. This one has slightly more chances of passing than one banning a specific act since the justices routinely piss off people on both sides of the aisle. The odds are so long that it is not going to happen...
Quote: terapinedHuck "We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”
There is no real policy proposal in that statement; I assume he must be saying he wants to make an amendment or something. Again, no chance of passing.
The real argument against these guys is that they would likely select appointees to the bench (at many levels) who would not be inclined to rule the same way that the Supreme Court has come down in the gay marriage and Obamacare decisions. That could be a real impact of any President elected, but they also have to get those folks approved by the Senate. They won't be able to go too far either direction (Left or Right) without creating a crapstorm.
Gay marriage and abortion are safe as established law of the land. The Left will try to get much more mileage out of it than it is worth; The Right will use it to define the candidate and not as something they can actually do much about. It isn't really important at all to those in the middle, yet we'll let ourselves get hemmed up in the L/R crap because we won't tell them all to shut up and talk about the real problems and we won't demand the media do the same as our eyes and ears out there...
Quote: terapinedLets take your logic a step further.
There are calls for Trump to be President, He is going nowhere politically. The odds are a gazillion to 1 he get elected. Yet we talk about him.
He has more of a chance of becoming President than gay marriage or abortion have of being eliminated by amendment. Many times more. Still not much of one, but a lot more than either of those items...
Quote: RonCIt is a topic. It is an issue. The best thing the Left can do is keep talking about it and try to paint all Republicans as somehow hating gays because they disagree with a ruling of SCOTUS. This is a perfect tactic to avoid discussion of more important issues--gay marriage moved way down the list of important issues once the ruling was made. People can still be against it, but little is going to happen that they can change concerning the matter.....
Its still an issue. It has evolved to Christian officials that refuse to grant a marriage license.
Its evolved to Christians allowed to discriminate against gays.
Boy have things changed 180 from growing up observing Christians.
Growing up, I always thought of Christians as total followers of Jesus. Kind loving accepting generous good people. Jesus was about love.
Now the issue is they want to discriminate.
amazing and sad, these were he good guys with white hats when I was growing up.
Quote: RonC
As AZ as pointed out, amendments are hard to get passed. Since gay marriage already had momentum in many states, an amendment attempt would fall flat.
Again, an amendment would be required. This one has slightly more chances of passing than one banning a specific act since the justices routinely piss off people on both sides of the aisle. The odds are so long that it is not going to happen...
There is no real policy proposal in that statement; I assume he must be saying he wants to make an amendment or something. Again, no chance of passing.....
There is no chance of passing an amendment. I agree. Why do these presidential candidates even bring it up.
An amendment is pretty out there.
The only reason its discussed is because presidential candidates brought it up 1st. If they never proposed it, nobody would talk about it.
Its the right that opened the door to this part of the discussion.
Quote: RonC
The real argument against these guys is that they would likely select appointees to the bench (at many levels) who would not be inclined to rule the same way that the Supreme Court has come down in the gay marriage and Obamacare decisions. That could be a real impact of any President elected, but they also have to get those folks approved by the Senate. They won't be able to go too far either direction (Left or Right) without creating a crapstorm. .....
I totally agree
Quote: RonC
Gay marriage and abortion are safe as established law of the land. The Left will try to get much more mileage out of it than it is worth; The Right will use it to define the candidate and not as something they can actually do much about. It isn't really important at all to those in the middle, yet we'll let ourselves get hemmed up in the L/R crap because we won't tell them all to shut up and talk about the real problems and we won't demand the media do the same as our eyes and ears out there........
Abortion is not the law of the land.
Its a rich women's right.
A rich women has all the resources needed to get an abortion because they have money. If they live in TX, very hard to get an abortion, they travel to another state to get it done. Rich women absolutely have the right to an abortion. A poor woman in TX, she does not have the means to travel out of state to have her abortion. Its evolved into a rich womens right.
Quote: RonC
He has more of a chance of becoming President than gay marriage or abortion have of being eliminated by amendment. Many times more. Still not much of one, but a lot more than either of those items...
Trump president 0 chance
gay marriage and abortion eliminated by amendment 0 chance.
I think the odds are equal
Quote: terapined
Its evolved to Christians allowed to discriminate against gays.
No, it has evolved to the right of free association. No person if free if they are forced to do business against their will. The granting a marriage license thing is easy, offer the person another job in the courthouse. And end all "courthouse ceremonies." All the courthouse should do is stamp the license. You want a ceremony, hire someone.
There is no chance of passing an amendment. I agree. Why do these presidential candidates even bring it up.
Why was the first thing Hillary did when elected was to try to pass a Constitutional Amendment? Because it makes it look like they are doing something. The left does this at least as much as the right. How many calls for changing the 1st Amendment?
Quote:An amendment is pretty out there.
