"Rachel Maddow covered the passage of same-sex marriage legislation in New York live on MSNBC Friday night.
Maddow, who is one of three blatantly homosexual cable news anchors on television, let the cheers of the crowd play uninterrupted for minutes after the vote was announced.
"This will become law," she said, adding that the number of people in the United States "for whom same-sex marriage rights are a reality" had just doubled.
Maddow also pointedly noted later in her coverage that "President Obama is against what just happened."
Maddow has previously said that "maybe" she will marry her longtime partner Susan Mikula. She now lives in two of the states where same-sex marriage is legal: Massachusetts and, as of Friday night, New York."
but the truth is, like all homosexuals, she never wanted to get married but simply to destroy the notion of marriage by diluting its meaning
We also notice the only same-sex marriage Anon mentions "no examles of" in the Bible is male to male, Anon's long-time obsession.
We also notice Biblical women had no rights to decide anything. They were forced to submit their bodies and property to whichever male came to own them through marriage.
Thank goodness we've come a long way from those dark days and live in a land where laws are decided democratically. We now have laws that govern property rights and divorce, abolish slavery, and allow for same-sex marriage.
"We also notice the only same-sex marriage Anon mentions "no examles of" in the Bible is male to male, Anon's long-time obsession."
it's more of a problem in so many ways
it's certainly mentioned more in scripture
"We also notice Biblical women had no rights to decide anything. They were forced to submit their bodies and property to whichever male came to own them through marriage."
complete misinterpretation of scripture
"Thank goodness we've come a long way from those dark days and live in a land where laws are decided democratically. We now have laws that govern property rights and divorce, abolish slavery, and allow for same-sex marriage."
as usual, you conflate the advance of deviance with widely well-regarded progresses
if you're referring to women's rights, the "dark days" still exist in much of the world
it's in lands with a Judeo-Christian heritage where women can lead lives of dignity, because such ideas have their rights in Judeo-Christianity
I don’t know why conservatives didn’t put up this pictorial diagram years ago – it make understanding marriage SOOOO much easier. After all this sparring with the Anons, now I finally GET it.
God has defined marriage as between a man and one or more women who must have sex with him, whether they want to be there or not.
Here I was suffering under all these naive assumptions that marriages were about two people who loved each other very much committing themselves to each other for life, for better or worse, and if they should decide to have kids, share in the responsibility of raising them.
Now that I see what Marriage is really all about, I have to wonder why gays wanted to be a part of it. I mean, it explains a lot of the dour heterosexual marriages I see, and gives me a much greater understanding of Osama Bin Laden’s marriages and religiosity, but having it laid out so clearly now shows it will cast a dark shadow behind the gay rainbow.
"I don’t know why conservatives didn’t put up this pictorial diagram years ago – it make understanding marriage SOOOO much easier. After all this sparring with the Anons, now I finally GET it."
no, unfortunately, it looks like you still have some thinking to do before you "GET it"
"God has defined marriage as between a man and one or more women who must have sex with him, whether they want to be there or not."
this is all wrong
"Here I was suffering under all these naive assumptions that marriages were about two people who loved each other very much committing themselves to each other for life, for better or worse, and if they should decide to have kids, share in the responsibility of raising them."
actually your suffering wasn't too bad except you forgot that both genders need to be represented in any valid marital releationship
"Now that I see what Marriage is really all about,"
no you don't
"I have to wonder why gays wanted to be a part of it."
see, that's the funny thing
they don't want to be a part of it
they simply want to destroy it
"I mean, it explains a lot of the dour heterosexual marriages I see,"
really?
which ones?
"and gives me a much greater understanding of Osama Bin Laden’s marriages and religiosity,"
interesting that that was your concern about Bin Laden
"but having it laid out so clearly now shows it will cast a dark shadow behind the gay rainbow."
homosexuals don't get the whole rainbow
there are many other forms of deviancy: bestiality, necrophilia, et al
The rats are abandoning their sinking ship said...
WASHINGTON -- One of the most conservative veteran Republicans in the House, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, backed away from the GOP's controversial Medicare plan at a town hall in his Wisconsin district on Sunday, according to a report from the local Brookfield Patch.
Sensenbrenner was pressed by a 54-year-old constituent, who would lose the guaranteed coverage offered by Medicare under the plan put forward by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and instead be required to purchase private insurance with a government voucher.
"If it's good enough for the people 54 and younger ... then I think it's good enough for people 55 and older," said the constituent, who Patch identified as Paul Race, a former Marine and a teacher of 25 years.
Sensenbrenner declined to back Ryan's plan on Sunday, backtracking from his earlier support of the proposal. "I'm not here to say he's right or he's wrong, but at least he's got a plan," he told the town hall. But when the same Medicare-altering proposal came before the house in April, Sensenbrenner voted to support it.
Republicans both new and old are backing off the Ryan's proposal, which polls, protests and constituent phone calls all suggest is overwhelmingly unpopular. Freshman Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.) struck a note similar to Sensenbrenner's, backing off Ryan's specific proposal. "My challenge to the Democrats has been to come up with another plan so we can begin a debate," Buerkle said, according to the Post-Standard in upstate New York. "That's all this is -- a place to start the debate."
Buerkle said she personally fielded calls from sobbing seniors worried about the loss of health care access. Democrats, meanwhile, are so far refusing to bail Republicans out of the jam Ryan's budget has put them in. "We have a plan: It's called Medicare," Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said.
"Rep. Michele Bachmann is in it to win it in 2012.
The conservative congresswoman and Tea Party favorite formally declared her candidacy for president of the United States on Monday in Waterloo, Iowa, where she was born and grew up as a child before moving to Minnesota.
"We can win in 2012 and we will," said Bachmann in launching her campaign. "Our voice has been growing louder and stronger. And it is made up of Americans from all walks of life like a three-legged stool. It's the peace through strength Republicans, and I'm one of them, it's fiscal conservatives, and I'm one of them, and it's social conservatives, and I'm one of them. It's the Tea Party movement and I'm one of them."
She added, "The liberals, and to be clear I'm not one of them, want you to think the Tea Party is the Right Wing of the Republican Party. But it's not. It's made up of disaffected Democrats, independents, people who've never been political a day in their life, libertarians, Republicans. We're people who simply want America back on the right track again."
The first Des Moines Register poll of the election season, which was released over the weekend, shows the Republican hopeful running at the front of the GOP presidential primary pack among likely Iowa GOP caucus-goers.
An Associated Press-GfK poll released last week found Bachmann riding a wave of momentum following her performance in New Hampshire's first presidential debate of the election season. At the Granite State forum, which was held two weeks ago, the GOP hopeful signaled her intention to formally launch a presidential campaign.
MichelePAC, one of Bachmann's two political action committees, took in $214,000 during the month of May, topping the $173,000 the organization hauled in April. The AP recently reported:
Of the nearly $12.9 million Bachmann raised from individuals in the last election, more than half came from people giving less than $200. While Obama was cheered for the legion of small donors who contributed to his campaign, only about a fourth of [President Barack] Obama's $750 million take in 2008 came from such donors, according to a Campaign Finance Institute analysis.
Bachmann was the driving force behind the creation of a Tea Party caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives and she delivered her own rebuttal to Obama's State of the Union address earlier this year.
In an interview with the Associated Press earlier this month, the presidential contender expressed her eagerness to "take on not only the opposing party but my own party as well to do what I think is right." Several weeks earlier, she said she felt "a calling" to pursue a bid for the White House."
