Atlanta Weather

Partly cloudy

70° F

Pollen 0

Air quality 71

| Traffic

Luckovich cartoon changes address!

Mike Luckovich’s cartoon has moved to a new ajc.com address. Click here to view and bookmark.

The new format features a larger version of Mike’s cartoon for the day and allow readers to vote. There are also links to recent Luckovich cartoons and special galleries.

Bloggers who want to comment on issues in the news are invited to blog at any of our four other Opinion blogs:

Thinking Right

Jay Bookman

OpinionTalk

Woman to Woman

Home > Opinion > Mike Luckovich > Archives > 2008 > June > 18 > Entry

Wedding competition

By Mike Luckovich | Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 07:23 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Permalink | Comments (136) | Categories: Editorial Cartoon

Comments

Commenting is now closed for this entry.

By AJC/DNC Management

June 18, 2008 8:05 AM | Link to this

Hey, that’s Larry Craig and Barney Frank!

What do you know, Larry Craig must have tap-tap-tapped his way right into that “man’s” heart.

GFY (good for you) Larry, hope you live happily ever after, sicko.

~~~~~

This is how the libs “support” our troops:

{{{{The criminal cases might never have been filed except for an expose in Time magazine three months after the killings. Until then, the deaths had been considered a tragic byproduct of an attack on a Marine convoy by insurgents. Only when top brass learned the magazine was investigating did the military launch its own investigation. Of the eight Marines charged, the only one to go to trial was Lt. Andrew Grayson, who was found not guilty.-Urinal/PMS}}}}

So who are the heroes in this wormy little Urinal story, is it our brave soldiers who have been falsely accused or is it Time, the maggots that started all of this?

Just imagine the gall of these libs, the disdain they must feel for our troops, to blatantly say that if Time hadn’t dragged our soldier’s names through the mud then “justice” would have never been “served.”

Sick.

~~~~~

{{{{Major clash with Taliban forces feared!!!!!!!- Villagers are told to flee as Afghan troops rush in!!!!!!!-Urinal!!!!!/POS!!!!!!}}}}

Oh yeah boy, I’ll bet the Taliban will just roll the NATO forces right into the sea, sure thing.

