While public opinion polls have shifted in the direction of support for same-sex marriage, every time the issue of legalization is put up for a vote in individual states it gets rejected. Another candidate for president who supports same-sex marriage other than Barack Obama is Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, who joined ‘Wilkow!’ Wednesday.
Johnson argues same-sex marriage should be supported federally by the 14th amendment, where in not being able to marry now denies gay-Americans equal protection of the law. Watch a clip below from the show where Wilkow, Johnson, S.E. Cupp and Will Cain debate the various constitutional angles of the issue:
Submitting your tip... please wait!
thefnshow
Oct. 18, 2012 at 1:01pmwhat is the purpose for marriage ? to spend the restg of your life with someone and….?
Report this comment
symphonic
Oct. 18, 2012 at 12:24pmI don’t care what people do in their bedroom, but when they try and IMPOSE their BEDROOM on society as a whole, that’s where I draw the line. I don’t even want the subject of gay marriage being a topic in my home, and neither do my kids. Our 6 year old was asked what she thought of two guys getting married, and she looked puzzled, and then she grimaced and said “two men?” and then she said “girls are the nursing persons”
You can’t argue with the mouths of babes.
Report this comment
Winghunter
Oct. 18, 2012 at 9:03amThere are NO rights for a behavior! Inherently wrong behavior or otherwise. It doesn’t matter how they became mentally ill or whether it’s a birth defect, it’s w-r-o-n-g!
Homosexuals weren’t removed from the mental illness list by scientific breakthrough so, they certainly weren’t cured. The Gaystapo simply forced a vote on the APA and against 70% of their memberships objections, the inherently wrong behavior magically became sane!
Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went Away
bit.ly/MdG2gm
Report this comment
nilo
Oct. 18, 2012 at 8:08amHomosexuality is a SIN — what don’t you politicians get about it? If you believed the Bible, you would get it. Obviously you don’t. Here it is — God does not approve it, in fact under the Law of Moses (it takes a Bible believer and Bible student to understand this), homosexuals were commanded to be put to death ( God’s judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah was because of their homosexual sins). In the Gospel age (the New Testament Law of Christ), homosexuality is still condemned, and we are warned that God will judge this and all sin at the Judgment. How any person claiming belief in God can take any other position is beyond logical reasoning. Garly Johnson is illogical in his position. Does he believe in God? If he does, he will have to believe God’s Word.
Report this comment
pastblaster
Oct. 18, 2012 at 8:31amHomosexuals claim that they have constitutional rights to be treated as some sort of protected minority class. The Constitution claims certain rights originate from our Creator. Are the Homosexuals claiming God as a source for legitimacy? They need to dismantle the constitution first.
Report this comment
justangry
Oct. 18, 2012 at 8:39amThe problem is you can’t prove that God exists. I can’t prove that God doesn’t exists, but the burden isn’t on me to do so. Yet you want your God to dictate policy based on faith and not reason and that’s absurd.
Report this comment
SoNick
Oct. 18, 2012 at 10:51am“Homosexuals claim that they have constitutional rights to be treated as some sort of protected minority class”. No they don’t. Gary Johnson makes a very valid point by invoking the 14th amendment. Homosexuals are being denied rights that straight people enjoy. Asking for these rights is not the same as requesting a special status, it’s actually the opposite; it,s about giving EVERYBODY, regardless of their sexual orientation, equal prote ction under the law. And using the Bible to justify discrimination against homosexual couples is simply unconstitutional. What do you not understand about “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion” ?
Report this comment
pastblaster
Oct. 18, 2012 at 8:07amIt has taken a while, but society has finally returned to the condition it was in prior to God cleansing the earth of the wicked. The only hope I have in the future is knowing that one day righteousness and truth will be established forever, and those people who practice wickedness and deceit will be gone.
