Comments for AFF Doublethink Online

Comment on Pay Up, America by theRadical

theRadical — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:56:49 +0000

National debt is $10trillion according to fraudulent government accounting. Real accounting (accounting that includes real liabilities like socialism security and Medicare) shows a debt of about $50-$60++ trillion.

Comment on I Don’t (But I Might Soon) by Jack Bauer

Jack Bauer — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:55:37 +0000

“Tom… But it’s committed gay couples who threaten marriage! And people wonder why some of us are sick of the Republican party.”

Then DON’T VOTE for Republicans based on the issue. Sure sounds like a wedge issue to you.

I hope that this becomes a BIG issue, if only to prove to the hysterical response, by people off their meds, to my original post…

You see what I cleverly did there?

I cunningly transfered any reasoned response by implying that if you don’t agree with me that gay marriage (sic) is very, very unpopular with many people, other than traditional Republicans, you must be 1. On Medication. 2. Really uptight and “unrelaxed”.

It’s a good game, isn’t it? But I would like to reassure people that at least one of my friends is gay.

Comment on One Irishman, One Vote by Brooke

Brooke — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:35:02 +0000

Erin — thanks for bringing these activities to light — we are so focused on our domestic news that this sort of thing falls below the radar!

I was living in London when the original EU constitution was rejected, and can attest that the British didn’t want it, either! The ’subtle’ rewriting of this now ‘treaty’ is reminicent of Hillary’s second healthcare plan — the one she claimed to have created now that she is older and wiser. But really, just like Hillary’s healthcare dreams, these European government types have repackaged the same old rubbish, and now they don’t even have to sell it to their constituents!

Can’t blame them for not being persistent.

Comment on I Don’t (But I Might Soon) by Mike D'Virgilio

Mike D'Virgilio — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:16:34 +0000

This reminds me of the arguments big government “conservatives” make. Americans like big government, they’re addicted, so give in an quit trying to make the case for limited government. It’s just not popular! So let’s make the case for conservative big government, because our big government is better than yours. To hell with our principals. We want power!

Only in this case the prospect of embracing same-sex marriage (I want the word “gay” back, doggone it!) has even worse consequences for freedom. The CA Supremes bought hook, line and sinker the homosexual rights agenda that same-sex marriage is just like interracial marriage. That was once outlawed too! I won’t get into the faultiness of this analogy, but racism is illegal, at least as it affects practical legal and economic and living issues.

Once same-sex marriage is declared the law of the land, anyone that opposes it and the moral premise upon which it is built will branded a bigot, just as a racist would be. So far from them just wanting the same freedom as everyone else, they’re real agenda is to impose their moral values upon everyone. They don’t just want our tolerance, they want our moral approval. If the Republican Party embraces that, I’ll find me another party.

Comment on I Don’t (But I Might Soon) by John

John — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:13:32 +0000

Why not oppose gay marriage on principle, rather than on polls?

Your article reflects the vaccuousness that presently ails the current Republican party.

Much of the party’s woes stem from the fact that voters are tired of politicians playing the politics of polls rather than sticking to principles.

The political waivering, especially on these sort of morality-infused issues is disheartening, especially when the party that is supposed to be committed to principle, the rule of law, and conserving ideals is the one waiving in the wind.

Comment on I Don’t (But I Might Soon) by Tom

Tom — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 02:26:08 +0000

From Andrew Sullivan’s blog:
The Federal Marriage Amendment is reintroduced. And with perfect symbolism, its sponsors are Larry Craig, whose own marriage is based on a lie, and prostitute-client and foe of HIV-positive tourists, David Vitter. But it’s committed gay couples who threaten marriage! And people wonder why some of us are sick of the Republican party.

Comment on I Don’t (But I Might Soon) by Jamie

Jamie — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:54:09 +0000

Jack, you indeed need to relax. Certainly evangelicals of all stripes tend to oppose gay marriage, but there aren’t any Democrats who have fanned the issue so that it could be a wedge. The GOP hasn’t chosen this issue out of any sense of moral obligation or conviction, but because it’s a way to get out the vote. This is obvious. This is the point. Are Black evangelicals (who vote overwhelmingly for Democrats) gonna vote more Democratic if Republicans back off this silly issue? I GUESS that’s your point….or something….

I’m not a Republican, but it the GOP would get off of silly divisive social issues and get to the business of reasonable conservatism I might be someday. Here’s hoping…

Comment on I Don’t (But I Might Soon) by Obvious Hypocrisy

Obvious Hypocrisy — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:39:32 +0000

Republicans are in trouble on this issue — 2 of the 10 Senate sponsors for the recently reintroduced Marriage Amendment at the federal level are Vitter and Craig. These, a man who cheats on his wife with high class hookers and another who solicits other men for sex in an airport bathroom (both while married), are paragons for the sanctity of marriage and loving gay couples are a threat? I seriously doubt that Californians (and Americans in general) are going to buy it — especially the younger generations that are going to turn out in record numbers to vote for Obama.

Comment on I Don’t (But I Might Soon) by BobN

BobN — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:13:52 +0000

“But I’m a Republican. I tend to want Republicans to win” Which, I suppose, would explain why someone reading this article could easily come away with the (mis)understanding that GOP opposition to gay rights was somehow limited to the issue of same-sex marriage.

Sins of omission… just as bad as sins of commission. Tsk, tsk.

Comment on I Don’t (But I Might Soon) by Paul Benedict

Paul Benedict — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:12:52 +0000

I hope that this is not a simple Democrat vs. Conservative issue. “Gay-marriage” is government gone wild. When, in the name of civil rights, the State of California, will no longer acknowledge in its legal documents “husband” and “wife,” it has denied the ‘right to marry’ to everyone in the state. How can we expect to stay in control of our government (the responsibility of both liberals and conservatives),if we allow it to make up such import words at its leisure?

The pround boasts of some of the commentators about November’s ballot initiative may be very premature. Why should this court let this appear on the ballot? In California we have the authority to recall judges, but as far as I know there are currently no serious petitions circulating and the deadline is July 3. To whom will Californians appeal? I know… Let’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit! (Actually, that might work. Their professional jealousy at the California Supremes “historic ruling” might engender some arcane complaint… Nah, no way.)