California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Surely the US is not out of Iraq?

Happy holidays. For those spending time with your families, take time to be grateful. There are people in the world who seek to destroy families because it disagrees with their religion.

Like this guy...



Appreciate your loved ones.
R
T

I've been in to bat for "family" all along fa.

I am not arguing that here. I simply corrected a statement made by Rex. If you want to argue about if the US is out of Iraq yet this isn't the thread for that.l

GWB set many deadlines for us to leave Iraq and none of them stuck. Remember mission accomplished from atop the aircraft carrier?

Obama stuck to his guns and had Obama declared mission accomplished at the same time not an eyelash would have been batted. Bush simply wasn't effective as a president. 90% is perception and Bush was not perceived well at all. Bush walking out of the Kyoto protocol debate set the perception for 8 years of animosity where in all his good intentions nothing got done. Banks started ripping off the government and their clients and all hell was breaking loose. Your theory of Bush getting us out of Iraq will never be know because he was out of office by that time. Who knows what sort of violence could have erupted for his behalf. Bush was simply not liked by many of our allies and by our enemies.

Remember his half hearted hug repelled by Chancellor Merkle? I don't disagree with the premise of the Iraq war but Bush was terribly ineffective as a commander in chief. He got things done but at a greater cost.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29371588/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/

http://insidecablenews.wordpress.com/2010/08/18/nbcmsnbcs-surprise-iraq-pullout-coverage/

Not exactly sure which planet you are on MM...

Yup Art, another slime bag in that video... That guy also thinks there is proof that the universe is only 6000 years old, give or take a few days...

Between 6,000 and 7,000, it's more than just a few days. The bible is not a reliable source in support of science - or much else.

You admit that it's a logical fallacy and yet you want to still argue the point? Bizarre!

Thank you for sharing

Obama, DOJ Say Part Of DOMA Is Unconstitutional, Will Not Defend It In Court
Ryan J. Reilly | February 23, 2011, 12:21PM


The Obama Justice Department has decided that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and will not defend it in court.

"After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/obama_doj_say_part_of_doma_is_unconstitutional_will_not_defend_it_in_court.php?ref=fpa

Cycloptichorn

A good post Cyclo, thanks much.

The pub is the place where the highest standards of scrutiny of classifications of sexual orientation are brought to bear. The fact that reports of them are not allowed to be published or broadcast gives the homosexual lobby a bye in the sense that it then only has to deal with issues where lower standards necessarily exist in the interests of delicate tastes.

Of course, I readily admit that pubs are populated by pond scum but there's nothing I can do about that. If I could I might consider disenfranchising the silly sods. Then it would be plain sailing for you all. The intellectual elite seems to have bought into your programme for reasons that one can only speculate upon. Perhaps an unconscious subjectivity, the bane of all scientific thinking, is in play. And we wouldn't want any of that when the highest standards of scrutiny are being employed.

Although if the expression "highest standards of scrutiny " is only an expression designed to impress and is unrelated to any standards of scrutiny in real life at all then I suppose the only damage being inflicted is to bring the expression into such disrepute as to provoke choruses of sniggers, chortles and guffawing. Which can be classed as damage in some circles. And as entertainment in others.

I imagine that evolution has eradicated homosexuals from ponds.

As it stands you are trying to overcome an attitude which has very deep roots in our historical and artistic traditions.

Spendius, it seems you are trying to overcome an "attitude" of your own...

Even married homosexuals need to have standards in order to live in peace and harmony with their spouse and others.

Homosexuals have standards just as heterosexuals and heterosexuals can lower their own standards just as easily as their counterparts. There is enough scum in the pond to go around fairly and equally for all...

Liberty and freedom is not necessarily a lowering of standards, it is a balancing of standards.

I presume you mean that they adopt heterosexual standards in order to blend in when in view.

What, heterosexuals have standards?

Perhaps standards are "written in the heart", they don't need to be "adopted", just realized.

Certain learning is genetically innate, thus, inalienable.

What do you think about this man? I do not agree with his mores but he does seem to be logical!

http://www.youtube.com/user/CultOfDusty#p/u/8/FoBptNeBizg

He does seem a bit over the top but that might be like me calling the kettle black. I do agree with his opinion. Every time I see John McCain I just get angry. I can't believe I ever voted for him. The pity is John McCain is probably only doing what the Christian right base tells him. Like when he was George Bush's lapdog. John McCain thinking for himself is just like gays trying to be straight. Thanks RL

I do agree he does seem over the top but we all see life from a different angle!
He does love gay people but if you watched enough of his videos you would find that he seems to be very obsessive about women and porn. At least in my opinion!

http://www.youtube.com/user/CultOfDusty#p/u/45/MiFqnnI3cgc