When House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) shut down debt ceiling negotiations last week, it did more than just rekindle fears that the U.S. government might soon default on its debt obligations -- it also brought him closer to reaping a small financial windfall from his investment in a mutual fund whose performance is directly affected by debt ceiling brinkmanship.
Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, had between $1,000 and $15,000 invested in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury EFT. The fund aggressively "shorts" long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, meaning that it performs well when U.S. debt is undesirable. (A short is when the trader hopes to profit from the decline in the value of an asset.)
According to his latest financial disclosure statement, which covers the year 2010 and has been publicly available since this spring, Cantor still has up to $15,000 in the same fund. Contacted this week, Cantor's office gave no indication that the Virginia Republican, who has played a leading role in the debt ceiling negotiations, has divested himself of these holdings since his last filing. Unless an agreement can be reached, the U.S. could begin defaulting on its debt payments on Aug. 2. If that happens and Cantor is still invested in the fund, the value of his holdings would skyrocket.
there's no reason for default and there won't be one
we collect plenty enough tax revenue to cover our debt obligations
if the Dems stonewall, discretionary spending will simply be delayed until they compromise
if Obama chooses to default our debts, he will be an American villain throughout history
but let's just hope Obama decides not to run and the Dems offer America Andrew Cuomo
"After weeks of intense behind-the-scenes negotiations, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law late Friday a bill that legalizes same-sex marriage.
New York tabloids and gay activists called the vote “historic” and a galvanizing step toward “recharging (the) gay-rights movement.” The law, which goes into effect July 25, makes it the sixth and most populous state to legalize same-sex marriage.
The modern birthplace of gay activism joins Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia in allowing same-sex marriage. According to The Wall Street Journal, activists are now looking to challenge Maine and Oregon’s one man, one woman laws at the ballot in November 2012.
The Rev. Duane Motley, founder and senior lobbyist of New Yorkers for
Constitutional Freedoms, said Cuomo was relentless, in securing Republican senators’ votes for the bill. “He called them in one (by) one, arm-twisted them and told them that he would use his popularity and position to give them cover.”
Once the votes were promised, Motley said access to Republicans was blocked.
They “had their cell phones shut off so you could not contact them — even their staff…could not contact them,” he said. “The whole process was corrupt.”
So, for the first time, a Republican-controlled chamber helped to enact same-sex marriage. The final vote was 33-29. Normally conservative high-dollar donors fronted nearly $1 million to lobby lawmakers.
Last minute religious exemptions were added to the Senate version of the bill. They are said to protect: churches; religious orders, such as the Knights of Columbus; any nonprofit entity under a religious group; and any employee of these organizations – including clergy — from being forced to participate in a same-sex ceremony or penalized for not doing so. Legal scholars say the amendment might not protect faith-based adoption and foster care agencies.
Until last Friday, gay activists had been defeated at every turn this year. Maryland and Rhode Island Legislatures rejected same-sex marriage, and Minnesota voters will consider a constitutional amendment, defining marriage as one man and one woman, in November 2012.
Brian Brown, executive director for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), reminded the media that Americans have sided with one-man, one-woman marriage 31 out of 31 times.
“We’ve won every free, fair vote of the people,” Brown told The Associated Press on Saturday. “Backroom deals in Albany are not an indication of what people in this country think about marriage.”"
" “Backroom deals in Albany are not an indication of what people in this country think about marriage.”"
No, they're not, but polls are and longterm polling data indicate public opinion has changed. Over the years, a wide majority against same-sex marriage has narrowed and now a growing majority of Americans think it is perfectly acceptable for people of the same gender to marry each other.
Biblical marriage is for the religious.
Marriage equality is for freedom loving Americans.
"No, they're not, but polls are and longterm polling data indicate public opinion has changed."
NY just had an election in November. The positions these politicians ran on is still valid.
"Over the years, a wide majority against same-sex marriage has narrowed and now a growing majority of Americans think it is perfectly acceptable for people of the same gender to marry each other."
well, that would be changing the definition of "married"
polls have shown this often in the past
this supposed support has never materialized at the ballot box once a public debate focuses on the issue
ever
"Biblical marriage is for the religious."
marriage is a concept belonging to religion
if it is decided to have the state endorse a type of deviance, a different word should be used
"Marriage equality is for freedom loving Americans."
I assume you mean changing the definition of marriage to emcompass the deviance of homosexuality
those with other types of deviance wouldn't enjoy this "freedom"
what a bunch of semantic BS the lunatic fringe pulled off in Albany
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.
Marriage is usually recognized by the state, a religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.
Holy matrimony is a phrase used by Christians to describe marriage.
"Marriage and early Church Fathers
Building on the example of Jesus and Paul, first-century Christians placed less value on the family, and rather saw celibacy and freedom from family ties as a preferable state.
Nicene Fathers such as Augustine believed that marriage was a sacrament because it was a symbol used by Paul to express Christ's love of the Church. However, there was also an apocalyptic dimension in his teaching, and he was clear that if everybody stopped marrying and having children that would be an admirable thing; it would mean that the Kingdom of God would return all the sooner and the world would come to an end. Such a view reflects the Manichaean past of Augustine.
Both Tertullian and Gregory of Nyssa were church fathers who were married. They each stressed that the happiness of marriage was ultimately rooted in misery. They saw marriage as a state of bondage that could only be cured by celibacy. They wrote that at the very least, the virgin woman could expect release from the "governance of a husband and the chains of children." Tertullian argued that marriage "consists essentially in fornication."
Some Fathers of the Church advocated celibacy and virginity as preferable alternatives to marriage. Jerome wrote: "It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity. No one can make a comparison between two things if one is good and the other evil." St. John Chrysostom wrote: "...virginity is better than marriage, however good.... Celibacy is...an imitation of the angels. Therefore, virginity is as much more honorable than marriage, as the angel is higher than man. But why do I say angel? Christ, Himself, is the glory of virginity."
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, said that the first commandment given to men was to increase and multiply, but now that the earth was full there was no need to continue this process of multiplication.
This view of marriage was reflected in the lack of any formal liturgy formulated for marriage in the early Church. No special ceremonial was devised to celebrate Christian marriage—despite the fact that the Church had produced liturgies to celebrate the Eucharist, Baptism and Confirmation. It was not important for a couple to have their nuptials blessed by a priest. People could marry by mutual agreement in the presence of witnesses.
At first, the old Roman pagan rite was used by Christians, although modified superficially. The first detailed account of a Christian wedding in the West dates from the 9th century. This system, known as Spousals, persisted after the Reformation."
The data is in, the Cut-Grow Kool-aid is toxic said...
From the start of the Great Recession in December 2007 through the end of 2010, 24 states have cut government spending by an average of 7.5 percent after adjusting for inflation. Another 25 states have expanded government outlays by an average of 11 percent. (The analysis excludes Alabama due to data problems reported by the National Association of State Budget Offices). And the differences in these states’ economic performance could not be more self-evident.
Relative to national economic trends, states that increased spending enjoyed on average:
*0.2 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate *1.4 percent increase in private employment *0.5 percent real economic growth since the start of the recession
In contrast, states that cut spending saw on average
*1 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate *2.1 percent loss of private employment *2.9 percent real economic contraction relative to the national economic trend
Steep state spending cuts have gone hand-in-hand with rising unemployment rates, falling private-sector payroll employment, and lower growth in state’s gross domestic product, or GDP — the sum of all goods and services produced by labor and equipment in each state, less imports.
