Newt

[MLD Woody]

The institution of marriage, as we define it, and has predominately been defined by nature and God forever...is between a man and a woman.

 

You talk to God? Cool... cuz I didn't here anything say that.

 

Also, I didn't know animals got married? Even though there are many animals that are more faithful than Newt...

 

Claw hand comparison... genius.

 

 

I don't see how letting gays get married and serve in the military could negatively affect anyone in anyway.

[MLD Woody]

Like I said I don't believe anyone here is an anarchist.

that would be the smallest government no?

 

Sure. 0 is very small

 

I'd imagine you'll have a hard time convincing anybody that crack should be legal.

If you get your wish and it is legalized would you then refuse health services to those who choose to take it and become addicted? or should be taxpayers pick up that tab?

 

Yeah, that crack talk didn't help me at all haha. I don't wish to have it legalized, I was just trying to make a point, and apparently I failed.

 

And as I asked you before do you believe abortion should be legal up entirely through the third trimester for any reason?

 

Tough call. I couldn't imagine doing that, that late in the pregnancy. I don't think it should be an end all be all no abortions any time after conception... but at the same time I think there is a time when it gets too late. I'm not really sure when though. I am not clouded by religious views but at the same time I don't have a lot of experience or knowledge on this. I am not going to sit here and act like I know the definite answer. I think I know part of the answer but not all of it.

 

And exactly what do you mean by equal rights? Marriage is not a right as you probably know.

 

Isn't marriage the pursuit of happiness? I can't think of any legitimate reason why we shouldn't let gays marry or serve in the military. I don't see how that negatively affects anyone...

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Sure. 0 is very small

 

 

 

Yeah, that crack talk didn't help me at all haha. I don't wish to have it legalized, I was just trying to make a point, and apparently I failed.

 

 

 

Tough call. I couldn't imagine doing that, that late in the pregnancy. I don't think it should be an end all be all no abortions any time after conception... but at the same time I think there is a time when it gets too late. I'm not really sure when though. I am not clouded by religious views but at the same time I don't have a lot of experience or knowledge on this. I am not going to sit here and act like I know the definite answer. I think I know part of the answer but not all of it.

 

 

 

Isn't marriage the pursuit of happiness? I can't think of any legitimate reason why we shouldn't let gays marry or serve in the military. I don't see how that negatively affects anyone...

 

Well since you don't and never have served in the military, who really gives a fuck what you think?

[MLD Woody]

Well I like to base my opinions off of common sense, science, statistics, and what actual experts think. Not based off of what my party thinks, what other people in my life think (assuming they aren't experts) or what a magic book tells me to think.

 

From what I have read many high ranking officials in the military oppose the ban and would be fine with gays serving. I sure as hell am not going to serve in the military, so if a gay guy wants to you should be happy someone is going to.

[heckofajobbrownie]

That's a lousy argument - that only people who have served should be able to decide what happens in the military. After all, if you polled the military in the 40s and early 50s, there wasn't support for racial integration of the military, was there?

 

But let's play along, because the Defense Department did ask the military what they thought. And what did they find?

 

Of 400,000 serving members of the United States military and their families surveyed, most do not believe reform of the rules on gays and lesbians serving in the military would affect morale, unit cohesion or military effectiveness. A survey conducted by The Pentagon has concluded only 30% believed that changing the law would have a negative effect.

 

So looks like you're in the minority here, not the majority. Even by your own standard.

[heckofajobbrownie]

More Newt:

 

"What a political movement gets when it spends years marshaling more demagoguery than sound arguments against its opponents, what it gets when its intellectuals are deposed by its entertainers, what it gets when Roger Ailes and Rush Limbaugh are its agenda-setting personalities; what it gets when all these factors and more prevail, is a Newt Gingrich victory in South Carolina, where the voters, having been trained to elevate emotion and style over substance, didn't even realize that they've chosen as their champion a man who is neither conservative nor capable of leading anyone." - Conor Friedersdorf

 

Again, Steve, these are all Republicans I'm quoting.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

That's a lousy argument - that only people who have served should be able to decide what happens in the military. After all, if you polled the military in the 40s and early 50s, there wasn't support for racial integration of the military, was there?

 

But let's play along, because the Defense Department did ask the military what they thought. And what did they find?

 

Of 400,000 serving members of the United States military and their families surveyed, most do not believe reform of the rules on gays and lesbians serving in the military would affect morale, unit cohesion or military effectiveness. A survey conducted by The Pentagon has concluded only 30% believed that changing the law would have a negative effect.

 

So looks like you're in the minority here, not the majority. Even by your own standard.

