In Florida primary, the margin will matter
With the voting booths scheduled to open tomorrow in Florida, pollsters are all over the place in their predictions about the outcome.
Everybody has Mitt Romney winning. The discrepancy is in the predicted margin, which matters in a primary.
A Suffolk University poll has Romney up by 20, 47 percent to 27 percent. A Quinnipiac poll puts Romney up by 14, 43 percent to 29 percent, up from a nine-point margin a week ago.
But Georgia-based InsiderAdvantage claims the Romney-Gingrich race is tightening, with Romney up by five percentage points, 36-31 percent. Matt Towery, InsiderAdvantage’s founder and owner, has ties to Gingrich, which might be cause for caution. But Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-leaning firm, has it 39-32.
That’s a fairly wide spread this close to an election, which means somebody is going to have egg on their face when this is over. If the tighter projections prove valid, Gingrich has some justification for continuing to fight, perhaps all the way to the convention as he promises.
A margin of 20 points or more, on the other hand, would pretty much spell the end of the race. That’s particularly true if exit polls show Romney beating Gingrich even among conservative Republicans.
Of course, such a defeat doesn’t necessarily mean that an increasingly bitter Gingrich would withdraw from the race. He feels abused and ill-used by his party’s establishment, and he may decide to stick in the race just to be obstinate. Back in the Iowa days, you may remember, Gingrich was trying to convince everyone that he had really changed and was no longer the angry, combative politician he used to be.
That Grandpa Gingrich act didn’t last very long.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
334 comments Add your comment
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 30th, 2012
8:26 pm
Enter your comments here
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
8:28 pm
josef,
I can’t stay long, but I came back to check on your response.
“what has he done for gay rights other than sign DADT repeal and take a rather lukewarm stance on DOMA…?”
Ordered federal government to extend key benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees
Hosted first White House LGBT Pride Reception in history
Created a National Resource Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Elders
Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr.Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law
Ended discrimination based on gender identity in the federal government
Lifted the ban that prohibited people with HIV/AIDS from entering the United States
Allowed trans Americans to receive true gender passports without surgery
Clarified the Family and Medical Leave Act ensuring family leave for LGBT employees
Ensured hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights for gay and lesbian patients
Released America’s first comprehensive plan to prevent and end homelessness, which includes homeless LGBT youth
Led a United Nations measure that restored “sexual orientation” to the definition of human rights
Signed the Repeal of and oversaw successful implementation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
Ensured that government housing programs are available to all eligible people, including LGBT community
Proposed more funding for LGBT priorities such as HIV/AIDS prevention and education, and bullying and teen suicide prevention
Declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and announced the administration will no longer defend its constitutionality in court
Hosted a Conference on Bullying Prevention at the White House
Completed an Institute of Medicine study on LGBT health, the first of its kind
Clarified the meaning of “family” to include LGBT relationships, helping to protect bi-national families threatened by deportation
Supported lesbian widow Edith Windsor in her suit against DOMA
Issued guidance to foster safer working environment for transgender federal employees
Just because it is not splashed across the news, does not make it unimportant.
You say on one hand, “Not coming out guns blazing on DADT? Yep, he signed it…and I give him credit there…but he’s p’footed from the get-go” then say”It went a lot faster on DADT than I expected.” Perhaps the reason DADT is history, is because he took a slow, methodical approach, and actually ended up having the military advocate its repeal. What reaction do think would have come about if on the 1st day in office Obama signed a Presidential Order instead of the approach he took?
“I’ll give him a point or two in not being outspokenly opposed, but let’s not go giving him credit he’s not due”
You’re not even giving him the credit that is due him. If you thought for minute, that “fierce advocate” meant stripping down to a thong and dancing on a KY float down 5th Ave at Gay Pride you are going to be disappointed.
I look at his actual accomplishments and judge him by that…not my expectations. You judge him on a Rick Warren and Prop 8, when Obama has stated, “I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been.”
