We live in a country with a legal system based on the preponderance of evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt before a man is convicted of a crime. We cherish this, rightly so. We are innocent until proven guilty. This too is a fundamental truth. We conservatives insist on factual knowledge, on experience, on logic, reason, and a fundamental truth to things. Liberals, as we all well know, live in a sort of amorphous dreams and wisps of imaginary problems, buttressed by the flimsiest logic known to mankind. Socialism, communism, progressives, liberals, social justice … oh, they use so many terms it’s hard to keep track; you know of whom I speak.
But, then, beyond all this stuff about economics and foreign policy and patriotism and entitlements and the debt and deficit and the budget, or, non-existent budget, and the current politics of our times … there’s the gay thing. The homosexual issue. Oh, I contend we are so very different that it requires an appeal to something beyond mere math, such as might be contended with a budget. The gay thing simply stands apart from every other political problem facing the nation. And so, as the gay guy who is quite conservative in every sense of the word you might imagine on any issue before the public – immigration, bank bailouts, dealing with Europe, the Fed, the IRS, the DHS – hell, all the D’s (how appropriate, so bad that they only get D’s, eh?) and well, I’d make Barry Goldwater proud – I will try to explain the dilemma.
I make my father proud too. He was a Goldwater Republican. Still is, I guess. He’s gone Reagan. Oh well, no one is perfect. But it was Goldwater who said, in 1994: “You don’t have to like it, but gay Americans deserve full constitutional right including military service and marriage.”
That’s what Mr. Conservative said while Mr. Third Way Liberal Clinton with his pants down was signing into law DADT and DOMA. Irony, yes? Yes, then there’s the gay thing. Well, my father and I have a great relationship, and he and I wrote a book together.
His life as he wanted to tell it, and my two cents. Well, that’s the “gays are anti-family” bit, yes? Isn’t that is what is said? Yes, “homosexuals are anti-family.” So be it. Maybe homosexuals are. But, alas, to reality, gay men are not. My own father doesn’t think so, I assure you.
Indeed, in my appeal, I posit this simple notion – I’m as opposed to “homosexuality” as the opponents of gay guys are. That is, this construct called “homosexuality” and its “lobby” “agenda” and “pro-gay liberals” is a myth, it’s a thing that doesn’t exist. And yes, I’m against it. But then, well, then there are us gay guys. And we don’t fit the “homosexual” mold. That’s the problem. That’s my appeal to the jury of my peers. The evidence against us is not real, and the facts are for us. We are, I hope, at least deserving of a reasonable doubt.
Let me start off with the sex. Yes. Most of you find the sex abhorrent. OK, fine. I’ll accept that. Let us then stipulate that minimally 95% of the male population is not gay. That leaves 5%, at most. Is this the real number? We don’t know. Out of all the things counted and quantified, studied and examined, the real numbers of gay men is not on the list. No one knows. Every study must, of course, reference Kinsey’s 10%. It’s a number long discredited, no one believes it, and yet, it must be referenced. Pro-or-con. This I agree, some gays use it, some heteros do. Then, there’s the 11 – count them – 11 studies by phone that were done over the decades. Gary Gates, of UCLA Williams Center – and a gay demographer, the gay websites helpfully tell me – concludes there are exactly, I kid you not: 2,491,034 gay men in America. This is the supposed latest number. Except the Gallop poll of just a few weeks ago which says that the “number” of “LGBT” [who would admit] on the phone was 3.5% – they did not break it down as to which were L, G, B, T nor provide an absolute number.
Some people use 1%, others 1.4, 1.5, 2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.9, 4, 6 – Here’s but one “study” of the number. Here’s a mind shocker – most heterosexuals think 25% of the population is gay and just 6.5% are gay according to Roberto Lopez at American Thinker conservative blog a month ago no source was given. Here’s yet another strange estimate
So, indeed, no one has a blessed clue as to how many of us there are. Once you face that, then you can conclude that any other study which purports to show that this number of gay guys are or are not doing this or that is utter bunkum. But you know, liberals are the bunkum artists, and conservatives deal with facts. So, the fact is, no one knows how many gays there are, on earth.
It is supposed that this is an American issue. That Obama is for gay marriage, and good Republicans–are–not. Except, gays – known as ‘gays’ in the local lingo worldwide, and English word run amok – are in every country on earth. Did you want to go to the Gay Pride event in Minsk, Belarus? Well, it’s there for those with the desire. How about Japan? Osaka, Tokyo, Kyoto – more, Sapporo – oh my. And Helsinki in Finland and Cape Town, Durbin and Johannesburg, South Africa, to Santiago, Chile and Buenes Aires, and Caracas, Rio, Sao Paalo, Bogata, Mexico City, Casablanca, Rome, Tel Aviv, Ankara, New Delhi – Teheran – gay people have the audacity for liberty to hold a gay pride march in Tehran! I suppose they’re attacking Allah instead of Jesus. What is that about the toughness of Tea Party conservatives with a 2nd Amendment under some rhetorical attack? Compare: gay guys got up in Teheran and said “the hell with this.” Oh, innocents.
In India there are the Untouchables. 150,000,000 souls considered, well, untouchable. The Brahmin doctors in the public hospitals for free health care refused to treat the Untouchables. And where are gays in the caste system of India? Beneath the Untouchables! Oh yes, that’s how despised we are. And what happens in Hyderabad, Bangalore, Mumbai, Calcutta, and lesser places? Gay pride marches. And you folks think this is an American issue? You think this is remotely related to any public policy issue the USA faces? Really?
If gay folks, the vast consortium of LGBTQ (I know, it’s confounding, I’m sorry, I’m not in charge) amount to a mere 5% or less of the population we are a mere 350,000,000 people out of 7 billion. Do you really all think we chose this to fight you all incessantly in every country on earth because Obama decided to come out for gay marriage? Or, that it’s not natural in some way? We appeal to your reason, and you switch to emotion. I can’t fight you on that – you know what you know, and believe what you believe, so be it. We are the pariahs of mankind, of that there is no doubt. But, well, here we are. We say we’re born gay, many of you demur, and essentially call us liars and then say it either happened to us, or we chose it, or a confab of both.
Let us face the reality too that there is, among heterosexuals, a clear division in the LGBT rainbow. Lesbians are not so bad. Oh, face it, Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt have made millions off of displays of lesbianism. As a 20 year old I did color proofing for High Society magazine, please. Bisexuals are, well, lapsed heterosexuals, and they have wives and girlfriends, and a dash of intervention and all will be well. Transgendered are, strangely, heterosexuals.
