Republicans Kind of Suck … Which Is Why They Will Win Huge in November

[roo_ster]

Frank J nails it and said all there needed to be said about the coming election:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/republicans-kind-of-suck-which-is-why-they-will-win-huge-in-november/?singlepage=true

So the Democrats sucked. But not just plain old, usual politician sucked, but epic levels of suck where it’s hard to find an analog in human history that conveys the same level of suckitude...

It’s Godzilla-smashing-through-a-city level of suck — but a really patronizing Godzilla who says you’re just too stupid and hateful to see all the buildings he’s saved or created as he smashes everything apart.

The GOP will get another chance, looks like.  Let us hope they don't blow it.

[TommyGunn]

The GOP will get another chance, looks like.  Let us hope they don't blow it.

Yeah ... .they'll get two years, and in '12 Obama will campaign against them when he runs for re election.
We'll see .... we'll see. 
I have had enough of the "evil" party .... I want the stupid party!!!!

[Harrison Bergeron]

I'd really love to be a Republican these days, but the crap coming from the party is just as bad as that coming from the Democrats.

While the Democrats lack any spine to do anything, the Republicans are scaring me.

Democrats, all in all, seem to be pretty smart, educated folks.  They just do dumb things, like, this stupid health care law, and their lack of spine in even attempting to pass any tax cuts.  I think most democrats know that the health care law is a loser, and that reform should have looked different, but they were too beholden to their masters, the trial lawyers and doctors to do anything better than what they did.  I can't even begin to make sense of their lack of spine on tax cuts.  Even tax cuts on people like me who make less than 250k is better than no tax cuts at all.  At least make an effort.  NO?  Well geez.

I have no idea how smart the republicans running these days are.  People like Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnel have such extreme message discipline, it makes me wonder if they actually have any education at all.  I was watching the O'Donnel debate with my dad in DE while visiting, and it really sucked to watch.  her democratic opponent, whatever his name was, wiped the floor with her.

That really bothered me.

I *WANT* candidates that know the constitution, and want to follow it to the best of their ability.  I *WANT* candidates that want to cut the defecit, and cut spending.  I *WANT* a candidate to make a big stink if laws don't seem kosher under the constitution.

Unfortunately, I don't see most of these "tea party" candidates being the real deal.  Christine O'Donnel doesn't seem to know wha the constitution says past talking points.  Sharron Angle too. 

I guess what I'm saying is, I want the real deal. 

Having ranted, this is pretty much an intellectual excersise, as only my rep is up for election this cycle.  I'll probably vote straight republican except for the creationist school board candidates.

[lee n. field]

The GOP will get another chance, looks like.  Let us hope they don't blow it.

You know they will.

[AZRedhawk44]

You know they will.

Yup.

We (the sheeple, in order to form a more perfect meadow) will swing Congress in their favor.  They will spend the "political capital" we give them in a pursuit of either graft, increases in power, decreases in opponent power, or bull-shyte topics like gays in the military, gay marriage, federal funding for stem cell research, or abortion.

Given the scope of the TRUE threats facing our country... it just isn't responsible to look into any of those above topics right now.

I expect:
-A repeal of Obamacare that really only repeals about 10% of it, without eliminating any of the entitlement syndrome present in it.
-A big old fisticuffs about something gay.  Mabs will like it, but it will take at least a month of our time in the Capitol building away from more pressing matters.
-A "concession" topic given away by the Repubs while they're in power but don't have the Exec branch.  Probably Amnesty.  They are the Stupid Party^TM, after all.

[HankB]

. . . -A "concession" topic given away by the Repubs while they're in power but don't have the Exec branch.  Probably Amnesty.  They are the Stupid Party^TM, after all.

I hope I'm wrong, but after being sorely disappointed repeatedly by the GOP, I fully expect The Stupid Party^TM to pretend they're engaged in a "statesmanlike bipartisan compromise" while getting nothing - nothing!! - in return. 