Report this comment
Individualism
Oct. 18, 2012 at 8:01amI don’t care what gay people do behind the scenes as long as they don’t do what the TSA does. Gary Johnson wants to giving everyone personal liberty, nothing wrong with that, its better than than tyranny under Obama and Romney
Report this comment
Winghunter
Oct. 18, 2012 at 9:16amHere is most everything you ever wanted to know about Libertarianism, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson:
“Libertarianism is to authentic conservatism what Barack Obama is to 19th century liberalism” http://bit.ly/vBBvkk
Report this comment
justangry
Oct. 18, 2012 at 11:35amWinghunter, The problem with your article is most folks that supported Ron Paul, at least on here, aren’t true Libertarians. They’re more libertarian leaning Constitutionalists or Libertarian leaning Republicans. Ron Paul isn’t a true Libertarian either. Why I’m supporting the Libertarian Party this time around rather than the Constitutional Party is because Goode voted for several things that are totally unacceptable, which GJ said he’d get rid of. As for Ayn Rand, there are some of us that adhere to every word she said, and some that have evolved and moved on. I’m digging into her stuff now, and really like it. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything she says. And if you think her dislike for Libertarians of the 60′s is a good reason to dislike us, you should look up what she said about you Conservatives. Of course the author of that piece didn’t think that was important to share. Another point is Ayn Rand’s thoughts on Israel weren’t based on religion as so many on here believe it should be. She was against individuals committing violence and that was happening a lot in the 70′s when she called them savages, but that really wasn’t consistent with her overall ideology. I mean sure some are savages, but others are just oppressed she didn’t make that distinction because of, I believe, her emotions which she argued was wrong on most issues.
Report this comment
pastblaster
Oct. 18, 2012 at 7:47amYou can tell a lot about a person by just knowing what they think about The Lord Jesus. If someone tells me they are a believer in the Christ, I pretty much know what they think generally about most moral issues. In the same way, when someone defends immorality, I know that they are walking in darkness as well even if they claim otherwise.
Report this comment
bharris0
Oct. 18, 2012 at 6:30amI just lost all respect for Johnson. I agree with him on many issues but an issue as basic and important as this, he is %100 wrong.
Report this comment
whater39
Oct. 18, 2012 at 5:04amLess hate people. No discrimnation is acceptible. It’s other people, let them have the same rights as others. Doesn’t effect you, so stay out their business
Report this comment
bobdiamond
Oct. 18, 2012 at 5:35amThis issue illustrates how the left keeps pushing their ideas, even when a vast majority of the American people want no part of them. Read political commentary at: http://smallcraftadvisorychronicles.blogspot.com/
Report this comment
pastblaster
Oct. 18, 2012 at 7:26amI hate all sin, especially Homosexuality. This is what God has said. So you are more righteous than God?
Report this comment
SoNick
Oct. 18, 2012 at 10:53am@bobdiamond
yeah, and if we had a majority rule, slavery would still exist.
Report this comment
Gup20
Oct. 18, 2012 at 1:59pmIt’s not hate, Whater39. It is love. Love for God and for our fellow man.
When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment in all the law was, he answered:
Luk 10:27 And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”
Jesus also says:
Jhn 14:15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.
1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.
So it is out of our love for God and our fellow man that we recognize homosexual behavior as immoral.
Additionally, the purpose of the government recognizing and rewarding marriage is because it is the basis for procreation, and the growth and expansion of our country. Society benefits greatly from an expanding population. More children who are well adjusted and good citizens (and pay taxes), the more GDP growth we have, and the better and stronger we are as a country. All the studies show that a child has a dramatically higher chance of being a positive contributor to society with 2 parents that remain together to raise the child.
Report this comment
voting-for-romney
Oct. 18, 2012 at 5:03amRedefining an establishment of religion, marriage, is prohibited by our civil rights (civil rights include the color of our skin, they are not defined by the color of our skin). Ironically, the 1st amendment protects the establishment of religion from interference from the government, in many ways like prostitution has been largely legalized, as long as there is film in the camera?
Some people have no idea what the power of their words actually mean? Society has been very tolerant, but pushing the redefinition of marriage is not equal protection, it is eliminating the protection of the church to defend its own legal property?
Where have marriages been performed for centuries before the United States was ever created, but in churches? Marriage is an establishment of religion recognized with out a shadow of a doubt?
Report this comment
III_percenter
Oct. 18, 2012 at 4:26amThis is one of the reasons I can’t vote Libertarian. Libertarian principles have no application in the real world. It is not bigoted to use reasonable thought processes to discern what is most beneficial to society.
1) Morality-No religion recognizes homosexuality as a moral lifestyle. The traditional Judeo-Christian culture of the United States recognizes it as a distinctly sinful act. If you want to commit sin, fine. I have no right to stop you but don’t shove your lifestyle choice in my face and demand I accept it as normal.
2) Nature-No creature in the natural world is strictly homosexual. Even creatures that engage in the occassional homosexual act always have another purpose to it: establishing dominance, settling disputes etc. There is no precedence that this should be considered natural.
3) Evolution-I’m not a believer in evolution but most who accept homosexuality are. Even in that light, though, evolution is about the genetic advancement of the species. By that token, homosexuals shouldn’t be encouraged: they should be punished.
