Rubio goes on homophobic rant ending political career.

[JakeStarkey]

PEACH174 SAID:

"60% favor same sex marriage in the country.
40% of the population does not and they should have their rights also."

Nonsense.

Citizens' rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' those hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans have no 'right' to vote away others' rights. The fact that laws and measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are being invalidated by the courts is proof of that.

It won't end his hopes to be potus. It's posible that faith so weak that he believes the abomination of homosexuality is a serious threat to Christianity could make him unsuitable as potus.

I suspect the left wishes it were so ......

But, the cold reality is that, when all is said and done, the Rubio/Walker ticket will destroy Clinton. You can take it to the bank.

Walker/Rubio ticket.

what about Dick Turbin? he made it to Senator.

So did Cruz.

 

[JakeStarkey]

even Miss Cleo says that Rubio will be on the ticket.

Possibly but not probably.

 

[The Rabbi]

The only rant I see is the OP. Nothing about Rubio.

 

[The Rabbi]

Marco Rubio: Gay Rights 'A Real And Present Danger' To Freedom

Marco Rubio was the subject of a fawning profile on today’s edition of “The 700 Club,” in which host Pat Robertson hailed the GOP presidential candidate as “the Democrats’ worst nightmare.”

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, Rubio warned that gay marriage represents “a real and present danger” to America because gay rights advocates are bent on labeling any anti-gay messages, including those from churches, as “hate speech.”

“We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater,” Rubio said. “So what’s the next step after that? After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That’s a real and present danger.”

During a previous CBN interview, Rubio criticized gay marriage supporters for trying to sway the Supreme Court with “a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. Constitution.”

When your base is that hateful and ignorant, you must cut them lose and rally the moderates and centrists.

But no, the GOP continue to open their big tent to most hateful and despicable people.

They're just mad that more and more people are realizing Christianity's just a big cult.

Pfff. People have been saying negative things about Christianity for over 100 years. And somehow the religion just hangs on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marco Rubio: Gay Rights 'A Real And Present Danger' To Freedom

Marco Rubio was the subject of a fawning profile on today’s edition of “The 700 Club,” in which host Pat Robertson hailed the GOP presidential candidate as “the Democrats’ worst nightmare.”

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, Rubio warned that gay marriage represents “a real and present danger” to America because gay rights advocates are bent on labeling any anti-gay messages, including those from churches, as “hate speech.”

“We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater,” Rubio said. “So what’s the next step after that? After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That’s a real and present danger.”

During a previous CBN interview, Rubio criticized gay marriage supporters for trying to sway the Supreme Court with “a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. Constitution.”

When your base is that hateful and ignorant, you must cut them lose and rally the moderates and centrists.

But no, the GOP continue to open their big tent to most hateful and despicable people.

They're just mad that more and more people are realizing Christianity's just a big cult.

Pfff. People have been saying negative things about Christianity for over 100 years. And somehow the religion just hangs on.

Somehow Christians and Jews really don't take militant atheists seriously. And why should they?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno......................I give "Mr. Thirsty Rubio" until sometime around June of 2016, and then he drops out.

Any takers? Do I hear any bets?

I'm betting Rubio is out of the race by June 2016.

 

[BlueGin]

Marco Rubio: Gay Rights 'A Real And Present Danger' To Freedom

Marco Rubio was the subject of a fawning profile on today’s edition of “The 700 Club,” in which host Pat Robertson hailed the GOP presidential candidate as “the Democrats’ worst nightmare.”

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, Rubio warned that gay marriage represents “a real and present danger” to America because gay rights advocates are bent on labeling any anti-gay messages, including those from churches, as “hate speech.”

“We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater,” Rubio said. “So what’s the next step after that? After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That’s a real and present danger.”

During a previous CBN interview, Rubio criticized gay marriage supporters for trying to sway the Supreme Court with “a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. Constitution.”

When your base is that hateful and ignorant, you must cut them lose and rally the moderates and centrists.

But no, the GOP continue to open their big tent to most hateful and despicable people.

He is correct. The supporters of gay rights have become hate-mongers; bent on destroying anyone who has an opposing opinion.

Attacking hate mongers will boost his career and hopefully, allow people to actually talk about the issue without the mouth-foaming raving of the left.

Exactly. Conservatives are usually too weak to attack their opponents. It's about time they grew a spine. They can't win playing mr nice guy.

 

[Slyhunter]

If he goes further right, sly, he does not stand a chance.

If he doesn't we lose the libertarians and we don't stand a chance.

We can't win with only the far right and the losertarians if the center abandons us. This is what the far right does not get: they cannot win presidential elections without the center vote.

I don't like allowing the Liberals define where the center is.

 

[Statistikhengst]

If he goes further right, sly, he does not stand a chance.