Also agree they'll waste time on gay topics, flag topics, abortion, and posturing about earmarks. They'll flit about and issue pompous pronouncements about illegal aliens while carefully avoiding action.

It's my hope that when Obama casts a budget veto and blames the GOP for "shutting down the government" the GOP doesn't just hide their heads in the sand and contemplate their navels the way they did when Billy Jeff pulled that cr@p . . . I'd like to see them come right back and call BHO the bleeping liar he is.

[Perd Hapley]

It’s Godzilla-smashing-through-a-city level of suck — but a really patronizing Godzilla who says you’re just too stupid and hateful to see all the buildings he’s saved or created as he smashes everything apart.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

It’s Godzilla-smashing-through-a-city level of suck — but a really patronizing Godzilla who says you’re just too stupid and hateful to see all the buildings he’s saved or created as he smashes everything apart.

That's so great!

[TommyGunn]

I'd really love to be a Republican these days, but the crap coming from the party is just as bad as that coming from the Democrats.

While the Democrats lack any spine to do anything, the Republicans are scaring me.

Democrats, all in all, seem to be pretty smart, educated folks.  They just do dumb things....

Good grief.  If they were so "smart" they WOULDN'T  have stuffed down the health care bill, which is universally unpopular.
They KNEW it was, too.  
They drink their own kool aid.  
If they were smart they wouldn't have done that;  look at the problem the pollsters are predicting for them.
Not that the Repubs are brilliant.  The sc#e#ed the ***** from 2001 on.....
And BTW, the Teaparty candidates, for the most part, are actually pretty decent.  I don't think debates give candidates the best opportunity to represent themselves these days but I think the media has dumbed them down a lot.  
Ms. O'Donnel has made some mistakes for sure, but she's better than her opponent, for sure.  Unfortunatly, given the state sh is running in and the political reality there, the "bearded Marxist" will win  

[Lennyjoe]

Yea, they will win quite a few seats in Nov. Problem is, not enough of them are true conservatives. So, they won't change much n the next 2 years.

[MechAg94]

I'd really love to be a Republican these days, but the crap coming from the party is just as bad as that coming from the Democrats.

While the Democrats lack any spine to do anything, the Republicans are scaring me.

Democrats, all in all, seem to be pretty smart, educated folks.  They just do dumb things, like, this stupid health care law, and their lack of spine in even attempting to pass any tax cuts.  I think most democrats know that the health care law is a loser, and that reform should have looked different, but they were too beholden to their masters, the trial lawyers and doctors to do anything better than what they did.  I can't even begin to make sense of their lack of spine on tax cuts.  Even tax cuts on people like me who make less than 250k is better than no tax cuts at all.  At least make an effort.  NO?  Well geez.

I have no idea how smart the republicans running these days are.  People like Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnel have such extreme message discipline, it makes me wonder if they actually have any education at all.  I was watching the O'Donnel debate with my dad in DE while visiting, and it really sucked to watch.  her democratic opponent, whatever his name was, wiped the floor with her.

That really bothered me.

I *WANT* candidates that know the constitution, and want to follow it to the best of their ability.  I *WANT* candidates that want to cut the defecit, and cut spending.  I *WANT* a candidate to make a big stink if laws don't seem kosher under the constitution.

Unfortunately, I don't see most of these "tea party" candidates being the real deal.  Christine O'Donnel doesn't seem to know wha the constitution says past talking points.  Sharron Angle too. 

I guess what I'm saying is, I want the real deal. 

Having ranted, this is pretty much an intellectual excersise, as only my rep is up for election this cycle.  I'll probably vote straight republican except for the creationist school board candidates.

1.  What do you mean by Smart?  They were so determined to pass universal health, they voted for a bill they hadn't read yet, and they knew the bill was full of useless crap that would make medical care in this country worse (they already planned to pass a "fix").  Add to that they knew that the bill was wildly unpopular.  Then they did it all again with the banking regulation bill.
   I personally would say they are not smart for sticking to this plan of spending more and more money and racking up more debt to HELP the economy.  Emotional perhaps, but not smart. 

