Nevertheless, bum. it does appear that gays can be given the right to be happy and the human species will continue to proliferate unless it destroys itself by other much more powerful and aggressive means.
But next, I suppose, you are going to try to tell us that gay marriage is destroying the American family. Please add an explanation as to how so.
More total nonsense by Polio. Thankfully by the end of the first sentence we know the rest needs to be skipped over.
Clearly, dickw, you still can't accept the fact that Brady is a conservative Republican. Most Republicans with clout want Brady fully exonerated so that when he runs for political office he has no blemishes on his record.
Beyond that you also don't seem to understand how badly Goodell and the NFL have totally blown this whole thing, quite to the detriment of everyone involved, including Goodell and the whole NFL. It will go down as a vast and pathetic travesty that could and should have been aborted early on.
Keep in mind that Brady as a member of Congress could be very helpful to the NFL but now could end up being something of an enemy, because of this total idiocy.
Tea Partyer calls for island isolation study to see "what nature dictates should be a marriage"
SOPHIA TESFAYE / Salon / 7-29-15
Texas Tea Party Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert continues to fight a lost war against marriage equality. Instead of packing it up, the lawmaker’s most recent attack on same-sex marriage is a proposal to isolate gay couples on an island in order to prove which “nature says is the preferred marriage.”
Right-Wing Watch captured Gohmert speaking at Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum college confab in Washington D.C. (yes, the nonagenarian conservative icon has her fingers on the pulse of millennial right-wingers), where he railed against the Supreme Court decision overturning bans against same-sex marriage. Gohmert complained about the lack of impartiality on the bench before calling for the impeachment of Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom had officiated same-sex weddings.
Gohmert complained that the Court had turned its back on the teachings Moses, Jesus and God had on marriage when they ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. Gohmert suggested a plan to outsmart the Supreme Court and to prove “what nature dictates should be a marriage”:
I think we could do a study. We are good at funding studies. We could take four heterosexual couples, married, and put them on an island where they have everything they need to sustain life. Then take four all-male couples and put them on an island with all they need to sustain life, take four couples of women, married, and put them on an island, and let’s come back in 100 to 200 years and see which one nature says is the preferred marriage. Which one still is doing great and doing well. And I think we’ll have our answer.
Of course, none of this is new from the outlandish Republican. Earlier this month, Gohmert appeared on C-SPAN to make the exact same proposal, saying, “maybe we could have a government survey, spend billions of dollars and study this.”
AND HE IS NOT EVEN RUNNING FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION!!!
Polio, it's a waste of time for you to bother with a review of Jon Stewart and The Daily Show.....no one cares about your opinion, no one will read it.
Take note, also, that The Donald yesterday defended Brady and praised him to the skies. The Donald sounded like he was ready to offer Brady a position in his campaign to get his political career off to a good start if he decided to walk away from the NFL early.
As we should expect here is dickw posting in support of one of the most stupid episodes in NFL history and probably in all of sports history. One totally caused by the idiotic way in which the NFL front office handled it.
BTW, Brady is thought to be eyeing a political career after he retires. Still being an NFL player he keeps his politics close to his vest but is pretty much known to be a conservative Republican. This is probably why the AEI [American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank based in Washington, DC] entered the fray and produced an excellent report on football PSI factors in his defense. They would like to see him launch his Republican political career with no blemishes on his record, sports or otherwise.
Some of his friends have said it is no accident that he and Gisele built their new $$multi-million mansion in CA. He is said to have hinted at being impressed with how The Arnold made the transformation into politics as a Republican there.
Oh, poor dickw, it sounds like he just assumes a great sports star from such a blue state as MA must be a Dem. But that’s not the case at all from what I have heard.
Personal Disclosure: I am a big Patriot and Tom Brady fan but (SURPRISE) not a Republican.
"This Iran deal can't work."