It seems you want so badly for Obama to embrace your views, that when he does not, you ignore or belittle all the other accomplishments he has done for gay people.
jm
January 30th, 2012
8:28 pm
Trotsky! that’s better…… if the Democrats aren’t going to confiscate wealth for you, care to poke them in the eye with a Republican vote?
I mean, I don’t think the commie party is going to win this election cycle…..
jm
January 30th, 2012
8:30 pm
krugman. a real dumb-arse
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-30/what-krugman-didn-t-say-about-the-u-k-s-austerity-plan-the-ticker.html
stands for decibels
January 30th, 2012
8:31 pm
Hea[d]line (Washington Post): “Obama: The most polarizing president. Ever.”
more evidence that Scouty McWhinypants suffers from early onset Alzheimers. Anyone who actually read the gallup.com piece knows that Obama’s so-called “polarization” is, in fact, a condition of modern politics.
But that’s more than your run-of-the-mill right wing troll can process.
stands for decibels
January 30th, 2012
8:31 pm
Anyway, since I really don’t give a sh-t about what the Goopers decide to do tomorrow, I’ll bid adieu.
jm
January 30th, 2012
8:32 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-31/why-gingrich-is-right-on-food-stamp-program-commentary-by-ramesh-ponnuru.html
stands for decibels
January 30th, 2012
8:32 pm
…except I’ll add, that Krugthulu has more talent in what he leaves on the side of the toilet bowl than Jm’s collected Intertubes work.
BADA BING
January 30th, 2012
8:33 pm
Police have IDed the man that stole the $1800 puppy. They found his cell phone after the theft, his name is Romyo. Police want to know…..”Romyo, Romyo….Wherefor art thou Romyo?”
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
8:33 pm
josef,
And here is an interesting article about Obama’s approach: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/us/politics/on-gay-rights-obama-lets-surrogates-take-the-lead.html
jm
January 30th, 2012
8:33 pm
Able-bodied adults on the main welfare program (TANF again) have to abide by work requirements — they have to work, or look for work, or train to work to receive benefits. This seems like a reasonable condition to apply to the food-stamp program, as well. Some congressional Republicans have advocated this policy, but the Obama administration hasn’t been interested.
Gingrich’s hyperbole, and the reaction to it, shouldn’t obscure the need to reform the food-stamp program as the economy improves. The program ought to be focused on people in real need — not people who are taking no steps to find work, or who happen to have had minimal contact with the welfare bureaucracy. And changes to the program ought to be accompanied by reforms to programs that raise the price of food. We know that ethanol subsidies boost food prices significantly, for example, even if the exact amount is disputed. Federal dairy policies raise the price of milk: They are designed to do so.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 30th, 2012
8:34 pm
jm: “if the Democrats aren’t going to confiscate wealth for you, care to poke them in the eye with a Republican vote?”
Well since Obama, in a different era, is easily a mainstream Republican, you could argue that a vote for him is in effect a vote for a Republican!
No, no commies on the ballot here anytime soon. Not that I’d vote for them either. Hell, they make some of the best capitalists (see Russia, China, eastern Europe, etc.)!
Speaking of communists, did you know they really had a beachhead here in the South during the civil rights era? Specially in Bear Bryant’s own Alabama. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123771194
jm
January 30th, 2012
8:35 pm
“Q: Define marriage. A: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman… Q: Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition? A: No I would not. Because historically we have defined marriage in our constitution, it’s been a matter of state law.”
jm
January 30th, 2012
8:35 pm
Candidate Obama
Checked NO in response a Human Rights Campaign questionaire asking if the candidate “Supports allowing civil marriage rights for same-sex couples.”
Recon 2533 1811
January 30th, 2012
8:36 pm
“Anyway, since I really don’t give a sh-t about what the Goopers decide to do tomorrow, I’ll bid adieu.”
It appears that one of the esteemed blog ladies is extremely upset.
jm
January 30th, 2012
8:38 pm
Trotsky 8:34 yep. Racist democrats finally decided they were more scared of communism than racial equality. Talk about democrats being on the wrong side of history…………
jm
January 30th, 2012
8:40 pm
Recon, if mitt wins, he’s on the way but we won’t have sown it up
Newt’s not going away too quickly, I imagine. And as long as Newt’s in, Santorum is probably in. And Paul is never leaving.
I think this thing starts to wind down after Super Tuesday
jm
January 30th, 2012
8:42 pm
and GA will be in the mix
I could see either Newt or Romney winning GA. Newt has votes as a “local”. Open primary could favor either one. If Dems want a good choice, they could vote Romney. If they want to sabotage the nomination process (even more than voting for Romney), they might intentionally go vote for Newt. Who the hell knows…… (my guess is they go for Newt to screw things up)
Meaning GA goes to Newt…..
AmVet - “A lot of so-called conservatives don’t know what the word means." ~Barry Goldwater
January 30th, 2012
8:43 pm
Anyway, since I really don’t give a sh-t about what the Goopers decide to do tomorrow…
It’s all just a reality TV show for the rubes easily entertained by frauds and charlatans.
But like watching a slow motion train wreck, it is strangely compelling!
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
8:43 pm
jm,
Yep. But you also left this one out, “It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided…and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history.”
josef
January 30th, 2012
8:44 pm
jewcowboy
Unh-hunh…whatever…I’ll leave it to the straight folks here to respond point by point…like I said, lukewarm at best…but, hey, given the alternatives…
And again, Prop 8 and Preacher Warren…
Recon 2533 1811
January 30th, 2012
8:45 pm
jm,
You’re right it won’t be sown up but if he wins tomorrow as it appears he will, it will none the less be all over but the shouting in my opinion. Prolonging the inevitable only hurts the conservative opposition to Obama.
jm
January 30th, 2012
8:46 pm
Obama gets credit for this….. good job (much of the rest, fail)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203920204577193444258923460.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
Kamchak
January 30th, 2012
8:46 pm
krugman. a real dumb-arse
jm. a troll with Pulitzer envy.
Just sayin’.
Recon 2533 1811
January 30th, 2012
8:51 pm
“Meaning GA goes to Newt…..”
jm, I wouldn’t take that to the bank. Gingrich was a carpetbagger from PA. and who now lives in Virginia. Not really a son of Georgia or the South.
josef
January 30th, 2012
8:52 pm
occupation
The Communists were always on the ballot in Mississippi as far back as I can remember…I won’t ever forget back in ‘76 when one of the electors on the ballot, a buddy of mine, was a staunch conservative Republican…when asked why, he said simply, because I was asked to be and I think every party should be on the ballot, just because it’s not my philosophy is no reason to want them off…
Welcome to the Occupation
January 30th, 2012
8:56 pm
jm, in all seriousness I have some doubts about Reuters’ reasoning in their slap at Krugman. It seems their main argument boils down to a comparison with France and Italy:
In other words, markets have lost much more faith in the creditworthiness of Italy and France than they have in Britain’s.
But the comparison with selected individual Euro zone countries is misleading because the fate of those countries is closely tied up with the fate of the Euro zone as a whole and the complicated problems of the Euro zone as a ‘transfer zone’.
Or, why not a comparison with Greece, another Euro zone country that has also implemented savage austerity?
0311/1811
January 30th, 2012
8:56 pm
stands for decibels :
Don’t agree with a polarizing president ?
Tell the liberal Washington Post ………… not me.
AmVet - “A lot of so-called conservatives don’t know what the word means." ~Barry Goldwater
January 30th, 2012
8:57 pm
josef, now that was one enlightened Republican!
It makes me wonder what happened to them all…
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 30th, 2012
8:57 pm
A restaurant in Knoxville, Tennessee refused to serve state Sen. Stacey Campfield, the man who sponsored the state’s “don’t say gay” bill, compared homosexuality to bestiality, and most recently told Michelangelo Signorile that it’s virtually impossible to spread HIV/AIDS through heterosexual sex. “I hope that Stacy Campfield now knows what if feels like to be unfairly discriminated against,” the Bistro at the Bijou wrote on its Facebook wall on Sunday. The restaurant has received an overwhelmingly positive response.
No shirt, no shoes, no brain….no service.