"Steep state spending cuts have gone hand-in-hand with rising unemployment rates, falling private-sector payroll employment, and lower growth in state’s gross domestic product, or GDP — the sum of all goods and services produced by labor and equipment in each state, less imports."
that's really odd because, since the 2008 crash, 37% of jobs created in America were in one state
Texas, run by the Tea Party official who will be the next President of the United States
Texas had 550,000 workers earning at or below federal minimum wage in 2010, up 76,000 from the previous year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.
In other findings, workers making $7.25 per hour or less accounted for 9.5 percent of all hourly-paid workers in Texas, the BLS said. Nearly 12 percent of hourly-paid women were earning wages at or below minimum wage, compared to 7.4 percent of men.
Texas had the largest number of minimum wage earners among the states, accounting for 12.6 percent of the U.S. total in 2010.
"Hillary Clinton, addressing a gay-pride celebration at the State Department this week, was in spirits as festive as her robin’s-egg-blue pantsuit.
The “historic vote in New York” legalizing same-sex marriage, the secretary of state told the gathering of gay and lesbian foreign service workers, “gives such visibility and credibility to everything that so many of you have done over so many years.”
Describing the conversion of one New York Republican senator who “became convinced that it was just not any longer fair for him to see one group of his constituents as different from another,” Clinton exulted: “I’ve always believed that we would make progress because we were on the right side of equality and justice.”
Clinton left out one salient detail, though: She and her boss, President Obama, oppose legalizing gay marriage.
It was but the latest display of the internal contradiction in the Obama administration’s policy on gay marriage — a position made even less tenable by New York’s vote.
At the core of Obama’s stance is a logical inconsistency: He believes gay Americans should be fully equal under the law, but by opposing gay marriage he supports a system that denies same-sex couples some 1,300 federal rights and benefits that married couples receive. The civil unions Obama favors as an alternative have little meaning in federal law.
For Obama, this is less about the issue than about leadership. Even if he backed gay marriage, it wouldn’t become legal without Congress rewriting the federal definition of marriage, which currently demands “a legal union between one man and one woman.” But if Obama really believes, as he says, that a class of Americans is suffering unconstitutional discrimination, you’d think he would take a stand as a matter of principle. Instead, to borrow a phrase one of his advisers applied to the administration’s Libya policy, the president is once again “leading from behind.”
On the eve of the vote in New York, Obama was heckled by an audience of gay New Yorkers when he again declined to endorse gay marriage. He further infuriated listeners with his observation that “traditionally marriage has been decided by the states” — a position that would leave unchallenged the 41 states that ban same-sex marriage.
Days before that, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer was booed at a blogger conference when he asserted: “The president has never favored same-sex marriage. He is against it. The country is evolving on this, and he is evolving on it.” More like devolving: Pfeiffer claimed that a 1996 questionnaire, which has Obama’s signature and states his support for same-sex marriage, was “filled out by someone else.”
At Monday’s White House briefing, press secretary Jay Carney was pressed about the contradiction between Obama’s support for equal rights for gay couples and his willingness to leave marriage to the states. “It’s not very useful for us to have this debate,” Carney replied.
People familiar with White House deliberations on the topic tell me they expect no further evidence of Obama’s “evolution” before next year’s elections. And so the contradiction will persist — as will the fog in Foggy Bottom.
Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law when he was president, now supports gay marriage. But Hillary Clinton told the Advocate earlier this year: “I have not changed my position.”
Speaking at the gay-pride event about the “especially momentous and extraordinary” New York vote, Clinton departed from her script to describe the legislative victory in her adopted home state. “We have to continue to stand up for the rights and the well-being of LGBT people,” she concluded.
A worthy challenge — so why doesn’t the administration answer it?"
"Self-congratulation is rampant in New York after last week's adoption of the state's gay marriage statute. Among those who are the new toast of the town is the "group of super-rich Republican donors" (in the words of a certain Manhattan broadsheet) without whose financial backing the bill might not have passed.
It turns out that hedge fund operator Paul Singer, a prominent supporter of conservative causes, lent his checkbook and prestige to the gay marriage battle. He was joined by financiers Daniel Loeb and Cliff Asness. They underwrote a campaign that cost over $1 million to persuade four GOP state Senators to assure passage. A similar bill failed in 2009.
This news led our wry friends at the New York Sun to suggest a "thought experiment": "How would the liberals have felt had there been a law in place requiring the taxpayers of New York to underwrite a campaign against the same-gender marriage law?" The question is rhetorical.
The Sun's point is that the political left has spent years—no, decades—trying to impose limits on political campaign donations by the wealthy. Liberals prefer taxpayer financing of political campaigns. The left has been raging in particular against the Supreme Court for ruling last year in the Citizens United case that corporations and unions could donate to independent expenditure campaigns. There was more liberal outrage Monday as the Court struck down an Arizona law that provided matching funds to publicly financed candidates if their privately financed opponents exceeded a fund-raising limit.
Yet in New York, liberals are celebrating the huge independent political expenditures of Wall Street financiers because they support one of their favorite causes. Somehow in this case, the left has concluded that these big donors are contributing to democracy, not "hijacking" it. We welcome these liberals to the view that unlimited donations are a form of political free speech."
On February 18, 2009, Governor Rick Perry sent a letter to President Obama requesting some and rejecting some other stimulus money. Here's what he wrote:
"On behalf of the people of Texas, please allow this letter to certify that we will accept the funds in H.R. 1 and use them to promote economic growth and create jobs in a fiscally responsible manner that is in the best interest of Texas taxpayers. I remain opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs [to cover long-term unemployment], burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up." http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/info/Documents/certification_tx.pd
In March 2009, Fox News reported:
"Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Thursday rejected $555 million in federal stimulus money that would expand state unemployment benefits, saying the money would have required the state to keep funding the expanded benefits after the stimulus money ran out. Perry, an outspoken critic of President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill, did accept most of the roughly $17 billion slated for Texas in the plan." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/12/texas-gov-rejects-stimulus-money-unemployment#ixzz1QfReCRdX
In July 2009, AustinYNN reported:
"Texas has known for months that the funds to pay unemployed Texans were running dry.
"The balance is depleting faster than we expected," Texas Workforce Commission officer Ann Hatchitt said.
Texas is now asking the federal government for a $170 million loan so that benefits keep getting paid." http://austin.ynn.com/content/top_stories/246375/texas-asks-for-federal-help-after-rejected-stimulus-money
It turns out that hedge fund operator Paul Singer, a prominent supporter of conservative causes, lent his checkbook and prestige to the gay marriage battle. He was joined by financiers Daniel Loeb and Cliff Asness. They underwrote a campaign that cost over $1 million to persuade four GOP state Senators to assure passage
Proof positive all it takes is money to buy the votes of elected GOP officials.
actually, the money didn't go to the lawmakers' pocket, idiot
"President Barack Obama met with Senate leaders yesterday to jumpstart stalled budget talks, but do voters nationwide agree with how the president is handling the federal budget deficit?
According to the latest McClatchy-Marist poll, 61% of voters disapprove of how the president is handling the deficit. Fewer than one-third — 31% — approve.
“President Obama is increasingly focusing on and is the focus of budget negotiations,” says Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, Director of The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. “Once again, it seems the buck stops in the oval office.”
Even 37% of Democrats disapprove of Obama's handling of the budget.
Most Republicans — 89% — disapprove of the president.
Among independent voters nationally, 65% disapprove of how the president is dealing with the budget deficit, and 26% approve.
Voters are also voicing their dissatisfaction over the president’s handling of the economy. In fact, President Obama’s rating on the economy has hit an all-time low. Just 37% of registered voters nationally approve of the way the president is handling the economy while nearly six in ten — 58% — disapprove."
Bush and company took a sound economy and a treasury in surplus and eight years later left our economy in freefall, every month losing hundreds of thousands of jobs, mortgages, and hope for all but the richest amongn us with their unneeded tax cuts. It costs money to pay off Bush's bad debts while providing unemployment checks and mortgage restructuring to those laid off and foreclosed on by The Great Recession
Now lets hear what you have to say about these numbers, Anon.
The top 0.1 percent of the population (those making about $1.7 million or more) saw the sharpest increase in income share, taking home 2.6% of the nation’s earnings in 1975 and 10.4% in 2008.
Top 0.1% of US earners (avg. annual income $5.6 million) have seen their income increase 385% from 1970-2008
Top 0.1-0.5 of US earners (avg. annual income $878,139) have seen their income increase 141% from 1970-2008
Top 0.5-1.0% (avg. annual income $443,102) of US earners have seen their income increase 90% from 1970-2008
Top 1-5% of US earners (avg. annual income $211,476) have seen their income increase 59% from 1970-2008
Top 5-10% of US earners (avg. annual income $127,184) have seen their income increase 38% from 1970-2008
The bottom 90% of US earners (avg. annual income $31,244) have seen their income decrease 1% from 1970-2008.
actually, I think Theresa had asked about the horrendous deficits Obama is racking up
"Bush and company took a sound economy and a treasury in surplus"
actually, "sound economy" and "treasury in surplus" are contradictory terms
surpluses mean the government is taking more money than it needs from its citizens
this is a hindrance on economic activity- and immoral to boot
"and eight years later left our economy in freefall, every month losing hundreds of thousands of jobs, mortgages,"
the economy was booming for most of Bush's presidency, which was still part of the Reagan era
the problems had their roots when the Democrats took over Congress in 2006, ending the Reagan era
"and hope for all but the richest amongn us with their unneeded tax cuts"
taxes on the rich haven't been cut since early in the 21st century
"It costs money to pay off Bush's bad debts"
Bush's bad debts?
the debt from the Democrat era, began in 2007, greatly exceeds the debt from when Bush had a Republican majority
"while providing unemployment checks and mortgage restructuring to those laid off and foreclosed on by The Great Recession"
news flash: every category of Federal spending increased sharply under Obama, not just unemployment checks
"Now lets hear what you have to say about these numbers, Anon.
Following Reagan’s 1982 Tax Increase, Economy Boomed, Unemployment Fell"
thus was only a minor adjustment to the major tax cuts Reagan had already put in place
"Special Report: Breakaway Wealth: An ongoing series about how the rich are pulling away from the rest of America"
actually, it is not the government's job nor is it a legitimate concern of resentful masses and demagoguing liberals that everyone should have the same level of wealth
while a great and compassionate society should assure that all citizens' basic needs are met, income distribution shouldn't be based on a perceived need for fiscal equivalence among all
this is called egalitarianism and is inherently wrong
in a healthy society, people should be compensated according to the value of their contributions, not as a natural right
Wisconsin and Florida are proof that elections have consequences, especially where kids are involved. Thanks to conservative legislative majorities, governors in both states signed into law historic education reforms that not only empower parents, but greatly expand children’s access to quality education.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed into law on June 26, what is being touted as one of “the largest expansion(s) to the state’s school choice programs in (its) history.” Provisions in the law reduce two key barriers: Income eligibility and participant thresholds. This is good news for heavily populated counties, including Milwaukee and Racine.
Betsy DeVos, chairman of the American Federation for Children, praised the bill’s passage.
“Gov. Walker and state legislators pledged to put Wisconsin’s children first and… that important pledge has become law,” DeVos said. “We encourage governors and state legislators across the nation to be equally bold in fighting for the creation and expansion of school choice programs.”
Gov. Rick Scott of Florida signed into law on June 27 several school choice bills, which not only expand charter and online schools, but also expand school choice scholarships for children with disabilities. More students trapped in failing schools will now have the ability to transfer, thanks to the state’s expanded Opportunity Scholarship program.
Candi Cushman, education analyst, said education reform is a dire need and these developments reveal the momentum of school choice.
“School choice is the best kind of education reform, because it not only empowers parents, but schools are now accountable to them as consumers, rather than to politicians and bureaucrats,” Cushman said.
“Now more parents won’t have to send their kids to failing schools just because they don’t have the extra income. It means we’ll see fewer impoverished children trapped in unsafe and drug-ridden schools simply because those are the only options in their ZIP code.”
"The Obama administration prevailed in the first appellate review of the 2010 health care law on Wednesday as a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that it was constitutional for Congress to require that Americans obtain health insurance.
The ruling by the Cincinnati court is the first of three opinions to be delivered by separate courts of appeal that heard arguments in the health care litigation in May and June. Opinions are expected soon from panels in both the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., and the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta.
Lawyers on both sides of the case widely expect the Supreme Court to take one or more of the cases, perhaps as soon as its coming term, which starts in October. The speed of the Sixth Circuit ruling could help insure that timing.
The opinion was the first to not break down strictly along seemingly partisan lines. In the 2-to-1 ruling, a judge appointed by a Republican president joined one named by a Democrat to write the majority opinion.
At the lower District Court level, five judges have divided on the question, with three Democratic appointees backing the law and two Republican appointees rejecting it.
As they look ahead to the Supreme Court, the law’s defenders can take encouragement from the concurring opinion written by Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, an appointee of President George W. Bush who is typically considered conservative on questions of constitutional reach.
After acknowledging the difficulty of pinpointing the limits on Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce, Judge Sutton wrote: “In my opinion, the government has the better of the arguments.” He added: “Not every intrusive law is an unconstitutionally instrusive law.”
Joining Judge Sutton was Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr., an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat. Dissenting on the central issues was Judge James L. Graham, a District Court judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan who is on temporary assignment to the Sixth Circuit.
The appeal, which was heard by the panel on June 1, came in a challenge filed by the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative public interest firm in Ann Arbor, Mich. In its 69-page ruling, the panel upheld Federal District Judge George C. Steeh of Detroit, who concluded that choosing not to obtain health insurance was a commercial decision that could be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution."
You sound awful sure of yourself about which way Kennedy will swing on this one. I bet you thought he'd swing with the conservatives on Lawrence v. Texas too, didn't you?
If you "see reasons why people should be forced to treat" heterosexual partners but not homosexual partners as married couples, "Anonymous" your libertarianism is a sham as it dissolves so readily and completely when your own religious based prejudices are involved.
41 Comments:
that's excellent
you notice no examples of males marrying males
it's a contradiction of terms
even Obama knows that:
"Rachel Maddow covered the passage of same-sex marriage legislation in New York live on MSNBC Friday night.
Maddow, who is one of three blatantly homosexual cable news anchors on television, let the cheers of the crowd play uninterrupted for minutes after the vote was announced.
"This will become law," she said, adding that the number of people in the United States "for whom same-sex marriage rights are a reality" had just doubled.
Maddow also pointedly noted later in her coverage that "President Obama is against what just happened."
Maddow has previously said that "maybe" she will marry her longtime partner Susan Mikula. She now lives in two of the states where same-sex marriage is legal: Massachusetts and, as of Friday night, New York."
but the truth is, like all homosexuals, she never wanted to get married but simply to destroy the notion of marriage by diluting its meaning
at least we still live in a pro-marriage state
We also notice the only same-sex marriage Anon mentions "no examles of" in the Bible is male to male, Anon's long-time obsession.
We also notice Biblical women had no rights to decide anything. They were forced to submit their bodies and property to whichever male came to own them through marriage.
Thank goodness we've come a long way from those dark days and live in a land where laws are decided democratically. We now have laws that govern property rights and divorce, abolish slavery, and allow for same-sex marriage.
"We also notice the only same-sex marriage Anon mentions "no examles of" in the Bible is male to male, Anon's long-time obsession."
it's more of a problem in so many ways
it's certainly mentioned more in scripture
"We also notice Biblical women had no rights to decide anything. They were forced to submit their bodies and property to whichever male came to own them through marriage."
complete misinterpretation of scripture
"Thank goodness we've come a long way from those dark days and live in a land where laws are decided democratically. We now have laws that govern property rights and divorce, abolish slavery, and allow for same-sex marriage."
as usual, you conflate the advance of deviance with widely well-regarded progresses
if you're referring to women's rights, the "dark days" still exist in much of the world
it's in lands with a Judeo-Christian heritage where women can lead lives of dignity, because such ideas have their rights in Judeo-Christianity
I don’t know why conservatives didn’t put up this pictorial diagram years ago – it make understanding marriage SOOOO much easier. After all this sparring with the Anons, now I finally GET it.
God has defined marriage as between a man and one or more women who must have sex with him, whether they want to be there or not.
Here I was suffering under all these naive assumptions that marriages were about two people who loved each other very much committing themselves to each other for life, for better or worse, and if they should decide to have kids, share in the responsibility of raising them.
Now that I see what Marriage is really all about, I have to wonder why gays wanted to be a part of it. I mean, it explains a lot of the dour heterosexual marriages I see, and gives me a much greater understanding of Osama Bin Laden’s marriages and religiosity, but having it laid out so clearly now shows it will cast a dark shadow behind the gay rainbow.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
"I don’t know why conservatives didn’t put up this pictorial diagram years ago – it make understanding marriage SOOOO much easier. After all this sparring with the Anons, now I finally GET it."
no, unfortunately, it looks like you still have some thinking to do before you "GET it"
"God has defined marriage as between a man and one or more women who must have sex with him, whether they want to be there or not."
this is all wrong
"Here I was suffering under all these naive assumptions that marriages were about two people who loved each other very much committing themselves to each other for life, for better or worse, and if they should decide to have kids, share in the responsibility of raising them."
actually your suffering wasn't too bad except you forgot that both genders need to be represented in any valid marital releationship
"Now that I see what Marriage is really all about,"
no you don't
"I have to wonder why gays wanted to be a part of it."
see, that's the funny thing
they don't want to be a part of it
they simply want to destroy it
"I mean, it explains a lot of the dour heterosexual marriages I see,"
really?
which ones?
"and gives me a much greater understanding of Osama Bin Laden’s marriages and religiosity,"
interesting that that was your concern about Bin Laden
"but having it laid out so clearly now shows it will cast a dark shadow behind the gay rainbow."
homosexuals don't get the whole rainbow
there are many other forms of deviancy: bestiality, necrophilia, et al
they were all just born that way
WASHINGTON -- One of the most conservative veteran Republicans in the House, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, backed away from the GOP's controversial Medicare plan at a town hall in his Wisconsin district on Sunday, according to a report from the local Brookfield Patch.
Sensenbrenner was pressed by a 54-year-old constituent, who would lose the guaranteed coverage offered by Medicare under the plan put forward by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and instead be required to purchase private insurance with a government voucher.
"If it's good enough for the people 54 and younger ... then I think it's good enough for people 55 and older," said the constituent, who Patch identified as Paul Race, a former Marine and a teacher of 25 years.
Sensenbrenner declined to back Ryan's plan on Sunday, backtracking from his earlier support of the proposal. "I'm not here to say he's right or he's wrong, but at least he's got a plan," he told the town hall. But when the same Medicare-altering proposal came before the house in April, Sensenbrenner voted to support it.
Republicans both new and old are backing off the Ryan's proposal, which polls, protests and constituent phone calls all suggest is overwhelmingly unpopular. Freshman Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.) struck a note similar to Sensenbrenner's, backing off Ryan's specific proposal. "My challenge to the Democrats has been to come up with another plan so we can begin a debate," Buerkle said, according to the Post-Standard in upstate New York. "That's all this is -- a place to start the debate."
Buerkle said she personally fielded calls from sobbing seniors worried about the loss of health care access. Democrats, meanwhile, are so far refusing to bail Republicans out of the jam Ryan's budget has put them in. "We have a plan: It's called Medicare," Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said.
"Rep. Michele Bachmann is in it to win it in 2012.
The conservative congresswoman and Tea Party favorite formally declared her candidacy for president of the United States on Monday in Waterloo, Iowa, where she was born and grew up as a child before moving to Minnesota.
"We can win in 2012 and we will," said Bachmann in launching her campaign. "Our voice has been growing louder and stronger. And it is made up of Americans from all walks of life like a three-legged stool. It's the peace through strength Republicans, and I'm one of them, it's fiscal conservatives, and I'm one of them, and it's social conservatives, and I'm one of them. It's the Tea Party movement and I'm one of them."
She added, "The liberals, and to be clear I'm not one of them, want you to think the Tea Party is the Right Wing of the Republican Party. But it's not. It's made up of disaffected Democrats, independents, people who've never been political a day in their life, libertarians, Republicans. We're people who simply want America back on the right track again."
The first Des Moines Register poll of the election season, which was released over the weekend, shows the Republican hopeful running at the front of the GOP presidential primary pack among likely Iowa GOP caucus-goers.
An Associated Press-GfK poll released last week found Bachmann riding a wave of momentum following her performance in New Hampshire's first presidential debate of the election season. At the Granite State forum, which was held two weeks ago, the GOP hopeful signaled her intention to formally launch a presidential campaign.
MichelePAC, one of Bachmann's two political action committees, took in $214,000 during the month of May, topping the $173,000 the organization hauled in April. The AP recently reported:
Of the nearly $12.9 million Bachmann raised from individuals in the last election, more than half came from people giving less than $200. While Obama was cheered for the legion of small donors who contributed to his campaign, only about a fourth of [President Barack] Obama's $750 million take in 2008 came from such donors, according to a Campaign Finance Institute analysis.
Bachmann was the driving force behind the creation of a Tea Party caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives and she delivered her own rebuttal to Obama's State of the Union address earlier this year.
In an interview with the Associated Press earlier this month, the presidential contender expressed her eagerness to "take on not only the opposing party but my own party as well to do what I think is right." Several weeks earlier, she said she felt "a calling" to pursue a bid for the White House."
When House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) shut down debt ceiling negotiations last week, it did more than just rekindle fears that the U.S. government might soon default on its debt obligations -- it also brought him closer to reaping a small financial windfall from his investment in a mutual fund whose performance is directly affected by debt ceiling brinkmanship.
Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, had between $1,000 and $15,000 invested in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury EFT. The fund aggressively "shorts" long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, meaning that it performs well when U.S. debt is undesirable. (A short is when the trader hopes to profit from the decline in the value of an asset.)
According to his latest financial disclosure statement, which covers the year 2010 and has been publicly available since this spring, Cantor still has up to $15,000 in the same fund. Contacted this week, Cantor's office gave no indication that the Virginia Republican, who has played a leading role in the debt ceiling negotiations, has divested himself of these holdings since his last filing. Unless an agreement can be reached, the U.S. could begin defaulting on its debt payments on Aug. 2. If that happens and Cantor is still invested in the fund, the value of his holdings would skyrocket.
there's no reason for default and there won't be one
we collect plenty enough tax revenue to cover our debt obligations
if the Dems stonewall, discretionary spending will simply be delayed until they compromise
if Obama chooses to default our debts, he will be an American villain throughout history
but let's just hope Obama decides not to run and the Dems offer America Andrew Cuomo
"After weeks of intense behind-the-scenes negotiations, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law late Friday a bill that legalizes same-sex marriage.
New York tabloids and gay activists called the vote “historic” and a galvanizing step toward “recharging (the) gay-rights movement.” The law, which goes into effect July 25, makes it the sixth and most populous state to legalize same-sex marriage.
The modern birthplace of gay activism joins Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia in allowing same-sex marriage. According to The Wall Street Journal, activists are now looking to challenge Maine and Oregon’s one man, one woman laws at the ballot in November 2012.
The Rev. Duane Motley, founder and senior lobbyist of New Yorkers for
Constitutional Freedoms, said Cuomo was relentless, in securing Republican senators’ votes for the bill. “He called them in one (by) one, arm-twisted them and told them that he would use his popularity and position to give them cover.”
Once the votes were promised, Motley said access to Republicans was blocked.
They “had their cell phones shut off so you could not contact them — even their staff…could not contact them,” he said. “The whole process was corrupt.”
So, for the first time, a Republican-controlled chamber helped to enact same-sex marriage. The final vote was 33-29. Normally conservative high-dollar donors fronted nearly $1 million to lobby lawmakers.
Last minute religious exemptions were added to the Senate version of the bill. They are said to protect: churches; religious orders, such as the Knights of Columbus; any nonprofit entity under a religious group; and any employee of these organizations – including clergy — from being forced to participate in a same-sex ceremony or penalized for not doing so. Legal scholars say the amendment might not protect faith-based adoption and foster care agencies.
Until last Friday, gay activists had been defeated at every turn this year. Maryland and Rhode Island Legislatures rejected same-sex marriage, and Minnesota voters will consider a constitutional amendment, defining marriage as one man and one woman, in November 2012.
Brian Brown, executive director for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), reminded the media that Americans have sided with one-man, one-woman marriage 31 out of 31 times.
“We’ve won every free, fair vote of the people,” Brown told The Associated Press on Saturday. “Backroom deals in Albany are not an indication of what people in this country think about marriage.”"
Cuomo vs. Perry
it probably would be the best each party had to offer
I hate to break it to TTFers who would win
" “Backroom deals in Albany are not an indication of what people in this country think about marriage.”"
No, they're not, but polls are and longterm polling data indicate public opinion has changed. Over the years, a wide majority against same-sex marriage has narrowed and now a growing majority of Americans think it is perfectly acceptable for people of the same gender to marry each other.
Biblical marriage is for the religious.
Marriage equality is for freedom loving Americans.
"No, they're not, but polls are and longterm polling data indicate public opinion has changed."
NY just had an election in November. The positions these politicians ran on is still valid.
"Over the years, a wide majority against same-sex marriage has narrowed and now a growing majority of Americans think it is perfectly acceptable for people of the same gender to marry each other."
well, that would be changing the definition of "married"
polls have shown this often in the past
this supposed support has never materialized at the ballot box once a public debate focuses on the issue
ever
"Biblical marriage is for the religious."
marriage is a concept belonging to religion
if it is decided to have the state endorse a type of deviance, a different word should be used
"Marriage equality is for freedom loving Americans."
I assume you mean changing the definition of marriage to emcompass the deviance of homosexuality
those with other types of deviance wouldn't enjoy this "freedom"
what a bunch of semantic BS the lunatic fringe pulled off in Albany
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.
Marriage is usually recognized by the state, a religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.
Holy matrimony is a phrase used by Christians to describe marriage.
"Marriage and early Church Fathers
Building on the example of Jesus and Paul, first-century Christians placed less value on the family, and rather saw celibacy and freedom from family ties as a preferable state.
Nicene Fathers such as Augustine believed that marriage was a sacrament because it was a symbol used by Paul to express Christ's love of the Church. However, there was also an apocalyptic dimension in his teaching, and he was clear that if everybody stopped marrying and having children that would be an admirable thing; it would mean that the Kingdom of God would return all the sooner and the world would come to an end. Such a view reflects the Manichaean past of Augustine.
Both Tertullian and Gregory of Nyssa were church fathers who were married. They each stressed that the happiness of marriage was ultimately rooted in misery. They saw marriage as a state of bondage that could only be cured by celibacy. They wrote that at the very least, the virgin woman could expect release from the "governance of a husband and the chains of children." Tertullian argued that marriage "consists essentially in fornication."
Some Fathers of the Church advocated celibacy and virginity as preferable alternatives to marriage. Jerome wrote: "It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity. No one can make a comparison between two things if one is good and the other evil." St. John Chrysostom wrote: "...virginity is better than marriage, however good.... Celibacy is...an imitation of the angels. Therefore, virginity is as much more honorable than marriage, as the angel is higher than man. But why do I say angel? Christ, Himself, is the glory of virginity."
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, said that the first commandment given to men was to increase and multiply, but now that the earth was full there was no need to continue this process of multiplication.
This view of marriage was reflected in the lack of any formal liturgy formulated for marriage in the early Church. No special ceremonial was devised to celebrate Christian marriage—despite the fact that the Church had produced liturgies to celebrate the Eucharist, Baptism and Confirmation. It was not important for a couple to have their nuptials blessed by a priest. People could marry by mutual agreement in the presence of witnesses.
At first, the old Roman pagan rite was used by Christians, although modified superficially. The first detailed account of a Christian wedding in the West dates from the 9th century. This system, known as Spousals, persisted after the Reformation."
From the start of the Great Recession in December 2007 through the end of 2010, 24 states have cut government spending by an average of 7.5 percent after adjusting for inflation. Another 25 states have expanded government outlays by an average of 11 percent. (The analysis excludes Alabama due to data problems reported by the National Association of State Budget Offices). And the differences in these states’ economic performance could not be more self-evident.
Relative to national economic trends, states that increased spending enjoyed on average:
*0.2 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate
*1.4 percent increase in private employment
*0.5 percent real economic growth since the start of the recession
In contrast, states that cut spending saw on average
*1 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate
*2.1 percent loss of private employment
*2.9 percent real economic contraction relative to the national economic trend
Steep state spending cuts have gone hand-in-hand with rising unemployment rates, falling private-sector payroll employment, and lower growth in state’s gross domestic product, or GDP — the sum of all goods and services produced by labor and equipment in each state, less imports.
Bachmann/Palin 2012 - the Democrat Republican dream team.
either one would be great
two women might not be a good idea though
glad you consider it your "dream team"
you are destined for great disappointment
"Steep state spending cuts have gone hand-in-hand with rising unemployment rates, falling private-sector payroll employment, and lower growth in state’s gross domestic product, or GDP — the sum of all goods and services produced by labor and equipment in each state, less imports."
that's really odd because, since the 2008 crash, 37% of jobs created in America were in one state
Texas, run by the Tea Party official who will be the next President of the United States
in January 2013
"Marriage is"
this rundown of a handful of the views of marriage among the billions who have roamed the Earth has some correct points but is mostly misleading
what a surprise on a lunatic fringe gay advocacy site
Texas had 550,000 workers earning at or below federal minimum wage in 2010, up 76,000 from the previous year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.
In other findings, workers making $7.25 per hour or less accounted for 9.5 percent of all hourly-paid workers in Texas, the BLS said. Nearly 12 percent of hourly-paid women were earning wages at or below minimum wage, compared to 7.4 percent of men.
