• #1
    Eric Holder needs to go. He's a pawn of the gay agenda and Fast and Furious is grounds for impeachment.

    Then again, birds of a feather flock together, Obama'd just appoint another radical leftist...
  • #6
    @Paultron Like what? Fast and Furious? The gay agenda? Obama's team of radical leftists? because all of that is true...
  • #10
    The "gay agenda".....maybe like, going door-to-door to recruit? Putting their literature in hotel rooms across the world? Printing "In Gay We Trust" on everyone's money? Making gay bars tax-exempt?

    Now, substitute "christian" for "gay", then tell me who's REALLY got an "agenda" going.
  • #13
    @twinertia Shh Commander Ellen Degeneres told us in the last secret cave/bunker meeting that we were suppose to keep the "agenda" on the down low. Shhhhhh!
  • #15
    @twinertia Imagine just about every popular tv show on the major networks having an evangelical christian as one of the regular characters every week? That's what we are seeing with gays. Tell me when they are lacking a regular christian character, an african-american, hispanic or asian regular character, how the networks are not pushing the gay agenda? Are they trying to tell us there are more gays in the USA than there are christians, african-americans, hispanics or asians?
  • R Load more replies

  • #7
    In other words, gays get to be screwed by politicians and money grubbing government workers and lawyers just as much as the other 97% of America. Seems like "equality".

    This is just a colorful rainbow diversion tactic, and while gays might benefit in some small measure, they will suffer more in the long run, because the state does nothing that doesn't benefit themselves more than the people they serve. That is the nature of Statism.
  • #50
    If they extend basic rights and benefits to same sex couples the next thing you're going to see is equal rights for Blacks and Hispanics, not to mention allowing Muslims or Sheiks to worship as they please.
    What ever happened to good old white revival tent values?
  • #9
    So I guess the federal government just runs over the 33 states then without any legislation...just at this administrations word alone???

    Not so much against any of the issues here, gay is going to be gay and I'd just soon government be out of marriages all together, but I'm dead against the way this is being done! This is setting a dangerous precedent and is another outright lawless and unconstitutional move...again!
  • #26
    Extending Federal benefits in no way ussurps states' rights. No more than a private company rightfully extending equal rights to Gay employees does.
  • #51
    @Keyjo @Now_What

    What @BrovoJuliet is saying is not bigotry. It should worry you just as much as it does me. I could care less about gay marriage, BUT THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO GO ABOUT IT. How would you feel if the government unilaterally banned alcohol again without passing it through congress? How about anything from the right's agenda without it going through congress? If the Obama administration the dems can do this, so can a republican president.

    I don't care what the issue is, but going about it this way should scare you because it goes both ways. We have a process for a reason. Going around the process for ANY REASON is dangerous.
  • #55
    @cdman @BravoJuliet
    Unless I'm misunderstanding something (quite possible), I think you're misunderstanding something - this isn't legalizing gay marriage across the country. Married couples get federal benefits irregardless of where they move; this simply extends the idea to *all* married couples. This forces nothing on the States. There's no change as far as they're concerned - a gay couple living in a State that doesn't accept their marriage won't be able to file their state taxes as a married couple, just as before. Nor could they have been married there.

    If anything, think of it as living up to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which has been remarkably absent in all of this anyway.
  • #66
    States Right are important.
    Yep, we should allow all the Southern States to reinstitute slavery. Its a States Rights issue!!!!

    It seems like some of our NeoConfederate citizens still want to restart the Civil War.
    (Dang! Sorry folks, I meant "the "War of Northern Aggression").

    Well, here is an idea that will make everyone happy:
    We can slice the country off, just below that perfect, slightly arced State boundary line that starts below Virginia at the East Coast. Then moving left, and following all the State boundary lines right across the major U.S., all the way to Nevada, we then slice downward past the bottom tip of Nevada and along the east California border down to Mexico. We can then very, very, very all work together an carefully pole the whole bottom portion of our unhappy Southern U.S. right out into the Gulf Stream current, wave solemnly goodbye, shed a few tears, promise to stay in touch, and let the Gulf current swing them out and down and around and around until the new continent finds itself some new footing on the Antartic shelf. We'll rename what is left attached to Canada the U.S.N.(N=North).
    This should work for everyone. Let the new U.S.S.(S=South) run their new country any dang way they is their perogative.

