Huckabee Out

[xsited1]

while Huckabee talks about gays going to Hell.

I know he once wanted to isolate people infected with HIV/AIDS from the general public and is against gay marriage but as far as I can tell he never said such a thing.

Huckabee in 1992:

"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle."

Last time I read the bible, sinners went to hell. Did I read that wrong?

You read it right. There's plenty more where that came from, but being in Little Rock gives one a front row seat. I would ask Ravi to do a little bit of research before posting about something she knows nothing about, but she's just trolling and Huckabee isn't running so it's a moot point.

 

[rightwinger]

Gays have exactly the same rights to marry as anyone else anywhere in this country. Please show me where they don't.

As for the GOP, they are going through a very positive process discovering who they are and where they want to go. The religious right basically lost their main candidate, which isn't a bad thing in my book.
Team Obama suffers from a combination of: arrogance, poor judgment, a press that isn't nearly as favorable as it was in 2008, and a horrible horrible record that will not be made better by blaming Bush. Every election Obama has played that theme he has lost.

LOL

Still trying to sell that "gays can marry the opposite sex if they want to" crap?

It didn't work before, what makes you think it will work now?

the claim is that gays are denied rights. They are not. When you go to marry no one asks you your sexual orientation. Ergo there is no discrimination.
I realize the argumetn is so simple that it seems like it must be wrong to chowderheads like you. But it really is that simple.

Can you believe people actually believed that in the 1950's ??

 

[Seawytch]

Gays have exactly the same rights to marry as anyone else anywhere in this country. Please show me where they don't.

Your argument is old...it is so old that it was made when right wingers like yourself were arguing against interracial marriage. A Republican congressman from Illinois argued that bans on interracial marriage were not discrimination because they applied equally to men and women. That's the argument you are using...gays aren't discriminated against because they can marry people of the opposite sex. I'm sure this comes as no shock to you, but we don't want to marry people of the opposite sex. We want to marry our partners.

 

[The T]

Gays have exactly the same rights to marry as anyone else anywhere in this country. Please show me where they don't.

Your argument is old...it is so old that it was made when right wingers like yourself were arguing against interracial marriage. A Republican congressman from Illinois argued that bans on interracial marriage were not discrimination because they applied equally to men and women. That's the argument you are using...gays aren't discriminated against because they can marry people of the opposite sex. I'm sure this comes as no shock to you, but we don't want to marry people of the opposite sex. We want to marry our partners.

Regardless of how 'old' it is...does it make it any less relevant?

Some of your countrymen say the Constitution, the cradle, and the basis for this Republic is OLD and outdated...but keeps YOU safe from government intrusion...and throwing YOU in prison for speaking against the same government, and speaking your mind as you are here within these pages....

Should we just chuck it all away? Dismiss it as you seem to support?

 

[JimH52]

I think this is a major blow to the GOP. That leaves Romney as the obvious front runner. He has some real problems with conservatives and particularly the Tea Baggers. I expect Bachmann is now being viewed as the Tea Party choice. Very Interesting...

 

[The Rabbi]

Gays have exactly the same rights to marry as anyone else anywhere in this country. Please show me where they don't.

Your argument is old...it is so old that it was made when right wingers like yourself were arguing against interracial marriage. A Republican congressman from Illinois argued that bans on interracial marriage were not discrimination because they applied equally to men and women. That's the argument you are using...gays aren't discriminated against because they can marry people of the opposite sex. I'm sure this comes as no shock to you, but we don't want to marry people of the opposite sex. We want to marry our partners.

Wow trotting out the old civil rights analogy again. Unfortunately the two aren't remotely comparable. When a black went to get married he was asked what race he was. When a gay goes to get married no one asks.
What gays want are extra rights over what the rest of us have.
And no one is stopping you from marrying your butt-buddy. Get on with it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem is Jillie... Obama's win is almost by default, sans a Hillary run. The GOP certainly has no racehorses, no one with appeal to moderates or Indys. There won't be a Billy Clinton, Barack Obama or Reagan type darkhorse suddenly pop up and change the game. It's Obama's election to lose. It's not that Obama is "unbeatable" it's the total lack of appealing candidates to oppose him.

I said many times and to much ridicule I might add, that Huck wouldn't run. I'm saying with the same conviction that no one's going to unseat President Obama.

It's just reality.

Agreed.

***

Gays have exactly the same rights to marry as anyone else anywhere in this country. Please show me where they don't.

Um…the other 45 states? Please don’t make me list them for you – that would be beyond sad.

the claim is that gays are denied rights. They are not. When you go to marry no one asks you your sexual orientation. Ergo there is no discrimination.

Ergo you’re an idiot. If two men attempt to secure a marriage license in, say, Arkansas, they’ll be denied.

 

[JimH52]

WAIT! There is always The Donald!