- the exact same guys who said the Iraq War couldn't fail
If The Donald is elected we will find out he is ultimately slightly left of center (it's true). hehehehehehehe
A CONSERVATIVE CONGRESSMAN IS TRYING TO OVERTHROW JOHN BOEHNER
The plan, however, faces a few obstacles.
Mollie Reilly | The Huffington Post | 07/28/2015
One month after losing (and subsequently recovering) his subcommittee gavel, a conservative congressman is attempting to remove House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) from his leadership post.
According to multiple news reports, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) filed a motion to vacate the chair Tuesday. If the resolution were to pass, it would require the House to elect a new speaker.
The Hill reports:
The resolution offered by Meadows argues that Boehner has been "bypassing the majority" through centralized decision making; "caused the power of Congress to atrophy"; punishes members who "vote according to their conscience"; limits amendments on the House floor; and doesn't allow enough time for lawmakers to review legislation before voting on it.
A spokesperson for Meadows did not immediately return The Huffington Post’s request for comment.
Meadows, who was first elected to the House in 2012, voted against Boehner’s re-election as speaker in January and has frequently clashed with Republican leadership. In June, he was one of 34 Republicans who voted against a procedural motion to allow consideration of granting President Barack Obama fast-track authority on trade. Meadows’ vote reportedly angered Boehner, and the conservative was subsequently stripped of his chairmanship of the Government Operations subcommittee. However, after Meadows received an outpouring of support from colleagues, House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) returned the congressman’s gavel.
Meadows later indicated to Politico he intended to take on what he described as Boehner's "culture of punishment."
"A change of leadership will start to be talked about in more earnest terms," he said in June.
The congressman’s plan to unseat Boehner, however, faces a few obstacles.
Meadows did not file the measure as a privileged resolution, meaning it does not have to be brought up for a vote immediately. The motion, Roll Call reports, will instead be referred to the Rules Committee, which is chaired Boehner ally Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas). Sessions could choose never to bring the motion to the floor.
According to The Hill, the congressman plans to circulate a discharge petition to force a vote on the measure, which would require 218 signatures. However, that would require the support of House Democrats, who have indicated they would not support a conservative attempt to unseat Boehner.
Re: "who, floppy-robi, do ya think is responsible for the current state of America's zombification, moral decay, decline ..."
Quote of the Day
July 28, 2015 By Taegan Goddard
“Imagine a NASCAR driver mentally preparing for a race knowing one of the drivers will be drunk. That’s what prepping for this debate is like.”
— GOP strategist John Weaver, on Twitter.
ROTTING TRASH OVERWHELMS BEIRUT AS SUMMER HEAT RISES
Frustrated residents are setting fire to trash containers.
Katie Sola | HuffPost | 07/24/2015
Summer in the city can be rough. But we've never seen anything like Beirut, where a malodorous mix of political paralysis and festering garbage has residents in a rage.
Beirutis are furious that their government failed to avoid a crisis ignited by the long-scheduled closure of a major landfill site last week. The government knew the date that the city dump would shut down -- July 17 -- but the authorities had no ready alternative when the day came. Garbage trucks have nowhere to take the trash, so they've stopped picking it up.
THE PILES OF GARBAGE ROTTING IN THE SUMMER HEAT ARE TRIGGERING HEALTH WARNINGS AND PROTESTS. The Beirut Fire Department said that frustrated residents had set fire to around 140 dumpsters and trash containers, further polluting the hot and humid air.
The mess is a stark reminder of the governmental crisis afflicting Lebanon, where politicians divided by local and regional conflicts can't even agree on where to dump the capital city's rubbish. The Cabinet voted Thursday to postpone the decision until next Tuesday.
"We got to this point -- this crisis -- because of the political struggle in Lebanon," Mohamad Al Machnouk, the minister of environment, told Reuters. He blamed procrastination among politicians for the refuse piling up in the streets.
A plan to truck rubbish from Beirut, where more than half of the country's population lives, to locations around Lebanon is meeting resistance from those regions.
Beirut residents are venting their frustrations on social media.