    One caveat: Since this new country comprises almost all of the "taker" States in he U.S. now, the ones who contribute less Federal Revenue than they constantly get back, they'll almost surely be paddling their little butts frantically to try and get back up here in less than 3-4 months, so we can continue funding the little dearhearts.

    Oh! What's a caring Federal Mother to do? We can't let them starve........that would be the GOP way to handle those that want handouts.........but.......
  • R Load more replies

  • #77
    @twinertia Try being a mayor in Canada and refusing to attend a pride parade and see what happens. You will be attack in the media and called every name possible. What would be wrong with a mayor feeling uncomfortable in a pride parade?
  • #125
    @SummerNights Does a mayor represent everyone in a town, or not? When a city official is supposed to show up at a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new supermarket, does the fact that he's had bad experiences at that supermarket's other locations warrant a cancellation? No. Their jobs require certain responsibilities that run the gamut of an entire community; if they're not ready for that, they're in the wrong job.
  • #168
    Imagine that, being a bigot isn't considered socially acceptable in Canada. How awful.
  • #186
    @Cal Do you expect everyone, public official or common citizen, to be comfortable at a paride parade? Not everyone is, it's just fact and life. Not everyone attends any other parade either, so why does the gay community expect everyone to attend theirs.
  • R Load more replies

  • #54
    Continued -- more gubment logic....

    These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government and our culture:

    1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few
    lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions
    of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.

    And here's another one worth considering.

    2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to
    run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of
    money? What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their
    money, but the second didn't.
    Nor is there any logic in govt supporting deviant proclivities...
  • #64
    Given that a huge majority of Americans, including gun owners like myself would like to see some new guns laws that would provide accountability for who is buying weapons and shell casings that are traceable back to criminals that EVERY Law Enforcement Group wants, but somehow, despite what America wants, the NRA and Gun Lobby magically seems to be in total control of our Congress, it is kind of hard to claim anyone really is brave enough to "encourage" anyone to judge gun owners of being lunatics. It is instant political death for either Party to make a statement like that.
    Some gun owners get accused of being paranoid and easily manipulated by the NRA. Yes, that is going on. And most of us know that the Gun Lobby couldn't care less about anything but using ANY false paranoia to boost their sales, especially after every mass shooting event. Clearly, that is the case beyond any doubt. But, is anyone accusing ALL gun owners of being lunatics? No..........that false B.S. is being manufactured by the NRA/Gun Lobby who do not want to lose their ability to keep sending in huge bribes and lobbyist "contributions" to both Parties.
    Its the same old tired, hide-the-pea/move-the-goalpost s political shell game the Gun Lobby has been playing on hapless U.S. citizens for decades to keep dem old barrel lathes and handstock mills a' runnin' and a hummin' back at the gun plants in America. Move on folks, nothing to see. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.....
  • #71

    Accountability depends on who's ox is being gored. In the logical mind that would encompass laws preventing mental cases and subversives from gaining access to products through comprehensive monitoring. But unfortunately, we don't live in a society (or world) free of corruption. With a socialist administration in power, they would like to see all firearms heavily restricted or removed entirely. Regarding imprinting shell casings so they can be traced back to the purchasers has it's problems as well, such as the exorbitant cost to Joe 6-pak. Not to mention that revolvers don't expend their shell casings at all.

    Our founders understood how government can become controlling and despotic. That's why we have a 2nd Amendment -- to prevent the over-regulating of our freedoms and tyrannical governance--

    A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.(middle class)
    -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

    “One man with a gun can control 100 without one...... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.”
    ― Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

    "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."
    Adolf Hitler, "Tischgespräche" 1941-1944

    "It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed."
    Vladimir Lenin

    IMO, of course. <wink>
  • #74
    I don't disagree with your constitutional points........and of course, I support and understand our rights as granted. But........when you have a profit motive driving EVERYTHING in this country, exploiting people with fear-mongering and fomenting an unnatural, over-the-top fear of the government to move product is just as subversive as granting the government too much power. How many people would die each year from gunfire if the U.S. restricted gun ownership? Would it save about 25,000 lives out of the annual 30,000 lives lost to a bullet, each year? We are paying an exorbitant human price each year in America to preserve the right to own a weapon. And asking that question seriously, and weighing the alternatives does not make someone a bad person, or "un-American". When I see how Americans question every one else's patriotism, or denigrate others, based on mere opinions or preferences, I realize how uneducated and ignorant our voter base has become.

