“I maintain my position that the appropriate resolution to this issue is to allow the court to rule on Proposition 22. The people of California should then determine what, if any, statutory changes are needed in response to the court’s ruling,” wrote Schwarzenegger.

Great, and then the people certainly did determine what they thought of the Court’s ruling, didn’t they? Either way, my comment had nothing to do with Schwarzenegger, and everything to do with Hope and Flip-Flop ‘08, so “get with the program,” Matt.

So Genghis’s Rules page means nothing? (Apparently only to you.)

I’ve pointed out violations of those rules in the past, and was told in effect that the moderators here can’t be bothered with enforcing them. Which is fair enough, I can’t tell those cats how to spend their time.

Second, you seem to be saying that the California Supreme Court’s opinion changed Arnold’s mind

What I seem to be saying? What I actually said was:

The California legislature actually passed a full marriage equality bill, and Schwarzenegger vetoed it because, in his view, it was a matter for the CA Supreme Court to decide. He also opposed Prop 8.

Which follows from Schwarzenegger’s statement:

“I maintain my position that the appropriate resolution to this issue is to allow the court to rule on Proposition 22. The people of California should then determine what, if any, statutory changes are needed in response to the court’s ruling,” wrote Schwarzenegger.

I know it’s harder to debate what people actually say than what they “seem to be saying” in your mind, but get with the program.

The moderation is happening automatically. We don’t know why, which makes it very difficult to fix.

Thanks.

The moderation is happening automatically. We don’t know why, which makes it very difficult to fix.

Although it may sometimes seem like the world is out to get you, the CTLP is not actually targeting individual people (except for Mr. X who is banned for LIFE).

Please be patient.

“Reid told reporters Tuesday that Specter, who plans to change his party registration to Democrat in May, would not bump any Democrats from plum committee posts this year or next year. But Reid said Specter could invoke what would be three decades of seniority at the start of the 112th Congress.

“’Of course in a year and a half, at the start of every Congress, it’s a new game and Sen. Specter has seniority over a number of people on committees he wants to serve on,’ Reid said.”

An unnamed “senior laymaker” curtly told the Hill, “That’s his deal and not the caucus’s.

The only rule around here is to give as good as you get. Has been for ages.

So Genghis’s Rules page means nothing? (Apparently only to you.)

I know that you’re invested in thinking that you and your allies are persecuted and misunderstood, while your opponents are unthinking hypocrites, but that you could write that whole “you’d attack Republicans for behaving this way” when I specifically mentioned (and didn’t attack) a Republican who did exactly that in the post you’re responding to is pretty incredible. Even more incredible is that you genuinely seem to believe your own bullshit.

I’ve done no such thing. First of all, I didn’t get into your distortion of Arnold’s opinion (or my position) on the issue, simply because it had nothing to do with my original post. Arnold’s take on gay marriage was that the bill would contravene the will of the voters (always a bad thing), and that’s why he vetoed it:

“We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote,” the governor’s press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement. “Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill).”

Second, you seem to be saying that the California Supreme Court’s opinion changed Arnold’s mind, when it did no such thing: the Court’s opinion followed Arnold’s veto, and was based on the California Constitution, as it read at the time. Once the Constitution was changed, guess what? I hate to say it, but the Supreme Court’s opinion was essentially null and void.

Look, I don’t have a dog in this fight. It’s a state issue that has already been resolved where I live. My original post was that if the tea partiers really were the anti-gay, racist, pro-gun zealots that TrueBlue suggested they were, wouldn’t Obama, Gillebrand and Byrd have been among them? You changed the topic and stretched Obama’s stance on the California ballot issue into a band-aid covering up his campaign position on gay marriage (which is laughable). If that helps you reconcile your support for a guy who doesn’t believe in gay marriage, fine. I couldn’t care less.

However, when you essentially tell Genghis that his rules don’t apply to you, or you resort to calling people names from behind the safety of your keyboard (something I am sure you wouldn’t dare do in public), it’s pretty clear that you’ve lost the argument. So, again, have a nice day.

P.S. Matt, you might want to read these. Have a nice day.

The only rule around here is to give as good as you get. Has been for ages.

If someone named Jodi Rell or George Bush did that, you’d bash them to pieces.

Jodi Rell didn’t do that? I thought she threatened to veto any equal marriage bill last year, then signed one this year. I certainly didn’t bash her — when people come around to my way of thinking, I try not to get in their way. Unlike with you goofballs, who keep hammering your own guys even after they’ve engaged in ritual self-criticism and re-dedicated themselves to your cause (see: Arlen Specter and his former support for pro-choice Supreme Court nominees).