If he doesn't we lose the libertarians and we don't stand a chance.

We can't win with only the far right and the losertarians if the center abandons us. This is what the far right does not get: they cannot win presidential elections without the center vote.

I don't like allowing the Liberals define where the center is.

Uhm, I don't care what you like.

 

[The Rabbi]

If he goes further right, sly, he does not stand a chance.

If he doesn't we lose the libertarians and we don't stand a chance.

We can't win with only the far right and the losertarians if the center abandons us. This is what the far right does not get: they cannot win presidential elections without the center vote.

I don't like allowing the Liberals define where the center is.

Uhm, I don't care what you like.

ANyone else like spaghetti?

 

[Statistikhengst]

If he goes further right, sly, he does not stand a chance.

If he doesn't we lose the libertarians and we don't stand a chance.

We can't win with only the far right and the losertarians if the center abandons us. This is what the far right does not get: they cannot win presidential elections without the center vote.

I don't like allowing the Liberals define where the center is.

Uhm, I don't care what you like.

ANyone else like spaghetti?

The most intelligent response you have given in months.

Bravo.

BTW, the 6-months of your Greece prediction are almost up....

 

[NYcarbineer]

If he goes further right, sly, he does not stand a chance.

If he doesn't we lose the libertarians and we don't stand a chance.

We can't win with only the far right and the losertarians if the center abandons us. This is what the far right does not get: they cannot win presidential elections without the center vote.

I don't like allowing the Liberals define where the center is.

In the 2008 presidential election, 45% of the voters identified themselves as Moderates in exit polls.

Obama won the Moderate vote over McCain by 20 points.

THAT is why the Right cannot win presidential elections without the center vote.

 

[Statistikhengst]

If he goes further right, sly, he does not stand a chance.

If he doesn't we lose the libertarians and we don't stand a chance.

We can't win with only the far right and the losertarians if the center abandons us. This is what the far right does not get: they cannot win presidential elections without the center vote.

I don't like allowing the Liberals define where the center is.

In the 2008 presidential election, 45% of the voters identified themselves as Moderates in exit polls.

Obama won the Moderate vote over McCain by 20 points.

THAT is why the Right cannot win presidential elections without the center vote.

That is absolutely spot-on. Well said, NYcarbineer

In presidential elections, the middle 17-20% of the electorate that is truly moderate will decide the election.

Essentially, you are going to get about 4 of ten voters who are definitely going to vote for the GOP, and 4 of ten voters who are definitely going to vote for the Democratic candidate.

Since 1976, in every two man race and also in two of three three-man races, the losing party has not come in at under 41% (rounded):

1976: Ford (R) 48.01%
1980: Carter (D) 41.01% - THREE MAN RACE
1984: Mondale (D) 40.56%
1988: Dukakis (D) 45.65%
1992: Bush 41 (R) 37.45% - THREE MAN RACE
1996: Dole (R) 40.72% - THREE MAN RACE
2000: Bush 43 (R) 47.87% (lost the NPV), Gore 48.38% (lost the EC)
2004: Kerry (D) 48.26%
2008: McCain (R) 45.60%
2012: Romney (R) 47.15%

That makes for 9 out of 10 cycles where the losing candidate got at least 41% (rounded) and as high as 48.4%. 10 cycles: 5 GOP winners, 5 DEM winners. Even split over 40 years.

In fact, in the last 4 cycles, it was impossible to get the losing candidate much under 46%, so we could even say that the truly neutral middle is perhaps just 10-12% of the population, and that middle must be swayed.

And as we see, he who sways the middle wins most of the battleground states, they tend to fall like dominos for the winner. In 2008, Obama won ALL of the battlegrounds. In 2012, he won all of them except NC. In 2004, Bush won all of the true battlegrounds except NH and WI.

So, all this talk of ideological purity may sound great to the "base", but the party that does this is likely to lose the GE.

It's really very simple math.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If he goes further right, sly, he does not stand a chance.

If he doesn't we lose the libertarians and we don't stand a chance.

We can't win with only the far right and the losertarians if the center abandons us. This is what the far right does not get: they cannot win presidential elections without the center vote.

I don't like allowing the Liberals define where the center is.

You don't get to define anything, bub, except in your head. The far right cannot win elections without the great center of Middle America. Clinton and Obama and Bush have done that six times in a row.

 

[martybegan]

most do agree with him. the voters of california voted against it twice.

But, lets settle it. Lets let the people vote as they did in Ireland. Then its over one way or the other.

There's currently 60% support for legal same sex marriage in the US. That's the same as Ireland's was going into that landslide.

We don't have national referendums. We have a Supreme Court.

Let the Right pass its Marriage Amendment to the Constitution if they can. There's your 'referendum'.