    "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism."
    - quote attributed to many Americans, perhaps as early as Jefferson or Machiavelli

    "Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”
  • R Load more replies

  • #12
    This admin slaps the states around, no voice for the people in states that said no, it's Barry's way alone, and yet we have no member, not one, that will start to impeach. Cowards.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #56
    Just one more reason why there should be no "benefits" when it comes to taxes. The tax system in this country is little more than a vote buying scheme. Get rid of the "benefits" and make a flat tax with ZERO "benefits", a.k.a. loopholes to get out of paying taxes. Cut all deductions and lower the income tax by 5%. It's really simple, and why the pimps in D.C. won't consider it.
  • #172
    "Cut all deductions and lower the income tax by 5%."

    If that's actually what you want, it's not a flat tax. There would still be tax brackets for different income levels.
  • #209
    I don't understand why gay marriage is still being debated. Their is no good argument that anyone can use against gay marriage, that straight couples aren't already doing.
  • #123
    Agree and disagree with it. Opposed to gay marriage but when made law I respect that.

    Governor Mary Fall Down has said gay marriage prohibited by state and will not be recognized for state benefits.
  • #70
    as long as they get the "benefit" of the marriage tax penalties I am fine, you know everyone should pay more taxes and smile .....
  • #20
    As long as they were married in a state where it is legal for them to get married it is ok. If it was not legal fro them to get married there, it is wrong.
  • #24
    Once again you miss the point it forces the states to do nothing in their jurisdiction it only
    Applies to federal institutions? I guess recognizing the truth won't foster your conspiracy theories.
  • #212
    @larryjackson Only if you were not legally married. What part of my statement did you not understand? Read it again.

    As long as they were married in a state where it is legal for them to get married it is ok. If it was not legal fro them to get married there, it is wrong.
  • #17
    Just more of a Liberal activist Government picking & choosing what groups of people get special treatment. Constant worrying about groups with unnatural sexual orientations & never word one about all the thousands of other groups who are discriminated against. It's called pandering to your voting blocks & spitting on the rest of us. Maybe you missed it, Obama has spent all 5 years of his presidency pushing for more money taken from the middle class & given to his welfare voting block. Same with his special treatment of his Gay voting block. Maybe you don't care but I am sick of a President who takes sides instead of supporting all Americans, especially the tax payers.
  • #19

    Also tired of all the Democrat minions in the Senate helping to tear down America and nuking our Constitutional and Legislative laws as well!

    People had better f__king wake up...if they do this shit with one thing what's to stop them when it really hurts Obama Kill is?
  • #28
    Here to fore, it has been only heterosexual couples who have enjoyed "special rights."
    Your just sore that even though your mother told you, you are special, you are sliding to "equal" when it comes to that contractual agreement, " Marriage!"
  • #67
    @Speedieg Treating people as equals does not give them the right to make a mockery of our Marriage laws. Homosexuality is not normal or natural & we need not sanction it as so.
  • #68
    @Keyjo Marriage is not a special right. It is a natural union contract between what nature & biology tells us.... between a man & a woman.
  • R Load more replies

  • #16
    Feds To Extend New Benefits to Same-Sex Couples: AG Eric Holder

    Special benefits for The gays...and it starts...WOW!!!!

    But we have all heard these useful idiot liberals preach that The gays arent looking for any special rights.

    I knew they were lying because their mouths were moving!!!!!!!!!!
  • #170
    It's the exact same benefits that all other marriage couples get. How the **** does that become a "special" benefit in your mind?
  • R Load more replies

  • #117
    We are talking about reality here. Don't bring your fictional gods into a rational, logic based discussion.
  • #124
    Soon you will find out how "Fictional" God really is first hand. The Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Jesus Christ is coming soon!!
    Good luck-----.
  • R Load more comments...