I Wear Pants;1258430 wrote:Gays are evil was an exaggeration of "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, adopt, have hospital visitation privileges, etc". Gay people don't want special rights, they want the same rights you have.

Also I should make it clear that I mean that Clint doesn't think gays are evil and thinks they should be allowed to get married.

Never new the bolded.

Gays shouldn't adopt as long as a willing man/woman couple are available (which in the United States, there are, thousands of them). It is selfish and wrong to the child. Call me an evil conservative. There's no way two dudes can raise a girl better than a man and woman. My wife lived through it, she knows better than the Ivy league psychologists that have their own agenda.

Willard is almost an after thought at his own convention right now as all the buzz is about Rubio/Eastwood from tonight, and Ryan from last night.

He basically recited his stump speech tonight and gave a workman like effort. There is just no passion there with him. In many ways he's like BHO in that he is kind of detached/aloof and hard to connect with vibe, and it is just unfortunate because this country right now is crying out for someone like Reagan or Slick Willy who you thought was talking to you when they spoke. The "I feel your pain" type of thing where it actually seems believable.

From not even taking the stage until about 10:40 and this Clint Eastwood thing it was just an odd night, and didn't seem to really do much to build on Ryan from last night.

If anything, Willard stepped in it with his promising 12 million jobs, because I heard numerous talking heads afterwords jump on immediately that he is going to have to start putting out concrete plans because people are going to ask how. That goes against what his campaign wants to do (absolutely no specifics) so I don't see why he opened that door.

"He basically recited his stump speech tonight and gave a workman like effort."

That was my reaction as well. Hopefully a workman like effort is enough. I wish he would have hammered on Obama more but it appeared the speechwriters tried to be more civil.

Manhattan Buckeye;1258438 wrote:Gays shouldn't adopt as long as a willing man/woman couple are available (which in the United States, there are, thousands of them). It is selfish and wrong to the child. Call me an evil conservative. There's no way two dudes can raise a girl better than a man and woman. My wife lived through it, she knows better than the Ivy league psychologists that have their own agenda.

Get the fuck out.

You cannot be serious. Great way to decide policy that has effects on people "my wife says" all because you've got some paranoia that anyone with a degree that has views opposed to yours has an agenda.

How in the hell can you make the judgement that two men or two women shouldn't be fit to adopt or have children? How was someone like Zach Wahls negatively affected by having homosexual parents?

Manhattan Buckeye;1258442 wrote:"He basically recited his stump speech tonight and gave a workman like effort."

That was my reaction as well. Hopefully a workman like effort is enough. I wish he would have hammered on Obama more but it appeared the speechwriters tried to be more civil.

See I wish the opposite, I wish he would have talked more about what he was going to do.

"How was someone like Zach Wahls negatively affected by having homosexual parents?"

Perhaps he wasn't, the issue isn't whether they can. People are raised in single parent households, by grandparents all the time (and other untraditional households), adoption is about the best (NOTE THE BEST) interests of the child.

All things considered, if you think that Jeff and Roy with an income of say, $300,000/year and the ability to raise a child is better than say, Tom and Sally (with a similar income) and is the best interest of the child I'll tell you to get the $*%& out of here.

Adoption is about the BEST parents, if you don't think a strong male and a strong female parent isn't the BEST (note, I'm making this point for a reason), then I don't get your point. There's no reason for two guys to adopt when there are willing male and female couples. Response?

Clint Eastwood showed us all why you shouldn't allow an 82-year-old actor to deliver an ad-lib monologue. It's obvious that Clint's better days are well behind him.

As for Romney's speech, it started out OK, but then fell back into the GOP's standard "if you tell a lie long enough people will think it's the truth" fallback. The sabre-rattling with Iran and Putin was completely unnecessary and will likely turn off Independents and anyone else tired of over a decade of war.

I suppose the sad truth for Romney is that his big speech, in his finest hour, on a day he has longed for his entire political career will not be the hot topic of discussion around the water coolers tomorrow. Instead, people will be saying "WTF was Eastwood doing there?".

Manhattan Buckeye;1258447 wrote:"How was someone like Zach Wahls negatively affected by having homosexual parents?"

Perhaps he wasn't, the issue isn't whether they can. People are raised in single parent households, by grandparents all the time (and other untraditional households), adoption is about the best (NOTE THE BEST) interests of the child.

All things considered, if you think that Jeff and Roy with an income of say, $300,000/year and the ability to raise a child is better than say, Tom and Sally (with a similar income) and is the best interest of the child I'll tell you to get the $*%& out of here.

Adoption is about the BEST parents, if you don't think a strong male and a strong female parent isn't the BEST (note, I'm making this point for a reason), then I don't get your point. There's no reason for two guys to adopt when there are willing male and female couples. Response?

