Howard Fineman, 2012
More to the point, politically, two of Obama’s leading strengths are foreign policy in general and his performance as commander-in-chief, according to the polls.
A quick perusal is enough to make the point. In the most recent national CBS/New York Times poll, Obama has a positive rating of 46-36 for his handling of “foreign policy,” his highest rating on any major issue or duty. A CNN recent poll gives the president a 52-36 lead over Romney on the question of who would be a better commander-in-chief. The CBS poll gives Obama a 30-13 lead over Romney on the question of which candidate voters have “very” strong confidence in to be commander-in-chief.
Obama’s lead on these topics reverse, at least for now, a generation’s worth of Democratic Party political weakness on defense and foreign policy — a crushing burden on the Democrats ever since George McGovern ran on an anti-war platform in 1972 and lost 49 states to Richard Nixon.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39_MDzf7zPM[/youtube]
“Al Qaeda has been decimated, Osama bin Laden is dead.”
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQjztrnJzCM[/youtube]
Obama, 2011
‘We’re Leaving Behind A Stable And Self-Reliant Iraq’
President Barack Obama has described al Qaeda as having been “decimated,” “on the path to defeat” or some other variation at least 32 times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, according to White House transcripts.
This comes despite Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magarief, members of Congress, an administration spokesperson, and several press reports suggesting that al Qaeda played a role in the attack.
Joe Biden, 2010
“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government,” said Biden.
“I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.
How inept is the Obama team?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za7IIAMC08g[/youtube]
Today
Mosul has fallen to Al Qaeda
Tikrit has fallen to Al Qaeda
Baghdad is falling to Al Qaeda.
Liberals constantly repeat the phrase “It happened on Bush’s watch.” Well, guess what. This is happening on Obama’s watch. It’s his. He owns it. He is making the sacrifice of more than 4,000 US soldiers meaningless. That’s more lives lost than on 9-11, and it’s solely because of ego, because of hubris, the consequences of trying to forge a legacy instead of respond appropriately to world events.
Two years ago I wrote that Obama tended to leave destruction in his wake.
Three years I warned of Obama building an Islamic Caliphate and the he was demanding that US taxpayers contribute.
Al Qaeda is not dead. Al Qaeda is not decimated. They control more territory than ever. Al Qaeda in Mali is armed with the best weapons thanks to Obama and controls much of Africa. Obama has sought to depose all the leaders, bad as they are, who kept a lid on Al Qaeda- Gaddafi, Mubarak and Assad.
As Glenn Reynolds might say, it’s all proceeding as I have foreseen.
Barack Obama suffers from terminal narcissism and commemorates every single notable event on the calendar by including himself in a tweet and this is no exception.
The top image is courtesy of John Hinderaker. The bottom one is mine.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Randy
i hate to think that he will order the military to fight along the IRANIANS,
who had sympatise with those terrorists, before,
and i think about how many multi thousands troops where wounded and how many died in the last IRAK WAR, THE COUNT IS OUTSTANDING FOR AMERICA, and not accepteble,
and we are not counting the multi thousands with same ending from AFGHANISTAN,
BECAUSE OF A PRO MUSLIM PROTECTION ROE,
@George Wells:
Actually, like with most issues, you’re wrong. It depends on who has the bigger gun. We have maintained the bigger gun since WWI, but your side of the aisle is concerned more with “hearts and minds” and “collateral damage” than you are with winning a war. We learned that during Vietnam as the left, funded by the Communist Party USA, along with Russia, supplied the money to anti-war proponents like Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda, and our current Secretary of State, John Kerry.
Ah, the Blame Bush meme again. But history is not on your side. Had Clinton approved the attack on bin Laden in Kandahar in 1999, we would not have had 9-11.
Time after time, bin Laden orchestrated attacks were carried out on American interests during the Clinton administration, and Clinton did nothing but fire off a million dollar missile to bomb an aspirin factory. He would have made a bigger impression by killing a camel.
No, that attitude came with the 60’s social revolution. Spoiled brats, like John Kerry, who did not want to go to war and worked with the enemy to achieve that goal. We won the gold ring in South Korea, but when Vietnam came along, the traitors, who should be currently making little rocks out of big ones at Leavenworth, showed their true Communist colors.
So what? Are they part of Obama’s inner circle that is making the decisions? Do you really think the Obama administration, or even Obama himself, would listen to one damn thing suggested by a Republican? While you are prone to wasting your breath, others are not.
Ignored by Obama who is quick to tell us how he killed bin Laden, but slow to accept the blame for the failure we are now seeing in Iraq.
You, and the rest of the sodomists, already have marriage equality. You are equally free to marry someone of the opposite sex just as is any heterosexual. You don’t want “equality”, you want privileged status. It is never enough for you and your ilk. Nothing will ever be enough. You don’t want tolerance. You want forced acceptance. And that, you will never get.
Remember how absurd it seemed when Osama bin Laden blamed his attacks on New York and Washington DC on the loss of “Andalusia?”
Yes, Spain was lost to Islam over 1,000 years ago.
