If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 270
    More: Interesting, Republican, Tim Huelskamp, same-sex marriages, organizations, Jerrold Nadler, Defense of Marriage Act, Lisa Murkowski  
•       •       •

3991 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2013 at 10:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



270 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-27 10:47:36 AM

FTA: In opening remarks, Huelskamp said he was primarily concerned about how the rulings could affect American children. Decades of social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad," he said, adding later, "I think children will be hurt."

I deserve to be the quivering meat in a Salma Hayek/Sofia Vergara sammich.  In short:

i78.photobucket.com

"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."

 
2013-06-27 10:47:40 AM
FTFA: Huelskamp and other tea party-backed lawmakers spoke at a monthly meeting with reporters they call "Conversations With Conservatives," which allows the reporters to quiz some of the most ardent conservatives on issues facing Congress.

Whoa, hold up.  There's a monthly bagger meeting where they get together with reporters to answer questions about their crazy asshattery?  Why the fark is there not a live feed on here to each and every one of these when it happens?  It's got to be like watching a monkey dressed up like a cowboy that suffered a head injury try to fark a cactus.  At first, you'd find it hilarious but after a bit it's going to be sad and your just going to want that monkey to stop before he hurts himself more.  But with each prick to the dick you know that little bastard is going jump right back on that thing and start grinding some more with the same results.
 
2013-06-27 10:47:42 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?

Jesus could re-write his original.

[www.franklincountyvapatriots.com image 650x458]


Is that Christa Mcauliffe in a spacesuit to the left of Ben Franklin?
 
2013-06-27 10:48:22 AM
...and to think people were arguing with me in the SCOTUS thread about the Republicans not using this as a wedge issue in the 2014 elections.
 
2013-06-27 10:49:27 AM

coeyagi: jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?

The point is, they shouldn't.  The f*cking public doesn't want it, and they will continue in greater numbers not to want it ("it" being a consitutional amendment on marriage inequality) in the future.


I want to see the Democrats counter propose a marriage equality amendment.  They won't, because it's doing something and provides a lightening rod for conservative criticism, but it'd be a nice gesture.
 
2013-06-27 10:49:32 AM

rufus-t-firefly: EvilEgg: Yeah, that'll work.  They are going to get 38 states and a super-majority in both houses.

They'll just have to convince seven of the nineteen states that have already adopted some sort of marriage equality to accept a constitutional amendment.

Or they'll just keep using it like they use abortion, to fire up their base and never really deliver on their promises.

I'd bet on that...but I have a feeling I'd have to wager a million bucks to win a dollar.


The thing is, Republicans have been winning the abortion battle on the state level as of late, by adding more and more restrictions until it become effectively impossible to get one. I'm kind of wondering if there might be analogous games they could play with marriage at the state level. To my mind it seems much more unlikely since marriage is not a medical procedure, but I do think we're going to see the fight over gay marriage move into a more abstract realm, the way "dog-whistle politics" did for racial issues.
 
2013-06-27 10:49:32 AM
"Conversations with Conservatives"  Oh God, I wonder what those are like.
 
2013-06-27 10:49:32 AM

Three Crooked Squirrels: Decades of social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad," he said, adding later, "I think children will be hurt."

I look forward to his anti-divorce Constitutional amendment proposition.


Also, will he sponsor a bill that would take children away from single parents? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
2013-06-27 10:50:06 AM
"A narrow radical majority of the court has substituted their personal views for the constitutional decisions of the American voters and their elected representatives," said Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.).

So it's like when Roberts put his plan to destroy the Voting Rights Act in place.
 
2013-06-27 10:50:30 AM

EyeballKid: "Stop waving the Constitution in my face! It's just a god damned piece of paper!"
  --- the last president all the "libertarians" on Fark voted for


Factcheck.org says that this is most likely not true, because the only news site that published the story is known for retractions and using fake sources. The article is also light on details, refuses to name the people who overheard Bush say that, and was authored by someone who has retracted multiple stories of his own because he relied on fake sources.  http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-pi e ce-of-paper/
 
2013-06-27 10:50:40 AM

that bosnian sniper: ...and to think people were arguing with me in the SCOTUS thread about the Republicans not using this as a wedge issue in the 2014 elections.


Odds on at least one Republican Senate candidate losing their election in 2014 because they supported a federal marriage amendment? I'd say they've got to be close to even now.
 