The only reason its discussed is because presidential candidates brought it up 1st. If they never proposed it, nobody would talk about it.
Its the right that opened the door to this part of the discussion.
Nonsense. The left wants the issue. The left would have been happy for another election cycle before SCOTUS made a ruling. What we are seeing right now is the homophiles got what they wanted but do not know how to react. Similar to the first time someone buys a house or gets that promotion to general manager of where they work. It is a reaction of "OK, now what?"
We kept hearing how gays just wanted equality and to live like everyone else. They now have it. Will they quietly live, work, and live like the rest of us? Or will they keep marching, demonstrating, and agitating? History shows what will happen, so it will be no surprise to me.
Quote: terapinedIts still an issue. It has evolved to Christian officials that refuse to grant a marriage license.
Its evolved to Christians allowed to discriminate against gays.
The officials will be compelled by the courts to comply. It will take some time, but courts will uphold SCOTUS and make them issue licenses. Some will quit, as is there right.
Quote: terapinedBoy have things changed 180 from growing up observing Christians.
Growing up, I always thought of Christians as total followers of Jesus. Kind loving accepting generous good people. Jesus was about love.
Now the issue is they want to discriminate.
amazing and sad, these were he good guys with white hats when I was growing up.
You are wrong. Christians, by and large, are still good people. They help people, take care of people, and do many good works. You can't simply demand that they follow every current of public sentiment in spite of what they feel are the right things. I am sure some churches do bad things; it happens in every sector of society. Most simply want to observe their religion and be left alone without interference from a government telling them what they have to believe.
If marriages weren't celebrated in churches but were only state/federal paperwork, it would be an easier change. Marriage has been for some time (though not forever) between a man and woman. Your parents, even though they faced challenges, met that definition. This is a big change and it has been ruled on by John and The Supremes. It isn't going back to the old way and there may be some challenges on the way.
Having a different opinion, not wanting to make a Steve and Steve cake, etc. are not bad things. Take your business elsewhere. Why do you want to force someone to do business with you who does not want to for a non-essential service? Hell, open your own cake or photography company. Make an opportunity out of it instead of an issue and fight in the marketplace...
Quote: terapinedAbortion is not the law of the land.
Its a rich women's right.
A rich women has all the resources needed to get an abortion because they have money. If they live in TX, very hard to get an abortion, they travel to another state to get it done. Rich women absolutely have the right to an abortion. A poor woman in TX, she does not have the means to travel out of state to have her abortion. Its evolved into a rich womens right.
That is not true at all--there is some cost involved (nothing in the ruling said abortion was to be free to everyone at anytime), and they do have to travel to another city in Texas.
EVERYTHING is more available to the rich. That isn't going to change!!
I have a simple solution--take care of birth control BEFORE getting pregnant. I know that is radical and will be condemned by those who want total "freedom" but every woman who is fertile needs to do everything possible to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is a nasty way to end things whether you are in favor or opposed to it.
Quote: terapinedTrump president 0 chance
gay marriage and abortion eliminated by amendment 0 chance.
I think the odds are equal
Just because both likely won't happen, the odds are not the same.
http://abc13.com/news/biden-not-saying-no-to-potential-presidential-run/898058/
This is great news and I hope he runs. The other D's in the race are so far back that Hillary is alone but he could change things. Perhaps force some accountability before the campaign for the general election.
Quote: AZDuffman
We kept hearing how gays just wanted equality and to live like everyone else. They now have it. Will they quietly live, work, and live like the rest of us? Or will they keep marching, demonstrating, and agitating? History shows what will happen, so it will be no surprise to me.
They don't have equality and the fact you still claim they do after I and others have pointed out numerous instances of lack of equality show a tremendous lack of honesty and intelligence.
Areas where gays aren't equal. You can be fired from a job in most states for being gay. You can be denied housing in many states for being gay. You can be thrown out of public places for being gay. Gay panic has been used as a provocation defense in murder trials to get a lesser charge of manslaughter.
Yes gay marriage was a major victory and people should be happy about it, but you cannot honestly believe gays now have equality nationwide with straights unless you are just keeping your head buried in the sand.
Quote: TwirdmanThey don't have equality and the fact you still claim they do after I and others have pointed out numerous instances of lack of equality show a tremendous lack of honesty and intelligence.
Areas where gays aren't equal. You can be fired from a job in most states for being gay. You can be denied housing in many states for being gay. You can be thrown out of public places for being gay. Gay panic has been used as a provocation defense in murder trials to get a lesser charge of manslaughter.