I know that you’re invested in thinking that you and your allies are persecuted and misunderstood, while your opponents are unthinking hypocrites, but that you could write that whole “you’d attack Republicans for behaving this way” when I specifically mentioned (and didn’t attack) a Republican who did exactly that in the post you’re responding to is pretty incredible. Even more incredible is that you genuinely seem to believe your own bullshit.

If I could only be as classy as you, and if I wanted to totally disregard Genghis’s rules here (as you have), I’d consider saying things like, “go f__k yourself,” “my IQ is higher than your weight,” or “if you said that to my face, I’d smack the fat off of you.” But, since I can only hope to have your level of class, and because I respect Genghis’s rules and the blog he has set up here, I won’t.

Instead, I’ll just point out the real issue that I mentioned in my last post — which has nothing to do with Arnold Schwarzenegger — that Barack Obama said “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,” and “I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.”

Now, setting aside the niggling little question of whether a constitutional amendment that is constitutionally enacted can EVER be “divisive” or “discriminatory,” the inconsistency in Obama’s stance should give you pause: he says he believes in a position, but also that he opposes a constitutional amendment that would support that position. Why? One reason could be that he wanted to pander to both the religious and to the homosexual community, a few months before the 2008 election. (That’s actually a pretty good one.) Another could be, as I suggested, that he generally favors having courts determine what constitutions say, and not having “divisive and discriminatory” amendments clear up what constitutions actually say. After all, if a court finds X based on a state’s constitution, and the state’s constitution is amended to specifically bar X, there can be no right to X.

My point had nothing to do with Arnold or even my own views on gay marriage (which are both different from and clearer than the President’s), and everything to do with Barack Obama’s inconsistency on an issue that is very important (for different reasons) to large sections of the American electorate. He flips and he flops based on whatever polls or his teleprompter say. If someone named Jodi Rell or George Bush did that, you’d bash them to pieces. But when Barack Obama does it, it’s called “leadership.” It’s amazing that people let him get away with that.

P.S. Matt, you might want to read these. Have a nice day.

I think Obama was against Proposition 8 as a matter of principle — he opposes changing a Constitution the way it is supposed to be changed, i.e., through the amendment process, and instead favors having judges change it for us.

The California legislature actually passed a full marriage equality bill, and Schwarzenegger vetoed it because, in his view, it was a matter for the CA Supreme Court to decide. He also opposed Prop 8.

Look, Jack, I can be a dick on here sometimes, but at least I try to have some information about the things I talk about. You’re an asshole and an idiot to boot.

Gillibrand is an NRA supporter, but she announced her support for marriage equality when she was appointed to the Senate, and Obama publicly opposed Prop 8 in California this last cycle.

Ah. So he was against it before he was for it? Like John Kerry?

I think Obama was against Proposition 8 as a matter of principle — he opposes changing a Constitution the way it is supposed to be changed, i.e., through the amendment process, and instead favors having judges change it for us.

Barack Obama (anti-gay marriage), Kristen Gillibrand (anti-gay marriage, pro-NRA)

Gillibrand is an NRA supporter, but she announced her support for marriage equality when she was appointed to the Senate, and Obama publicly opposed Prop 8 in California this last cycle.

That would be the same Hartford Courant editorial board that endorsed George W. Bush twice, John Rowland 4 times, and I believe also John McCain, right?

Funny, they rarely endorse a Republican so it’s interesting that when they do, who they pick.

As a moderate Republican, I say Ditto to your observation in post # 69.

Please reveal more of your true self. Please. Pretty please.

And what could be more pro-gay and women’s rights than a CT GOP that links to the FIC freaks?

More pro-hispanic than Rob Simmons Tea Partying with SCIRI?

More pro-black than Chairman Steele?

The fact that GOP enrollment is decling here in CT, — it’s all a libural conspiracy!

I find it interesting how liberals always bring the debate to Blacks & Gays….Why can’t they just see people as people?

Because without creating the illusion of conflict they could lose complete blocks of voters who through a series of lies have been sold the notion that the left likes them and will help them elevate their collective standard of living.

In truth the opposite is true as the left fights off all Republican attempts to discontinue some unique Connecticut habits, such as garnishing the wages of former recipients of public aid once they find themselves well on their feet.
This little habit of ours serves as a disincentive towards others seeking to better their lots in life as well; and should have been jettisoned decades ago.

The last thing the left can afford is an empowered block whereas keeping an enabled block voting “correctly” is fairly simple.
What it amounts to is The New Slavery.