Well, if you want to wade through an hour of murder and mutilation, over 1,000 allahu akbars, and blood you can see that ISIS is using “Andalusia” as their reason still today.
So, if you stupidly think that ISIS will stop once it takes all of the Middle East including Israel, think again.
Video with English subtitles:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/inside-the-jihad-clanking-of-the-swords.php
@Nanny G, #47:
While I generally disagree with the views expressed in American Thinker, Mike Konrad may have just made the most intelligent suggestion I’ve heard thus far.
@Greg: I posted that, perhaps on a different thread.
As long as non-Muslims are helped to leave, I agree.
But Obama can’t seem to decide if it is the non-Muslims who are the problem.
He has armed ISIS in other battles, though not in Iraq.
So, they are his allies.
YIKES!
if you will go their the cheap way, don’t go,
because you will kill the WARRIORS AND THEY ARE TOO IMPORTANT TO HAVE THEM KILLED , AMERICANS WOULD BE NOTHING WITHOUT THEM, AND CRUMBLE IN FEAR,
ENOUGH HAVE BEEN KILLED SO FAR, AND YOU CANNOT EVEN SUPPLY THE WOUNDED IN HELP CARE, YOU ALSO CANNOT REPLACE A WARRIOR,ONCE HE DIE,
YOU GO WITH BUSH AWE, BY AIR OR YOU STAY, BECAUSE ONCE YOU KILL THOSE ALQAEDA SCUMS, THERE WILL BE 1000, TO REPLACE EACH OF THEM, AND THEY WILL GET OUR WARRIORS IN THE BACK, AT THE SECOND ROUND OR THE THIRD OR THE FOURTH, BECAUSE YOU STOP KILLING THEM WITH THAT STUPID KILLER OF OUR OWN ROE,
YES THAT ONE SAID, IF YOU KILL ONE, YOU WILL HAVE HIS FAMILY KILL YOU, WELL COMANDER, IN THAT CASE, YOU
JUST BLOW THEM ALL THE FIRST TIME,
HEY IF YOU CANNOT FIND A WAY TO NEWTRALIZE THEIR FAVORITE IEDS.
WHY DON’T YOU MAKE SOME TOO, AND LET THEM BLOW THEMSELVES OUT WITH IT,
WOW I LOVE TO HEAR MONTEL WILLIAMS TALK ABOUT WAR STRATEGY,
OR THE VETERANS IN HOSPITAL, HE HAS IT PIN,
Nanny G
yes, and the same in Aghanistan, THEY WHERE HELP AND THEY SHOT IN THE BACK,
THE ONE WHO TAUGHT THEM TO SHOOT, AND DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILY,
AND KARSEI THE SAME, accusing the MILITARY ON EVERY OCCASION HE COULD FIND,
Greg
YOU ARE RIGHT ON,
MIKE KONRAD HAS THE SOLUTION,
AT AMERICAN THINKER, YES THEY HAVE REAL THINKERS,
Hi George (#48):
I agree with a lot of what you write, concerning Iraq, save for the suggestion of nuking Kabul. This is just more hitting a hornets’ nest with a baseball bat, because you got stung by a bee. The people who carried out 9/11 didn’t care a s— about Kabul. Like it or not, the most effective approach to Jihadist terrorism is the approach taken by Obama. Targeted assassinations. There is no “safe haven” from drones and Seal Team Six.
Regarding the following:
I’m a pretty traditional liberal who once wrote a piece on this blog explaining my particular problems with your topic of greatest interest. I won’t repeat my various arguments at present, but I will state my conclusion: Gay marriage should be “legal,” but it should be called by a different name, to distinguish it from traditional marriage.
I notice that you yourself used the phrase “gay marriage.” Why did you do this? Obviously, because if you’d simply used the word “marriage,” it wouldn’t be clear what you were talking about. Last Friday, on Bill Maher’s program, he had as a guest a lesbian comedienne who used the phrase “gay married” to describe her own situation in life. She didn’t say that she was married. She said that she was “gay married.” Why did she say this? Again, to clarify that she was talking about being married to a person of the same gender, because many viewers might feel as if she were describing her status as being married to someone of the opposite gender, as in traditional marriage.
There are legitimate, non-bigoted reasons for referring to “gay marriage” by a different name. If “gay marriage” were simply called a different name than “marriage,” it would currently get rid of 90% of the remaining animosity, as well as satisfying the concerns of people like me, who feel that it is a threat especially to women and children to pretend that the commitment to fidelity is no different in male gay marriage as it is in traditional marriage, in the latter of which fidelity is the very bedrock core institutional value, unlike the case of the former.
So I propose that we use the same terminology used by you and by the lesbian guest on the Bill Maher show. There is “marriage” and then there is “gay marriage.” One can be “married” or one can be “gay married.” And there are equal rights and responsibilities and privileges in being “married” and in being “gay married;” so the principle of equal protection under the law is scrupulously observed. I honestly think that this is a simple and reasonable and fair and non-bigoted solution to the entire issue, with which 90% of people can live.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
openid.aol.com/runswim (Larry Weisenthal)
HI, NICE TO KNOW YOU FINALY FIX YOUR COMPUTER,
i think concerning that woman saying , I AM A GAY MARRIED,
it”s no busyness of any one telling she”s GAY,
she can say i am married PLAIN LIKE THAT,
the gay mention is a personal and can be kept from public knowledge,
so why anounce it like it”s important to anyone but her,
that”s my opinion,
BYE
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
Bullsh!t. There is one way to approach jihadist terrorism; total war.
You lefties are all about hearts and minds. It is a damn good thing that FDR did not feel that way about the Germans or the Japanese. You fight them with everything you’ve got and you kill them. And if one of them is stupid enough to stick his head out and attack us, you bomb the hell out of his nation until that nation screams uncle and put an end to terrorist organizations in their nations.
All your damned political correctness (cultural Marxism) is going to get more of us killed on our own soil. And when it comes to foreign policy and being a Commander in Chief, Obama wouldn’t make a pimple on a E-1’s a$$.
Unfortunately Obama doesn’t kill enough Islamist leaders to be effective, Larry.
(And welcome back.)
IF Obama did target and take out EVERY jihadist leader we might be able to subdue the followers of such men at least temporarily.
But Obama allows many charismatics full reign.
For example, on the Iraq gov’t side in the battle is an old sadist, Muqtada al Sadr.
You might recall how bloody and body-filled his mosque was after he imposed his version of Sharia on a neighborhood he took over and leafleted.
But he was not killed.
Under Bush, he fled Iraq.
Under Obama he came back and reformed his Islamic army of Shiites.
Now, should ISIS win Iraq would get the Sunni flavor of Sharia.
If Maliki’s side wins Iraq would get the Shiite version.
There is not much difference between the two forms, saving which sect has the pile of bodies.
Obama, last year could have insisted on immunity for our soldiers as well as a secular, unity gov’t in Iraq instead of one favoring Shiites only.
He didn’t.
Let’s evacuate our people and the non-Muslims and let the freaks kill each other until they tire of it.
See if you can make any sense of JFKerry here:
Kerry said he is “absolutely convinced” the U.S. Embassy there has the security to keeps U.S. personnel safe as a militants with the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have taken over a number of large cities in the country.
“I don’t believe that they will in the near term certainly, and I don’t believe they necessarily can at all,” he said of the group’s ability to take over the capital.
“But that remains to be determined by the decision[s] that are made over the course of the next few days.”
http://thehill.com/policy/international/209445-kerry-isis-doesnt-have-ability-to-overrun-baghdad
http://www.jammiewf.com/2014/kiss-of-death-kerry-says-isis-doesnt-have-ability-to-overrun-baghdad/
So, which is it, Kerry?
You don’t think they can EVER at all take over Baghdad.
BUT….
In the next few days we will see.
?????
Ever VS next few days.
Gee.
How did you ever convince TWO rich heiresses to marry you?
@retire05 #52:
“If you draw your gun, you MUST kill the person you point it at. PERIOD!”
“Actually, like with most issues, you’re wrong. It depends on who has the bigger gun.”
WOW! You missed it! It doesn’t matter a lick to Islam that we have the bigger gun, because they KNOW that we won’t use it. You KNOW the Law of the West, SURELY!?! LOL.
I’m not “blaming” Bush. Why do you always have to think in terms of blame? Like a broken record…
The fact of the matter is exactly as I said: Had Bush “nuked” Kabul, Islam would be thinking twice about taking us on. Of course, had Bush nuked Kabul, it might well have started WW3, so I’m NOT blaming Bush for NOT doing that. My statement had nothing to do with “blame.”
The trouble is, the minute we start doing the calculus (evaluating costs, weighing world opinion, etc.) we are putting up a huge billboard telling those Muslim whack-jobs exactly how to beat us: MAKE WINNING TOO COSTLY. If they thought for one minute that we were as insane as they are, given our military superiority, they wouldn’t dream of messing with us. Goldwater was right.
I wonder still that you cannot see the hypocrisy of your contention that gay people have the right to marry. On one hand, you seem to make an argument that marriage is a solemn covenant with God that involves love, commitment, faithfulness, honesty, devotion, children, etc., etc., and on the other hand you seem to suggest that a homosexual man has a right to enter into a sham “marriage” with a woman he cannot love as you seem to think God wants. Suggesting that a gay man has a right to marry someone he cannot love demeans the institution of marriage far more than the secular marriage of same-sex couples who truly love each other.
“Iraq was won” … oh yeah, Bush told us “Mission Accomplished!“.
Reality check: The Iraqi government has been the functional equivalent of a spinning plate atop a broomstick. Unless someone was there 24/7 to keep it stable, its toppling was inevitable.
The Bush/Cheney administration foolishly believed that the American public would favor an indefinite military presence by the U.S. to maintain the government’s stability.
And now war-mongers such as McCain and Graham are demonstrating that those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.
@labman57:
Japan did.
Germany, too.
What was so odd about believing Iraq would?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal) #59:
Interesting that your linked “answer” to the Islamic problem seems reasonable enough, yet is unlikely to succeed in the non-fiction world, while Retire05’s solution is total war with 1/6th of the world’s population. All of her solutions include the end of life as we know it. If you cannot see Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” at work in this horrible scenario, put on your glasses!
I “enjoyed” your “conclusion” about “gay marriage.”
The reason that the term “gay marriage” is used is because 97% of the population isn’t gay. That fact, coupled with the fact that until just very recently there simply was no such thing as gays marring under any label, should make it obvious why there is a need for a term to denote homosexual marriage: in most social settings, marriages are EXPECTED to be hetero. Now that both heterosexuals AND homosexuals are marrying, there needs to be a socially graceful way of signaling which one it is. 97% of the time, it is safe to assume that it’s straight, so for the sake of convenience, it usually isn’t necessary to point out a heterosexual bond. But in the occasional instance where it IS a gay marriage, for the sake of that social grace, the “gay” part should not be neglected
.
This applies to the social context, but not to the legal context. For legal use, “separate but equal” or “different but equal” runs into deep dodo with the Constitution. If your “There is “marriage” and then there is “gay marriage” instead posed “Heterosexual Marriage” as being the opposite of Homosexual Marriage” or “Straight Marriage” v. “Gay Marriage,” you would be drawing a parallel distinction that would (I think) find no problem in the courts. But your option does not enjoy a parallel complementarity. It suggests an unequal classification. Won’t fly.
I find it amusing that we are now hearing again and again that gays should accept this sort of “almost equivalency” in the form of “civil unions” or some other second class label. It was just a few years ago that gays would have LOVED to get civil unions, but aside from Vermont, nobody wanted to let gays have even that. Remember that a decade ago, Scalia wrote a scathing dissent against overturning all laws that criminalized gay sex. A lot of people wanted gays jailed, and four of the Supreme Court justices were OK with that. But since then, progress has been dramatic, and “marriage equality” seems to be just around the corner. “Civil Unions” will go the way of “Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell”. Just a stepping stone along the way.
@George Wells:
Why did you even bring that up when Bill Clinton absolutely refused to take out bin Laden, MORE THAN ONCE? Because you lefties always want to throw things at Bush but never at one of your own.
If you pull a Saturday night special on me, and I have an AK-47, you wanna take your chances with me, Bubba? How many times have you read how bad guys drop their weapons when confronted by a gun toting police officer?
The law of the West? You don’t have a clue about it. Stop acting like you do.
Name the state that prohibits people from getting married based on their sexual preferences when they are operating under the same rules and restrictions as everyone else. I will be waiting for your answer.
Please provide a link to that comment being made by me. Again, I will be waiting.
No, what demeans the institution of marriage is people like you trying to change the dynamics of it. If a gay man (who in my estimation is mentally unbalanced and no, there is NO gay gene) doesn’t want to marry a woman, that is his right. He can just shack up with what ever other mentally unbalanced man he finds. Lawrence vs. Texas legalized his right to do that. But noooooooo, that wasn’t enough for the Gay Liberation Movement. You are not going to be satisfied until it become illegal to even speak against homosexuality. There is a reason you are referred to as the Gay Gestapo.
@Nanny G #62:
“Let’s evacuate our people and the non-Muslims and let the freaks kill each other until they tire of it.”
I agree. It’s what they do best.
Just one question: What do we do when Putin starts to fix their war toys when they break down, or gives them new ones?
When a vacuum is created close to something that can fill it, the vacuum doesn’t last long.
@George Wells:
Only as long as you can find liberal progressive judges (who are often gay themselves and should, by all judicial standards, recuse themselves from those cases) to force the queering of America on us. You can’t do it by public opinion where states will vote same sex marriage into law.
@retire05 #68:
You said: “You, and the rest of the sodomists, already have marriage equality. You are equally free to marry someone of the opposite sex just as is any heterosexual.” (#52)
And I said: “you seem to suggest that a homosexual man has a right to enter into a sham “marriage” with a woman he cannot love as you seem to think God wants.” (#64)
To which you said:
“Please provide a link to that comment being made by me.
What, do you need a walker to get from your #52 line to my #64 line?
What does YOUR version of “Marriage Equality” mean to a gay person if he cannot have anything but the sham marriage that you insist is “equal?”
Heterosexuals can marry in love, but homosexuals cannot? That’s “equal?
Thanks for the laugh!
@George Wells:
No, and I don’t need some mentally disturbed homosexual putting words in my mouth that were never there to begin with. But I already know that you have, on more than one occasion, claimed I said things I did not. You are not only mentally disturbed, you are a dishonest liar.
If you don’t want to marry someone you don’t love, don’t. Obviously you had no trouble shacking up for years with your “partner.” But you have no right to demand that the rest of us support your perversion.
George Wells
i was thinking AGAIN ABOUT THE NAME TOLD IN FRONT OF A PUBLIC,
A GAY MARRIAGE,
WOULDN’T IT BE BETTER INSTEAD TO TELL THE GENDER HE OR SHE REPRESENT AS GAY,
because there is no way to tell who is playing the female role, and who is in the male role,
which is right from the start confuse the other around that circle, THOSE WHO ARE NORMALY SEEN AND
DESCRIBE AS MAN AND WOMAN, AND IT GIVE A UNEASY FEELING AND A QUESTION MARK TO THE OTHER, WHO RIGHTFULLY ARE TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHICH IS MALE OR FEMALE, I WONDER IF YOUR MINISTER ASK WHAT IS THE GENDER OF EACH ONE,
SO INSTEAD OF HER SAYING, I HAD A GAY MARRIAGE, SHE COULD SAY, i and my wife, where just married
SOME FEMALE GAY ARE DRESSING LIKE THE GENDER THEY PLAY,
WE CAN FIGURE THOSE FAST ENOUGH, BUT THE OTHER IN HIDDING
ARE NOT THAT EASY IDENTIFYED, ONLY LEAVING A SUSPICIOUS QUESTION MARK TO OTHER
WHO THEY HAVE TO WORK WITH, OR OTHER ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF THEIR HOME, IT’S NOT FAIR FOR THEIR SURROUNDING FRIENDS AND OR CO WORKERS,
WHICH HAVE TO STUDY YOUR COUPLE TO FIND YOUR SECRET
WHICH YOU DID NOT TELL,
@bees #73:
First off, I would offer that it isn’t other people’s “business” to know the details of a couple’s sexual practices, gay or straight. I know a number of heterosexual couples in which the female is the aggressive, dominant partner and the male takes the submissive role. I know this because they choose to reveal this detail to me, but otherwise I have no right to that privileged information.
In my marriage, both me and my spouse call ourselves “wibands” (a combination of the terms “husband” and “wife”) because there is no obvious difference in the roles we assume, either sexually or in the conduct of more public activities. Neither “husband” or “wife” seemed entirely appropriate to us. Having asked beforehand, the Justice of the Peace who married us in the historic Annapolis Courthouse announced at the end of the ceremony “Now, by the power vested in me by the Constitution of the State of Maryland Humans, I pronounce Paul and George married wibands!” Didn’t seem to bother anyone…
Humans are curious, much like dogs who sniff each others’ nether regions upon meeting for the purpose of discovering what the other dog has “been up to”. But given the wide variety of options available, it would be cumbersome to label each person with the details of their personal proclivities, and, as I said before, it really is no body’s business.
@retire05 #72:
Oh, forgive me for assuming that marriage meant something to you. It seemed like a reasonable assumption, considering all of the fuss you have been making over gays getting the right to marry. But you are right: you never said that there was anything special about marriage, and particularly, you never said that love was an essential requisite to marriage. So now it seems that you are now arguing that it isn’t… how sad! The only way that you can make the claim that gays have the same right to marry that anyone else has is to debase the institution of marriage to a loveless contract of convenience. With arguments like that being offered in opposition to marriage equality, it is no wonder that gays are winning. I appreciate your help!
“But you have no right to demand that the rest of us support your perversion.”
Actually, I kind of do have that right. Not to demand YOUR support, or Redteam’s, for example, but when you use the collective term “the rest of us,” then my rights fall under those guaranteed by the US Constitution. And since the Constitution didn’t say anything about “marriage” (or “perversion”) that subject does fall to the states to regulate as they see fit… so long as their particular regulations do not run afoul of the Constitution’s other guaranteed rights. The guaranteed rights that gay marriage bans interfere with are:
1. Equal Protection guarantees (14th amendment, section 1) that basically say that you cannot give a right to some people but exclude it from others.
2. The “Full Faith and Credit Clause” (Article 4, section 1 of the Constitution) that says that a contract in one state must be honored in another. It HAS been customary for states to be given a pass on this clause regarding their different marriage regulations, but there is no constitutional basis for that “waiver” and it’s applicability in this case is by no means assured.
3. The implied powers (Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution) that give the Federal Government (Congress) the right to discover powers not already specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The government may “discover” a right to gay marriage.
And the Supreme Court has already decided that laws governing sodomy are unconstitutional, so your charming characterization of “perversion” is legally irrelevant. Nice try.
I don’t need your personal approval or your personal support. But I do demand truly equal rights, not the sham ones that you keep pushing. Keep pushing, though, it helps!
George Wells
yes , i failed to think of the many variety of humanity, when i said to better define the choice of gender,
and by it prevent the confusion and question,
so how about saying my companion and i are married,
and the word marriage is also twisted there, as society learn her meaning is before a true MINISTER REPRESENTING GOD,
the other are also false minister,WHO DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY AS HOLY ACTION BLESS BY GOD,
like yourself admit , it”s not anyone business, and to say a GAY MARRIAGE BECOME OTHERS BUSINESS, BECAUSE OF THE GAY WORD, which is ALSO FALSE, and should never apply to that community, the word gay mean realy, is happy, joly, enjoying,
as well as and even more a public affair because one chose to reveal the GAY WORD, it could sound like you are the not good to be with, because different human, because you Wear the wrong attribut which you name ” being gay,
why not keeping it to the couple privacy, and say just we where married, we are married, if you don”t want to reveal the gender of each, as maried other do by exposing the clothes they wear,
leaving not an inch of doubt who is the male and female,
which you fail to do, but only some do it,
we will be married, KEEP THE GAY WORD PRIVATE, WHICH IS THE CONTROVERSY,
THEN YOU WILL NOT BE ” THE SOCALL DIFFERENT KIND,
because when you dig in hard, you find yourself wanting to admit your gay fact, so much, as if you feel compel, you must tell,
and , you find that no one want to know, or discuss it, IT DISTURB THE PEOPLE, NO MATTER WHY,
WHY DO YOU SAY? it”s because the people only want to know if you are a good human , same as any other new human they meet,
enough to be their friend, which take more time,we always have to earn the love of our friends,
or a questionable human with mind perversion ,
one to keep away from the children, THAN IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO WANT TO KNOW, NOT YOURES ,
@bees #76:
I am happy that you have arrived at the place in this issue that gay people want the most. They want to simply be “married”. Gay people don’t want their marriages to be called anything different, because a different term is not “equal”. There will always be some difficulty, however, in the problem of there being so many straight marriages and comparatively few gay ones because of the small percentage of gays in the population. This will ALWAYS lead to a assumption that someone is talking about a spouse who is the opposite gender UNLESS they are somehow informed otherwise. The need to inform of the reality rests in the desire to avoid the social embarrassment of making a gender error in conversation or some other similar situation. Gay people put this information out in front (when they do put it out) because they don’t want to deal with the embarrassment or anger from people who were operating under false assumptions until they learn the truth late in the situation. “Why didn’t you tell me?!” we hear. It isn’t because we like to put images of gay sex into other people’s minds.
I was once invited to go to Mexico with a family that had a 16-year old boy, and the parents thought that I would be a wonderful recreational “buddy” for all of the sporting activities that were planned. I asked if the boy was aware that I was gay, and I asked this ahead of the trip because I thought that it would be unfair for the parents to pair us up without telling him and for him to then discover the truth. This was MY concern, perhaps because I am old and from a time when this would have been a big deal. I suspect that today, youngsters aren’t bothered by it the way that they were when I was a kid, but that’s just the way that I am. They didn’t want to tell him, so I did not go. Just as well – babysitting a 16-year-old boy can be a difficult job!
@George Wells:
Yet you felt the need to go into explicit details, on this very site, about how you were not a “sodomist” since you only engaged in oral sex. No one asked you to do that, it was strictly voluntary on your part. So every one can read the new lie, same as the old lie.
If homosexuals really subscribed to the belief that their private lives are, actually, private, there would have never been the need for you to inform everyone on this board that you are queer. Or to go into details about your sex life, or talk about your “partner” as if he was nothing more than a piece of meat. Or give us any of the other details about your private life. Instead, you fill these pages with your exploits.
So as you try to redefine traditional marriage, it is necessary to come up with catchy new words to describe your perversion? So why don’t you tell us all again how what you want society to accept is no different than any other traditional form of marriage, even if you have to come up with new terms to describe your relationship?
And your understanding of the U.S. Constitution seems to be as perverted as your personal choices.
Are you saying that gays are denied the ability to marry under the constructs of traditional marriage, just because they are gay?
Shall we look at what the Constitution actually says?
“Section 1. Full Faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.”
That does not include laws on marriage which are covered by the 10th Amendment. If what you are claiming about the “full faith and credit clause” then states could not regulate the age of consent (some states being 18, others 16), could not regulate state drug laws, nor could it regulated property laws. Perhaps you should learn what “public acts” actually meant to the authors of the Constitution.
Actually, it does not.
Obviously, you do. Or you would not come to this site pandering your agenda. Anyone who is not concerned about what others think expand as much effort into pushing an agenda as you do.
It does mean something to me. And I don’t intend to let you bastardize it like the left has continued to do since the days of LBJ. I don’t agree with no-fault divorce laws, thinking that the requirement for one of the 4 A’s was a pretty good idea.
But creating a new term (wibands) is AOK? What a hypocrite you are, George.
@George Wells:
Especially when you can’t keep your hands off of him, eh, George?
@retire05 #79:
“Just as well – babysitting a 16-year-old boy can be a difficult job!”
“Especially when you can’t keep your hands off of him, eh, George?”
LOL! I’m way over sex! No interest at all. The problem with youth is drugs, self-destructive risk-taking, and sexual appetites for just about anything that moves EXCEPT a gay-n-gray guy. But see, my mistake is thinking that you are interested in the truth, and that’s why I offer you accounts of my personal experience. I see that you have some pretty ridiculous misconceptions about gay people – probably developed during your period of volunteerism in which you cared for the very sickest extremity of the gay community. But it is not simply by luck that the majority of gay men don’t have AIDS. The majority of us aren’t sex addicts, and we don’t fxxk around like the rabbits you think we are. But you don’t WANT to know the truth. It doesn’t agree with your bigoted view of things. Instead of being grateful for some much-needed insight, you just spit at it with bitterness befitting a witch. Yo Mamma dint learn you no manners!
“Gay people don’t want their marriages to be called anything different, because a different term is not “equal”.”
“But creating a new term (wibands) is AOK? What a hypocrite you are, George.”
Again showing no capacity for appreciating the difference between a legal goal and a private term of endearment. My neighbor’s wife might be his “HoneyPoo,” but she’s his “SPOUSE” when he files his tax return. Does that make HIM a hypocrite? Of course not. Your hate is just making you say stupid things. Or maybe you have a brain tumor – that would do the same thing…
“Public Acts re. Full Faith and Credit Clause) “That does not include laws on marriage which are covered by the 10th Amendment.””
#1: The Constitution doesn’t mention marriage, so the 10th Amendment only implies by it’s omission that States have the right to regulate marriage. But the Constitution CLEARLY specifies that states may not effect regulations which infringe upon constitutionally protected rights re. the 14th amendment. The vast majority of cases that reach the Supreme Court are instances where two or more rights that are based upon constitutional principle are in conflict with each other, and it falls to the Court to weigh each conflicting right and decide which of the two is the most compelling. This is the case here. On the one hand you have the principle of Federalism, in which deference is often given to States’ Rights, and The SCOTUS’ “swing” vote (Kennedy) is a champion of Federalism. On the other hand you have the principle of Equal Protection, and Kennedy (and every Federal judge who has addressed gay marriage to date) has found that gay marriage is a legitimate equal protection issue. Kennedy is also the principal architect of virtually every gay-rights court victory in the past decade, and it is difficult to imagine he would halt that progress so close to the finish line.
Between States’ Rights and Equal Protection, I’d be hard pressed to say which is more fundamental. Equal Protection is crucial to the individual and to ALL individuals, and States’ Rights is crucial to the Republic as a whole. A lot of folks have already concluded that the SCOTUS will pick Equal Protection in this case, but I see it as more of a flip of the coin. I guess we’ll find out next year.
@George Wells:
I do know it doesn’t come from you.
And what you seem to know about the 14th could be put in to the eye of a gnat.
@retire05 #81:
Sure, sweetheart, anything you say. You’ve been vomiting bile at gay marriage for as long as I’ve been visiting here, and in the mean time, I’ve been watching the astonishing progress being made by the proponents of gay marriage.
How’s that bile thing working for ya?
What? You say I’m a lying hypocrite? A disgusting sodomite? Those are your arguments?
Oh, they’re NOT arguments. They’re just personal attacks, launched because you have lost the gay marriage debate and it hurts your feelings, and, hurt child that you are, you need to hurt someone else in return. Well, flail away if it makes you feel better.
I’ve never lied to you. I’ve made a few mistakes, but they were honest ones, and I apologized like a gentleman when my errors were pointed out to me. But what difference would it have made if I DID lie? The campaign for gay marriage doesn’t turn on MY personal veracity.
The success of the gay marriage campaign lies in its rightness. We are 3%, and you are 97%. If, with 97%, you were actually right and I was wrong, and you were STILL losing this bad, what would that say about YOU?
Just 170 extra reservists enlisted in the UK Army Reserve over the past year – despite a Government target to boost the stand-by force by 11,000 by 2018.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2659237/More-Brits-signing-fight-jihadist-militants-Iraq-Syria-UK-Army-Reserve.html#ixzz34vuQIT5q
Why is this interesting?
Because MORE than that went from UK to fight jihad in Iraq and Syria!
500 Brits fighting alongside the jihadists in the Middle East for ISIS.
IF any of these ”Brits” live to return ”home” to the UK, they will be bringing their jihadi ways with them.
ISIS holds a particularly extreme view of Islam and wants to create an extreme Islamic utopia, is a very attractive group to fight for.
Worldwide caliphate is only going to be beneficial for those in the inner circle.
Everybody else will be living like those extreme poor Muslims in Islamic countries like Iran and Egypt…..
Or they will be living like those extremely poor non-Muslims like the Copts who trash-dig in Egypt.
@George Wells:
Then stop pushing your perverted agenda, or leave. It matters not to me which choice you make.
Wrong. It lies in the fact that the gay lobby seeks out gay judges who, by all judicial standards should recuse themselves, to over turn the will to the majority. What you queers can’t win in the arena of public opinion, you force on others via litigation and Marxist litigators. Even Lawrence was based on lies and a gay lover’s spat, not police intrusion.
And don’t think it goes unnoticed that you never debate any point I make, you just provide more strawmen for me to burn down. You belong to the most intolerant sect in the U.S., and the blow back as you continue to push even harder will not be to your liking.
@ilovebeeswarzone: & @retire05:
Please stop feeding the trolls.
@Ditto:
I am NOT going to let someone like George come here and spew his agenda and not challenge him. That ain’t gonna happen. I am sick to death of the “We’re queer and we’re here” crap people like him spew while they claim all they want is “tolerance” yet show no tolerance toward those of us who disagree with the life style because of our Biblical beliefs.
He can take his cultural Marxism and shove it.
Your fundamental problem is that you’re a classic hater, and take some perverse pleasure in trying to hurt people who don’t think as you do. Do your “Biblical believes” have anything to say about that?
@Greg:
Your fundamental problem is that you are a Marxist supporting liar. My faith tells me to “hate the sin, love the sinner.” Redemption is available to all, Greggie. Well, except maybe you.
BTW, I thought you were not going to respond to me anymore. Was that just another lie on your part?
@Greg: Actually, Greg, Christians who follow Bible principles ”love the sinner, but hate the sin.”
That means you do not support sinning.
That is why you find some Christians who will not marry gay couples in their churches or even at parks or private homes.
That is why you find some Christians who do not materially support gay causes.
I remember the store, ”Alpha Beta,” owned by the Seventh Day Adventists.
That chain refused to support the sins of defiling flesh by either hard liquor or tobacco.
That chain also refused to sell many of the raunchy magazines even for men who like women.
@Greg:
Those ESL classes not helping much?
@retire05, #90:
Christianity doesn’t seem to be helping you with your own dysfunctions any more than Islam is helping the Taliban with their. It bothers me to see people who enjoy trying to cause others pain, and then claiming that God approves of their behavior.
But you’re quite right. I had said I would ignore your bullshit. Engaging with it invariably tempts me to fall into the same dysfunctional patterns, which I suppose is part of your satisfaction. I try to let kindness guide my behavior. Thank you for the reminder.
@Greg:
Wow! A Marxist comparing a Christian to the Taliban. Whoda thunk that would happen?
If bullshit was gold, Greggie, you’d be the richest man in the world. You’re just upset because I won’t fall into lock step with Gramsci and the Frankfurt Marxists methods of destroying democracy.
And why are you fighting George’s battles for him? He’s already hooked up so I don’t think he’s really interested in you.
@Greg:
How so? By coming here, day after day, p!mping for Obama?
@retire05:
I understand your ire, but you are doing exactly what George wants you to do. He has hijacked the conversation yet again and sidetracked the conversation into his favorite subject, drawing you and Bees right into his ploy. Ignore him and let’s get back to the original topic.
retire05
yes, Ditto has the right anwer, we should go back to the AUTHOR of the POST,
to be fair to him,
you made a good point and there is no more to say on the subject, and anger doesn”t fix it, and this post with the pictures has made us all revolted from the start, with those muslim killers
which we seems to keep them alive from this last FEW YEARS
because we are so dam tolerant, it get our military killed by thousands, INSTEAD OF US,
WE ARE MAD AS HELL, AND WE WON’T TAKE IT ANYMORE
BYE
@Ditto:
A point well taken. I shall allow others to destroy the argument of the sodomist pervert.
@Nanny G:
According to Greggie’s rules, Mother Theresa was a hater.
Back to Obama losing Iraq.
What is amazing about this is that the Center for American Progress is a Washington think tank deeply connected to the Obama administration!
The think tank was founded by John Podesta, a top advisor to President Obama.
Several former Obama administration officials – Neera Tanden, a former top White House and campaign advisor, Vikram Singh, a former State Department and Pentagon official, and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers—are all affiliated with CAP.
Like WHEN???
This is great!
Iraq will fall before Maliki will reconcile with the Sunnis.
Obama just nailed the coffin on Iraq under Maliki.
IF Obama telegraphs his plan to use air strikes he is basically giving ISIS time to front their forces with ”human shields.”
And we all know how Obama killed so many US military with his constraints on battling armed terrorists when civilians were anywhere near.
Ironically, CAP was for complete withdrawal of US forces as long as Bush was president.
And CAP is also for Obama funding those very same ”moderate” Islamists in Syria who ISIS came and took all the weapons from last time.
Brilliant!
NOT!
ISIS may soon become Iran’s Biggest Worry. Restricting our involvement to “limited counter-terrorism operations” might be about right. We already did Iran a big favor when we removed Saddam Hussein. Still no flowers or Thank You card. And Iraq? It’s unfortunate, but the current situation is more a result of their own failings and choices than ours. They had every opportunity, correct?
Nanny G
SO WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT IT IN IRAK IS A COMBINATION OF OBAMA SUPLYING WEAPON TO HIS DEAR REBELS IN SYRIA, WHICH IS CONNECTED TO THE 4 DEATHS OF THE HEROS IN BENGHASI,
WHICH WHERE DOING A JOB FOR HIM TO SEND WEAPON TO SYRIA REBELS WHO ARE NOW PROVIDING THE ALQAEDA SUB GROUP OF TERRORIST AND INVADING IRAK CUTTING THE HEAD OF THE PEOPLE FROM THE ONE IN POWER NOW MALAKI,
PARTY IN POWER, THE TERRORISTS ARE WELL RECIEVED BY THE OTHER PARTY LIKE LIBERATORS, IMAGINE IF THEY WIN THAT WAR, WHAT MASSACRE IS ON THE MENU FOR ALSO AMERICANS
IN THERE, SO THEY SHOULD NOT LET THE LIVE, NOT EVEN ONE,
SO YES IT’S NOW RIGHT THERE TO SEE FOR ALL, AND TO TOP IT ALL, HE WAS CONSIDERING MATCHING THE IRANIANS FIGHTER WITH OUR WARRIORS, A REAL REVELATION,
I WILL NEVER STOP CURSING OBAMA if EVEN ONE ,
OF WARRIORS get killed,