 

[The Rabbi]

the claim is that gays are denied rights. They are not. When you go to marry no one asks you your sexual orientation. Ergo there is no discrimination.

Ergo you’re an idiot. If two men attempt to secure a marriage license in, say, Arkansas, they’ll be denied.

Yup. Exactly my point. Whether they are straight or gay doesn't matter.
You have proven the contention: Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else.
Thanks.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Christie's adamant he won't run. Huntsman and/or Daniels won't get the backing of the GOP establishment. Obama wins, bigger than last time IMO.

Daniels hasn't announced. If he does you watch his support level climb.
Obama is very weak.

Abject nonsense.

Your hubris is what is nonsensical.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yup. Exactly my point. Whether they are straight or gay doesn't matter.
You have proven the contention: Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else.
Thanks.

Do you understand what ‘denied’ means? It means one is not allowed to do it.

(let me know if I’m typing too fast…)

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

As usual, when it comes to political discussions, poor House is never there to name a candidate he supports

It's easy to sit in the bleachers and say everyone sucks .....isn't it House?

This goes right back to what I've been telling you this whole time. Why would I or anybody support a candidate today when the primary in my state isn't until February? You can't seem to let it sink in that none of it matters today. The field isn't established. Not everybody has announced. Not everybody who has already started campaigning will continue to. It doesn't matter who is polling what. It's all meaningless crap until around the late autumn.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

the claim is that gays are denied rights. They are not. When you go to marry no one asks you your sexual orientation. Ergo there is no discrimination.

Ergo you’re an idiot. If two men attempt to secure a marriage license in, say, Arkansas, they’ll be denied.

Yup. Exactly my point. Whether they are straight or gay doesn't matter.
You have proven the contention: Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else.
Thanks.

Your argument is intellectually dishonest and one that is framed in a way to shield you from having to defend the indefensible.

 

[The T]

As usual, when it comes to political discussions, poor House is never there to name a candidate he supports

It's easy to sit in the bleachers and say everyone sucks .....isn't it House?

This goes right back to what I've been telling you this whole time. Why would I or anybody support a candidate today when the primary in my state isn't until February? You can't seem to let it sink in that none of it matters today. The field isn't established. Not everybody has announced. Not everybody who has already started campaigning will continue to. It doesn't matter who is polling what. It's all meaningless crap until around the late autumn.

*

 

[The T]

And why the hurry? Are the Statists behind in their manufacture of their voo-doo dolls?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yup. Exactly my point. Whether they are straight or gay doesn't matter.
You have proven the contention: Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else.
Thanks.

Do you understand what ‘denied’ means? It means one is not allowed to do it.

(let me know if I’m typing too fast…)

Yes. Anyone. Regardless of sexual orientation.
Or is that too much of a stretch for you?

 

[The T]

Yup. Exactly my point. Whether they are straight or gay doesn't matter.
You have proven the contention: Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else.
Thanks.

Do you understand what ‘denied’ means? It means one is not allowed to do it.

(let me know if I’m typing too fast…)

FIRST? You must examine the question of allowed or DISallowed...and by WHOM...

 

[The Rabbi]

Ergo you’re an idiot. If two men attempt to secure a marriage license in, say, Arkansas, they’ll be denied.

Yup. Exactly my point. Whether they are straight or gay doesn't matter.
You have proven the contention: Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else.
Thanks.

Your argument is intellectually dishonest and one that is framed in a way to shield you from having to defend the indefensible.

In other words, unassailable.
Thank you.

The fag-lobby may hate it but it is the truth. They try to wrap themselves in the mantle of the civil rights movement but that too is a failure. Which group voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage in CA? Yup, blacks. They aren't buying it either.

 

[rightwinger]

As usual, when it comes to political discussions, poor House is never there to name a candidate he supports

It's easy to sit in the bleachers and say everyone sucks .....isn't it House?

This goes right back to what I've been telling you this whole time. Why would I or anybody support a candidate today when the primary in my state isn't until February? You can't seem to let it sink in that none of it matters today. The field isn't established. Not everybody has announced. Not everybody who has already started campaigning will continue to. It doesn't matter who is polling what. It's all meaningless crap until around the late autumn.

What is truly amazing is the lack of enthusiasm among Republicans for ANY candidate. It does not bode well for the party. Even you cant name one that you remotely support

Still waiting for that mystery candidate to come out of left field

 

[rightwinger]

Yup. Exactly my point. Whether they are straight or gay doesn't matter.
You have proven the contention: Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else.
Thanks.

Your argument is intellectually dishonest and one that is framed in a way to shield you from having to defend the indefensible.

In other words, unassailable.
Thank you.

The fag-lobby may hate it but it is the truth. They try to wrap themselves in the mantle of the civil rights movement but that too is a failure. Which group voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage in CA? Yup, blacks. They aren't buying it either.

Rabbi...save it for another thread

Time has passed you by and your arguments are frivolous