 

I doubt it Heck. But, if you want to believe the "Pentagon Survey", go ahead.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Haha. Apparently if you put it n quotes, and add a little sneer, you've effectively called the survey into question.

 

Sorry, my brother, but there are two generations behind you who just don't care what gay people do or are in the same way that your generation does. You're not only going to see DADT die, you're going to see gay marriage legalized fairly soon.

 

Washington looks to be next.

[VaporTrail]

Diehard, I hate to break it to you (who am I kidding, I love this), but I am friends with a bunch of officers, noncoms and enlisted in a bunch of different branches of the military. This may be anecdotal evidence, but these guys could give a shit if gays serve with them, and many of them don't like the fact that gays have to hide something. The only ones who really support DADT, are the super religious Mormons. These guys are the future of the military. 25 years from now, we're going to look back at this battle for gay rights and it will be taught alongside the Black civil rights movement.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Diehard, I hate to break it to you (who am I kidding, I love this), but I am friends with a bunch of officers, noncoms and enlisted in a bunch of different branches of the military. This may be anecdotal evidence, but these guys could give a shit if gays serve with them, and many of them don't like the fact that gays have to hide something. The only ones who really support DADT, are the super religious Mormons. These guys are the future of the military. 25 years from now, we're going to look back at this battle for gay rights and it will be taught alongside the Black civil rights movement.

 

Maybe your crowd is, but the grunt crowd is not. The Marine Corps is not. I'm sorry, I will never agree with this. But as you said, I'm an old fuck and no one cares what I think. I would not compare this to the black civil rights movement either. But time will tell, and I fear tell in a bad way. I hope to hell I am wrong. If gays can serve along side (not too close) then that is cool. LOL.

[MLD Woody]

I hope when I am old I am not going to be a salty closet racist impeding cultural change and the overall improvement of society

[DieHardBrownsFan]

I hope when I am old I am not going to be a salty closet racist impeding cultural change and the overall improvement of society

 

Dude, your still shitting yellow.

[MLD Woody]

Yellow crayons aren't my favorite

 

 

Edit:

 

 

Or maybe I could have said something along the lines of

 

"No man, I shit maize"

 

But that would be bad cuz ur not supposed to shit your teams colors...

[heckofajobbrownie]

Diehard, I hate to bring to break it to you, but you served alongside gays. You probably just didn't know it.

[Westside Steve]

No doubt sir. Newt certainly does have his detractors.

Most of which I've heard over the last month or so follow the ann coulter model. (don't you guys hate her??)

Now that flies in the face of your and Frums idea that the conservatives find him to be 1 of their own.

One of the main reasons I like the guy (Romney too) is that he's not all about conservative. Neither am I. I've been a fan of his since I read his book many years ago. I don't read many political novels just because by the time they get to audio they're dated.

But I really enjoyed " to renew america."

I think all too often americans, especially liberals, tend to believe that history began 10 years ago.

 

So you got the bunch that thinks he's not liberal enough.

You've got a bunch that thinks he was an asshole when he was speaker.

You've got the bunch that supports somebody else and is naturally going to attack the next closest rival.

You've got the bunch that's going to lambaste whoever the republican front runner is.

 

And you complain he tailors his message state by state?

Any candidate that knows his ass from a hole in the ground does that, or at least should try to.

Mitt just doesn't have the mean spirited streak he needs to go on the attack. It sounds forced and out of character.

 

I do feel sorry for Romney being portrayed as an evil billionaire who doesn't care about anyone.

The poor guys lifestyle is a hell of a lot less opulent then Newt or the presidents.

 

Sure I think Gingrich might well be something of a loose cannon who probably not suited to leadership and compromise.

I know he has enemies, however if he wins a lot of those guys will turn into friends again.

Maybe if he appointed Rmney secretary of state...

 

Anyway bud, I'll make my choice if it gets to ohio.

Like I said I figure Mitt Romney is a straight up guy.

His flips are no worse than politicians you have supported.

So if Gingrich's moral problems bother you so badly why not vote for Mitt?

 

 

Despite the baggage would you have rather had John Edwards instead of George Bush running the show?

WSS

[slowburn]

Newt is making his debate panel look inept. He knows the ins and outs of D,C. politics and he is driving this point home in a big way.

[Westside Steve]

Ohh and I forgot a group.

You've got the somewhat conservative pundits who get paid extra for being anti republican on sunday morning or news channel shows.

Everybody loves a maverick.

John McCain was foolish enough to believe the media actually loved him for speaking out, but it was just good tv.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

"The poor guys lifestyle is a hell of a lot less opulent then Newt or the presidents."

