Iowa Caucuses

Gay Issues May Not Be Taking Center Stage, but They're Still Used to Rile Up Voters

Cruz, Trump vie for anti-marriage vote in Iowa.

|

And a duck call in every pot …
Ted Cruz Rally

The social conservative vote matters a lot in today's Republican caucuses in Iowa. Just look at the previous winners: Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee. Neither are making much of a dent in Iowa, not because they've changed or because the social conservatives have changed, but rather we have the wild card of Donald Trump, and we've got Ted Cruz heavily catering to the social conservative vote (to the point of completely flip-flopping his position on criminal sentencing reform). Cruz is grabbing the social conservative votes in the state, leaving Santorum and Huckabee with crumbs and complaints.

Immigration, jobs, and fears of terrorism are dominating the debates in the Republican primaries, and there's been much less discussion of domestic social conservative issues. Abortion has been brought up several times due to the Planned Parenthood scandal, but there's not that much differentiation among the top Republican candidates in their desire to federally defund the health provider. Gay issues have barely been raised at all. To the extent that they have, it's been entirely about gay marriage recognition, with candidates typically saying it should be up to the states to make the decision. The Republican candidates are not particularly fond of the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision mandating legal recognition of same-sex couples.

While gay issues are not as dominant in this election as they have been in previous cycles, that doesn't mean Republican candidates are ignoring appeals to opponents of gay marriage in order to get out the vote for the caucus. Over the weekend, both Cruz and Trump, the frontrunners for today's vote, made appeals to marriage traditionalists.

This isn't a new or sudden gesture for Cruz. He staked out territory in opposition of the Obergefell decision long before the Supreme Court ever ruled, calling for legislation or even a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that states have the authority to decide whether to recognize same-sex marriage. At a rally in Iowa on Sunday, Cruz brought out Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson to call gay marriage "evil" and "wicked" and added "They want us to swallow it, you say. We have to run this bunch out of Washington, D.C. We have to rid the earth of them." Well, that's some creepy rhetoric. Watch the clip below:

Meanwhile Trump has cultivated a lengthy history of pro-gay support on many issues (detailing a dimension of the "New York values" criticism Cruz has directed Trump's way). Trump had previously described the Obergefell decision as the law of the land, but on Sunday, when asked by Fox News if it was time to move on and stop fighting it, he said he would be "very strong at putting certain judges on the bench that could maybe change things. … I disagree with the Supreme Court from the standpoint that they should have given the state … it should be a state's rights issue." He weirdly declares that it was a "very surprising" ruling, which is just not true, given that both supporters and critics predicted accurately it was coming. Ultimately he affirms he would consider Supreme Court justices that would overrule the Obergefell decision. Watch the video below (the relevant exchange begins at 8:10):

 I predict a Republican president is not going to get Obergefell overruled any more than a Democrat will get Citizens United tossed. But neither argument is based on practical considerations. It's all about stirring up that outrage and drawing in the votes.

NEXT: Will Trump's Support for Eminent Domain Abuse Hurt Him in Today's Iowa Caucus?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Imagine that.

    2. She’s also a *slut*

      “From speaking to the girl, police determined that she had had sexual contact with two men months before her disappearance.

      The men were being held for questioning because the girl is under the age of consent, and they admitted the sexual contact, Steltner said.”

      1. It sounds a lot like that story Reason ran earlier about the white college girl who got a case of the regrets after a 3-way with 2 ebony-hued gentlemen and claimed they raped her despite it act occurring in a student apartment behind a thin closed door during a party with several other witnesses to the event. If you remember, the 2 men were expelled from the institution without as much as a hearing.

        1. It wasn’t a three way. She fucked one, and then after he left she fucked another.

          Somebody just didn’t mind sloppy seconds.

          1. It;s only sloppy if it’s the same hole.

        2. The difference is that society doesn’t consider people her age to have the emotional maturity to make these decisions without being taken advantage of by adults; hence, why it’s considered rape regardless of her consent. So, the main difference is that the men are only guilty of statutory rape rather than forcible rape.