Yes, let me explain that by pointing to the two most historically prominent transgendered people we can reference: Christine Jorgensen and Chaz Bono. Christine was a guy who became a girl who then found a guy and as a gal and guy have been happily married for decades. So, gal and guy – that’s heterosexual, yes? Now, Chastity Bono was a gal, who because a guy, who then went out and found a gal – so, guy and gal together. Last I looked, and correct me if I’m wrong, when guy and gal are together in holy matrimony or at least socially acceptable shacking up that’s heterosexual, yes? Yes. So, I will admit, wholeheartedly, that I am utterly flummoxed why Transgendered people are lumped with gay guys. Gay men are not gender confused, I assure you. Well, so, the three, L, B and T, are shall we say, OK, to some degree. Ah, but then there’s G – the gay guy. We are the butt of the problem (oh, pun intended, we are adults here.)
Yes, the gay man. And what does he do? Well, as the “homosexual” he is hellbent on destroying the nation, civilization, God, marriage, kids and anything else good and wholesome. There is no good in the “homosexual.” Well, the way that guy is described I don’t like him either. Now, then, there’s the gay guy. I can’t speak for us all. Alas, we don’t get a memo from Gay Agenda Central. In fact, almost certainly much to your surprise there is a very vigorous Republican-Liberty versus Democratic-Control debate going on on gay websites. You don’t know that because “homosexuals” might be pushing an agenda to make everyone gay instead of discussing something silly like whether the currency is being inflated out of all reason. No, gay men must perforce have an exact same opinion on say, the tax code, with nary a difference to be found, like among good heteros such as yourself and say Nancy Pelosi. Who you smooch apparently doesn’t affect your IRS meter – but, if you’re a gay guy, well, I guess it must be true that you’re for something else, whatever the gay guy position is on the IRS code is supposed to be. I don’t know it. Do you?
Meanwhile, let us be realistic that there are still American politicians calling for criminalizing gay sex. Yes, Rick Santorum and Allen West and Tony Perkins and many many others have spoken about the need to outlaw gay sex. I suppose that’s to stop heterosexuals from having gay sex. It certainly didn’t stop gay men. Why, that’s why we were arrested in police raids on bars – for liberty. Oh, don’t worry, gay men paid for those raids, with our tax dollars.
We also must face the fact that this ridiculously small percentage are the only gay folks, we’re not trying to make anyone gay, and we know well we can’t, for, well, you’re born gay or you are not. And the vast majority of you are not gay, and never will be. And yet, it seems the fear that if a nice word is said about the few gays folks every heterosexual will run down to the local gay bar to find some sex. It’s strange, this belief, but that has to be it. We “choose” to be gay, so, if something nice is said about it, everyone else will choose to be gay, and then what? Only, well, no one chooses, and no one turns gay. And so the fear or worry is completely unfounded.
Strangely, groups like NARTH, AFTAH, FRC, AFA, NOM – oh, fine groups I’m sure, even if a tad gay obsessed – they are sure that we make up 1% of the population, that we are richer and more well off than everyone else, that we are gay because our father, mother, uncle, man down the block, predisposition and choice made us gay (or any combo) and that we are also demented, sick, ill, childish, absurd, unnatural and worse. And so, people who would seem to be unfit to make a go of life are also just doing stupendously! I’ll let you figure that one out.
Then too, there are the various reasons we are gay. Conservatives, as I know them, wish to know causes and fact, and to drop dogma and wishful thinking – until it comes to gay folks. Then they jump onto the merry go round of why guys are gay with wild abandon. Have you seen the list? It’s incredible. My my, so many reasons, for a tiny bunch, but 1 reason for 95%. It seems gay men have such powerful minds and wills that we are able to turn off instinct and nature itself; science has not seen fit to study the anomaly.
Actually, since gay men are the majority of the 5% LBGT, I’ll say 3% gay men – OK – AFTAH says it’s because our mothers were strong and our fathers absent – OK, so there would be no black teenage pregnancy problem in America today – they’d all be gay for having strong mothers and absent fathers. Not to worry, Ann Coulter and others blame gay guys on the black teen pregnancy problem. I suppose we get them pregnant after our hours and hours of gay sex. I don’t know.
The late Charles Socarides, a doctor, with NARTH, is sure it’s the weak father and cloying mother – only, he has a gay son, a “homosexual lobbyist” even, and well, there’s tension there, yes?
The Family Research Council is sure there’s predisposition and a choice – I suppose we are predisposed to choose. The predisposition is not further explained, except, it’s not genetic or natural. So, somehow, we’re both naturally predisposed and unnaturally predisposed – and we choose to be gay too later on. I don’t know. I’m not in the business of purveying the mush, merely to present it. They also put out an information package pointing out that gay men die at the age of 41. This is news to me as I approach my 55th birthday. It’s their mush, ask them.
The Catholic Cardinal of Chicago, Mr. George, says that his gay nephew is a fine man while homosexuals are intrinsically disordered and evil and destructive to society. I will leave to you all and the Cardinal the division of proportion of how much “fine man” and how much “evil” the nephew might possess. Or, I submit, one or the other proposition – fine or evil – is off the wall. But you can’t be a “fine” and “evil” at the same time, can you?
It is well known that liberals despise the military and avoid serving. It’s not so well known that it was Log Cabin Gay Republicans and serving soldiers who challenged DADT and had won in the lower courts and were going to win higher up when Obama decided to join the bandwagon. He fought the case at first, after he lost he changed his mind. Oh don’t let his evolving and following be confused for leadership. The man hasn’t led on anything ever – now you think he’s at the forefront of gay issues? Egad. We rightly claim he’s a bumbling idiot, and then on the gay thing you think he’s changing America. He’s just another heterosexual who’s “Evolving.” Every heterosexual is evolving on the issue, you can’t get away from the discussion.
Meanwhile, gay men up and joined the military, lied as best they could to do it, at the behest of DADT and heterosexuals in general, and you still hunted them down and chased them away. The nation was in need of linguists – we had 400 linguists in the languages we needed – oh, I’m sorry, they were gay – what could they do to help the nation? – after all – it must be true that these Americans who learned Dari, Pashtun and Urdu were hellbent on destroying America by demanding a shred of decency and the ease of the legal regime of marriage. Or, the homosexual does one thing, and the gay guy another.