Oh, nonsense. Most states have at-will employment which means you can be terminated at anytime for any reason or even no reason. Show me ads that say "we will not rent to gays." I doubt you will find any. You can refuse to have a gay as a roommate but you can refuse anyone as a roommate, and you should be allowed to do so as you have the right to decide who shares your space. Sounds to me like "gay panic" is another word for "self defense,"
Your remarks are just more proof of what I am saying. Gays cannot handle equality at this time. They are so used to "the fight" that they don't know it is over.
Quote: AZDuffmanOh, nonsense. Most states have at-will employment which means you can be terminated at anytime for any reason or even no reason. Show me ads that say "we will not rent to gays." I doubt you will find any. You can refuse to have a gay as a roommate but you can refuse anyone as a roommate, and you should be allowed to do so as you have the right to decide who shares your space. Sounds to me like "gay panic" is another word for "self defense,"
Your remarks are just more proof of what I am saying. Gays cannot handle equality at this time. They are so used to "the fight" that they don't know it is over.
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/01/straight_friendly_is_the_dumbest_dog_whistle_ever/ not quite no gays allowed but designed to convey the exact same meaning. Here is another one where gays were refused a basement apartment http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/08/03/couple_seeking_a_basement_apartment_refused_for_being_gay.html . Another couple having trouble finding apartments http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/radio/its-hell-on-earth-young-gay-couple-refused-by-multiple-landlords-over-sexual-orientation-31113297.html. These were all from a cursory google search. Sure no such thing exist though.
Also being an at work state doesn't mean you can fire people for any reason it means you do not have to give a reason, but if it was found you fired someone for being black, for being of a certain religion, or for being too old, or any number of other things that are protected in the workplace you can still get fined.
Also bullshit about gay panic being self defense. For one it is a provocation defense not a self defense argument, if it was self defense they wouldn't get charged with man slaughter. Two in what sane world is a gay man hitting on you even somewhat aggressively grounds for murder. Does that mean everyone woman hit on in a bar gets to curb stomp the person doing it to her till he is a puddle of blood? Can I kick a woman repeatedly on the ground for daring to be a bit forward with me. Self defense is a measured response to get out of the situation that is putting you in danger what many of the people who used the gay panic defense was anything but measured. One person knocked a guy down and while he was down repeatedly kicked him in the chest and stomped on him till he was dying than robbed him and drove off with his car. What part of that sounds like self defense.
Quote: AZDuffmanOh, nonsense. Most states have at-will employment which means you can be terminated at anytime for any reason or even no reason. Show me ads that say "we will not rent to gays." I doubt you will find any. You can refuse to have a gay as a roommate but you can refuse anyone as a roommate, and you should be allowed to do so as you have the right to decide who shares your space. Sounds to me like "gay panic" is another word for "self defense,"
Your remarks are just more proof of what I am saying. Gays cannot handle equality at this time. They are so used to "the fight" that they don't know it is over.
Do you know any gays?
I have a ton in the office I work with
Not a single one has spoken up about gay rights
I know their are flaming gays that get air time and that is what you are referring to
Reality is your average gay is like anybody else in the office i work in.
They are regular people, hardworking good people just like me, only difference is they are gay
Do you know any gays? Dont you get the impression that they are just regular people
The gays I know personally, and there are a lot in my office, never speak about gay rights
They hear our politics discussions and keep quiet
When the subject is celebrities, movies and tv, they speak up.
Every part of society has its outspoken kooks, they dont represent gays in general just as the Westboro baptist church does not represent Christians
I think a lot of them being quiet regarding gay right is probabbly the terrible stigma they had to grow up with. The terrible jokes and disrespect. Its only recently that many feel comfortable about coming out
You saying gays cant handle their rights is like me saying christians picket soldiers funerals.
A tiny crumb in truth but overall a lie
Quote: AZDuffmanOh, nonsense. Most states have at-will employment which means you can be terminated at anytime for any reason or even no reason. Show me ads that say "we will not rent to gays." I doubt you will find any. You can refuse to have a gay as a roommate but you can refuse anyone as a roommate, and you should be allowed to do so as you have the right to decide who shares your space. Sounds to me like "gay panic" is another word for "self defense,"
Your remarks are just more proof of what I am saying. Gays cannot handle equality at this time. They are so used to "the fight" that they don't know it is over.
Jeez. What an awful post. It's not "nonsense." Everything Twirdman pointed out is true.
This post just goes to prove that the gay rights movement still has a long way to go....
Yikes.
If (god forbid) a Republican wins in 2016, I certainly hope that Republican is Trump....
Quote: RonCI have a simple solution--take care of birth control BEFORE getting pregnant. I know that is radical and will be condemned by those who want total "freedom" but every woman who is fertile needs to do everything possible to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is a nasty way to end things whether you are in favor or opposed to it.
Ah, if you could give truth serum to every male to find out if they always took the proper precaution. All company here included. Only takes one error.
I'll give credit where credit is due, but I consider it a heap of shame to put that one just on the other side.
