joe arpaio is evil, from the DOJ:

“[A]n MCSO officer stopped a Latina woman – a citizen of the United States and five months pregnant at the time – as she pulled into her driveway. After she exited her car, the officer then insisted that she sit on the hood of the car. When she refused, the officer grabbed her arms, pulled them behind her back, and slammed her, stomach first, into the vehicle three times. He then dragged her to the patrol car and shoved her into the backseat. He left her in the patrol car for approximately 30 minutes without air conditioning. The MCSO officer ultimately issued a citation for failure to provide identification.”

9 more like this in the link

MoBettle wrote:i get that romney was just a kid and was probably the definition of a sheltered upbringing and didn't fully understand how people can be different at that point of his life, and it probably didn't have anything to do with think the kid was gay (More likely just because he was different), but how the hell does he expect anyone to believe that he "doesn't recall" holding a kid down and cutting his hair off?

The prep school incident, or the Stanford incident?

Mr. Romney’s shaving incident, which his father, former Michigan Governor George Romney revealed in a 1970 speech, occurred while he was a student at Stanford. The elder Mr. Romney said Mitt and his friends lured students from the University of California into a trap where they "shaved their heads and painted them red."

BTW, there's a nugget in that first link that may make you rethink your premise.

Timely that Romeny's past has him gay bashing while POTUS embarrasses gay marriage. Since oil is now off the table, culture wars takes a sharper focus. Round one is progressive/inclusive versus backward/exclusive. Buckle up, November is a long time away.

In other news, does the Morgan/Chase news become cross hairs for the argument as to the need for regulation?

Does anybody else think it's absolutely ridiculous as to why gay marriage is even an issue in this presidential election? I'm a conservative Republican, and I really have no problem with homosexual couples being able to marry who they choose. I guess that's partly my libertarian streak as well.

If anything, it should be a state issue and I do have a problem with members of my party who would like to see a federal amendment defining marriage between solely a man and a woman. It's a pet peeve of mine, the party of limited government trying to dictate what someone can and can't do in their personal lives.

Getting back to point, there are far more pressing issues such as our fiscal mess and our impending debt fiasco that better be addressed in the very near future. This will affect us all, and we are not immune from the suffering Greece is currently going thru if we don't change our act.

No candidate is really addressing significant cuts to the budget, and first and foremost we have to address military spending. I'm all for a strong defense, but we aren't enhancing defense by still having a huge overseas presence in every continent in the world. Plus, we just can't afford it anymore.

I just can't stand the media bringing up divisive social issues such as gay marriage and abortion. It's a huge distraction to our real problems we face.

calling out the media for "bringing up divisive social issues" is kind of a cop-out. the amount of importance placed on these social issues is a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals, nothing divisive about the media for reporting on it. maybe the media wouldn't need to report on it if republican members of congress hadn't introduced so many anti-abortion and anti-gay legislations since 2010

Roger Dorn wrote:Getting back to point, there are far more pressing issues such as our fiscal mess and our impending debt fiasco that better be addressed in the very near future. This will affect us all, and we are not immune from the suffering Greece is currently going thru if we don't change our act.

No candidate is really addressing significant cuts to the budget, and first and foremost we have to address military spending. I'm all for a strong defense, but we aren't enhancing defense by still having a huge overseas presence in every continent in the world. Plus, we just can't afford it anymore.

The crisis isn't the debt, it's how we're using it. We've had a far higher debt % to GDP ratio before, it was 130% of GDP in the 1940s. When we entered WWII, our military technology was far behind the rest of the industrialized world so we needed a big debt boost to catch up. Post WWII, we carried a debt > 100% of GDP for stuff like public works projects (highway system, etc.)... things that led us to economic superpowerdom. Afterwards, the debt declined to around 30% of GDP until the supply siders took over and it increased (the only respite being Clinton's presidency, where debt/GDP went down by about 10%). Today, our debt is supporting supply side policies (which, btw, don't/can't "create jobs", grow the economy, et al).

The major reason for our overseas presence is to patrol and protect ports and shipping lanes... keep pirates from hijacking shit and terrorists from blowing shit up... keep commerce rolling. We can't really afford not to, lest risk damage to our already fragile economy. Sure, military spending needs to be reined in, but we should first target waste (defense contractor overbilling, et al).