        3. the white college girl who got a case of the regrets after a 3-way with 2 ebony-hued gentlemen

          This is where mulattos come from.

            1. I thought they came from Hawaii.

      2. What makes her a slut, exactly?

        1. it was a joke hugh. You can unclench your offended-sphincter now.

        2. A 13-year-old who already slept with two men is a slut. That’s just what the word means. You can continue to be super offended.

    3. Fake but accurate.

      /John

      1. “Police determined that she had had sexual contact with two men months before her disappearance.

        The men were being held for questioning because the girl is under the age of consent, and they admitted the sexual contact, Steltner said.

        One of the men was a Turkish citizen, he said.”

        Some people will still say she was raped by an immigrant.

        1. Does Germany not consider having sex with someone under the age of consent to be rape?

          1. I assume that’s a rhetorical question.

            For me, anyway, rape is sex without consent. Statutory rape is sex without consent–because the victim is too young to consent.

            She wasn’t gang raped by Turkish immigrants like she said.

            She was having sex, apparently, with more than one man (at the same time?), and one of them is a Turkish immigrant. She could not consent because she is too young to consent.

            So, yeah, I think it’s okay for some people to argue that she was raped by an immigrant–if that’s the way they want to spin it.

            Others who want to say her story wasn’t true are probably okay to say that–but saying she wasn’t raped by an immigrant is going too far.

            If she had multiple partners at the same time, somebody might even say she was gang-raped.

            1. “She wasn’t gang raped by Turkish immigrants like she said.”

              What I mean by that is that she wasn’t dragged into a cab and raped by strangers, like she said.

      2. Maybe this woman wasn’t raped, but the fact that her story appeared credible is proof of how terrible the situation is. Can you blame anyone for thinking she was raped by migrants? The German leftist elite, and the libertarians who enable them, can’t shirk their responsibility here. This woman’s lie is on them, as is the inevitable bloodshed.

        1. Sorry but that’s just plain out silly. When feminists said, “Well, even if Jackie’s story isn’t true, the fact that it was believable tells us something…” libertarians rightly laughed and said this was a good reason not to ascribe a lot of legitimacy to feminists. This is the same thing. Crimes that don’t occur shouldn’t get punished.

          1. Well, even if Jackie’s story isn’t true, the fact that it was believable tells us something

            Except, it wasn’t believable. Numerous commenters here called it out for bullshit very quickly, as in, within minutes.

          2. I’m channeling my inner-John. I admit it was a weaker effort. I was planning to talk like a Trump supporter all day, but I gave up on that as well.

    4. Watch this one case of false-rape be used by the left to nullify the hundreds of other cases of assault throughout Europe. Compare this to Mattress Girl, Duke Lacrosse, and UVA, all proven to be false, which are still being used to bolster the fear-mongering “rape culture” mantra against American men and our evil culture.

      1. Yeah, although no matter how many fake campus rapes in the USA occur, that doesn’t count for anything.

      2. Watch this one case of false-rape be used by the right to nullify the hundreds of other cases of assault throughout college campuses.

        1. nullify

          Are the perpetrators not being prosecuted?

        2. In fairness, Nicole, she was Russian speaking so I think I can still get away with blaming immigrants.

        3. Stop pointing out blatant hypocrisy, Nicole! It makes hypocritical people feel bad!

        4. You’re such a wet blanket. Just let us get our hate on! This story has to be used for political points against some enemy. If not, why are any of us here?

          1. “You’re such a wet blanket. Just let us get our hate on! This story has to be used for political points against some enemy. If not, why are any of us here?”

            I think it’s pretty clear that someone from a poor third world country where huge percentages of people support stoning adulterers to death is more likely to behave badly than someone from Sweden.

            I also think it’s pretty clear we should need some degree of proof before assuming anyone accusing migrants of a crime is telling the truth.

            These aren’t mutually exclusive.

            1. Fine, you’re a wet blanket, too. Sheesh.

              1. wet blanket

                Crusty would.

