Dems abandon homos!!!!

[okie52]

Leahy withdraws gay couples amendment in immigration bill
Alan Gomez, USA TODAY10:51 p.m. EDT May 21, 2013


Sen. Patrick Leahy on Tuesday introduced, but ultimately withdrew, an amendment that would have allowed gay and lesbian U.S. citizens to use the nation's immigration system to petition for their partners they married in other countries.

Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, introduced the amendment as the Senate Judiciary Committee he chairs was debating a sweeping immigration bill that could legalize the nation's 11 million unauthorized immigrants while increasing border control and revamping the nation's legal immigration system.

Leahy wanted to use that bill as a way to change federal law so it recognizes marriages from other countries if the marriage "could have been entered into" in a U.S. state — same-sex marriage is legal in 12 U.S. states, including his own.

Republicans warned that including the amendment would sink the immigration bill. During Tuesday's debate, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the "strong but fragile" coalition they've put together to pass immigration reform would collapse if Leahy the amendment was made part of the bill.

"If we try to define marriage within the immigration debate, it would mean the bill would fall apart because the coalition would fall apart," Graham said.

Democratic senators expressed their support of Leahy's amendment. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., explained how he has been a co-sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act, or UAFA, for years. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., discussed his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, which affirms the power of states to decide whether to accept same-sex marriages in other states.

"I believe in my heart of hearts that what you're doing is the right and just thing," Durbin said. "But I believe this is the wrong moment, this is the wrong bill."

Leahy, "with a heavy heart," withdrew the amendment.

Shame on you Patrick!!!!

[cleller]

The Dems are a great bunch. These same-sex issues are their self made fiddles to keep them occupied while the country melts.

[KantoSooner]

I think Leahy believes the SCOTUS DOMA case will resolve this anyway.

[okie52]

Leahy obviously wasn't too sure of that or he wouldn't have introduced the amendment supporting gay couples in the bill.

[KantoSooner]

I'd probably go with the theory that he's a sycophantic turd bucket who was whoring after votes, but if you want to give him more credit, go right ahead.

[okie52]

He did say "with a heavy heart".

[BillyBall]

I'm not sure if "homo" is the preferred nomenclature.

[Midtowner]

He's not going to tank the immigration bill on something which the courts are likely to deal with anyhow.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Politicians can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[okie52]

He's not going to tank the immigration bill on something which the courts are likely to deal with anyhow.

Then why did he introduce it?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Then why did he introduce it?

The vote counter told him it would tank it. BUt he gave it a try.

[okie52]

I'm not sure if "homo" is the preferred nomenclature.

Well ****...when did that change?

[Midtowner]

Then why did he introduce it?

You'd have to ask him.

Of course, possibly to out the folks who are still on the wrong side of history.

[okie52]

You'd have to ask him.

Of course, possibly to out the folks who are still on the wrong side of history.

Apparently he won't "out" anyone by withdrawing the amendment.

[yermom]

I'm not sure if "homo" is the preferred nomenclature.

Dude, fag-american

[olevetonahill]

Dude, fag-american

So then what if they from Messico? Fagbeaner-american?

[rock on sooner]

I think Leahy believes the SCOTUS DOMA case will resolve this anyway.

Yup!

[rock on sooner]

Then why did he introduce it?

To put it on record and will bring to the floor for the
full Senate!

[rock on sooner]

So then what if they from Messico? Fagbeaner-american?

Wazzat?!:cheerful:

[badger]

Democrats can't cater to this many special interest groups. Everyone's gonna walk away disappointed, while still exclaiming "They're at least better than the Republicans!"

How long are people that view the marriage situation as unequal going to tolerate this? How long are blacks going to tolerate their rising unemployment? How long are Hispanics going to tolerate not having good paths to citizenship?

As long as they keep voting Democrat, they are voting for the status quo

[KantoSooner]

That's kind of tortured logic, Badge. A lot of people are going to keep voting Dem until such time as the Reps make a cogent case that Reps better represent human freedom. Up 'til the last election, at least, the Reps have done an excellent job of portraying themselves as the party of angry white men who want obedience to their orders in public and in private. Until that changes, the Dems need only have their hearts in the 'right' place and their majorities will go on as far as the eye can see.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

All these hyphenated words are too long.

Howzabout we call them fagericans?

[badger]

That's kind of tortured logic, Badge

Logic is very torturous for me :)

I just don't understand why more people don't hold their elected officials accountable. If these people don't represent you, then why do you continue to vote for them?!

