This Guy is a Sham

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Huntsman, pro civil unions as are many. I am, I wish I was in civil union. It is just like being Puerto Rico. All the benefits, none of the cons. Lucky gays.

LOL. Good point.

Some (Ron Paul) want to take "marriage" out of government all together, and put it only in churches. Which I guess means atheists can't marry?

The first question is should the concept of legal marriage be recognized on a federal or state level. State is the obvious answer, but that's given us the disaster we have now. So against what I've always thought (that it's a state thing), I'm thinking the feds have to recognize and define what constitutes a civil union-marriage (all the religious stuff needs to be out of it) and yeah, gay couples can be part of that and equal to heteros.

Originally Posted by Riot

Coming as a response to me pointing out a Democrat in "that group", not a very brilliant personal insult. Try again.

You moved the blame to congress and didn't single out any democratic congressman, just piled the responsibility on Republicans. You won't address it like an adult so you do the typical nitpick routine and try to convince others that Obama is the same as Congress. He's not.

If you'd like I can take the first paragraph out for you. That way you can comprehend which part of your post I'm singling out. But then we couldn't have these mundane troll replies over semantics because you're consistently wrong and deceptive.

Originally Posted by Riot

LOL. Good point.

Some (Ron Paul) want to take "marriage" out of government all together, and put it only in churches. Which I guess means atheists can't marry?

The first question is should the concept of legal marriage be recognized on a federal or state level. State is the obvious answer, but that's given us the disaster we have now. So against what I've always thought (that it's a state thing), I'm thinking the feds have to recognize and define what constitutes a civil union-marriage (all the religious stuff needs to be out of it) and yeah, gay couples can be part of that and equal to heteros.

Baseless claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...on_legislation

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[192] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[193] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[194] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[195][196] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[195]

In a 2007 interview with John Stossel, Paul stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

You moved the blame to congress and didn't single out any democratic congressman, just piled the responsibility on Republicans.

I didn't "move to blame" anybody. Re-read it. I simply pointed out, outside of Obama, the current political reality, and yeah, it's that the GOP has moved so far to the right that their public position is overtly anti-gay.

You won't address it like an adult so you do the typical nitpick routine and try to convince others that Obama is the same as Congress. He's not.

Oh, bullshit. Yip, yip, yip, with some obvious lack of reading comprehension added on top.

No, I did not say or imply Obama was the same as Congress. I said Obama was personally anti-gay marriage, but politically he waffles. I said the GOP are stringently anti-gay.

I other words, I made a contrast between Obama and the current GOP.

Sorry - I'm not responsible for the nonsensical assumptions you make up in your head about what your imagination thinks I meant, but that I didn't actually say.

If you'd like I can take the first paragraph out for you. That way you can comprehend which part of your post I'm singling out. But then we couldn't have these mundane troll replies over semantics because you're consistently wrong and deceptive.

It must be so difficult for you to live with such a constant hate-on.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Baseless claim.

Why don't you look at what Paul said during the last GOP debate.

Originally Posted by Riot

I didn't "move to blame" anybody. Re-read it. I simply pointed out, outside of Obama, the current political reality, and yeah, it's that the GOP has moved so far to the right that their public position is overtly anti-gay.



Oh, bullshit. Yip, yip, yip, with some obvious lack of reading comprehension added on top.

No, I did not say or imply Obama was the same as Congress. I said Obama was personally anti-gay marriage, but politically he waffles. I said the GOP are stringently anti-gay.



It must be so difficult for you to live with such a constant hate-on.

You're an aggressive person who is a hypocrite. You act like a man, quite frankly.

You're like the Martina Navratilova of internet trolls. Congrats.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

You're an aggressive person who is a hypocrite. You act like a man, quite frankly.

You're like the Martina Navratilova of internet trolls. Congrats.

Wow. You really have childish and limited repertoire of insults. I didn't start this insult crap in this thread, you did. Get lost, you pathetic loser. The rest of us want to talk about politics. You can't contribute.

Originally Posted by Riot

Why don't you look at what Paul said during the last GOP debate.

Paul is on the federal level. His whole purpose is to give the power to the states. When that happens his opinion is meaningless.

Then the states that are tolerant will benefit because gay people are oppressed and it will lead to a fashion revolution. Sure the people in the tolerant states will be broke and starving but at least they'll look good while doing so.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Paul is on the federal level. His whole purpose is to give the power to the states. When that happens his opinion is meaningless.

Then the states that are tolerant will benefit because gay people are oppressed and it will lead to a fashion revolution. Sure the people in the tolerant states will be broke and starving but at least they'll look good while doing so.

So you're taking back your wrong "baseless claim" accusation. Nice of you to man up for once.

BTW, you being involved in this thread is a bit offensive, considering "that's gay" (using gay as a slur) is something you throw around on this board at times.

And besides it's ridiculous to have a discussion on this issue because I'm sure we both agree that gays should be able to marry. It's a ridiculous political tool used by RINOs to keep the southern baptists in their flock. Plus it's a distraction from far more important issues.

The feds need to back off. They already have too much on their plate. Let the states have control of the issue. It's a good start. With time all the states will allow gays to marry.

What I'm more concerned with at the moment is this crazy weather we're having. I don't want to die and you need to live too. Stay safe.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

And besides it's ridiculous to have a discussion on this issue because I'm sure we both agree that gays should be able to marry. It's a ridiculous political tool used by RINOs to keep the southern baptists in their flock. Plus it's a distraction from far more important issues.

The feds need to back off. They already have too much on their plate. Let the states have control of the issue. It's a good start. With time all the states will allow gays to marry.

