ANYTHING to do with it? OR a CORE of the reason? No, i don't think that. I think it might have moved a single digit percent of the base, max. You're alleging it's basically a core belief of the party, which is just ridiculous. It might be one issue that's important to a small percent of people, but it's not a CORE issue.

 

California just passed a ban on gay marriage. California is heavily liberal. Stop saying it's all republicans when it's clearly not all republicans. It's independents and even some liberals too.

 

You realize there are republican officials that benefited from the money given to that state right? California is a gigantic state in the nation far bigger than the electoral votes given to it. That you can be so blind to this is astounding especially when they admit to it.

No, I didn't. Your point is that being anti-gay is a "core" of the Republican party. It's not a "core." Did they talk about it during the presidential debates? It's a fringe, last minute "oh my god we need votes we'll try to get the religious sect out to vote" issue.

 

It wasn't "last minute." It was a key part of their election strategy.

 

That doesn't mean being anti-gay is a requirement of being a Republican. But it does mean that the party had no problems stoking the gay boogeyman fears for political gain, and I can't see how any gay person would want to be part of a party that did that.

 

You realize there are republican officials that benefited from the money given to that state right? California is a gigantic state in the nation far bigger than the electoral votes given to it. That you can be so blind to this is astounding especially when they admit to it.

 

What does this even mean? I'm not talking about politicians, i'm talking about people. The majority of the people in that state voted for a ban. Clearly not ALL of those people were Republicans. You guys act like ONLY republicans are anti-gay, when that's not the case.

 

It wasn't "last minute." It was a key part of their election strategy.

 

That doesn't mean being anti-gay is a requirement of being a Republican. But it does mean that the party had no problems stoking the gay boogeyman fears for political gain, and I can't see how any gay person would want to be part of a party that did that.

 

I've never argued it wasn't a PART of the election strategy. I'm saying that it's not the "core" strategy, or even a main one. Again, is this an issue that's talked about in major debates? No. It's a fringe issue that gets people all emotional, just like religion, abortion, etc.

 

 

What does this even mean? I'm not talking about politicians, i'm talking about people. The majority of the people in that state voted for a ban. Clearly not ALL of those people were Republicans. You guys act like ONLY republicans are anti-gay, when that's not the case.

Which is precisely what happens when you run a "gay people are coming for your children!" hate campaign. Just like in 2004. Except the margin was a lot smaller.

What does this even mean? I'm not talking about politicians, i'm talking about people. The majority of the people in that state voted for a ban. Clearly not ALL of those people were Republicans. You guys act like ONLY republicans are anti-gay, when that's not the case.

 

Of course there are non-Republicans who are anti-gay. It's just that Republicans make it part of their platform.

LOL

 

Instead of a mosque, we should have a comfy chair at Ground Zero for @SarahpalinUSA to sit in & remind passing New Yorkers about 9/11.

 

via

I've never argued it wasn't a PART of the election strategy. I'm saying that it's not the "core" strategy, or even a main one. Again, is this an issue that's talked about in major debates? No. It's a fringe issue that gets people all emotional, just like religion, abortion, etc.

It was a core strategy to "Get out the vote" in 2004.

 

This is just going back to the point that being a gay Republican in 2004 is a little different than being an anti-stimulus (or other similar policy position) Democrat in 2008/2010.

This is just going back to the point that being a gay Republican in 2004 is a little different than being an anti-stimulus (or other similar policy position) Democrat in 2008/2010.

Being a gay Republican in 2004 = being a Muslim Republican in 2010.

Under a public records request granted by the courts, the details of a speaking contract for Sarah Palin were revealed. She made 75k, plus a lot of little niceties, including a contract-demanded supply of "bendable straws".

 

But that sort of stuff is probably common for big name speakers (though I had a good laugh about the straws). Here is the part that jumped out at me, and its exactly what has bothered me about politicians and politicos in recent years:

 

pre-selected audience questions

 

I would love it for one of these dopes to have the balls to allow for real, unscripted questions in their speaking engagements.

 

Details

Tony LaRussa and Albert Pujols will be appearing at Glenn Beck's 8/28 rally tomorrow.

 

Go Reds.

GOP plans wave of White House probes

 

 

If President Barack Obama needed any more incentive to go all out for Democrats this fall, here it is: Republicans are planning a wave of committee investigations targeting the White House and Democratic allies if they win back the majority.

 

Everything from the microscopic — the New Black Panther party — to the massive –- think bailouts — is on the GOP to-do list, according to a half-dozen Republican aides interviewed by POLITICO.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/...l#ixzz0xpLXfB2G

GOP plans wave of White House probes

Cool. Get even less real work done.

Frankly, it's not like we didn't know that was going to happen. It happened like crazy last time there was a Republican Congress and a Dem president (anyone else remember the Senator shooting a watermelon to personally examine the Vince Foster suicide and prove Bill did it?).

In a recent poll of the Nevada senate race, two thirds of self-described Sharon Angle voters wish someone else had won the GOP nomination besides her.

So, apparently we agreed to let a group of Tea Partyiers park their cars in our back (never used) parking lot while they load four buses to drive to Washington.

 

I feel obligated to walk around with an "Obama is a socialist Muslim" sign.

 

Edit: Apparently they are headed to Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally in Washington DC on Saturday.

Edited August 27, 201015 yr by Athomeboy_2000

GOP plans wave of White House probes

 

but i thought we should never look back, let the country heal.

How can the country heal when we still have the gaping wounds of radical socialism and islamatization?

but i thought we should never look back, let the country heal.

 

 

You can thank the rat from CA.

You can thank the rat from CA.

Reagan? Nixon? Arnold?

Reagan? Nixon? Arnold?

 

 

 

Nice.

Nice.

(Honestly, I'm not quite sure who you meant. Pelosi is my guess, but that's it).

(Honestly, I'm not quite sure who you meant. Pelosi is my guess, but that's it).

 

 

Waxman. Head of Oversight Committee.

Waxman. Head of Oversight Committee.

Oh. I love that guy. I get the joke now at least.

What does this even mean? I'm not talking about politicians, i'm talking about people. The majority of the people in that state voted for a ban. Clearly not ALL of those people were Republicans. You guys act like ONLY republicans are anti-gay, when that's not the case.

Black voters tend to be hardcore liberals but don't support gay rights for some reason and they turned out in huge numbers in 2008. If you can point to one thing as the linchpin that got Prop 8 passed, that's probably it.