-
Pick Obama’s Brain
May 16, 2013 | 61 comments
-
Remembering Herb Romerstein
May 10, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Obama’s Planned Parenthood Love Fest
April 29, 2013 | 69 comments
-
Happy Earth Day… and Lenin Day
April 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Bill Casey’s Centennial
April 5, 2013 | 69 comments
Political Hay
Clintons’ Progress
Today it means gay marriage for Bill and Hill. Yesterday, it didn’t. Tomorrow? Stay tuned.
Following her husband’s lead, Hillary Clinton has shifted from opposing gay marriage to endorsing it, a complete reversal from both Clintons’ support of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. America’s progressives hope that enough Supreme Court justices will join them in merrily jettisoning this antiquated law and multi-millennial-old institution.
Like her husband, Mrs. Clinton now fancies herself a “progressive.” It’s funny, I wrote an entire book on Hillary Clinton, where I dealt with her position on gay marriage at length, and not once did I hear her refer to herself as a “progressive.” She had been a liberal, a Democrat, an occasional moderate, and once even a Goldwater girl. But a “progressive”?
Well, that’s just as well. The progressive tag fits best, as it does for most liberals. Very few actually match the term “liberal,” a problematic label. “Progressive” fits better. After all, that’s what these leftists are doing: they are ever evolving, reforming, changing, moving, progressing along to something. Their positions are forever in flux, with the only commonality being that they favor more government power and centralization to handle anything they consider an injustice. The evolution across issues is so vast, and so unceasing, that no progressive can tell you where they will stand years from now. They merely know that they’ll be progressing.
The marriage issue is an excellent case in point. No progressive 100 years ago could have imagined their ideology and Democratic Party embracing gay marriage. Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryan are rolling over in their graves.
Gee, merely a decade-and-a-half ago, the entirety of the Democratic Party supported traditional marriage, codified under law. And yet, Democrats turned on a dime in faithful obedience to Barack Obama’s mountaintop-message sanctifying gay marriage a year ago.
Obama promised “change” and “fundamental transformation.” His legions of blind faithful roared in approval, projecting upon his blank screen whatever they vaguely had in mind. In Obama’s mind, this included bestowing unto himself the monumental ability to literally redefine marriage, granting himself and his government a power heretofore reserved for the laws of nature and nature’s God.
(In an equally breathtaking development, libertarians have jumped on board, generously lavishing upon government — which they claim to want to limit — an enormous and unprecedented power.)
As for the Clintons, consider their change, their fundamental transformation, their progress on this bedrock issue:
As noted, in 1996, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. The Arkansas Baptist stood for marriage as always understood.
As for Hillary, the lifelong Methodist was once firmly in the camp of not rendering under government the ability to redefine marriage. Her youth pastor and mentor, the Rev. Don Jones, once said: “Surely, she is for gay rights…. But I think both she and Bill still think of heterosexuality as normative.”
Yes, they did. Campaigning for the U.S. Senate in 2000, Hillary held to that position, to the consternation of gay-rights groups. In White Plains, N.Y., in January 2000, Hillary stated: “Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.”
That was pretty clear, as was this Hillary remark to New York’s WNYC in June 2003: “marriage … should be kept as it historically has been.” She reaffirmed that position throughout the 2008 Democratic primaries.
Alas, jump ahead to this week, where a beaming Hillary proudly proclaimed: “LGBT Americans are … full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. That includes gay marriage.”
Gee, what happened?
Well, if you’re confused, you simply need to unravel the confounding illogic of progressive ideology. By progressive thinking, the Hillary and Bill of, say, 5, 10, 15, or 50 years ago were not finished progressing. This should also mean (I think) that both Clintons were in fact wrong at each way-station in their journey to today’s progressive “truth” on marriage. Thus, too, it should mean (I think) that every Democrat who agreed with them on marriage in the 1990s was wrong. Current progressive ideology asserts that only current progressives are currently “right” on marriage.