Which brings me to marriage. The Supreme Court is considering two cases. Two so far. There’s more in the pipeline. Even if we lose this round there’s plenty more cases, we are determined fellows. In Helen Branson’s mid-1950s book “Gay Bar” attests: gay men were for marriage, and used the word, in the 1950s. This has been a goal since the beginning. Every group, every plea, every court case, every begging has been directed towards a decent recognition of our relationships and our humanity. That’s the gay goal. It’s not political, it’s social. Meanwhile, there is the construct of the homosexual goal of destroying the place. Nothing could be father from the truth. All evidence shows it.
In fact, gay folks have jobs or own businesses. We have to, there are no public programs for us, no. We aren’t the unwed mothers on welfare. We’re not the people getting disability – even though many are quite sure being gay is some disability indeed, we still have to make our own money. So, we do. The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce claims 1.4 million members. Say ½ are gay – that’s a lot of business folks, yes? I would think that gay folks pay roughly $100 billion in taxes. It’s a guess. And AIDS, always the big gay concern, costs about $2 billion total. And the defense of DOMA by Congress is costing $3 million. And other than that, gay men don’t get any services as gay men, but we sure pay for you folks – we add $98 billion to the pot for unwed mothers and abandoning fathers. We’re a net plus to the nation, obviously.
The clearest evidence that you can see on the difference between “homosexuality” and gay guys? Think about the next time you fly and get a hotel and rent a car and eat out. Look carefully at the young man who is tending your needs. The desk clerk, the waiter, the man who takes your credit card and brings your kid a glass of water – they are gay men. That’s the people you fear – the people who make sure you food is hot, your water is cold, your wine is chilled and your bed is comfy – while you all fly hither and yon denouncing homosexuals gay men are politely helping you do it. And it is this reality versus the myth that I bring to your attention. Why Conservatives go from fact, reason and logic based people on matters of public policy and then switch to pure emotion and religious dogma without a shred of fact, logic or reason on gay folks is something I don’t understand.
I don’t say these things to tell you gay folks are wonderful or that we are innocent of sin, or that you have to like us – but I tell you because you are as against the “homosexual” as I am, but I wish to speak to you as a gay American, who is not the “homosexual” of your thinking, and tell you, we are simply so unimportant, and so different, that the whole “left-right” divide disappears. With gays it’s a whole new territory.
@Jim Hlavak:
Shhhhhh! I don’t want this to get out, because we are all supposed to be on the same page re: THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA… but I didn’t get my copy. More to the point, I am a bit confused by the distinction you made in your introductory remarks between “gays” and “homosexuals.” I am gay, and a homosexual, and if you don’t mind retire05’s efforts to insult us by using archaic terms, a “sodomite” as well.
I understand that some of us prefer being called “queers,” as coopting a derogatory label gives some a sense of empowerment. Others prefer the term “gay,” as that term connotes a less threatening and happier sense of who we are. But we are stretched over the entire spectrum of activism, from zero to 100 percent, and if across that spectrum there is a point at which homosexuals BECOME gays, I don’t know where that point is. It might help if you would clarify this point, as it IS central to the title you chose.
I would really hate for us to emulate the “African-American” community, which went from being called “negroes” (and worse) to “Afro-Americans”(and I may have the order wrong…) to “black Americans” to “blacks” to “African-Americans.” I certainly hope that at some point in the future, labels like these are not needed at all, but I won’t live to see that day. In the meantime, I think that it is beneficial to not take offense when someone uses a term that is not our most preferred, as our message on this is not clear to everybody. Sidebar: When a person takes offense where none was intended to be given, it’s theft. Offense should only be taken when the intent to offend is unmistakable.
@MataHarley: you said this back in 19something, did you forget it?
#211,
You’re probably right, though probably not so much stupidity as ‘agenda’ driven.
File a lawsuit for what? I only used the birther issue as an example, I never said I was a birther. I do believe in the Constitution tho, I wish a few more judges did also.
So, you still contend that if someone steals from you that you don’t have the right to take that person to court? I notice you don’t seem to want to answer it.
@Redteam #212:
“Nope, not homo, so could not have Gaydar. He asked me if he could ‘molest’ me.”
I’m not sure that you have to be “GAY” to have “Gaydar.” It’s an ability to detect gays.
Sorry that your first “exposure” was a proposition at age 10. Inappropriate.
Rubio or Christy, we could do worse.
@George Wells: George, thanks for your critique of #208, I find a childish response to a childish comment keeps the discussion on the same level rather than escalating to name calling. I don’t care for the ‘name calling’ bit. I only ask about her law degree because she is attempting to educate someone that likely has more education than she does, including law, but no law degree.
@George Wells:
yep, next one at age 12 and next one at age 15. I’d say all was inappropriate. by the way, they were all over 21, probably in 30’s
@Redteam #214:
“So, you still contend that if someone steals from you that you don’t have the right to take that person to court? I notice you don’t seem to want to answer it.”
Mata answered that question maybe three times. She said you DID “have the right to take that person to court.” You have the right to sue. You don’t have the right to prevail. Two different things.
I get the point you are trying to make, but it isn’t how the Law works.
When I was a kid, my Dad explained to me that you could not sue the governmemt unless they gave you permission to sue them. Perhaps an oversimplification. But as the Birthers have so completely failed to get any traction in the courts, dominated as they are by Republican lawyers and Republican judges, any rational person should conclude that there is no case. And be done with it.
@George Wells:
absolutely, Obama is a good example of that. Don’t want Christy, he’s a Dim at heart, i.e., a RINO. Rubio is not a natural born citizen, not eligible. I’d prefer a candidate that is constitutionally eligible.
We should drop that subject, it’s off topic.
@Redteam #217:
Wow, you must have been a looker!
I was never propositioned. Was disappointed.
@George Wells:
Actually she was avoiding answering my question and was answering one she substituted, which changed the conditions, i.e., that whether he was eligible or not did not harm anyone. If someone steals a penny from you, he’s a thief. If he steals a million dollars from you he’s a thief. Any law enforced that was put into law by an illegitimate president that takes anything from you, i.e., taxes, is stealing, if someone steals from you, you have the right to redress.
@George Wells: #220 LOL
You and I have a failure to communicate on many levels, Redteam. You sorta lily pad hop from subject to subject in the pond, and end up with some confused interpretation as to what I have been saying. When I say government (federal or state) should not be issuing marriage licenses, you hear this as advocating throwing out pretty much all existing laws. You say I want government in the adoption business, and I have to point out that adoptions are done thru private licensed agencies, unless they are a ward of the state. You think that recording legal guardianship, much like recording property deeds, is “government involvement” that I advocate throwing out. .
None of those things have anything to do with the government demanding that marriage licenses are issued, and assigning a definition of their own device. Remove that mandate, and contract law still exists.
