yea really, buchanan is the real first gay president! i bet he is rolling in his grave right now.

Even if one throws out all religious arguments completely, state sanctioning of gay marriage basically sends the message that men and women are no different. That the union of a man and a woman is no different than two men or two women. And that, to put it mildly, is a load of crap.

Hey remember when slavery was defended for "truly" religious reasons? I'm pretty sure some bullshit was dug up from the good book to excuse banning interracial marriage until what, the 1960s? (Which took a SCOTUS decision.)

There's shocking enough people out there who for "truly" religious reasons defend setting people on fire for reading a book or having a vagina and have a job. Or necrophilia.

It's shocking how much we as an American culture have devolved from the Founding Fathers regarding our handling of religion and everything else. They were very devout men more or less, but they didn't let that hangup get in the way of seeking earthly, human dimensions to expand mankind's knowledge and capabilities as was expected with the Age of Enlightenment. Case in point, "truly religious" people for centuries believed in the divine rule of kings.

Americans said fuck that shit. Oh the Bible doesn't have republic governmental models? That might be too much an intellectual obstacle for the religious right-wing today, but not for the Founding Fathers. They used what amounted to the Scientific Method, trial and error, in trying to set up a revolutionary new republic benefitted in knowledge from past mistakes made by doomed republics.

I'm pretty certain, as pure subjecture, that if Jefferson was around today he would be immensely offended by certain people using religion as an excuse to retard the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the worlds the Creator made for us. I also like to believe he would accept the Theory of Evolution (SCANDALZ!!!!) and reconcile it with his spirituality with ease.

I mean this was the genius who actually edited his own version of the Bible minus the "divine miracles" which he found uncompatable with his sensibilities.

Total atheist socialist communist terrorist.

You're right.

I mean men thinking they can control finances better than women? What science fiction.

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

- CS Lewis (Mere Christianity)

Lately I've been hearing a lot about people having certain "rights," people "evolving" on certain issues, voting with their "conscience," etc. All this obviously being applied to the gay marriage issue.

But here's my question - there's another marriage issue that was around long before this gay marriage thing. I'm talking, of course, about polygamy. All the arguments that can be made for gay marriage can also be made for polygamy; plus the right to practice polygamy on freedom of religion grounds. And, yet, I don't - and never have - heard diddly squat in terms of moral outrage from people on the left, whether it be the guy currently in the White House or his flunkies on this board, about those "rights" being denied certain people over a century ago.

Could it be that it's not really about "rights," "evolving," "conscience" or whatever buzz words these folks choose to pay lip service to, so much as what falls within their particular political framework and what doesn't?

Note: I bring this up, not to argue for polygamy, but simply to point out the selective, hypocritical, and downright phony arguments I've been hearing for gay marriage.

First of all, Ivy, I'm beginning to resent the tone of your posts as you belittle mine by suggesting they are insincere and explicitly calling them "downright phony". If you want to maintain a serious dialogue on any issue, you have to be respectful.

If we view state marriage only, I have no problem with the state's right to decide on the merits of polygamy. I'm not in favor of it personally, whether straight or gay polygamy, because state marriage is a social contract between two people to make an exclusive commitment by entering into a legal relationship with each other. The relationship carries many legal rights, responsibilities and privileges that can be easily compromised and diluted if individuals have multiple spouses. My moral opposition to the arrangement is of no consequence.

The right to practice one's religion, keep in mind, is not absolute. I represented a Jehovah's Witness family back in the 90s, who were trying to stop a hospital from performing a blood transfusion on their child in that the procedure violateds their religious convictions. We were unsuccessful as the it was deemed the state's interest was more compelling than the specific religious right. Polygamists may be able to get mariied to several spouses in their church, and I respect their right to do so. But the state, I believe, should limit the contract to marriage to two people.

Hey Ronnie,

The spirit of my post is no different than President Obama saying that "not all opposed are hateful." It just so happens that I agree with him. You just like to break my balls by mocking my posts .

You know that I support gay marriage. Your problem is that you've become so opposed to all forms of religion that you've gone completely around the bend on some topics. In your own way, you're becoming just as intolerant as the Evangelical righties who you loathe (and I just have to break your balls by pointing out that you used to be one yourself ).

I too sense a tone of disrespect in IL's posts.

Objection to government-sanctioned gay marriage appears to be, in almost every case, a religious one. Someone like Michael Medved will try to make a non-religious argument against gay marriage that, essentially, involves heterosexual marriage being traditional. That's a weak argument.

I have yet to hear or read any non-religious or emotional objection to gay marriage. Anyone?

I have no objections at all. I think Gays have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us .