About the Author
Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He is author of the new book The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. His other books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
Robert Pinkerton| 3.22.13 @ 7:08AM
Although I had always disagreed with Mr. Clinton because he is a gun-hater, it was not until the Lewinski brouhaha that I totally lost respect for him as a man, because this suggests his sexual preference is fellatio rather than straight coition. It is only half a step to either side to accept fellatory attention from a male rather than a female. (This leaves aside that fellatio is an act of submission so abject that no person is "worth" it -- nor is any God worthy of human worship.) Where intercourse when done right is mutual, fellatio is parasitic in that the intromittor obtains his orgasm at cost to the receptacle at least of discomfort and disgust. Still, Mr. Clinton is only a sympton of the pendency of the death of the Body Politic. His deeds should be preserved by future historians as examples of what not to do.
ncatty| 3.22.13 @ 10:33AM
Egads, what a comment! Bravo! However, a caveat, didn't he rape a woman also? I just want him to get some credit.
evie826| 3.22.13 @ 2:35PM
It’s by-far the best job Ive had.. Make money with Google. On thursday I got a brand new Chevrolet Corvette since I been earning $5269 this-past/4 weeks and-even more than, $10,000 this past month. I work through this link,
http://tw.gs/YbVcey
JP| 3.22.13 @ 10:43AM
But, that begs the question about what the French delicately labeled "soixante-neuf." (warning, light humor).
AlanAnti-RoveCheneyBrooks | 3.22.13 @ 11:20AM
Pinkerton,
depends on the family, the Gipper's daughter can be gay, because of the 12th Commandment: thou shalt not criticise a Reagan.
AlanAnti-RoveCheneyBrooks | 3.22.13 @ 12:39PM
...Patti protests too much:
"Patti Davis has denied her latest book - about a woman falling in love with her sister-in-law - is autobiographical and said she is not a lesbian."
Then why write the book in the first place?
Bandido| 3.22.13 @ 3:25PM
AARCB,
Why write the book, you ask? To make money, get publicity, and pretend to be on the cutting edge of a cultural issue. She's a phony and a nonentity, always has been. And my terrier writes better than she does. Unless she hired a ghostwriter, in which case he/she/it should take up carpentry.
AlanAnti-RoveCheneyBrooks | 3.24.13 @ 9:02AM
The daughter, not adopted, of the most popular conservative in America writes a book on a woman who falls for her SISTER IN LAW? Was Reagan more libertarian than you think to raise such a daughter? Nancy too?
AlanAnti-RoveCheneyBrooks | 3.24.13 @ 9:12AM
doesn't matter to me, but if David Eisenhower wrote a book about a guy who is in love with his brother in law, you would say What Gives?
Bandido| 3.24.13 @ 9:43AM
David Eisenhower always looked a little iffy to me.
obadiah| 3.24.13 @ 5:32PM
David Eisenhower can fall in love with Justin Beiber and it doesn't matter to Pres. Eisenhower's reputation and character. But Pres. Reagan's was a veneer applied by PR teams and it needs constant upkeep and protection from scratches.
AlanAnti-RoveCheneyBrooks | 3.25.13 @ 11:51AM
Obadiah, psssst;
we're not supposed to tell the truth at AS.
Robert Pinkerton| 3.22.13 @ 7:21AM
Our English word, "progress" and its adjectival form, "progressive," derive from the third-conjugation deponent Latin verb, "progradior," which means, "[to] go forward." This admits of three construals:-
- Toward a goal. Which then poses the question of, Why this goal.
- Away from a point of departure, which then poses the question of why to leave.
- Continuation of motion in the direction one's nose is pointing. If that path contains a cliff or other pitfalls...
Von Mises Jr| 3.22.13 @ 7:56AM
"Progressive" - (Webster's definition) cites 1) reform, 2) advancing step-by-step and 3) continuing action or state. So Robert is correct in that "fundamental transformation" is by definition NOT progressive. It is radical as defined as 1) extreme, 2) drastic or 3) going to the root.
The continuum of social order is bound by anarchy and tyranny. Advancing from marrying your sibling to outlawing such due to birth defects is "progressive." Marrying someone of the same sex is "anarchy." Suffrage and Civil Rights is "progressive." Fundamentally changing an economy from free market to socialism or dictatorship is "tyranny."
This is much discussed by Hayek whom wrote an essay "Why I am Not a Conservative." Likewise, "conservative" has a meaning and according to Hayek it means to retain morals, ethics and tradition and reject "change." The key word is "conserve." So since Hayek believed in the three points made by Robert, he instead called him an Old Whig (like Edmund Burke) since Old Whig label had not been bastardized by the socialist and embraced positive "change."