2.  I think you need to evaluate what you want in a politician.  If all you want is an Ivy league educated smooth talking con man, you are getting it.  If you want "normal" people to run for office, you need to realize they won't be so polished.  In addition, most of those current politicians are not nearly so polished as the media and others would lead you to believe.  If they got the same media attention as Angle and O'Donnell, they wouldn't look so good.  If they didn't have armies of staff, advisers, image consultants, and others working for them, they definitely wouldn't look so good. 

3.  On the constitution, I would like them to know it also, but do you really expect them to quote it verbatim in a debate on national TV?  How many of the current Democrats or Republicans in Congress could do that?  I bet very few of them could. 
Also, my impression of the O'Donnell stuff was that she knew the Bill of Rights as well as anyone, but wasn't quite clear enough in her speaking and left herself open to being misinterpreted by the a media that is looking for anything negative they can get.  That is a landmine that is difficult to avoid.

[Monkeyleg]

I posted a reply to Harrison Bergeron last evening, then deleted it, as I wanted to think my reply through a bit more.

Democrats, all in all, seem to be pretty smart, educated folks.  They just do dumb things, like, this stupid health care law, and their lack of spine in even attempting to pass any tax cuts.  I think most democrats know that the health care law is a loser, and that reform should have looked different, but they were too beholden to their masters, the trial lawyers and doctors to do anything better than what they did.  I can't even begin to make sense of their lack of spine on tax cuts.  Even tax cuts on people like me who make less than 250k is better than no tax cuts at all.  At least make an effort.  NO?  Well geez.

As MechAg94 says, the Dem's running the show right now aren't smart. There's a big difference between book smarts and real world smarts. What we have in the White House now are a bunch of academics who want to implement policies that sound good in theory but have been disproved in practice over the last 100+ years. If they had some people with experience in the business world, they'd be much better off. They're following the FDR playbook without realizing that FDR made the Depression the Great Depression through those same policies.

I sat up until after 2 am last night watching the entire O'Donnel/Coon debate just to see how much it "sucked". While O'Donnel obviously didn't have the debate experience that Coon did, nor the policy wonkishness, it was pretty clear where she is coming from philosophically.

Coon, Blitzer, the other moderator, and the audience got the whole First Amendment issue wrong. O'Donnel didn't clarify her remarks well enough, but Coon idea of a separation of church and state is at odds with the text of the First Amendment, while O'Donnel's is not. (For those interested, the first SC opinion to cite a separation of church and state was written in 1947 by Justice Hugo Black. Do some research on the guy, as he's a real piece of work. Former KKK member, etc).

Coon got away with lying on a number of points, but did get called on a couple. When O'Donnel accused him of raising taxes, he tried to skate around it and deny it. When Blitzer finally pressed him on it, well, Coon had to admit that he did raise taxes. He had his reasons, but he had to change his answer first.

He also tried to lie his way out of O'Donnel's charge that he stood to gain financially from Cap and Tax. I thought O'Donnel did a pretty good job of explaining his ties to the family business, and how he would personally benefit from the bill. When Blitzer finally pressed him on the issue, Coon had to admit that he did stand to gain.

It was clear early on that Coon's strategy was to reply with remarks intended to imply that O'Donnel wasn't making sense (even when she was) or was stupid, rather than answer questions. It was a somewhat subtle way of attacking her while evading the subject.

I didn't have time to watch the Angle/Reid debate, but accounts I've read have said that Reid did a terrible job, and didn't seem ready for the debate, or even interested.

Now, with the discussion of these two radical conservative women out of the way, let's look at the tax issue. Am I to understand that you'd rather the Republicans give you your tax credit now, rather than try to act on principle and extend the tax cuts for all? That the Republicans should give you yours, but go ahead and gouge the people who create the jobs? That seems awfully short-sighted, and not a good idea with the economy as it is now. The Republican's firm stance is already getting some Democrats to talk about a "temporary" extension of credits to all taxpayers.

