ccrunner609;1626052 wrote:Perry record as a job creator is something everyone should like, he has more experience leading than Hillary does

Job creator is a stretch. He didn't kill opportunities (Keystone Pipeline, cough cough) resulting from the oil & gas boom that he had nothing to do with.

gut;1626055 wrote:Job creator is a stretch. He didn't kill opportunities (Keystone Pipeline, cough cough) resulting from the oil & gas boom that he had nothing to do with.

Most of the time that is what we need. Someone who knows when to not get in the way.

QuakerOats;1625957 wrote:When the defenders of liberty and advocates of fiscal sanity come under attack from (supposed) fellow citizens, you know the republic is in serious, serious trouble.

gosh a ruddies defenders of tax cuts for the rich, repression of personal rights for gays and blacks.

HitsRus;1625725 wrote:You really don't understand the Tea Party, do you? You are either part of the left that actively seeks to discredit the Tea Party by misrepresenting their viewpoints, or you bought into that narrative.

First of all the Tea Party is a loose coalition of people who believe in fiscal responsibility and limited government...social issues and stances on social issues are not part of that agenda. Most certainly, some Tea party members are Christian Fundamentalists/social conservative, but that is not requisite, and anti gay stances are not true of all or even most Tea Party members.]

Here is an article that may help your understanding and keep you from being misled from your elitist, 'progressive' friends.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/is-the-tea-party-nation-anti-gay/

gosh a ruddies as opposed to most Americans Tea Partiers oppose the basic human right of marriage to gays.

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1161a5GayMarriage.pdf

^^

So did Obama, until it became politically inconvenient.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76109.html

I care as much about gay marriage as I do about the World Cup in soccer, but there is one theme that unites them. Their supporters are major league, grade-A jerks that try to stifle debate rather than welcome it and are incredibly sensitive.

Obama has clearly said in the past that he was against gay marriage, but now that he saw the light anyone that agreed with him prior is now a bigot?

With soccer, some people don't like it. Some people don't like baseball. If you criticize baseball to a fan they'll likely say "meh". If you criticize soccer in front of a fan you'll get hubris and just general butthurting over how you don't understand the sport.

Manhattan Buckeye;1626118 wrote:^^

So did Obama, until it became politically inconvenient.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76109.html

I care as much about gay marriage as I do about the World Cup in soccer, but there is one theme that unites them. Their supporters are major league, grade-A jerks that try to stifle debate rather than welcome it and are incredibly sensitive.

Obama has clearly said in the past that he was against gay marriage, but now that he saw the light anyone that agreed with him prior is now a bigot?

With soccer, some people don't like it. Some people don't like baseball. If you criticize baseball to a fan they'll likely say "meh". If you criticize soccer in front of a fan you'll get hubris and just general butthurting over how you don't understand the sport.

Gosh a ruddies although you may trivialize it marriage is a basic human right. People who deny a basic human right are the bigots, not the people who argue for it. The change of opinion on the issue are a sign society can evolve to the better and more tolerant. On gay marriage and many other issues that better our country the Tea Party opposes.

So Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were/are bigots?

Manhattan Buckeye;1626134 wrote:So Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were/are bigots?

gosh they evolved toward their better selves but not the antediluvian tea partiers.

Funny how people evolve in a few months when they are in their 50s/60s because there is nothing for them to gain from it.
#sarcasm

The Dems are a party of three types of people, (i) idiots, (ii) useful idiots and (iii) the elite laughing at them. Strange that 30 years ago it was the GOP that was the party of the elites.

isadore;1626098 wrote:gosh a ruddies as opposed to most Americans Tea Partiers oppose the basic human right of marriage to gays.

