The Republican presidential race appears to have shifted from debating the economy to discussing social issues - same-sex marriage, abortion and, amazingly enough, birth control. The year is 2012 and ...
Mitt Romney believes that his best line of attack is making the claim that he has not spent a moment as a D.C. politician while his two main opponents, Newt ...
No two ways about it, Rick Santorum had a good night. Not only did he sweep Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri but he also got off the best line of the ...
Few would argue the fact that Citizens United has been a major player in the Republican primary...and many if not most would concede that none of it has been healthy ...
As if you needed another reason to not vote Romney.
Celebrity business magnate Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney for president Thursday, telling reporters he will not mount an independent campaign if ...
In a perfect world, the Republican contest to find a nominee to face Barack Obama would go on forever...or at least until August. You cannot attach a number to the ...
I suspect there are a ton of conservatives secretly agreeing with Begala and while it's too early in the game for Dems to get cocky, it's difficult to not smile ...
Quotes don't get much better than this one by Bob Dole.
"Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?" asked a perplexed Gingrich, to whom Dole bluntly ...
After the beating Gingrich took last night, it's hard to imagine under what scenario he can make a comeback. Florida is going to Romney and for Gingrich to regain the ...
There's a lot out there on the President's SOTU, so I'll keep my thoughts short and sweet.
The speech did what it had to do which was target liberals and independents ...
The highlights from last night's debate.
- Newt Gingrich can't wait to become president so he can revisit the early 60s and overthrow Castro in Cuba. War, baby, war.
- Santorum, who ...
It appears that the South Carolina verdict is forcing Romney to start taking Gingrich seriously.
“We’re not choosing a talk show host, we’re choosing a leader,” Romney said, saying that their ...
Mike Huckabee offers advice to Mitt Romney concerning his unreleased tax returns.
Let him [Romney] make this challenge: "I'll release my tax returns when Barack Obama releases his college transcripts and ...
Via Political Humor...
"Mitt Romney is coming under fire because even though he is a multimillionaire, he only paid 15 percent in taxes. That's not a tax, that's barely a tip." ...
Good line.
My guess is that after Romney fails to beat Obama in the general, Huntsman will be back in 2016. The most electable guy in the field and he could ...
I found this pretty funny...and accurate. It comes from a reader over at Balloon Juice.
So, let’s review. The contenders for the GOP nomination are
A vulture capitalist who believes that any ...
Lively little debate going on at one of last week's posts with Libertarianism put under the microscope.
ocLiberal:
I know I am in sketchy territory here, (start the indignant shouting now) but ...
In the contest to determine the winner of the Far-Right Politics gold medal, rack up a few more points for Newt Gingrich.
“I think an intelligent conservative wants the right federal ...
Via Political Humor...
"Congratulations to Mitt Romney. He won the New Hampshire primary last night. See, this is proof that even the multimillionaire son of a multimillionaire can beat the odds ...
Hey, you know that cacophony of noise in the background I wrote of a couple of posts back? Well now it’s extended to this latest breaking news. Vermont has just legalized gay marriage. Yeah!!
“Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage _ and the first to do so with a legislature’s vote.
The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.
The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.
It’s now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.”
It’s all coming together. The battle for gay rights is by no means over but it’s finally moving in the only direction it could – the one which calls for equality and a respect for human rights.
And to all those who oppose gay marriage…in your face!
“The D.C. Council voted today to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, on the same day that Vermont became the fourth state to legalize same-sex unions.”
“Domestic partnerships are already legal in the nation’s capital. But today’s vote, billed as an important milestone in gay rights, explicitly recognizes relocated gay married couples as married.”
Freepers are calling on a boycott of Vermont. Andy Martin called on a boycott of Hawaii a few days ago. At this pace, you’ve got to wonder where they will all end up huddled in a few months?
In a bunker in Glenn Beck’s home. These wingnuts are getting wackier by the day. It’s hard to believe that this stuff is real and that we’re not all watching some silly movie. As someone commented here, Obama has really done a number on these guys.