I get the impression that you read and watch news from the mainstream media. Just a guess, and no slight is intended, but it does sound like you've perhaps inadvertently ingested some of the media talking points.

[Harrison Bergeron]

1.  What do you mean by Smart?  They were so determined to pass universal health, they voted for a bill they hadn't read yet, and they knew the bill was full of useless crap that would make medical care in this country worse (they already planned to pass a "fix").  Add to that they knew that the bill was wildly unpopular.  Then they did it all again with the banking regulation bill.
   I personally would say they are not smart for sticking to this plan of spending more and more money and racking up more debt to HELP the economy.  Emotional perhaps, but not smart. 

2.  I think you need to evaluate what you want in a politician.  If all you want is an Ivy league educated smooth talking con man, you are getting it.  If you want "normal" people to run for office, you need to realize they won't be so polished.  In addition, most of those current politicians are not nearly so polished as the media and others would lead you to believe.  If they got the same media attention as Angle and O'Donnell, they wouldn't look so good.  If they didn't have armies of staff, advisers, image consultants, and others working for them, they definitely wouldn't look so good. 

3.  On the constitution, I would like them to know it also, but do you really expect them to quote it verbatim in a debate on national TV?  How many of the current Democrats or Republicans in Congress could do that?  I bet very few of them could. 
Also, my impression of the O'Donnell stuff was that she knew the Bill of Rights as well as anyone, but wasn't quite clear enough in her speaking and left herself open to being misinterpreted by the a media that is looking for anything negative they can get.  That is a landmine that is difficult to avoid.

What do I mean by smart?  Primarily, I mean that they have an education.  They understand at least college level English, science, economics, civics, and math.  I want someone that can understand, and speak proper english.  I did not know much english until I moved here, and I learned it.  Being born here, you should speak it perfectly.  I want someone who understands the scientific method, and doesn't put up with bad science.  I want someone who has a good understanding of the constitution, and the law.  I want someone who knows that 2+2=4, so they can put together a budget.

Christine O'Donnell scary to me.  She has gotten really good at parroting talking points.  That's all i ever see any politician do these days; parrot talking points.  Christine O'Donnell obviously doesn't understand that the supreme court has ruled that the first amendment effectively says there is a seperation of church and state.  I can name 10 decisions from the supreme court since 1948 that say just that, offhand.  (I'll post those decisions below.)  Sure, that phrase is not in the constitution.  The 1st amendment, as interpreted by the supreme court since 1948 says that.  It's not as clear cut as "That phrase isn't in the constitution".

A bit of background from me, here.  My parents escaped Iran with me in 1989, for America specifically because of America's "melting pot" attitude, and secular legal system. (Secular, meaning not "christian" or not "Muslim")

I have seen and have stories of what a theocracy can do, and the idea that my home country could even bend that way scares me a whole lot.

Please don't think that I am a fan of the Democrats more so than the Republicans, I am not.  To better clarify my previous statement, I think they are smart, learned people too afraid to do what they feel is right (wether or not i agree with them is irrelevant to this.)  2 good examples of this would be Obama's refusal to end the gay ban on the military, and the Democratic majority in congress refusing to even try and vote on the tax cuts until after the election.

I would generally call myself a Republican, except that party's propensity to favor the religious is a non starter for me, for reasons I explained above.  I think the Democrats have the right idea on some things like health care (but the law they passed is terrible) as well as ideas for equality for gays and the like.

The name I use on this forum comes from a Kurt Vonnegut story I read years ago. It is about a future America where the government enforces equality by knocking the exceptional down to an average level.  My views on government are somewhat like this; being that government cannot enforce equality on people.  I do not think the government should "make" people equal, but I do think they should help, when the investment is a good one, in helping people be better.  They should not make it harder, only make it easier, if it makes economic sense.  In this sense, I agree with the republican party.  I am probably socially a Democrat, and economically a Republican; so my politics are strange I think.