 

You have got to be kidding. I think you're going to have to retract that one too, bud.

 

Obama owns one home in Chicago. Romney, until he saw McCain catch shit for his seven homes in 2008, owned a massive mansion in Park City, Utah. (Sold that immediately after the election.) He owned this mansion on Belmont Hill in Massachusetts, which is where he lived for 30 years. (Sold that immediately after the election.) He owns this lakefront mansion in New Hampshire. He owns this beachfront mansion in La Jolla, California that he's expanding from 3000 sq. feet to 11,000 sq. feet.

 

Romney is an extremely wealthy man, and there's nothing wrong with that. But let's not lose our heads here. There is nothing opulent about Obama's lifestyle at all, except for the fact that he vacations on Martha's Vineyard. Nor did he become a millionaire until recently after his books sold so well.

 

Romney's not a rapper, but to say his life isn't opulent strains the meaning of the word "opulent."

 

What are you suggesting is opulent about the Obama's lifestyle?

[MLD Woody]

Westside Steve, out of all the conservatives on here, I think you might be the most sane.

 

 

 

Side note, I love how Gingrich played the victim card when he was asked about his marital affairs, lol

[heckofajobbrownie]

Ohh and I forgot a group.

You've got the somewhat conservative pundits who get paid extra for being anti republican on sunday morning or news channel shows.

Everybody loves a maverick.

John McCain was foolish enough to believe the media actually loved him for speaking out, but it was just good tv.

WSS

 

Also, you normally don't get paid for TV pundit appearances, and you certainly don't get paid more for being anti-Republican. These people I'm quoting are Republicans.

 

Look, here's another:

 

"I'm not inclined to be a supporter of Newt Gingrich's having served under him for four years and experienced personally his leadership." - Tom Coburn

 

Gingrich is "the last person I'd vote for for president of the United States." - Tom Coburn

 

 

Here's another:

 

"Newt Gingrich was a disaster as speaker. Everything was self-centered. There was a lack of intellectual discipline."

 

 

I'm not trying to change your mind. I know why Newt appeals to you. I'm just saying - the guy's not stable.

[Westside Steve]

Also, you normally don't get paid for TV pundit appearances, and you certainly don't get paid more for being anti-Republican.

 

Please Heck don't tell me that there's no value to being a pundits on one of the shows, or that they don't love somebody who speaks out of turn.

At least don't pretend you believe it......

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Baloney. If it were true, 30% of 400,009 is 120,000? So you would enact and enforce legistlation that

would alienate 120,000 soldiers in your ranks? That's stupid, and would lead to chaos.

 

Besides, your figures are wrong. Remember when we HAD to include links to backup our statements?

You know, for "serious conversation" ??? Why, that only applied to conservatives. Because only liberal wingnut

emoting wonders are allowed to forego links to actual stories, right?

 

I guess you weren't being serious, Heck, as ususal. Obamao like make up your own facts, eh?

But do let us know how you add 115,000 and 44,000 spouses, and get 400,000 soldiers.

 

This really should be interesting.

 

Besides - I would probably answer the question, whatever the hell is was and however the hell it was worded,

and whenever the hell it was taken... differently when being in uniform, before it actually takes place than afterwards, while

in the service.

 

. Before any end to the dadt... well, I might say "eh... I'll vote "no" because

Obamao might send me to "you must like gays" class. But sure, take a poll of military people who are

under the authority of the UCMJ,... and figure they will simply vote how they want to vote...

 

right. But, then again, somebody who never was in the military doesn't know what it's like to be in the military.

And Heck, you keep bragging about military guys you know. all/only some... gay, perhaps? All members of your favorite

gay bar? I wouldn't know. But I know a hell of a lot of guys and gals who were in the service.

 

And never once, has any of us "taken a poll" on the stupid subject, never was the subject brought up, in my entire life. But gee, I guess it comes up in conversations with you and your ...friends... every day, maybe?

 

dayum. Even Vapor can add 115,000 + 44,000 and get the right answer.

 

But you, phoney know it all - you get 400,000. and wowee, you "get" that they are all soldiers?

 

Liberals say anything to try to justify their emotions. Facts never matter, unless they support, somehow, their emotions.

*************************************************************

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/strong-appeal-pentagon-opponents-don-t-ask-repeal.html

 

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, who has said this study -- which takes into account the survey responses of 115,000 troops and 44,000 military spouses -- is not comprehensive enough to authorize a repeal.

 

 

[calfoxwc]

Oh, btw, Heck -

 

They only polled sixteen percent... (okay, ".1"...) going by your numbers.. of military.

 

(But it's actually 115,000. And 44,000 spouses.)