[TAFBSooner]

Logic is very torturous for me :)

I just don't understand why more people don't hold their elected officials accountable. If these people don't represent you, then why do you continue to vote for them?!

In Oklahoma, you only have the two Establishment parties to select from. And I found it too difficult last November to ignore what I'd been taught all my life: that voting is a civic duty.

[jkjsooner]

Logic is very torturous for me :)

I just don't understand why more people don't hold their elected officials accountable. If these people don't represent you, then why do you continue to vote for them?!

Are you referring to gay people? Who would you expect them to vote for? The guy who is fighting for their rights but may back down when it looks like it could derail a larger bill or the guy who is uninterested in fighting for their rights?

If you want all or nothing then you might as well never vote.

Note: I use the term "rights" assuming that a gay person is going to view gay marriage as a civil rights issue. We could disagree but that isn't relevant to my post.

[badger]

I am suggesting that there is no difference between existing candidates because nothing gets done either way and lament that voters aren't holding elected officials accountable for inaction.

As Charles Barkley was once quoted as saying, "Poor People have been voting for Democrats for the last 50 years and they are still poor."

[badger]

I am somewhat reminded of the parable of the two sons from the Biblical book of Matthew:


"But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first, and said, 'Son, go work in my vineyard.' He answered, 'I will not,' but afterward he changed his mind, and went. He came to the second, and said the same thing. He answered, 'I go, sir,' but he didn't go. Which of the two did the will of his father?"

They said to him, "The first."

Jesus said to them, "Most certainly I tell you that the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering into the Kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you didn't believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. When you saw it, you didn't even repent afterward, that you might believe him."

Why are voters listening to promises with inaction, words with inaction?

Consider: Unemployment was lower for everyone, regardless of race, age, sexual orientation or immigration status under the previous presidential administration. Why does it matter that it was a Republican and not a Democrat?

[KantoSooner]

At an inchoate level it may be that many of the people who vote Democratic understand that they at least share a basic philosophical tenet with Democrats: that people have a right to demand that government 'fix' whatever is wrong with their lives and has the power and know-how to do so easily and efficiently.

And that, conversely, at least in their philosophy, Republicans don't share that view.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

At an inchoate level it may be that many of the people who vote Democratic understand that they at least share a basic philosophical tenet with Democrats: that people have a right to demand that government 'fix' whatever is wrong with their lives and has the power and know-how to do so easily and efficiently.

And that, conversely, at least in their philosophy, Republicans don't share that view.You're a smart guy, but not smart enough to realize that socialism doesn't work since it's counter to human nature. As long as democrats and other unastute folks continue to believe the MSM that capitalism is da debil, and think it's the govt. jorb to run the economy, they will continue to direct us down the path to failure.

[KantoSooner]

You're a smart guy, but not smart enough to realize that socialism doesn't work since it's counter to human nature. As long as democrats and other unastute folks continue to believe the MSM that capitalism is da debil, and think it's the govt. jorb to run the economy, they will continue to direct us down the path to failure.

Um, Rush, I think you just paraphrased precisely what I had written. And something that's had a firm foundation in hard science since Wilson published Sociobiology getting on towards 40 years ago. it's kind of troubling that you didn't pick up on that.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Um, Rush, I think you just paraphrased precisely what I had written. And something that's had a firm foundation in hard science since Wilson published Sociobiology getting on towards 40 years ago. it's kind of troubling that you didn't pick up on that.Thanks for the personal insult. touche! I was commenting on your willingness to endorse some of the socialism.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The Dems are a great bunch. These same-sex issues are some of their self made fiddles to keep the Media occupied while the Dems melt the country.FIFY

[KantoSooner]

Rush, you're truly a treat. Pouting so nicely about my being 'troubled' by your inability to understand what I'd written to which you commented that I wasn't very smart. I can't begin to fathom how you reached productive adulthood without the rudiments of pattern recognition (to make it more easily understandable, in this case that would be whining about a 'personal insult' and then apparently failing to realize that your earlier personal insult made that look a bit .... what?...obtuse?)

Oh, and regarding my purported 'socialism', let's try one more time: when the base assumptions of capitalism are not in place, it is idiocy to expect that most desireable of economic systems to produce good results. In the specific case of health care, we have a marketplace that is in no way free or populated by entities who are conducting arms length transactions. Without those conditions in place, it is impossible to acheive a fair or balanced market. Since a distorted market is precisely what we see, I'd say that the analysis works to that point. What we choose to do about it is up to us. If we choose to maintain a limited/closed system of providers (licensing for doctors, medicines, appliances, even for insurance), we are probably going to be forced to also adopt an impure economic model. One option, and one that works brilliantly in a number of other countries, is a national health system.

