ThinkFast: October 15, 2009
ThinkFast: October 15, 2009
President Obama is in New Orleans today, “his first post-inauguration visit” to the city. Obama will be there for approximately four hours and will visit “the only school to reopen in the Lower 9th Ward since Katrina, conduct a town hall at the University of New Orleans” with Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA), and “grab a to-go lunch order from Dooky Chase.”
BBC’s Newsnight program reported that the “Obama administration had already told the UK government it would soon announce a substantial increase to its military forces in Afghanistan.” The White House immediately disputed the report. The administration is still considering sending fewer troops than requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said yesterday that “he’s not ready yet to support sending additional troops to Afghanistan.” “Afghanistan has not been a successful venue for many great powers in the past,” Hoyer told reporters, adding that he had “reservations” about whether the Afghan government “can create confidence within its people.”
Most of the Arctic sea ice will be gone in a decade, according to newly released data. The Arctic Ocean will be “an open sea.” One researcher explains, “This could lead to flooding affecting one-quarter of the world’s population, substantial increases in greenhouse gas emissions from massive carbon pools and extreme global weather changes.”
The Pentagon is fighting to secure the funding for its propaganda arm, the Information Operations program. The office requested $361.4 million more than it actually needed earlier in the year. “I just don’t like the idea that the military is in the propaganda business,” Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) told the press. “I don’t like it.”
“Almost nine months after the Obama administration took power, more than half of the 33 highest-level Treasury Department posts are still vacant.” “Eight nominees are awaiting confirmation hearings before the Senate” while the administration still needs to “select or formally nominate candidates to nine more top-level positions.” “It’s a major concern,” said congressional expert Norm Ornstein.
President Obama will push Congress to provide $250 payments to 57 million veterans, seniors, and disabled people next year, in an effort to offset the impact of there being no cost-of-living increase in Social Security payments. “These payments will provide aid to more than 50 million people in the coming year, relief that will not only make a difference for them, but for our economy as a whole,” Obama said.
Three of the five members of the Nobel Committee reportedly had objections to the Peace Prize being awarded to President Obama. The Norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang reported that it had “spoken to a number of sources who confirmed the impression that a majority of the Nobel committee, at first, had not decided to give the peace prize to Barack Obama.”
And finally: President Bush finally has a Blackberry. Twitter founder Biz Stone revealed the news and posted a picture of himself with the former president, writing, “[W]ill tweets be next?” Unfortunately for Twitter users who have enjoyed following former Bushies like Karl Rove, Dana Perino, and Tony Fratto, the former president “has no plans of tweeting.”
Follow ThinkProgress on Twitter.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Ice caps melting?? Does this mean Wall Street will be under water???? UMMM…Maybe global warming isn’t such a bad thing after all.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:08 amI wonder who will turn on Chimpy’s new blackberry for him?
October 15th, 2009 at 9:15 amMike Hunt says:
I think they meant Blackberry brandy
October 15th, 2009 at 9:17 amIt’s about time that a President has shown the people hit worst by Katrina that the government hasn’t forgotten about them. I still don’t think Bush ignored NOLA for entirely racial reasons…he just happens to really detest the poor. I believe Obama sincerely cares about the residents of the Lower 9th Ward (as much as someone in his position can, anyway)…ditto for Cao, largely because Cao will be living back in the district full-time come January 2011.
Unlike the previous administration’s desire to jump headfirst into conflict with meager numbers, Obama is undergoing serious deliberation about the size of the troop increase. The best we can hope for is that he really does have the best and the brightest advising him, that they know something more about the situation on the ground than we do…and that the administration and the military brass aren’t advocating the surge for ideological reasons or financial gain. He campaigned on increasing troop levels in Afghanistan and hunting al-Qaeda; let’s hope the hunt is successful.
In regards to the propaganda division…it’s over-budget and seems like it could be an endless black hole for misappropriation and fraud. But the division itself isn’t a bad idea. Foreign propaganda, if done right, will win people over if they’re sufficiently exhausted from fighting. Besides, it’s not like the Pentagon uses the stuff domestically….progressives reamed the Bush administration when they tried pulling that shite.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:17 amIn a decade?
My guess is the steam coming from Hannity’s ears upon hearing this will accelerate that pace. Of course, he might also counter with the larger and colder winter storms forecasted for the northeast winter this year.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:17 amHow can Artic ice be melting? Didnt hannity just say the other day that global warming isnt happening?
