Not liking the president's position on same sex marriage does not mean you want Republicans to win

[CreekDog]

It would be nice if people who criticize an indefensible position weren't talked to as if they were traitors.

[villager]

1. That still possible, with the polarization on this board?

:shrug:

[demmiblue]

2. +1

:thumbsup:

[joeybee12]

3. Good luck with that...

funny how the same tired old arguments keep getting trotted out about how we're antsy for Sarah Palin to be Prez, apparently. KNR.

[stray cat]

4. If it keeps you from voting it does

[JuniperLea]

5. Are you talking his personal beliefs? Or his professional, Constitutional position?

Because clearly those two areas are completely different.

[Fumesucker]

8. He is responsible for his odious personal beliefs..

He could have kept his opinions to himself if he did not wish to be criticized on them.

[JuniperLea]

11. So, he doesn't have the right to his own beliefs?

So... you want to impose something on him that you yourself are clearly unwilling to do?

Do you not see that it is really you that is being the hypocrite here?

You are allowed to call his personal opinions "odious" but you feel you are entitled to offer up your own opinions? Really?

You want equal rights for you, but not others if they don't agree with you?

Seems to me you're on a slippery slope there, Fumesucker.

[CreekDog]

14. He has a right to them --this is about whether he can be criticized for them

THAT right he does not have.

[JuniperLea]

19. I never said he shouldn't be criticized...

I'm just saying that criticizing him for bullshit is more telling of those who criticize than it is of Obama. It's hypocritical to call him a hypocrite for voicing his opinion, for example. Either everyone has the right to voice their opinion, or no one does.

[Fumesucker]

21. He has the right to voice his opinions..

And we have the right to criticize him for his odious opinion(s).

Like it or not, Obama is in a special position and is not just an ordinary citizen.

ETA: A lot of my personal opinions upset those around me of a religious bent, I've found it better to keep a great many of my opinions to myself since they cause considerable conflict when I voice them.

And I'm not POTUS, just some random geezer living in the Bible Belt.

[JuniperLea]

25. There! I knew you could do it.

So, to circle back to the original arguments... would you rather he acted on his personal beliefs, or would you rather he acted on the Constitution?

I don't see him as being a hypocrite for this. He was honest about his feelings, and yes, his beliefs in this regard are sad in this day and age. But it's his actions that are important, not what he holds in his mind.

[Fumesucker]

32. I don't see your point..

I think he acts on his personal beliefs at least to some extent.

He certainly doesn't appear to uphold the Constitution as I understand it in many respects.

And the point is that his personal beliefs are *particularly* odious in someone who is a member of a minority that has similarly suffered within living memory.

[JuniperLea]

38. That's your opinion...

And you are entitled to it.

To what extent in this issue has he acted on his beliefs and not acted on the Constitution?

[Fumesucker]

47. DADT for one thing..

While he could not overturn the law he could have it not enforced in the military as the CIC of the military.

[CreekDog]

27. What is your point? I *said* people should not be treated like traitors for criticizing him on this

and if one's personal opinion isn't the basis for being called a hypocrite --then what the hell does that word mean?

[JuniperLea]

33. Ok, you may be right... but not for the reason you think!

Definition of HYPOCRITE
1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

He is acting in contradiction to his stated beliefs... he is standing by the Constitution instead of his beliefs.

I'm still right... but I stand corrected:)

You should be glad he's not following his own beliefs. That's the part that I don't get in this argument. He's going against his own beliefs.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Balderdash, and you know it

He and his family simply do not uphold the rules of Paul, the author that is the excuse for the prejudice. Classic hypocrites.

[SeattleGirl]

53. Taking a page out of the Republican playbook, huh?

Attacking his family?

[JuniperLea]

59. You have no right to put your religious beliefs on another... eom

[NMMNG]

96. The RRRW bigots love to use that line

OMG you're being so INTOLERANT by not tolerating our intolerance!1!1

All I have to offer in response is this: The Right Not to Tolerate the Intolerant.


We have no obligation to tolerate people who think they deserve more rights than we do, that they're superior to us, etc, because of some chosen, arbitrary, whimsical notions. None whatsoever.


Isn't it ironic that when it comes to LGBT rights it's always about how it's going to affect straight people, and how we're being "intolerant" of their anti-gay feelings? Nobody here would dream of giving the KKK or Neo-Nazis a platform to spew their bile, or consider their bigotry "just another viewpoint" that should be tolerated. Why is it anti-gay bigotry is given a pass?

