Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop- ... itics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Outspoken homphobe that opposes gay marriage but wait, his son takes it in the crapper so now he's cool with it? Yea right.

Conks are robots. You need to kick em in the fucking head and/or replace their computer chips before they get it right.



"Gays are the rooooot of all eeeevil, Gays are the rooooot of all eeeevil,Gays are the rooooot of all eeeevil,"

bluehenbillk wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop- ... itics.html

Outspoken homphobe that opposes gay marriage but wait, his son takes it in the crapper so now he's cool with it? Yea right.

Oh my goodness!!!!

....and 99.99% of Donks were against gay marriage at one time, too.

Baldy wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop- ... itics.html

Outspoken homphobe that opposes gay marriage but wait, his son takes it in the crapper so now he's cool with it? Yea right.

Oh my goodness!!!!

....and 99.99% of Donks were against gay marriage at one time, too.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Baldy wrote:
Oh my goodness!!!!

....and 99.99% of Donks were against gay marriage at one time, too.

So Baldy is just admitting that Conks are stupider and slower to realize they have taken an idiotic stance.

dbackjon wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:

So Baldy is just admitting that Conks are stupider and slower to realize they have taken an idiotic stance.

Conks

dbackjon wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:

So Baldy is just admitting that Conks are stupider and slower to realize they have taken an idiotic stance.

No jon, but boutique issues like gay marriage, abortion, pot legalization etc. are about as important and relevant in today's landscape as what color shoes Sam Adams wore to the Boston Tea Party. Besides, Obama's own gay marriage epiphany happened just a few short months ago. What's the difference between him and Portman?

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
So Baldy is just admitting that Conks are stupider and slower to realize they have taken an idiotic stance.

No jon, but boutique issues like gay marriage, abortion, pot legalization etc. are about as important and relevant in today's landscape as what color shoes Sam Adams wore to the Boston Tea Party. Besides, Obama's own gay marriage epiphany happened just a few short months ago. What's the difference between him and Portman?

So freedom and limited government are "boutique" issues for conks? Good to know.

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
So Baldy is just admitting that Conks are stupider and slower to realize they have taken an idiotic stance.

No jon, but boutique issues like gay marriage, abortion, pot legalization etc. are about as important and relevant in today's landscape as what color shoes Sam Adams wore to the Boston Tea Party. Besides, Obama's own gay marriage epiphany happened just a few short months ago. What's the difference between him and Portman?

But we all know that Obama had a "revelation", but if a Republican came out in support of gay marriage, no only would he be ostracized by the hardline GOP (killing his/her chances in the primaries), but would be accused by Dems of "pandering for votes"...which isn't different from what they do themselves.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: No jon, but boutique issues like gay marriage, abortion, pot legalization etc. are about as important and relevant in today's landscape as what color shoes Sam Adams wore to the Boston Tea Party. Besides, Obama's own gay marriage epiphany happened just a few short months ago. What's the difference between him and Portman?

So freedom and limited government are "boutique" issues for conks? Good to know.

Baldy - getting beaten up like a ragdoll.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: No jon, but boutique issues like gay marriage, abortion, pot legalization etc. are about as important and relevant in today's landscape as what color shoes Sam Adams wore to the Boston Tea Party. Besides, Obama's own gay marriage epiphany happened just a few short months ago. What's the difference between him and Portman?

So freedom and limited government are "boutique" issues for conks? Good to know.

Yes, just like passing a budget and $1,000,000,000+ deficits are boutique issues for Donks. As a worshiper to the altar of Greenwald, Taibbi, and a single payer healthcare system, I'm surprised your fingers didn't cramp up in protest when you typed the words "freedom" and "limited government".

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Baldy wrote: No jon, but boutique issues like gay marriage, abortion, pot legalization etc. are about as important and relevant in today's landscape as what color shoes Sam Adams wore to the Boston Tea Party. Besides, Obama's own gay marriage epiphany happened just a few short months ago. What's the difference between him and Portman?

But we all know that Obama had a "revelation", but if a Republican came out in support of gay marriage, no only would he be ostracized by the hardline GOP (killing his/her chances in the primaries), but would be accused by Dems of "pandering for votes"...which isn't different from what they do themselves.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

With the injection of players like Cruz, Paul, Rubio, etc. the establishment, hardline GOP is a dying breed...hopefully.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: No jon, but boutique issues like gay marriage, abortion, pot legalization etc. are about as important and relevant in today's landscape as what color shoes Sam Adams wore to the Boston Tea Party. Besides, Obama's own gay marriage epiphany happened just a few short months ago. What's the difference between him and Portman?