Sorry to have been so hard for you to follow in the past.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Rush, you're truly a treat. Pouting so nicely about my being 'troubled' by your inability to understand what I'd written to which you commented that I wasn't very smart. I can't begin to fathom how you reached productive adulthood without the rudiments of pattern recognition (to make it more easily understandable, in this case that would be whining about a 'personal insult' and then apparently failing to realize that your earlier personal insult made that look a bit .... what?...obtuse?)

Oh, and regarding my purported 'socialism', let's try one more time: when the base assumptions of capitalism are not in place, it is idiocy to expect that most desireable of economic systems to produce good results. In the specific case of health care, we have a marketplace that is in no way free or populated by entities who are conducting arms length transactions. Without those conditions in place, it is impossible to acheive a fair or balanced market. Since a distorted market is precisely what we see, I'd say that the analysis works to that point. What we choose to do about it is up to us. If we choose to maintain a limited/closed system of providers (licensing for doctors, medicines, appliances, even for insurance), we are probably going to be forced to also adopt an impure economic model. One option, and one that works brilliantly in a number of other countries, is a national health system.

Sorry to have been so hard for you to follow in the past.You shouldn't have taken it so hard that you are now knocking yourself out with the insults. I'm sorry, but I am not
convinced a " national health system" will work as well as the tainted, screwed-with by government system we already have. I guess you really do, though. okay. good for you that you are going to be happy with the train wreck that is underway.

[KantoSooner]

That was knocking myself out? Wow, you must have led a pretty whitebread life. That's not even starting. Additionally, the truth is generally a defense to charges of slander or libel, so I'm not sure anything I said even qualifies as an insult.

Oh, and closer to the end of the year, get back to me and I'll parcel post you a spare hard hat I've got out in the garage. It'll come in handy when the sky starts to fall.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

That was knocking myself out? Wow, you must have led a pretty whitebread life. That's not even starting. Additionally, the truth is generally a defense to charges of slander or libel, so I'm not sure anything I said even qualifies as an insult.

Oh, and closer to the end of the year, get back to me and I'll parcel post you a spare hard hat I've got out in the garage. It'll come in handy when the sky starts to fall.You're a beaut. Good luck to you, too!

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I am suggesting that there is no difference between existing candidates because nothing gets done either way and lament that voters aren't holding elected officials accountable for inaction.

As Charles Barkley was once quoted as saying, "Poor People have been voting for Democrats for the last 50 years and they are still poor."

Barkley doesn't have it quite right. There are lots of families who were poor 50 years ago who are now middle class. Many of them are democrats, but not all.

[jkjsooner]

I am somewhat reminded of the parable of the two sons from the Biblical book of Matthew:



Why are voters listening to promises with inaction, words with inaction?

Consider: Unemployment was lower for everyone, regardless of race, age, sexual orientation or immigration status under the previous presidential administration. Why does it matter that it was a Republican and not a Democrat?

I'd like to think that rational people realize that there was a great recession at the end of the previous administration and that has impacted our employment rate.

You can argue that Obama's policies have made the situation worse (I don't agree) but to just look at unemployment rates and ignore the elephant in the room (the recession) is absurd.

[okie52]

So how a long of a pass does Obama get?

[Curly Bill]

So how a long of a pass does Obama get?

To the libs/donks/progressives it'll always be Bush's fault.

In the future when we look back and say Obammy's was the worst presidency ever - Bush's fault!

[okie52]

To the libs/donks/progressives it'll always be Bush's fault.

In the future when we look back and say Obammy's was the worst presidency ever - Bush's fault!

Heh, heh...probably so.

I'd really be interested in hearing when Obama gets credit for the economy...good or bad. 4 years? 5 years? 2 weeks before he leaves office?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Heh, heh...probably so.

I'd really be interested in hearing when Obama gets credit for the economy...good or bad. 4 years? 5 years? 2 weeks before he leaves office?We're not really sure when it is He will leave office, though.

[Midtowner]

You shouldn't have taken it so hard that you are now knocking yourself out with the insults. I'm sorry, but I am not
convinced a " national health system" will work as well as the tainted, screwed-with by government system we already have. I guess you really do, though. okay. good for you that you are going to be happy with the train wreck that is underway.

Not even responsive.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I'm a doosh rocket.

Indeed.

[olevetonahill]

Indeed.

:very_drunk: