GOP Pledge to Honor "Traditional Marriage"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 12:57 AM GMT
    From the Republicans' Pledge to America:

    "We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national economic prosperity. We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values."

    Greater liberty and wider opportunity, huh? Not if you're gay and want to get married. Or adopt a child.

    Of course, the phrase "wider opportunity" in anything from the GOP makes me think of Larry Craig.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 2:25 AM GMT
    Still loving that "Big Tent" party of yours, RJ 'Pugs?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 2:37 AM GMT
    I just read the whole thing. You can, too, if you have a strong stomach:

    [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017335-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody[/url]

    There is no "there", there. It's 21 pages of Republican talking points with no plan, no direction and, no numbers.

    Meanwhile, Keith Olbmerman's show tonight put the lie to the idea that those 3% of small businesses that will be affected by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire are at all what you or i would consider small businesses. Instead, they include:

    The Koch Brothers
    Bechtel
    Kravis, Kohlberg & Roberts

    And a bunch of other billionaires. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 3:13 AM GMT
    I especially like the vacuous blurb about restoring the doctor-patient relationship via common sense legislation. Even if they have a plan for such a vague thing, good luck legislating it into daily practice. If you even have insurance to start with, that would be good.

    And they co-opted the part about ensuring that patients with preexisting conditions get covered. Well, it's already law, they're too late. They had 8 years to pass legislation on it and refused to.

    But this thread is about traditional marriage (including the ones done by eloping to Las Vegas), sorry for the hijack.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 3:48 AM GMT
    Christian73 said

    There is no "there", there. It's 21 pages of Republican talking points with no plan, no direction and, no numbers.


    Oh there were numbers and graphs alright. Just a little skewed in their y axis for those idiots who buy them visually.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 4:27 AM GMT
    They broke their "Contract with America", they'll break this "Pledge to America".
    It's just the usual PR BS from the Repubs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 4:57 AM GMT
    So...nothing from our 'Pug brothers? No defense of the party which, among other things, wants to criminalize each and every one of us? (See: Montana.)

    Pathetic, self-loathing cowards.

    And oh yeah...Fuck you, snidebitch.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 23, 2010 5:20 AM GMT
    "keeping faith with the values our nation was founded on,"



    I guess that means that they plan to bring back slavery, no woman's right to vote, no civil rights, and abolish every amendment to the Constitution.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 5:27 AM GMT
    OtterJoq saidSo...nothing from our 'Pug brothers? No defense of the party which, among other things, wants to criminalize each and every one of us? (See: Montana.)

    Pathetic, self-loathing cowards.

    And oh yeah...Fuck you, snidebitch.


    Fuck you.

    SB is an obnoxious troll, but there is really no need to call him out and be a bitch when he hasn't even popped in here. You are just antagonizing him and contributing nothing to the thread by doing so.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 5:34 AM GMT
    Webster666 said"keeping faith with the values our nation was founded on,"



    I guess that means that they plan to bring back slavery, no woman's right to vote, no civil rights, and abolish every amendment to the Constitution.




    Don't give them any ideas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 5:36 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie said
    OtterJoq saidSo...nothing from our 'Pug brothers? No defense of the party which, among other things, wants to criminalize each and every one of us? (See: Montana.)

    Pathetic, self-loathing cowards.

    And oh yeah...Fuck you, snidebitch.


    Fuck you.

    SB is an obnoxious troll, but there is really no need to call him out and be a bitch when he hasn't even popped in here. You are just antagonizing him and contributing nothing to the thread by doing so.


    I know! Isn't it fun?icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 6:39 AM GMT
    Webster666 said"keeping faith with the values our nation was founded on,"



    I guess that means that they plan to bring back slavery, no woman's right to vote, no civil rights, and abolish every amendment to the Constitution.


    I think you forgot... they want to build gas chambers as well...icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 7:56 AM GMT
    I'd like to see the rise of a new, moderate party that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. It seems like the growing extremism in American politics could use a healthy dose of moderation in the middle for those who don't necessarily want to be extreme.

    This pledge is a flat out lie because no deficit spending party can claim to be fiscally responsible.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 10:01 AM GMT
    Wow. Even Erik Ericcson, owner of Red State hates the "Promise to Ameica"

    Red StateThese 21 pages tell you lots of things, some contradictory things, but mostly this: it is a serious of compromises and milquetoast rhetorical flourishes in search of unanimity among House Republicans because the House GOP does not have the fortitude to lead boldly in opposition to Barack Obama.,,

    It is dreck — dreck with some stuff I like, but like Brussels sprouts in butter. Overall, this grand illusion of an agenda that will never happen is best spoken of today and then never again as if it did not happen. It is best forgotten.

    The pledge begins by lamenting “an arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites” issuing “mandates”, then proceeds to demand health care mandates on insurance companies that will drive up the costs of health care for ordinary Americans.

    The plan wants to put “government on the path to a balanced budget” without doing anything substantive. There is a promise to “immediately reduce spending” by cutting off stimulus funds. Wow. Exciting.

    There is a plan to cut Congress’s budget, which is pretty much what was promised in 1994. Seriously? In 4 years did the Democrats really blow up the Congressional budget? No — the GOP did that too.[

    This document proves the GOP is more focused on the acquisition of power than the advocacy of long term sound public policy.

    I will vote Republican in November of 2010. But I will not carry their stagnant water.


    So basically, even the right-wingers admit that the GOP has no ideas and no plans.

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/09/22/the-republicans-pledge-is-perhaps-the-most-ridiculous-thing-to-come-out-of-washington-since-george-mcclellan/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 1:32 PM GMT
    shyshortguy saidI'd like to see the rise of a new, moderate party that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. It seems like the growing extremism in American politics could use a healthy dose of moderation in the middle for those who don't necessarily want to be extreme.

    This pledge is a flat out lie because no deficit spending party can claim to be fiscally responsible.


    But many of the folks here would be opposed to that as well because it is more libertarian philosophy and they don't want that, they want a big nanny state - they want socialism.

    If they would criticize the GOP for the things that it deserves criticism for while praising the actual economic liberty and fiscal conservatism which they do tend to advocate, I wouldn't mind joining in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 2:25 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidPresident Bill Clinton:

    I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".


    President Barack Obama:

    I do not support gay marriage.







    Sshhhhh! We don't want to talk about that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 2:56 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidPresident Bill Clinton:

    I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".


    President Barack Obama:

    I do not support gay marriage.


    Hey Mr. False-equivalency -

    Did Obama or Clinton campaign on banning same-sex marriage, or enacting DADT or keeping sexual orientation as a way to discriminate? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 3:06 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidPresident Bill Clinton:

    I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".


    President Barack Obama:

    I do not support gay marriage.


    Hey Mr. False-equivalency -

    Did Obama or Clinton campaign on banning same-sex marriage, or enacting DADT or keeping sexual orientation as a way to discriminate? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Shhh! He doesn't want to talk about that.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Sep 23, 2010 3:08 PM GMT
    "Traditional Marriage" - being divorced a few times and marrying the staffer you've been fucking
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 3:35 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    Hey Mr. False-equivalency -

    Did Obama or Clinton campaign on banning same-sex marriage, or enacting DADT or keeping sexual orientation as a way to discriminate? icon_rolleyes.gif


    The White House front-runner said in an interview with MTV he did not support same-sex weddings and believed "marriage is between a man and a woman".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3375059/Barack-Obama-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman.html

    I'm too lazy to look up Clinton at the moment....


    You're just ridiculous. You know as well as I do that had Obama or Clinton run on supporting same sex marriage, the religious right would go insane and the media would enable it. Obama did run on repealing DOMA and leaving it ot the states, which is the most progressive stance of any national candidate. If you want to delude yourself into thinking there's not daylight between Obama and Christine O'Donnell on gay rights, that's between you and your pharmacist. So take your thorazine and rejoin the reality-based community.
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Sep 23, 2010 4:34 PM GMT
    YAWN!icon_neutral.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 5:29 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    Hey Mr. False-equivalency -

    Did Obama or Clinton campaign on banning same-sex marriage, or enacting DADT or keeping sexual orientation as a way to discriminate? icon_rolleyes.gif


    The White House front-runner said in an interview with MTV he did not support same-sex weddings and believed "marriage is between a man and a woman".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3375059/Barack-Obama-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman.html

    I'm too lazy to look up Clinton at the moment....


    You're just ridiculous. You know as well as I do that had Obama or Clinton run on supporting same sex marriage, the religious right would go insane and the media would enable it. Obama did run on repealing DOMA and leaving it ot the states, which is the most progressive stance of any national candidate. If you want to delude yourself into thinking there's not daylight between Obama and Christine O'Donnell on gay rights, that's between you and your pharmacist. So take your thorazine and rejoin the reality-based community.


    If the "religious right" as you say would go "insane" why does it matter? After all they only vote republican anyway so what would there be to lose?

    Oops, could it be that huge voting blocks of DEMOCRATS are just as against gay rights as republicans and only vote democrat for all the free handouts.?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 5:31 PM GMT

    "Oops, could it be that huge voting blocks of DEMOCRATS are just as against gay rights as republicans and only vote democrat for all the free handouts.?"

    Nope.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 5:48 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    "Oops, could it be that huge voting blocks of DEMOCRATS are just as against gay rights as republicans and only vote democrat for all the free handouts.?"

    Nope.


    But it's true. That's why the majority of californians voted democrat (for obama) and simultaneously voted against gay marriage. If the "religious/social conservative" voting block was only in the ranks of republicans then democrats would have nothing to worry about because they wouldn't be voting for them anyway.

    Perhaps you've never heard of fiscal liberals and social conservatives before?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 6:01 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    meninlove said
    "Oops, could it be that huge voting blocks of DEMOCRATS are just as against gay rights as republicans and only vote democrat for all the free handouts.?"

    Nope.


    This from two Canadian Communists. icon_lol.gif


    The level of your either being misinformed, uninformed or completely disingenuous is stunning.

    As if these politics happen in a vacuum. As if the same people you two support (i.e. the Tea Party) aren't stunning homophobes.

    Your worldviews are just stunning.