Geez.

~~~~~

{{{{“What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial,” Obama said. “They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.”}}}}

{{{{As Andrew McCarthy, who was the lead prosecutor in the main World Trade Center case, has noted, indictments of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden failed to prevent the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, the 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing, or the Sept. 11 attacks.}}}}

Not only that, six people died in the first World Trade Center attacks, is this the dhimmokrat idea of protecting the citizens of America, letting them kill you and then prosecuting them for it?

Boy, that’s real comforting.

By IN THE NEWS

June 18, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this

It’s All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married)

A REAL TOE TAPPER….

By IN THE NEWS

June 18, 2008 8:08 AM | Link to this

SYNCHRONIZED FLIP FLOPPING A NEW EVENT IN THE REPUBLICAN OLYMPICS!!!

FROM TPM “McCain flip-flops on offshore drilling moratorium.» Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) offered “a bit of a capitulation to the oil companies” by announcing that he would end the federal ban on offshore oil drilling. Not only is McCain’s move a break with environmental activist, but it is also “a reversal of the position he took in his 2000 presidential campaign.” The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank writes: During his last run for the presidency, in 1999, McCain supported the drilling moratorium, and he scolded the “special interests in Washington” that sought offshore drilling leases. Yesterday, he announced that those very same “moratoria should be lifted” and proposed incentives for the states “in the form of tangible financial rewards, if the states decide to lift those moratoriums.” In 2000, McCain promised to “never lose sight” of fundamental principles on the issue.”

FROM Think Progress Crist Angles For VP Slot: Endorses McCain’s Plan For Florida Oil Drilling Despite Opposing It Last Week

FROM The Kansas City Star “WASHINGTON | President Bush, reversing a longstanding position, will call on Congress today to end a federal ban on offshore oil drilling.”

THESE NUTJOBS ARE PANDERING TO THE PEOPLE, IT”S SO MUCH EASIER THAN FACING THE FACTS.

BUSH, MCCAIN AND CRIST ALL KNOW WE ARE ADDICTED TO OIL…..AND THEY ARE STILL PUSHIN’ THE DRUG. YES, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, LET”S ELECT McCAIN THE PUSHER!

THE REALITY IS HERE

YOU WANNA DRILL? TRY DRILLING AN OIL SPECULATOR.

By IN THE NEWS

June 18, 2008 8:14 AM | Link to this

Poll: Obama has slight lead over McCain in Florida

COOL.

By Steven Daedalus

June 18, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this

Oops, I thought it was Andi and Paul.

By AJC/DNC Management

June 18, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this

Let the debate begin, finally:

{{{{This obstructionism may now be tested. We hear — and hope — that as early as this week President Bush may lift a 1990 executive order that prohibits offshore drilling. That would leave Congress as the only obstacle to drilling policies that would help alleviate record-high gas prices. Since those prices are hurting the GOP politically almost as much as they’re hurting consumers economically, Mr. McCain’s drilling reversal sets him up for a useful debate with Barack Obama.}}}}

{{{{For a candidate claiming the mantle of “change,” Mr. Obama’s energy policy might as well have been drafted in the 1970s. He supports punitive new windfall profits taxes on Big Oil, which won’t do anything for supply; as well as at least $10 billion a year in new subsidies for “alternative” energy technologies, which may take years or decades to pan out, if they ever do.}}}}

Heh, they’ll have to mount thee teleprompter to McBushie’s chest, so that DukaKerry can see what he’s supposed to say.

Uh, kara, er, um, kara, Caribou, yeah, Caribou, poor things.

By ervin mann

June 18, 2008 8:27 AM | Link to this

to all you right wing nut jobs if time magazine had not done its job wee would not know what was going on in our name just think if this was your family how you would feel thats why we having hard time winning this invasion!!!!!

By ByteMan

June 18, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this

Mike L: great cartoon. Hadn’t thought of that view of it until I saw your drawing.

The hypocrisy of the anti-gay-marriage crowd shows up every time they talk about the “sanctity of marriage” without offering up a constutional ammendment to prohibit divorce, which is the only way to guarantee the true sanctity of marriage.

Instead, the anti-gay-marriage crowd just tries to make it seem like gays are going to “ruin marriage” somehow by being able to enter into marital bliss with the ones they love. It’s a hard sell to anyone who knows a gay couple, which is becoming more common now, especially amongst younger people.

By IN THE NEWS

June 18, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this

Carter Tried To Stop Bush’s Energy Disasters - 28 Years Ago

WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN.

By AJC/DNC Management

June 18, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this

Aahhh, yes, kick them while they are down:

{{{{Barack Obama has sent a clear but unmistakable response to the pressure he’s been getting to put Hillary Clinton on his ticket as the vice presidential nominee. Yesterday, his campaign named Patti Solis Doyle, the former Clinton campaign manager who was fired in February and has not spoken to Mrs. Clinton since, as the chief of staff who will help guide whomever he picks as his running mate.}}}}

{{{{A major Clinton fundraiser told the New York Observer he considered the move “the biggest f—- you I have ever seen in politics.” According to the unnamed Clinton donor, “Clinton loyalists view [Ms. Doyle] with deep suspicion and believe that she is shopping around a book deal and acted as a background source for an extremely harsh Vanity Fair piece about Bill Clinton.”}}}}

Excellent, nothing better than seeing the Klintons getting their faces rubbed into the ground.

By one of their own, no less.

By N-GA

June 18, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this

It wasn’t that long ago when many states prohibited interracial marriage. Bigotry, racism and hypocrisy show themselves in so many ways. Is it a coincidence that these are all characteristics of uber nationalistic, uber christian fascists wanting to impose their twisted “values” on everyone not like them?

By reebok

June 18, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this

Hilarious cartoon. I wish all the best for the committed couples in California who finally get to make it official. Any step towards equality is a good step. And I enjoyed what a teary, just-married woman said yesterday…”Love always wins.” I thought that was really cool.

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this

I read an article somewhere, can’t remember now, not too long ago - it claimed that with the reduction of “religion” in Europe - especially Christians - that many younger Europeans are not getting “married.” They think it’s irrelevant.

The concept of marriage is such a complex issue - there’s the love part of it, but there’s also the legal part of it too - and that’s what many gay and lesbians want - equality under the law. And I’m all for that, plus allowing them to actually get married.

By IN THE NEWS

June 18, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

Quinnipiac has just released a poll showing Sen. Barack Obama with a 47-43 (41-45) lead over McCain in Florida, outside the 2.6% margin of error.

Updated It gets even better than the AP wire report - Quinnipiac also now has Obama up in:

Ohio 48-42 (Obama was down 40-44)

and

Pennsylvania 52-40 (Obama was up 46-40)

FROM Daily Kos

By Paul

June 18, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this

ITN 8:08

So we can infer you believe once a candidate takes a stand on an issue, that’s it. Even if circumstances change, their position shouldn’t as that’d be a “flip flop.”

You sure you’re not an ardent Bush/Iraq supporter?

By Goldie

June 18, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

I don’t know of any gay marriages that have caused hetero marriages to break up… I believe the divorce rate we have is due to infidelity, spousal abuse, and sheer boredom with each other? If the GOP really wants an issue to take the moral high ground on, why not take on adultery and the high rate of divorce among heteros???

By RW-(the original)

June 18, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

One might expect a Constitutional law expert to understand the historical record of the Nuremberg trials, especially if using them as an example in his speeches. Unfortunately, Barack Obama showed his lack of preparation yet again in Pennsylvania as he praised the Boumediene decision by the Supreme Court last week. Obama claimed that it represented a return to American values as represented by the Nuremberg trials — which actually didn’t allow habeas corpus through American civil courts at all:

{{{{{It’s not as if the military tribunals offered by Congress and the Bush administration fell below Nuremberg standards, either. They allowed for even more rights for the defendants than Nuremberg, or would have if the Supreme Court hadn’t twice stopped them before determining whether they worked. In fact, the tribunals as conceived in the last iteration closely match what American soldiers receive for their own trials under the UCMJ.}}}}

It’s a good thing he can read a speech.

By RW-(the original)

June 18, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

Bosch,

I haven’t had much time for blogging this week and won’t today either, but you’ve been asking about last week’s Meet The Press without getting much of an answer. It was pretty pathetic actually. There was a large panel discussion ostensibly to give you their remembrances of Russert. So far so good, but these being mostly egomaniac reporters it soon turned into them telling us how they had influenced Tim over the years.

Paul,

I saw something you wrote about driving 250 miles one way zipping along and made the return trip at the speed limit on cruise control. Your point was that you saved some % of gas on the return and seemed to say that the only difference was the speed. There are many potential influences on a drive vs. it’s return that can influence gas mileage.

The drive could be more uphill one way than the other. You could have driven one way into predominant headwinds, etc. Be careful attributing something strictly to one difference when several factors come into play or we’ll end up with the 55 circled on our speedometers again.

By Soothsayer

June 18, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

ITN @ 8:08 under “HERE”

I’m glad you found that data-I looked all over for it. For anyone who didn’t bother to read it, all this hubbub about offshore drilling amounts to an extra 200,000 barrels a day in full production. Since our daily consumption is 20,000,000 barrels the impact of offshore production will be what?

Friends, we are at a juncture in history similar to the turn of the 20th century. Before the turn of the 20th century, most Americans lived on farms. With the discovery of oil, we moved to cities, got jobs, and lived lives of relative ease. Now we face a challenge of continuing that lifestyle in the face of dwindling resources. Anyone who thinks we can continue that lifestyle with fossil fuels is deluding themselves.

By Paul

June 18, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

ITN 8:14

Reps seem to take the position the latest Supreme Court decision on due process is not good for the country in prosecuting terrorists.

Dems seem to think it is.

Obama supported the decision. McCain didn’t.

From your headline, Obama criticized the Reps as having no standing because of Iraq.

The first is a debate over procedures to use in dealing with captured terrorists.

The second, Obama’s rejoinder, veers off course by interjecting a foreign policy decision, which is not a method to prosecute terrorists once they’ve been captured.

Responding (if you ever do) that invading Iraq took away from the effort to “get” bin Laden and other al Qaeda is simply a repetition of Obama’s statement and has nothing to do with post-capture procedures.

Just another example of confusing the issues. Rather like taking all the courses of a meal and running them through a blender.

For the rest: there’s a tag on Obama’s remarks that doesn’t get much play: “We don’t have to treat them in the same way that we would treat a criminal suspect in the US,” Obama later added, “but we should abide by the Geneva Conventions.”

ITN 8:16

I thought that was settled yesterday? Short answer: no.

ITN

AJC/DNC’s 8:23 references Pres Bush’s decision to not direct a key element of energy policy by Executive Fiat but to turn it over to the representatives of the people.

Do your sources have any idea if the Democratic Congress will act to permit offshore drilling? Or are they silent?

So much for the dictator President doing what he wants in spite of Congress -

w00t

Is a politician changing a position ever not a flip flop?

ITN 8:37

See, if your headline hadn’t been ideologically partisan it would have read

“Carter tried to stop Reagan’s, Bush’s, Clinton’s, Bush’s, and all the Congresses, energy disasters 28 years ago.”

By @@

June 18, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

I dare say that gay couples would receive no opposition to civil unions were they legalized at the federal level. Why they insist on this “long war” to force 70% of the American public into surrender makes no logical sense in my opinion. Theirs is an attempt to force tolerance which already exists within the populace - not only does the tolerance exist, but overall acceptance of their alternative lifestyle should be apparent.

We’re offering them an alternative, a concession, but it’s still not enough?

The gay couples who are flocking to California to marry will be returning to their home states demanding, through legal action, that their home states surrender.

They have no respect for the social construct on which this country was founded.

Rather selfish in my opinion.

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

RW,

They probably took it as a job interview. That is really sad that any reporter today would think THEY could have influenced Tim Russert.

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

@@,

Of course they have no respect for the “social construct” - it discriminates against them. The social construct doesn’t respect them.

This issue has very little to do with respect of social norms - it’s about equality under the law.

By Paul

June 18, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

Goldie 9:11

I once read the shortest explanation for divorce: selfishness.

Seems to cover most cases.

RW-(the original) 9:31

All valid points. I’d checked mileage both ways before and had never had such a large difference (16 percent) at various speeds before. Winds can get stiff along that route, and a headwind or tailwind can have a great effect. Bottom line, though, is that by going the current speed limit (not 55) I used less gas than exceeding it. And that saved me money, and the county some gas. BTW – the 55 drove me nuts – particularly when at the time I regularly made a 750-mile one-way trip through great stretches of the unpopulated American West.

Hello, N-GA

I got the John Adams book yesterday. Looks like an involved read. Also picked up a newer Orson Scott Card novel - “Empire” - looks at a possible civil war along red state-blue state, Fed gov’t vs militia lines. But the issues in the first few dozen pages - the meaning of “empire” - faulty comparisons between the US and Rome; civil wars occur not by ideology, but when you’re convinced your neighbor is arming himself to shoot you.
This was from a character attending Princeton, interacting with a professor (who observed discussing issues isn’t advocacy, it’s observing and is the difference between a politician and an historian).

This bit of reflection by the student sounds spot-on:

“Am I like them (the students and faculty), just a bigot learning only what fits my worldview? He reached the conclusion “no” as he faced every piece of information as it came. He questioned his on assumptions whenever the information seemed to violate it. Above all, he changed his mind – and often. Heroes he once admired (Douglas MacArthur) he now regarded with something akin to abject horror. Others he disdained – the great clerk, Eisenhower – he learned to appreciate for their considerable virtues.”

Current, weighty issues in a novel. Should be a fun read.

By RW-(the original)

June 18, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this

Paul,

Another influence these days that seems to cause about a sixteen percent drop in mileage, at least in my Mustang GT, is if I use gas with 10% ethanol vs. 100% gasoline.

Did you actually stick to the 55 in those long unpopulated stretches? I didn’t think so. :-)

RW Out!!!

By Paul

June 18, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

@@ 9:40

Because the current system of staking out all or nothing, absolutes on the Left and the Right keeps the issue alive. And that means donations to keep the fight alive. And paid positions and power for the advocates. And a continuing hot button to rally the faithful and convert the ignorant.

Money and power, @@. Money and power.

By IN THE NEWS

June 18, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

“Why they insist on this “long war” to force 70% of the American public into surrender makes no logical sense in my opinion.”

PERHAPS IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE IF THE FACTS WERE ACCURATE

Gay Marriage Is Back On The Radar For Republicans, Evangelicals But Overall Opposition to Gay Marriage is Less Than in 2004…..Currently, 49% of Americans oppose gay marriage - the first time since the question was first asked more than a decade ago that a majority did not express opposition to gay marriage.

By N-GA

June 18, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

Paul,

I’ve been away (obviously) helping to keep the Euro afloat. Motored across much of northern Spain and was very impressed at the sight of literally hundreds of wind turbines as well as large arrays of solar cells. Gasoline was approximately $8.50 per gallon, and food, lodging, etc. were no bargain. Still a beautiful place with wonderful people. San Sebastion was particularly notable.