October 15th, 2009 at 9:18 amA patriot @3, That was an excellent comment. Thanks for the laugh.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:22 amMy hope is that the Chamber of Commerce headquarters is located on the seashore.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:23 amWhy was this not a problem when Bush wanted to invade? The Taliban were offering to extridite Bin Laden upon sufficient proof, but instead of proof, Bush invaded. He didn’t get Bin Laden, but he did secure the oil pipeline contract for American companies.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:26 amljm says:
“My hope is that the Chamber of Commerce headquarters is located on the seashore.”
Oh, they’re counting on it.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:30 amWhy do you think they want to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
Prime oceanfront property.
The Taliban made the offer on September 20th. They made another offer on October 7th, to try him in an Islamic court in Afghanistan. The fact of the matter is that while there were several members of the Taliban that feared (rightly) that bin Laden would use the country to attack American and provoke a war against Afghanistan, their calls went unheeded. The Taliban leadership would’ve never convicted bin Laden under their interpretation of Sharia law. It was never their intention to surrender bin Laden to us and they viewed the insistance on American inspection of terrorist training camps as an infringement on their soverignty. We made the right decision invading. We completely and utterly screwed up the actual war.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:34 amPresident Obama is in New Orleans today…
no mention of the hypocrite jindal…?
that should be an awkward meeting… hopefully…
hopefully president obama makes the lying twerp squirm…
October 15th, 2009 at 9:35 am“Almost nine months after the Obama administration took power, more than half of the 33 highest-level Treasury Department posts are still vacant.” “Eight nominees are awaiting confirmation hearings before the Senate” while the administration still needs to “select or formally nominate candidates to nine more top-level positions.”
Gee Treasury>>>> that would not have any thing to do with lets say the recovery or stimulus, Tim really do not need them he can do muti jobs.
Wonder at this rate if he will ever get all the positions filled.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:39 ammurtha doesn’t like something? is he not getting his cut?
sorry, but that guy’s a dirtbag.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:39 amginslinger,
It is the Republicans that laid claim to compassion. Remember when Bush went to New Orleans, he took his generators with him when he left.
Republicans no longer get to claim they are the more compassionate political party. Republicans have been exposed as being fascist, corporate lackeys. The Republican Party is politically finished in America.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:41 amkaty says:
October 15th, 2009 at 9:41 am“…no mention of the hypocrite jindal…?”
He was last seen with one foot on the platform,
the other on the train.
15. Spear,
Don’t forget: He’s corrupt because he cares about his constituents. (How the hell does someone get re-elected after getting caught saying that on record?)
October 15th, 2009 at 9:42 amkaty says:
President Obama is in New Orleans today…
no mention of the hypocrite jindal…?
seen on morning joe-mi were he was saying that jindal and Vetter was the loudest voice pushing bush to help. Then he mention how vetter has higher rating then ried.
shaking my head.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:45 amWe made the right decision invading. We completely and utterly screwed up the actual war.
Assuming, of course, that Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks on 9/11. The Bush administration did not conduct an investigation aimed at discovering the culprits. We have as much proof Bin Laden did it as we had of Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: Bush’s word for it.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:46 amWe are never going to find Bin Lauden unless we look in Bush’s ranch in Crawford Texas. He will be one of those clearing brush.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:48 amThe apathy runs deep in the cold-hearts of brain-dead regressives (remember, Texas ranks 46th nationally in healthcare!)