Two people? How about we be more specific, counselor? For ages state marriage was (and still is in at least 31 states) understood to be a social contract between two people - one man and one woman. Only in recent times have some people sought to change that to also include two men or two women. Society defined what marriage was years ago when the subject was polygamy and nobody said jack. But now, when it comes to gay marriage, we should redefine things? If you're honest, you'll admit the inconsistency and hypocrisy of this. Given that you're a lawyer, however, I realize honesty may be a tall request.



Is it that obvious? Even if I disagree with somebody, I can at least respect their position to a degree if they're argument is consistent. However, as I've shown, those who support gay marriage aren't exactly consistent but pick and choose on what "rights" they give a hoot about. And it's more along political lines than really caring about inherent rights, evolving, voting with your conscience, etc. Just saying. I'll get off my soap box now.

Talk about brass balls!


White House under fire for adding Obama policy plugs to past presidents' bios




The Obama White House is drawing ridicule for appending the official online biographies of nearly every president over the last century in order to link President Obama's accomplishments to the former commanders in chief.

The Obama team went into the pages of U.S. presidents dating back to Calvin Coolidge to add friendly looking "Did you know?" fact boxes to the end of their bios. Those additions were used to plug a host of Obama administration initiatives, ranging from the health care overhaul to the so-called "Buffett Rule" to his green-energy policies.

For instance, the following line was added to the official bio of the late President Ronald Reagan: "In a June 28, 1985, speech, Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multimillionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule."

The White House is coming under heavy criticism from conservatives for the changes, and not just to Reagan's page.

Late Tuesday, the White House defended itself, claiming the staff was merely adding links to other pages.

"No biographies have been altered," a White House official told Fox News. "We simply added links at the bottom of each page to related whitehouse.gov content, which is a commonly used best practice to encourage people to browse more pages on a site."

The additions do include links, but they're more than that. Each one finds a way to tout an Obama administration policy or practice in the process.

There's this at the bottom of the Franklin D. Roosevelt biography, for instance:

"On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations."

And this, at the end of President Lyndon Johnson's, drawing a link between his signing of Medicare and Obama's signing of the health care overhaul:

"President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law in 1965 -- providing millions of elderly health care stability. President Obama's historic health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, strengthens Medicare, offers eligible seniors a range of preventive services with no cost-sharing, and provides discounts on drugs when in the coverage gap known as the 'donut hole.'"

The changes also link Harry Truman's call for civil rights to the Obama administration's push to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." And they link Jimmy Carter's creation of the Department of Energy to Obama's push for an "all of the above" energy approach today.

The Obama accomplishments cited range from the significant to the mundane.

On the bio of John F. Kennedy, the Obama staff cited the current president's decision to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps with a "presidential proclamation," as a way to link the current administration to Kennedy's -- which launched the Peace Corps.

The only post-Coolidge president whose page is so far untouched is that of Gerald Ford.

Conservative blogs and publications ripped the White House Tuesday for the move, even starting a Twitter hashtag #ObamaInHistory to mock him. The Republican National Committee launched a tumblr page called: "Obama in History -- World Changing Events You Didn't Know Obama Played A Part In."

The page goes on to show pictures of Obama standing with historical figures ranging from Einstein to Elvis to The Beatles. It also shows Obama at the Berlin Wall and Stonehenge.

You know, as we get closer to the election, there's going to be tons of political articles that Board members will post. I urge those who do to post just a summary of the article or their opinion about its subject and to provide a link to the whole article. Posting the whole article takes up the whole screen as th eone above does. It really makes scrolling a pain.

And it was relatively recent (actually in my life time) that some states defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman of the same race. The US Supreme Court identified marriage as a fundamental right and the due process clause and equal protection clause demands that the right be available to the State's citizens on a nondiscriminatory basis. Certainly, you will agree that it was appropriate to "redefine" marriage in this instance even though for generations marriage laws specifically precluded whites and non-whites marrying each other. Moreover, marriage has been defined and redefined over the years by state common law.

There are deep public policy arguments against including polygamous relationships within the rights of a civil marriage. Propietary rights, tax and estate issues, commercial and liability concerns (just to name a few) are compromised in such relationships. Similarly, the State should not allow blood relatives to marry for a variety of practical reasons.

Gay couples are just as capable as straight couples in fulfilling the legal obligations of marriage.

I had been trying to frame my argument about the legal complications introduced by polygamy, but you did it for me Kly. Excellent post.

I heard about this on the radio yesterday but didn't say anything because I don't want to sound like a one-note wonder. Of course, if the previous president had done this, there would probably be a 3 page thread on this board by now.