TaxPayer
January 30th, 2012
8:58 pm
Newt will stay in as long as he has a billionaire sugar daddy propping him up.
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
9:00 pm
josef,
“whatever…”
Such a cop out word.
“I’ll leave it to the straight folks here to respond point by point”
I’m not asking for a point-by-point rebuttal. A simple acknowledgement of the fact that Obama has done much more that DADT repeal and taking a “lukewarm stance on DOMA” might seem less jejune.
“And again, Prop 8 and Preacher Warren…”
Seems like more a grudge than an argument.
Recon 2533 1811
January 30th, 2012
9:05 pm
Paul Krugman is an ideologue pretending to be an economist. He’s a darling of the poorly informed and irrational left wing, which has great representation on this blog.
Disgusted
January 30th, 2012
9:14 pm
Unh-hunh…whatever…I’ll leave it to the straight folks here to respond point by point…like I said, lukewarm at best…but, hey, given the alternatives…
I don’t think a president will have much say in the issue of gay rights, given the Congressional make-up. The bottom line is that any Republican president is about 100% certain to sign any anti-gay measure. Obama is iffy, but at least there’s a chance there. If I were gay, I certainly wouldn’t want to see any Republican, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, in the White House. And I don’t believe for a second that a Republican Senate would have any hesitation at all about discarding the filibuster rule if it suits a party purpose. We need to remember that the “nuclear option” was raised as a possibility in order to get two Republican-backed Supreme Court nominees through confirmation back when the Republicans controlled the Senate. In any case, Obama is the safer bet. While he’s not 100% certain to protect gay rights, he at least is not 100% certain to act against them.
AmVet - “A lot of so-called conservatives don’t know what the word means." ~Barry Goldwater
January 30th, 2012
9:14 pm
OK, as a straight person, I’ll wade in here…(BTW, I absolutely loathe that adjective, more on that in a moment)
The list that jcb provided looks very substantial and compelling to me.
Granted, I do know the particulars, not the relevance or the degree to which those acts have made a difference.
Even so, I have to believe that it is much longer than that of any previous POTUS. (I’m sure that there is some info out there to compare it to.)
So, in my relatively uninformed position, I would give the argument to jcb. (Sorry, josef, I still luv ya!)
Now for that abominable word, first, who came up with that thing???
And does it mean that non-”straight” people are curved or bent or twisted? Maybe angular or circular?
And do not even get me started on the co-opting of the term gay, I’m still pissed about that one!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 30th, 2012
9:15 pm
Someone didn’t love you enough when you were little, did they? — Thomas Jefferson
Polly Sigh
January 30th, 2012
9:16 pm
It’s a left wing blog. If you detest it so, jump on board Kyle’s train. There’s a lot fewer cars and a lot less substance, but you’ll be amongst friends, and we can rid ourselves of a whiny know it all who knows very little.
josef
January 30th, 2012
9:17 pm
Jewcowboy
I’m on iPad so I can’t really go off right now…too slow on the keypad…
Grudge? Well, yeah…sorta like your (and my) grudges against Newt, Santorum and company. You can pooh-pooh if you like…but, then, if you’re willing to accept his salvation/redemption, then you gotta give Newt the same break….and no, I’m not putting them in the same camp…but, tepid then tepid now…
And, I found that little swipe on the thong and parade an LOL one…channeling Scout, Del, kayaker, et al, ‘ere ye?
Welcome to the Occupation
January 30th, 2012
9:18 pm
josef: “The Communists were always on the ballot in Mississippi as far back as I can remember…I won’t ever forget back in ‘76 ”
Wow, what a testament to a changed country in 36 years.
Kamchak
January 30th, 2012
9:20 pm
“Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?”