4) Genetics-There is no proof whatsoever that there is any genetic code that forces a person to be homosexual. From a religious standpoint, God would not call homosexuality “an abomination” then program you with no choice but commit that very act. From an evolutionary standpoint, it could not possibly be genetic: how would such a gene have been passed from one generation to the next?
Report this comment
III_percenter
Oct. 18, 2012 at 4:36am…cont’d
Even if such a gene did come about by some random chance, it is destined to die out because homosexuals do not pass their genetic code on to the next generation. So we are being forced to alter our entire familial structure to accomodate something that is destined to be a temporary phenomenon.
5) Society-When asked the question in a vacuum (aka without biases or agendas present) child psychologists almost unanimously agree that children develop best in homes where both genders are present. It is only after asked specifically about homosexual marriage that psychologists begin to disagree (because there are new agendas involved). Homosexuality is rife with promiscuity and instability at a rate 3 and 4 times that of heterosexual relationships and that alone contributes to major psychological problems in children.
6) Church vs. State-Marriage is a distinctly religious institution. Religious-not necessarily Christian. In a purely Constitutional society (my ideal) it should be left up to the churches to decide and therefore religious adoption agencies would have the same latitude to accept or deny application based on sexual choice. In order to do this though, government on every level needs to get out of marriage. No more licenses, no more divorce courts–nothing.
Report this comment
III_percenter
Oct. 18, 2012 at 4:47ampart 3
This, more than anything else, is where Libertarian thought falls apart. There is a difference between standing by a principle and hiding behind one. Libertarians don’t want to take sides so they hide behind the principle of small government as an excuse but even the states’ rights issue doesn’t solve the problem. What if a gay couple gets married in New York and wants to move to Texas where they don’t recognize homosexual marriage. The subject has crossed state lines: it is now a Federal issue and you have to take sides.
Purely on principle, I would be a Libertarian. I don’t care if you’re gay–just keep it to yourself. I don’t care if you drink, but if you drink and drive you should never be allowed to drive again. I support isolationism but there needs to be no limit to how fast and how hard we will retaliate against an enemy that attacks us. I support “declared wars” not the abominations of Afghanistan and Iraq but its not politically correct to say that Islam creates these terrorists and thus declare war on Islam. I am against globalism and “entangling alliances” but no nation can survive without friendly diplomatic relations and sometimes that means standing with our allies in a fight (like Israel). I am for small government but not the anarchy that would ensue if Libertarian principles were implemented with no real-world common sense to govern them. Government grows when people are not moral. If you want small government, you must first have a m
Report this comment
GB__The Holy Warmonger
Oct. 18, 2012 at 1:55amWhat a ridiculous argument for supporting same sex marriage and not leaving it up to the states! Because there are already so many federal marriage related laws he supports leaving it in the feds hands?
That’s candidate number three that won’t be getting my vote. Guess I will be doing a write in so I don’t waste my vote.
Report this comment
sillyfreshness
Oct. 18, 2012 at 2:52amI’ll support GAY marriage (they like to use “same sex” term to sound better) as soon as polygamy is legalized. There is no reason why a man can’t have multiple wives and it has more historic precedence in nature and human history.
Report this comment
justangry
Oct. 18, 2012 at 8:43amI agree with you. It’s the wrong approach. I’m leaning towards voting for him despite that because it would be wonderful for the Libertarians to get all that public funding and easier ballot access the other two parties receive. We only need 5% of the vote. So, I’m not really voting for Gary Johnson to become president as much as I’m voting for the Libertarian Party to receive the same clout as the RNC and DNC. I was going to write in Paul or stay home myself.
Report this comment
USA-Ron
Oct. 17, 2012 at 11:48pmdo NOT expect Christians to accept that you ……………
stick your dick into a nasty, dirty, stinky **** hole of another man,
to be considered normal.
Abomination
Repent, Jesus is coming Soon
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Oct. 17, 2012 at 11:58pmum, RON…
perhaps we could consolidate our thoughts here on scrap paper, and then when we have 4or5 we could just post them all at once because.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Oct. 17, 2012 at 11:59pm… consecutive posts in a row
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Oct. 17, 2012 at 11:59pmis annoying..