So freedom and limited government are "boutique" issues for conks? Good to know.

I think they're probably "boutique" issues to the majority of Americans. Americans for the most part support "gay marriage, abortion, pot legalization etc." but if you asked them to chose between the government focusing on any of those issues or the economy, jobs, government spending, etc. , the vast majority are going to pick the later issues.

And why are Donks jumping all over this guy? You have a hard-core Conk who sees the light and you start throwing rotten vegetables at him? Welcome the defectors, don't beat them up.

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:
So freedom and limited government are "boutique" issues for conks? Good to know.

I think they're probably "boutique" issues to the majority of Americans. Americans for the most part support "gay marriage, abortion, pot legalization etc." but if you asked them to chose between the government focusing on any of those issues or the economy, jobs, government spending, etc. , the vast majority are going to pick the later issues.

And why are Donks jumping all over this guy? You have a hard-core Conk who sees the light and you start throwing rotten vegetables at him? Welcome the defectors, don't beat them up.

I kinda agree with this post and with Baldy - Obama was against gay marriage until a few months ago, and once he evolved to now being for it, there was nary a post on here about how he was a hypocrite, and certainly the Donks on the board didn't assail him for his change of heart. Why should it be different for GOP politicians that finally see the light and begin to support gay marriage - why should they be villified and mocked for doing what the people doing the mocking think is right anyway?

GannonFan wrote:

UNI88 wrote: I think they're probably "boutique" issues to the majority of Americans. Americans for the most part support "gay marriage, abortion, pot legalization etc." but if you asked them to chose between the government focusing on any of those issues or the economy, jobs, government spending, etc. , the vast majority are going to pick the later issues.

And why are Donks jumping all over this guy? You have a hard-core Conk who sees the light and you start throwing rotten vegetables at him? Welcome the defectors, don't beat them up.

I kinda agree with this post and with Baldy - Obama was against gay marriage until a few months ago, and once he evolved to now being for it, there was nary a post on here about how he was a hypocrite, and certainly the Donks on the board didn't assail him for his change of heart. Why should it be different for GOP politicians that finally see the light and begin to support gay marriage - why should they be villified and mocked for doing what the people doing the mocking think is right anyway?

I know I did. People hate me over at DU because I refused to praise Obama for his partial change of heart.

dbackjon wrote:People hate me over at DU

Ducks Unlimited?


Sent from the center of the universe.

True conservatives have never been against gay marriage.

BTW I think Rand Paul is spot on on this issue. Get rid of married tax credits; get government out of what is ultimately a religious institution, and then 90% of the opposition goes away overnight.




Sent from the center of the universe.

CID1990 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:People hate me over at DU

Ducks Unlimited?


Sent from the center of the universe.

That's exactly what I thought when I first read the post.

CID1990 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:People hate me over at DU

Ducks Unlimited?


Sent from the center of the universe.

Democratic Underground

CID1990 wrote:True conservatives have never been against gay marriage.

BTW I think Rand Paul is spot on on this issue. Get rid of married tax credits; get government out of what is ultimately a religious institution, and then 90% of the opposition goes away overnight.




Sent from the center of the universe.

That is where you and Rand are wrong - it is NOT just a religious institution. Never has been. It goes beyond married tax credit - many, many other reasons, both financial and otherwise.

Just allow same-sex marriage, and stop trying to act like YOUR fucking hetero marriages are all sacred or special - because they aren't.

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:True conservatives have never been against gay marriage.

BTW I think Rand Paul is spot on on this issue. Get rid of married tax credits; get government out of what is ultimately a religious institution, and then 90% of the opposition goes away overnight.




Sent from the center of the universe.

That is where you and Rand are wrong - it is NOT just a religious institution. Never has been. It goes beyond married tax credit - many, many other reasons, both financial and otherwise.

Just allow same-sex marriage, and stop trying to act like YOUR **** hetero marriages are all sacred or special - because they aren't.

All of my hetero marriages have been sacred and special

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:True conservatives have never been against gay marriage.

BTW I think Rand Paul is spot on on this issue. Get rid of married tax credits; get government out of what is ultimately a religious institution, and then 90% of the opposition goes away overnight.