Frankly, I don’t know how to make things any more plain, so I’ve abandoned that subject with you
Now you want to take something you, yourself, brought up, and insist that I said I don’t believe you have a right to take a thief to court. ????
Redteam, let’s go back to your original hypothetical scenario where that “theft” comes in, because it all relates to “standing”, as you, yourself, framed it.
In comment #200, you said
What you are arguing is not if I, or you, has the standing to take a thief who robbed our home to court. Of course the individual has that standing for direct harm/injury. But you are equating the (pesky) Constitutional taxation power of 535 elected members of Congress to pass legislation, which is enacted by the resident of the Oval Office, and affects a large amount of the citizenry as “theft”. Then you cap that argument off with a separate argument that all this harm is befalling you because you believe the Oval Office resident was born in Kenya.
The first problem is you can’t claim “harm” from Constitutional taxation powers. You can, however, argue that the taxation passed was unconstitutional, but only if you can prove illegal individual harm/injury to the courts that was specific to you (or your group… i.e. churches vs O’healthcare for religious objection, or the States vs O’healthcare for unfunded mandates, etc)
Nor can you isolate the “thief” solely to the POTUS, and pretend that 535 other elected members were not also integral for constructing law.
All of which has nothing to do with where Obama was born…. And in fact, the birther suits were founded not on what laws Obama would sign, but whether it was harm/injury to voters because he never should have been on the ballot.
Thus you have “standing” when you are, personally and directly, robbed. That is a “harm/injury” you directly suffer by that specific individual, the thief.
INRE the perceived “harm/injury” from taxation laws enactment – which affects more than just you – Findlaw addresses your question, via the opinion in the Phillip Berg case.
The 3rd Circuit Appellate Court clarified this lack of individual harm further in their opinion.
Now let’s go back to your original statement – “So, you still contend that if someone steals from you that you don’t have the right to take that person to court? I notice you don’t seem to want to answer it.” Since that was never my contention, it seems counterproductive to answer, don’t you think? It was something you just decided I said in our continued failure to communicate. You presented the assertion that a citizen should have standing INRE Obama’s eligibility because it was “logical”, and that your harm was from enacted legislation. Not whether anyone had standing if they were the victim of theft.
Because you brought up the birther lawsuit INRE “standing”, not me, then proceeded to explain to me that you had standing because you were “harmed” by Obama signing bills into law, I provided you with a definition of “standing” in comment #177 that was less vague as to what constitutes “harm/injury”. That definition not only pointed out “harm/injury” cannot be based on displeasure of government actions or law that affect large classes of people as well, but also linked to specific opinions as an example.
This will be the third time that I mentioned I thought Alan Keyes (which was actually a lawsuit that included other third party Presidential candidates) had the best shot at getting his case heard (SCOTUS refused), and getting past the “standing” issue. And BTW, that particular lawsuit actually left the “standing” issue aside. Instead it was tossed because it was filed after Obama was sworn into office.. And, in fact, was asking the Court to do something they have no power to do – to remove a POTUS from office.
You can read the full opinion here.
@MataHarley: Mata, sorry you are confused, I’ll try to keep it simple for you.
First, give me the quote from what I said that includes the word ‘Kenya”. But then congress can not pass a law without the signature of a president unless they override a veto. Therefore, any law that has been passed by virtue of his signature is an illegal law. Now I may be wrong, but so far I don’t believe there has been even one override of a veto of our illustrious leader which means that because an illegal president affixed his signature to a law, the government has been stealing money from me. Do you require further simplification, or will that do?
Simply stated, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Do you need further simplification?
sorry, but if the sole reason the law exists is the illegal potus, it’s stealing. Do you need further simplification?
If my taxes are raised illegally, it is individual harm to me.
Do you need further simplification?
Who mentioned anything about where Obama was born? Do you need further simplification?
Hey, you got one right. The thief being Obama. Apparently you don’t need further simplification for this one. Congrats.
I find your Findlaw examples hilarious. So if 10 people are robbed and only one wants to prosecute the thief, since he doesn’t represent a majority, he has no standing. Let’s all stop laughing on the count of 3, ok?
I find this especially funny:
So if that is correctly interpreted, if no one on the ballot were eligible, just exercising your right to not vote means that you had free will and did what you wanted to do, so no one was harmed. That’s kinda like the Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Adolf Hitler elections, and Lord knows, no one was ever harmed because all those people that didn’t have a choice as to who to vote for, exercised the option to not vote. Thankfully we in this country, still do (until we get your system fully installed) have the right to do something about it. Such as take them to court.
Look, we all know the lib courts don’t want to touch this issue, so they’ll find any excuse, knowing that someone ‘else’ will review what they said, It’s all ‘pass the buck’. That seems to be your attitude, that whether the president is ‘illegal’ or not is no one’s damn business, let’s go on to something important. Do you happen to be an employee of the liberal press? It sure sounds as if you follow their arguments to a T.
If you don’t understand how a person, that is not legally in a position to do so, passing laws that directly confiscate property from you brings harm to you, then no amount of argument or explanation on my part will enlighten you. And I likely can’t simplify that any further.
If that statement is true, then the recent rulings by 2 different district courts that the recess appointments made to the NLRB were not legal and therefore the actions they have taken since those appointments have to be set aside, could not have been made. The rules put into effect certainly affected large classes of people.
I really find your argument in the Keyes case to be interesting. To simplify that, you’re basically saying that if someone robs you and you go to a lawyer and he says, yep, you were robbed all right, but the guy that did it is so big and powerful and has such a huge legal staff you will almost certainly lose if you go to court, so the best thing is just pretend like you don’t have the right for redress and be happy with your situation. A law for Thee, but not for Me.
Mata, I’m not sure I like your form of government, thank goodness so far ours hasn’t deteriorated down to that level. I’m not too sure I can simplify it any further.
@Redteam #224:
I’m reading the back-and-forth between you and Mata, and one thing keeps jumping up in front of your arguments, and that is your identifying the POTUS as an ”illegal president.” Mata’s reference to your belief that Obama was born in Kenya was just a short hand way of acknowledging your assertion that Obama is “illegal.”
Once you prove that Obama IS “illegal,” then all of your other claims that his taxes amount to “robbery” and/or illegal property confiscation would make some sense. But you have not proven that he is an “Illegal President.”
While the “Birther” issue has not been litigated in the way you want, it was brought to court, and it’s also been tried in the court of public opinion. The excitement generated by the Birther movement has exposed every minutia of evidence – both real and imagined – that could possibly make a difference in the balance. Courts all the way to the top have looked at the evidence and decided to do what they did, and that was nothing.