Texas had the largest number of minimum wage earners among the states, accounting for 12.6 percent of the U.S. total in 2010.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/historic-flood-red-ink_550425.html
Excellent article. Curious where Bea thinks these numbers are wrong. and if not, how do you possibly defend this ?
"Texas had the largest number of minimum wage earners among the states, accounting for 12.6 percent of the U.S. total in 2010."
sounds like Texan teenagers can get jobs unlike most of the rest of the kids in the country
all work is better than none
the contrary attitude is why so many jobs have been exported to India and China
as Newt Gingrich wisely asked voters in 2010: "Would you rather have food stamps or a paycheck?"
that election is now history
-and we know how it turned out
"Hillary Clinton, addressing a gay-pride celebration at the State Department this week, was in spirits as festive as her robin’s-egg-blue pantsuit.
The “historic vote in New York” legalizing same-sex marriage, the secretary of state told the gathering of gay and lesbian foreign service workers, “gives such visibility and credibility to everything that so many of you have done over so many years.”
Describing the conversion of one New York Republican senator who “became convinced that it was just not any longer fair for him to see one group of his constituents as different from another,” Clinton exulted: “I’ve always believed that we would make progress because we were on the right side of equality and justice.”
Clinton left out one salient detail, though: She and her boss, President Obama, oppose legalizing gay marriage.
It was but the latest display of the internal contradiction in the Obama administration’s policy on gay marriage — a position made even less tenable by New York’s vote.
At the core of Obama’s stance is a logical inconsistency: He believes gay Americans should be fully equal under the law, but by opposing gay marriage he supports a system that denies same-sex couples some 1,300 federal rights and benefits that married couples receive. The civil unions Obama favors as an alternative have little meaning in federal law.
For Obama, this is less about the issue than about leadership. Even if he backed gay marriage, it wouldn’t become legal without Congress rewriting the federal definition of marriage, which currently demands “a legal union between one man and one woman.” But if Obama really believes, as he says, that a class of Americans is suffering unconstitutional discrimination, you’d think he would take a stand as a matter of principle. Instead, to borrow a phrase one of his advisers applied to the administration’s Libya policy, the president is once again “leading from behind.”
On the eve of the vote in New York, Obama was heckled by an audience of gay New Yorkers when he again declined to endorse gay marriage. He further infuriated listeners with his observation that “traditionally marriage has been decided by the states” — a position that would leave unchallenged the 41 states that ban same-sex marriage.
Days before that, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer was booed at a blogger conference when he asserted: “The president has never favored same-sex marriage. He is against it. The country is evolving on this, and he is evolving on it.” More like devolving: Pfeiffer claimed that a 1996 questionnaire, which has Obama’s signature and states his support for same-sex marriage, was “filled out by someone else.”
At Monday’s White House briefing, press secretary Jay Carney was pressed about the contradiction between Obama’s support for equal rights for gay couples and his willingness to leave marriage to the states. “It’s not very useful for us to have this debate,” Carney replied.
People familiar with White House deliberations on the topic tell me they expect no further evidence of Obama’s “evolution” before next year’s elections. And so the contradiction will persist — as will the fog in Foggy Bottom.
Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law when he was president, now supports gay marriage. But Hillary Clinton told the Advocate earlier this year: “I have not changed my position.”
Speaking at the gay-pride event about the “especially momentous and extraordinary” New York vote, Clinton departed from her script to describe the legislative victory in her adopted home state. “We have to continue to stand up for the rights and the well-being of LGBT people,” she concluded.
A worthy challenge — so why doesn’t the administration answer it?"
"Self-congratulation is rampant in New York after last week's adoption of the state's gay marriage statute. Among those who are the new toast of the town is the "group of super-rich Republican donors" (in the words of a certain Manhattan broadsheet) without whose financial backing the bill might not have passed.
It turns out that hedge fund operator Paul Singer, a prominent supporter of conservative causes, lent his checkbook and prestige to the gay marriage battle. He was joined by financiers Daniel Loeb and Cliff Asness. They underwrote a campaign that cost over $1 million to persuade four GOP state Senators to assure passage. A similar bill failed in 2009.
This news led our wry friends at the New York Sun to suggest a "thought experiment": "How would the liberals have felt had there been a law in place requiring the taxpayers of New York to underwrite a campaign against the same-gender marriage law?" The question is rhetorical.
The Sun's point is that the political left has spent years—no, decades—trying to impose limits on political campaign donations by the wealthy. Liberals prefer taxpayer financing of political campaigns. The left has been raging in particular against the Supreme Court for ruling last year in the Citizens United case that corporations and unions could donate to independent expenditure campaigns. There was more liberal outrage Monday as the Court struck down an Arizona law that provided matching funds to publicly financed candidates if their privately financed opponents exceeded a fund-raising limit.
Yet in New York, liberals are celebrating the huge independent political expenditures of Wall Street financiers because they support one of their favorite causes. Somehow in this case, the left has concluded that these big donors are contributing to democracy, not "hijacking" it. We welcome these liberals to the view that unlimited donations are a form of political free speech."
how bout that, David Fishback?
On February 18, 2009, Governor Rick Perry sent a letter to President Obama requesting some and rejecting some other stimulus money. Here's what he wrote:
"On behalf of the people of Texas, please allow this letter to certify that we will accept the funds in H.R. 1 and use them to promote economic growth and create jobs in a fiscally responsible manner that is in the best interest of Texas taxpayers. I remain opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs [to cover long-term unemployment], burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up."
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/info/Documents/certification_tx.pd
In March 2009, Fox News reported:
"Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Thursday rejected $555 million in federal stimulus money that would expand state unemployment benefits, saying the money would have required the state to keep funding the expanded benefits after the stimulus money ran out. Perry, an outspoken critic of President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill, did accept most of the roughly $17 billion slated for Texas in the plan."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/12/texas-gov-rejects-stimulus-money-unemployment#ixzz1QfReCRdX
In July 2009, AustinYNN reported:
"Texas has known for months that the funds to pay unemployed Texans were running dry.
"The balance is depleting faster than we expected," Texas Workforce Commission officer Ann Hatchitt said.
Texas is now asking the federal government for a $170 million loan so that benefits keep getting paid."
http://austin.ynn.com/content/top_stories/246375/texas-asks-for-federal-help-after-rejected-stimulus-money
It turns out that hedge fund operator Paul Singer, a prominent supporter of conservative causes, lent his checkbook and prestige to the gay marriage battle. He was joined by financiers Daniel Loeb and Cliff Asness. They underwrote a campaign that cost over $1 million to persuade four GOP state Senators to assure passage
Proof positive all it takes is money to buy the votes of elected GOP officials.
actually, the money didn't go to the lawmakers' pocket, idiot
"President Barack Obama met with Senate leaders yesterday to jumpstart stalled budget talks, but do voters nationwide agree with how the president is handling the federal budget deficit?
According to the latest McClatchy-Marist poll, 61% of voters disapprove of how the president is handling the deficit. Fewer than one-third — 31% — approve.
“President Obama is increasingly focusing on and is the focus of budget negotiations,” says Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, Director of The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. “Once again, it seems the buck stops in the oval office.”
Even 37% of Democrats disapprove of Obama's handling of the budget.
Most Republicans — 89% — disapprove of the president.
Among independent voters nationally, 65% disapprove of how the president is dealing with the budget deficit, and 26% approve.
Voters are also voicing their dissatisfaction over the president’s handling of the economy. In fact, President Obama’s rating on the economy has hit an all-time low. Just 37% of registered voters nationally approve of the way the president is handling the economy while nearly six in ten — 58% — disapprove."
it's the economy, stupid!