Between the Basque region and Catalonia, Spain has plenty of conflicting points of view.

BTW, terrific wines, too……

By Paul

June 18, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,”

Sounds like a restatement of the Dems pointing out the hypocricy against family values Republican Congressmen and Senators? Yup. But it also applies here:

Link: Al Gore’s personal electricity consumption up ten percent, could power 232 average homes for a year

By Soothsayer

June 18, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

Texas may be best known for “Big Oil.” But the oil that could some day make a dent in the country’s use of fossil fuels is small.

Some of you will remember this guy from yesterday. This is a different video. Did he say 100,000 gallons???

By Mike D

June 18, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

Baptists have the highest divorce rate in the nation. Maybe they need to try to get a constitutional amendment to prohibit divorce instead.

By Paul

June 18, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

N-GA

Good to have you back. My niece and her young kids spend about six weeks a year there - here father in law is from there. It’s always fun when the kids go back to school and correct their Spanish teachers.

ITN

Just so I do not misattribute anything to what you have or haven’t said, linked to, or implied: have you ever referenced that Republicans tend to advocate issues or attack their opponents based upon “fear” or have used “fear mongering” and that is one reason they are to be disdained? Out for a bit -

By @@

June 18, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

(((This issue has very little to do with respect of social norms - it’s about equality under the law.)))

Bosch:

I would argue that gays are not stigmatized by society as they have been in the past. Nor does the law allow discrimination based on sexual preference.

Take a look!

They’ve chosen a difficult path when they didn’t need to. I’m inclined to suspect that there’s something more to their agenda.

The fact that their actions cause me to be suspicious doesn’t serve their cause.

Aside from marriage, please show me proof of discrimination against gays. Personal opinions don’t count. It’s the sticks and stones thingy.

I think I mentioned it before, but Ellen DeGeneres’ light-hearted exchange with John McCain ended with her asking “Why can’t I have what you have?”

I thought to myself…Why would you want what we have? Where’s your “gay” pride?

I’ve always had a lot of respect for Ellen DeGeneres. I still do. She doesn’t turn her gayness into an US vs THEM battle.

By Soothsayer

June 18, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

If you’re against gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person! This such a p!ssant subject. I can’t believe we waste so much time on it.

By Tracy

June 18, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

What names were chosen for your couple in front of the TV? I somehow missed the results of the contest. Thanks. Tracy

By @@

June 18, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

Soothsayer:

70% of the American people don’t think it’s a p!ssant subject. Take the equal protections under civil unions and be done with it.

End the bickering and eliminate the public discussion.

It’s so simple….so easy.

As a heterosexual I’m tired of it as well. It’s obvious that gays aren’t.

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

@@,

For one, partners are not entitled to medical benefits under family policies.

Another thing - if gay and lesbians get married, and then decide to divorce, they should be required like heterosexual couples to pay the lawyers and go through the same process instead of just saying, “well, we’ve broke up.”

I know our society has come a long way in accepting gay/lesbian couples, but they are still not considered equal under the law as traditional married couples.

By Mike D

June 18, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this

Baptists have the highest divorce rate in the nation. Maybe they need to try to get a constitutional amendment to prohibit divorce instead.

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

Tracy,

Eb and Flo.

By Soothsayer

June 18, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this

Just saw our Fearless Leader on television. I don’t need to tell you who the bogeyman is—you already know! It’s that damned Democrat controlled Congress!!

Emotional response to crisis: Search for someone to blame. Historically this has been (pick one) Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, Catholics, you name it. Now we have the demon DEMOCRATS and LIBERALS.

Reasoned response to crisis: Search for solutions to crisis.

By N-GA

June 18, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

Equality isn’t a word that lends itself to nuance. For many years blacks were free, but they were not equal. And women were equal, but had no vote. Women couldn’t inherit their husband’s property…it went instead to the oldest male relative.

What will it take to get people to understand that rarely are people gay by choice. Who would choose to be despised, beaten, ignored, ridiculed, and called sinners?

The government needs to get further uninvolved in religion. Marriage is a sacrament and/or a rite. It should be up to the church, mosque, or temple to anoint a marriage. The state approved descriptor should be “union” demonstrated by the issuance of a civil union license. All people wanting to formalize their “relationship” should get a legal license and, if they wish, seek matrimonial bonds elsewhere. If the Anglicans don’t want to permit gay marriage, so be it. But the US and state constitutions should not ever deny rights of equality.

And this should not be negotiable.

By Phyllis Sweet

June 18, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

The world is changing. Stand back. The Ranger’s not going to like this Yogi.

By @@

June 18, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

(((For one, partners are not entitled to medical benefits under family policies.)))

Bosch? I know few heterosexual employees who aren’t in constant dispute with their employers and insurance companies over benefits covered. That’s between an employee (gay or straight) and an employer.

The reason that entitlements vary is because the individual states vary in their application. Ergo……federal mandate as opposed to state by state?????

California adopted a Domestic Partnership policy which, once expanded, afforded gay couples the same rights as married couples. The public was initially opposed. Not because they oppose gay relationships, but because they were afraid it would lead to further legal pursuits.

Did that reality come to pass Bosch? Yes it did. Now it’s MARRIAGE, nothing less than…

In all fairness, groups in opposition to gay anything took legal action resulting in a gay backlash.

That leaves reasonable Americans stuck in the middle of their ongoing battle.

To put it into a context that you may understand. Liberals would argue that to remove our forces from the Middle East would result in eliminating the resistance. In either instance, liberals view America or Americans who resist as the enemy.

It’s the damndest thing I’ve ever seen.

By Repug VP Man

June 18, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

“I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have is that I didn’t study Latin harder in school so I could converse with those people.” - J. Danforth Quayle

By Tony

June 18, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this

Ahh, I love the smell of fear of change in the morning!

By Hannatized

June 18, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

Man the global warming in Ga today was so obvious, low 40’s at night and 60’s today. I still see the liberals and Democraps are thinking Obama is going to win, I can not WAIT until the election. Polls speak the truth people, Obama better thank the media for holding out on his shady past so he could beat Hilary. Since when do people vote against gay marriage win and it is still over turned? The world is not changing, this is just another phase we go through like all the rest people.

By Byteman

June 18, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

Byteman, Whay are you so ignorant. What is marriage? Where did it come from? You sit here and say that people are afraid of gay marriage, no jacka55 we are not, we just do not want it. The majority voted and said no, so your time to say things have changed have not, just a couple of idiots trying to make history. Why do gay couples want to be married? God does not support it. There are no more gays then there where in the past, they just are coming out in public more, because in the past we now what happened.

By Dusty

June 18, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

I see this as one more argument for the people who say “I am different from everybody else so everybody’s got to accept me as I am.”

Well, OK, but that sentiment covers a whole lot of stuff from criminal behavior to sexual privilege action. Just say I was born that way and let it go. Must we accept ANYTHING & EVERYTHING?