The joke’s on you, obamaman. You were trying to mock Vermont but in fact you’re just further mocking the Republican party.
One of the authors of the article you linked to is Ian Baldwin who just happens to have been a Senior Policy Advisor in the Reagan White House Office of Policy Development.
More evidence that the Republican ideology attracts an excess of loonies.
If you say so. I prefer to view the joke quite differently as there are several hundred articles discussing Vermont’s effort at secession. That was just the first one. I have made up my mind to waste as little effort as necessary on comments here. Nothing to be gained trying to inform wing nuts or loonies of either variety.
There is an upside. There is banter about Vermont joining with Quebec to form a sovereign country. I say good riddance on both parts.
I can’t blame you. I understand how truth can be a difficult thing to accept to one who is locked into a failed ideology. And as we all know, “truth does have a liberal bias”
“And as we all know, “truth does have a liberal bias”
Only in the blinded eyes of Radical, liberal wing nuts and loonies my friend.
But then, it’s not about me or my views…or is it? You are okay with Same Sex “Marriage”. I am not. And I still ask, exactly what is a “Gay” Right? And if you give Gays the “right” to a traditional marriage (which I’m not sure “marriage” would be considered a “right” in the traditional sense), does that not encroach on the rights of the majority who still cling to the traditional views of marriage? (I know. The same embittered group clinging to guns and religion.)
But if you insist on taking the argument to a personal level, I would simply ask you what makes YOUR personal values and beliefs any better than mine?
How is granting gays the right to marriage “encroach” on the rights of the majority? How are you effected in any possible way? Seriously, what is it to you or anyone else that two people of the same sex wish to have the exact same rights as you?
The “rights of the majority” are not being effected here. And if so, then please point out how.
As for taking my comments on a personal level, please point out how I have written anything about you personally? Certainly it is my right, as is yours, to find fault with segments of society. In this case, it is my critical view of conservative ideology. In yours, it is your critical view of liberal ideology. So when I write critically of conservatives/Republicans, I don’t have an image of ‘obamaman’ in my head. Sorry if that disappoints you.
If you fall into a group I’m critical of, so be it. I don’t take personal offense when others find fault with liberals and I suggest that you shouldn’t either when I or others are critical of conservatives.
This is only one sampling. There are many more. Regardless of personal feelings, the majority of Americans disapprove of Same Sex marriages. Do they not have the “Right” to protect their traditional view points?
If you don’t think your manner of grouping people according to your narrow definitions, then calling them names is personal in nature…well… I guess I have nothing to say.
Why would polls have any bearing on the matter when it comes to human rights? If polls were the means by which basic laws were passed, African Americans would still be riding the back of the bus in the South.
Human rights transcend “traditional view points” any day of the week. History is filled with traditional view points which were just plain wrong. Slavery, women voting, child labor, women’s rights, etc. Religion of all types are filled with traditional view points which have been put aside in favor of allowing society and humankind to evolve in an age of enlightenment.
There are still societies, for example, which view women as subservient to men. We could both agree, I think, that retaining ‘traditional view points’in favor of change would be an inadequate argument for the status quo.
Again, I make the simple point that Bill and Harry getting married in the same way that heterosexuals do, does not alter your life in any form or fashion.
Leave it to Vermont and Iowa to be the most progressive states in the nation, shame on us here in California for passing Prop 9. Whether you call it Gay Marriage or Civil Union, the basic premise is that every person should have equal rights. It’s good to see that some states are progressing, I made a list on my site of the states I think will legalize Gay Marriage first: http://www.toptentopten.com/topten/first+states+that+will+legalize+gay+marriage
I totally agree with you with regard to this very testy issue among americans. What does sexual preference have to do with human rights? What does religion have to do with politics?
Mario, thanks for all your commnents on this particular issue. I agree with all your statements above about civil liberties and rights. These have been abused for too many years and it is time that it is stopped all throughout the 50 states.
