Best
140 Comments
Post
  • #36
    !
    Let's see, It was gays, hormone crazed women, Hispanics that want to be here illegally,Big Labor Unions and
    their thugs, minorities, people who believe in "cradle to grave entitlements", the liberal crazed media all supporting the Left, and they still had to use voter fraud to get him elected...There is no such thing 140% votes.
    It is a known fact that Cleveland and Philly, both large cities in swing states, had not ONE vote for Romney!
    Make sense?!
  • #40
    !
    I did not mean to vote you up on that. I want you to put some factual information behind that allegation or is it busy another of your "conspiracy" theories?
  • #41
    !
    @classychazy LOL...somehow I knew that! It's okay, I'll take it...I've done the same thing, but, Thanks!!!
  • #70
    !
    "It is a known fact that Cleveland and Philly, both large cities in swing states, had not ONE vote for Romney!" You're including these cities in their entirety? Not so. Only some specific precincts recorded no Romney votes. These were mostly inner city precincts where the population tends to be all minorities.
  • #78
    !
    @Denizen_Kate I live near Cleveland and am well familiar with those areas, some of the homes are a half
    million dollars or more and owned by CEO's , football players, etc.. I don't know where your facts are coming
    from and don't care. I LIVE in the area, I won't and don't pretend to know the demographics of Cal., these were
    not inner city precincts.. and there is not, nor will ever be more than 100% of voters! It makes no sense, but, hey
    at this point nothing does.
  • R Load more replies

  • #51
    !
    If I do recall, didn't Obama go againt Gay marriage in his 08 campaign and said marriage should only be between man and a woman. How come all his flip/flopping has never been brought up?
  • #74
    !
    It has been brought up. However, in Obama's case, perhaps he's not too stubborn to learn something new? I thought the same of some of Romney's changing positions. We live, we learn.
  • #43
    !
    No, not really, pretending to favor gay-marriage over a civil union would be seen as just what it is, a pretense. Obama bought the gay vote when he flip flopped, err "Evolved" and was outed by Biden as favoring gay marriage. Should the R party, MY party, stay out of the bedrooms of all of us? Yes, not our business. That said, we need to lose the extreme abortion never, ever under any circumstances rhetoric of a very vocal minority of republicans and push for Civil Unions for anyone who wants to legalize their union and leave the word marriage for us old fashioned folks. Marriage, a religious ceremony uniting one man and one woman, totally separate from any government policy. Perhaps we need to do what the do in Europe, everyone, anyone, wanting to legalize their union has to have a government sanctioned Civil Union, then if wanted, go to a church and have a purely religious ceremony. End of conversation.
  • #63
    !
    you are confusing your rite of matrimony wit legal marriage. religion has absolutely nothing to do with legal marriage.

    marriage is the purview of the state.(who else would overlook a legal, binding contract?) it always has been. Religion didn't glom onto the concept until the 14th century or so, and then only to bless the state sponsored marriage on the steps of the church.