To make a parade of such differences seems to be the order of the day. Gays can live together. They have civil rights. If they want to be treated like “family”, then adopt each other. But, as @@ has correctly noted, gays want MORE.

Marriage comes with a sexual assumption. Biological differences in male and female indicate quite obviously that such activity is biologically abnormal. That again raises the question of how much abnormal do you wish to say is OK if made a PUBLIC issue? And why do you insist that we must know ALL about the obvious? That abnormal is normal?

Two consenting adults in private is one thing. Making a parade of such differences is another. I’m afraid gays have made themselves open to public ridicule. They have increased the opinion that California is most certainly a state comedy of errors by people who prefer breaking away from what is considered normal behavior by a majority of human beings.

By Shawny

June 18, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

ehh…I don’t care what the gays do…don’t affect me none, and this coming from a mostly conservative. Just like I don’t care that the conspiracy theorists are up in arms about listening to perspective terrorist phone calls…go ahead, as long as you ain’t peeking into my bedroom.

On another note, they are all hacks. Obama vs. Clinton, he says NAFTA is a huge mistake and bashes it mercilessly. Maybe because it was her husband’s accomplishment…hmmm. Obama vs. McCain, and NAFTA isn’t so bad if we make a few tweeks.

By Cosby Smith

June 18, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

Parts ani’t parts and this ain’t natural. As with any special interest group they want to recruit. Rome fell after it accepted this act. America just hit a new low!

By @@

June 18, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

So now Obama thinks NAFTA is O.K.?

Let’s revisit his initial rant during the primary campaign. Speaking before a camera he said NAFTA was a HUGE MISTAKE but sends a memo to Canada saying that he really didn’t mean it….it was just political rhetoric.

Who the heck is this guy lying to and how often?

By Abomi Nation

June 18, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

Marriage in Biblical times also meant NO divorce. Of course the divorce waiver the Christian world has given itself is staggering! 50% of all Christian marriages end in divorce, which of course Jesus called an abomination.

No our good Biblical Christian friends have no intention of giving up their entitlement of divorce.

Divorce is a choice, Jesus called it an abomination, yet I haven’t seen one petition circulated out there that would protect the word of God and ban divorce.

Nope when it involves 50% of the population waivers are given, these same people only claim to be on God’s side when they can shove the Bible down the throats of 6%, only then will you hear the word “abomination.” I guess this gives them the right to pretend they are doing God’s work, their type of insecurity makes them think they are special.

Guess what, they aren’t.

By IN THE NEWS

June 18, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

McCain’s Slippery History With Offshore Drilling The Republican nominee is taking a pointless and environmentally dangerous position in order to pander to voters hit by high gas prices. It may hurt him come November. …..It’s hard to blame anyone for changing his or her positions on energy issues over the past eight years — markets have changed, America’s energy needs have changed, and prices have certainly changed. Even many Democrats have altered their positions on energy; most are much more supportive of climate change legislation than they once were….. You can blame McCain, however, for switching to the wrong position. Controversy over offshore drilling originated in the United States in 1969, when a cracked sea floor created a huge oil spill near Santa Barbara, California. The danger of a reoccurrence still exists, as do risks associated with having oil tankers routinely servicing offshore rigs. More important, offshore drilling is a band-aid. According to the federal Energy Information Administration, lifting the offshore drilling moratorium would have a minor impact on production and prices:…..It should be clear we’re not going to get out of this problem on the backs of our own oil rigs. Temporary solutions such as lifting the moratorium and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (which McCain opposes) only bolsters the illusion that America’s long-term energy problems can be solved through achieving fossil fuel-based energy independence. That’s a pernicious myth, and one that inhibits real progress. …..While he has pushed legislation that would curb emissions, he has skipped votes that would raise fuel standards for cars, and in July 2003 he voted against a Democratic proposal that sought to raise mileage standards on cars and some trucks to 40 mpg by 2015. He has repeatedly opposed tax breaks that would encourage the development of alternative energies, and once missed a vote that would fund tax credits for renewable energy by eliminating massive tax breaks to oil companies. For these reasons and others, environmental groups give him miserably low ratings…..

By Devastator

June 18, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

Abomi Nation,

Jesus didn’t call anything an abomination. If you want sleep with the same sex as yourself, fine, but get your facts straight please.

By Abomi Nation

June 18, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

Married straight couples want more too. Remember when it used to be very difficult to get a divorce. There were laws against it. Many times a judge would rule that a couple could not divorce. Then some “activist judge” probably came along and said the state did not have the right to stop 2 people from divorcing. I don’t remember being allowed to vote on it.

Anyone want to go protest all the divorces that are approved by judges on the courthouse steps tomorrow? We could hold up signs of protest like “God Hates Divorce” or “God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Eve who Adam Divorced to Marry Young Heather”

Then there is the Catholic church, gotta love their modern version of divorce, just pretend a marriage never happened. Thats right, pretend. Hows that for following God’s word!

Guess what, it was divorce that broke down the institution of marriage. Next thing you know people will want to marry then divorce an animal. “You may now lick the bride.”

By AJC/DNC Management

June 18, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this

Divorce is wrong but makes the divorcee happy.

Snorting heroin is wrong but makes the snorter happy.

Rape is wrong but makes the rapist happy.

Murder is wrong but makes the murderer happ, well, whatever.

Making love to barnyard animals is wrong but makes you liberals happy.

Surrendering to al Qaeda is wrong, but makes al Qaeda happy, but does that stop Code Pinko from trying?

Are we to look away from every sickness and depravity just because it makes people sad if we don’t let them do it?

I’m sorta sad that Jessica Alba won’t do the nasty with me.

When will my wrong be righted?

By Paul

June 18, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this

ITN 1:15

So the official Democratic/Liberal/Progressive/UltraLib position is:

no offshore drilling?

or is that what you support?

Personally, I don’t think that’s much of a vote-getter. 2008 isn’t 1969.

BTW - Just so I do not misattribute anything to what you have or haven’t said, linked to, or implied: have you ever referenced that Republicans tend to advocate issues or attack their opponents based upon “fear” or have used “fear mongering” and that is one reason they are to be disdained?

By AJC/DNC Management

June 18, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

Child molestation is wrong, but makes me happy.

Lying is wrong, but makes me happy.

Cowardly attacking people who would kick my a$$ if they met me is wrong, but makes me happy.

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

@@,

To be honest - I think marriage is outdated and unnecessary.

The ring I wear on my finger or the ceremony I went through doesn’t dictate what my marriage means to me.

But unfortunately, my insurance company doesn’t see it that way.

Most gay couples I know are perfectly content with their situation and don’t feel the need to get “married” to their partner.

I have a lesbian family member (whom I’m very close to) who is planning a wedding, her and her partner have good jobs, insurance, etc. so the benefits of being married or not doesn’t affect them legally. They are going forward for the emotional part of it.

The hetero couples you spoke of earlier? Who cares if they are in constant battle with their insurance company - that’s not what I was talking about.

The point I was making was that they are afforded that benefit, simply because they are married- homosexual couples are not.

Earlier, you asked for proof of discrimination - I supplied it.

I have a friend who once got married just so they could have health insurance. The couple were friends, didn’t really love each other, but she had cancer and needed insurance - it was a mutual agreement between friends. She got better, they got a divorce.

