Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not a of fan of Mrs Romney at all. but is about time those wasteful programs which have zero accountability are cut.It would be so wonderful having Ann Romney as First Lady.
The poor and middle class really need another good fucking.
The constitution prohibits government from restricting our rights. Who the _uck gave you the right to _uck over gays with laws promoting heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage? The right to treat gays as sub-human?Right to marriage is covered by the right to life as marriage is an important part of life. Look it up. Banning gays from marriage via federal laws is against the constitution, and further against the precepts of the civil rights acts. Here is a biased report on the SCOTUS rulings on marriage being a fundamental right. Video 14 Supreme Court Rulings on Marriage American Foundation for Equal Rights
Homosexuals are not banned from marriage. Homosexuals want to make something into marriage that is not marriage. Fucking mailboxes is not marriage, it doesn't matter how much I want it to be, or how many times I claim that it is the same thing, it's just not marriage and I'm not being denied the right to marriage because I can't marry my mailbox. I'm being denied the right to arbitrarily redefine marriage to accommodate my sexual proclivity of fucking mailboxes. That ain't unconstitutional.
As for your mailbox sex question.. What makes you think a mailbox is a consenting adult with the rights and privileges of an American Citizen
NO, I am not. The conservatives who stayed home or voted third party in Nov 2012 gave obama his second term. I am not happy with the old line assholes who control the GOP, but electing liberal democrats is the not the way to fix that problem.
Well I am not happy about an Obama second term and I also don't believe electing liberal democrats will fix the GOP.... but why is it the fault of conservatives when the party elite backed a moderate nominee? Seems to me the people who shat in their hats were the GOP establishment elite, who continue to try and push moderate candidates instead of backing a true conservative. 2012 was the second election in a row where they did that, will 2016 be a repeat? If so, expect the same results.
You are missing the point. Refusing to vote for Romney elected Obama. Yes, we are all pissed at the GOP establishment, but how does electing liberal democrats change anything?
Is a middle of the road moderate republican better than a far left democrat? YES, every day. Wake up, listen to what you are saying.
The constitution prohibits government from restricting our rights. Who the _uck gave you the right to _uck over gays with laws promoting heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage? The right to treat gays as sub-human?Right to marriage is covered by the right to life as marriage is an important part of life. Look it up. Banning gays from marriage via federal laws is against the constitution, and further against the precepts of the civil rights acts. Here is a biased report on the SCOTUS rulings on marriage being a fundamental right. Video 14 Supreme Court Rulings on Marriage American Foundation for Equal Rights
Homosexuals are not banned from marriage. Homosexuals want to make something into marriage that is not marriage. Fucking mailboxes is not marriage, it doesn't matter how much I want it to be, or how many times I claim that it is the same thing, it's just not marriage and I'm not being denied the right to marriage because I can't marry my mailbox. I'm being denied the right to arbitrarily redefine marriage to accommodate my sexual proclivity of fucking mailboxes. That ain't unconstitutional.
As for your mailbox sex question.. What makes you think a mailbox is a consenting adult with the rights and privileges of an American Citizen
No right is being restricted. No one is promoting "heterosexual" marriage, that would be unconstitutional. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, this is not prohibited due to sexuality. There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage" that is what you are fighting for. Gays are not being treated as "sub-human" ...they just aren't allowed to arbitrarily change the definition of 'marriage' to accommodate the sexual lifestyles they are free to have.
As for your "consenting adult" argument, what makes you think "consenting adult" can't be redefined in order to meet my criteria for what I want 'marriage' to be?
The constitution prohibits government from restricting our rights. Who the _uck gave you the right to _uck over gays with laws promoting heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage? The right to treat gays as sub-human?Right to marriage is covered by the right to life as marriage is an important part of life. Look it up. Banning gays from marriage via federal laws is against the constitution, and further against the precepts of the civil rights acts. Here is a biased report on the SCOTUS rulings on marriage being a fundamental right. Video 14 Supreme Court Rulings on Marriage American Foundation for Equal Rights
Homosexuals are not banned from marriage. Homosexuals want to make something into marriage that is not marriage. Fucking mailboxes is not marriage, it doesn't matter how much I want it to be, or how many times I claim that it is the same thing, it's just not marriage and I'm not being denied the right to marriage because I can't marry my mailbox. I'm being denied the right to arbitrarily redefine marriage to accommodate my sexual proclivity of fucking mailboxes. That ain't unconstitutional.
