Re: Completely misleading story about Newt saying gays should vote for Obama
All Gingrich said was that if the single most important and determinative issue to a gay person was implementing gay marriage, then that person would be disappointed in Newt and probably should vote for Obama.
So, the truth is that Gingrich said that if you care about your own rights, as a gay person, you should vote Obama.
Oh, well!
"Misleading" would be the claim that the reporting on this issue has been misleading. "Misleading" would also be Gingrich's implicit claim that there is any significant number of gay men and women who are thinking to themselves "boy, I'd really like to start a family and these Federal restrictions on my right to marry sure are inconvenient, but what really chaps my ass is a .5% increase in the top marginal tax rate!"
That said, I think this whole story is only significant because Gingrich, perhaps accidentally, said something that was true. In politics that's called a "gaffe."
Did you guys hear? Obama will fly to hawaii for his delayed vacation. The trip will cost tax payers $2 billion a day, according to god's chosen people (rush limbaugh, michele bachman, and other holy republican morally superior people).
quote:Michele Bachmann is no stranger to being heckled on the campaign trail she has faced down glitter bombers and an 8-year-old boy in a bookstore but this one was of a different make and model.
A self-described gay robot stopped by a Bachmann appearance in Iowa City on Thursday.
I am a gay robot, the man said, according to the Iowa City Patch. I oppose Bachmann’s position on gays, whether they are human or robot.
Showing that the candidates are at least good enough for some street theatre.
News is that neither of them could gather the 10,000 signatures necessary to be on the primary ballot in Virginia. That's Virginia where Gingrich lives.
On Wednesday the Gingrich camp were gung-ho about their chances:
Gingrich's spokesman said Wednesday the effort to secure a spot on the Virginia ballot was meant to showcase the campaign's ground game.
"It's a demonstration that Gingrich is outrunning Romney in states beyond Iowa," said press secretary R.C. Hammond.
'Course, now that Romney's succeeded and Gingrich has failed, the Gingrichites are denouncing the Virginian system of collecting signatures as a "failed system" and an affront to democracy, something they forgot to mention when they thought it would be the other way round.
Meanwhile polls show Obama beating Gingrich by sixteen points, because he is so awful.
it seems that, from 12/5 through 12/19, the cave-like Newt Grinch is trailing Obama by only an averaged 9.0 points and should not be judged solely on the last 12/16-18 CNN/Opinion Research poll.
BTW - I may have misspelled something there....i want the spelling software around the world to flag G-I-N-G-R-I-C-H as a a blatant misspelling of G-R-I-N-C-H. Talk about fat fingers around the world.
Just watched Men in Black again. Couldn't help but notice Newt Gingrich as an alien. Was going to put that portion of the video on youtube, but found someone already put it up there.
Why do christians keep repeating this claim that we have freedom of religion not freedom from religion? I mean, do christians not able to read? Here's the first amendment. And don't tell me these people don't speak for the majority. These are the elites from the christian camp, the best they could muster against the rest of us.
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I mean, is there some kind of mental block I'm not aware of? Why can't christians understand that in order to have true freedom of religion everyone must have the freedom from religion so that no one religion can take over the country. And it says so right there in the 1st amendment. And I increased the size of the text so that people can't pretend they can't see that part of the 1st amendment.
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There is no freedom from religion.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Why are you even bothering to talk to Jar? You know what's going to happen - one line, maybe one word replies that don't advance the conversation or elaborate on his points or respond to contrary evidence (just as he's currently completely unresponsive to the portion of the First Amendment you bolded); when you try to elaborate on his arguments in order to draw him out ("are you saying that...") he'll complain that you're misrepresenting him without actually explaining what he did mean. Fruitful discussion has always been impossible with Jar. Let him post his inscrutable, Buz-like arguments. Everybody already knows what an idiot he is; there's no need to risk the possibility that, by talking with him, the rest of EvC might not notice that you're not an idiot as well.
You do not have to belong to any religion, hold any given set of beliefs, but you have no more right to be free of exposure to religion than I have to be free from exposure to lite beer commercials.
The religious folk have a right to market their religion to you, to publicly display and practice their religion.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
™ Version 4.2
(1)
