Thompson backs state bans on same-sex marriage

Palm Beach Post ^ | November 16, 2007 | George Bennett

[FastCoyote]

Man, Fred ought to Pay good money to run that log cabin ad of Mitt’s. It would put the nail in the coffin.

[mission9]

“Man, Fred ought to Pay good money to run that log cabin ad of Mitt’s. It would put the nail in the coffin.”

Is that the TV ad where he fires Larry Craig?

So you are out of the New Hampshire push polling phone bank operation smearing Mormons, for the evening, and you have time for a little gay bashing. Log Cabin Republicans are a part of the party, get over it.

It is a good thing that Fred has way more class than his minions.

[Saundra Duffy]

“Has Romney said that he wants abortionist prosecuted?”

Romney supports a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution - you know, like the one in the Republican platform that Fred Thompson is against.

[RatsDawg]

Hmm...too bad the Romneys $100 dollar check to Planned Parenthood probably ended a life, should he prosecute himself?

[FastCoyote]

“So you are out of the New Hampshire push polling phone bank operation smearing Mormons, for the evening, and you have time for a little gay bashing. Log Cabin Republicans are a part of the party, get over it.”

Au contraire, I was delighted to see the log cabin republicans endorsing Mitt’s pro-choice, pro-gay marriage stands. When you know the real Mitt, how can you not love the loveable flip-flopper! He’s perfect you know!

[FastCoyote]

“Romney supports a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution - you know, like the one in the Republican platform that Fred Thompson is against.”

You mean, the Amendment that has been around 35 years and has zero chance of passing?

It seems to me that your position is similar to trying to get pregnant by marrying a eunuch - all the hoping in the world isn’t going to give birth to the Human Life Amendment. However, overturning Roe v Wade and sending it back to the states is in reach . But if you are married to Romney’s ideas, don’t hold your breath waiting for any results.

[Lexinom]

Bingo! The woman was and should be considered a second victim of abortion, not a perpetrator. Historically, under the Amen Investigations in New York in the 40's and 50's, the law was enforced against abortionists - not women - with sting operations and upon conviction, fines and imprisonment.

Fred's statements betray a woeful ignorance on this subject, though he can hardly be singled out as such ignorance of pre-Roe abortion law enforcement is epidemic.

[StAnDeliver]

"You are not seriously arguing that after years of anti-family bias in the media, this nation has not gone down in our aprieciation [sic] and respect for the nuclear family. Twenty years ago, even Al Gore returned contributions from the gay community.

I am still waiting for a serious challenge to my correct analysis, people. True to vacuous phredonia form, the attacks are all about me.

Or this kind of inanity that if California permits gay marriage or fails to stop abortion, somehow the Bible Belt will continue to survive with the remnant of our parent’s moral heritage. That 70% is a remnant, one hundred years ago, it was 99%"

First of all, sober up.

Secondly, Gore hung out with hate pimp Freddie Phelps long before he started sending back contributions with SanFran postmarks.

Third, there's no way you could play the victim -- you're just not that good. You're another one of those doofuses like Arator or Nopardons who somehow long escaped banning, bargaining for the weakest arguments in the thread and ignoring the truth, which you have done so in a remarkably mawkish manner here.

However, in my magnanimous mood, I will stoop to conquer and attempt to communicate with you on your level: the essential part of your argument is hogwash, because of your schizophrenic self-contradictions -- if, in your estimation, according to your own words, "media centers" have the capacity to drive "public opinion" into "believing that one man, one woman [will someday be] a hate crime"; and yet somehow "70% of the population" at this very moment supports "one man one woman as they do now", begs the question (other than the more obvious - why are you a such a jackass) -- if these "media centers" are invested with the power you so laughably portray them as having, why is traditionalism just 70% right "now"? Why not 40%, or 20%? You can't answer that because you have no argument, you just wanted to disrupt the thread, Romulan pimp.

Why would any reasonable human being assert that the MSM would not do it "right now"? You moron. The MSM would do it if they could, but that wave has crested and passed, because of the new media -- an essential part of which I am using to abuse you this very moment. Schadenfreude!

[mission9]

Your insults prove me correct. The lack of civility in your response is clear proof of the downward spiral of Western culture. Please connect the dots. Sexual immorality and confusion is just another side of the same coin. Your argument fails to recognize that the Internet new media is value neutral, and can be used to debase as well as uplift. Although you can not see such sin in yourself, have you cruised myspace lately? Why do you think sexual predators use it? Because this is were they find agape?

And if you really believe that the media centers have no real impact on public opinion, then be my guest to become the Jeremiah of Madison Ave. Save the Pillsburys of the world from wasting so much dough.

Please learn to read and understand English at the college level. I expose the religious intolerant for breakfast and then dissemble hapless fredhead for lunch. If I had any respect for your argument, I would report your obvious abuse of the posting guidelines, but you are not worth a byte, much less the keystrokes.