2013-06-27 10:50:50 AM

Car_Ramrod: In opening remarks, Huelskamp said he was primarily concerned about how the rulings could affect American children. Decades of social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad," he said, adding later, "I think children will be hurt."

Wait, is he insinuating that people will turn gay just because of this ruling? That happily married straight couples will be torn asunder with cries of "Thanks for enabling me, Kennedy!" That if same-sex marriage was illegal, then all the gay people out there will be like, "Damnit. I really love this one person, but oh well. The law is the law. I'll enter into some loveless marriage because Scalia told me so." This doesn't make any sense.

Of course, no opposition to same-sex marriage makes sense, so there's that.


These people still believe that being gay is a choice. An infectious choice. A sinful choice.
Once you realize that, their arguments start to make more twisted sense.
 
2013-06-27 10:51:09 AM
Grrrr! I'm so angry! Dag nabbit, I could just... CHANGE the Constitution!

That'll show 'em.

*kicks rock*
 
2013-06-27 10:53:19 AM

Derigiberble: You are going to hear it a bunch more because the DOMA decision basically body-slammed the entire idea of passing an anti-LGBT for moral reasons. Citing moral disapproval = instant overturn. Look at the most recent abortion bills which pretend to be concerned for the health of the mother as a good example.


I agree completely, but my question was rhetorical.  "The children" is the de rigeur defense, and one of the few that has any tread on it left.

Philip Francis Queeg: Jesus could re-write his original.


The interactive-caption version of this print is richer than Belgian chocolate.  The one with the artist's intentions, not the satirical rips that have been done of it.

Those I also like.

Tomahawk513: I know I shouldn't be surprised, but come on guys.  I don't understand people who always support obviously terrible teams (Browns fans, I'm looking at you), and I don't understand what people get out of always being on the wrong side of history.

Personally, in 20 years, I don't want to have to make an awkward phone call to some person I offended begging forgiveness for my bigoted actions.


Modern Republicans can be overheard loudly and proudly claiming Lincoln and MLK, Jr. as like-minded fellows, so they have no idea that the social conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history.  Allowing oneself to just pretend that Nixon's "Southern Strategy" never occurred and that Strom Thurmond never switched parties to bring bigotry into the banner of the GOP makes this delusion much easier to keep up.
 
2013-06-27 10:54:38 AM
"A narrow radical majority of the court has substituted their personal views for the constitutional decisions of the American voters and their elected representatives," said Gov. Orval Faubus
 
2013-06-27 10:54:50 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Ralph Reed, a leading Christian conservative and head of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, denounced the ruling as "an Orwellian act of judicial fiat" and said he will join in the effort for new legislation to replace the Defense of Marriage Act.

I hope the irony of this sentence is not lost on people. I've underlined the key words to make it a little clearer.


I think it isn't entirely grim cynicism making me instinctively distrust organizations with the words 'freedom' and/or 'defense' in their name.
 
2013-06-27 10:54:54 AM
I'm a bit amused that these people are so eager to make it legal to strip away rights and freedoms based on religious grounds.

A bit amused, and a bit frightened.
 
2013-06-27 10:55:33 AM

mgshamster: Factcheck.org says that this is most likely not true, because the only news site that published the story is known for retractions and using fake sources.


Which one, NewsMax, Drudge Report, FoxNews.com, Breitbart, World Net Daily, the Blaze, the Weekly Standard, etc.?

Regardless, Darrell Issa has held hearings with less, so I've yet to be convinced it didn't happen.

/See, birthers, Intelligent Designers, Confederates, et al, I'm making my own reality in spite of facts presented to me that would indicate otherwise! I learned it from watching you!
 
2013-06-27 10:55:40 AM

meat0918: coeyagi: jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?

The point is, they shouldn't.  The f*cking public doesn't want it, and they will continue in greater numbers not to want it ("it" being a consitutional amendment on marriage inequality) in the future.

I want to see the Democrats counter propose a marriage equality amendment.  They won't, because it's doing something and provides a lightening rod for conservative criticism, but it'd be a nice gesture.


Well, do they pose the question (amendment) and try to drive up support or wait for it to accumulate naturally at the state levels?  If you pose the question now, the GOP still can drive out their frothy base to attack it and you may cost yourselves an election or two, but it is the right think to do, just not very politically astute.  Or do you wait a few years where you have nearly half the states on board?  I say wait, because if you lose elections, you can't beat the drum slowly because you initially beat the drum too fast.
 
2013-06-27 10:55:41 AM

coeyagi: jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?