            2. I think it’s pretty clear that someone from a poor third world country where huge percentages of people support stoning adulterers to death is more likely to behave badly

              I would think the opposite.

              1. Nah, savages gonna savage.

              2. People *from* a PTWCWHPPSSAD I would think would be better behaved than the people who *didn’t* get from there. Immigrants fleeing China to the US might bring some odd customs and values with them, but a love of communism and an oppressive government probably ain’t one of them.

                1. I get your point but their behavior might well depend on what they are fleeing. If they are running away from the government and/or an oppressive culture, then, yes they would likely behave opposite the culture. However, if they are fleeing poverty, they would likely bring that culture with them.

        5. Likewise, I expect some will use this false-rape* to nullify the hundreds of other cases of sexual assault perpetrated by immigrants throughout northern Europe.

          *According to the story, she was statutorily raped by an immigrant.

        6. Watch Nicole take Joe Biden’s side.

          *assault hug*

          1. I’m absolutely mystified as to what this means. Can anyone translate?

              1. I’m now either even more confused, or I just realized the secret to life, the universe, and everything, and it isn’t 42. OH NOES

            1. Nikki is objectively pro-Muslim-rape.

              1. Aren’t we all?

            2. I’m absolutely mystified as to what this means. Can anyone translate?

              Maybe I misunderstood what Nikki was saying, but it struck me as;

              How are Crazy Joe and the ‘White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault’ supposed to identify and prevent 1 in 5 women from being sexually assaulted on campus with all these evil obstructionist Rethuglicans focusing on *this* *one* false allegation?

              Whether I’ve misinterpreted her statement or not, I’m pretty sure that whatever the actual issue is, it’s Cruz’ or Trumps’ fault.

        7. Did someone say Nullo?

    5. In reality, she was just being statutorily raped by a Turkish citizen?

    6. In which a 13-year-old’s sexual exploits nearly create a diplomatic crisis, fuel emotionally driven political narratives, and will likely end in the arrest of her sexual partners.

  1. ” I predict a Republican president is not going to get Obergefell overruled any more than a Democrat will get Citizens United tossed.’

    YOU LIE THE TEATHUGLICANS AR GON RESTITUTES SLAVERY THATS WHAT “STATES RIGHTS” MEANS

    1. I wonder why, when approached with abortion, republican candidates don’t answer that this is settled case law so they don’t think they should comment on it at their level. However, they would be interested to see the merits of legislation arising from the states or congress to address the issue?

      1. Because Republican candidates are fishing for the single-issue abortion voters who feel that the right president can appoint the right judges and get Roe v Wade overturned.

        1. All a Republican candidate has to say is “I’ll appoint Supreme Court justices who will promise to overturn RvW,” and they’ve got my mother’s vote. There are a LOT of people out there who feel the same way.

          1. Damn, your mom really hates women.

            1. Presumably, she knows a lot of them, and, well, “Familiarity breeds contempt”, as they say.

        2. But for every one of those voters it seems like they lose 2.

          1. I didn’t mean to suggest that it was a winning strategy.

            1. So, because they are stupid? I can go with that.

      2. “I wonder why, when approached with abortion, republican candidates don’t answer that this is settled case law”

        I wonder why politicians pander. Can you think of a reason? I can’t.

          1. Why isn’t pander the male form of panda?

            1. If you want to outlaw a word, first you have to find lots of people who that word might offend. The panda otherkins?

              The Panda Patriarchy must be stopped! Rise up oppressed pandas everywhere!

    2. Aw, I was hoping for a response more like, “wow, fire and brimstone.”

      1. lol

        you claimed the gop candidates were promising to “Turn Back” gay marriage.

        Your evidence for the claim was this statement from Ted Cruz (after he was prodded on the issue) =

        “”So would you say it’s like a top-three priority for you ? fighting gay marriage?”
        “No,” Cruz replied. “I would say defending the Constitution is a top priority. And that cuts across the whole spectrum ? whether it’s defending [the] First Amendment, defending religious liberty.”
        Soothing the attendee without contradicting what he has said elsewhere, Cruz added: “People of New York may well resolve the marriage question differently than the people of Florida or Texas or Ohio. … That’s why we have 50 states ? to allow a diversity of views. And so that is a core commitment.””