[JuniperLea]

98. Thanks for proving my point...

You have no right to force your beliefs upon another any more than someone else has the right to deny you civil rights.

You can't force people to accept you for who and what you are... and they can't force you to be any different. It's called "live and let live" and it's really a good thing. You can't crawl inside someone's head and change them.

[NMMNG]

99. I couldn't care less about changing their beliefs

And I don't give a shit about their "acceptance".

I'm just fed up with their "beliefs" being used to deny me what they have and take for granted, and with apologists defending it. I'm sick to death of thrice-divorced, adultering, child abusing, lobster-eating, pork-rind munching fuckwads telling me I don't deserve legal marriage rights because their Bible says gay people are an abomination. And I'm really sick of ignorant people telling me I should be tolerant of them because otherwise I'm as bad as they are.


"Live and let live" means they go their way and we go ours. It doesn't mean we let them shit all over us with nary a peep of protest.

[JuniperLea]

101. Then we do see eye to eye on most of this...

The entire "beliefs being used to deny me what they have" is what I'm railing against. The hypocrisy of it all as you've stated as well.

I'm not an ignorant person, thank you very much for the insult though. You were clearly so consumed with rage that you couldn't read what I wrote, nor were you really aware of what your responses to me were. No... live and let live does not mean you let people shit on you. I never said such a thing... not even close. Obviously you're taking your hatred out on me... irrationally and unfairly... without the courtesy of actually listening.

That's nice.

[CreekDog]

46. Look, he took the position, let him defend it

if i can't defend the position without rolling my eyes, then i don't need to defend it.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. He's a hypocrite because he does not live up to the standards

of the faith he claims I should live up to. He has the right to voice his opinion, and he has done so continuously, has he not? In fact, he also claims to speak for Christ, as well. But you can not expect to sit there eating a plate of lobster and tell me you are a kosher eater without being laughed out. He's the hypocrite, not anyone else involved in this. He does not keep his faith. Yet he picks at others according to the standards of that faith.

[JuniperLea]

84. And you don't see the intolerance in your intolerance?

And you don't see the hypocrisy in demanding that someone "tolerate" you while you refuse to tolerate them?

[JuniperLea]

102. You can't define what he should live up to...

Any more than anyone else should define what a gay person should or should not live up to.

You don't see the hypocrisy in yourself?

[readmoreoften]

82. Oh he has a right to them. And I have a right not to vote for him if he forces them down my throat.

"You want equal rights for you, but not others if they don't agree with you?"

Oh Juniper. Next you'll be defending Dr. Laura's free speech rights.

Obama can believe whatever fucked up, ignorant, bullshit crap he wants to believe, but that doesn't mean I can't oppose his bigotry. And I can even do it at the ballot box.

As if Obama is losing RIGHTS. Give me a break. :eyes:

[CreekDog]

12. he didn't make that distinction in his latest statement on the matter:

"The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples," Axelrod said.

And again, I said not to treat people like they are traitors for not liking it.

IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK?

[JuniperLea]

20. What I'm asking is for some honesty...

For example, quoting Obama would have been far more genuine than quoting someone else quoting (or misquoting) him.

See how that works?

[CreekDog]

28. "The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples,"

That was Axelrod speaking for Obama.

I haven't heard Obama correct Axelrod and Axelrod is a spokesman for Obama.

I think it's safe to say THESE words are a fair representation of Obama's position.

[JuniperLea]

34. If you looked around...

You'd find Obama's actual words.

[CreekDog]

48. more recent than Axelrod's statement, just a couple weeks ago?

i had naively hoped that when Brown and Schwarzenegger changed their positions in light of the court decision --that Obama would do the same.

instead i had to listen to that inane statement which i don't recall Obama has walked back.

[GodlessBiker]

35. Me, too ... from the President. I'd like to hear an honest answer from him ...

not based on strategies or practicalities, or however else he has framed the issue in the past.

Should the government prohibit same-sex couples from being married? Yes or no, Mr President.

[mitchtv]

13. that's called

talking out of both sides of your face

[Mimosa]

16. ^ True ^

It's all about the politics.

[JuniperLea]

22. Is it? Please explain...

To me it sounds more like someone rising above their own beliefs and doing what is right instead of something that adheres to said beliefs. Isn't that all we can really ask for? We can't make all people accept gay people. We can't institute the thought police... would we really want to?