Report this comment
MadAsHeII
Oct. 18, 2012 at 12:39amUSA_RON, Not only are you annoying, but you are a bigotted @ss. I am not gay, but I am comfortable with my manhood, unlike you, so I do not care what a person does behind closed doors. That is between them, the people they surround themselves with, and their God, if they have one. Being a religious zealot is more in tune to being like Islamic extremists. We live in a country that is supposed to believe in individual liberty and freedom. If what they are doing does not infringe on your liberty, then what is it that gives you the right to trash them? I think that you are not American at all as you think that everyone should live as you say and not have the freedom to live their lives as they see fit. I suppose you think that speech should be limited to whatever you deem appropriate? Get a life and worry about your own and quit worrying about how another chooses to live theirs.
Report this comment
SacredHonor1776
Oct. 18, 2012 at 2:48amTechnically sticking a peni in any buttox is not normal or healthy. There are many health risks associated with the practice and it has nothing to do with being gay or heterosexual. It’s an issue that affects either.
Report this comment
sillyfreshness
Oct. 18, 2012 at 2:55amGay behavior is a mental illness and should not be rewarded with some government recognition. Gays suffer from gender identity disorder and need to be treated in a mental health facility.
Report this comment
USA-Ron
Oct. 17, 2012 at 11:42pmPlease, get you private parts issue out of my face,
keep it to yourselves, OK ?
Report this comment
USA-Ron
Oct. 17, 2012 at 11:40pm“thou shalt NOT Sin”, and be accepted as normal
read the Bible
Report this comment
whater39
Oct. 18, 2012 at 5:13amLaws shouldn’t be written based off of a book of fiction.
Report this comment
USA-Ron
Oct. 17, 2012 at 11:37pmsame sex marriage is NOT Natural according to the Christian’s Bible,
if you want to marry the same sex, you can just join Islam
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Oct. 17, 2012 at 11:55pm@US A-RON
That makes NO sense. If you are gay, like Ambassador Stevens was, Muslims will brutally murder you on the streets….. after…. raping ..and sodomizing you..
in public.
… ok. i see your point.
Report this comment
whater39
Oct. 18, 2012 at 5:09amThe bible says lots of messed up stuff, that is actually illegal according to current laws. I love the people who Cherry pick from it.
Luckily the bible isn’t the law. The law is the law. And next generation, people will look back at people like “USA-Ron”, and just shake their heads, thinking how idiodic they are. If you were 40 years old I’m guessing you would have been against interracial marriage.
Report this comment
SacredHonor1776
Oct. 18, 2012 at 7:02amironically homosexuality at one time wasn’t viewed as natural by the founding fathers and it was punishable by death. That was considered constitutional in the past by those who wrote the constitution! They would have been quite shocked to see the modern culture.
Only up to 50 years ago homosexuality was considered abnormal and dangerous physically mentally and medically by scientists. While there is still treatment of the health risks of sodomy, no one ever talks about those health risks in the open anymore. The truth about dangers have been put into the closet. Unless you ate willing to read the few modern studies that are released in other parts of the world ocassionally.
Some argue the rise of rights and special rights for homosexuals goes back to the 45 goals of communist take over of America as brought up in congressional hearing in 1963.
Goal 26; present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy”.
Report this comment
bobad
Oct. 17, 2012 at 11:03pmJohnson is a total idiot. Anyone who would vote for him is not a Conservative, not a patriot, and not even smart.
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Oct. 17, 2012 at 11:29pmYea he is a complete idiot, nutjob, jew hater, isolationist, dope head, aka encinom, OWS, and anything else that you can come up with….
“A wasted vote is a vote for someone you don’t believe in.”
-Gary Johnson. 10/15/2012
Report this comment
booger71
Oct. 17, 2012 at 10:53pmThe 2nd amendment does not limit my gun ownership to the number of rounds per minute it will shoot.
Report this comment
TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Oct. 17, 2012 at 9:41pmGary Johnson’s not going to get government out of your life when it comes to marriage. He wants to increase that involvement, by shoving the government’s nose in the bedroom of gay people to go along with all the straight couples that are already being abused by big government…
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Oct. 17, 2012 at 10:09pmwell look at you pretending to stand up for gay people….
I know why you want the government in people’s bedrooms
Report this comment
whater39
Oct. 18, 2012 at 5:12amActually that would get the government out of people’s bed room/marriage. As they would allow it, then it’s a done issue. By restricting it, the government is actually interfering
Report this comment
kaydeebeau
Oct. 17, 2012 at 9:34pmSo if Gary is such a Constitutionalist – how is it he wants to disregard the will of the people in 32 States?
