I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.

As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.

Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.

I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message.

 

But hey, it's totally unfair to characterize this crop of candidates as a bunch of ridiculous nuts.

Perry, Bachmann, Cain and Santorum? Yes, ridiculous nuts.

 

Don't forget Newt!

 

"There is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us" - Newt Gingrich.

Don't forget Newt!

 

"There is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us" - Newt Gingrich.

 

What's nuts about that? Gay people are trying to make it illegal for me to marry my girlfriend.

Don't forget this gem:

 

"I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9," Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

 

Edit: Paul is principled, but he's still pretty nutty when it comes to a lot of domestic issues and especially his love of gold.

Edited December 7, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

Don't forget this gem:

 

"I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9," Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

 

Edit: Paul is principled, but he's still pretty nutty when it comes to a lot of domestic issues and especially his love of gold.

 

Why does Newt always try and put atheists and Islamists together? I really don't think they are teaming up together anytime soon.

What's nuts about that? Gay people are trying to make it illegal for me to marry my girlfriend.

I can't tell if this is supposed to be sarcastic. If it isn't, then I don't get it.

 

Perry, Bachmann, Cain and Santorum? Yes, ridiculous nuts.

 

I'd like to add that, once you rightfully add Gingrich into that list, the Republican base seems insistent on nominating one of these nuts.

I can't tell if this is supposed to be sarcastic. If it isn't, then I don't get it.

 

Sarcasm. Gay fascism.

Gay fascism ruined Newt's first two marriages. That's why he's so adamantly opposed.

I can't tell if this is supposed to be sarcastic. If it isn't, then I don't get it.

 

 

The theory that I have read is along this line: gays are saying, if we can't marry, then no one can marry. Eliminate the institute of marriage.

 

Just trying to add some clarity.

I'd like to add that, once you rightfully add Gingrich into that list, the Republican base seems insistent on nominating one of these nuts.

exactly. it goes to show just how nutty the entire republican base in this country is. it's g-d scary.

The theory that I have read is along this line: gays are saying, if we can't marry, then no one can marry. Eliminate the institute of marriage.

 

Just trying to add some clarity.

 

I'm all for eliminating any and all tax/financial benefits that are attached to marriage and increase the tax/financial benefits that go to people with dependents.

 

I don't care how long you have been with your man/woman, if you don't have kids together, you don't deserve a dime more in benefits than single people.

 

Posted without comment.

 

 

I'm a Christian too, Rick, yet this is still the dumbest political ad I've ever seen.

I'm all for eliminating any and all tax/financial benefits that are attached to marriage and increase the tax/financial benefits that go to people with dependents.

 

I don't care how long you have been with your man/woman, if you don't have kids together, you don't deserve a dime more in benefits than single people.

i completely agree with that.

I'm all for eliminating any and all tax/financial benefits that are attached to marriage and increase the tax/financial benefits that go to people with dependents.

 

I don't care how long you have been with your man/woman, if you don't have kids together, you don't deserve a dime more in benefits than single people.

 

The other side of that coin is the government makes incentive decisions on behavior all of the time. In this case it is pretty universal that on average a kid is better off with two parents in the house.

The other side of that coin is the government makes incentive decisions on behavior all of the time. In this case it is pretty universal that on average a kid is better off with two parents in the house.

 

I don't see what that statement has to do with what I said.

 

I don't see what that statement has to do with what I said.

that's how SS rolls

I'm all for eliminating any and all tax/financial benefits that are attached to marriage and increase the tax/financial benefits that go to people with dependents.

 

I don't care how long you have been with your man/woman, if you don't have kids together, you don't deserve a dime more in benefits than single people.

 

What kind of benefits are you talking about? Do you want to raise the tax rate on married couples without kids? I'm not certain why you want to encourage population growth and for couples to have children earlier in their marriage. As SS said, kids are usually better off in a two parent household. Delaying having kids for a few years to have a better idea if the marriage will work seems like something we should encourage, rather than discourage.

I don't see what that statement has to do with what I said.

 

 

We have a large number of taxes that are based, partially, or even wholly, on encouraging positive behavior and discouraging negative behavior. "Sin" taxes are the most obvious. The tax on alcohol, tobacco, firearms, in some locals "lux" items are far higher than on necessities. Society benefits from marriages, thus we encourage that behavior through our tax code.

What kind of benefits are you talking about? Do you want to raise the tax rate on married couples without kids?

 

Yes, I think DINKs should pay the same rate as single folks.

 

I'm not certain why you want to encourage population growth and for couples to have children earlier in their marriage.

 

Because children grow up to be adults who get jobs and contribute to the economy.

 

As SS said, kids are usually better off in a two parent household. Delaying having kids for a few years to have a better idea if the marriage will work seems like something we should encourage, rather than discourage.

 

I don't see how this shift in policy is going to create fewer households with two parents. Do you really think there are a bunch of couples with kids who stay together just for the tax breaks that come with being married??

Society benefits from marriages, thus we encourage that behavior through our tax code.

 

1) How exactly does society benefit from two people being married instead of single?

 

2) With the divorce rate what it is, if there really is a societal benefit to being married, the tax breaks don't seem to be enough of an incentive.

I don't see what that statement has to do with what I said.

 

If you want to go left wing, it is much better for the enviornment.

If you want to go left wing, it is much better for the enviornment.

I like eggs.

 

I like eggs.

i like turkey bacon.

 

yup.

 

i'm a liberal.

I like eggs.

 

Less households and urban sprawl?