Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality

Oct 9, 2012 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.wisconsingazette.com

In a recent interview with Focus on the Family president Jim Daly, Paul Ryan reassured the anti-gay hate group that a Romney-Ryan administration will fiercely oppose gay rights.

Comments
3,921 - 3,940 of 5,438 Comments Last updated Jan 11, 2013
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4285 Nov 28, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Just look in the mirror and you'll find it.
Do you ever have anything to say?
Mona and you, one liner fails.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#4286 Nov 28, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you ever have anything to say?
Mona and you, one liner fails.
Honey, you fail at reality.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#4287 Nov 28, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you ever have anything to say?
Mona and you, one liner fails.
I have plenty to say, but I wouldn't waste my time saying it to you.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4288 Nov 28, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
I have plenty to say, but I wouldn't waste my time saying it to you.
Hmmm......and yet you waste your time responding to my posts.
Very interesting. I'll stay with you have nothing to say.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4289 Nov 28, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Simply put it doesn't work.
You see, no one on your side of this argument can articulate a single rational reason, much less a compelling state interest, to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. Just as no one on your side of this argument can articulate any legitimate reason to confine the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman.
its been over a year...
we get it!

you pretend an answer you don't agree with was never offered and then you doubt that poster's ability.......
ITS OLD!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4290 Nov 28, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, you fail at reality.
pot meet kettle, dude.

And you think you are not a bully and actually contribute?
look!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4291 Nov 28, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
pot meet kettle, dude.
And you think you are not a bully and actually contribute?
look!
Failing at Mona's perception of reality is a good thing.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#4292 Nov 28, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
And Mona finally hits bottom (no pun intended) with pitiful mother jokes...
Can someone explain to him that people outside of Joisey don't act like this?
Did you make the same type of comments about my living conditions instead of making valid arguments a while ago?
Yes you did.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#4293 Nov 28, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
My comment proves that while I can tolerate a certain degree of stupidity I have limits. You are beyond those limits, way beyond.
You've emphasized your stupidity on many different occasions. This is one of them.
Hate is extreme dislike of someone or something, you extremely dislike gay people, ergo you hate gay people.

You said it was based on the fact that according to you, gay people are not normal. I then responded with cases of other people who are not considered normal and asked if you hate them too, in the same way you hate (AKA, extremely dislike) gay people.

If you don't answer the question, it just proves your argument is for naught.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4294 Nov 28, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
its been over a year...
we get it!
you pretend an answer you don't agree with was never offered and then you doubt that poster's ability.......
ITS OLD!
Jane, it's not a matter of the answers not having been offered, it is a matter of those answers not being able to stand up to the most basic scrutiny.

Answers have, regularly been offered by those on your side, but those answers have regularly flown in the fact of the law, including the US Constitution itself.

It's not my fault that your side seems utterly ignorant of the highest law of the land.

What argument, that you saw as valid, do you feel has been incorrectly dismissed?

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#4295 Nov 28, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
When you post that you don't hate anyone and some fool asks you a question like "do you hate people that like black licorice?" wouldn't you agree that the question has been answered?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anyone
There are degrees of stupidity and then there are simpletons. Out Canadian poster is a simpleton.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/simpleton
When you post comments that obviously show hate towards gay people, you then are saying, through your actions, that you hate gay people.

Only an idiot (you) could so stupidly ignore this fact.

Why don't you try making a valid point now?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4296 Nov 28, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you make the same type of comments about my living conditions instead of making valid arguments a while ago?
No, I merely discussed the fact that you are very young and live at home. Its not an insult, but a fact that that others may want to take into account when assessing your posts.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4297 Nov 28, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane, it's not a matter of the answers not having been offered, it is a matter of those answers not being able to stand up to the most basic scrutiny.
Answers have, regularly been offered by those on your side, but those answers have regularly flown in the fact of the law, including the US Constitution itself.
It's not my fault that your side seems utterly ignorant of the highest law of the land.
What argument, that you saw as valid, do you feel has been incorrectly dismissed?
Seriously dude, this is exactly how I think you got the nickname justice dumbass...

First, you regularly claim no answers were ever given...
glad you admit they were.

Second, you denounce them based on nothing but your opinion which is based in large part on flawed reasoning and is ill informed on the real state of the law (remember claiming Baker was merely a state case and insulting me over it? I do.)

Its just silly to claim your simple disagreement makes anything rational or not...
it boils down to pete and repeat.

but you think its nifty...
you also must think repeatedly doubting every other posters abilities is an argument...