Broken elevator frustrates wheelchair-bound student
LINK
“Compassionate Conservatism” is a thin veil for bigoted greed.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:52 amhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden#September_11.2C_2001_attacks
I give the same response to any Truther: the Bush administration was too incompetant to plan the attacks. Bin Laden has admitted to it. al-Zawahiri has proudly stated al-Qaeda was responsible. Khalid Sheihk Mohammed took his credit. al-Qaeda repeatedly slammed Iran because they thought Iran was denigrating al-Qaeda by claiming the Israelis were behind it. Without a doubt, Bin Laden, at the very least, funded and had full knowledge of the attacks from planning to execution. He was responsible. It’s a catastrophe for the Afghani people that they’ve had to suffer through the past 8 years. And for 22 years before that. Think of the situation as analogous to Italy under Mussolini. You have people who live under an extremely repressive society. The people, by and large, don’t seek confrontation with outside forces. Their government enters into an alliance with a force that does (Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in the case of Italy, al-Qaeda in the case of the Taliban). Said confrontational forces attack a larger power and provoke an onslaught that wreaks havoc on the population. Point being, war is hell. Full blame can’t be placed on us for avenging an attack on our soil. We could’ve used different tactics, we could’ve made a hell of a larger effort to limit civilian casualties, but don’t blame us for invading.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:56 amCrap. Forgot to take off the tag.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:56 amMost of the Arctic sea ice will be gone in a decade, according to newly released data. The Arctic Ocean will be “an open sea.” One researcher explains, “This could lead to flooding affecting one-quarter of the world’s population, substantial increases in greenhouse gas emissions from massive carbon pools and extreme global weather changes.”
Congratulations, world corporatocracy, you’ve succeeded in fukcing up the planet for our kids and their kids.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:57 amEnjoy your profits while you still have beaches to lounge on.
No big rush, Obama’s only 20% into his first term – there’s still plenty of time to get his full team in place before the 2012 elections.
:P
October 15th, 2009 at 9:59 amthe former president “has no plans of tweeting.”
Oh, thank the stars. Tweeterdom will be so much better off for not having itself polluted with BushBabble.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:59 amThere will still be beaches, they will just move inland.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:00 amginslinger,
You wingnuts should be kissing Pelosi’s ass. She was the only thing that stood between Bush and impeachment.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:02 amginslinger,
October 15th, 2009 at 10:05 amstop acting like you can define anything. You couldn’t do anything right when you were in power and now you just get to sit and watch as we make history.
Notice the troll totally avoids the disgusting behavior of his Saint Georgie the Dumb, and instead whines about his terror of Pelosi.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:07 amginslinger – have another gin & tonic. It sounds like you’re still in a lousy mood.
Why do you insist on saying that Obama was “selected”?
October 15th, 2009 at 10:09 amHow do you know for a fact that Obama was awarded the Peace Prize because “he’s not Bush”?
Do you truly care about the people of New Orleans?
Why do you insist on being such a jerk?
zooey, it’s amazing when they try to act like they know right from wrong isn’t it?
For 8 years bush did everything wrong and we knew it. Did ginny listen to us?
It offends me when they suddenly act like they have a moral compass.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:10 amEnnui, don’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia. I followed the links. One example, “The evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable.” yet the testifying FBI officer gave no description of “the evidence.” Again, we’re left just taking their word for it.
How would you like it if you were accused of murder, tried, convicted and executed, merely because the prosecutor says the evidence against you is clear and irrefutable? Would you, sitting on a jury, convict someone on just the prosecutor’s word? Or would you want to see the evidence?
I, for one, would like to see the evidence. What evidence I’ve seen points away from Bin Laden, not towards him. I, for one, have a reasonable doubt as to whether Bin Laden orchestrated the events.
In my opinion, our soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan so that a very few people could become very, very wealthy.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:10 amI read on DK that according to General Petraeus’ guidelines for fighting a counterinsurgency, a ratio of 1 soldier to 20-25 indigens would be required.
This would mean around 664,000 troops. And thats just the trigger-pullers. Support personal would also be needed, at a
ratio of 2-3 to 1.
America had over 550,000 troops in Vietnam, with a geographical area just over a third of Afghanistan.
And that was only possible with selective service.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:10 amIt has been explained, over and over again, that they had neither the time nor the votes to impeach.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:11 amNow is a good time to buy a beach-front condo in Colorado.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:12 amPerry, they had the time to impeach. Who knows if they had the votes. They lacked the will.
Congress is a marionette show.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:14 amJust because they neither had the time nor the votes to impeach, does not mean they should not have done so anyway.
(wow, to many negatives in that sentence.)
October 15th, 2009 at 10:15 am32.
Not to mention, Newt-the-Bloated-Windbag, who shut down the federal government because President Clinton wouldn’t shake is hand. That’s the Repub standard bearer for ya.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:16 amThe Taliban/AQ/Afghanistan is way too complex for my little brain. The whole thing still stinks to high heaven to me.
