i had a professor in college who said he was jewish but hated our government for supporting Israel. i dont really know why we support them as much as we do either. they are assholes too.

i support israel, but not netanyahu

uh oh, here's one of them spanishes

the governor of florida is the biggest fraudster of all-time in regards to medicaid

puerto ricans in PA hate santorum

i do appreciated that rick actually knows a little about PR, but i dont agree with his solutions. i doubt anyone else in the republican debates has ever thoguth about them.

this is mildly awkward.

Sounds like Mitt dismembered Newt tonight

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:chris christie stated he would veto a marriage equality bill in NJ. why? so he can put civil rights up to a ballot vote. so lame. come on hoya, how do you defend that?

He's against gay marriage, so he said he'd veto it. I don't agree with him, but what do you want? He ran on it, this isn't a surprise. NJ has had civil unions for a while now. He said he's willing to let it go on the ballot and accept the people's verdict if they want it.

Putting Civil Rights for a minority to a public vote is just a bit problematic

He doesn't think it's a right.

jerseyhoya wrote:Sounds like Mitt dismembered Newt tonight

Seemed like they were all just kind of flopping around

Mitt's gonna beat anyone at that

jerseyhoya wrote:He doesn't think it's a right.

blech

I SAY BLECH

drsmooth wrote:sweet - Paul rips the Gipper on piling up a trillion of debt, back when a trillion was a lot

Do you know if if you had a trillion dollar stack of 100 dollar bills, it go really high--like to the moon or something. I know that because when I was young and untenured in the early eighties, Mr. Reagan was on TV and told me.

TenuredVulture wrote:

drsmooth wrote:sweet - Paul rips the Gipper on piling up a trillion of debt, back when a trillion was a lot

Do you know if if you had a trillion dollar stack of 100 dollar bills, it go really high--like to the moon or something. I know that because when I was young and untenured in the early eighties, Mr. Reagan was on TV and told me.

What is it was pennies?

Pacino freaking out on the fbook on some dumbass

i used to have a sports radio show with him. he doesnt even think obama is a citizen. just a moron. sorry jkh, i cant help it

it's so weird that santorum has the most humanity out of all of them. sheesh

pacino wrote:it's so weird that santorum has the most humanity out of all of them. sheesh

That is mind blowing

jerseyhoya wrote:He doesn't think it's a right.

Then he should veto it.Putting it to a referendum is just being a weasel. I respect you anyway, but even more so every time you call a weasel a weasel.

As Housh says, calling on the majority to establish the rights of a minority is more than a little problematic. You need people of conscience to do so. If Christie doesn't want to accept the will of the people's chosen representatives who see this as the right thing to do because this is not an element of his own conscience, so be it. But putting it a referendum is just passing the buck, and needs to be recognized a such.

FWIW I used to wholeheartedly support civil unions until I realized I was supporting something that the people it was supposed to benefit didn't want (and who weren't being provided with the benefits intended anyway.) If you support the benefits that are supposed to be provided by civil unions, I don't know how you don't eventually make the jump to marriage rights. Christie's tarnishing his reputation for fearlessness among all parties with this one.

^i wish i was as cool as swish. marriage equality is the shit, and i wish i was as good of an advocate.

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:He doesn't think it's a right.

Then he should veto it.Putting it to a referendum is just being a weasel. I respect you anyway, but even more so every time you call a weasel a weasel.

As Housh says, calling on the majority to establish the rights of a minority is more than a little problematic. You need people of conscience to do so. If Christie doesn't want to accept the will of the people's chosen representatives who see this as the right thing to do because this is not an element of his own conscience, so be it. But putting it a referendum is just passing the buck, and needs to be recognized a such.

FWIW I used to wholeheartedly support civil unions until I realized I was supporting something that the people it was supposed to benefit didn't want (and who weren't being provided with the benefits intended anyway.) If you support the benefits that are supposed to be provided by civil unions, I don't know how you don't eventually make the jump to marriage rights. Christie's tarnishing his reputation for fearlessness among all parties with this one.

He is absolutely ducking this. But I don't know if there's a better way for him to handle it.

He probably genuinely opposes gay marriage. He is a good Catholic after all. And he has to veto it based on his announced position on the issue and to keep the door open to being VP this time around or running for President in 2016. He could just veto it, but offering a referendum makes it look like he's willing to compromise/being rational, while painting the Democrats as the ones who aren't willing to be reasonable on the issue.

Sweeney and a bunch of other legislative Dems were instrumental in killing gay marriage from passing at the end of the Corzine administration two years ago. The Dems brought it back up because they realize that a lot of the people who support Christie for trying to get the state's fiscal house in order and kicking the shit out of the public sector unions also are also social moderate/liberals, and can be won back for the 2013 election by pushing on those issues. Sweeney (the highest ranking Dem in state government for those just joining the conversation) is now calling not backing gay marriage his biggest mistake. Again, this took place in December 2009, not 1999. I mean, whatever, it was politically questionable then so he killed it, now it's useful as a political weapon so he's for it. Christie is responding to this cynical political play in cynical fashion. Quelle horreur.

Whatever the merits of putting this civil right up to popular vote, I think it would stand a really good shot at passing, and I'm pretty sure it'd be the first time gay marriage won a referendum.

I really think that by 2016 we're going to see something like high 50s to low 60s% americans approve of gay marriage. Just since 09 we've gone from mid 30s to mid 40s and as baby boomers leave and young people come of age that trend should only continue.

It probably won't decide the election or anything but I doubt Christie wants to have vetoing this hanging over him in the general in 4 years.

Plus Republicans have always been historically better at energizing their base through referendums, especially when it comes to stuff like this. Even if it ultimately passes I think this just being on the ticket will cause more republican voters to vote this fall than would have otherwise.

MoBettle wrote:I really think that by 2016 we're going to see something like high 50s to low 60s% of americans approve of gay marriage. Just since 09 we've gone from mid 30s to mid 40s and as baby boomers leave and young people come of age that trend should only continue.

It probably won't decide the election or anything but I doubt Christie wants to have vetoing this hanging over him in the general in 4 years.

Plus Republicans have always been historically better at energizing their base through referendums, especially when it comes to stuff like this. Even if it ultimately passes I think this being just on the ticket will cause more republican voters to vote this fall than would have otherwise.

I think that's overly optimistic though right on the big point (Christie doesn't want to veto due to what it might do to his standing among moderate voters in 2013 and 2016 and beyond). We might hit something like 50/50 of people who vote nationally by 2016, but I doubt it. Referendums banning gay marriage are 28 for 28. Feel like one or two should fail before we talk about 60% of the public approving of gay marriage. Gay marriage polls better than it does at the ballot box because people know it's socially more acceptable to favor it so that's what many tell pollsters, but once they're in the privacy of the voting booth they vote no. And it still doesn't poll that well.