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Roger Dorn wrote:Getting back to point, there are far more pressing issues such as our fiscal mess and our impending debt fiasco that better be addressed in the very near future. This will affect us all, and we are not immune from the suffering Greece is currently going thru if we don't change our act.

No candidate is really addressing significant cuts to the budget, and first and foremost we have to address military spending. I'm all for a strong defense, but we aren't enhancing defense by still having a huge overseas presence in every continent in the world. Plus, we just can't afford it anymore.

The crisis isn't the debt, it's how we're using it. We've had a far higher debt % to GDP ratio before, it was 130% of GDP in the 1940s. When we entered WWII, our military technology was far behind the rest of the industrialized world so we needed a big debt boost to catch up. Post WWII, we carried a debt > 100% of GDP for stuff like public works projects (highway system, etc.)... things that led us to economic superpowerdom. Afterwards, the debt declined to around 30% of GDP until the supply siders took over and it increased (the only respite being Clinton's presidency, where debt/GDP went down by about 10%). Today, our debt is supporting supply side policies (which, btw, don't/can't "create jobs", grow the economy, et al).

The major reason for our overseas presence is to patrol and protect ports and shipping lanes... keep pirates from hijacking shit and terrorists from blowing shit up... keep commerce rolling. We can't really afford not to, lest risk damage to our already fragile economy. Sure, military spending needs to be reined in, but we should first target waste (defense contractor overbilling, et al).

anyone who brings up the specter of Greece immediately signals that they get far too much of their "news" from Fox. As PiP & others have pointed out the analogy is strained, to put it mildly.

Ramon Gris wrote:So, I'm hearing all sorts of noise about the gay marriage vote in North Carolina. Tell me where I'm wrong here:

Ok, so we load up civil unions with all the basic rights of marriage, and we leave the word "marriage" alone. Let "marriage" be what people do in churches, and let civil unions be what you go to a justice of the peace for. I don't see how there could possibly be a problem if all the rights are the same, and we let religious people maintain the sanctity of the typical marriage.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

What if the leader/pastor of a church has no problem marrying them? Shouldn't it be up to the church, or are republicans now attacking freedom of religion?

What a shock, Romney is a bully. Does the guy have any redeeming characteristics? There's just way too much evidence that the guy has a problem understanding the pain of others. It's a theme that runs through all of these things that have come out, from his comments about firing people to the dog incident to terrorizing weaker students to laughing about his dad firing people, etc, etc. I mean, does the guy have the capacity for empathy?

Roger Dorn wrote:Does anybody else think it's absolutely ridiculous as to why gay marriage is even an issue in this presidential election?

Absolutely. With all that we are facing, why is this a discussion. I guess because abortion is an issue as well, which is equally stupid to debate at the candidate level. Who wants the government to get out of our personal lives? Everybody, right? Both sides need to understand that.

Monkeyboy wrote:

Ramon Gris wrote:So, I'm hearing all sorts of noise about the gay marriage vote in North Carolina. Tell me where I'm wrong here:

Ok, so we load up civil unions with all the basic rights of marriage, and we leave the word "marriage" alone. Let "marriage" be what people do in churches, and let civil unions be what you go to a justice of the peace for. I don't see how there could possibly be a problem if all the rights are the same, and we let religious people maintain the sanctity of the typical marriage.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

What if the leader/pastor of a church has no problem marrying them? Shouldn't it be up to the church, or are republicans now attacking freedom of religion?