– Thomas Jefferson
Paulo977
January 30th, 2012
9:22 pm
Midori
January 30th, 2012
7:52 pm
The Principled Pachyderm
_____________________
Well put …is ,after all, what they are all about
josef
January 30th, 2012
9:23 pm
ZamVwt
I’m not about to say he hasn’t signed off on more than all the rest combined…but note signed off on. He has gone with the flow and the flow has been pro gay, that’s not exactly Fierce, IMHO. like I said, not back of the bus, but not at the front either…
josef
January 30th, 2012
9:27 pm
Nope. I find the whole concept of gladiators repulsive and barbaric…be it the roman arena or the contemporary fight ring…
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
9:29 pm
josef,
“too slow on the keypad…”
Sheesh I know that one. You can tell when I’m on a mobile device when I economize my words
“Well, yeah…sorta like your (and my) grudges against Newt, Santorum and company.”
Obama was quite clear on his stance on marriage equality when he was elected. If I were to judge him solely on this one issue, I would not be very happy with his approach to gay rights. But c’mon, tell me, honestly, you expected this: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/16/nation/la-na-gay-couples-hospitals16-2010apr16
Because I look at that as him being a realistic fierce advocate. Maybe that “realistic” part is not what he said, but I’ll take a President who looks outside the box for wins that positively affect gay rights over an idealist who loses any time.
“I found that little swipe on the thong and parade”
Just presenting an absurdity to temper the definition of “fierce advocate”
jm
January 30th, 2012
9:30 pm
Recon 8:51, yeah, that’s why I put “local” in quotes.
Trotsky 8:56 – Greece has not successfully implemented austerity or any of their fiscal plans. their government is dysfunctional. their revenues are flat because of corruption, despite higher taxes. they’re spending more because no one can reign in their budget.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 30th, 2012
9:31 pm
Recon: “Paul Krugman is an ideologue pretending to be an economist”
I’ll let you in on a little secret here, Recon.
ALL economists are ideologues who seek to find ways to carve up data to justify their world view.
If there is a discipline that lends itself to entirely opposite conclusions based on a person’s predetermined values, it’s economics.
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
9:33 pm
AmVet,
“And does it mean that non-”straight” people are curved or bent or twisted? Maybe angular or circular?”
Straight more likely referring to the “straight and narrow.” Gay referring to flamboyant.
josef
January 30th, 2012
9:35 pm
Enter your comments here
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
9:35 pm
Kamchak,
“Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?”
I freakin love that movie. Ironically, the part that hooked me was the lady flashing her boobs when the plane is out of control.
Kamchak
January 30th, 2012
9:37 pm
jewcowboy
Possibly the only spoof movie that has stood the test of time. The rest are cheap knock-offs.
jm
January 30th, 2012
9:40 pm
“Enter your comments here” dern ipads
josef
January 30th, 2012
9:40 pm
Ooops…d’mned iPad
Disgusted
That pretty much sums it up….
Jewcowboy
Then call yourself a Realistic Advocate…THAT I have no problem with…
jm
January 30th, 2012
9:43 pm
“Investors were seized by fresh doubts about the economic health of Portugal. Concern that the EU would break a promise not to restructure Portugal’s debt pushed 10-year yields up by 2.17 percentage points to 17.39 percent yesterday as two-year yields surged to 21 percent, both euro-era records. ”
If Obama is re-elected, and this happens in the US, remember Republicans and fiscal conservatives said: “I told you so”
AmVet - “A lot of so-called conservatives don’t know what the word means." ~Barry Goldwater
January 30th, 2012
9:44 pm
Ah ha, jcb! Color me clueless.
When I become King, we’re gonna get us a new lexicon around here! (LOL)
For me Airplane was an instant classic. Sight gags, drug references, sexual peccadilloes and absurd dialogue. I loved it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=0A5t5_O8hdA
jm
January 30th, 2012
9:46 pm
Ponder this. If you’re unemployed and gay, are you more worried about a job, or the extent of your rights?
I mean, I’d be PO’d too if someone told me I couldn’t marry my wife. But if I didn’t have a job, I’d mainly be focused on that knowing full well my “wife” and I would figure out a way to work things out over time with each other. But that a future together wouldn’t mean a damn thing if we couldn’t put food on the table.