Net net is that our so-called "progressives" are liars. They are anarchist and tyrannical despots or totalitarians. But that does not sound good and tells people much more about them than they wish them to know.
Purp| 3.22.13 @ 4:55PM
There you go again, promoting the stale, old ideas of a long dead Nazi...
Who cares what Hayek thinks anything means? He doesn't live in this day and time, and so is irrelevant since morality if relative, not absolute.
" Suffrage and Civil Rights is progressive", but marriage equality is not? That's just stupid and shows you are stuck in the pre-60's mentality.
If you're so worried about the free market, perhaps you should do a bit of research on how Corporate America see themselves as Global, not American companies and how that fits with your quaint little theories of tyranny and power by elected officials versus the Oligarchy we don't elect.
Your descriptions of progressives are insulting at best, and laughable mostly, but not unexpected, since you come from the Conservadum wing of the 18th Century.
Get a grip, or you will be relegated to the ash heap of history like all that would not progress with society.
Anthony| 3.22.13 @ 9:01PM
Ah Purpie, suffering mightily in the bowels of the mailroom of the Fortune Ten company that employees your sorry ass, you are waiting until 5 minutes until quitting time to blog on company time.
Good for you Purpie, it shows dedication to those who take pity on your and actually offer you a job.
I think your last sentence was ment to say "Joe Biteme will be relegated to the ash heap of history because he's as dumb as an ashtray".
Purp| 3.22.13 @ 9:38PM
So basically, you have nothing of value to add... got it.
Anthony| 3.23.13 @ 1:10PM
Anybody who disparages Hayek and who hasen't read "The Road To Serfdom" is a fool, like you Purpie. You see and comprehend nothing.
"He doesn't live in this day and time...morality is relative". So of course, with such post modern thinking such as this, why read Shakespeare and Voltaire? Why not gay marriage and late term abortion?
We also get from the trolls on the left this same thinking that the Constitution is so outre, having been written by dead, old, white slave holders.
So Purpie, why would I do anything but play with a fool like you? What you and the other resident Village Idiots contribute to TAS is comic relief. Engaging you is a worthless exercise.We toy with you.
So labor away in the mail room, waiting for the day when you can vote for Hillary, the co-butcher of Benghazi.
You will, of course, consider that vote adding something of value.....got it.
Tina B| 3.23.13 @ 6:32PM
Wow, Anthony. You said it, man, and you said it well.
Rhoetus| 3.23.13 @ 1:15PM
Here! Here! :-)
Matthew Quigley| 3.22.13 @ 7:48AM
These two lowlives, both Clintons, are opportunistic parasites. BJ Billy shifted his positions merely to maintain office...Hitlery shifts hers to look like less of the Trotskyite that she is. The sooner both of them are no longer alive, the better off this world will be.
SUBVET| 3.22.13 @ 9:40AM
Amen to that.........Matt
TLP| 3.22.13 @ 9:48AM
What does it profit a man to Gain the whole world and Lose his Immortal Soul?
Does anyone think that they're happy?
What do they have besides each other and their Pail a Worms Butt Ugly Kid, who Married a guy that looked just like her Father?
Ronald Reagan will always be remembered for Freeing the Hostages, Revitalizing the Economy, Rebuilding the Military and Defeating the Soviet Union. And when he passed on, his Funeral was like that of a King.
Bill Clinton will always be The Rapist who Exposed himself in a Hotel Room to a young woman he had his State Police Detail run and fetch for him. The Impeached President who Lied to a Federal Grand Jury and lost his Law License for 5 years. The guy who Molested Kathleen Willy and had an 11 Year Affair with a Lounge Singer during the first 12 Years of his Marriage to his Battered Wife. And who will ever forget the Pizza, the Thong, the Cigar, the Fat Intern, and Purp's Favourite thing in the world on that Blue Dress.
And of course, while all of this is going on? While he's out there helping these Chicks get a "Head" and a "Leg" (or two) Up on the Competition? She's back home walking the Halls like Bloody Mary, firing trusted Employees on False Charges, Stonewalling Investigations, and being the Congenital Liar that we all wish would just DROP DEAD, when asked the whereabouts of The Rose Law Firm Records.
And now, on top of all those other things, she has 4 Dead Americans on her Page in The Book of Life.
Good Luck with that.