In the end what you fail to grasp is that if two rational people disagree, then its a rational reason!
So disagreement can never negate rationality.
"To understand the concept of rational basis review, it is easier to understand what it is not. Rational basis review is not intelligent basis review; the legislature is merely required to be rational, not smart. A court applying rational basis review will virtually always uphold a challenged law unless every proffered justification for it is a grossly illogical non sequitur (or even worse, a word salad). In 2008, Justice John Paul Stevens reaffirmed the lenient nature of rational basis review in a concurring opinion: "[A]s I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall, remarking on numerous occasions:'The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'"[5]"

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4298 Nov 28, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
In the end what you fail to grasp is that if two rational people disagree, then its a rational reason!
So disagreement can never negate rationality.
"To understand the concept of rational basis review, it is easier to understand what it is not. Rational basis review is not intelligent basis review; the legislature is merely required to be rational, not smart. A court applying rational basis review will virtually always uphold a challenged law unless every proffered justification for it is a grossly illogical non sequitur (or even worse, a word salad). In 2008, Justice John Paul Stevens reaffirmed the lenient nature of rational basis review in a concurring opinion: "[A]s I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall, remarking on numerous occasions:'The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'"[5]"
The problem here is that only one of the parties is rational. That is why I can continue to cite the US Constitution and jurisprudence that specifically supports my views, while you can offer little more than meaningless obfuscation.

Ironically, the quote you have just posted from Justice Marshall only serves to illustrate the folly of the gay marriage bans currently in effect that you have had such difficulty defending.

So, I ask again, what specific arguments do you feel have been wrongly dismissed?
Do you feel that the 14th Amendment does not mandates state to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws?
Are you saying that marriage is not a protection of the law?
Are you saying that homosexuals are not persons?

Your arguments fail to meet the lowest levels of judicial review (rational basis) in those few instances when you actually offer them.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#4299 Nov 28, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I merely discussed the fact that you are very young and live at home. Its not an insult, but a fact that that others may want to take into account when assessing your posts.
I specifically remember you making comments regarding my "mommy."
And so you are being hypocritical.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4300 Nov 28, 2012
Lacez wrote:
I specifically remember you making comments regarding my "mommy."
And so you are being hypocritical.
Jane's ad hominem attacks only serves to underscore the fact that they have no legitimate, rational, or factually supported argument to make.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4301 Nov 28, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
When you post comments that obviously show hate towards gay people, you then are saying, through your actions, that you hate gay people.
That's the stigma associated with your disorder talking. Ridiculous.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4302 Nov 28, 2012
lides wrote:
Your arguments fail to meet the lowest levels of judicial review (rational basis) in those few instances when you actually offer them.
According to Justice Dumbass, maybe, but not by any rational person. Tell us again how 1=2 but 3>2. That's always a funny one.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4303 Nov 28, 2012
Wondering wrote:
According to Justice Dumbass, maybe, but not by any rational person. Tell us again how 1=2 but 3>2. That's always a funny one.
I see you still cannot add.

The more apt way of putting this is that 2 = 2. Which is to say a married same sex couple is equal to a married opposite sex couple. Have you forgotten again that marriage is not mandatory, but is rather a choice that two individuals may make?

Do you think this kind of wrangling makes you look intelligent? Because it does not. It makes you appear petty, juvenile, and incapable of remaining on topic. At this point anyone can see that you would rather be right than President, and that you will make any argument, no matter how off topic, irrational, or disingenuous, in pursuit of that goal.

Do you have a valid argument FOR your position? I don't think you do.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4304 Nov 28, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem here is that only one of the parties is rational. That is why I can continue to cite the US Constitution and jurisprudence that specifically supports my views, while you can offer little more than meaningless obfuscation.
Ironically, the quote you have just posted from Justice Marshall only serves to illustrate the folly of the gay marriage bans currently in effect that you have had such difficulty defending.
So, I ask again, what specific arguments do you feel have been wrongly dismissed?
Do you feel that the 14th Amendment does not mandates state to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws?
Are you saying that marriage is not a protection of the law?
Are you saying that homosexuals are not persons?
Your arguments fail to meet the lowest levels of judicial review (rational basis) in those few instances when you actually offer them.
so, a repeat?

AGAIN, you are mistaken as to what is rational in a laegal sense...
even though I just laid it out for you...
again.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why They Hate Obama (Aug '13) 3 hr TonyT1961 11,680
Mitt Romney takes ALS Ice Bucket challenge, soa... 9 hr Le Jimbo 26
Who is the worst president since WWII ? Wed VN Vet 432
Bob McDonnell: Mitt Romney will win Virginia (Apr '12) Wed swedenforever 6
Romney's loss closes out 'Mormon moment' (Nov '12) Wed swedenforever 12
Romney has 15-20% chance of victory: poll data ... (Sep '12) Wed swedenforever 305
The country's sinking climate debate Tue SpaceBlues 2
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Mitt Romney People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••