The point is, they shouldn't.  The f*cking public doesn't want it, and they will continue in greater numbers not to want it ("it" being a consitutional amendment on marriage inequality) in the future.


They're allowed to try. I'm pretty sure they won't succeed, but if that's how they want to spend their time and energy, that's their right. And if you're correct abut the public's attitude, anybody on board with the attempt will pay a political price, so you ought to encourage them.
 
2013-06-27 10:55:58 AM

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: "Conversations with Conservatives"  Oh God, I wonder what those are like.


For your sanity's sake, it's best not to get too curious.
 
2013-06-27 10:56:12 AM
Huelskamp's would-be marriage Amendment will have trouble getting the necessary 2/3 majority ratification from the House, let alone 2/3 of the Senate (where a majority of the Senators openly support legalization of same-sex marriage) or ratification by 38 states (given there's 10 states which legislated in support of same-sex marriage, and three more blue states where it came by court order).

He'll be lucky if it meets the Hastert Rule threshold.
 
2013-06-27 10:57:18 AM
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), an outspoken tea party member, echoed Huelskamp.
"Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,"


Well then it's a damn good thing we have freedom of religion in this country.  Otherwise, we'd have to mandate divorces for every couple in the nation who weren't married by Bachmann's minister.
 
2013-06-27 10:57:29 AM

jjorsett: coeyagi: jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?

The point is, they shouldn't.  The f*cking public doesn't want it, and they will continue in greater numbers not to want it ("it" being a consitutional amendment on marriage inequality) in the future.

They're allowed to try. I'm pretty sure they won't succeed, but if that's how they want to spend their time and energy, that's their right. And if you're correct abut the public's attitude, anybody on board with the attempt will pay a political price, so you ought to encourage them.


Wait, you are saying we should waste public money and resources for a losing battle?

So, lemme get this straight, from the conservative standpoint, wasting money is bad unless it's to fight a losing battle based on YOUR morals and values?  Glad that we're not calling that cognitive dissonance and instead a very narrow and ridiculous exception to your own rules.
 
2013-06-27 10:57:46 AM
Since this will restore the balance and prevent the devolving of marriage into pure monkey-like debauchery, I have to know what will happen to those of us who acted quickly.

I may need to return some sexy goat lingerie.

/Don't judge me
 
2013-06-27 10:58:08 AM

rufus-t-firefly: jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?

Constitutional Convention. But they could start from scratch.


Constitutional conventions are also part of the Constitution. And starting from scratch = new civil war = revolution.
 
2013-06-27 10:58:26 AM

meat0918: coeyagi: jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?

The point is, they shouldn't.  The f*cking public doesn't want it, and they will continue in greater numbers not to want it ("it" being a consitutional amendment on marriage inequality) in the future.

I want to see the Democrats counter propose a marriage equality amendment.  They won't, because it's doing something and provides a lightening rod for conservative criticism, but it'd be a nice gesture.


Well, we have that. The same equal protection clause that invalidated DOMA. We don't need a new one because we already have it. We just need people to stop trying to take it away again.
 
2013-06-27 10:58:50 AM

GhostFish: I'm a bit amused that these people are so eager to make it legal to strip away rights and freedoms based on religious grounds.

A bit amused, and a bit frightened.


Hopefully amusement will outpace fear when the main voting block for these guys dies of old age and these politicians are forced either to change or be relegated to the dustbin of history.
 
2013-06-27 10:58:58 AM

Karac: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), an outspoken tea party member, echoed Huelskamp.
"Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,"

Well then it's a damn good thing we have freedom of religion in this country.  Otherwise, we'd have to mandate divorces for every couple in the nation who weren't married by Bachmann's minister.


They really should stop beating around the bush and just start the Norsefire party already.  Hell, pay John Hurt some money and he'll even be the head of it for real.
 
2013-06-27 10:59:01 AM
FTA: Decades of social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad," he said, adding later, "I think children will be hurt."

Sounds like a good argument for polygamy.  And that is, after all, traditional marriage, as the hand of God derpity derp derp derp etc.
 
2013-06-27 10:59:49 AM
annanimmity.com
 
2013-06-27 10:59:51 AM

coeyagi: jjorsett: coeyagi: jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?

The point is, they shouldn't.  The f*cking public doesn't want it, and they will continue in greater numbers not to want it ("it" being a consitutional amendment on marriage inequality) in the future.

They're allowed to try. I'm pretty sure they won't succeed, but if that's how they want to spend their time and energy, that's their right. And if you're correct abut the public's attitude, anybody on board with the attempt will pay a political price, so you ought to encourage them.