Kwan| 3.22.13 @ 11:19AM
Ahhh yes the good ole days of Willie da Slickster and Hillary da Impaler the Bonny and Clyde of American politics. Who can forget da Slickster's compassion as he told Juanita Broaddrick after he raped her and bit her lip, "Better put some ice on that before it swells up". Now the MSM tells us that Mrs. da Slickster is the favorite to be our next President in 2017 and if we're real lucky we'll get Mrs. YoMama in 2025.
Purp| 3.22.13 @ 4:28PM
Once again, you're so obsessed with man things. Why is that?
You're worried about 4 Americans when Your Boy has 4000 for Iraq and 1800 for Katrina and 1000 for Afghanistan on his Book of Life? Kinda like the POT calling the kettle black, dontcha think..? LMFAO
Purp| 3.22.13 @ 4:56PM
Ah, but first we will have 2 President Clintons, first husband and wife team in history.
And the country, although not you, will be better for it and happier.
Jack in Wi| 3.22.13 @ 8:31AM
Will the saga of the Clintons never end? The old bag will be almost 70 in 4 years. She couldn't beat a neophite like Obama in 2008. Hopefully she will not run or lose again.
Bandido| 3.22.13 @ 9:14AM
Jack,
I believe the decrepit old hag will easily beat any Republican next time around. By all accounts she is the most popular politician in the country. My fingers gnarl in typing this, but it is true. She is a malformed, loathsome creature in every regard, with her face of a gorgon and her soul of an executioner, but...she is the apotheosis of America circa 2013. We cry out for a Plutarch or a Gibbon to chronicle so hideous a politician and and her hold upon republic.
Purp| 3.22.13 @ 4:31PM
She's a tough old woman who will shut down your side like no tomorrow. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Crassus| 3.22.13 @ 4:54PM
Unless she's willing to run from the grave (could happen, I admit) Lard Ass Hillary won't be shutting down anyone. Take a good, long look at how awful she looks and then tell me she's going to be alive in 2016.
Purp| 3.22.13 @ 4:58PM
Looks aren't what wins elections... Romney thought the same and he's thrown on the ash heap of history even though he thought he "looked" presidential.
You think a skinny guy with Big Ears and black was good looking?
Anthony| 3.22.13 @ 11:07AM
To the contrary Jack, she will run with the full support of the entire leftist infrastructure behind her.
Unless the R Party has an awakening and nominates a real conservative, the co-butcher of Benghazi will win hands down.
Crassus| 3.22.13 @ 4:51PM
Don't worry, Jack. Old Buffalo Butt will be dead from cirrhosis of the liver by 2016. She just spent the past four years on an around the world drinking binge.
crankitup| 3.22.13 @ 9:18AM
the clintons are totally corrupt and dishonest grafters. They will do or say anything to promote their current scam, politics, business, sexual escapades. It might be a piece of weiner or a warmed cigar, they have gotten away with murder, perjury, grand theft, election fraud, rape, draft dodging, impeachment,and sexual misconduct. At this point what difference does it make? This couple is perfectly matched, it's organized crime in the family way. It takes a village of idots to believe these crooks.
Purp| 3.22.13 @ 4:59PM
No they can just beat the crap out of Republicans, and you know it... hence the animosity.
crankitup| 3.22.13 @ 9:20AM
I spelled idiots wrong.
Stephie| 3.22.13 @ 3:39PM
And did you mean "grifters"?
That is my favorite description for the current White House occupants.
Tina B| 3.23.13 @ 6:41PM
Now there's a movie for the Analogy Fest, The Grifters. I bet someone already rescripted it, eh? Yep, just my luck. Stephie beat me to it. A worthy opponent.
Miss you all. Wish you could come to my house for a playdate.
Bandido| 3.24.13 @ 9:47AM
The Sting works as well. The O team has perpetrated a colossal con on the (dead) body politic.
TLP| 3.22.13 @ 9:50AM
No comment.
Kwan| 3.22.13 @ 10:21AM
To correctly interpret this Leftist Newspeak term "progress" you have to first understand that progress to the left is whatever undermines, dismantles and destroys the United States. With this correct interpretation understood you can then see why all Obama's "progressive" policies are undermining, dismantling, and destroying our country. Freedom is an abomination to the left which is why they have this psychotic need to initiate legislation or issue executive orders that subjugate freedom and give the central government more and more control over the population. ObamaCare being a prime example.