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1161a5GayMarriage.pdf

sorry , dude. The article you cite does not mention "Tea Party" or tea parties any where in it. The article talks about percentages of "liberals, moderates and conservatives" and basically shows how support for gay rights has increased among all groups over the past ten years. Just as Ohio senator Portman has changed his stance, as well as Obama, support for gay rights has nearly doubled since 2003.
Your post is just another failed attempt to try to falsely link the Tea Party to fundamentalist Christians' social conservatism in order to discredit it because it is a very dangerous threat to progressive socialism.
The Tea Party is about economic and fiscal responsibility and limited government... Not social conservatism no matter how hard you try to falsely link it.

thank you for the hashtag sarcasm. I think you will find with most of these people a slow evolution of belief, first supporting anti-discrimination laws, then civil union and finally the right of marriage. All of which were opposed by the reactionary right, hell they still oppose basic anti discrimination laws protecting gays.
And gosh a ruddies what do we see in the Republican Party a plutocratic elite manipulating a group of idiots by appealing to their prejudices so that they vote against their economic and social best interests.

HitsRus;1626145 wrote:sorry , dude. The article you cite does not mention "Tea Party" or tea parties any where in it. The article talks about percentages of "liberals, moderates and conservatives" and basically shows how support for gay rights has increased among all groups over the past ten years. Just as Ohio senator Portman has changed his stance, as well as Obama, support for gay rights has nearly doubled since 2003.
Your post is just another failed attempt to try to falsely link the Tea Party to fundamentalist Christians' social conservatism in order to discredit it because it is a very dangerous threat to progressive socialism.
The Tea Party is about economic and fiscal responsibility and limited government... Not social conservatism no matter how hard you try to falsely link it.

you did not read the article]

page 2 7th paragraph

'There’s greater-than-average support for gay marriage among Northeasterners, college graduates, $100,000-plus income earners and opponents of the Tea Party movement. And support falls below a majority among Southerners, those who haven’t gone beyond high school, those living in rural areas and Tea Party supporters. "
http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1161a5GayMarriage.pdf

HitsRus;1626145 wrote:The Tea Party is about economic and fiscal responsibility and limited government... Not social conservatism no matter how hard you try to falsely link it.

Liberals - including research groups with a leftist bias like Langer Research Associates - are all about connecting anyone or any group (IE: The Tea Party for example) in favor of limited government to social conservatism. Meanwhile liberals do their best to insinuate that social conservatives are ignorant, racist hicks.

The statement, "And support falls below a majority among Southerners, those who haven’t gone beyond high school, those living in rural areas and Tea Party supporters" proves the point.

I know plenty of social conservatives (translated, of course, to "religious nut jobs" by the tolerant left) who are Southern, earn $100,000 or more per year, and are college educated. And - YES - they are pro-Tea Party movement.

Liberals just can't accept that there's a significant number of intelligent Americans who have opinions that don't comply with the leftist agenda.

believer;1626161 wrote:...

Liberals just can't accept that there's a significant number of intelligent Americans who have opinions that don't comply with the leftist agenda.

The state of CALIFORNIA voted that marriage is between a man and a woman. California. One man. One woman. Courts gunna do what the court wants to do. Why the vote!?

isadore: What does matters of rightness have to do with prevalence and/or proclivity?

If there is no absolute authority on morality, please spare me with the name calling and the insinuations that I am wrong. Accept me as different. If there is an absolute authority, adhere to it.

So believing that consenting adults can marry each other and receive the same rights and benefits as others is the leftist agenda?

I thought it would be apart of the liberty and freedom for all agenda.

I am one of the libertarians who will waste their vote unless the Republican candidate can leave their social conservative values to themselves( like Ron Paul) and understand its ok to have your view in social issues but it is not ok for the government to dictate those views to everyone.

I also will not vote for a neo con interventionist or any liberal democrat.

So if a tea party republican can be fiscally conservative, leave government out of social issues and not be a war monger/interventionist, then you can count on my vote.

pmoney25;1626174 wrote:So believing that consenting adults can marry each other and receive the same rights and benefits as others is the leftist agenda?

I thought it would be apart of the liberty and freedom for all agenda.

I am one of the libertarians who will waste their vote unless the Republican candidate can leave their social conservative values to themselves( like Ron Paul) and understand its ok to have your view in social issues but it is not ok for the government to dictate those views to everyone.

I also will not vote for a neo con interventionist or any liberal democrat.

So if a tea party republican can be fiscally conservative, leave government out of social issues and not be a war monger/interventionist, then you can count on my vote.