Recon 2533 1811
January 30th, 2012
9:48 pm
I don’t believe that those who’re homosexual should be denied civil rights but I don’t think they’ve been denied those rights. Further I don’t believe their right to civil rights should be at the expense of those who’re not homosexual. Should they have the right to marry? Well why marry when they can’t procreate? They do have the right to a civil union, which provides all of the legal rights associated with a union between two people including those who’re legally married. Should they have the right to adopt children? In my opinion no, but that’s a legal consideration, so mine is only a personal opinion. Do I agree with the repeal of DADT? no. Do I think that homosexuality is normal and should be taught as such to young children? no. Do I condemn homosexuals? No. I view practicing homosexual sex to be a sin, but I cannot condemn anyone who does practice it because we’re all sinners and unworthy of God’s salvation. There is no such thing as small sin versus greater sin. God views every sin as an equal abomination. That is where I come down on this issue for those who didn’t know. Taps
jm
January 30th, 2012
9:50 pm
Man (or woman), Nikki Haley will make a good VP or Presidential candidate one day……
First female president is my guess.
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
9:50 pm
jm,
“If you’re unemployed and gay, are you more worried about a job, or the extent of your rights?”
Why do you have to choose one or the other?
josef
January 30th, 2012
9:51 pm
As much as I’d like to stay and continue the conversation, gotta busy one tomorrow and need my beauty rest….g’night
Fast and Furious Spending
January 30th, 2012
9:51 pm
Jay,
You need to read (and comment on, I think) the National Review article by Robert Novak concerning Joe Paterno: The Injustice Done to Joe Paterno.
As a Penn State grad (which I believe you are) I would very much like to know more. Did the Board of Trustees really hang him out to twist in the wind like this?
If they did, it’s shamless, and I’m wondering, if this is true, why the media went after JoePa like it did.
Your thoughts?
jm
January 30th, 2012
9:52 pm
Recon there are several things in your 9:48 I agree with. For a variety of reasons…..
getalife
January 30th, 2012
9:54 pm
Who are you to judge others cons?
You set a horrible example and are horrible Americans.
Get ready for discrimination against you.
Karma.
jm
January 30th, 2012
9:55 pm
jewcowboy 9:50 – you don’t. Since Mitt is running.
Obama will not foster the job creation environment America needs.
F&F Novak has a screw or two loose. JoePa got dumped because he didn’t do the most he could to stop a child molester. Of course, the whole BoT should be dumped too.
jm
January 30th, 2012
9:56 pm
getalife – we all judge, like it or not
some judge people based on their morals, some their skin color, some on their beliefs, some on their sexual orientation
you turkeys judge cons on their political beliefs all day long
so pipe down lil one
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 30th, 2012
9:59 pm
Well why marry when they can’t procreate?
Why oh why do these posters fail to comprehend that many people marry with no intent, desire or, for some, ability to procreate. Marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation.
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
9:59 pm
Recon 2533 1811,
“I don’t think they’ve been denied those rights’
I’d suggest you read the 4th amendment.
“Well why marry when they can’t procreate? ”
I guess you should have asked the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, or perhaps ask Jay Leno and his wife, or even Pat Buchanan and his wife.
“They do have the right to a civil union, which provides all of the legal rights associated with a union between two people including those who’re legally married.”
Except they don’t. And even if they did, when did “separate but equal” become the motto of the US?
“Should they have the right to adopt children?”
Maybe if straight people stopped abandoning their obligations this wouldn’t be an issue. But so far straight people have proven they can’t be trusted.
“Do I agree with the repeal of DADT”
Doesn’t matter, it’s history.
“Do I think that homosexuality is normal and should be taught as such to young children? ”
You don’t have to. I knew I liked boys when I was very young, just the same as you knew you liked girls. We didn’t know all the particulars around, but you don’t have to teach nature.
“I view practicing homosexual sex to be a sin, but I cannot condemn anyone”
And luckily we live in a nation whose law preclude you from doing that…or at least that is the ideal.
getalife
January 30th, 2012
9:59 pm
jm,
In the end, you cons will admit you should have treated others with respect when you are discriminated against.
Kamchak
January 30th, 2012
10:00 pm
Oooh, it’s crass and frumious.