Report this comment
justangry
Oct. 17, 2012 at 9:42pmConstitutionalism isn’t mob rule. He’s wrong on his interpretation. It’s a 10th amendment issue. The laws he was referring to that he said would need to be rewritten we’re a violation of the 10th amendment in the first place. They should be tossed out.
Report this comment
mtcountrygrl
Oct. 17, 2012 at 9:45pmNot to mention religous liberty. Look at the HHS mandate, if gay marriage is a legal marriage do Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Morman organizations have a right to not recognize it, in violation of their beliefs. Can the government then force a Christian school or a Catholic hospital to cover gay partners on health plans or rent their buildings to gay weddings. We are already starting to see that on university campuses where Christian clubs are not allowed to meet on campus or have the same rights as other campus groups because they teach that homosexuallity is wrong. I believe the gay marriage movement has less to do with their “rights” and more to do with normalizing their lifestyle.
Report this comment
Smokey_Bojangles
Oct. 17, 2012 at 9:49pmI thought you guys were republicans and liked to do things as a republic?
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Oct. 17, 2012 at 9:57pmMTGAL…
totally valid points about potential gov’t intervention. you may be right about the intentions of the gay marriage movement but, still doesn’t change the Constitution.
Report this comment
justangry
Oct. 17, 2012 at 10:54pm@mtcountrygrl, If we properly applied the 10th amendment the federal government wouldn’t be involved in any of those things. I mean violating the 10th is really all progressives are about, both on the right and left. Of course if we consistently applied the 10th the way it was supposed to be, values voters wouldn’t be able to do stuff like policing vice. This is the point Libertarians are trying to make on issues of drugs, prostitution, etc.. It’s not that we really want them legal either, it’s just we realize that if we allow our officials to go about making them illegal the wrong way, it opens the door for all the craziness you mentioned.
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Oct. 17, 2012 at 11:06pm@Kaydee
If this were just about gay marriage, you would be right. But there are federal privileges and benefits given to married couples. Therefore, the federal government cannot tell someone whether they can or cant get married – that is not equal protection.
If the goverment gets rid of those things (like Gary Johnson said with the flat tax), then he would support it being a state’s right
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Oct. 17, 2012 at 11:27pm*Fair tax*
Report this comment
All Pro
Oct. 18, 2012 at 4:26pmArticle IV – The States
Section 2 – State citizens, Extradition
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Try reading the constitution.
The recognition of a legal union, ‘marriage’, grants certain privileges to those individuals. You can’t, by federal law, deny those privileges to others. Period. End of story. And for the religious bigots on this board, “Who are you to judge another man’s slave?” You can’t fine anyone for not believing in your god and not attending church either. If you want to live in a country like that move to the middle east. There are lots of countries like that to choose from……you bigot.
Report this comment
pantokrator
Oct. 17, 2012 at 9:32pmI’d like to see this guy in the debates. We have three candidates for president, regardless of their ratings. Why not give this man a mic? Unless somehow he’s a legit threat to the establishment.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Oct. 17, 2012 at 10:01pmhe’s not- unless he get’s a “mic”…. so it’ll never happen.
Report this comment
pantokrator
Oct. 17, 2012 at 11:26pmAt this point, he obviously won’t. But I’m asking this more or less theoretically. IF Gary got a chance to speak at the debates, what would the impact be? I don’t know, but I think if he is running for president, he ought to have an equal voice in the debates. Just saying.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Oct. 18, 2012 at 12:25amCouldn’t agree more.
GOP & DNC hold the conch here.
They have nothing to gain by letting him talk….. because
people like me, who are reluctantly voting for Romney
may change our minds
if Johnson makes too much sense.
Report this comment
MadAsHeII
Oct. 18, 2012 at 2:10amHe is on the ballot in 48 states and is fighting the RNC challenge in two. If someone has that kind of support across the nation, he should be allowed to debate period. The RNC and the DNC are the ones that control the debates and something about that stinks.
Report this comment
justangry
Oct. 17, 2012 at 9:31pmI don’t know. Equal protection clause of the 14th wasn’t intended for that. Still seems like a 10th amendment issue to me.
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Oct. 17, 2012 at 9:49pmi would like to see the federal government kick the whole issue to the states as well.
But the problem is that in the 40′s (i think), the federal government started taxing single people differently than married people. If we are going to make it a state issue, the federal government must be blind to the marriage status of a citizen. So basically simplify the tax code and a few other big carve-outs for ‘married’ folks and there is no equal protection dilema
Report this comment
pinostabaum
Oct. 17, 2012 at 9:55pmyou can go either way. you can go 14h or 10th. the point is the fed has implicitly declared: “there is this thing called marriage…” when they defined joint income tax, survivor benefits from social security, etc. now that theyve declared it exists in the law, equal protection says they cant recognize some marriages but not others based solely on gender.
if they want to strike marriage from every piece of federal law, then sure, 10th amendment would apply.
remember marriage to the federal government is only about the laws that reference marriage.