Purp| 3.22.13 @ 5:00PM
Wrong. No one on the Left wants to destroy the United States.
We just don't believe corporations should run the world like you do, and if you've been successful in life, you can afford to help others succeed as well.
Kwan| 3.23.13 @ 1:43AM
Purp's message is don't believe your lying eyes about what's been going on in the country since January 21, 2009. Just believe all the lies that try to cover-up the fact that Obama is a Marxist-Traitor.
JP| 3.22.13 @ 10:49AM
This entire sad saga reveals the utter corruption and shallowness of our political class. They will say and do anything to remain in power. They have no dignity, no self-respect. They are totally self-absorbed and are willing to dance to whatever song is being played.
Look at the former Govenor Sanford. He humiliated and debased himself in public. Instead of quietly remaining out of the public eye, he is back. And what was once a safe GOP seat is now in play. And then there is Sen Portman; 'nuff said. The entire political class is rotten to the core. Politics is their drug.
And heaven help us if Islam becomes the "new" in religion. Suddenly we will have to say Sen Abdullah Portman, or Rep Achmend Sanford. Of course, female lawmakers in an Islamic world will have to endorse polygamy and the stoning of adultresses.
Anthony| 3.22.13 @ 10:55AM
Ah to have the ability to evolve. It's a beautiful thing.
Chazael| 3.22.13 @ 11:04AM
As a Christian it is impossible to be a progressive.
The word of the Lord was to go out from Jerusalem (Mic 4:2 Isa 2:3) like a mustard tree seed growing into a mustard tree or leaven making its way through a piece of dough (Matt 13:31-33). The faith was once for all handed down to the saints (Jude 1:3).
Christians always point back in order to justify which way to go forward.
There can be no such thing as a progressive Christian by definition.
Purp| 3.22.13 @ 5:02PM
So Conservadums are Christian?
Wow, who knew with their disgust at the poor, downtrodden, ill and elderly?
Chazael| 3.22.13 @ 7:52PM
Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's (Matt 22:21).
Taking care of people is part of God's kingdom (Jam 1:27) and should not be given to Caesar.
To do so is to give to Caesar what is God's. The reason why Saul was dethroned (1 Sam 13:9-14).
It is impossible to be a democrat and a Christian. Just because a person calls themselves a Christian does not make it so (Matt 7:21-23). And yes, we can tell who they are (Matt 7:15-20) by either their teachings and beliefs (2 John ) or actions (3 John).
Those "so called" brothers (1 Cor 5:11) live by a different spirit than what the scriptures describe as from God.
Purp| 3.22.13 @ 9:41PM
What kind of Mumbo Jumbo is this? It's nonsensical stringing of Biblical verses together with no coherent message... typical.
Those who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior are Christians... you should know that, and nothing on Earth will change that.
Chazael| 3.23.13 @ 1:35AM
Since you didn't bother to actually read the scripture:
"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness'." Matt 7:22,23
They called Him Lord, did miracles in His name (good works) and yet He did not know them. And you can also see why, just look where they are pointing.
Not everyone who calls themselves Christian are actually followers of Christ. And we can tell by their fruit.
And if you want to make a claim of "nonsensical stringing" show it... it should be easy.
But you won't be able to...
Anthony| 3.22.13 @ 9:06PM
Wow Purpie is still blogging away in the bowels of his Fortunate 10 company mailroom job, and it's two minutes past quitting time!!!
Didn't get invited to join the real workers for TGIF drinks again, eh Purpie?
Purp| 3.22.13 @ 9:39PM
Again, nothing of value to add... don't you know what's going on around you?
cicero| 3.22.13 @ 11:30AM
Why the suprise? This is perfectily in keeping with the political practices of the Left. If you will recall, the CPUSA, during the 30s and 40s, blindly follwoed the Stalinist line, no matter where it went. The changes in position were daily, and gave you vertigo if you tried to stay with them. They espouse whatever is the belief of the day, as put forth by whomever happens to be their leader at the moment.