Anyway, I think as a society, we need to really re-examine just what it means to be “married” - I think it could do us all some good.

By Jessica Alba

June 18, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

AJC/DNC Management,

Sorry. I only date straight guys.

By Devastator

June 18, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

Are you sure that relying on isolated incidents to judge marriage is a good way to go? I don’t think we should rethink the use of cars because some people drink and drive. It’s their responsibility to operate the vehicle properly, its not the car’s fault.

If everyone got married for reasons such as your friends’ then that would be a good point. Because people choose to devalue marriage, doesn’t mean get rid of it in my opinion.

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

Devastator,

No, I don’t think relying on isolated incidents to judge marriage is a good way to go.

But I do think that the gay marriage or anti-gay marriage argument is old and ridiculous and like @@ said, I’m kind of tired of it both ways.

Anti-gay marriage folks say it devalues marriage, but what does that really mean when as a collective society, we can’t even define what marriage is.

By Abomia Rodriguez Nacion

June 18, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

I look for man to marry so I stay in USA. We divorce after I get my papers, no problema.

Gracious

By Reverand Haggard

June 18, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this

What Dusty and @@ dont understand is that even if they drew up a will and left their property to their significant other, their families can have the will validated because the law only recognizes the closest relative. If you arent married you are not considered a relative. Me im glad my spouse was kind enough to turn a blind eye to my meth and gay prostitute usage. I will be ready to teach your kids the bible real soon once i have kicked the affliction of being gay….

By @@

June 18, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

Bosch:

(((The point I was making was that they are afforded that benefit, simply because they are married- homosexual couples are not.)))

and so would they be with civil unions!!!!!

Success comes in small incremental steps Bosch. It always has.

Accept a federal policy recognizing civil unions with legal protections in place. Then you’re one of those “other types” who can engage in battle with your employer and insurance companies.

It makes ‘em one of US fighting the same battles for benefits.

Welcome to the club.

Marriage is unnecessary huh? Each individual stands on their own merit. In many respects, I’m in favor of that concept.

My contribution to a little chaos…

I live in a county that is 70% African American. On several corners within my area a new sign has popped up at every intersection. Bright orange, big white letters. At the top?

WHO’S YOUR DADDY? DNA results in two weeks. $199.00

I guess that works if the “WHO” is legally forced to take the test.

Niiiice. If I were African American, I’d be insulted.

As a society we should all be ashamed.

By Abomia Rodriguez Nacion

June 18, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

Si,si Reverand Haggard. We no have rights. I be with my girlfreind por 16 anos now. We met while I visit aqui from Espain. They now want deport me. Lesbian marriage no bien aqui.

Me need man to marry then divorce, so I can stay with me girlfreind. We have no rights aqui. We love america.

By Road scholar

June 18, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

Paul, this may be a strange question. Did you get gas at the other location before returning home? Now I’ll explain.

I went to Pensacola and back and got 3 miles per gallon less going than coming back to Atlanta. Granted, we may have gone faster going since we wanted to max our time in Florida, but it was relatively all downhill. Same temperature of the air, no new pressure in the tires, and no discernable winds.

We got gas in Florida. Their gas does not have the additives that Atlanta’s gas has during the summer due to Air Quality requirements.

Could this be the reason?

By IN THE NEWS

June 18, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

REVIEW THE SCAM

HERE

AND

HERE

DRILL DRILL DRILL say the GOP

it used to be WMD WMD WMD

By Paul

June 18, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

Road Scholar

I began each trip with a full tank, both with ethanol-blended gas. All the factors you cite can affect mileage - which is why it can vary when one does the same stretch at the same speed.

But the point is driving faster burns more gas - and that’s dollars out the tail pipe. As it was, I drove most of the slower leg at the legal limit of 70 - so the time differential wasn’t all that great. Sure was less stress - speeding tickets are pricey.

ITN 2.33

Regarding the leased lands - seems every day we’re getting more information out. So far it’s been drips and drabs by partisans to make a point. I have yet to find a comprehensive source that details the whole story.

But I think most of the offshore/etc drilling is psychological - people want to believe if we produce more the price will come down, we’ll be out of the Middle East, etc. I kinda think if the price retreats we’ll just increase consumption, regardless of where we get if from.

I’ve said all along, conservation alone or production alone won’t do it. We’re at the point where each side has to give up some sacred cows. I saw a clip of Robert Kennedy Jr debating some conservative radio guy. RK’s adamantly opposed to nuclear energy. Cons guy asked him why - Europe - France, Swedes - have it as a mainstay. RK would not answer. The lines in the sand need to get erased.

Your 2:37

LOLOLOLOL!!!! You sound just like Bill O’Reilly!

” “Those apologizing for the greedy oil companies say it’s a ‘supply and demand issue,’ but that’s bogus. OPEC intentionally keeps the oil harvest as low as it can in order to drive up demand, while here in the USA oil companies regulate refining capacity. Add to this the oil speculators who buy oil contracts for delivery in the future. They don’t want the actual oil, they just want the paper. Every time the speculators bid up the paper price of a barrel of oil, Chevron and other companies raise the price at the pump. This is obviously a rigged game and working Americans are being hurt big time. Congressman John Larson of Connecticut has introduced legislation that would make any speculator who bids on oil actually take delivery of the barrels. If Congress would pass Larsen’s bill, the speculators would be forced out of the oil trading industry. The U.S. economy is getting ham

By Dusty

June 18, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

Rev Haggard,2:15

Anybody can go to court and try to “break” a will. Would you please tell me what state has an iron clad law about relatives and a will? You’re just another lib trying to be funny. You failed.

By Paul

June 18, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

ITN

Congressman Larson’s a Democrat.

O’Reilly cited a Democrat as introducing legislation that should pass.

Not the mark of an ideologue.

By @@

June 18, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this

Good grief! I just checked into the legal rights of children of cohabitating adults. On almost every issue, they become wards of the court, subject to legal rulings.

Each state has different guidelines and qualifying standards.

But hey, marriage is just a piece of paper.

I’m not sure WHAT kids are these days.

By IN THE NEWS

June 18, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

“I consider myself to be a great capitalist, but I think the oil companies have been ripping off this country and the world for a long time,” Trump said. “I can see doing something against the oil companies. They’re making numbers—nobody’s ever seen numbers like this. They and OPEC and lots of people together are having a lot of fun.”

By @@

June 18, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

This is going to drive the Daily Kos folks nuts. Barack Obama just gave a pretty meaty interview on economic policy to the Wall Street Journal in which he kind of sounded like a guy applying for a job at the Wall Street Journal, at least its editorial board. A few observations:

WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?

WHO THE HECK CARES ANYMORE?

He’s likely to be someone else tomorrow.

For those on the left, Obama is not trustworthy.

For those on the right, Obama is not trustworthy.

By Dusty

June 18, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

Good grief, IN THE NEWS

Can’t you be more subtle in your propaganda reprints? I mean EIGHT posts in less than an hour?

Did you get behind or something? Will they dock your pay? How’s Obama today?

How can Paul keep up if you rushing everything together? He doesn’t have 28 coworkers like you have working for him. S-p-r-e-a-d it out a bit.

By Paul

June 18, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this

@@

Got thru the first couple paragraphs of your link. Great entertainment today!

Wanna give odds - all those posts we’ve seen recently about McCain reconsidering/changing/flipflopping - think the posters will repost them substituting “Obama” for “McCain”?