Report this comment
justangry
Oct. 17, 2012 at 10:38pm@pinostabaum, I’m actually a proponent of striking marriage from all the federal statutes because of the 10th amendment. Seems going at it through the 14th gives validates all the other BS that was wrongly justified using the 14th.
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Oct. 17, 2012 at 9:25pm@TheBlaze
Could you provide the whole interview instead of just the clip that people will hate the most???
Report this comment
justangry
Oct. 17, 2012 at 9:33pmOh nothing is going to change their mind anyway. Romney basically supported wealth distribution last night in the debate and they’re still applauding him.
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Oct. 17, 2012 at 9:45pmJust
I felt that Romney was more liberal last night than EVER before. Here are some things i noticed….
-He promised to find Jeremy a job
-Talked about how government should spend more money on college education
-Supported government telling insurance companies what has to be included
-Supported affirmative action (“binders full of women”)
-Supported automatic and assault bans
-Supported green energy grants
-Said he will not let the rich people pay less in net taxes
crazy
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Oct. 17, 2012 at 9:46pmHey SOY, JUST…
I liked this clip. I’ve been on the “get gov out of marriage” bandwagon for years now and, while i stand by that mantra philosophically and Constitutionally, Gary did give me some things to consider logistically. As long as “1,000s” of existing pieces of federal legislation include the word “marriage” i think he’s right.. it is a 14th amendment issue…
Report this comment
Smokey_Bojangles
Oct. 17, 2012 at 9:53pmAnd he sniffed around gun bans by using the term “Hunters” and “Sportsmen” for gun owners.I am a protectionist.Meaning, I will shoot any intruder to protect my family,property and/or rights. I dont worry about getting attacked by deer or targets.I worry about Intruders and Governments.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Oct. 17, 2012 at 9:53pmSOY..
-Supported affirmative action (“binders full of women”)
-Supported automatic and assault bans
Your 100% right- except for those two items….(maybe)
- affirmative action… there is a chance that he was dealing with misogynist recruiters in the first place and wanted to go with more of a “broad” view. (rim shot ;)
-he only mentioned “automatic” weapons- nothing on assault as far as i remember. Also said no new laws were needed on guns.
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Oct. 17, 2012 at 10:06pm@East
Regarding affirmative action….
He said he looked around the table and there were only men….So he asked his cabinet to begin searching only for qualified females.
If that isnt textbook affirmative action – then i dont know what is. The only difference is that Romney’s was voluntary affirmative action (if he is even telling the truth – which i read he wasnt)
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Oct. 17, 2012 at 10:32pmSOY..
Like i said.. maybe…
If i wanted to start a basketball team and hired a headhunter to find me the ten most qualified hoopers out there and he brought me 10 white guys, i might jam on the brakes & say.. “are you sure?”
Report this comment
justangry
Oct. 17, 2012 at 10:32pm@Soy, I started to watch it, then read Fox in Socks by Dr. Seuss to the little one. It was more stimulating. It doesn’t really matter what he says anymore to me. I know what he is. We need someone that has the balls to say socialism doesn’t work, the federal reserve doesn’t work and not worry about sounding callous. Of course people love their socialist programs even on the right so those people are shunned as we’ve seen.
Report this comment
Capitalist Mama
Oct. 17, 2012 at 10:34pmSoy,
Romney’s cabinet had the most women on it in any state. He historically chooses diverse candidates. The key is “by choice.” Look at Obama’s White House- very very few women. I think his point is that women are rarely considered, but he made it a priority to find qualified candidates.
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Oct. 17, 2012 at 10:51pmmy candidate would answer the question about females in the following…..
“shut the hell up”
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Oct. 18, 2012 at 1:06amSOY…
we all KNOW you’re not really ENCINOM.
You don’t have to prove it by being overtly chauvinistic……
“…..shut the hell up”
lol….. “and no talking to men or you will get stoned!”
Report this comment
ToddH
Oct. 18, 2012 at 9:26amHey SOY,
Ron Paul has always voted against affirmative action. He has pushed hard to have it repealed, both on college campuses and in the workplace.
If your issue with practicing it in education and employment is specific to women only, then there is always Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Report this comment