But I will pass along this little quote of the day published in my local newspaper yesterday from John Petro, “who, as a covert procurement officer for the C I A, was involved in sending weapons to the Afghan mujaheddin”:
“I knew it at the time, these guys are not our friends. We’re giving them all these sophisticated weapons and the minute this is over, the minute they don’t need us, they’re running the show again. …We’re just wasting blood after blood over there.”
October 15th, 2009 at 10:23 amI tend to think if i confessed to the murder, had several witnesses testifying that i committed the murder, and praised others who helped plan the murder…I deserve to get convicted. That said, I’m anti-death penalty. Wikipedia’s flawed; but the mulitiude of links to legitimate sources act as safeguards. There’s no doubt that Bush et.al. exploited a national tragedy. It doesn’t change the the fact that al-Qaeda happily admitted to executed an attack on this country that left around 3,000 dead and forced a massive retaliatory strike. al-Qaeda leadership has said as much, that they used the attacks to provoke an American invasion into Afghanistan, believing it to be the Graveyard of Empires. Yeah. War profiteering reigned, a certain few got exceedingly wealthy. But what should we have done, if not attempt to capture/kill the people responsible? By “waiting for proof”, the Taliban would’ve let Bin Laden slip into Pakistan (which happened anyway…). No US President, or any world leader, would’ve chosen to not invade (as evidenced by the NATO/ISAF coalition). This isn’t Iraq.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:28 am“incumbant President Cheney”?
Are you mad? Dick Cheney is a war criminal. Not only couldn’t Cheney ever get elected as president, he will be lucky if he dies before he goes to the Hague.
You wingnuts really do live in an alternate reality.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:28 amJust think: If it wasn’t for Ronnie and Georgie, this whole thing could’ve been avoided. Ditto the whole Saddam Hussein, multiple-Gulf-War deal.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:32 amginslinger, flagged for spamming and ignored for insolence and ignorance.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:32 amginsoaked is a fool. It is obviously unaware that it is in a miniscule minority of idiots who would extoll the virtues of Dick Cheney, a war criminal and war profiteer. ginny is delusional.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:34 amCheney?
The mere mention of such word conjures up images of turds on a backed up toilet, along with McCarthy, Bush, Reagan, North, Rove and Nixon.
Seriously.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:38 amginslinger says:
Kiss Pelosis azz! Kiss Pelozis azz!!
Hey, kids! Can YOU figure out which political figure ginslinger has a not-so-secreet crush on?
October 15th, 2009 at 10:40 amMan, I am so hung over.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:40 amGinslinger, you think Obama would have lost to Cheney in an election? Hell, if we’re talking hypotheticals, I would have asked for Cheney’s impeachment long before Bush’s.
Hilarious.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:46 amWhat did you miss?
Caught this in my local paper:
A federal judge challenged the backers of California’s voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday to explain how allowing gay couples to wed threatens conventional unions, a demand that prompted their lawyer to acknowledge he did not know.
This oughta be good.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:50 am53. Ralph,
Personally, I like the movement to ban divorce in California. You think marriage is such a sacred bond between a man and a woman? Prove it. Stay married or face a prison sentence.
Same-sex marriage will eventually come to CA, by voters or by the judges.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:57 amWonder how long it will be before the Corporations start touting seagates on the costal areas, to protect our vital seaports, they will reap a tidy profit with construction projects, from a problem they generously helped along… and again they will enrich themselves off of our backs. You and I will be paying the bill for that construction. Bend over and smile again, people.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:02 amBriseadh na Faire says:
In my opinion, our soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan so that a very few people could become very, very wealthy.
And are still dying.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:09 amI’m all for that proposal, EnnuiDivine.
But in the meantime, I would still like to hear one person give some kind of cogent answer to the question: how does same-sex marriage undermine traditional marriage?
I mean, we’ve asked our trolls here repeatedly, but they have trouble giving a clear answer when a nice police officer asks them where their mommy and daddy live.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:14 amWhat people really want is hassle-free health care.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:19 am57. Ralph,
Very simple answer: THEY CAN’T. If you’re that insecure in your marriage (or sexuality), that’s a personal issue between you and your spouse/self/lover. There is no rational reason why same-sex marriage should be banned. Nobody is forcing a church to perform the ceremony. Nobody is forcing you to attend a same-sex marriage ceremony.
I still would love to hear someone explain how a child born to a household of domestic abuse or neglect (but who has a mommy and a daddy) is better off than a child living in a nurturing, loving household with two daddies or two mommies.