        Fire and brimstone indeed. All that “Constitution” talk is just code-language for murdering homo-babies in the crib or something.

        1. you claimed the gop candidates were promising to “Turn Back” gay marriage.

          And…this is a post about how they’re doing exactly that.

          1. “.this is a post about how they’re doing exactly that.”

            Ending with any sane-person’s conclusion that “that shit will never actually happen”

            did you miss that? I quoted it above.

            1. And yet again, I never claimed it would happen. I claimed they were pandering. Did you miss that? I linked to it above.

              1. Nikki, we have stables he’d that using any for of the word pander is a exist against all of panda kind, regardless of how they self identify. We ask that you cease and desist use of this word before we are forced to resort to legal recourse.

              2. if that’s your beef, i’m wondering who you’re beefing with.

                We both agree its pandering – it just seems like you expect a hysterical over-reaction to said pandering

                is yawning over his “constitutional” remarks really so reactionary and retrograde?

                1. We both agree its pandering – it just seems like you expect a hysterical over-reaction to said pandering

                  I don’t think it’s “hysterical overreaction” to never vote for someone who panders to people who want to throw you in a cage. I don’t even think it’s a tiny bit of overreaction to permanently hate everyone involved, from the panderer to the people he’s reaching.

                  1. You know who is throwing pandas in cages? ZOOKEEPERS! come on sheeple, rise up and see the true enemy.

                  2. And somehow ‘lack of outrage’ is to be translated as “clearly wanting to murder all the homos”… and Vote For Ted!-cheerleading.

                    sounds legit

                    1. This started because you thought gays should give up their opposition to Republicans for some reason, and thought my reason about why they weren’t was outrageous.

                    2. ” you thought gays should give up their opposition to Republicans for some reason”

                      What i actually said was that =

                      – gay-marriage is the law of the land.
                      – Its not ever going back, despite the rhetoric
                      – sooner or later, people will get over this bullshit

                      i wasn’t moaning that the GOP deserved some mythical gay-vote. In fact, my comment questioned whether such a thing actually existed at all.

                      I think the pro-gay/anti-gay vote thing is probably well beyond “actual gay people” at this point, and is really just so much culture-war TEAM-honking. Its a way of signaling ‘who you side with’, and has nothing to do at all with any real policy that will materially affect the lives of homosexuals.

                      Making this kind of observation, however, will result in people pointing and shrieking “WELL U JUST HATE TEH GAYS THEN”. Because that’s really sophisticated and insightful.

                    3. Well, Fantasy Island wishes aside, they have two choices of ruler in the United States: one group that openly declares its complete and utter disdain for individualism and personal property rights and advocates rank redistribution (but you can get state married!)…and the other group that at least pretends to have an interest in letting people lead their own economic lives (but you can’t get state married!).

                      You’re essentially defending being a single-issue voter. If Hitler was running with Mao as VP, advocating all the things they did in real life (but they strongly supported gay marriage!), would the gays be rational in voting for them?

                    4. “You’re essentially defending being a single-issue voter”

                      The Right to Hunt Moose from Hovercraft shall never be infringed.

                    5. “”You’re essentially defending being a single-issue voter. “”

                      also – i presume that was directed at nikki.

                      because that (as noted above) was sort of similar to the original point that i made. that this “fighting about gay-marriage” stuff is less-and-less materially-relevant, and that eventually people might actually vote for candidates based on more-substantive policy views other than their personal opinion re: “who people choose to fuck”

                  3. This looks like a great place to throw this in….

                    1. oh great, now “pretentious racist” is here.

                    2. He can be our Emmanuel Goldstein and we can temporarily put aside our differences to talk about what a moron he is.

                      I’ll bring booze, and smores fixins.

