Posted on 10/06/2007 12:19:34 PM PDT by blogsforthompson.com
You’re mighty brave when you’re talking behind someone’s back. Are the courtesies at FR too much for you?
Case in point.
Hardly behind your back, my posting was in the open for you and everyone else to see.
But if it makes you feel any better, your obtuse.
I dislike Romney because he’s a Mormon? I take it you are a student of the Hugh Hewitt School.
I suppose I dislike Rudy because he’s Catholic?
Oh, and since I’m not a fan of Bush these days I must have developed a newfound aversion for evangelicals.
Let’s see...who else can I hate?
Obama because he’s black of course.
Hillary because she’s a woman (even though I’m a woman).
I disliked Miers because she was a woman and gosh darn it didn’t go to Yale.
I want secure borders because I can’t handle people with a different skin color and language in this country.
You sound like a Liberal. If we don’t support somebody it must be because of their sex, their race, their religion, and whatever other garbage they level. It can’t simply be because they are Liberals, and that Mitt until his choice to grace us on the presidential stage was/very likely still IS a LIBERAL. Nah, couldn’t be that is why a CONSERVATIVE site has such an aversion to Romney while it favors Thompson and Hunter. of course not...
As things stand right now the courts are likely to overturn DOMA since the federal gov't recognized all other state marriages. Fred's plan is no solution to the problem since he won't support an amendment that contains a federal definition of marriage (by whatever name). He is going to make double sure the federal gov't has to recognize homo marriages.
Most of them will. One or two liberal states should not be allowed to radically redefine marriage for the federal government when the other 40+ states are appalled at the idea. An amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman would allow for a consensus throughout the whole United States, rather than let some crazy liberals force this nonsense on everyone. And we should say "no" to marriage by another name as well. We shouldn't be scammed by stupid word games.
Sorry, I call em as I see em. I’ve watched your posts for some time and I find that even when someone presents a cogent concise argument you either refuse to accept the evidence or ignore it completely and move on too something else. Obtuse is defined as willful ignorance and that’s the general impression I get from many of your postings.
I don’t hate Romney, Hunter, or even Guiliani supports as long as they play fair and try to carry on a reasoned debate. With the exception of Paul supporters I respect everyones opinion.
I’m neither lazy nor illiterate....rude, quite possibly. But one thing for certain, if I get bested in a debate I’ll concede the point. Something I’ve yet to see you do. Maybe it’s because your always right....but I doubt it.
Strike the “Rudy” part and you got a deal.
ANYBODY BUT A DEMOCRAT WHICH INCLUDES THE LURKER RUDY!
Says who?
You?
You apparently have forgotten the Thompson’s fundraising last month of approximatel $200,000 a day and over 70,000 unique donors.
Nice try at lying though, really!
Gee I thought I was going to read something current not a cut and edit tape!
The ironic truth? ha! The man who won the Ronald Reagan Award this April is running away, eh?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/04/19/VI2007041900473.html
Romney is the one speaking of the three-legged stool of family values, the economy, and the military.
So, in other words, I haven’t come around to your way of thinking, and I don’t hang around to argue with you [the general ‘you’]. Too bad. There’s no law that says I have to waste my time bickering. If you (specifically) don’t like it, I’ll just have to try to live with it. ~sniff~
Mojo, I agree with you. I believe Romney and Rudy are both equally strong as candidates. My first preference would be Mitt but I would have no problem supporting Rudy.
I also like, and respect, Fred. I just haven’t seen, yet, that he can or will be a strong candidate. And that’s my primary concern. We need someone who can beat the Wicked Witch, and I don’t know if Fred is that man.
Maybe we should let the states decide. Why do we care if one or two go off on a tangent? let them. But we need a law that says we don’t all have to abide by the one or two crazy states lunacy.
So one liberal state should force the federal gov’t to recognize homo marriage? Because that’s what we are really talking about with Fred’s proposed amendment. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t write into the federal constitution, “marriage in these United States is defined whatever crazy way individual states choose to define it” and expect the federal gov’t to be allowed to pick and choose which of those marriages it will recognize and benefit. The only way the federal gov’t can avoid being forced to recognize homosexual marriage is if we define it as only between one man and one woman in the federal constitution. It isn’t a state issue when the federal gov’t recognizes them and provides dozens of benefits.
What they’re looking to do is let one federal court ruling obliterate all the hard word of individual states, sending their little federalism dogma whirling down the porcelain drain along with the American family—all in the name of supporting some guy named Fred.
Exactamundo.
I love Fred. He is a nice guy, and would make a fabulous uncle at Thanksgiving dinner.
But he strikes me as too .... curmudgeon-ee to attract those essential cross-over votes, especially in the electoral-vote heavy Northeast and West.
In today's world, it takes a quick thinker with moxy to be an effective candidate. A savvy public persona.
Is that fair? Nah, it's not.
But it's reality.
I truly believe Romney would win over a lot of undecideds.
Rudy might also. But that gain would be offset by a huge split in the GOP base, due to his liberal stances on illegal immigration, abortion, homo marriage, etc.
The gay marriage issue seems less important to me right now when compared to: the war, the economy, illegal immigrants, unfair trade with china, bloated federal government, out of control spending, etc.
I tend to like the idea of giving more authority to individual states and take away from the authority of the fed. With the marriage issue, maybe this just isn’t practical though. If we have more than one definition of marriage, what happens when people get married in one state then move to another state? Currently there is a form of reciprocity for marriage licenses. It’s no big deal now since the only real differences between states is the legal age at which one can get married. But if one state begins allowing polygamy or gay marriage, or marriage to animals, and the other states ban these...how is reciprocity going to work?
I guess I would still be in favor of letting the states decide the marriage issue provided someone comes up with a good solution regarding the reciprocity issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.