You’ll never get an answer based in logic. Only based in archaic, religious nonsense.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:26 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
flag@whitehouse.gov
The bible has nothing to do with it.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:45 amThe biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage.
Baloney.
But I suspect you already knew that. There are many south seas island cultures which didn’t use marriage as a cultural foundation. And they did just fine, until the bible thumpers arrived, and taught them about sin.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:54 amMeat Bag, the voters had spoken before and it was judged unconstitutional, just as this one will be.
grow up and try to be an adult.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:55 am60. Flag,
Thank you for validating my point. Also, “the biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history.”
Ahem.
Marriages occured before the bible was written by man. Marriages occured in other parts of the world not dominated by Abrahamic religions. Various non-Abrahamic civilizations practiced polygamy. There ARE other cultures besides the “Judeo-Christian” one (and i REALLY hate the phrase Judeo-Christian. Particularly because it’s used almost exclusively by Christians to sound more inclusive.)
October 15th, 2009 at 11:55 amThe people have spoken, now, stfu!
Why all the hate?
October 15th, 2009 at 11:55 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
By statute, many anti-miscegenation laws were valid in pre-1960s southern and western states.
The voters approved laws prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites. The voters spoke, so I can assume you’re ok with any law that the majority approves?
There are several reasons why the courts exists; one of which is to strike down reactionary and prejudicial laws like Prop 8
October 15th, 2009 at 11:59 am68. Flag,
Why do you assume psychological harm? Are you so limited in your coping abilities that you’d be unable to explain the situation to your child if you were in that situation?
October 15th, 2009 at 12:02 pmflag@whitehouse.gov says:
flag, you’ve got nothing except emotion to support your view.
science says you’re an idiot.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:03 pmflag, and logic says you hate people who are different than you which makes you a bigot.
we already knew these things about you. Maybe you can learn, maybe not. I’m guessing not.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:05 pmAnd Flag, you didn’t answer the question of how same-sex marriage undermines traditional marriage. All you did was cut and pasted from a work (that you didn’t cite) – that was actually posted on gotquestions.org (The Bible has answers – we’ll find them for you!).
How convenient it is to pick and choose your bible passages. No mention of the rest of the wonderful things in Leviticus. Do we get to stone my sister because she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night? What say you to all that?
There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern christianista agenda than Romans 1:31, “they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”
There. Fixed it for ya!
October 15th, 2009 at 12:20 pmMorning, fellow insects!
Remember when Newtie gave Allison Vivas at Pink Visuals her award — and then took it back…? And then she oh-so-neatly turned the tables on the Newt by awarding HIM a Porn Award…?
I sent Allison a congratulatory email to say thanks for baring the Newt’s colossal hypocrisy to the world and asking her to not send money to Republicans – well, last night I got a personal reply thanking me, and letting me know that she and her staff do not contribute to the Republics, and that they lean OUR way. ;o)
I can post the actual email later…heheheh!
October 15th, 2009 at 12:24 pmWow. That was one big swing and a miss.
the question was a simple one:
how does same-sex marriage undermine traditional marriage?
Our long-winded friend offered several dozen words arguing against marriage equality, virtually all of them based on the Bible, with a cursory wave of the hand in the general direction of psychology, but nary a word that described the dynamic that would undermine traditional marriage in gay people were allowed to marry.
Once again, they got nothing.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:35 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Flag,
You are a fascist theocrat. You belong in a prison with the rest of the Republican Party.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:48 pmreligion has nothing to do with a spouses ability to visit them in the hospital or share health insurance coverage etc.
Plenty of marriages happen without god being involved at all.
hateful, you earn that. I don’t dole it out freely, just to those who deserve it.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:49 pmThat’s one way to look at “marriage”, sure. But it’s hardly the only way.
If God were the only determining factor in “marriage” then my wife and I would not be married, since our civil ceremony was performed by a Justice of the Peace.
“Marriage” is a legal state first. It is defined by the civil authority and carries with it dozens of rights and privileges that simple cohabitation does not. Not even “civil unions” can match the degree to which two lives merge into one that comes with marriage.
You know, I seem to remember from my religious instruction that the delusion that we can know God or what God wants is a form of arrogance that reveals a false prophet.