You need to just STFU right now....you're just coming across as a homophobe right now

Here is my arguement to prove you wrong:

There were these two kids I went to high school with. One kid was adopted by a man and women. The other was raised by his mother and her partner. The one raised by the man/women has been arrested 3 times for possession of meth and just got popped for possession of cocaine and beating his girlfriend. The one raised by his mom and her partner graduated with honors from OSU and is now halfway through UCLA Law.

"Clint Eastwood showed us all why you shouldn't allow an 82-year-old actor to deliver an ad-lib monologue. It's obvious that Clint's better days are well behind him."

Yet was still more competent than our current VP. I just wished he would have told Obama to "get off the White House lawn."

Dude's 82, and he might not live until the next election when our national disaster will be over if Obama wins - there isn't anyone else lined up for the Donks that are killing the country that could possibly beat Ryan or Rubio. Unless we go full commie. I'd rather not do that.

Manhattan Buckeye;1258450 wrote:"Clint Eastwood showed us all why you shouldn't allow an 82-year-old actor to deliver an ad-lib monologue. It's obvious that Clint's better days are well behind him."

Yet was still more competent than our current VP. I just wished he would have told Obama to "get off the White House lawn."

Dude's 82, and he might not live until the next election when our national disaster will be over if Obama wins - there isn't anyone else lined up for the Donks that are killing the country that could possibly beat Ryan or Rubio. Unless we go full commie. I'd rather not do that.

Hilliary would crush either one

I thought Alex Castellanos (a Republican media operative for CNN) made a good point in his analysis afterword that this whole election is essetinally going to come down a moment likely to happen at one of the debates.

He said at some point durig the debates BHO is likely going to tell everyone that "all this guy wants to do is go back to the way it was under Bush"" and then ask Willard what exactly he has proposed that is any different than what we tried then.

As he said, how he answers that will likely determine the election and who wins the presidency.

I think there is alot of stock in that idea, and it is why Willard needs to come up with some type of innovative plan people can latch on to that isn't just a 3rd term of Bush II.

People know BHO's approach isn't working, but they also know in their gut that just rolling the country back to 2001 policies is not going to fix this either.

Willard has a huge opening to go big with something innovative that deflects the "more of the same" charge that he is a Bush zombie, and turns the camera back on Obama that his policy hasn't worked either.

For people to step into the ballot box in November and kick BHO out I think they need to know what they are getting into, otherwise they will probably just stay the course.

Willard is known as a Mr. Fix-it, and if he can develop a plan that people think has a realistic shot of turning things around I think he can pull this off in November. He just is doing nothing to play to those strengths right now by basically giving us a choice between Bush policies and Obama policies, when the public quite frankly wants neither.
[h=1][/h]

Ty Webb;1258449 wrote:You need to just STFU right now....you're just coming across as a homophobe right now

Here is my arguement to prove you wrong:

There were these two kids I went to high school with. One kid was adopted by a man and women. The other was raised by his mother and her partner. The one raised by the man/women has been arrested 3 times for possession of meth and just got popped for possession of cocaine and beating his girlfriend. The one raised by his mom and her partner graduated with honors from OSU and is now halfway through UCLA Law.

Link? Source? Evidence? Oh yeah you're a Donk and you are used to lying. Adopting costs about $50,000 starting, it can easily be another $50,000 more, do you even understand the process?

Manhattan Buckeye;1258447 wrote:"How was someone like Zach Wahls negatively affected by having homosexual parents?"

Perhaps he wasn't, the issue isn't whether they can. People are raised in single parent households, by grandparents all the time (and other untraditional households), adoption is about the best (NOTE THE BEST) interests of the child.

All things considered, if you think that Jeff and Roy with an income of say, $300,000/year and the ability to raise a child is better than say, Tom and Sally (with a similar income) and is the best interest of the child I'll tell you to get the $*%& out of here.

Adoption is about the BEST parents, if you don't think a strong male and a strong female parent isn't the BEST (note, I'm making this point for a reason), then I don't get your point. There's no reason for two guys to adopt when there are willing male and female couples. Response?

You say adoption is about the best parents, and what's best for the child. Then you put restrictions on who is allowed to adopt. A gay or lesbian couple may want to adopt because they can give that child, and I'll quote your nominee here, UNCONDITIONAL LOVE.

IggyPride00;1258452 wrote:I thought Alex Castellanos (a Republican media operative for CNN) made a good point in his analysis afterword that this whole election is essetinally going to come down a moment likely to happen at one of the debates.

He said at some point durig the debates BHO is likely going to tell everyone that "all this guy wants to do is go back to the way it was under Bush"" and then ask Willard what exactly he has proposed that is any different than what we tried then.

As he said, how he answers that will likely determine the election and who wins the presidency.

I think there is alot of stock in that idea, and it is why Willard needs to come up with some type of innovative plan people can latch on to that isn't just a 3rd term of Bush II.