 

That is the basis for implementing an entirely new law like this?

 

Hah. And about 1/3 of that sixteen percent said "NO, open gays would cause serious trouble" whatever the questions were.

 

so, 2/3 of sixteen percent is about 5.2 percent.

 

Right.... let's all jump on board the Obamao leftwing extremist train.

 

I think not, and the vast majority of Americans don't want to board the dumbass train, either.

 

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE !

 

It's actually - they polled 115,000, which is only 4.6 percent of all military people polled.

 

I guess... that 1/3 of THEM were against openly gays in the military.

 

So, that gives us 2/3 of 115,000 which is about 76000.

 

And some of them are gay, so that makes the poll number less than that.

 

stupid.

*******************

http://wiki.answers....the_US_military

 

Today there are a Total of 2,475,967 soldiers in the Military. There is 507,158 soldiers in the army, 347,693 soldiers in the navy, 347,352 soldiers in the air force, 179,762 marines, and a total of 1,381,965 DODs

 

 

 

Read more: http://wiki.answers....y#ixzz1kQr58wVY

[heckofajobbrownie]

[

Please Heck don't tell me that there's no value to being a pundits on one of the shows, or that they don't love somebody who speaks out of turn.

At least don't pretend you believe it......

WSS

 

You didn't say that. You said they got paid for being on those shows (usually not true) and got paid more for being anti-Republican. That's certainly not true.

 

If you'd like to claim that going on TV and raising your public profile helps your earnings potential, well, duh. That's why you go on Leno when your album/movie comes out, or on The Daily Show when your book comes out. But that's not what you said.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, this would be the 127th time you've proven you have no idea how polls, surveys, or statistics work. It's embarrassing. I know you don't know why what you just wrote makes you look like an idiot, so just trust me. It does.

[MLD Woody]

Dude... do you understand how polls work? They're designed for situations when you can't feasibly poll the entire population, so you poll a generic subset of it and that allows you to extrapolate the data to the entire population.

 

About 2/3 of the military supports gays fighting alongside them, not 5% like you want to make us believe.

 

Baloney. If it were true, 30% of 400,009 is 120,000? So you would enact and enforce legistlation that

would alienate 120,000 soldiers in your ranks? That's stupid, and would lead to chaos.

 

Alienate? These guys are homophobes so it would alienate them? These are the men and women defending our country, if they can't even deal with one gay guy in their unit then I think we are in trouble.

 

Besides, your figures are wrong. Remember when we HAD to include links to backup our statements?

You know, for "serious conversation" ??? Why, that only applied to conservatives. Because only liberal wingnut

emoting wonders are allowed to forego links to actual stories, right?

 

I've only been here for a few days and I've seen you posting incorrect material as fact. Remember that "OMG GUYS THIS IS A REAL NEUROSURGEON!" video? No one is picking on you cuz you are a conservative, you just seem to post false info more often.

 

 

I still also see no logical reason for why gays can't marry.

 

 

Calfox, no one is asking you to love gays. I don't care if you love blacks, or whites, or muslims, or anyone; you just have to tolerate them and not discriminate against them.

[MLD Woody]

Cal, this would be the 127th time you've proven you have no idea how polls, surveys, or statistics work. It's embarrassing. I know you don't know why what you just wrote makes you look like an idiot, so just trust me. It does.

 

I laughed my ass off about that too

[Westside Steve]

[

Please Heck don't tell me that there's no value to being a pundits on one of the shows, or that they don't love somebody who speaks out of turn.

At least don't pretend you believe it......

WSS

 

You didn't say that. You said they got paid for being on those shows (usually not true) and got paid more for being anti-Republican. That's certainly not true.

 

If you'd like to claim that going on TV and raising your public profile helps your earnings potential, well, duh. That's why you go on Leno when your album/movie comes out, or on The Daily Show when your book comes out. But that's not what you said.

 

Lets not mince words. Getting something of value from your service is payment.

 

And the renegades are in high demand.

Who was the guy in Mother Night?

(Unless thats the wrong book...)

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, who has said this study -- which takes into account the survey responses of 115,000 troops and 44,000 military spouses -- is not comprehensive enough to authorize a repeal.

 

********

Don't get all angry with me, fools.

 

I simply want to see how Heck gets "400,000 members of the military" out of 115,000 soldiers + 44,000 spouses.

 

Add it up, or choke up.

 

It was McCain that said the numbers.

 

And, of course you can poll over 2,000,000.

 

But to use that poll as a reason to implement ObaMAO's agenda?

 

That's stupid, and warrantless.

[VaporTrail]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extrapolate