I thought you were too good for the likes of us, or as you put it, a waste of time.
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
10:03 pm
jm,
“F&F Novak has a screw or two loose. JoePa got dumped because he didn’t do the most he could to stop a child molester. Of course, the whole BoT should be dumped too.”
You shouldn’t chug Listerine.
Jm
January 30th, 2012
10:04 pm
Getalife you earn respect
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
10:05 pm
“I’d suggest you read the 4th amendment.”
And by that I mean the 14th. Though protections against against unreasonable searches and seizures are very important as well. They just have little to do with marriage equality.
jm
January 30th, 2012
10:07 pm
jewcowboy, apparently you haven’t heard of sodomy laws
getalife
January 30th, 2012
10:08 pm
jm,
Yup and cons deserve none.
Better think long term for the future because majorities do change.
TaxPayer
January 30th, 2012
10:09 pm
Why do you have to choose one or the other?
Because jm cannot multitask.
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
10:09 pm
getalife,
“Get ready for discrimination against you.”
That would be the crux of many of the pundits on Fox News and the like. Fear of being treated as they’ve treated others. It would also be at the heart of the victimization rants of many christians.
jm
January 30th, 2012
10:10 pm
getalife
if you think the future of the democratic party is premised solely upon the increase in minorities, you’re likely to be severely disappointed
intelligent reasonable people the world over want an intelligently run government, no matter their racial origin. they may not get it, but they want it.
Obama doesn’t run a tight ship.
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
10:11 pm
jm,
“apparently you haven’t heard of sodomy laws”
And apparently you are like Rick Perry and haven’t heard of Lawrence v. Texas.
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
10:12 pm
“intelligent reasonable people the world over want an intelligently run government”
Which really scares the GOP.
Martin Williams
January 30th, 2012
10:13 pm
I believe if Mitt continue to follow Newt’s Language which was an article in Sunday’s paper, he will clearly be the nominee before the GOP convention. In the 90s Newt used to tell his GOP colleagues how to attach their opponents with strong adjective words like; welfare, liberal, sick, pathetic, corruption, corrupt, disgrace, lie, waste, etc to gain GOP majority and he became speaker of the house. Now that Mitt is using the same words on him, he called him pathetic. Newts downfall came right after he was endorsed by Herman Cain. Sarah Palin did not even know if Africa was continent and she supports Newt, go figure the blind leading the blind. The GOP establishment may be stupid but not that stupid to make Newt the nominee. This time the folks in South Carolina are dead wrong.
jm
January 30th, 2012
10:14 pm
jewcowboy
no I’m perfectly aware
keep in mind those laws were only recently ruled unconstitutional. point is, up until recently they existed, were passed in the past for one reason or another. even if they were rarely if ever enforced.
I was mentioning it as food for thought, that’s all.
Recon 2533 1811
January 30th, 2012
10:15 pm
jewcowboy,
You come on this blog and seem to want to celebrate your sexual orientation that frankly I couldn’t care less about as I’m sure most people don’t. I posted because someone else commented referencing my name within their post and I wanted to document my position on the subject without someone else presuming to do so for me. Now you state that the law precludes me from condemning you or any other practicing homosexual. No it does not I’ve chosen not to do so on my own for the beliefs described in my previous post.
getalife
January 30th, 2012
10:15 pm
jewcowboy,
Yup they are scared of the karma but just can’t stop the hate.
It starts with their gop so called leadership and they use it on the gullible cons to get elected.
These “christians” should pray there is no hell.
Kamchak
January 30th, 2012
10:16 pm
“Be aware, the world needs more wares.”
– Thomas Jefferson
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
10:20 pm
jm,
“point is, up until recently they existed, were passed in the past for one reason or another. even if they were rarely if ever enforced.”
Not much of a point then. Miscegenation laws were passed for one reason or another. Until Loving v. VA that is.
jm
January 30th, 2012
10:20 pm
jewcowboy
If the gay community wants to be treated with respect, some of its representatives should probably cease coming on here and joking and laughing hysterically about “santorum”
getalife
January 30th, 2012
10:24 pm
jm,
Nobody cares about showing you cons respect.