Type Polio, why is that you RWNJs can only produce one phony after another on climate issues?
WHO IS STEVEN GODDARD?
Lazarus | Real Sciency
It seems fitting that I should have at least one post looking at the Man who’s pseudo-science blog this one parodies.
So what are his qualifications to post on climate issues? Who has/does he work for? How credible should he be taken?
According to a question asked in one of his own postings Mr Goddard says;
“I have a Bachelor of Science in Geology and a Masters In Electrical Engineering”
So academically he is about as qualified as myself and about as qualified as my cat to post his own analysis’s climate change. Also from various comments and posts it seems that he likes soccer and follows the English Premiership and enjoys cycling.
If you do a search for "Steven Goddard" on Google, it doesn't really show up much and this man seems very elusive, almost invisible. There are no photographs and no biography to the point that ‘Steven Goddard’ may even be a pseudonym. The cynic in me might suggest the name picked as a method of generating search hits on “Goddard” + “climate”.
He has had some articles published in The Register a British technology news and opinion website. Searching his name at The Reg gives links to just 5 opinion pieces all from about four years ago.
One of his pieces posted on Friday 15th August 2008 called ‘ “Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered: There’s something rotten north of Denmark” he attacked the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
But after being contacted by Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC he was forced to issue a retraction;
Steven Goddard writes: “Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid…. It is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year – just as NSIDC had stated.”
Unfortunately, this original error raced around the world on the the blogosphere and in many cases remains uncorrected. More information on this retraction can be found here.
Mr Goddard has previously popped up with numerous and inventive “sea ice updates” at Anthony Watts’ WTFUWT blog. This should be a clear warning to any WATTS followers as to the awful standard permissible for posting there, and some embarrassing back tracking has also happened as this post shows; “Arctic Ice Graphing LessonIncreasing Bt 50,000 km2 per year”.
Goddard’s ignorance on sea ice has also made him a topic at Skeptical Science.
Mr Goddard has also contributed to to the Science and Public Policy Institute‘s never-ending stream of climate denier propaganda joining the ranks of the truly potty with Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley now as a peer. A good over view of his standard of scientific rigour at SPPI can be found at sciblogs
dickw, you have received much well deserved derision from me but not as much as you should receive. I am, after all, only human.
Re: “Rob, see my previous reply to flop. It definitely applies here. In my opinion, climate change has been over-discussed and you came out on the losing end.”
Admit it, dickw, you will still be saying things like this even as you sit in your home with it floating down some nearby incredibly swollen river that came over and snatched you off your bearings, assuming you will have any bearings left.
The cop has a taser as well and he was the one telling her "I will light you up!" This juxtaposition just shows how dumb the RWNJs truly are.
DONALD TRUMP IS MORE MODERATE THAN MANY REPUBLICAN VOTERS ON IMMIGRATION.
This poll shows why.
Dara Lind / VOX / July 27, 2015
If a new CNN poll is correct, a majority of Republican voters are significantly to the right of pretty much every Republican elected official and every single Republican presidential candidate — including Donald Trump — on immigration.
The poll of 1,017 Americans, conducted July 22 through 25, shows that nearly two-thirds of Republicans believe the United States' priority in immigration policy should be "developing a plan to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the US, and deporting those already here."
Mass deportation of unauthorized immigrants currently in the US has traditionally been a minority position even among Republicans and conservatives. As recently as 2013, when the Senate was considering a comprehensive immigration reform bill — which passed the Senate but never made it to the president's desk largely due to Republican opposition — only about a third of Republicans said that unauthorized immigrants "should not be allowed to stay" in the US.
It's typical for Americans to say that securing the border should be a priority. And because — as Greg Sargent points out in the Washington Post — the CNN poll asked the question in a somewhat unusual way by lumping border security in with deportation of current unauthorized residents, it's hard to say for sure that the poll reflects current Republican opinion. But there's some evidence that Republicans and conservatives have been trending in this direction for a while. And that should be extremely worrisome for Republican elected officials.