Concerning the bold section... Like the left did in California. (I'm thinking Maryland or South Carolina had a similar issue. People's vote: marriage = one man/one woman. Result: cram homosexuality down their throat, and label them, marginalized them, and discredit them.

Sounds to me that the issue is the state being involved with marriage altogether. The interesting note is why it was in it in the first place...it recognizes the inherent good of the role of the family in society.

Oh, how far we've fallen.

pmoney25;1626174 wrote:So believing that consenting adults can marry each other and receive the same rights and benefits as others is the leftist agenda?

I thought it would be apart of the liberty and freedom for all agenda.

I am one of the libertarians who will waste their vote unless the Republican candidate can leave their social conservative values to themselves( like Ron Paul) and understand its ok to have your view in social issues but it is not ok for the government to dictate those views to everyone.

I also will not vote for a neo con interventionist or any liberal democrat.

So if a tea party republican can be fiscally conservative, leave government out of social issues and not be a war monger/interventionist, then you can count on my vote.

Get the State out of marriage. Drop the benefits for all. Let people sign a relationship contract and define the "benefits" they wish the other to have. Let churches have spiritual unions that lend to their beliefs. That's liberty and freedom.

It's absolutely OK for governemnt to be involved in social issues. They should be a reflection of the peoples desires and indicative of want we want to work towards as a society.

cruiser_96;1626176 wrote:...
Sounds to me that the issue is the state being involved with marriage altogether. ...

Exactly.

Con_Alma;1626181 wrote:Get the State out of marriage. Drop the benefits for all. Let people sign a relationship contract and define the "benefits" they wish the other to have. Let churches have spiritual unions that lend to their beliefs. That's liberty and freedom.

It's absolutely OK for governemnt to be involved in social issues. They should be a reflection of the peoples desires and indicative of want we want to work towards as a society.

I agree with your first paragraph. However that is not the way it is now.

Your second paragraph is 100% wrong and quite honestly a dangerous line of thinking.

cruiser_96;1626171 wrote:The state of CALIFORNIA voted that marriage is between a man and a woman. California. One man. One woman. Courts gunna do what the court wants to do. Why the vote!?

isadore: What does matters of rightness have to do with prevalence and/or proclivity?

If there is no absolute authority on morality, please spare me with the name calling and the insinuations that I am wrong. Accept me as different. If there is an absolute authority, adhere to it.

lol "accept me as different." ok. I am not trying to deny you the right to believe what you want, what I do not accept is your effort to deny others basic civil right.

Con_Alma wrote:It's absolutely OK for governemnt to be involved in social issues. They should be a reflection of the peoples desires and indicative of want we want to work towards as a society.

It is not the right of the government or the people to deny gays a basic human right by majority vote.

isadore;1626204 wrote:It is not the right of the government or the people to deny gays a basic human right by majority vote.

Agreed. Neither the government nor the people should determine who can and can't act on their civil rights. Anyone who is able to enter a contract should be able to enter into a relationship contract.

That doesn't mean the people can't through representation, determine what we want socially as a society with the exception of defined civil rights.

Get rid of the "benefits" associated with marriage and have them defined in the contract agreed upon by the respective individuals.

pmoney25;1626199 wrote:I agree with your first paragraph. However that is not the way it is now.

Your second paragraph is 100% wrong and quite honestly a dangerous line of thinking.

I didn't affirm that's the way it is now. I expressed my opinion that the State shouldn't decide who can and can't enter into a relationship contract.

It's not wrong. OUr governemnt has been social engineering for generations. So long as a defined civil right is not violated the people through their representatives decide what we want as a society.

The fight should be to get the State out of marriage as opposed to allowing another segment of the population to be able to marry. Fight for all people as opposed to a select group. All people should have a civil right afforded to them, not just the ones you or I agree with.

I actually think it's a good idea to let gay partners get married. They make up and break up just the same as any other couple. I'd much rather people be able to join in a union (civil/marriage) than to run around rutting like animals with no consequences. At least while they are married there is some accountability and responsibility involved. Some.But I don't understand why this is even an issue as far as the national stage is concerned. Why is Rick Perry an issue? This is fluff.