Wait, you are saying we should waste public money and resources for a losing battle?

So, lemme get this straight, from the conservative standpoint, wasting money is bad unless it's to fight a losing battle based on YOUR morals and values?  Glad that we're not calling that cognitive dissonance and instead a very narrow and ridiculous exception to your own rules.


If you think about it the money to promote this will be coming out of the GOP's war-chest for elections.  They'll waste some time and money futilely pushing it through the house several dozen times, but the lion share will be for ads and campaigning in the states for something that is impossible to pass.
 
2013-06-27 10:59:57 AM

EvilEgg: Yeah, that'll work.  They are going to get 38 states and a super-majority in both houses.

They'll just have to convince seven of the nineteen states that have already adopted some sort of marriage equality to accept a constitutional amendment.

Or they'll just keep using it like they use abortion, to fire up their base and never really deliver on their promises.



Well Democrats are quite good at siting on their hands during off term elections.
 
2013-06-27 11:00:43 AM

EyeballKid: mgshamster: Factcheck.org says that this is most likely not true, because the only news site that published the story is known for retractions and using fake sources.

Which one, NewsMax, Drudge Report, FoxNews.com, Breitbart, World Net Daily, the Blaze, the Weekly Standard, etc.?

Regardless, Darrell Issa has held hearings with less, so I've yet to be convinced it didn't happen.

/See, birthers, Intelligent Designers, Confederates, et al, I'm making my own reality in spite of facts presented to me that would indicate otherwise! I learned it from watching you!


Capital Hill Blue.
 
2013-06-27 11:01:02 AM

Three Crooked Squirrels: In opening remarks, Huelskamp said he was primarily concerned about how the rulings could affect American children.

Won't someone think of the children!

I wholeheartedly believe that it is his and his brethren's discomfort with explaining gay people to their own children that is the source of their opposition, not necessarily the children that live in these types of families.  He's not concerned with "American children."  He's concerned that he doesn't have the tools to explain things to his own children that he thinks are totally icky and against the Bible.

Decades of social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad," he said, adding later, "I think children will be hurt."

I look forward to his anti-divorce Constitutional amendment proposition.


Yeesh, I hope I get grandfathered in so I don't have to go back to my ex.
 
2013-06-27 11:01:13 AM
FTA: Decades of social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad," he said, adding later, "I think children will be hurt."

 I noticed he didn't put a citation on that.  I will put one done for the counter argument.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/05/2106751/same-sex-parenting- st udy/

In effect, it says "F*CK YOU, YOU LYING TEA BAG PIECES OF AMPHIBIAN SH*T."
 
2013-06-27 11:01:43 AM

MisterRonbo: social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad,"


How do you scientifically show that someone deserves something?
 
2013-06-27 11:01:49 AM

abb3w: Huelskamp's would-be marriage Amendment will have trouble getting the necessary 2/3 majority ratification from the House, let alone 2/3 of the Senate (where a majority of the Senators openly support legalization of same-sex marriage) or ratification by 38 states (given there's 10 states which legislated in support of same-sex marriage, and three more blue states where it came by court order).

He'll be lucky if it meets the Hastert Rule threshold.


I think I saw somewhere that about 180 representatives publicly support letting same-sex couples get married. Presuming that every single one of those people voted against sending a federal marriage amendment to the states, the House would be a minimum of 45 votes short of the supermajority.
 
2013-06-27 11:01:59 AM
The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.
 
2013-06-27 11:02:14 AM
Ralph Reed, a leading Christian conservative and head of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, denounced the ruling as "an Orwellian act of judicial fiat"...

And I'm sure his panties were in JUST as much of a twist when the gays were getting the shaft, so to speak... Right? He stood up for rights? What? Only when it fits his agenda? No way!
 
2013-06-27 11:02:31 AM

James!: coeyagi: jjorsett: coeyagi: jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?

The point is, they shouldn't.  The f*cking public doesn't want it, and they will continue in greater numbers not to want it ("it" being a consitutional amendment on marriage inequality) in the future.

They're allowed to try. I'm pretty sure they won't succeed, but if that's how they want to spend their time and energy, that's their right. And if you're correct abut the public's attitude, anybody on board with the attempt will pay a political price, so you ought to encourage them.

Wait, you are saying we should waste public money and resources for a losing battle?