    hostory is fun!
  • #92
    !
    @woodtick57 OK, English not your first language? That would explain your total misinterpretation of what I wrote. In short, Civil Unions would be the governments domain. It would pertain to all rights and privileges of union between two consenting adults. It would be the guarantee of inheritance, ability to visit in hospital and all the other privileges that now pertain to the word Marriage. Got that? Then, as I said, if you want a religious ceremony, you can hie yourself down to your favorite religious group for a ceremony that is blessed by the God or goddess of your choice. Got that? Therefore, YOU are incorrect in your assertion that I confused anything. I thought I was quite clear. Government unions, to satisfy the governments requirements for legal protection under the laws of two people who want to be united into a contract of Civil Union. Any two people, the government can then grapple with just how many more may participate in said Civil Union. Marriage would then be simply a religious rite, one that us old fashioned types would like to keep in the traditional definition, One man and One Woman uniting in Holy Matrimony. Got That? I have no idea what your agenda is, personally, I just don't really care, but my point was certainly made quite clear. Yes, upon rereading my post, I cannot see how anyone could have confused my remarks as badly as you did, of course, as I said, if English is not your primary language, that would explain it.
  • #105
    !
    @Tralee I would be behind that. BUT some churches do believe in same sex marriages and perform them. I assume you would be behind those marriages too? As blessed by a church.
  • #133
    !
    @jamie91 Have absolutely no problem with that at all. Just seems to me we are making a mountain out of a mole hill with this issue and in the process causing a lot of hurt on all sides of the issue.
  • #30
    !
    I've been a supporter of gay marriage and the LGBT community in general for quite some time. That being said, I don't know if it's possible for Republicans to change their policies to attract the LGBT community. There are only two viable political parties in this country. The Democrat party is openly hostile to people of faith. So naturally, socially conservative people that believe in the "traditional" definition marriage will gravitate to the Republican party. Given the number of people in the Republican party that have a traditional perspective on things, I doubt the Republican party would be able to change it's positions. You just can't kick people of faith out of the Republican party any more than you can kick the LGBT community or labor unions out of the Democrat party. People will always gravitate to the place where they feel most welcome. So it is what it is. But honestly...... is there anything the Republican party can do or say to attract the LGBT vote? The honest answer is no. The Republican party doesn't stand a snowball war in hell's change of getting the LGBT vote.......ever.
  • #57
    !
    I agree with you and I dont agree with you. But You just said it all in a nutshell with your comment and I respect you for that.
  • #66
    !
    "The Democrat party is openly hostile to people of faith." That's not the impression I get. What I see and hear from the Democrats is opposition to laws based on religious beliefs.
  • #73
    !
    @Denizen_Kate .....Kate.....that would be like me saying that Republicans aren't hostile to Unions. What I see and hear from Republicans is that they just want to reward people based on their individual performance. C'mon! Let's be honest about things! If you can't see how people of faith are denigrated as ass-backward bible-thumping bigots ....... I don't know what I can say for you to see the obvious.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #139
    !
    Democrats are not hostile to people of faith but support the first amendment for all people of faith or of no faith not just people of the Christian faith. I am a student in a seminary of a mainstream Christian denomination and I do not feel my government prevents me from practicing my own religion nor does it force me to participate in any other religion. Just because my religion is not part of public ceremonies, activities, events, or the like doesn't mean the govern met is hindering my religious freedom. These same laws protect Conservative Christians from sitting through public Islamic prayers at high school sporting events or Hindi chanting before a court hearing.
  • #25
    !
    LOL, oh now the Gay's got Obama elected? Obama and other Democrats have always gotten the Gay vote along with the Abortion vote, and the environmentalist vote, and the save the baby seal(kill the baby human vote). So what! These people are their base. Did you honestly think the majority of any of these groups would vote for the GOP. One thing and one thing alone elected Obama. His plan of growing the welfare base to numbers that would assure his re election. How sick an agenda is that? Four more years of a dead economy. I just hope it will not be too late to reverse the path of bankruptcy he has put us on. He mas made George Bush and George Bush's Democrat controlled house and senate look like tight wads. Obama is destroying our nation with his socialist ideology.
  • #17
    !
    http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/...
    Looks like Barry is "evolving" again on the issue of gay unions.
    I wonder why? Hmmm.
    Maybe its because the election is over and he doesn't need to pander for the votes anymore from a group of people that he doesn't really care about.
    I wonder what group will be thrown under the bus next, since he doesn't need them anymore?
    Will the gay community have an uprising and protest/boycott Barry once they realize they were USED for political gain and got nothing for their votes?
    You libs sure picked a classy, lying piece of crap didn't you?
    You libs might want to start covering your own asses quick. You're all going to be left behind and forgotten for all the loyalty and propaganda spewing that you've done for the Muslim in chief.
  • #5
    !
    Not really....
    Neither party should have to cater to a specific group. The ideal situation would be for the parties to have such common sense approaches to government and laws that their platforms would appeal across the board.
  • #6
    !
    Yeah, yeah, I know. That's kinda like the saying; 'the check is in the mail' and believing in the 'tooth fairy'.
  • #2
    !
    Seems like a simplification of the voting demos... What about all the straight people who couldn''t vote for the gOP because of their anti-gay stance and other anti-uman social stances?

    A lot more complicated than just one voting group winning the election for one candidate.
  • #53
    !
    Well, 76% of their whole population is not going to swing and election. According to a Williams Institute survey conducted in April 2011, approximately 3.5% of American adults identify themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual, while 0.3% are transgender. And not all of them are at an age to vote or acutally get out and vote. Many were mad because he didn't do enough for them.
  • #69
    !
    Don't forget to include all the friends and family members of anyone who is gay. You don't have to be homosexual to be in favor of equal rights for all citizens.
  • #91
    !
    @Zazziness That is not what the article pointed to,,,it pointed to the direct vote of that demographic.
  • #93
    !
    @Buggsy888 True but they should have taken it into account. Some people who are against equal rights think only homosexuals support equality. They are very wrong about that.
  • #106
    !
    @Zazziness Some people just don't think that sexual preferences is in that category,,"a protected equal right".
  • R Load more replies

  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #29
    !
    When did you choose between the guys you are sexually attracted to and the girls you are sexually attracted to? Which one did you choose?
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #45
    !
    If anything the republicans needs to push the needle as far right as it goes. If anything cost Romney the election, it was not being conservative enough
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #135
    !
    Republicans should only change a position if it is what they believe. A political party is supposed to represent the views of its members. A party isn't intended to appeal to the masses by selecting policies that sell.
  • #121
    !
    Log Cabin Republicans have tried for years to take their place at the convention, to be heard. But the GOP essentially ignores them and acts as though no Gay Republicans exist, and that's probably why they almost don't. It's as though the Republicans don't recognize the existence of anyone but old White men and subservient Christian women. I'm shocked they get the votes they do.
    By segregating so many groups, they have pretty much segregated themselves.
    Perhaps that's a good thing until they decide the modern world
  • #119
    !
    No. The Gays are ours and the Right can't have them. Find your own downtrodden group..........What? You say you guys on the Right already a downtrodden group? The filthy rich? Oh yeah they are pretty needy what with them having their sad lifestyle so threatened. Okay, you can have them but keep your hands off our gays.
  • #117
    !
    Like I said before, the GOP needs to kick out the Xitian Fundies, second-coming people, and neocons and WELCOME the Gays and Lesbians to the party. They also should be lobbying for gay marriage. The republicans can steal that crew from the Democrats so easily.
  • R Load more comments...
Post