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
10:27 pm
Recon,
“your sexual orientation that frankly I couldn’t care less about as I’m sure most people don’t. ”
Yet, you want laws to discriminate against gay people. Interesting.
“I wanted to document my position on the subject ”
Only you can?
“Now you state that the law precludes me from condemning you or any other practicing homosexual.”
Sorry…I should have been more clear. You can believe in whatever you choose. You just can’t use the laws of this nation to enforce your views on others. You don’t want a gay marriage, don’t get married to someone of the same sex.
Mick
January 30th, 2012
10:27 pm
drive by
Ho hum. flori-duh is up to bat and the polls are all over the place, why am I not surprised? Go newt, we love your anger and romney is going to feel the full wrath of the gingrinch….more debates please, it’s going to be a very good year….for president obama…
Recon 2533 1811
January 30th, 2012
10:28 pm
“Nobody cares about showing you cons respect.”
Not on here but you don’t really believe that conservative posters that post on this blog helping to keep jay employed and you entertained really care about your respect.
jm
January 30th, 2012
10:30 pm
getalife
A (repeat), I’m not a “con”
B, I don’t give much of hoot. Any passing casual readers of Jay’s blog read the first page, the jokes, the filth, and first decide the blog is trash (not too far from the truth) and second probably pause to contemplate what kind of people would post:
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
5:42 pm
“I want Santorum.”
Head to Cheshire Bridge.
* Link
* Report this comment
Kamchak
January 30th, 2012
5:46 pm
Head to Cheshire Bridge.
And the jokes just keep “coming.”
———————
Of course its been much worse on here. I’m just saying, certain folks aren’t doing themselves any favors.
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
10:31 pm
jm,
“If the gay community wants to be treated with respect, some of its representatives should probably cease coming on here and joking and laughing hysterically about “santorum”
Point of fact, most of the people on here that are “joking and laughing hysterically about “santorum” are straight (at least based on previous posts, but in reality who knows). And just curious, if someone was comparing your relationship to pedophilia and bestiality, how much respect would you show them?
jm
January 30th, 2012
10:31 pm
“but you don’t really believe that conservative posters that post on this blog …….. really care about your respect.”
getalife
January 30th, 2012
10:32 pm
You cons will get respect when you earn it.
jm
January 30th, 2012
10:34 pm
jewcowboy
I don’t know what all Santorum has said. I’m not a fan of the guy and haven’t paid him much attention since pretty much the beginning.
You may not like the guy, but politics and civil rights are serious business (obviously). You don’t have to show him respect. There are plenty of opportunities to prove the guy isn’t worthy of the office of the presidency without resorting to jokes about “santorum”.
Geo
January 30th, 2012
10:34 pm
“Nobody cares about showing you cons respect.”
November’s fast approaching girlfriend. Better get ready rather than flapping your jowls.
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
10:35 pm
jm,
“Of course its been much worse on here. I’m just saying, certain folks aren’t doing themselves any favors.”
Yes, because I’m sure all the bigots in the world like Santorum would turn and embrace every gay person if they would just stop making fun of him. Seems to me, people like Santorum (and many on this blog) can dish it, but when it comes flinging back in their face they run like children, crying about victimization. Perhaps if zealots like that turned down their animus, then others wouldn’t have to return in kind.
jm
January 30th, 2012
10:36 pm
“You cons will get respect when you earn it.”
Getalife will get respect when he learns to speak in something longer and more insightful than a twit.
jewcowboy
January 30th, 2012
10:37 pm
jm,
“There are plenty of opportunities to prove the guy isn’t worthy of the office of the presidency without resorting to jokes about “santorum”.”
But then they wouldn’t be quite as funny.
getalife
January 30th, 2012
10:38 pm
Geo,
I am ready for four more years.
jm
January 30th, 2012
10:39 pm
jewcowboy
MLK (and friends) didn’t win the civil rights battle they fought by calling whitey: “honkeys” and “crackers”
They won by raising the level of discourse and appealing to the good in us, not the crass and juvenile