So, lemme get this straight, from the conservative standpoint, wasting money is bad unless it's to fight a losing battle based on YOUR morals and values?  Glad that we're not calling that cognitive dissonance and instead a very narrow and ridiculous exception to your own rules.

If you think about it the money to promote this will be coming out of the GOP's war-chest for elections.  They'll waste some time and money futilely pushing it through the house several dozen times, but the lion share will be for ads and campaigning in the states for something that is impossible to pass.


Um, I am pretty sure the war chest you speak of is the Treasury.  I am not talking about propping up tea bag morons for office, I am talking about actually trying to create an amendment through legislative process - that's on you and me, bro.
 
2013-06-27 11:03:32 AM

Dimensio: The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.


Yep, that's how we ended up with the Balanced Budget Amendment the Republicans demanded as a condition for raising the debt ceiling.
 
2013-06-27 11:03:33 AM

coeyagi: jjorsett: coeyagi: jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?

The point is, they shouldn't.  The f*cking public doesn't want it, and they will continue in greater numbers not to want it ("it" being a consitutional amendment on marriage inequality) in the future.

They're allowed to try. I'm pretty sure they won't succeed, but if that's how they want to spend their time and energy, that's their right. And if you're correct abut the public's attitude, anybody on board with the attempt will pay a political price, so you ought to encourage them.

Wait, you are saying we should waste public money and resources for a losing battle?

So, lemme get this straight, from the conservative standpoint, wasting money is bad unless it's to fight a losing battle based on YOUR morals and values?  Glad that we're not calling that cognitive dissonance and instead a very narrow and ridiculous exception to your own rules.


Let me get THIS straight: you want people to accept defeat before they even try, because YOU deem it a doomed effort, all in the name of saving money? By the way, I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. I'm perfectly okay with gay marriage. I'm also perfectly okay with people working within the system to attempt changing something they don't like, even if their opponents wish to God they'd just shut up and go away.
 
2013-06-27 11:03:34 AM

Dimensio: The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.


I like you.
 
2013-06-27 11:04:07 AM

that bosnian sniper: ...and to think people were arguing with me in the SCOTUS thread about the Republicans not using this as a wedge issue in the 2014 elections.


Maybe they're not? Bachmann is leaving Congress in 2014, and Huelskamps from the derpiest state yet derping.
 
2013-06-27 11:05:02 AM

Dimensio: The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.


Jesus, man, some asshole lackey from the Hill could be reading this and taking feverish notes for his boss while spanking it to Grindr on a work laptop while a crucified Jesus hangs on the wall, berating the staffer silently.
 
2013-06-27 11:05:12 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.

Yep, that's how we ended up with the Balanced Budget Amendment the Republicans demanded as a condition for raising the debt ceiling.


Yeah, but they only asked for a VOTE on a BBA to raise the debt ceiling. If they demand the FMA get ratified before raising the debt ceiling, that will GUARANTEE the Democrats capitulate.
 
2013-06-27 11:05:26 AM

DarnoKonrad: EvilEgg: Yeah, that'll work.  They are going to get 38 states and a super-majority in both houses.

They'll just have to convince seven of the nineteen states that have already adopted some sort of marriage equality to accept a constitutional amendment.

Or they'll just keep using it like they use abortion, to fire up their base and never really deliver on their promises.


Well Democrats are quite good at siting on their hands during off term elections.


Just look at all the morans who stayed home in 2010, despite two years of Tea Party weapons-grade derp. Those non-voters really screwed the rest of us, because while the Tea Party might be the worst thing for the country, its supporters vote. If you didn't vote in 2010, it's your fault, I blame you.
 
2013-06-27 11:05:27 AM

DarnoKonrad: EvilEgg: Yeah, that'll work.  They are going to get 38 states and a super-majority in both houses.

They'll just have to convince seven of the nineteen states that have already adopted some sort of marriage equality to accept a constitutional amendment.

Or they'll just keep using it like they use abortion, to fire up their base and never really deliver on their promises.


Well Democrats are quite good at siting on their hands during off term elections.


2010 makes me madder and madder at my fellow libs every time I think about it.
 
2013-06-27 11:05:41 AM

coeyagi: Um, I am pretty sure the war chest you speak of is the Treasury.  I am not talking about propping up tea bag morons for office, I am talking about actually trying to create an amendment through legislative process - that's on you and me, bro.


Why do you think they would have access to the Treasury to promote an amendment? The only money coming out of the Fed will be for the nuts and bolts actions in the congress.  They have to advertise and organize everything else out of their own pocket.
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report