[CreekDog]

29. Yikes...I'm embarassed for you

seriously.

you don't have to defend this, really --certainly not in that way.

[JuniperLea]

37. Clearly you ran out of argument and turned to insulting me instead...

Thanks! I win!

:eyes:

[CreekDog]

43. I can't say my position any better than i did

And I actually am embarrassed that you are only able to defend his position on an arcane basis rather than taking the whole position together and commenting on that.

You would have been better off saying, "yeah, it sucks, frankly, but it's better than the alternative."

Now that I could respect a little more.

But this thread didn't require that of you --I simply said, don't treat people like traitors for not liking the position.

Is that so bad?

Is it sacred that we be able to treat people like traitors?

[JuniperLea]

60. I would be a hypocrite if I were to change my view to satisfy you...

I want the freedom to believe what I want to believe, and I want that for all Americans... not just those who believe as I do.

I don't buy into the Christian crap, I'm just well versed in it and I believe Obama has the right to believe his version.

As long as others don't impose their beliefs, I don't give a flying rat's ass what they believe.

I'm not the thought police, and niether are you.

[CreekDog]

65. don't put words in my mouth --i care what he does not what he thinks

and his position is what i assume he will do.

[JuniperLea]

85. So you want to beat him up over your own assumptions...

While being intolerant... and while demanding tolerance... ok.

[CreekDog]

87. go ahead, make me the enemy...try to make it appear that i'm tricking people into hating Obama

i'm not.

but please post that 10 or 20 times.

my posting history in favor of Obama and also as a reliable liberal/progressive/whatever will show people that i have no alterior motives.

and i hope people see how nasty you are being towards me for quoting Axelrod to describe Obama's opinion on same sex marriage since the Vaughn Walker decision.

YOU don't think it's fair to to quote Obama's spokesman, most people would find you taking an unreasonable position.

where you've really just gotten just in your face nasty is by characterizing my quoting Axelrod's two week old quote as trying to mislead people. please.

and you aren't helping Obama. that's what you don't get.

you know, i used to see you post back during the primaries and i thought, "i know who that is and they are reasonable, thank goodness!"

where's that poster now? what's happened to you?

[JuniperLea]

88. I'm only repeating what you just said...

You said your position was based on your own assumption.

I must have struck a nerve.

[CreekDog]

89. Again, I'm the enemy --report me to the admins, I'm the enemy

what you're accusing me of certainly sounds bad --i'd just like people to see what you are actually accusing me of.

that i quoted Axelrod's statement on behalf of Obama two weeks ago and didn't quote what Obama said prior to that.

for that you are making me out to be a trickster of the highest order, out to trick, trick, tricky all you people into thinking Obama is bad guy

and then make you all turn into hate, rambling on about whatevers...

:crazy:

(and if you think i sound crazy, read the plethora of posts with the invective against me for QUOTING Axelrod)

the nerve of me to quote Axelrod! :grr:

[Bluenorthwest]

49. The big nasty faith sez: let your yes be yes and your no be no

so you see, the waffling on his part, the lack of clarity itself, is a breaking of the rules of his faith. It says let your yes be yes, your no be no, anything more comes from evil. From evil. Spin is forbidden in that faith. The fact that Obama plays word games at all indicates the actual level of adherence to the laws of his faith in his life, which is none, really. But he comes after the speck in his brother's eye, and that makes him a hypocrite. To be not a hypocrite, he needs to live by his faith, and his wife. Otherwise, he is nothing but hot air, etc.

[Unvanguard]

That is not just the issue with Obama. It's actually the reverse.

Nothing Obama has done indicates personal homophobia, and I suspect strongly that he personally supports same-sex marriage.

The problem is that he isn't willing to say it or do anything about it. It's political cowardice, not personal discomfort. (That said, I am more bothered by his failure to push more aggressively for policy change at the federal level, e.g. ENDA--same-sex marriage isn't directly under his control or influence, so the benefits of a public stance are more speculative there.)

[KamaAina]

6. Oh no you di'int!

:thumbsup:

[Starry Messenger]

7. You!!! didn't!!! use!!! enough!!! exclamation!!!! points!!!!

But I'll let it slide this time. k&r

[Mimosa]

18. Starry, who's that in your sig pic?

Is she holding a cigar?