        2. But that would admit homoism is genetic, right? Is t that a big no no for the bigots?

          1. But that would admit homoism is genetic, right?

            What part of what anyone has said has any connection to genetics or more generally heritable traits?

            1. If there are homo babies in the crib that shall be targeted for murder, they must have been born that way. You can’t gay a baby up in such a short time, surely.

              1. Ah, I see now. I was only paying attention to what Cruz said, not to Gilmore’s commentary on the matter.

              2. You definitely got more out of that than was intended. I was trying to shoot for some bizarre conflation of abortion and anti-gayness that exposed contradictions within the social-conservative mindset while emphasizing the absurdity of people’s over-reaction to their rhetoric.

                Some would have you believe a vote for Cruz is a vote for homo-gas-chambers or something.

          2. You are correct, Spencer.

          3. “homoism is genetic”

            You got me bro. I think its fabulous whatever it is.

  2. Bigots gonna big.

  3. Immediately after the Iowa Supreme Court struck down the state version of DOMA, Iowa businesses starting advertising in adjacent states that gays should come to Iowa and get married.

    The SoCons are never going to undo that which is wholeheartedly supported by the Chamber of Commerce.

    1. Except, of course, ban liquor sales on Sunday.

      1. We don’t ban liquor sales on Sunday. Even buy it with groceries, none of that ABC nonsense.

        1. It’s the #1 thing Texas has really screwed up on.

        2. Exactly, IA doesn’t ban Sunday sales – they collect a premium from licensees for the privilege.

      2. It’s not just socons. Progressives also support Sunday or Blue Laws. They are leftover from Prohibition, afterall.

  4. “On a cold freezing morning with temperatures below zero Celsius,…”

    That’s redundant. Should I read more?

    1. Commoratio is a rhetorical device with a lineage that stretches all the way to the Classical era. Not all text requires the parsimony of lab report.

    2. Sorry, I dreamed I was on a mountain in Canada for a moment with my skies set to go down a path of bone-dry virgin powder.

      1. We’ve had a sucky winter too for skiing/snowboarding.

    3. Celsius? CELSIUS!? Use American temperatures, you commie fucks!

      1. Funny thing is, most Canadians I know use C for lower temps and F for higher temps.

    4. Not redundant unless you know the air pressure in Berlin.

  5. I personally think ZZ Top’s a capella show leaves much to be desired.

  6. he said he would be “very strong at putting certain judges on the bench that could maybe change things.

    Finally a candidate who’s not afraid to say what I’m thinking.

    1. “Do these pants make me look fat?”

      1. “No, your ass makes you look fat. “

    2. Finally a candidate who’s not afraid to say what I’m thinking.

      Ted Cruz looks like one of those guys with a short but thick cock?

      1. Tuna can Ted.

        1. That is a promising nickname.

      2. +1 cheese wheel

  7. This is just another showcase of how politicians gleefully have voters at each other’s throats over social issues while they continue to rape the county, almost completely unnoticed.

    1. Pillage. Rape and pillage. Sheesh. Get it right.

      1. I’m all for some good pillagin’… buy we have to draw the line at sumat.

      2. Pillage. Rape and pillage. Sheesh. Get it right.

        You *would* diminish the raping by pointing out the pillaging!

        1. #rapeculture

  8. “Ultimately he affirms he would consider Supreme Court justices that would overrule the Obergefell decision.”

    And Donald Trump joins Bernie Sanders on the list of presidential candidates who don’t know how standing works.

    They apparently think the Supreme Court can overrule laws at their leisure, even if no suit is brought.

    1. And that the executive branch cannot, at its leisure, bring suit against itself?

      1. I guess an executive order prohibiting recognition of gay marriage would get a case before the court.

    2. They apparently think the Supreme Court can overrule laws at their leisure, even if no suit is brought.

      Maybe they do, maybe they know better. But either way, they’re certainly pandering to people who quite possibly believe that, or that some virtuous but oppressed christian will be able to bring suit because the icky gays made his marriage less special.

  9. calling for legislation or even a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that states have the authority to decide whether to recognize same-sex marriage.