What I'm more concerned with at the moment is this crazy weather we're having. I don't want to die and you need to live too. Stay safe.

Nice post.

What did you do with Coach?

Originally Posted by Riot

So you're taking back your wrong "baseless claim" accusation. Nice of you to man up for once.

BTW, you being involved in this thread is a bit offensive, considering "that's gay" (using gay as a slur) is something you throw around on this board at times.

Riot you know his personal opinion doesn't matter much. He's in the minority. I'm sure he's opposed to gay marriage due to his religious beliefs but he's at least willing to get the fed out of our homes. You can't say that about many of them in D.C. right now.

It's just alarming you would single him out. He's like Ghandi compared to most of them.

Originally Posted by Riot

Nice post.

What did you do with Coach?

I just realize the game is rigged, that's all. Democrats aren't helping with the issue. Sure some of them are vocally for it but don't have the backbone to vote yes. They'll go absent or vote no because of some irrelevant part of the bill they disagree with.

It's laughable how blatantly deceptive some of them are.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Riot you know his personal opinion doesn't matter much. He's in the minority. I'm sure he's opposed to gay marriage due to his religious beliefs but he's at least willing to get the fed out of our homes. You can't say that about many of them in D.C. right now.

It's just alarming you would single him out. He's like Ghandi compared to most of them.

You are probably right that the states would move more quickly on this.

Holy ****, I'm watching a gigantic supercell pop up and top out from my deck.

I was out in eastern Scott country when that first tornado warning for Paris went out - that was one huge cell (could see it in the distance)

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I just realize the game is rigged, that's all. Democrats aren't helping with the issue. Sure some of them are vocally for it but don't have the backbone to vote yes. They'll go absent or vote no because of some irrelevant part of the bill they disagree with.

It's laughable how blatantly deceptive some of them are.

Yes. I agree.

Originally Posted by Riot

You are probably right that the states would move more quickly on this.

Holy ****, I'm watching a gigantic supercell pop up and top out from my deck.

I was out in eastern Scott country when that first tornado warning for Paris went out - that was one huge cell (could see it in the distance)

It was about 8:45 or so last night and people were getting out of their cars in a downpour because of rotation right over us in downtown Louisville...getting back in and turning around flying away from it. We were stuck on the 4th floor and I thought it was a rain-wrapped twister. Sirens were going off. It was truly scary.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

I didn't realize that hadn't been done. They mentioned the need at the repeal - why isn't it done is a very good question.

because this way he can have his cake and eat it too. obama is the 'good guy' but it's the mean ole' pentagon who won't let it move forward. yeah, so much for his avowal that he would 'do what's right, even if it means i only serve one term'.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

because this way he can have his cake and eat it too. obama is the 'good guy' but it's the mean ole' pentagon who won't let it move forward. yeah, so much for his avowal that he would 'do what's right, even if it means i only serve one term'.

The cynic in me wonders if the administration is taking their time with this in order to keep it an issue as long as possible.
Most Americans believe DADT should be permanently and completely repealed. And at the last Republican debate all (or all but one, can't remember for sure) of the candidates said they wanted DADT completely reinstated.
So - politically speaking - the later the final removal of DADT comes, the better it is for the administration. It will force leading Republicans to take their increasingly unpopular pro-DADT (anti-gay) stance even closer to the 2012 election.

If this is actually the case (and again, this is just pure speculation on my part) it obviously sucks that the administration is willing to sit back and let people be discharged simply to help their political situation. On the other hand....at least it is a good sign for this society that it is the ANTI-gay position that one side is trying to force the other side to take publicly.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

because this way he can have his cake and eat it too. obama is the 'good guy' but it's the mean ole' pentagon who won't let it move forward. yeah, so much for his avowal that he would 'do what's right, even if it means i only serve one term'.

He sure can still be one term. I think his gay marriage rights view is just another tell that he's not as progressive as many thought.

I would hope to think Obama isn't happy with any delay, but I've seen zero public pressure. If it's needed, it has to be done.

I can't find any current status on the certification. From Wiki:

On December 18, 2010, the Senate voted to end debate on S.4023, the Senate's bill identical to H.R.2965, via a cloture vote of 63-33.[61] Prior to the vote, Sen. Lieberman gave the final argument in favor of repealing DADT and Sen. McCain argued against repeal. The final Senate vote was held later that same day, with the measure passing by a vote of 65-31.[62]

U. S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates released a statement following the vote indicating that the planning for implementation of a policy repeal will begin right away, led by Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford L. Stanley, and will continue until Gates believes he can certify that conditions are met for orderly repeal of the policy.[63]

President Obama signed the repeal into law on December 22, 2010.[4]

The passage of the repeal act does not result in the immediate repeal of DADT. Under the terms of the new law, the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must certify in writing that they have reviewed the Pentagon's report on the effects of DADT repeal, that the appropriate regulations have been reviewed and drafted and that implementation of repeal regulations "is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces". Once certification is given, a 60-day waiting period will begin before DADT is formally repealed.[64]

Representative Duncan D. Hunter announced plans in January 2011 to introduce a bill designed to delay DADT repeal. Should his bill be adopted, all of the chiefs of the armed services would need to submit the certification currently required only of the President, Defense Secretary and Joint Chiefs Chairman.[65]

In January 2011, Pentagon officials stated that the training process to prepare troops for the repeal would begin in February and would proceed quickly, though it might not be completed in 2011.[66] In May 2011, the US Army reprimanded three colonels for performing a skit in March 2011 at a function at Yongsan Garrison, South Korea that mocked the repeal.[67]

[Riot]

PS New York is voting tonight on gay marriage.