Good post, Vince. You make a great point on your site where you write, “And the argument that people want to preserve the sanctity of ‘marriage’, how do you justify that when 50% of them end up in divorce.”
Yes Debbie, the essence of human rights is about equality for all regardless of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.
I have no doubt that the ‘sanctity of marriage’ or ‘preserving tradition’ arguments are nothing more than red herrings used to mask deeper feelings of resentment or fear about gays and lesbians.
Objection to Same Sex Marriage is nothing akin to the examples of oppression you have mentioned here. But you people WANT it to be viewed the same. Being Gay is not equivalent to being black, a slave, a woman, an abused child.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. That’s the way I feel. And it’s not eccentric or hurtful to anyone in any manner. If you wish to have your opinion valued and respected, I would suggest you extend the same courtesy to others.
“Yes Debbie, the essence of human rights is about equality for all regardless of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.”
By that criteria, then we have no right to be prosecuting pedophiles, which by the way, are thought to definitely be genetically influenced.
This is routine behavior for radical liberals. The moment someone disagrees with your radical views, you begin to label them. You do not favor same sex marriage? Homophobe!! You question Obama’s capability to be President? Racist!!
Let’s see…..wing nut, loony, moronic, simpleton, on and on and on and on and………
Pedophiles are committing a crime, but same sex marriages are not committing a crime they are just exercising their free will to choose who they will love. That is personal.
I hate labels and name calling and there is a lot of that going on on this web site. There is no reason to attack or label someone because of a different view. The act can be attacked but a personal label and attack on a person or group is unacceptable.
If you knew me you would know that the last thing I am is predicatable and very far from tiring! But I will agree to disagree with you and move on.
Freepers are calling on a boycott of Vermont. Andy Martin called on a boycott of Hawaii a few days ago. At this pace, you’ve got to wonder where they will all end up huddled in a few months?
In a bunker in Glenn Beck’s home. These wingnuts are getting wackier by the day. It’s hard to believe that this stuff is real and that we’re not all watching some silly movie. As someone commented here, Obama has really done a number on these guys.
http://digg.com/d171gl
Vermont…a great source of reasonable thought. Tell them to please turn off the lights.
The joke’s on you, obamaman. You were trying to mock Vermont but in fact you’re just further mocking the Republican party.
One of the authors of the article you linked to is Ian Baldwin who just happens to have been a Senior Policy Advisor in the Reagan White House Office of Policy Development.
More evidence that the Republican ideology attracts an excess of loonies.
If you say so. I prefer to view the joke quite differently as there are several hundred articles discussing Vermont’s effort at secession. That was just the first one. I have made up my mind to waste as little effort as necessary on comments here. Nothing to be gained trying to inform wing nuts or loonies of either variety.
There is an upside. There is banter about Vermont joining with Quebec to form a sovereign country. I say good riddance on both parts.
I can’t blame you. I understand how truth can be a difficult thing to accept to one who is locked into a failed ideology. And as we all know, “truth does have a liberal bias”
Best of luck to you.
“And as we all know, “truth does have a liberal bias”
Only in the blinded eyes of Radical, liberal wing nuts and loonies my friend.
But then, it’s not about me or my views…or is it? You are okay with Same Sex “Marriage”. I am not. And I still ask, exactly what is a “Gay” Right? And if you give Gays the “right” to a traditional marriage (which I’m not sure “marriage” would be considered a “right” in the traditional sense), does that not encroach on the rights of the majority who still cling to the traditional views of marriage? (I know. The same embittered group clinging to guns and religion.)
But if you insist on taking the argument to a personal level, I would simply ask you what makes YOUR personal values and beliefs any better than mine?
How is granting gays the right to marriage “encroach” on the rights of the majority? How are you effected in any possible way? Seriously, what is it to you or anyone else that two people of the same sex wish to have the exact same rights as you?
The “rights of the majority” are not being effected here. And if so, then please point out how.
As for taking my comments on a personal level, please point out how I have written anything about you personally? Certainly it is my right, as is yours, to find fault with segments of society. In this case, it is my critical view of conservative ideology. In yours, it is your critical view of liberal ideology. So when I write critically of conservatives/Republicans, I don’t have an image of ‘obamaman’ in my head. Sorry if that disappoints you.
If you fall into a group I’m critical of, so be it. I don’t take personal offense when others find fault with liberals and I suggest that you shouldn’t either when I or others are critical of conservatives.
“How is granting gays the right to marriage “encroach” on the rights of the majority?”
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
This is only one sampling. There are many more. Regardless of personal feelings, the majority of Americans disapprove of Same Sex marriages. Do they not have the “Right” to protect their traditional view points?
If you don’t think your manner of grouping people according to your narrow definitions, then calling them names is personal in nature…well… I guess I have nothing to say.
Why would polls have any bearing on the matter when it comes to human rights? If polls were the means by which basic laws were passed, African Americans would still be riding the back of the bus in the South.
Human rights transcend “traditional view points” any day of the week. History is filled with traditional view points which were just plain wrong. Slavery, women voting, child labor, women’s rights, etc. Religion of all types are filled with traditional view points which have been put aside in favor of allowing society and humankind to evolve in an age of enlightenment.
There are still societies, for example, which view women as subservient to men. We could both agree, I think, that retaining ‘traditional view points’in favor of change would be an inadequate argument for the status quo.
Again, I make the simple point that Bill and Harry getting married in the same way that heterosexuals do, does not alter your life in any form or fashion.
Leave it to Vermont and Iowa to be the most progressive states in the nation, shame on us here in California for passing Prop 9. Whether you call it Gay Marriage or Civil Union, the basic premise is that every person should have equal rights. It’s good to see that some states are progressing, I made a list on my site of the states I think will legalize Gay Marriage first: http://www.toptentopten.com/topten/first+states+that+will+legalize+gay+marriage
I totally agree with you with regard to this very testy issue among americans. What does sexual preference have to do with human rights? What does religion have to do with politics?
Mario, thanks for all your commnents on this particular issue. I agree with all your statements above about civil liberties and rights. These have been abused for too many years and it is time that it is stopped all throughout the 50 states.
Good post, Vince. You make a great point on your site where you write, “And the argument that people want to preserve the sanctity of ‘marriage’, how do you justify that when 50% of them end up in divorce.”
So true.
Yes Debbie, the essence of human rights is about equality for all regardless of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.
I have no doubt that the ‘sanctity of marriage’ or ‘preserving tradition’ arguments are nothing more than red herrings used to mask deeper feelings of resentment or fear about gays and lesbians.
Altering my life is not an issue.
Objection to Same Sex Marriage is nothing akin to the examples of oppression you have mentioned here. But you people WANT it to be viewed the same. Being Gay is not equivalent to being black, a slave, a woman, an abused child.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. That’s the way I feel. And it’s not eccentric or hurtful to anyone in any manner. If you wish to have your opinion valued and respected, I would suggest you extend the same courtesy to others.
“Yes Debbie, the essence of human rights is about equality for all regardless of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.”
By that criteria, then we have no right to be prosecuting pedophiles, which by the way, are thought to definitely be genetically influenced.
This is routine behavior for radical liberals. The moment someone disagrees with your radical views, you begin to label them. You do not favor same sex marriage? Homophobe!! You question Obama’s capability to be President? Racist!!
Let’s see…..wing nut, loony, moronic, simpleton, on and on and on and on and………
You’re so predictable….and tiring.
Pedophiles are committing a crime, but same sex marriages are not committing a crime they are just exercising their free will to choose who they will love. That is personal.
I hate labels and name calling and there is a lot of that going on on this web site. There is no reason to attack or label someone because of a different view. The act can be attacked but a personal label and attack on a person or group is unacceptable.
If you knew me you would know that the last thing I am is predicatable and very far from tiring! But I will agree to disagree with you and move on.