[Starry Messenger]

44. She was a Communard.

I think she is holding a cigar. :D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[foxfeet]

54. Sweet!

Is that a Kentucky turn of phrase?
:applause:

[TheKentuckian]

56. Nah, I think it used to be common. Might be southern.

[myrna minx]

10. K&R.

:applause:

[nofurylike]

15. if they refuse to vote, or threaten to, to punish; if they "browbeat"

others to dissuade them from voting....

then they are supporting republicans.

is that a "traitor"?
it is a danger to me, that is for sure.

repukes want to kill me, and other lgbt....s too.

[Mimosa]

17. That's crazy talk. n/t

NoFury, LGBTs can disagree.

You're not our boss.

[nofurylike]

51. refusing to vote, i said. that is voting for repukes, and endangers

every lgbt....

[FreeState]

24. "repukes want to kill me"

Seriously? You really believe that? There is a sizable portion of the GOP party that has that kind of anger towards GLBT citizens - but its by far all or even a majority. My mayor is GOP and pro gay marriage - in fact he testified at the Federal Prop 8 trial! Doesn't sound like he wants to kill me. My family is GOP - and they dont want to kill me. This kind of rhetoric is over the top.

I will never vote for anyone - on either side of the isle who does not support my very basic rights to form a family that is equal under the law to everyone else's - that does not mean I am supporting the GOP (whom outside of my mayor I will not ever vote for - and even then the mayors race here is an open primary which resulted in 2 GOP candidates).

[nofurylike]

52. under repuke dominance, killing us, raping us, mutilating us and

so on, were done with impunity.

do you not understand that they want to put an end to us?
yes, they want to kill us. maybe in ways that promise impunity, but it is still us at risk, not those who don't grasp that.

anyway, i am off now. no hurry.....

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Touchdown]

94. The GOP leader came out of the closet, and they didn't kill him.

Clinton Passed DOMA & DADT, but Bush (who did nothing to us, despite being a total disaster and douchebag) is going to Kill us ALL!!!!! :scared:

[CreekDog]

people are getting treated like traitors here even when they've said no such thing

is that defensible too?

[Ozymanithrax]

23. If someone takes a stand to sit out the election because of Obama's stand on Gay marriage...

then they are not criticizing his position. They are making a conscious choice to allow the Republians to win.

I think his stand on Gay marriage, DADT, and Education is wrong. I still intend to vote for Democrats in November. The alternative will be much worse.

[Mimosa]

26. That's the way most people think.

But some here don't want gays or anybody else to post about disagreeing with the President on issues.

[Ozymanithrax]

36. I think it is our duty to disgree with thisPresident or any President.

if we think they are wrong.

However, I think it is wrong to say there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, that we should sit this one out. Actions have consequences. There is a difference between the parties. It may be a lot smaller than we would like. But there is a difference, and I would rather bitch about Democrats who are in power than complain abouit the Republicans who are in power.

[Prism]

30. The President must be shamed into doing the right thing.

And people who continue to intimate that he has nothing to be ashamed of are a problem, not a solution.

Every time the President's bigoted attitude towards equality in marriage is apologized for or defended, they are making it more difficult for those of us putting pressure on the President to do the right thing.

The apologists are working against us.

[Ozymanithrax]

45. I think the President's position is wrong...

Even if it did cost the midterms, I think he should work harder to get Democrats to repeal DADT, because it is the Democratic Congress and Senate that must repeal that law, not the President. He could put pressure on the rest of the Party or announce to them that it is a priority and he wants a vote.

We also need to ask, how quick would a Republican majority in the House repeal DADT?

I also think that we should all realize that the President is not the only problem. There are a lot of Democrats that do not want to have to go home and defend repealing DADT to their constituents, because they never know how the voters will vote. Congressmen must defend votes to the constituents in their districts, not the the citizens of the U.S. Senators must defend their votes to their state, not the U.S.

In California, we thought Prop 8 (hate) would go down, but it passed with the help of a lot of voters that voted for Obama. Will those Democrats who voted for Prop 8 in California, vote for a Democrat who repealed don't ask don't tell? That defines the political cost. Sometimes doing the right thing can be very expensive. When we do it, we should be aware of the cost...and do it anyway.

[Prism]

62. Your outline is actually the precise opposite of what happened. The White House obstructed progress.

It was not that Congress was reticent to tackle DADT, it was the White House who repeatedly begged off on the question, asking for delays, chiding Congressmen who pushed the repeal, outright ignoring Speaker Pelosi when she asked the President to use his executive stop loss powers.

When the time finally came for Congress to cobble together a repeal a few months ago, the White House again begged and pleaded with them to wait. Congress and LGBT groups were rapidly reaching the end of their rope, so this "compromise" was reached.

This is a very important distinction.

The DADT compromise was not a compromise of Democrats with Republicans. It was Congress compromising with the White House.

The White House wanted delay, delay, delay. So a series of studies and surveys and triggers and not-quite compromises were engineered to kick the can ever further down the road.

And this is coming from an administration that was promising this issue would be an early success.

If they were not outright lying to the LGBT community, they were at least crossing their fingers when they made such extravagant promises to lead on LGBT equality. They have no led in the slightest. They have been dragged kicking and screaming every single step of the way.

[CreekDog]

67. and if delayed into the next Congress, it's possible delayed for many years

it was not inconceivable that the Democratic majority could be lost after this Congress.

[Prism]

69. That is what is especially infuriating about this betrayal.

The Presidency and a strong Congressional majority for two years, the best opportunity we've had in a generation.

Wasted.

For no good reason.

And people keep telling LGBTers that Republicans would be no better, that somehow our complaints and pressure will strengthen the Republican party. As if we don't know a Republican majority will basically put our concerns completely on ice instead of the long, slow motion thaw of Democratic cowardice.

No one knows where the shoe pinches more than he who wears it, and the LGBT community has been trying to run down the street in a pair of stilettos for decades.

[Ozymanithrax]

78. If you think that Republicans are the same as Democrats...don't vote...

and, if they Republicans power, see if it comes up. See what Republican Priorities are. Perhaps they will include a repeal of DADT in their next protection of marriage act. It could happen.

I am not saying it is right, only that there is a difference. Not voting is a choice to let Republicans win.

Personally, I think they should repeal DADT, even if it costs the House. Sometimes doing the right thing is expensive. Repealing it will carry a price tag at election time in a lot of Congressional districts. Here in California we found out that a lot of people who otherwise vote Democrat supported stripping away the fourteenth amendment rights of Gays.

[liberation]

91. "Shut up, vote Dem, or the kitten gets it!"

Impressive electoral value proposition you guys got there. LOL!

[readmoreoften]

80. If Democrats who won't vote they're ANTIGAY sit out the election, why not blame them?

Why doesn't Obama and his entourage say: I'm supporting equality and if you don't suck it up and vote Democratic than you RENEGADE CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS are responsible for PALIN!!!


Why are you people always COURTING homophobes in the Democratic Party because they "might not vote" if Obama supports teh gay? But if teh gay says "maybe you ought to court ME" it's the end of the universe?

Democrats who'll go Republican over gay rights? PRECIOUS PRECIOUS VOTES WE MUST EARN. Oh please! Let us keep you. We're so so sorry!
Gays who are sick of being screwed by Democrats? Fuck you, assholes, you better vote for us or you're the enemy you @#$! pricks.

[nofurylike]

100. well said, Ozymanithrax. clarifying. nt

[mmonk]

31. Didn't you now if your position is not the same as Obama's on

every issue or you dare criticise a position of his, it means you want and support Republicans? I've been told that quite a bit so it must be true though I would never vote for a Republican, not even at gun point.

[scheming daemons]

39. If they choose to elevate that issue at the exclusion of every other issue, they are helping the GOP

Fine. You disagree with the President on the issue of marriage equality. I disagree with him too.


But if we spend all our time talking about the 5% of his agenda we disagree with, and we ignore the other 95%, we only depress turnout on our side and help the GOP.


The President is wrong on marriage equality. But he's right on just about everything else.


Let's work to help the Democrats in congress and at the same time work on convincing the President he is wrong on that issue.

But if we elevate this disagreement with the President so that it is the only thing anybody is talking about, it helps the GOP.

[Safetykitten]

42. So how do you think he will change his mind? Hypothetically speaking of course.

First of all how will he change his mind? Just electing people got us a non-working healthcare system, so electing who exactly will cause him to change his mind? Is it the electing of what quantity of people that will make him change his mind? Say we "help" the Democrats in Congress to "help" him change his mind. How does one do that in a gay way?

[NMMNG]

66. Actually,

He's wrong on a shitload of other stuff too.

But thanks for implying LGBT people are "one issue voters". It's par for the course.

[ruggerson]

68. Usually people's political leanings start with what's best for their own family

I do believe that black kids in the sixties in the south who couldn't get a decent education probably felt that was a paramount issue in their lives.

[Prism]

73. One day of discussing LGBT stuff = too much time spent on it.

I love how, if we discuss the issue too vigorously for even a single day, that's far too much time and effort spent on it, and shouldn't we really be focused on the things that, you know, matter?

If you empathized with gay people in the slightest degree, that kind of thinking would've never come out of your keyboard, because you would've known how insulting it was.

But you don't, so you don't.

[LAGC]

74. Don't you think 95% is a bit optimistic?

I'd say closer to 50%. Much better than Bush (but when you set the bar that low, how can one NOT be much better than Bush?) but still leaves much to be desired.

The biggest thing harming Obama in my eye is his right-wing cabinet picks. What Arne Duncan is doing to teachers and unions is inexuseable, and Timmy Geithner and Larry Summers policies are sinking this economy further into the hole. He needs to shake things up in his cabinet if he really wants to see change happen.

And how do you expect him to come around on the gay marriage issue? If everyone just shuts up about it, as you suggest, he'll continue to triangulate his way to further compromise with the Republicans! Why let him off the hook?

[Safetykitten]

77. I had no idea it was a percentage issue. Maybe we are math challenged?

[readmoreoften]

81. Oh we can talk about the other parts of his agenda. They suck too.

Equal rights? He blows.
Social Security? Full of shit.
Health Care? Insurance boondoggle?
Peace? War.
Gradualism? Obfuscation.

[Ignis]

86. Marriage equity is a facet of the larger problem: Equal Rights.

Either it's equal rights for all, or it's not. :shrug:

[Touchdown]

95. Total load of horseshit.

Nobody is helping the GOp on anything, except in your paranoid and infatuated brain.

[nashville_brook]

50. i'm seeing a lot of "if they" do this and "if THEY" do that -- niiiiiiiiice.

[Ozymanithrax]

55. If (conj) a. In the event that: b. Granting that: c. On the condition that:

If is a perfectly good word.

Do you have a problem with if? If so, what is the problem?

[fishwax]

57. k/r

:kick:

[Subdivisions]

58. Whoever says or thinks that is just stupid, n/t

[Lorien]

61. That old BS argument of "if you're mad at Obama for moving to the Right

then you really want President Palin" has GOT to end. Aside from being illogical to the point of being one of the most idiotic arguments ever put forth on DU, it has that added Freeperesque "If you're not with us then you're with the enemy" implication to it. It's beneath anyone on this board to use it ever again.

[dkf]

63. You could say that about any of his policies.

[BlueCheese]

64. Well...

My personal belief is that only landed white males should be able to vote. However, I understand that the law says differently, and defer to that. Look how great I am!

[jgraz]

70. The best way to let the Repukes win? Defend positions that demoralize the base.

When people make excuses for Obama's milquetoast approach to LGBT rights, they're enabling the EXACT BEHAVIOR that turns off both independents and progressives alike. Weak-willed, wishy-washy policy positions are more repellent to voters than strongly-held policy positions that they disagree with.

Few people really think Obama's a homophobe. Most of us know he espouses his position for political expediency. Allowing him to continue that behavior unchallenged will lead directly to Democratic losses this fall and in 2012.

[Dragonfli]

71. That about sums it up... er I mean YOU LOVE PALIN, you bastard!!!!!

[readmoreoften]

83. +1

[tnlefty]

72. Well, no shit!

The memes that are started around here make me want to scream sometimes.

I'm off to bed now.

[JoeyT]

75. They also keep trotting out the "But he's going to go by the Constitution!!!!!" line.

As you can see upthread. Which is probably not the best argument to make, since he hasn't really shown himself to be terribly concerned with the Constitution either. Unless I somehow missed the part that says warrantless wiretaps and assassinating citizens without trials are ok.

Edited to add: I won't say he doesn't have a right to his personal opinion. Of course he does. Everyone does.
I'm saying his personal opinion makes him a bigot.

[newtothegame]

76. But it does mean you're racist .nt

[CreekDog]

79. we haven't been hearing that one as often lately

thankfully. :D

[bullwinkle428]

90. K&R. Shame that the un-reccers are on this like pirhanas in 3-D!

[LostinVA]

92. I love you, man

I really mean that.

YIFF YIFF YIFF

MHU

:pals:

[mzteris]

97. not liking it and criticizing it are one thing

(and I wholeheartedly agree with doing both!), but to say you're not going to vote for him or support the Democrats because of it is another thing entirely.

Better half a loaf than none at all...