The SC can rule on whether state laws banning gay marriage are constitutional. It cannot decree that gay marriage is constitutional. Do you understand the difference?

There's no such thing as "gay marriage," there's only one marriage law in each of the 50 states same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

What a bunch of doublethink. You can't even accept that what you want is something different from what has been established in law for centuries, but you claim there is a legal right to it, even if it has never been defined as such....

Wasn't the greatness of the Constitution and perhaps similar documents that they established in law rights that had not been so established in law before?

Yes, but it was via the amendment process and overwhelming consent, not made up by a bunch of un-elected lawyers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marco Rubio: Gay Rights 'A Real And Present Danger' To Freedom

When your base is that hateful and ignorant, you must cut them lose and rally the moderates and centrists.

But no, the GOP continue to open their big tent to most hateful and despicable people.

Typical liberal hatchet job containing misdirection, misquotes, and downright lies. You ought to be embarrassed to be affiliated with such garbage.

List the misquotes.

Nahhh ... read the text yourself .... being quoted out of context is the same as being misquoted.

I'm not here to try to alleviate your innate stupidity.

The non-retarded who claim something was taken out of context normally show it in context to prove how out of context changed its meaning.

Apparently you're not in the non-retarded category.

Obviously, you were lacking an intelligent rebuttal, huh?

See how uncomfortable facts are.

You never showed any context that was missing that was relevant, despite your claiming so.

No rebuttal of a non-existent point is needed.

 

[Statistikhengst]

If he goes further right, sly, he does not stand a chance.

If he doesn't we lose the libertarians and we don't stand a chance.

We can't win with only the far right and the losertarians if the center abandons us. This is what the far right does not get: they cannot win presidential elections without the center vote.

I don't like allowing the Liberals define where the center is.

You don't get to define anything, bub, except in your head. The far right cannot win elections without the great center of Middle America. Clinton and Obama and Bush have done that six times in a row.

And credit where credit is due: so did Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush (1988).

I still know of no Republican who connected so well with Democrats as did Ronald Reagan.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There's currently 60% support for legal same sex marriage in the US. That's the same as Ireland's was going into that landslide.

We don't have national referendums. We have a Supreme Court.

Let the Right pass its Marriage Amendment to the Constitution if they can. There's your 'referendum'.

The SC can rule on whether state laws banning gay marriage are constitutional. It cannot decree that gay marriage is constitutional. Do you understand the difference?

There's no such thing as "gay marriage," there's only one marriage law in each of the 50 states same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

What a bunch of doublethink. You can't even accept that what you want is something different from what has been established in law for centuries, but you claim there is a legal right to it, even if it has never been defined as such....

Wasn't the greatness of the Constitution and perhaps similar documents that they established in law rights that had not been so established in law before?

Yes, but it was via the amendment process and overwhelming consent, not made up by a bunch of un-elected lawyers.

Nice non sequitur. Judges are not 'unelected'. They are indirectly elected. A person becomes a judge in pretty much the same way a bill becomes law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There's currently 60% support for legal same sex marriage in the US. That's the same as Ireland's was going into that landslide.

We don't have national referendums. We have a Supreme Court.

Let the Right pass its Marriage Amendment to the Constitution if they can. There's your 'referendum'.

The SC can rule on whether state laws banning gay marriage are constitutional. It cannot decree that gay marriage is constitutional. Do you understand the difference?

There's no such thing as "gay marriage," there's only one marriage law in each of the 50 states same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

What a bunch of doublethink. You can't even accept that what you want is something different from what has been established in law for centuries, but you claim there is a legal right to it, even if it has never been defined as such....

Wasn't the greatness of the Constitution and perhaps similar documents that they established in law rights that had not been so established in law before?

Yes, but it was via the amendment process and overwhelming consent, not made up by a bunch of un-elected lawyers.

What's your plan to protect rights once you've abolished the Supreme Court?

 

[martybegan]

The SC can rule on whether state laws banning gay marriage are constitutional. It cannot decree that gay marriage is constitutional. Do you understand the difference?

There's no such thing as "gay marriage," there's only one marriage law in each of the 50 states same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

What a bunch of doublethink. You can't even accept that what you want is something different from what has been established in law for centuries, but you claim there is a legal right to it, even if it has never been defined as such....

Wasn't the greatness of the Constitution and perhaps similar documents that they established in law rights that had not been so established in law before?

Yes, but it was via the amendment process and overwhelming consent, not made up by a bunch of un-elected lawyers.

Nice non sequitur. Judges are not 'unelected'. They are indirectly elected. A person becomes a judge in pretty much the same way a bill becomes law.

They are not elected, they are appointed and given consent by elected officials, but they are un-elected. And you ignored the rest of my point because you have no response to it.