You blame liberal courts. What liberal court influences all the rest, the 9th out in CA? NO! Remember the SCOTUS that sided with Republicans in Bush-v-Gore? It didn’t bother with the Birther issue. What does that tell you?
Obama did not decide the case, the courts did. They decided that Obama is legal. And like in criminal justice, Obama is “legal” until proven otherwise.
To borrow your line, I can’t make it simpler than that.
Mata pointed out that once Obama was inaugurated, the courts could NOT remove him from office, no matter what they thought of the merits of the “Birther” case. Only Congress can remove him.
I know that it is a tall order, but until you prove Obama is “illegal,” the rest of your argument about robbery is empty.
@George Wells: #225
I have a simple question for those who think obama’s birth certificate is real. Look at it. Was is written with a typewriter or a word processor?
@Smorgasbord #226:
“I have a simple question for those who think obama’s birth certificate is real. Look at it. Was is written with a typewriter or a word processor?”
I haven’t looked at Obama’s birth certificate. It’s not my job to. And I’m not exactly an expert witness qualified to assess what technology was used to produce birth certificates.
I would offer that I can think of a number of reasons why an original, legitimate birth certificate might not be available, and not all of those reasons require fraud on the part of Obama or his supporters.
More importantly, at this point, IT DOESN’T MATTER.
For the sake of argument, (as it isn’t what I believe) I’ll GIVE you that Obama really was born in Baghdad. IT DOESN’T MATTER. Maybe before GOD (if He cared), Obama would not be the legitimate POTUS, but GOD does not determine who is the LEGAL POTUS, the courts and the congress do. And they say he’s legal. He IS legal until THEY say otherwise.
Long before the 2012 election, Obama’s birth record was questioned. There is nothing new in this “Birther” argument. The complaint has had its day in court, and the complaint was found wanting. And once Obama was elected, the court remedy option expired – because the courts cannot unseat a president, even if he murders the vice-president in cold blood before TV cameras. Only Congress can remove the president. And they’re not going to do that over a questionable birth certificate, so IT DOESN’T MATTER. It’s IRRELEVANT.
You have more fertile grounds for complaint against Obama than his birth certificate. By continuing to press the Birther argument, you are wasting your time.
@Smorgasbord:
More than that, here are my questions:
Why was the COLB submitted revealed first by DailyKos, and then the White House the next day?
Why did Obama present a COLB that is not acceptable, by Hawaiian rules, for proof of a claim of “native” Hawaiian?
When was the Hawaiian law changed that allowed a parent to obtain a Hawaiin birth certificate for a child not born in Hawwaii?
@George Wells: #227
So, what you are saying is that you will believe the liberal agenda no matter what. In case you are old enough to remember, typewriters have one font. obama’s bird cage paper has three, and two different sizes. There are other things about the font I won’t go into, since I’m sure you still won’t even look at the evidence. If I would be charged with a crime that I didn’t commit, I wouldn’t want you on my jury, since you come to conclusions without even looking at the evidence.
How is it going defending your leader against Benghazi, the Internal Redistribution Service scandal, Fast and Furious, fighter jets and money to the Egyptian president who belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood, obamacare projected to cost twice as much as obama said it would, the dems admitting there will be death panels, and the other things he has to defend himself for? You must be very busy.
@retire05: #228
I didn’t know about that.
If you have read the article I have posted several times, it says that EVERY expert who has examined it, says it is a fake, and some say it is a lousy fake. The forger even put a Smiley Face on it.
It’s worse than that. Unless they changed the law lately, ANYBODY can still walk into the office and say they were born in Hawaii and they want a Live Birth certificate, and they will get it. Who knows how many terrorists have done this?
@George Wells: Two comments George:
That is a dilemma, the Congress can only remove a president. If the president is not really a president, then they don’t have the power to remove him. Only a law enforcement agency could do that.
She couldn’t very well reference my belief that Obama was born in Kenya, could she? I haven’t stated that belief anywhere, have I?
His father (assuming his father is Barack Obama Sr) is not a US citizen.
@Smorgasbord: It was clearly written with a word processor, (But surely there was a lot of Word processors lying around back in ’61, remember)
@George Wells: #227
Let me see if I have this straight, but to make it simple, let’s substitute for Obama and make this a murder case. Say someone shot your wife 5 years ago. Now answer this question: ‘More importantly, at this point, DOES IT MATTER? He has gotten away with it for 5 years and no one has determined that he is a murderer therefore he should be left alone to maybe continue to do illegal things? Does it matter?
@Smorgasbord: Smorg, it’s interesting that in the case currently before the Supreme court in Alabama, 3 completely different “certified copies” of Obama’s Birth certificate have been presented in evidence so far. All 3 of them made on word processors. But I’m sure that it was just 3 different anxious clerks that wanted to be sure the future president was duly fully certified as to his birth details and just happened to all use the spare word processors that were laying around their home’s that evening. But one thing they forgot was to remember which hospital he was born in and to file a record of it with that hospital. (Whoops, there were really 4 diligent clerks around that day, one of them was in Mombasa, Kenya, but he didn’t have a word processor so he just used a ‘regular’ typewriter). Note here: I’m not making any claim here of Obama’s birthplace, only that a clerk in Mombasa had the info that he was born there)
@Smorgasbord #229:
Like I said, it doesn’t matter. Why don’t YOU tell me how it DOES, given that Obama CAN’T be removed by the courts? And my point there is not an endorsement of a “liberal agenda,” it’s just a statement of fact. Tell me otherwise.
About Obama’s “problems,” If he is guilty of the same mischief that Nixon was, he deserves the same fate. Nixon was a “decider” like G.W. Bush, but Obama isn’t. He can’t makle up his mind on anything, so I can’t see him deciding to order the IRS to hound the Tea Party. If you can, you give him more credit than I do. And House Republicans cut the budget for embassy security… did they use the extra money to fund the Benghazi attack? (I don’t think so, but the hyperbole on that issue is about that silly.)
If Obama’s done something impeachable, he should be impeached by the House of Representatives. But you’ve already done that – good for you!
@Redteam #233:
You are close to being on the right track here. If a guy commits a murder (at any time) and gets caught and gets prosecuted for that murder and is ACQUITTED, then he is not “guilty” of murder. The jury found him “innocent” of murder. If you believe in the GOD/Heaven/Hell/Eternity thing, then you believe that he will be judged “Guilty” by GOD, but that is well beyond our earthly context.
