The latest act of the. . . . ' G O P . . COMEDY. . SHOW ' !

Sidebar
N

NewHampshire Black Bears

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
10,154
687
www.usaviation.com
http://www.huffingto..._n_2881805.html

Well..."NEVER say NEVER".....the ol' saying goes.

I mean,.....first we had DIRTY-DICK, and now Republican Senator Portman 'switching gears' because thier kids are . . . . Batting from the Other-Side of the Plate !

Jesus,. . . . If this shite keeps up, the . . .G D . . . REPUGS won't even have 40 votes to Filibuster with !!

I Wonder How Many. . . Barney Frank. . . Jokes/Insults/Digs. . . ol' DIRTY-DICK and Rob 'chuckled about' these many years. . ." BEFORE ", (well,.....you......know......) ?

Now the good. . . REPUBLICAN. . . Senator was on MITT's very short VP list, ...but he was "ASSURED" that the "ISSUE" was "NOT" why they went with Ryan !

Y E A H . . . R I G H T !!!!!!!!!!
 
I do not think hens hypocritical at all. Sen. Postman has found out that he has skin in the game. He either has to face his son, his flesh and blood and either tell him that Sen. Postman does not be live that his son has the right to marry or change his position and treat has son as an equal.

The thing that bothers me is that he and others are only willing to change because it has become personal. So long as it was other people who were deprived of equal right it is OK.

Id be willing to bet if there were Korea women in congress than men the laws of this land would look quite a bit different.

Why can people let others live their life as they see fit? I congratulate Portman for finally coming to his senses even if his reasoning leave much to be desired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
I do not think he is hypocritical at all. Sen. Postman has found out that he has skin in the game. He either has to face his son, his flesh and blood and either tell him that he does not be live that his son has the right to marry or change his position and treat has son as an equal.

The thing that bothers me is that he and others are only willing to change because it has become personal. So long as it was other people who were deprived of equal right it is OK.

Id be willing to bet if there were more women in congress than men the laws of this land would look quite a bit different.

Why can people let others live their life as they see fit? I congratulate Portman for finally coming to his senses even if his reasoning leave much to be desired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Ms Tree said:
I do not think he is hypocritical at all. Sen. Postman has found out that he has skin in the game. He either has to face his son, his flesh and blood and either tell him that he does not be live that his son has the right to marry or change his position and treat has son as an equal.

The thing that bothers me is that he and others are only willing to change because it has become personal. So long as it was other people who were deprived of equal right it is OK.

Id be willing to bet if there were more women in congress than men the laws of this land would look quite a bit different.

Why can people let others live their life as they see fit? I congratulate Portman for finally coming to his senses even if his reasoning leave much to be desired.
Click to expand...

I'm also glad.. 'Tree, that Sen. Portman at least "Came out" for whatever his reasoning was(which appears to be on the side of the child he helped create.)

With the CPAC (conservative political action conference) going on in-full-swing, ..THIS issue that deeply involves Portman is going to have an Enormously Large/Good outcome for the Dems.
First, Rob Portman was on the shortest of SHORT LIST for MITT's VP.
Further, Portman would have been one of a very scant few to have any kind of a chance in 16'.

Did someone say Rubio ? (I'll get to him in a moment)

Portmans "coming out" is ALREADY having VERY EARLY results within that F-U ..Party called the GOP. (And the timing of thier CPAC, is just too-good-to-be-true)
Here's why;
As expected, Rand Paul is trying hard to take the party down his Father's Libertarian Road, BUT...the "BIG-7" are having NONE of it.

Romney who spoke today, got a very good reception from the attendees. Romney. He who ran a WORSE campaign that McCain. Go figure ! But it's Insignificant because the "BIG-7" were having NONE of Romney in 12'.

Chris Christie wasn't EVEN INVITED to speak !!!!!!!!!! But again, the "BIG-7" wouldn't be having ANY of CC in 16' Anyway. (Very similiar to Romney)

Ahhh, now to that Half-a-Cuban.
He is ALREADY spouting FIRE and BRIMSTONE(at CPAC), over and above what he usuall does, and the "BIG-7" are loving it, which means we DEMS are loving it. BIGGGG....TIME .

Oh, the "BIG-7" ?.......Yes, of course. .....The BIG-7 being those (Democratic Party) KING MAKERS from Georgia/South Carolina/Alabama/Tennessee/Mississippi/Louisiana/ and TEX-ASSS !...And that's leaving out OK/AR/KS/KY/NC. That equates to OVER " 20 " US Senators, and only God-knows how MANY REPUG US Reps who will take whats left of the GOP on a Fast Track, one way ride to "PALOOKAVILLE" !!

The REPUBLICAN PARTY.
The GIFT that Keeps-on-GIVING !!!!!!!!
 
If the SCOTUS affirms SSM based on equal protection grounds, there will be no arguments or justifications to deny the recognition of other forms of relationships such as poly-amorous, adult/adult incest relationships.

I still think the right path is not for government to sanction gay marriage, but for the government to drop straight marriage. Civil unions for all, with identical rights; you get married in church if you want, and no one is going to fine you for calling your civil union a marriage, or calling your civil-union partner a "husband" or "wife" or "spouse."
 
Knotbuyinit said:
If the SCOTUS affirms SSM based on equal protection grounds, there will be no arguments or justifications to deny the recognition of other forms of relationships such as poly-amorous, adult/adult incest relationships.

I still think the right path is not for government to sanction gay marriage, but for the government to drop straight marriage. Civil unions for all, with identical rights; you get married in church if you want, and no one is going to fine you for calling your civil union a marriage, or calling your civil-union partner a "husband" or "wife" or "spouse."
Click to expand...

I AGREE with you 'knot,.....but, ...... "You get married " IN ...C H U R C H "..(well) there-in lies the rub " for our Christian founders and believers of today. THEY won't have it any other way !

Thankfully,..(slowly but surely)...the Predominate religion in this country are having thier total numbers diluted by people of differing opinions.
500 years ago, the Indians Told the 'Manifest Destiny' crowd......"IF you do your thing over there, and we do our thing over here, everything can remain relatively acceptable"

As they say..(sadly)..the rest is History.
 
My question would be why change it if everyone will still use the same terms? I don't care what documents I use I am still going to say Im married because its easier. Like using a bandaid or a q-tip instead of a medical adhesive strip or cotton swab.

Also. who cares how many spouses a person has? Its no ones business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Back on topic. are there and members of the GOP in favor of equal rights who do not have a gay members in their family. Seems most of the ones I hear speaking in favor of it have gay family memeber.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Ms Tree said:
Back on topic. are there and members of the GOP in favor of equal rights who do not have a gay members in their family. Seems most of the ones I hear speaking in favor of it have gay family memeber.
Click to expand...

Hopefully so, 'tree.
But for the record, in the Senate, Portman NOW is the only REPUG who would VOTE in favor of a new law, along with the Dems.
It's one thing for a REPUG to ' talk-the-talk ', another for one to ' Walk-the-Walk ' !

I'll never understand WHAT was SO F'n Hard......about understanding where our Agnostic 3rd President (Jefferson) was coming from ! ! !
 
Ms Tree said:
Back on topic. are there and members of the GOP in favor of equal rights who do not have a gay members in their family. Seems most of the ones I hear speaking in favor of it have gay family memeber.
Click to expand...

My "off topic" comments are currently being discussed in many legal forums throughout the country. Ms Tree, how do you feel about poly-amorous relationships? Shouldn't you be able to marry your brother? Those types of relationships / marriages are not recognized by federal laws either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top Bottom