You're both grasping at straws in order to not acknowledge the polygamy issue while retaining your position on the gay issue. But like I said, I wouldn't expect much else from a lawyer.

But, in the end, I'm happy leaving it up to the states. Of course, the pro gay crowd, like the pro abortion crowd (often the same people) don't like this so will try to get their way through the courts on this issue just like they did the other.

I dont understand why adding the "Did you Know?" section at the end of Presidential biographies and leaving the original biography COMPLETELY intact is such a big deal. Republicans are obviously protesting since it makes it harder for them to paint Obama as a radical if he can show that his policy is actually not that original.

It DOES make sense to identify historical precedents for contemporary public policy issues and positions.

No need for people to get mad cause it was the Obama administration who thought of this idea instead of somebody in the past.


GW Bush changed some meta tags on his bio so that google searches for "miserable failure" wouldnt come up with his bio

http://searchenginewatch.com/article/205...te-House-Change

Somebody, like a student, going to the pages to do research on Lyndon Johnson or Ronald Reagan doesn't need what is basically a political message insert.

And maybe one should be questioning the far left liberal leanings influencing a Google search about Bush before his reaction to it.

As a student, it is OBVIOUSLY a quick blurb that is already commonplace in many books on other topics when you do research. The fact that it is on the White House President Bio site is the only real difference here.

Far left liberals influencing GW's google search? Doubt that, its more like the American people including those from his own party influencing that.

It comes off as desperate and in bad taste, regardless of who's in the White House.



The fact that somebody could type in "failure" and the "I'm feeling lucky" Google search went to Bush's profile was no accident. The top people at Google are well known lefties.

It wasnt for the "im feeling lucky" feature, it was for the regular google search.

You sure? I remember when news about that first came out, I tried it and it didn't work with the regular Google search but did with the "lucky" search. In any event, the point is the top brass at Google were using their product to make some political point.

100% sure, check out the article I posted above. I doubt the Google guys care about using that to make a political point, if they wanted to make a point then they would be one of Obama's top donors and also donate to pro-Dem Super PAC's.

Well then it was both. Which goes to my point that much more - that it was intentional.

It was NOT both. The "im feeling lucky" button had nothing to do with this.

On another note: I'm a peaceful guy by nature, but I would seriously consider giving a beating to Pogo from the other side. This guy's ignorance and racism is just ridiculous.

As I said before, when I first read about this back then, I attempted the Google search myself. When I typed in "failure," it did go to Bush's profile through the "lucky" search but not the regular one. But, again, whether it was one or both, the point remains - it was no accident.



People talk about Dan and I having our own radio show. You and Pogo should have your own. You could do commentary on politics, sociology, race relations, etc.

I agree to disagree whether it was on accident or not.

IDK about a radio show, some people just refuse to change their viewpoints regardless of how much articles, data, hard numbers you show them to prove otherwise. I would lose patience with a person like that.

Reminds me of the endless number of posters who act like Detroit or Buffalo rival or exceed one of the NY families in activity. You just cant change their mind no matter what you do.

Here's an article about why Christians focus on homosexuality:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/21...lity/?hpt=hp_c1

Don’t worry, Joe: It ain’t so. Why Obama won’t run with Hillary Clinton.

Jeff Greenfield-Yahoo! News

No.

Not even if you see an airborne swine. Not even if they’re driving a Zamboni in Hades.

When you read a rumination--or recommendation, or prediction--that President Barack Obama will replace Vice President Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket--the odds are overwhelming that its creator was inspired by two thoughts:

1. My deadline is an hour away.

2. I got nothing.

Yes, the Weekly Standard’s William Kristol correctly notes that Clinton’s favorability ratings are very high--higher than those of Obama, Joe Biden, and Mitt Romney. And we should not lightly dismiss the predictive powers of Mr. Kristol, who asserted on Dec. 17, 2006: “Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single Democratic primary. I’ll predict that right now.”

Yes, the White House is all but publicly grousing about the way the vice president forced the president’s hand on gay marriage.

And yes, Biden has proven to be a much juicier target for the late-night comedians than the more phlegmatic President. (Jason Sudeikis’ flannel-mouthed glad-handing veep trumps Fred Armisen’s Obama).

But grab yourself a cup of decaf and ask yourself two simple questions:

First, when have presidents who are up for re-election dumped their vice-presidents, and why have they done it? The difference between the reality and the Hillary-for-Joe fantasy can be measured in light years.

Second, if Obama were to attempt this, how would he explain it? Trying to answer this question with a straight face is the best way to understand why (assuming accident or illness does not intervene) it’s not going to happen.

In more-or-less modern times, presidents have dumped their veeps three times.