The scenario you offered leaves several questions open. It seems to say that nobody has been able to determine that this guy actually committed the murder. I’m inferring that there is insufficient evidence to convict. So he has not been arrested, charged, tried, convicted or incarcerated. He is innocent until proven guilty.
I’m not quite sure what you propose should be done to the “murderer.” It sounds like your plan would be to take the law into your own hands. (You big handsome cowboy, you!) Should he be left alone? Yes. If you know something, share it with law enforcement, and keep away from the guy. Otherwise, your options are very limited. Maybe it matters before GOD, but here on Earth, until he is found guilty, he is presumed innocent.
@Redteam #231:
“That is a dilemma, the Congress can only remove a president. If the president is not really a president, then they don’t have the power to remove him. Only a law enforcement agency could do that.”
I can grasp the dilemma that you suggest exists, but just barely. The crucial element upon which your argument depends is the conditional phrase: “If the president is not really a president”. In order for your argument to work (and for him to be subject to law enforcement removal), you have to be able to prove that Obama isn’t the President. The progress of your argument is stalled at that point and you are left begging the question. You are the one caught in the “Catch-22,” not Obama.
Obama won the Democratic Party nomination, he won the election and he was sworn into office by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. All legitimate avenues of recourse have been pursued and exhausted. He is, really, the President.
@Redteam: #232
The word processor wasn’t invented until the 70s.
@Redteam: #234
obama’s own grandmother said she was present at obama’s birth in KENYA.
While obama was at Harvard, there was a brochure printed about him that said he was born in Kenya, and obama didn’t correct it.
Has anyone ever figured out what temperature the water has to be in the pan before it is too late for the frog to jump out. The water is heating up really fast now, especially since an attorney has come forward to tell his story.
@George Wells: #235
I don’t know the legal stuff about what happens if an illegal gets elected president. If it were George Bush who was the illegal president, would you have said it doesn’t matter, or would you have wanted to get him out of the white house and into the Big House where he should be, and have everything he signed into law voided?
At least we agree obama is just a puppet, and his puppeteers pull his strings. He does and says what he is told. Remember when the prime minister of Ireland and obama gave speeches in the morning and afternoon? They gave their morning speeches. Since they would be speaking to two different groups, the prime minister figured he would give the same speech.
That afternoon, obama gave his speech first, except that the prime minister’s speech was in the TOTUS instead of his. Keep in mind that this is the speech obama heard the prime minister earlier that day, if he listened to the speech. obama went through the whole speech, even thanking himself for coming there, and didn’t know it wasn’t his speech.
If you were going to give a speech, wouldn’t you rehearse it a time or two before you gave it? Wouldn’t you realize after the first sentence or two that it wasn’t your speech. This is why I have said different times that I don’t think your leader even takes the time to read the speeches his marionettes write for him.
@George Wells: If Obama is not eligible to be the president, then whether anyone has ‘determined’ that or not, he’s still ineligible. A murderer is a murderer whether he is convicted or not. No, I don’t advocate taking the law into my own hands. We are a nation of laws and they should be upheld, that’s why I’m so pissed that no one will do their duty toward removing a usurper from the office of president. He’s not eligible and can never be eligible with the existing constitution.
@Smorgasbord: #238,
I’m pretty sure that was the facetious point I was making in saying that I’m sure that since his ‘certified birth certificate’ was made on a word processor which wasn’t even in existence when he was born that the likelihood that it is legitimate is somewhere between zero and none.
But you know what? No one gives a damn. It’s just like the 2nd amendment about gun rights, they would like for that to not be upheld either. Anyone that sits on their a** and let’s illegitimate persons occupy the white house when they have the legal authority to do something about it is just beyond comprehension. They don’t even deserve the rights of citizenship.
@Smorgasbord: Smorg, I think you have the same opinion of Obama as I do. He is not qualified to be a puppet, but he is. One day it will all come home to roost.
@Redteam: R.T. You’re a looney tunes. I recall you calling yourself a ‘”constitutionalist”, basing Obama’s “illegitimacy” on your interpretation of the natural born citizens clause, claiming both parents needed to be citizens for offspring potus eligibility.Assume you’ll use this argument to annul Marco Rubio’s 2016 bid.
Now you’ve jumped in with birther Smorg, claiming Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii. Are you just throwing s–t against the wall? Tap dancing too and fro? Are you a birther, a constitutionalist,a racist a homophobe or what?
@Redteam: #241
Try asking your politicians to look at obama’s birth certificate, then ask them, “Was it written on a typewriter or a word processor?” I have been communicating with my politicians (all republican) for some time, and they have been saying obama is legally qualified to be president. I finally asked them that question, and NONE of them has answered me.
As I have mentioned before, I am getting really concerned when not one republican member of congress will look into the issue. Asking them the question will make them at least look at the document. I’m guessing most of them haven’t.
@Redteam: #242
I know you were joking about the word processor. I just wanted to make sure anyone reading it knew that obama came before the word processor was invented.
@Redteam: #243
I just hope we have a country left to put him in the Big House where he belongs. Since he isn’t an American citizen, doesn’t that mean he qualifies for Gitmo? Can you imagine the warm reception the inmates would give him?
@Richard Wheeler: Richard, is name calling one of your forte’s? Kinda takes a small mind to do that.
I am a constitutionalist. I know the definition of natural born citizen. I don’t need your agreement or approval. I will not vote for Marco Rubio for president, nor Ted Cruz, nor Rick Santorum, nor anyone else that is not a natural born citizen. The founding fathers had a reason to require that a president not have a split allegiance, and if you want a better reason, just look at how the present usurper is working out.
Would you point out where I claimed Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii? Can’t you at least be intellectually honest? You don’t need to claim things that are not true just to enhance your position. Your position can’t be enhanced. It’s already a lost cause. Just for the record, Obama is the one that claimed to be born in Kenya, and Michelle has also stated that to be the case. I don’t claim that.
@Redteam #241″
“A murderer is a murderer whether he is convicted or not. No, I don’t advocate taking the law into my own hands.”
Both are true statements. And there is YOUR dilemma. On Earth, the murderer is innocent until proven guilty. If you DON’T advocate taking the law into your own hands, then you are left with either the courts or GOD. If the courts find him innocent, he may still be a murderer, but the case is closed. You are left with no option other than soulful lamentation. If crying makes you feel better, be my guest, but be advised: crying isn’t very manly…
Same logic with the POTUS – the case is closed.