    I wonder if Ted Cruz realizes amending the constitution is hard. GWB couldn’t pull this off when the majority of people were in favor of it*, and those numbers have shifted greatly since then.

    *in all fairness, I don’t think he tried, he was just looking to chum the waters for his “base”

    1. What GWB was pushing for* was a “marriage is one man, one woman” amendment while what Cruz is talking about is just overturning Obergefell and “letting the states decide”. Although you are correct that he will probably meet with the same measure of success.

      * = I agree with your assessment of his motives

    2. He’s just pandering, Jesse.

  10. “heavily catering to the social conservative vote (to the point of completely flip-flopping his position on criminal sentencing reform).”

    Are we assuming an exact overlap between the SoCons who want high criminal sentences and the serious evangelicals?

    According to this article, which appeared last year in the theocratic right-wing Huffington Post (/sarc):

    “Conservatives joined with liberals in backing such important reforms as the Prison Rape Elimination Act, the Second Chance Act and the Fair Sentencing Act.

    “Support for these [criminal justice] reforms came from religious conservatives such as the Southern Baptists, National Association of Evangelicals and the Family Research Council.”

  11. At a rally in Iowa on Sunday, Cruz brought out Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson to call gay marriage “evil” and “wicked” and added “They want us to swallow it, you say. We have to run this bunch out of Washington, D.C. We have to rid the earth of them.”

    It’s almost like there might be something to all those rumors about Ted Cruz being a complete dick.

    1. Rumors? I’m assuming you didn’t watch the last debate.

    2. I swear to God, where do the Republicans find their campaign advisors?

      From the annals of Republican campaign headquarters:

      Yeah, go ahead, bring him on stage. Nah, it won’t get any media play. Besides, how could it hurt you in any way?

      1. I don’t get it either. I would love to sit in that room with veto power to say, “nope. That is the worst solution to this problem that doesn’t exist.”

    3. Gilmore told me it was okay because he won’t really hurt you. And your feelings don’t count.

      1. GILMORE HATES HOMOS SPREAD THE WORD

        1. Especially homo murder babies in the crib.

          1. “homo murder babies “

            Now a hit broadway musical

        2. I don’t think you hate gays, I think you’re bizarrely unable to recognize how many Republicans would love to turn back gay marriage.

          I honestly don’t know how you even doubt that they want to get rid of gay marriage when Ted Cruz has people like this speaking at his rallies.

          1. ” I think you’re bizarrely unable to recognize how many Republicans would love to turn back gay marriage.””

            bizarrely? we had this conversation, and it wasn’t really that bizarre

            Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama “opposed gay marriage” in 2008. Somehow it was not seen as advocacy of the Homocaust that some seem to pretend it is now.

            1. It’s ok when our team does it.

            2. Why do you think they’ve both run away from it now?

              1. They evolved, of course. Or, Republicans made them do it. Or both.

              2. nikki, why ask me what i think when you can just tell everyone?

                I’m sure the answer is that they listened to their hearts and decided to endorse policy on the basis of conscience, and not political expedience.

                1. No, it’s probably because now people who act like this are perceived as anti-gay bigots.

                  1. accusing people of ‘anti-gay bigotry’ is indeed super-popular

                  2. They’re not just wrong, they’re “anti-gay bigots.”

                    big?ot
                    ?bi??t/
                    noun
                    a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

                    Seems that you may be a pot railing at a kettle.

          2. Not to take sides here, but I assume you realize just how difficult it is to reverse a SCOTUS decision. Whether Ted Cruz wants to or whether he’s just pandering, reversing a SCOTUS decision is something that is very, very, very difficult to do. Socons have been pushing different “reverse X decision” initiatives for years. I can’t think of one that has actually gone anywhere.

            1. They’re just waiting for the right justices.

        3. No, Gilmore just doesn’t think anyone should care if someone else talks shit about them for decades.

          1. Make sure to translate “what i think” for everyone because they’re obviously too stupid to figure it out from the words i actually say

            1. Sometimes, Gilly, they’re just mocking you. Suck it up, cupcake.

              1. MEAN GIRLS

        4. Now you have to find your own ride to the gay bar.

    4. He said “swallow” huhhuhhuh huh

    5. “They want us to swallow it, you say.”

