You're really impressed with yourself, eh? Deliver? The ONLY way the GOP can deliver on an issue that's ALREADY been decided by the Supreme Court ala Roe vs. Wade is to RESTRICT abortion, i.e. late term/partial birth, parental consent, prohibit minors across state lines, waiting periods ect. Don't even TRY to bullshit me that Tennessee's GOP dominated legislature has created anything approaching abortion on demand. And now of course as PROMISED the Supreme Court has a probable "states right" majority who will uphold a ban. Democrats smart? A party of ghetto blacks, Mexican migrants, queers, anti-Christian Jew Marxists and disenfranchised grad students working at coffee houses? The party of moronic slogans such as "Tax cuts for the rich", "war for oil", "it's the economy stupid". Real intellectual stuff. Every vagrant, criminal, anti American despot in the U.S. votes Democrat. The loser geeks who are jealous of the good looking rich kids. I've seen America's future. It's Brazil.
lol... unbelievable. Just sickening. There was nothing in your post that suggested your argument was as Devil's advocate. Now you're backpedalling. I just re-read it. There is no way that you can now claim it was somehow a represenatation of someone else's opinion or argument or perspective. Not willing to stand up for what you believe in, huh? No surprise there. I wouldn't either if my beliefs were so sickening.
There are a number of people here who have known me for a long time Nick, and one thing that most would say is I am willing to stand up for what I believe in. So, let me try to clarrify this. I was not playing the Devil's advocate and was not trying to claim that. I do not know where I stand on the issue, I could go either way. I did grow up in a house where I was taught that homosexuality was wrong and that certainly effects my thinking now as an adult, but as I said when I edited my post I have a very good friend who is gay and would like to "marry" his sig. other, so this is an issue that I really am thinking about a lot and I could go either way on it.
I guess you are not familiar with the 9th circuit, equal protection, and slippery slope arguments. When gay marriage is the law, what stops 2 men and a women. When do the barriers stop falling. I mean who the hell are you to say a 20 year old male can not marry a 16 year old male? How can you act so morally superior. Are your values superior to someone who supports lamda. Why? How about someone who supports nambla. Again why? How about norml why? How about abortion. How about tax reform. I suggest we all start getting comfortable with the concept of democracy and stop pushing for a reengineering of society through the courts. I do not think any of us will like where it stops.
First, you've got a problem with reading comprehension. Go back and read my post, and see if you can understand whether I said the Democrats or the Republicans were "smart." Second, the Tennessee GOP's are just fine. They tried to enact an income tax but were stopped by people in the mountains who make less than 10k a year. What can I say. We settled on a state lottery so those poor folks get to spend what they have left after paying for the 9% sales tax for a chance to become millionairs. It's when they go national, that they suck (look at Frist, what an incompetent disgrace!). Tennessee Democrats are just fine, too - they just can't go national. BTW, in Tennessee, it's pretty close to "abortion on demand," whatever that means to you right wingers.
So you suggest dems give up their principles, so that they can win elections? If they did that, sacrificed principle for power...well, that would just make them republicans...
Your post is very hard to understand. I am not making any comment other than to say that if you state that allowing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of child rape, you are a fucking moron who should have an electronic tracking tag implanted under your skin so that society can track your whereabouts in case you go off the deep end and physically harm someone. Please see my post above to Pabst. I said that I am not making a comment about the advisability of allowing homosexuals to be married in the legal Christian sense, and that I can understand the position of those who are against it. I support granting gay couples civil union so that they can accrue the benefits available to opposite sex life partners. I am undecided on the issue of calling their union marriage, partly because I am not familiar with all the legal ramifications of such a move. I don't give a fuck about your 9th circuit. If you feel it is an act of moral superiority to say that gay marriage will not lead to the legalization of child rape, you are either drunk or stupid. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.
Yes, I would suggest that to them because once they are in power they could then go ahead and fight for their principles more effecively if that is what they are. I do not, however, think that is a priority or principle of the majority of the people who vote for democrates. It certainly is not here.