One question does occur – and I’m not even HINTING that this is a legitimate explanation of Obama’s case – What happens when a state record office burns to the ground? Like a record office where birth certificates were kept? Do the people whose birth certificates went up in smoke become aliens? Or does the state reconstruct a substitute certificate when one is requested? (Hint: The second option is the correct answer, and they don’t bother to find a 50-year-old typewriter and an old blank certificate, either.) Just wondering…
@Smorgasbord #240:
“If it were George Bush who was the illegal president, would you have said it doesn’t matter, or would you have wanted to get him out of the white house and into the Big House where he should be, and have everything he signed into law voided?”
If I had thought that G.W.B. was “illegal,” I would have pursued the issue right up to the point that he was elected, and then I would have dropped it. I cannot win every battle that I think is worth fighting, discretion is the better part of valor, and once he’s elected, he’s my president. And if after four years AND a reelection, someone suggested to me that G.W.B. was illegal and that he should be put in jail and the past four years of legislation needed to be undone, I would say that THAT is CRAZY! The country would collapse into pandemonium. World markets AND the dollar would collapse. It is already bad enough that congress gets ALMOST nothing done. Everything would grind to a halt. No, I wouldn’t want that.
It’s something like when you apply for a job, and they want to see your college transcript. The transcript presumably gives them at least a reasonable hope that you will perform the duties of the job adequately. After you have held the job for a few years, they are no longer looking at your transcript. You get evaluated on your performance. In Obama’s reelection case, the electorate wasn’t real happy with his performance, but they were even less happy with Romney’s prospects. So Obama got to keep his job. Get a better candidate next time.
Trump tried to raise the “Birther” issue and got laughed off the stage. Nobody cared. You saw it. It’s water under the bridge. Stop crying over spilled milk.
And I would not have a problem with a Rubio candidacy. I think that the man has demonstrated his patriotism, and that’s enough for me.
@George Wells:
Ah, but what if the murderer has not even been charged? And the case of POTUS has never even been opened, much less closed.
When the state records office burns to the ground? First, most birth records primary storage facility is not at a state level. My birth records are at the County Dept of Health, with duplicates in the State Dept of Health and Vital Statistics. So if one burned down, they would go into their fire proof vault and retrieve the records. If something did happen to the primary records, they would go to the duplicates in the State office. They would not create a new one with incorrect data on a word processor. I hope you don’t happen to have been born in a state so incompetent as to not have duplicate records and fireproof vaults. If you do, you should move to the US, they do much better.
@George Wells:
So you don’t care if someone meets the constitutional requirements to be eligible as long as they pretend to be patriotic?
Standards aren’t important?
@George Wells: #250
My biggest concern is that I believe that obama wants to turn the USA into a socialist or Muslim State, and I don’t want that. It is something I have come to believe on my own from years of information and what obama does and doesn’t do. He seems to be doing everything he can to bring down this country, such as asking for another huge stimulus, and raising taxes even higher. This is how other countries were brought down and became some kind of dictatorship.
I know you believe differently, and I won’t change your mind, so I am just stating my opinion and leaving it at that.
@Smorgasbord #253:
I remember when Bill Clinton was President, there was all this wild speculation that he was selling all our military technology to China, and that he was going to start up the “draft” – I don’t remember why. Rush Limbaugh had my neighbor Kathy so worked up, she was looking into moving her draft-aged son out of the country. Nothing happened. It was all just so much hype.
When Obama’s gone, you will look back and notice that the United States is still not Muslim, still has Social Security and Medicare but NOT socialized medicine, and still isn’t a “brought-down dictatorship.” If Obama was a savvy president, he still wouldn’t be able to do much mischief, because the president CAN’T do much without congress’ approval. But he’s NOT a savvy president, and if he IS a puppet as you suggest, his puppeteers are just as incompetent as he is.
Muslim socialist dictatorship – just hype.
@Redteam #251:
“And the case of POTUS has never even been opened, much less closed.”
If YOU think that the case ISN’T closed, try and open it. Let me know how it goes. The case IS closed. It is NAILED shut. Stop crying.
@Redteam #252:
“Standards aren’t important?”
Sure standards are important. Rules are important. Lots of things are important. Your feelings about gay marriage are important, and my feelings about gay marriage are important too. But not every important thing prevails. The courts are choked with cases where one important consideration is locked in a battle-to-the-death with another important consideration. Nothing is so black-and-white. Things have to be weighed. When I weigh Rubio, he doesn’t do all that badly.
I doubt that Rubio’s political career will progress much further than it already has, so the question of his qualification for the presidency is moot. I think Christy has a better chance. If the Republican party goes with a moderate, THEY will have a chance. But go ahead… PLEASE… nominate a Tea Party social conservative, one with 100% Evangelical Christian backing, one who supports a constitutional amendment AGAINST gay marriage, and you’ll be enjoying yet another Democratic presidency. Make my day.
@George Wells:
Rubio has lost the base. Without it he can’t take the nomination. Christie has also lost the base, and will never carry the South/Southwest. Without the South/Southwest, Christie will remain another wannabe.
Perhaps you have had your head shoved in some dark spot for the last two presidential election cycles. The Republican Party nominated TWO “moderates”, McCain and Romney. How did that work out? When people have a choice between a Democrat, and Democrat Lite, they will go with the read deal, not the RINO poseur.
You really believe that a Tea Party social conservative can’t win? Are you totally stupid? All you have to do is look to Texas and Kentucky. David Dewhurst outspent Ted Cruz six to one, in the second most populace state in our union. Dewhurst got his clock cleaned. And Cruz is building a base like no one before him. And the big fear you progressives have with Cruz is that Hispanics vote last name, just as blacks vote skin tone when given a choice between a black Democrat and a white Democrat. Put a O’Brien up against a Rodriquez on a ballot with no party listing and Hispanics will vote Rodriquez.
So much for your “conservative” views. Sex trumps all with you. So while the left blathers on about the “communitiy,” you reaffirm that you could give a shit less about the “community” (i.e. the nation) as long as your oxe is not gored and your sole interest is promoted.
And you wonder why I find you a most dispable person?
@retire05 #257:
I’m with you on your assessment that neither Rubio nor Christy can be nominated by the Republican Party. I’m delighted.
At this point, I’d give Rand Paul and Ted Cruz the best shots at the Republican nomination. I’m delighted.
Paul and Cruz appeal to the Republican base, but I cannot see that base and/or the “Tea Party” swelling to such a size that it will swamp the Dem’s coalition that won in 2012. So maybe you are right that I am “stupid,” although “blind” might be more to the point.