As for your mailbox sex question.. What makes you think a mailbox is a consenting adult with the rights and privileges of an American Citizen
No right is being restricted. No one is promoting "heterosexual" marriage, that would be unconstitutional. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, this is not prohibited due to sexuality. There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage" that is what you are fighting for. Gays are not being treated as "sub-human" ...they just aren't allowed to arbitrarily change the definition of 'marriage' to accommodate the sexual lifestyles they are free to have.
As for your "consenting adult" argument, what makes you think "consenting adult" can't be redefined in order to meet my criteria for what I want 'marriage' to be?
Not true, rights are explicitly being restricted. You are being obtuse.
Not true, there are over 20k individual statues that refer to benefits of marriage that, currently, do not apply to same sex marriages. Thus, by matter of fact, the 20k statues benefit heterosexuals by exclusion of same sex couples, and also btw. by exclusion of singles, and plural marriages, which is another topic.
Catholic/Christian Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, last I checked the government is to be restricted from making Christianity a government authorized religion. If one is restricted by the religious tenants of Christian marriages, clearly that is promoting a particular religion as the state religion.
You say there is no such thing as "homosexual marriage." You might as well just put your hands over your ears and stomp your feet, cause your claim is ludicrous.
Your claim that gays want to change the definition of marriage is equally ludicrous. There are two issues at hand, your religious marriage that allows you to have a relationship between you your god and your wife, and your marriage license, which records the contract between you and your wife as an official record with the state. You can define your religious marriage any damn you and your satan worshiping religion wants to, but your religious beliefs do not give you the right to restrict homosexuals from getting a legal marriage licence from the state.
In blue...Again... there is no such thing as "same sex marriage" just as there is no such thing as "mailbox marriage" or "heterosexual marriage" ...there is just one marriage, the union of a man and woman. You're wrong, a marriage between two people of the same sex is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. They are fundamentally different. Placing a modifier on the front of a term does not change the term, it qualifies it. A marriage between two men or between two women is not a heterosexual marriage it is a homosexual marriage. They already exist. You can deny their existence all you like, you can bury your head in the sand. Won't change the fact that they do in fact exist. For example, an illegal marriage would include a marriage between a man and a little girl of say 10. They could get married illegally if they want, but it would not be seen as a legal marriage by any reasonable person.
It's not being obtuse, it's being honest. No you are being dishonest, I was being nice by calling it obtuse.
Now, if you'd like to dismiss the argument about "marriages" and enter a discussion about civil domestic contracts, I am all for that idea. I used to be a proponent of ripping and replacing federal marriage laws with civil union language but I've come to realize that there are two separate and distinct issues at hand. These Jim Crow like laws against gays need to be stricken from the books. Additionally we need to stop abusing the civil rights of singles, and people who wish to enter into plural marriages. But these are separate issues.
I have no problem with the concept of removing government from the "marriage" business entirely and replacing that with civil union contracts. In fact, I think that is the most reasonable solution to the problem for all parties. So you're ok with blacks riding on the bus so long as they get in the back that about sum up your point? Hey we're all on the same bus why do the blacks (gays) get to complain still?
But you see.... the dirty little secret here is, you don't really WANT the issues resolved, then you won't be able to bash and trash conservatives anymore.
I'm much more of a conservative than you are, conservative does not mean anti-gay or anti-black or anti-any other minority group. Your religious views on morals of gays are religious views not conservative views. Just because there was a movement of religious zelots such as yourself to the republican party in the 80s, does not make your gay bashing views conservative views.
This isn't about you fighting for the rights of gays as much as it's about denigrating conservatives and traditional religious values.
I'm christian, I follow Jesus teachings. My view of some of the old religious laws like types of cloven animals and homosexual acts as being a sin against god is that they need to be revisited, just as Jesus told the people to put down their stones, I don't see laws restricting liberty of gays as anything less than legal stones being tossed about by the sanctimonious religious right.
My politics are constitutional conservative, aka. modern libertarian conservative. I'm 35years married. I'm not gay, never have been gay. I have 3 children.
Romney is a great man who has led an admirable life filled with accomplishments. We'd be lucky to get him! He's exactly the opposite of the dilettante in the White House now....
Romney is a great man who has led an admirable life filled with accomplishments. We'd be lucky to get him! He's exactly the opposite of the dilettante in the White House now....