Because it is not equal in the eyes of the state.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:53 pmPrecisely. One would think that Brown v. Board of Education eliminated the “Seperate but Equal” idea as being inherently flawed, but that’s exactly the case of the civil union/marriage dichotmy. This isn’t just a matter of semantics. This isn’t the UK, where civil unions have the FULL equality of the law in everything but name. There are literally thousands of benefits that are unavailable to couples in a civil union that are available to those in a marriage.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:09 pmYou know, I seem to remember from my religious instruction that the delusion that we can know God or what God wants is a form of arrogance that reveals a false prophet.
Absolutely agreed, but there sure is a lot of writing in the Bible against the homosexual relationship.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:10 pmI guess it is ultimately a matter of faith. If your genitalia cause you to interpret the Bible in a certain way or you have no faith in an afterlife….knock yourself out with a relationship that will most likely end here on earth. There are no gurantees, but that lifestyle leaves a lot less likelihood of an afterlife according to most religions.
flag@whitehouse.gov, prove god exists.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:11 pmFred & Ralph,
I had to step away, so thank you for so articulately answering the question.
Flag, what did the world do before god? How did humans acknowledge and celebrate life together before edicts from god?
And lastly, and the only of these three questions to which I’d actually like an answer: how would a marriage of me to my partner undermine that of my brothers and sisters? I would be taking nothing from them, nor would my marriage penalize theirs in any way. So, I fail to see how it undermines “straight” marriage.
Or, after it’s all said and done, is it just that the idea of two gay men (and thousands of couples) getting married is just oogey to you?
October 15th, 2009 at 1:14 pmMarriage is not a matter of religious faith.
The Bible is not the basis for the U.S. Constitution.
Thank you for the unintentional blessing (knock yourself out), by which I infer that you ARE OK with same-sex marriage. If it’s no problem and it’s only our afterlife that’s at stake, let’s roll then.
Folks, we now have Flag’s backing on gay marriage.
Right, Flag? Flag…Flag?
(crickets)
October 15th, 2009 at 1:19 pmOh, and are we to set a date for stoning my sister, Flag? You never answered that one.
So many sins, so few afterlife parties.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:20 pmflag@whitehouse.gov says:
Absolutely agreed, but there sure is a lot of writing in the Bible against the homosexual relationship.
No there isn’t, in fact “HeyZeus” never spoke about it once.
However there is a lot of writing about divorce, including “HeyZeus” saying it was flat out illegal. I’m betting you are divorced? Hypocrisy much? ;)
October 15th, 2009 at 1:22 pmflag@whitehouse.gov says:
Is this the same bible that describes donkeys that talk, says the earth is flat, and that slavery is fine, that women aren’t really people, that children can be given away as slaves? I could go on – you get the point? Maybe not! LOL! ;)
October 15th, 2009 at 1:23 pmFred, Barracks, the “knock yourself out” was concerning gay relationships not marriage.
If it’s no problem and it’s only our afterlife that’s at stake, let’s roll then. I feel sorry for you, Fred, and many of you that refuse to have faith that there is a power greater than ours.
Facts, no I am not divorced as a matter of FACT….that was an ugly assumption. I feel for those that can’t work it out.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:35 pmThere is a whole lot of stuff about talking reptiles, dudes in cetacean stomachs, shellfish, and two of everything on a boat as well in that book. I suppose I am supposed to worry about that nonsense as well. Afterlife? Being recycled back into the stuff of starts to be bonded together again based upon valence electrons is fine by me…
October 15th, 2009 at 2:01 pmSo flag is STILL unable to answer the simple question:
how does same-sex marriage undermine traditional marriage?
maybe he wants to take another stab at it?
October 15th, 2009 at 3:13 pmHeh, according to the flaggot, *I* can’t get married — because I am an atheist.
Up yours, you bigoted, buybull-thumping barstid.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:25 pmSame-sex marriage is going to be a very tough sale on a Federal level seeing that we are still a very religious country, and even many of the non-religious polpulation just aren’t down with it. If there is going to be success in this piece of the Progressive agenda, it will most likely be on a local or State level.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:52 pmHmmmm, since when did the US Supreme Court start making decisions based on national polls ?
October 15th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
October 15th, 2009 at 7:28 pmlink?
That is really the message. It was in the tone. gögüs estetigi
October 21st, 2009 at 5:45 am