Glad you got my voting agenda figured out. It saves time. The Republicans will get my vote when they stop vilifying gays and instead give us equal rights. There are Republicans who would have me in jail or dead, and from either place I would have no reason to care about the state of the economy. Sometimes a one-issue vote makes sense.
I noticed a poll out today that shows Obama’s support actually strengthening as Republicans scream bloody murder over the current “crises of leaderships” in Washington. What I really worry about is that the Republican Party just MIGHT figure out what THEY are doing wrong and correct it.
“Perhaps you have had your head shoved in some dark spot for the last two presidential election cycles. The Republican Party nominated TWO “moderates”, McCain and Romney. How did that work out? When people have a choice between a Democrat, and Democrat Lite, they will go with the read deal, not the RINO poseur.”
You are right that both were moderates. The problem YOU saddled them with was that in order for them to get the Rep. Nomination, they had to pander to the base, to make pretend that they weren’t moderate. When they did, they lost their appeal to moderates. And they lost their elections because there are less of your base out there than there are moderates. No, not locally in Texas and Kentucky. But there aren’t enough Texases and Kentuckys for you to win the presidency that way. Look at the numbers.
Christy could win a national election if you would stop kicking him every time he does something moderate. But if he has to swing to the far right to get the nomination, he’ll suffer the same fate as McCain and Romney. Since you are so much smarter than me, I would have thought that you would have figured that out by now.
Part of me hopes that Republicans double-down in their opposition to gay rights and gay marriage, double-down in opposition to immigration reform and health care reform, double-down in calling for dismantlement of social safety net programs, and double-down in calling for Obama’s impeachment over scandals 1,2,3,4 and 5, because I think that is how the Dems win in 2016.
But part of me also wishes Republicans would see the light and stop handing the White House to the Dems each time, because the Dems really don’t do a very good job when they’re there.
But the Republican Party is YOUR responsibility, not mine. Fix it or not, it’s a win-win for me, and I have you to thank.
Christy and Rubio have basically already blown their chances. While I admire Cruz, since he’s not a natural born citizen, I won’t be voting for him either. No matter how good a president he might make, as long as standards should apply, they apply to him also.
George, in your hoping the Repubs don’t figure out what they’re doing wrong, means that you prefer the Dims, no matter what the Repubs do. So it sounds as if you would go with the Dims agenda, regardless of Repubs actions toward homosexuals.
you said:”I noticed a poll out today that shows Obama’s support actually strengthening ” you can find a poll that says what you want it to say, they mean nothing. The polls don’t reflect the illegal activities that go on that swing elections. Everyone in the country knows that an illegal candidate won an illegal election and nobody gives a damn as long as it’s the other persons ox being gored.
You also said:”If YOU think that the case ISN’T closed, try and open it. Let me know how it goes. The case IS closed. It is NAILED shut. Stop crying. ” A case that hasn’t ever been opened is still subject to be opened, the truth will most likely come out after Obama leaves office, or when an ineligible Repub gets elected. Then someone will care.
It seems so strange and odd to me to hear people saying that the fact that an ineligible person is occupying the White House doesn’t matter because he was elected. That’s kinda like you hiring a security guard to protect your family and possessions and then after he steals you blind, you find out that no one cares, it’s your fault because you hired him so you can’t prosecute him because you were stupid enough to hire him so you have to live with the consequences.
@George Wells:
I’m sure you are delighted, but not for the reason that most would think. You think Paul/Cruz have no chance of winning the general election.
You seem to be under the misguided conception that the gay vote is necessary for a candidate to win. It’s not. It holds very little clout, except with some local/state candidates. But as only 3% of the population, your influence is minimal, at best. 3% increase in Hispanic vote wipes you out.
Do you ever get tired of throwing out false flags?
Perhaps you should do a little more research before you make statements like that. It wasn’t the moderates Romney lost, but the base. Four million Republican voters stayed at home. FOUR MILLION. Why? They saw not much difference in a liberal squish from Taxachussets and a Marxist from Illinois.
Tell me, Georgie, where are the “moderate” Democrats? No where to be found. The DNC purged them by not backing them in primaries so that they were defeated by hard core progressives. Yet you blather on about “moderate” Republicans, i.e. liberal squishes.
All of those talking points could have been taken from the home page of the DNC. “Immigration” reform? How about simply wanting the laws of the nation enforced when it comes to IL-legal immigration. They are not one and the same. Dismantlement of social safety net programs? Call it what it is; wealth redistribution and purely Marxist. Gay right? Give me a break. You have every right guaranteed to every American except for the right to collect a Social Security check from your dead partner. So what you have spent much time on claiming is a honorable agenda all boils down to one thing; MONEY.
Ever hear of over-playing your hand, Georgie? That’s what you, and your Democrat Party ilk are doing. No, the pendulum will not swing back immediately, but it will swing. The more you, and your Democrat Party ilk, try to shove down the throats of the American people what they don’t want, the sooner the push back will come. The white, Christian American middle class is tired of being the whipping boy and they are going to eventually retaliate. And they will do that at the ballot box.
@Redteam #259:
“So it sounds as if you would go with the Dims agenda, regardless of Repubs actions toward homosexuals.”
Just the opposite. I don’t know what you’re looking at. But in case I didn’t make myself clear, “I would go with the Republicans if “they stop vilifying gays and instead give us equal rights.”” (That IS the “opposite” of what you said, is it not?) Anything else that you’re reading into what I said isn’t there, at least they way you’re reading it. And if you tell me one more time that I already have equal rights, I’ll hit you with my purse! The Republican Party has done ZIP on gay rights, while the Dems have done a lot. That’s the ticket.
“Everyone in the country knows that an illegal candidate won an illegal election and nobody gives a damn as long as it’s the other persons ox being gored.”
That “gored ox” thing must be a Republican talking point, as I see it here repeatedly. I guess it makes sense to you. Oh, well… And I would offer that your “everyone” doesn’t effectively amount to a hill of beans, either for your reason or any other. Like I said, please keep that argument alive, win-win and all that.
After all of this monologuing I still think I am gay. Hmm. Maybe some more “change me” prayer is in order, or vaugue threats about how I should be “doubled-down” against might help me lust after women like a proper fellow. I HATE not wanting to grab some random gal in a bar and have my way with her. Dang! That would be the ticket alright. How come I don’t have any children I don’t know about?? I mean who else has to go thru life not being able to tell her to “get her ass in the kitchen and fix me dinner!” ?? I also miss the idea of being able to go to the locker room and talk about my conquests with the guys, how this one or that one gave me the clap, how we meshed, etc. Sigh.