As far as mainstream media, I am also not a fan.  My father says cable and TV news reminds him too much of the propaganda he used to see in Iran; far too little real news, and far too much puff and crud meant to entertain rather than inform.  I try and read from as many different sources as I can.

I am answering multiple replies to my post here, I hope I did not miss anything.
----

Court cases:
McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) (religious instruction in public schools violates establishment clause)

Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) (State cannot force people to swear to the existence of God to hold public office)

Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) (bible reading over school PA violates establishment clause)

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) (banning evolution violates establishment clause)

Stone v. Graham (1981) (posting 10 commandments unconstitutional)

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) (moment of silence unconstitutional - read this one, its more complicated than it sounds)

Edwards v. Aquillard (1987) (creation science teaching, with religious motivation unconstitutional)

Allegheny County v. ACLU (1989) (nativity scene inside govt building)

Lee v. Weisman (1992) (school district cannot provide religious instruction at school graduation)

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah (1994)

[roo_ster]

What do I mean by smart?  Primarily, I mean that they have an education.  They understand at least college level English, science, economics, civics, and math.  I want someone that can understand, and speak proper english.  I did not know much english until I moved here, and I learned it.  Being born here, you should speak it perfectly.  I want someone who understands the scientific method, and doesn't put up with bad science.  I want someone who has a good understanding of the constitution, and the law.  I want someone who knows that 2+2=4, so they can put together a budget.

Good luck with that.  Tell us when you find one & we'll have a party(1). 

FTR, most policritters are lawyers and have the following characteristics (among others):
1. Scientific buffoons and innumerate
2. May understand the COTUS, but do not adhere to it

Christine O'Donnell scary to me. 

You sure do scare easy. 

I'd suggest less Christophobia. 

And try to understand that however many other folks have come to America, its founders were of English & N European extract.  That includes Christianity, even if only honored in a muddled fashion by the many irreligious folks in America, who get their values system in a second-hand/picked up in a back alley sort of way. (IOW, rubbed off via the shared culture, shorn of the religious aspects.)
 


(1) One requirement: they have held elective office.

[MechAg94]

Sure, that phrase is not in the constitution.  The 1st amendment, as interpreted by the supreme court since 1948 says that.  It's not as clear cut as "That phrase isn't in the constitution".

It actually is pretty clear cut.  That phrase isn't in the 1st Amendment.  That was her point.  However, I don't think her or anyone else fails to realize that court precedent is a major part of how we apply that amendment.

[Monkeyleg]

The "separation of church and state' argument is a fairly recent one, and has been used primarily by atheists and secularists to ban religious displays (nativity scenes, the Ten Commandments, etc) on public property.

We are in no danger of becoming a theocracy, which is in part what the religious portion of the First Amendment was designed to protect us from. The "separation of church and state" crowd wants religion--or, more specifically, Christianity--out of the public arena entirely.

They can cry "precedent" as loud as they like, but the SC precedents go back only to Hugo Black. If we want to use other SC decisions as precedent, why not Dredd Scott, or other outrageous rulings? Or are we only to cherry-pick the precedents that reinforce our arguments?

Harrison, if you were to pay closer attention to the Tea Party movement, I think you might be surprised to see that it's composed primarily of people whose issue is economic. People in the movement have views on social issues that are all over the map, but they're coming together to oppose the enormous spending and waste of taxpayer dollars. It's not the extreme right wing movement that it's been painted to be.

[TommyGunn]

...Please don't think that I am a fan of the Democrats more so than the Republicans, I am not.  To better clarify my previous statement, I think they are smart, learned people too afraid to do what they feel is right (wether or not i agree with them is irrelevant to this.)  2 good examples of this would be Obama's refusal to end the gay ban on the military, and the Democratic majority in congress refusing to even try and vote on the tax cuts until after the election.

I'm sorry, but I find the idea that they are "too afraid to do what they feel is right"  is ludicrous.  Why else do they pass a HORRIBLE health care bill that the plurality of the people were against, and whom now want repealed?  The problem is they share the same foolish courage General Custer showed at the Little Bighorn.  

I would generally call myself a Republican, except that party's propensity to favor the religious is a non starter for me, for reasons I explained above.  I think the Democrats have the right idea on some things like health care (but the law they passed is terrible) as well as ideas for equality for gays and the like.

Every once in a while, a republican says something on the topic of religion I don't think is particularly smart, but for the most part they seem more interested in religious liberty than not -- an idea I find sadly lacking in the ranks of the democrats.
We can quote court cases about a "wall of separation between church & state" all day long, but the fact remains the purpose of the 1st amendment's religion claus was intended to protect the church from the state.  The first amendment starts out; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."  Notice it says "CONGRESS shall ...", it doesn't say anything at all about any other political or geographical or legal entity.  Notice, also, the clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  It seems to me many of the court cases have actually infringed on that clause in particular ... and especially those in which it was NOT congress placing a icon of the ten commandments in some building, or a religious icon of some sort in a court building in Flyover County, USA.

The name I use on this forum comes from a Kurt Vonnegut story I read years ago. It is about a future America where the government enforces equality by knocking the exceptional down to an average level.  My views on government are somewhat like this; being that government cannot enforce equality on people.  I do not think the government should "make" people equal, but I do think they should help, when the investment is a good one, in helping people be better.  They should not make it harder, only make it easier, if it makes economic sense.  In this sense, I agree with the republican party.  I am probably socially a Democrat, and economically a Republican; so my politics are strange I think.

"Socially" a democrat and "economically" a republican is indeed a odd mixture.  If the dimwit repubs hadn't spent the last decade spending like drunk sailors I would inquire how one can rationalize the spending spree and the taxation the demos have traditionally engaged in in pursuing their leftist social agenda while approving of the (supposedly) frugal, minimalist government the repubs (at one time) espoused.  This may become a valid argument again one day, since Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al, seem so hell-bent on doubling down on big government entitlements.

As far as mainstream media, I am also not a fan.  My father says cable and TV news reminds him too much of the propaganda he used to see in Iran; far too little real news, and far too much puff and crud meant to entertain rather than inform.  I try and read from as many different sources as I can.....

To a large extent I agree with this.    Broadcast TV is obnoxious and the agenda is blatant.  Some cable as well.  MSNBC is bad .... CNN  (IMHO) is ok but used to be worse.  Fox News is probably the best .... but they aren't perfect and I occasionally feel a desire to throw some inanimate object at a talking head.... restraining myself heroically when I think how much $$ I paid out for that nice LCD panel TV

[Perd Hapley]

I would generally call myself a Republican, except that party's propensity to favor the religious is a non starter for me, for reasons I explained above.  I think the Democrats have the right idea on some things like health care (but the law they passed is terrible) as well as ideas for equality for gays and the like.

A few disparate things to explode here, so they must be broken up.

I think the Democrats have the right idea on some things like health care (but the law they passed is terrible)

Which is it?

I think the Democrats have the right idea on some things like...equality for gays and the like.

The Republicans also have the right idea on equality for gays, they just keep passing terrible laws, right?    No, seriously, the Republicans favor equality for homosexuals. Where did you get the idea they didn't?

that party's propensity to favor the religious is a non starter for me, for reasons I explained above.

No, really you didn't.  How do they favor the religious, and how is that a problem for anyone?

[HForrest]

No, seriously, the Republicans favor equality for homosexuals. Where did you get the idea they didn't?

Mainly from all the notable republicans who advocate for constitutional amendments to prevent same sex couples from being granted legal protections that other couples are eligible for, or argue that they should be kept out of the military.

[Monkeyleg]

...from being granted legal protections that other couples are eligible for...

There are other ways for gays to achieve the legal protections they want without redefining marriage. It's changing the meaning of marriage that has drawn opposition, and not just because it's gays who want to redefine it. If marriage can be redefined to include a man and a man, then there's no way that states can prohibit polygamy or perhaps even set minimum ages for marriage.

[MicroBalrog]

Are you argunig that marriage must never be redefined?

[Perd Hapley]

Mainly from all the notable republicans who advocate for constitutional amendments to prevent same sex couples from being granted legal protections that other couples are eligible for, or argue that they should be kept out of the military.

On the first issue, homosexuals have always had perfect equality in the realm of marriage. I have never heard of any jurisdiction denying a marriage license based on the applicant's sexual proclivities, or of any amendment that promotes such. Please explain what you mean.

On the second issue, the military allows homosexuality so long as it is kept quiet. Meanwhile, membership in a secret society like the Ku Klux Klan is not allowed, even if hidden. So if barring open homosexuality is unequal treatment, then I guess the ban on hate group membership is also unequal treatment. Sometimes, one's behavior has consequences. Or in other words, equal opportunity is not a guarantee of equal success.

[grampster]

"They can cry "precedent" as loud as they like, but the SC precedents go back only to Hugo Black. If we want to use other SC decisions as precedent, why not Dredd Scott, or other outrageous rulings? Or are we only to cherry-pick the precedents that reinforce our arguments?"

Monkeyleg for the win.

Harrison, by now you might think you've stepped into the lions den.   Our APS denizens are a group of folks that generally will discuss and argue about anything.  Please don't take any offense for having your remarks critiqued.  We folks are generally quite intelligent, well spoken, check our facts and do not usually put our foot in our mouth.  We tend to defend freedom and liberty.  Your beliefs and opinions will be scrutinized and you may have to defend your position from time to time.  But, I assure you, that you will not be attacked or insulted personally, only your stand on subjects.

Cordially,
grampster
Grand High Poobah and most excellent of all the excellent.

[White Horseradish]

I want someone that can understand, and speak proper english.  I did not know much english until I moved here, and I learned it.  Being born here, you should speak it perfectly.  I want someone who understands the scientific method, and doesn't put up with bad science.  I want someone who has a good understanding of the constitution, and the law.  I want someone who knows that 2+2=4, so they can put together a budget.

Preach on, Professor Higgins! Seriously, most people in politics today are absolutely atrocious public speakers.

You sure do scare easy.  

Nah. It's  just your lack of appropriately bad experiences.

I'd suggest less Christophobia.  

Oooh. Nice. Except it really isn't about Christianity, but rather some branches of it. I was for a time a member of a church council, so you can't really accuse me of being phobic. I am, however, bothered by the way religion gets brought up in politics today. Perhaps this is because I do not belong to one of the more widespread in US denominations. I think it makes little difference whether I get in the crosshairs for being too Christian or not Christian enough.

There are other ways for gays to achieve the legal protections they want without redefining marriage.

Unless these ways are just as easy to get as a marriage license there is an inequality. There are ways to get a FA gun, but you wouldn't say that they are equally available as autoloaders.

If marriage can be redefined to include a man and a man, then there's no way that states can prohibit polygamy or perhaps even set minimum ages for marriage.

What's wrong with polygamy? It's traditional, mentioned in the Bible (a lot). :)  Seriously, I see a few practical reasons for me personally to avoid it, such as the difficulty of finding another woman to put up with me (I won't even try, finding one was hard enough) and perhaps the necessity of rewriting divorce statutes. My church doesn't support it, but that's no reason to prevent anyone else from doing it. Otherwise, what's the objection?

Minimum ages are a different story. Age is a condition of being able to enter into contracts, gender is not.

[Monkeyleg]

Minimum ages are a different story. Age is a condition of being able to enter into contracts, gender is not.

Why is minimum age a different story? If it's a matter of entering into a contract, just change the age for contracts.

If other cultures can have 40 year-old men marry 12 year-old girls, why not ours? As long as we're going to redefine marriage, let's let everyone in so we can have true diversity.

Maybe I can talk my wife into letting me have an 18 year-old as wife #2.

Unless these ways are just as easy to get as a marriage license there is an inequality.

I suppose it depends upon what things we're talking about gay couples getting. Care to elaborate?