People know BHO's approach isn't working, but they also know in their gut that just rolling the country back to 2001 policies is not going to fix this either.

Willard has a huge opening to go big with something innovative that deflects the "more of the same" charge that he is a Bush zombie, and turns the camera back on Obama that his policy hasn't worked either.

For people to step into the ballot box in November and kick BHO out I think they need to know what they are getting into, otherwise they will probably just stay the course.

Willard is known as a Mr. Fix-it, and if he can develop a plan that people think has a realistic shot of turning things around I think he can pull this off in November. He just is doing nothing to play to those strengths right now by basically giving us a choice between Bush policies and Obama policies, when the public quite frankly wants neither.

Good Post Iggy....

Manhattan Buckeye;1258453 wrote:Link? Source? Evidence? Oh yeah you're a Donk and you are used to lying. Adopting costs about $50,000 starting, it can easily be another $50,000 more, do you even understand the process?

I need to provide a link for somethin I witnessed in high school and continue to witness now??

Just face it....gay couples are just capable of rasing a child well as a straight couple

Are you saying a gay couple can't make that kind of money?

stlouiedipalma;1258455 wrote:You say adoption is about the best parents, and what's best for the child. Then you put restrictions on who is allowed to adopt. A gay or lesbian couple may want to adopt because they can give that child, and I'll quote your nominee here, UNCONDITIONAL LOVE.

Which is what a male and female couple can provide, why would you keep a child from having both? Selfishness.

Manhattan Buckeye;1258438 wrote:Gays shouldn't adopt as long as a willing man/woman couple are available (which in the United States, there are, thousands of them). It is selfish and wrong to the child. Call me an evil conservative. There's no way two dudes can raise a girl better than a man and woman. My wife lived through it, she knows better than the Ivy league psychologists that have their own agenda.

What basis are you going off of that two men or two women together will damage the child? You're going off one person, your wife.

What is so wrong with two people who happen to be the same sex that are happy and want to be together? Oh wait, I guess a certain "book" told you it's a sin. Complete horse shit. You're nothing but an asshole who is afraid of homosexuals.

Manhattan Buckeye;1258447 wrote:"How was someone like Zach Wahls negatively affected by having homosexual parents?"

Perhaps he wasn't, the issue isn't whether they can. People are raised in single parent households, by grandparents all the time (and other untraditional households), adoption is about the best (NOTE THE BEST) interests of the child.

All things considered, if you think that Jeff and Roy with an income of say, $300,000/year and the ability to raise a child is better than say, Tom and Sally (with a similar income) and is the best interest of the child I'll tell you to get the $*%& out of here.

Adoption is about the BEST parents, if you don't think a strong male and a strong female parent isn't the BEST (note, I'm making this point for a reason), then I don't get your point. There's no reason for two guys to adopt when there are willing male and female couples. Response?

I disagree that a strong male and a strong female parent are the defacto best. There are plenty of excellent and shitty heterosexual parents just as I'm sure there would be plenty of both of the homosexual type. I would want kids to go to the best parents/home situation available, obviously whether that be a homosexual or heterosexual couple. Your vision of the adoption system is that when there are zero heterosexual people who want children then, and only then, may single sex couples adopt a child.

You're making the claim that homosexuals are worse parents than heterosexuals without facts (and I'm going to assume you're doing so because of religious beliefs).

Manhattan Buckeye;1258453 wrote:Link? Source? Evidence? Oh yeah you're a Donk and you are used to lying. Adopting costs about $50,000 starting, it can easily be another $50,000 more, do you even understand the process?

I am no donk and I think what you are saying is crazy honestly. Kids need loving parents and parents who will provide. What proof do you have that kids raised by great gay parents are any worse off than kids who are raised by two great hetero parents? I'm just curious as to your evidence.

Manhattan Buckeye;1258457 wrote:Which is what a male and female couple can provide, why would you keep a child from having both? Selfishness.

Sadly, the only thing which is selfish is your opinion.

The_Crosby_Show;1258459 wrote:What basis are you going off of that two men or two women together will damage the child? You're going off one person, your wife.

What is so wrong with two people who happen to be the same sex that are happy and want to be together? Oh wait, I guess a certain "book" told you it's a sin. Complete horse shit. You're nothing but a homophobe who is afraid of homosexuals.

Homophobe is a stupid word. It isn't a phobia because they're not scared. They're assholes.

I Wear Pants;1258463 wrote:Homophobe is a stupid word. It isn't a phobia because they're not scared. They're assholes.

Let me edit my post, as it would make more sense to say asshole first lol.

As for the speech, Nice to see the Neo Cons got their part of the speech in at the end. War with Iran, Start shit with Russia. Lets do it!

Back to the RNC, like Iggy I anticipate that moment during the debates and think it'll be pretty important for the election to see how Mitt responds.