How ‘bout it, ITN?

By IN THE NEWS

June 18, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Please post me your copy of the blog rules…..

Sorry, your side has nothin’….

By sin bad

June 18, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

Dusty, don’t moon the werewolves!!

By Paul

June 18, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this

Okay, ITN, as you wouldn’t let me know if you’ve ever said the Republican Party or Bush Administration advocate by “fear” or engages in “fear mongering”

and I really, really, really do not think you’d ever even allude to that

:-)

I thought you’d like to consider (not!) this quote by Rachel Sklar, Senior Contributing Editor, Huffington Post (I believe she does “Eat the News”) while discussing MoveOn’s new ad campaign:

“The ads are going to specific, targeted fears.”

MoveOn made a deliberate decision to go after the “Fear” factor.

So much for Progressive superiority.

By AJC/DNC Management

June 18, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this

{{{{NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.}}}}

{{{{“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”}}}}

{{{{In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.}}}}

{{{{Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.}}}}

By Dusty

June 18, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

IN THE NEWS

Hey, that’s a good idea. Does anybody know the blog rules for overuse of posts? I read that some bloggers thought their posts were dropped because they posted too often. Surely ITN is a seasoned trespasser of timely posts.

Oh, I get it. She’s LIBERAL!!! Libs get exemption as long as they use DNC propaganda. Yep!!

Sorry, IN THE NEWS. I forgot. This is an AJC blog.

By AJC/DNC Management

June 18, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

{{{{The proposals I’ve outlined will take years to have their full impact. There is no excuse for delay — as a matter of fact, it’s a reason to move swiftly. I know the Democratic leaders have opposed some of these policies in the past. Now that their opposition has helped drive gas prices to record levels, I ask them to reconsider their positions. If congressional leaders leave for the 4th of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act. And Americans will rightly ask how high oil — how high gas prices have to rise before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something about it.}}}}

Bwa.

By Paul

June 18, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

AJC/DNC Management

Al Gore was a Vice President! He’s a Nobel Prize winner! He heads ups a three quarters of a BILLION dollar investment fund to make money off global warming (or stop global warming, I forget which).

And what are YOUR credentials, huh, huh? Don’t you know that’s the sine qua non for determining if something is valid?

By @@

June 18, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this

Paul:

Before Obama showed up on the scene, Hillary and Bill were the liberals’ champions. They could do not wrong.

During the campaign, the liberals began to question Hillary’s centrist policies and campaign tactics.

Look what they ended up with?

A centrist (I don’t believe it for one minute), a candidate who used deceptive tactics, as well as one who may or may not abandon their left-wing platform.

They’ll be gambling on Obama with their votes.

I won’t be gambling on him with mine.

By Paul

June 18, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this

@@

Conventional wisdom - which I repeated - was that Dem candidates needed to be farleft at the beginning and Reps needed to be farright, both to appease the party activists and big money groups. Then (more so for the Dems) they needed to move to the middle for the general election.

Funny thing, though. Hillary couldn’t outlib Obama and she lost. McCain, on the other hand, was the candidate who was given little consideration because he pretty much blew off Republican special interest groups. But the folks picked him anyway. Says a lot for the folks.

Now Obama’s doing the expected move to the center. McCain didn’t have as far to go. And the “McCain’s a flip flopper” people are either tongue-tied or silent about Obama.

By Midori

June 18, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this

The right has absolutely NO credibility whatsoever when it comes to attacks on Obama, Clinton or Gore.

Two words: George Bush.

after supporting a massive failure like him, you people don’t have a stump to stand on.

By earth to midori

June 18, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

newsflash: george bush isn’t running

By Reverand Haggard

June 18, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Once again you are showing that not going to school past the 3rd grade doesnt pay. You missed the key point, if two men where living together for a few years and one willed his property to the other, the law only recognizes the closet living relative as the benificiary, since they have no union the law doesnt allow this. Go ask any lawyer they will tell you….

By IN THE NEWS

June 18, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

“And what are YOUR credentials, huh, huh? Don’t you know that’s the sine qua non for determining if something is valid?”

Sad.

Disappointing.

Familiar??

By Paul

June 18, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this

Midori

Jack Welch picks Jeffrey Immelt to run GE. The Board ratifies.

GE’s performance during Immelt’s tenure is a disaster.

Are GE’s Board or Welch ineligible to advocate a successor to Immelt?

By IT'S HOWDY DOODY TIME

June 18, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this

The dims have been duped by their party a second time?

ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

2FNFUNNY!

By Paul

June 18, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

ITN 4:34

AJC/DNC Management got the sarcastic humor of my 4:15.

You didn’t.

Gotta say, I’m surprised -

By Barney Frank

June 18, 2008 4:47 PM | Link to this

My, didn’t Luckovich draw me and Larry with such love and caring? Such meticulous details, all the right charms in all of their proper places. What a gay scene indeed. The little bowties, the flowers, thee birdies, does this beautiful scene not bring bring tingling to your loins?

You swing on the limb, mikey?

By @@

June 18, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this

(((you people don’t have a stump to stand on.)))

Midori has a hard time letting go of Bush.

“If you love him set him free. He’ll come back to you.”

Speaking of stumps….

Stumped on Obama

Senator Obama; They knew you when?

By Dusty

June 18, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this

OH my, Midori,4:30

The stump in the road is Congress, gold ol’ Congress led astray by Democrats. Haven’t you noticed?

First Democrats voted for the war.

Then Democrats changed their minds and decided cut’n’run was better.

Then Democrats added so MUCH PORK on every bill, including funds for the military, that President Bush had to sink the pigs with a veto.

Then Democrats decided to investigate everything done in the past 8 years.

Then Democrats found no evidence and had to forget that ploy.

Then Democrats declared that the those poor POWs at Guantanamo were not being treated like your next door neighbor.

Then liberals on the Supreme Court gave those nice POWs habeas corpus and said bring them here to be your friendly American neighbor.

Now you talk about “stumps”. You should spell it L-i-b-e-r-a-l—-D-e-m-c-r-a-t-s.

By Paul

June 18, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this

ITN 4:50

So you’re saying Obama has a plan to reform Pentagon weapons planning, acquisition, spending priorities and resource allocation to the various services?

Because if he doesn’t, the future will be a repeat of the past and present.

Can’t wait to hear this -

By IN THE NEWS

June 18, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this

Obama Smacks Down Giuliani…Ouch

By Paul

June 18, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this

ITN 4:54

Yawn. Rudy’s remarks were 1994. He was operating under Fed rules. Circumstances have changed. We’ve seen what works and what doesn’t. He’s changed his opinion. He’s suggesting Obama hasn’t. The link did not refute that.

But an earlier post of mine did -

Your 4:56

Party discipline and future allocations from the RNC. No surprises, there.

By Dusty

June 18, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this

Rev Haggard@4:34

I don’t need to see a lawyer about gay rights because there are no gays in my family.

For many years, I had a hair stylist who was gay. Nice fellow. He and his partner of many years parted ways when the “partner” got aids and my hairdresser didn’t have it. So.. my friend soon found a partner without aids and the former partner found one with aids. They all remained friends so he said. Then my hairdresser moved to another state and I hope he is all right.

Perhaps you should make a will and check with a lawyer. There are non related people quite often named in wills, not just gay partners. I can’t believe there are no iron clad wills. In what state did you say you lived?

By N-GA

June 18, 2008 5:17 PM | Link to this