Sure Anon, I'll address those numbers.
Bush and company took a sound economy and a treasury in surplus and eight years later left our economy in freefall, every month losing hundreds of thousands of jobs, mortgages, and hope for all but the richest amongn us with their unneeded tax cuts. It costs money to pay off Bush's bad debts while providing unemployment checks and mortgage restructuring to those laid off and foreclosed on by The Great Recession
Now lets hear what you have to say about these numbers, Anon.
Following Reagan’s 1982 Tax Increase, Economy Boomed, Unemployment Fell
and
Special Report: Breakaway Wealth:
An ongoing series about how the rich are pulling away from the rest of America
The top 0.1 percent of the population (those making about $1.7 million or more) saw the sharpest increase in income share, taking home 2.6% of the nation’s earnings in 1975 and 10.4% in 2008.
Top 0.1% of US earners (avg. annual income $5.6 million) have seen their income increase 385% from 1970-2008
Top 0.1-0.5 of US earners (avg. annual income $878,139) have seen their income increase 141% from 1970-2008
Top 0.5-1.0% (avg. annual income $443,102) of US earners have seen their income increase 90% from 1970-2008
Top 1-5% of US earners (avg. annual income $211,476) have seen their income increase 59% from 1970-2008
Top 5-10% of US earners (avg. annual income $127,184) have seen their income increase 38% from 1970-2008
The bottom 90% of US earners (avg. annual income $31,244) have seen their income decrease 1% from 1970-2008.
"Sure Anon, I'll address those numbers."
actually, I think Theresa had asked about the horrendous deficits Obama is racking up
"Bush and company took a sound economy and a treasury in surplus"
actually, "sound economy" and "treasury in surplus" are contradictory terms
surpluses mean the government is taking more money than it needs from its citizens
this is a hindrance on economic activity- and immoral to boot
"and eight years later left our economy in freefall, every month losing hundreds of thousands of jobs, mortgages,"
the economy was booming for most of Bush's presidency, which was still part of the Reagan era
the problems had their roots when the Democrats took over Congress in 2006, ending the Reagan era
"and hope for all but the richest amongn us with their unneeded tax cuts"
taxes on the rich haven't been cut since early in the 21st century
"It costs money to pay off Bush's bad debts"
Bush's bad debts?
the debt from the Democrat era, began in 2007, greatly exceeds the debt from when Bush had a Republican majority
"while providing unemployment checks and mortgage restructuring to those laid off and foreclosed on by The Great Recession"
news flash: every category of Federal spending increased sharply under Obama, not just unemployment checks
"Now lets hear what you have to say about these numbers, Anon.
Following Reagan’s 1982 Tax Increase, Economy Boomed, Unemployment Fell"
thus was only a minor adjustment to the major tax cuts Reagan had already put in place
"Special Report: Breakaway Wealth:
An ongoing series about how the rich are pulling away from the rest of America"
actually, it is not the government's job nor is it a legitimate concern of resentful masses and demagoguing liberals that everyone should have the same level of wealth
while a great and compassionate society should assure that all citizens' basic needs are met, income distribution shouldn't be based on a perceived need for fiscal equivalence among all
this is called egalitarianism and is inherently wrong
in a healthy society, people should be compensated according to the value of their contributions, not as a natural right
Wisconsin and Florida are proof that elections have consequences, especially where kids are involved. Thanks to conservative legislative majorities, governors in both states signed into law historic education reforms that not only empower parents, but greatly expand children’s access to quality education.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed into law on June 26, what is being touted as one of “the largest expansion(s) to the state’s school choice programs in (its) history.” Provisions in the law reduce two key barriers: Income eligibility and participant thresholds. This is good news for heavily populated counties, including Milwaukee and Racine.
Betsy DeVos, chairman of the American Federation for Children, praised the bill’s passage.
“Gov. Walker and state legislators pledged to put Wisconsin’s children first and… that important pledge has become law,” DeVos said. “We encourage governors and state legislators across the nation to be equally bold in fighting for the creation and expansion of school choice programs.”
Gov. Rick Scott of Florida signed into law on June 27 several school choice bills, which not only expand charter and online schools, but also expand school choice scholarships for children with disabilities. More students trapped in failing schools will now have the ability to transfer, thanks to the state’s expanded Opportunity Scholarship program.
Candi Cushman, education analyst, said education reform is a dire need and these developments reveal the momentum of school choice.
“School choice is the best kind of education reform, because it not only empowers parents, but schools are now accountable to them as consumers, rather than to politicians and bureaucrats,” Cushman said.
“Now more parents won’t have to send their kids to failing schools just because they don’t have the extra income. It means we’ll see fewer impoverished children trapped in unsafe and drug-ridden schools simply because those are the only options in their ZIP code.”
"The Obama administration prevailed in the first appellate review of the 2010 health care law on Wednesday as a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that it was constitutional for Congress to require that Americans obtain health insurance.
The ruling by the Cincinnati court is the first of three opinions to be delivered by separate courts of appeal that heard arguments in the health care litigation in May and June. Opinions are expected soon from panels in both the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., and the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta.
Lawyers on both sides of the case widely expect the Supreme Court to take one or more of the cases, perhaps as soon as its coming term, which starts in October. The speed of the Sixth Circuit ruling could help insure that timing.
The opinion was the first to not break down strictly along seemingly partisan lines. In the 2-to-1 ruling, a judge appointed by a Republican president joined one named by a Democrat to write the majority opinion.
At the lower District Court level, five judges have divided on the question, with three Democratic appointees backing the law and two Republican appointees rejecting it.
As they look ahead to the Supreme Court, the law’s defenders can take encouragement from the concurring opinion written by Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, an appointee of President George W. Bush who is typically considered conservative on questions of constitutional reach.
After acknowledging the difficulty of pinpointing the limits on Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce, Judge Sutton wrote: “In my opinion, the government has the better of the arguments.” He added: “Not every intrusive law is an unconstitutionally instrusive law.”
Joining Judge Sutton was Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr., an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat. Dissenting on the central issues was Judge James L. Graham, a District Court judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan who is on temporary assignment to the Sixth Circuit.
The appeal, which was heard by the panel on June 1, came in a challenge filed by the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative public interest firm in Ann Arbor, Mich. In its 69-page ruling, the panel upheld Federal District Judge George C. Steeh of Detroit, who concluded that choosing not to obtain health insurance was a commercial decision that could be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution."
all sound and fury
signifying nothing
the Supreme Court, with saahweeeng vote Kennedy, will clearly invaidate the employee mandate as unconstitutional
You sound awful sure of yourself about which way Kennedy will swing on this one. I bet you thought he'd swing with the conservatives on Lawrence v. Texas too, didn't you?
sure of myself?
I'm sure the American people will win
win what?
they'll win by defeating the gay agenda
The Justice Kennedy liberal swing vote on Lawrence v. Texas won every American freedom from government observation and dictates in our bedrooms.
as a libertarian, I'd tend to agree with Lawrence v Texas, so you're preaching to the choir
as the same libertarian, however, I see no reason why anyone shoud be forced to treat homosexual partners as a married couple
I hope you see the difference
If you "see reasons why people should be forced to treat" heterosexual partners but not homosexual partners as married couples, "Anonymous" your libertarianism is a sham as it dissolves so readily and completely when your own religious based prejudices are involved.
preference for heterosexuality is religion supported but not religion based
every major religious viewpoint, including Soviet and Maoist atheism, has considered homosexuality deviant
people shouldn't be forced to recogize aberrance
it's un-American
Happy Fireworks Weekend!!
Post a Comment
<< Home