How else do you figure the blind following of the party by the entire Democrat establishment, no matter how silly the position? Nancy Pelosi and the entire Dem congressional delegation plunking for O-care, and pushing it relentlessly, even after having admitted that they didn't even read it, and didn't know what was in it. Progressivism is a lockstep march into the furnace of oblivion for any society that signs up for it. The only way for it to take hold, and succeeed in the good old U. S. of A. is to sufficiently dumb down the population so that they can all be fooled all of the time. That will be achievable once they have taken control of the schools, and have the ability to indoctrinate the young. Oh, yeah, they have already done that. Next thing you know, they will take the Declaration out of the schools, and abolish all reference to Judeo/Christian ethic. Oh, yeah, they already did that. Well, maybe we can stop them from teaching disdain and hatred for the Country. Oh, yeah . . .
Who Knows?| 3.22.13 @ 11:58AM
Money, food and sex. *
Them’s the big three.
They are the only categories you need to use, to “sack”, or “bag”, whatever the issue du jour, and throw it away.
Same sex marriage!
The American open pit “mine” continues to be stunk up by the pile of dead and rotting “canaries”.
Which one will be the tipping point? I can easily imagine a pyramid of them as the goal. Maybe we’re about at the stage the ones in Egypt were, right before the golden tip was added.
Picture a George Washington, in Valley Forge days, when defeat of the revolution seemed inevitable. Bring him back to today, and it would be a marvel to observe what his reaction would be to our leader’s obsession with homos!
Of course, the food dimension is the 24/7 obsession, which most people happily fulfill, and fulfill, and fill to over-filling unto obesity. This experiment can only end badly.
And, how much more needs to be said about money? What a disconnect between REAL production and REAL consumption high technology has brought! Then there’s money illusion, wherein the masses are mesmerized by numbers like trillion, billion, million-- and thousand is so passé Forgotten is that a dollar SHOULD stand for some work!
* “Money, food and sex” is the name of one of the first talks given by Da Free John, or Franklin Jones, his born name, from 1975.
Stormy| 3.22.13 @ 12:38PM
Progressive as in liberalism is part of the progress to progressivism is part of the progress to socialism is part of the progress to communism.
Guimo| 3.22.13 @ 1:56PM
Butcher of Benghazi. I like that.
Ron Ackenberry| 3.22.13 @ 2:55PM
So then, the new epithet is "progressivism" while "liberalism" has been eclipsed.
That's why backward regressives, Neo-libs, Neo-Confederates and Anarcho-libertarians are losing their clout:
No imagination or creativity in their insults.
With that said, I think this world has been over exposed to the Clintons almost as much as the Bushes.
And, I also think the whole gay marriage thing is over done.
But, when the American Third Reich can only come up with "progressivism stinks" as a platform...I can't imagine changing my thinking or vote.
Jim Adcox| 3.22.13 @ 3:24PM
Smokescreen to cover Benghazi. Or, maybe some of the leaked tweets (or whatever they are) will reveal that Hillary has always been in favor of gay rights? To reprise Dick Cheney's great line from the 2000 Republican convention: "It is time for them to go!" Here it is, 13 years later, and it is still "time for them to go!"
crankitup| 3.22.13 @ 4:05PM
yes they are grafters and grifters both are appropiate.
Butch| 3.22.13 @ 4:22PM
Slightly different take. The California election banning gay marriage is working its way through the courts. I think all this sudden burst of noise about everything gay may be the left's attempt to influence the courts as in Obamacare/Roberts. Hey, court, times have changed 180 degrees in the two years or so since the people of Cali spoke rather decisively.
gene| 3.22.13 @ 4:40PM
Republicans are "wishy-washy" They cannot take a firm stand.
They cannot make up their minds.
Slick Willie,Hillary, Obumma, Biden?
They don't change their minds.
They are "Evolving".
What a joke! 0:-D
Rhoetus| 3.23.13 @ 1:18PM
Rules for Conservatives @
http://www.saveamericanow.us.com
obadiah| 3.24.13 @ 5:23PM
"There, we see marriage best as it has been since the Garden of Eden. "
Ideal marriages that should be followed:
Abraham: threw handmaiden and infant child begot on handmaiden out into the desert on demand of jealous wife
Isaac: wife and son conspired to cheat other son
Jacob: begot 13 children on two wives and two handmaidens
Rifleman| 3.24.13 @ 6:22PM
Yeah, where were these "progressives" at when they joined the GOP in passing the DOMA overwhelming. Bill Clinton didn't flinch in signing it either. But now they need the homosexual vote & money. Democrats would support an Martian invasion if they thought they could get their votes & cash...