I support a somewhat modified view of what Ramon Gris proposes. Let all 'marriages' be treated as civil unions by governments of all levels and provide all of the legal benefits now conferred by marriage, including social security, taxes, etc. As far as government is concerned, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, the term 'married' would not exist. Each church can decide which of its parishioners in a legal 'civil union' it considers to be actually married. Each church decides whether or not it is willing to perform a religious ceremony for a given couple. We have that today with heterosexuals. Some churches will conduct mixed-religion marriages, others won't. I've know a number of divorced and remarried Catholic 'married' couples, whom the church didn't regard as married, because it didn't accept the divorce. One couple bought an indulgence to solve the problem. Others did not. In talking to their friends and acquaintances, any legally civil-unioned couple could call themselves whatever they wanted, including 'married'. If marriage as a term refers to a church sacrament, which I guess is how it started although it didn't exist as such for the majority of the church's history, then leave it to the church and adopt an egalitarian term for the legal aspect of all unions.

thephan wrote:

Roger Dorn wrote:Does anybody else think it's absolutely ridiculous as to why gay marriage is even an issue in this presidential election?

Absolutely. With all that we are facing, why is this a discussion. I guess because abortion is an issue as well, which is equally stupid to debate at the candidate level. Who wants the government to get out of our personal lives? Everybody, right? Both sides need to understand that.

No, not everybody wants the government out of our personal lives. Probably a third of voters want government to use its police powers to establish and enforce a national moral ethic, which is totally 100% congruent with their own religious beliefs. They prefer that everyone be like them and want the government to make it so. They don't want to go into a shop or walk the street and hear a language other than English. They'd really like a national dress and hair code, enforced rules of politeness and 'appropriate' speech, and constant in-your-face displays supporting their religious beliefs. That is what they think will make them feel comfortable and unfrightened.

allentown wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

Ramon Gris wrote:So, I'm hearing all sorts of noise about the gay marriage vote in North Carolina. Tell me where I'm wrong here:

Ok, so we load up civil unions with all the basic rights of marriage, and we leave the word "marriage" alone. Let "marriage" be what people do in churches, and let civil unions be what you go to a justice of the peace for. I don't see how there could possibly be a problem if all the rights are the same, and we let religious people maintain the sanctity of the typical marriage.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

What if the leader/pastor of a church has no problem marrying them? Shouldn't it be up to the church, or are republicans now attacking freedom of religion?

I support a somewhat modified view of what Ramon Gris proposes. Let all 'marriages' be treated as civil unions by governments of all levels and provide all of the legal benefits now conferred by marriage, including social security, taxes, etc. As far as government is concerned, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, the term 'married' would not exist. Each church can decide which of its parishioners in a legal 'civil union' it considers to be actually married. Each church decides whether or not it is willing to perform a religious ceremony for a given couple. We have that today with heterosexuals. Some churches will conduct mixed-religion marriages, others won't. I've know a number of divorced and remarried Catholic 'married' couples, whom the church didn't regard as married, because it didn't accept the divorce. One couple bought an indulgence to solve the problem. Others did not. In talking to their friends and acquaintances, any legally civil-unioned couple could call themselves whatever they wanted, including 'married'. If marriage as a term refers to a church sacrament, which I guess is how it started although it didn't exist as such for the majority of the church's history, then leave it to the church and adopt an egalitarian term for the legal aspect of all unions.

I could get behind this.

I've just never understood why some people use religious reasons to say gays can't be married. Um, in your religion, maybe, but each church should decide for itself, just like they decide which beliefs to follow. Otherwise, there's no freedom of religion, which would drive those same people to throw a fit if someone else tried to control their church.

Anyway, your post would solve my problem and his problem. Fine with me.

I wanna stone me some adulterers!

td11 wrote:

"I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy, and finally when that was done and help was given, the companies got back on their feet, so I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry's come back," Romney told WEWS .

link

dude wrote a "let detroit go bankrupt" op-ed in 2008.

^^^^ I pushed the idea that they should do a "darker" series of Batman films, so I am going to take a lot of credit for the Christopher Nolan franchise.

I came up with the idea of putting cheese in a pizza crust. Pizza Hut and Dominos owe me royalties!!!!!!!

I was even unemployed at the time, just like Mitt!!!

California deficit has soared to $16 billion, Gov. Jerry Brown says - They should probably raise taxes on rich people more

i think mitt's best shot is if he just goes into hiding until november

Roger Dorn wrote:I just can't stand the media bringing up divisive social issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

The media bring it up because politicians and pundits from both parties make a big deal about it. Blame the source, not the messenger.

The main reason why these issues are in the forefront is to drive fundraising amongst the bases of both parties.