Romney, to me, is more like a car salesman than a shit clown. I don't like him because he's to much of a socialist/democrat for me. Way to far to the left for my liking. Plus he's ancient, he'll be 69 in 2016. Additionally he's homophobic, when he insulted that veteran by telling him he was sub-human and thus not good enough to get married in out country... he lost all pretense of getting my vote.House,
We are facing an avalanche of dangerous progressivism, Statism, whatever you want to call it. And a good man steps into the arena, and fails. And you call him a shitclown. That is why I made the obvious psychological reference. Let me remind you of something:
You continue to make assumptions about me.
His failure is not even my primary motivator, let alone my sole motivator, for calling him a shitclown.
I made my opinion of the man known in previous posts, so I see no need to rehash them for someone who is too lazy to read but obviously not too busy to bloviate.
Romney is a great man who has led an admirable life filled with accomplishments. We'd be lucky to get him! He's exactly the opposite of the dilettante in the White House now....
Just because his skin is white instead of black doesn't mean he and Obama are "exactly the opposite", racist.
I know you want to suck his cock and all, but it doesn't change the fact that he helped China 100x more than he ever helped the US.
Again, proving my penis compensation theory.
While I know of what you speak, prove your contention that he helped China "100x more" than he helped the U.S.?
Romney is a great man who has led an admirable life filled with accomplishments. We'd be lucky to get him! He's exactly the opposite of the dilettante in the White House now....
Just because his skin is white instead of black doesn't mean he and Obama are "exactly the opposite", racist.
All the polls prove he was elected because of race. When 95% of a certain voter block votes for a black man who never even ran a cash register, obviously race is an issue. Let's hope we've moved past the second first black President.
I think we are going to see a lot more people like me who have voted but are sitting the next one out. Heck I'm sitting out the next governor election in my state of Wisconsin. I voted for walker in the last two including the recall. I'm done . That doesn't cast a vote for the challenger however..
Romney didn't have any good ideas. That was his fatal flaw.
Romney is a great man who has led an admirable life filled with accomplishments. We'd be lucky to get him! He's exactly the opposite of the dilettante in the White House now....
Just because his skin is white instead of black doesn't mean he and Obama are "exactly the opposite", racist.
All the polls prove he was elected because of race. When 95% of a certain voter block votes for a black man who never even ran a cash register, obviously race is an issue. Let's hope we've moved past the second first black President.
The difference between the percentage of blacks who voted for Obama and those who voted for Kerry in '04 was negligible.
I never said it was. Yes you did Rights are for everyone------equally. Except gays right? No special rights for any minority or majority. Except heteros, right? Lots of special rights exclusive to heteros correct?
But you also are missing the point--------------the majority does rule at the polling place, in congress, and in local state and city legislatures. 51% or more voting one way decides what laws all of us will live by. This is a new thing you understand that correct? The Constitution used to bind our laws such that a simple majority could not take our liberties way you got that right?
A majority ratified the constitution, a majority approved the signing of the declaration of independence, a majority found OJ innocent. Most murder trials require a unanimous vote, not a simple majority. There is a marked difference between unanimous, super majority requirements, and simple majority requirements.
Majority rules------------why is that so hard for you to grasp?
In blue. Tyranny of the Majority is not what liberty is about, nimrod.
Romney didn't have any good ideas. That was his fatal flaw.
Thats what the media told you and you are sticking with it---------------------------------
Wrong again. My rights are inherit. YOU DON'T OWN ME. This tyrannical majority, led by authoritarians like you, is restricting our inherit rights.I never said it was. Yes you did Rights are for everyone------equally. Except gays right? No special rights for any minority or majority. Except heteros, right? Lots of special rights exclusive to heteros correct?
But you also are missing the point--------------the majority does rule at the polling place, in congress, and in local state and city legislatures. 51% or more voting one way decides what laws all of us will live by. This is a new thing you understand that correct? The Constitution used to bind our laws such that a simple majority could not take our liberties way you got that right?
A majority ratified the constitution, a majority approved the signing of the declaration of independence, a majority found OJ innocent. Most murder trials require a unanimous vote, not a simple majority. There is a marked difference between unanimous, super majority requirements, and simple majority requirements.
Majority rules------------why is that so hard for you to grasp?
In blue. Tyranny of the Majority is not what liberty is about, nimrod.
you are mixing two different things. rights and voting majorities. Rights are for everyone regardless of their minority or majority status. Rights are conferred on citizens by a majority vote of the citizens.