As immigration has become associated with Obama, opinion on mass deportation has polarized
Other recent polls haven't found quite as many Republicans willing to endorse mass deportation — but they've still found more of them than in the past. A Quinnipiac University poll showed 46 percent of likely GOP Iowa caucus-goers agreed that unauthorized immigrants should be required to leave the US (though majorities of white evangelicals, "very conservative" voters, and self-identified Tea Party supporters agreed). And in a Pew Research Center poll from June, 43 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of conservatives said that unauthorized immigrants should "not be allowed to stay." Compare that with 2013, when polls like Pew's were standard — and even a Fox News poll found only 22 percent of Republicans and conservatives endorsing "send all illegal immigrants back to their home country."
Maybe the spike in support for mass deportation in the CNN poll is, in part, a result of the Donald Trump Effect. Trump's surprisingly insurgent candidacy hasn't single-handedly put immigration back in the national conversation, despite what the candidate himself might claim, but it's definitely mobilized some deeply held feelings among the Republican base. (It's important to note, however, that Trump himself is open to a path to legal status for at least some unauthorized immigrants: "If someone's been outstanding," he told MSNBC on Friday, "we [would] try and work something out.")
But the trend appears to go back farther than that. From February 2014 to December 2014, according to Pew, support for legal status for unauthorized immigrants (as opposed to making them leave) dropped 11 percentage points among Republican voters, and 14 percentage points among self-described Tea Partiers. And in fall 2014, right after President Obama announced executive actions protecting millions of unauthorized immigrants from deportation (the largest of which have since been put on hold by the course), 54 percent of Republicans told Quinnipiac pollsters that unauthorized immigrants should be required to leave the US.
It's been apparent for a while that immigration turns into a much more partisan issue when President Obama's name is involved. A 2013 Washington Post poll during the fight over the Senate bill found that Republican support for a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants dropped 21 percentage points — from 60 percent to 39 — when it was identified with the president. At the time, this was a much bigger gap than other hot-button issues like gun control, which presumably were already polarized. But it looks like immigration has become such a politically polarized issue that, even without mentioning particular politicians, many Republicans have decided to reject any possibility of allowing unauthorized immigrants to stay.
The problem: Mass deportation is an impossible policy that pretty much no Republican elected official can support
If this trend is legit, there is now a chasm between where the Republican base and the rest of America are on immigration reform. (As a whole, a majority of Americans — 56 percent in the CNN poll — continue to support legalization for many unauthorized immigrants.) That's definitely a problem for getting comprehensive immigration legislation passed in Congress. But it's a much more urgent problem for any Republican politician, because his constituency is increasingly committed to a position that it's going to be extremely difficult for him to endorse.
If mass deportation were a workable solution, someone would have put out a policy proposal by now. The problem is that it isn't. There's no reason to assume immigration agents could even find all 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the US — a majority of whom have lived in the US for more than a decade. And if they could, deporting all of them would cost about $50.3 billion — not to mention the additional costs (economic and otherwise) associated with splitting apart millions of families with US-born children and unauthorized parents.
In lieu of mass deportation, the most hardcore immigration hawks endorse the "attrition through enforcement" strategy popularized by Arizona's 2010 immigration law SB 1070. But "attrition through enforcement" doesn't appear to be effective in getting unauthorized immigrants to leave the US. And it's definitely not clear that it's enough to satisfy a Republican electorate that's increasingly convinced the US needs a plan to deport the immigrants who are already here.
This is, of course, above and beyond the political problem: Republicans are already underwater among Latino voters, and it's going to be much harder for them to win the White House if they don't improve their Latino support. As Republican members of Congress have shown over the last few years, they don't care enough about the GOP's presidential prospects to set their immigration agenda with that strategy in mind. But base support for mass deportation isn't just a problem for Republicans who want to get elected president — it's a problem for any Republican who actually wants to turn his or her party's preferences into law.