Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Rmoney is not just against marriage equality he's actually for putting an anti marriage equality amendment in the US Constitution -- forcing states that already have marriage equality to outlaw those marriages again.
He is a dangerous prick and needs to be stopped.
And that is one of the primary reasons why I, at least, actually am hostile to free-market capitalism.
ALL of the usual conservative talking points about fiscal policy, budgets, foreign policy, etc. are much more logically applied to Obama, not Romney. Obama is the sensible Republican candidate; there is of course no real liberal in the race. Romney is the, I dunno, total liar candidate? Doesn't-know-what-he's-talking-about candidate? Ripoff candidate? He's certainly NOT a conservative Republican.
Maybe like Democratic voters they "hope" that their candidate secretly holds positions contrary to those that he publicly makes.
Would you want to live in a world like that?
I rest my case.
Days to election: 139
[ Cue: 24hrs and one Monkey Paw later -
tkc wakes up in bed shocked to find entire world is made of Mac and Cheese. ]
tkc: Nooooooooooo! Noooo! N... wait a minute.
{takes bite of Mac and Cheese bed}
tkc: Mmmmmm... not so bad.
{Then turns, notices Mac and Cheese wife}
tkc: Nooooooooo! N.... hey, wait a minute...
{Cue: Porn soundtrack}
President Romney will work to amend the US Constitution to outlaw homosexual "marriage".
@ Gay dude, having read a bit of history here and there, I'm aware of the fact that members of an oppressed minority will sometimes abandon that minority and join the oppressor, much like you have. It's the easier path to take, and what's more you get to reap the benefits of the fight when those in the right finally win it. That's a hard thing to comprehend - personally, despite my knowledge of this phenomenon, I can never really see the viewpoint of one who makes that choice, even if I understand why they do.
The fact is that Rmoney is more than likely --much more likely-- going to look blithely away while the fanatic religious "right" steps up cultural attacks on gays. On you, personally, if you live in a "red" state or outside of an urban core. Rmoney, while obviously standing up for monopolists and capitalist titans, will allow christian bigots to run the (emotionalist) debate on pushing for an anti-gay theocratic state.
If Rmoney is elected and a year or two in some delusional gang of fucktards beat you up after leaving a bar some evening calling you "queer!", don't be too surprised or upset about it, ok?
Oh, about those delusional gang of fucktards beating me up? They'll probably beat me up anyway no matter who's in the White House.
Also, your last statement is false. Attacks on minorities ALWAYS go up when the people in charge are sympathetic to the attackers. You WILL be more likely to be attacked with Romney in the White House than you are now or would be under another Obama administration.
@ 28, where on earth are you getting the idea that LGBT youth are more likely to read Atlas Shrugged than non-LGBT youth? Is that a popular book in youth support groups or something? Show your work.
So, by your own admission, you are voting for someone you hope is lying and/or incompetent. Nice job.
@30: It very well was a blessing in disguise that Reagan was silent on AIDS for such a long time. Could you imagine if Ronnie, not overtly anti-gay politically as he was against that ‘70s anti-gay teacher California Briggs Initiative, had acquiesced to sinister forces in the government to roundup and quarantine the queers? As it was, ACT-UP, Chicken Soup, and other community groups worked closely with health departments and the CDC nationwide; more than likely than not netting greater cooperation to testing and saving the disease from being driven underground further.
Oh, Bill Clinton was president when Matther Shepard was beat and left to die on that fence - I know that's just anecdotal, but still.
But then, he's just here to present other lies Romney has told as fact (as he has done countless times thus far), so it should be no surprise to anyone that he's completely comfortable with a pathological liar as president.
reagan = ' blessing in disguise'. so, you were fine with the government of the people ignoring what amounted to plague happening among it's people because eventually they came around to testing and treatment they should have been doing in the first place ? if this same government remained silent on e-coli, swine flu, and whooping cough outbreaks we'd all be better off if we'd waited for a million grieving soccer moms to organize and cajole the agencies responsible for guarding and protecting the public health to get up off their asses and DO something ?.. is that the way it's suppose to work ?
and what the holy fuck is that anecdote about matthew shepard supposed to signify ?
@ 33, less likely doesn't equal zero chance. And you're statement about Reagan is basically "it could have been worse." Yes it could, and thank goodness it wasn't, but it could have been a whole hell of a lot better if the administration wasn't packed with religious homophobes. Ronnie himself might have been an okay person, but he allowed some hideous people to make the day to day decisions, just as Bush II did, and just as Rmoney would do.
as if you said that the attacks would disappear entirely under one regime as opposed to another. you didn't. next he'll be pointing to suicides among gay youth to illumine his his profoundly twisted logic
Above all, we should give respect to those, both D and R, whom give their lives to public service despite their own apparent illogical convictions, shortcomings, passions and mortality.
Damn, are you serious?
First of all, Reagan is the major reason for all the setbacks for gays in the first place. During the 70s gay rights was making huge leaps forward. If it hadn't have been for Reagan, who ignored AIDS and who allowed the fundamentalists into the Republican Party en masse, gays and lesbian rights would be much further along than they are today.
Maybe DADT would never have happened and gays and lesbians might have been allowed to serve openly decades ago. Maybe marriage equality would be the law of the land NOW.
It's Reagan and the fundies that have set back gay and lesbian rights for decades.
By the way, gay rights and acceptance "has continued on its upward trajectory" because of Democrats, not Republicans.
There's progress but it's not because of people like you, it's in spit of you.
Obama's health care plan is (a) private and (b) an explicit copy of Romney's, which he now disavows. IT IS THE SAME PLAN.
And you man Romney has pledged to increase the federal budget by ~25% while simultaneously slashing taxes, thereby widening up a deficit that will make Obama's look like a crack in the sidewalk.
It's like you guys don't even listen to what's been fed to you. Your candidate is the EXACT OPPOSITE of everything you think he is. He's the most fiscally reckless candidate in the history of the United States.
Oh, and he's promised a new war, too. That's not in that defense budget he's promised, either, so make that more like DOUBLE the federal budget.
Forever entrenched you are in the auto-reflexive retort, “Well, it could have been so much worse had Obama not done what he did; he was dealt a disaster.”
He was dealt a disaster with the collapse in 2008. He did some good things.
But we can do better than four more years of sluggish growth.
Our corporations are sitting on mountains of cash, ready to hire, but remain uncertain.
You can try and say that the problem is not enough demand, and say that corporations are wrong for their hesitancy; but that doesn’t change their mind, now does it?
Obama's departure surely will.
It is amazing how much like Romney you seem to be here...no ideas, no answers, no substance, just tired talking points and garden variety lies.
... you are coming back ?...
4% is dramatically higher than it was during the entirety of the Cold War. Not rhetoric -- fact.
He claims he can do this without cutting Social Security or Medicare, and while simultaneously slashing taxes yet again. Not rhetoric -- fact. He really does say this.
He has also promised to attack Iran the day he takes office. Not rhetoric -- fact.
Many, many commentators, including professional economists on the left AND ON THE RIGHT have warned that his numbers do not add up. What he says he's going to do is flat-out impossible.
How do you answer that? You can't. You got nothing. You don't even know what your own candidate believes.