Sent from the center of the universe.

That is where you and Rand are wrong - it is NOT just a religious institution. Never has been. It goes beyond married tax credit - many, many other reasons, both financial and otherwise.

Just allow same-sex marriage, and stop trying to act like YOUR **** hetero marriages are all sacred or special - because they aren't.

When did I say my ability to marry was sacred? Cool your pants, Sweetheart- like I said, true conservatives have not been the obstacle to gay marriage. Gays should be able to marry. Polygamy should not be illegal, either.

The reason there are those financial consideration you referred to exist BECAUSE government is in the marriage business. Marriage has ALWAYS been religious in nature. If Christians and Jews and whoever else wants to call it marriage, then fine. But don't confuse marriage with a civil union.

Name me each of those financial benefits you spoke of. For each one I'll either show you a benefit that government should not be providing to anyone at all, or one that is already available to you whether you are allowed to be "married" or not. If government wasnt so damn all over the place and in places it shouldn't be, you'd already be enjoying hide the snausage with your husband today.

So YOU allow same sex "marriage", and stop demanding it of ME. I'm not your opposition; the government is. Liberals and conservatives alike.

BTW I have always been on record here as being in favor of gay marriage. Rand Paul is, too. Take off your blinders and realize that his way is the simplest to make it happen.


Sent from the center of the universe.

I don't know if "hyprocrite" is the word I'd use but it IS pretty bad to change your position on something because something happens to you and/or your family. Like let's say you're against banning semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines then your kid gets killed in a school massacre by someone using a semi-automatic weapon with a large capacity weapon then you change to favoring banning such things.

Why? You already knew people sometimes get killed by people using semi-automatic weapons with large capcity magazines. You already knew there was some small risk that it could happen to a given person. What has changed about the information forming the basis of your previous position?

Same here. Nothing changed about the information relevant to whether or not we should do something ridiculous (as we're doing) and establish the concept of people of the same sex getting married. But he changed his position because the issue came to affect someone in his family. Not a real respectable action. If he'd have changed his position on some other basis I'd have more respect for the change.

Someone should ask him why he was opposed to homosexuals getting married before. Then assuming he gives an answer they should ask him how becoming aware that his son is a homosexual changed the situation. For instance: If he says, "Because the Bible says homosexuality is a sin," he should be asked things like, "Did the Bible change? Is it no longer a sin because your son is doing it? Did you decide you no longer believe the Bible?"

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:
So freedom and limited government are "boutique" issues for conks? Good to know.

I think they're probably "boutique" issues to the majority of Americans. Americans for the most part support "gay marriage, abortion, pot legalization etc." but if you asked them to chose between the government focusing on any of those issues or the economy, jobs, government spending, etc. , the vast majority are going to pick the later issues.

And why are Donks jumping all over this guy? You have a hard-core Conk who sees the light and you start throwing rotten vegetables at him? Welcome the defectors, don't beat them up.

I suppose you could be right and that's kind of the point of this thread. If it doesn't affect your own rights or lifestyle, who gives a shit? Except that we've literally passed laws prohibiting someone else from doing something even when it has no affect on others. I like Cid's take that ideologically speaking, things like DOMA and pot being classified a narcotic are not conservative notions.

So it may not be a priority, but freedom is pretty damn important to most Americans.

kalm wrote:

UNI88 wrote: I think they're probably "boutique" issues to the majority of Americans. Americans for the most part support "gay marriage, abortion, pot legalization etc." but if you asked them to chose between the government focusing on any of those issues or the economy, jobs, government spending, etc. , the vast majority are going to pick the later issues.

And why are Donks jumping all over this guy? You have a hard-core Conk who sees the light and you start throwing rotten vegetables at him? Welcome the defectors, don't beat them up.

I suppose you could be right and that's kind of the point of this thread. If it doesn't affect your own rights or lifestyle, who gives a shit? Except that we've literally passed laws prohibiting someone else from doing something even when it has no affect on others. I like Cid's take that ideologically speaking, things like DOMA and pot being classified a narcotic are not conservative notions.

So it may not be a priority, but freedom is pretty damn important to most Americans.

It's the awful alliance between the GOP and the religious right. It's no less pandering for votes than the democrats and their race-baiting and class warfare. 99% of the gay and lesbian couples I know would most certainly be hardcore republicans if the GOP would stick to truly conservative ideals and quit fucking with people's freedoms.