Franklin Roosevelt did it in 1940. His two-term vice-president, the former House Speaker John Nance Garner, was far more conservative than his president, and had broken with him on issues like the packing of the Supreme Court. The Democratic Party’s liberal wing despised Garner. At a Congressional hearing, labor leader John L. Lewis called him "a labor-baiting, poker-playing, whiskey-drinking, evil old man." When Garner showed signs that he might challenge FDR’s nomination for a third term in office with his own presidential candidacy, the Democrats replaced him on the ticket with Henry Wallace, the secretary of agriculture. (Garner retired to Texas, his place in history assured by his famous aphorism--often censored--that the job he held was “not worth a bucket of warm piss.”

Four years later, it was Wallace’s turn to walk the plank. His liberal views on race and social justice, along with a very sympathetic attitude toward the Soviet Union, unsettled Democrats who were well aware that FDR might not survive his fourth term. Out went Wallace, in came Harry Truman. Wallace got the consolation prize of secretary of commerce, until his increasingly open hostility to Truman’s Cold War policies got him booted. In 1948, he ran for president as a member the very-left Progressive Party; he got 2.4 percent of the vote, but the 8 percent he captured in New York likely cost Truman that state, and he surely made the results in California and Ohio far closer than they otherwise would have been.

The only other example came in 1976, when Gerald Ford was facing a strong challenge to his re-nomination from Ronald Reagan. Ford had to have the support of prominent conservatives such as Strom Thurmond--and the price of their support was the dumping of Vice President Nelson Rockefeller. To help Ford, Rockefeller fell on his own sword by taking himself out of the running early--in November, 1975--saying, "I didn't come down (to Washington) to get caught up in party squabbles which only make it more difficult for the president in a very difficult time, when the problems of the country require his fullest possible attention.” He left the political stage dramatically, caught on camera giving the middle-finger salute at a campaign rally; and left life even more dramatically, having given up the ghost while engaged in intercourse--perhaps social, perhaps otherwise--with a woman 45 years his junior.

(Unelected running mates have been tossed as well: George McGovern jettisoned Tom Eagleton as his running mate in 1972 after news of Eagleton’s history of depression--including electroshock therapy--emerged. And “The Passage to Power,” the new volume of Robert Caro’s Lyndon B. Johnson biography, suggests JFK might have turned elsewhere in 1964 because LBJ was no longer able to deliver a Southern state, and because journalists and Senate investigators were in hot pursuit of Johnson’s shady finances).

All of these examples, unlike Biden’s situation, involved a vice president who became anathema to a significant segment of his party. Other veeps have been retained even though they were polarizing figures: Spiro Agnew in ’72, Dan Quayle in ’92, Dick Cheney in ’04.

Which brings us to the second question.

Imagine the press conference where President Obama has to explain his decision to replace Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton. It is, to put it mildly, not likely that the press will accept at face value a Biden announcement that he has decided to step down to run Amtrak, or to retire to his beloved Scranton, Pa.

So what would the president say? That he made a mistake the first time? That he is tired of clicking on yet another website to read, “Biden later explained...”?

The one thing he could not say is what everyone what everyone with a pulse will believe: ‘I’ve concluded that my re-election will be much more likely if I run with Hillary Clinton.”

A Biden-for-Clinton switch would stamp Obama as a president who is acting just like any other politician. This perception is already eating away at the most potent appeal of his first run for the White House: that he was different from the standard political mold. Of all the poll numbers that smother the landscape, the most troubling for Obama was the CBS/New York Times finding that--by a huge margin of 67 percent to 24 percent--voters believe he changed his position on gay marriage for political reasons. (Never mind what that tells us about how remarkably the ground has shifted on that issue).

Without question, most folks believe that anything and everything a candidate says is shaped by tactical considerations. But the public manifestly does not want to hear a candidate admit that. Remember what happened to Arlen Specter, who switched parties in 2009, explaining that becoming a Democrat would make it easier for him to be re-elected as senator from Pennsylvania? That video clip was one big reason why Specter lost the 2010 Democratic primary to Rep. Joe Sestak. For Obama to take such a momentous step to strengthen his chances for survival would, paradoxically, do him significant damage.

There’s one way to know if I’m wrong about this. If sometime in the next month or two Biden comes out for an antiabortion amendment to the Consitution, the end to collective bargaining for public employee unions, and the cutoff of all aid to Israel, it means he’s decided to give his boss the running room he would need to make the switch.

To paraphrase Hedley Lamarr in Blazing Saddles: "You conservatives and Republicans on the Board, rest your sphincters. Arizona says President Obama is a citizen."

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...-a-citizen?lite