If you are not married:

You can’t tell the doctor to take your “partner” off life support.

You can’t receive or continue to receive Social Security benefits.

You can’t receive surviving spouse retirement pay from Federal or State retirement plans, including military retirement pay.

In most instances you will not qualify as a spouse for medical insurance benefits.

In many cases you will lose your right to inherit from your partner if challenged by blood relatives. You will almost always lose if there is no will.

Equality means just that…all people should have the same rights. And to think about restricting those rights by amending the US Constitution is as stupid as those who propose doing it.

By AJC/DNC Management

June 18, 2008 5:22 PM | Link to this

So DukaKerry’s foreign policy really is a fairy tale:

{{{{Foreign policy architects could benefit from studying Winnie the Pooh and Star Wars, according to a Barack Obama adviser who is set to attend a meeting of the Democratic candidate’s national security work group Wednesday.}}}}

{{{{Richard Danzig, former Navy secretary under President Clinton, drew several creative and unusual analogies to explain the challenges America faces overseas during a foreign policy conference in Washington, D.C., last week, according to an article in the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph.}}}}

Can you say whackjob?

By @@

June 18, 2008 5:23 PM | Link to this

Just wanted to share a little “outside the box”thinking on China.

Getalife used to ask if I worried about the threat China posed to the U.S.. I’d always reply…

“No, not so much.”

Interesting little snippet in there about Chinese/Russian relations.

By Paul

June 18, 2008 5:26 PM | Link to this

AJC/DNC Management 5:22

So much for restoring America’s stature abroad -

By N-GA

June 18, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this

Meant to say “Social Security surviver’s benefits”.

By N-GA

June 18, 2008 5:31 PM | Link to this

I REALLY meant to say “survivor’s”

By AJC/DNC Management

June 18, 2008 5:34 PM | Link to this

Just this morning, thee pinko media was brimming with tales of horror and woe of what thee vast army of Taliban bad as-ses had in store for NATO and, allah willing, America, perhaps there could be a triumphant terrorist victory parade in Central Park, oh, the hope and thee promise!!

This afternoon, thee Taliban have maggots newly residing in their bellies:

{{{{KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Afghan and Canadian forces moved into villages outside Kandahar on Wednesday to root out Taliban militants, killing at least 36 insurgents.}}}}

The Canadians are kicking that as-s, how embarrassing.

I wonder who predicted this?

By Paul

June 18, 2008 5:39 PM | Link to this

N-GA

Norway just approved allowing gays to marry. The 1993 civil unions bill did not allow them to become adoptive parents or to allow lesbians to become artificially inseminated.

So their solution was to move all under the umbrella of “marriage” rather than pick another noun and enumerate the rights and responsibilities.

Of course, many here have concerns about how courts will find for other groups under equal protection. You remember the Calif court held specifically for gays and excluded other groups, such as advocates for plural marriage. That may be a reason to go the legislative route of “we’ll call it civil unions - still comprised of a couple - and here are the rights and responsibilities that apply: everything that’s contained in marriage.”

By getalife

June 18, 2008 5:41 PM | Link to this

“Gen. Taguba on torture: ‘there is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes.’”.

Send em to Gitmo and torture confessions out these terrorists.

By RW-(the original)

June 18, 2008 5:50 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

Your arguments are pretty valid, although I would think a civil union recognized by the state would eliminate most of them, but you lose your argument when you say the law isn’t providing equal treatment.

The law says that I can marry one woman. That applies to all men beyond the age the state allows one to enter into a marriage contract. Conversely all women of age are allowed by law to marry one man. That is completely equal treatment for all regardless of whether you like the law or not.

Trying to change the equality laws by pretending the law says you can marry what or whom you love and any restriction on that infringes on your right to equal protection under the law takes you down a very slippery slope.

By N-GA

June 18, 2008 5:51 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I understand and agree. It’s unfortunate that some people have to isolate themselves (and the issue) by demanding Federal and State Constitutional amendments.

The word “marriage” has a religious connotation that fuels unnecessary passionate debate. We should leave “marriage” to the clergy.

r.e. the California courts. I suspect it was a narrow ruling because the court did not want to have a broad ruling that could be criticized as “legislating”.

By GodHatesTrash

June 18, 2008 6:01 PM | Link to this

Looks like Andi and RW finally made it legal.

Poor Bi Danish - eat your heart out.

Trash all.

By GodHatesTrash

June 18, 2008 6:07 PM | Link to this

From Reverend Haggard at 4:34 “closet living relative” -

Every GOP family has at least one…

Trash.

By Haymaker

June 18, 2008 6:21 PM | Link to this

This whole gay thing, I dont know. I tried coming out of the closet once, but an old leisure suit pulled me back in. But the gays in the closet didn’t want me in there with them, so they kicked me out. I had to settle for a poorly lit foyer…..

Ellen kept claiming that the only reason the Evangelical Right was against gay marriage is that they insisted next would come marriage to goats and other animals, ala Woody Allen’s “everything you wanted to know about sex, but were afraid to ask”. the sheep love segment was considered the funniest vinette in movie history at the time. I thought it obnoxious. I guess America started going downhill after that. Woody allen started doing his adopted daughter and Mia Farrow went berserk and the whole episode ruined Allen’s movies for me.

Listen to some of Allen’s early standup, it’s outstanding. Ground breaking, warm, and Remarkable. and it will break your heart.

By RW-(the original)

June 18, 2008 6:32 PM | Link to this

AJC/DNCM,

Are you really surprised that Obambi’s people think the secret to foreign policy lies in the 100 Acre Wood?

Democrats are all in search of their free government honey and have the attitude of Eeyore.

By @@

June 18, 2008 6:33 PM | Link to this

(((That may be a reason to go the legislative route of “we’ll call it civil unions - still comprised of a couple - and here are the rights and responsibilities that apply: everything that’s contained in marriage.”)))

Paul said that so much better than when I tried at 2:26.

By GodHatesTrash

June 18, 2008 6:35 PM | Link to this

Woody Allen screwed his step-daughter - he must have a little bit of redneck in him…

By @@

June 18, 2008 6:50 PM | Link to this

USA Today - (((Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.

“This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. “We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers.”)))

Truth or lie?

(((Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. Advance staffers typically pick supporters out of a crowd to reflect the candidate’s message.

When Obama won the North Carolina primary amid questions about his ability to connect with white voters, for instance, he stood in front of a group of middle-aged white women waving small American flags.)))

Moooooooving the people.

By RW-(the original)

June 18, 2008 6:59 PM | Link to this

@@,

Did Obambi come out with his official, “that’s not the campaign I knew” statement?

By @@

June 18, 2008 7:02 PM | Link to this

Another Obama morphing!!!

Some interesting advice… “Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, a close ally of the Obama campaign, says Mrs. Obama must stop sounding like a lawyer trying to win an argument. The trick, she said, is “not pushing so hard to persuade people that Barack is the right one.’ ‘All she has to do is be likable,’ Mrs. McCaskill said.”

“All she has to do is be likable.” That about sums it up for Michelle Obama.

Michelle now has someone on staff to fend off personal attacks. Barack said that he was disappointed that McCain hasn’t spoken out against the attacks on his wife.

Another LIE!!!!!

McCain did speak out against the attacks on Michelle Obama.

Whiner….

By Donovan

June 18, 2008 7:06 PM | Link to this

Green is the new Red.

Nationalizing oil?

By @@

June 18, 2008 7:06 PM | Link to this

RW:

Don’t make me laugh. I’m trying to be enraged at the moment.

LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES

and

LIES ON TOP OF LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama

Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeessssss

By RW-(the original)

June 18, 2008 7:20 PM | Link to this

Sorry @@,

See if this will help you get back the enragedness

 

Do Good Locally » Find nonprofit causes near you

Find more causes » List your nonprofit

Kudzu Services » Find the right people for the job