Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"As I said before, Jeb supporting the Indiana law is a bit of a faux-pas to some independent moderates like myself while pandering to social conservatives."
Ah, but did you parse his statement? He expressed vague support for religious liberty, not the specific notion that businesses should be able to discriminate against homosexuals. I think he can/will walk it back, pretending that the plain meaning of the statute was unclear.
Ah, but did you parse his statement? He expressed vague support for religious liberty, not the specific notion that businesses should be able to discriminate against homosexuals. I think he can/will walk it back, pretending that the plain meaning of the statute was unclear.
But here is the thing. A similar bill was proposed in the Arizona legislature about this time last year. The issue is that it is not only homosexuals that face discrimination but those who are suspected to be such as girls who kiss on the lips rather than the cheek, a guy wearing pink or someone that has a a rainbow. If I were gay (and I am not) I wouldn't show it in public, I don't show I am that straight in public, it just isn't in my blood. The thing is others do. That and the slippery slope of a Hobby Lobby or another business that isn't overtly Christian throwing out Jews, Muslims, Atheists, etc.
Who has more rights the business owner offended by something they don't believe in that is a natural occurring and not a choice (Ben Carson, your research is about 30 years old and refuted) or the one who offends them by being who they are and not doing anything intentional?
The problem is while that might have been the intent of Jeb's comment in favor of the law, it was not exactly said as eloquently and direct as you did explaining it.
In 2008, no Repub stood a chance. That is the penalty for a POTUS, W, leaving behind the worst economic situation -750k month job LOSSES-to ever have on 1/20 of the year a new POTUS is sworn in.
That is because there are so many idiots out there, that assume the presidency is a dictatorship.
They have no clue congress runs the show. The President is just a yes or no guy.
Nothing came across President Bush's desk in 2007 or 2008 from congress, to rectify the escalating concerns, that Bush himself had expressed and Ron Paul too, since 2001.
Pelosi and Reid knew, the idiots would buy it and vote for anyone but a Republican, after they sabotaged Bush, with a crashed economy. "It happened on Bush's watch"
You're probably hearing that from the same people who claim Democrats "worship" Obama. In other words, from right wingnuts who "claim" all kinds of silly, stupid things, few of which are true.
What has Cruz done to "earn" the presidency, or do you think he is "entitled" to it because you support him?
I started the topic. You know how I feel and this thread isn't about me.
Address the message, not the messenger, or you would be considered a troll.
"The problem is while that might have been the intent of Jeb's comment in favor of the law, it was not exactly said as eloquently and direct as you did explaining it."
No, the intent of Jeb's statement was political gamesmanship -- namely, courting Evangelicals while trying his damnedest to avoid alienating moderates. I was simply praising his slipperiness -- obviously, he can't simultaneously hold both positions.
No, the intent of Jeb's statement was political gamesmanship -- namely, courting Evangelicals while trying his damnedest to avoid alienating moderates. I was simply praising his slipperiness -- obviously, he can't simultaneously hold both positions.
Which is why I see through the comment. I would have like to hear, "Well they are allowed to believe what they want and I'll allow that, but it isn't good to cut your consumer base down based on their beliefs." If it was said like that, that wouldn't have flipped off a switch in me...
I started the topic. You know how I feel and this thread isn't about me.
You start a thread claiming that you're "hearing over and over" that we must elect Hillary, but you don't want to talk about who you are hearing that from? If you can't answer a simple question that you have based your entire OP on, what's the point of posting in the first place? Unless, of course, the whole, "keep hearing over and over again" trope is entirely made up. Which is most likely the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Address the message, not the messenger, or you would be considered a troll.
I am addressing your OP. You seem to think she has not "earned" the presidency. You are a great supporter of Cruz on this board so I would like to know what you believe he's done that qualifies as "earning" the presidency by comparison. Unless you have no answer to that. Which again, is most likely the truth.
That is because there are so many idiots out there, that assume the presidency is a dictatorship.
They have no clue congress runs the show. The President is just a yes or no guy.
Nothing came across President Bush's desk in 2007 or 2008 from congress, to rectify the escalating concerns, that Bush himself had expressed and Ron Paul too, since 2001.
Pelosi and Reid knew, the idiots would buy it and vote for anyone but a Republican, after they sabotaged Bush, with a crashed economy. "It happened on Bush's watch"
Really. Must be a lot of right wing idiots out there because they think that the President is a Dictator and has total control of . . everything. I have seen him called a Dictator hundreds of times on this very forum by the right wingers.
I hope Elizabeth Warren primaries her, as I've said before. Liz won't run though; the Dem donors don't like her.
Your statement is phrased as if Mrs. Clinton has some claim on the nomination, like an incumbent senator might.
She's a challenger, just the same as anyone else that might challenge for the Democratic nomination, is Mrs. Clinton "primarying" Biden by entering the race(provided she does)? The Vice President traditionally has the first crack at the nomination after a two term presidency.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