      No one ran with this. I am highly disappointed in you.

      1. Sorry, I was kind of premature in earlier threads with this.

        1. You know who else was “premature?”

          1. Robert Schimmel?

            “My wife said she read this article in a magazine, and she said: ‘You know, maybe you’re suffering from premature ejaculation.’ Yeah, does it look like I’m suffering? Those aren’t tears on your belly.”

  12. He went over the line with “We have to rid the earth of them”.

    . . . not that you won’t find thousands of comments on progressive websites, everywhere and every day, saying the same thing about social conservatives on progressive websites.

    Personally, I hope the social conservative authoritarians and the progressives who make a fetish out of using the government to make Christians violate their religious convictions all get sucked into the same black hole.

    But when it comes down to it, I doubt gay progressives would treat fundamentalists better than fundamentalists have treated gay people. Ignoring individual rights in pursuit of the common good is what being a progressive is all about–and anti-Christian bigots among the progressives are less encumbered by things like the golden rule or feeling any shame for their lack of integrity.

    1. Let me get this straight… you’re saying people don’t care about the fates of those who oppose their utopian vision? WTF?

      1. I’m saying that some do more than others.

        Is there a gay progressive somewhere out there that all gay progressives subscribe to that told his followers to love those that hate you and bless those that curse you? Is there a gay progressive out there who teaches that because Jesus died for the sins of fundamentalists, they should be treated as though they were worthy of that sacrifice? Is there a gay progressive out there that teaches that God hates the fundamentalism but God loves the fundamentalist?

        Because there are fundamentalist Christians who live by the flip side of all that stuff.

        1. “My ends-justify-the-means is morally superior to yours, due to the following list of ideals widely ignored when convenient…”

          1. I’m not justifying the violation of anyone’s rights.

            I’m just pointing out that fundamentalist Christians are likely to treat gay progressives better in that regard than gay progressives are likely to treat fundamentalist Christians.

            1. They’re already more concerned with removing the mote from their brother’s eye than the beam in their own, so I shall have to disagree.

              1. Which “they”, Hanster?

                The progs, or the fundies?

            2. I recall the gay progressive who spoke at a presidential rally claiming that all straight people need to be removed from the Earth…

        2. Is there a gay progressive out there pushing to get justices on the SCOTUS who will ban straight marriage?

    2. and anti-Christian bigots among the progressives are less encumbered by things like the golden rule or feeling any shame for their lack of integrity.

      LOL.

      *Does monstrous thing*

      “Whatever, I’m right with God. You can’t judge me.”

      1. I think you’re missing my point.

        When fundamentalist Christians mistreat gay people, they’re being hypocritical.

        When gay progressives mistreat Christians, they’re not being hypocritical at all.

        One lends itself to treating their enemies better than the other. Can you guess which one?

        1. I think they ARE being hypocritical. They are being bigots, which is, of course, the antithesis of their fundamentalism. Unless you’re arguing that it’s not.

          1. I said fundamentalists are being hypocritical when they mistreat gay people.

            Progressives aren’t being hypocritical when they mistreat fundamentalists. Violating people’s individual rights in pursuit of the common good isn’t hypocritical to progressives. Violating people’s individual rights in pursuit of the common good is in perfect harmony with progressivism. It’s what being a progressive is all about.

        2. they’re being hypocritical

          This is your misunderstanding. Few Christians are solely motivated by the Beatitudes. Depending on how fundamentalist a Christian is and how acutely the Old Testament influences their beliefs in how the universe operates, Christians are quite capable of seeing homosexuality as the sin of Sodom and an existential threat to the entire fabric of their society. You have no idea how many times I heard references to natural disasters being the judgement of God growing up, unless of course a tornado touched down on a church in which case God was testing the faithful. It’s absolutely absurd to believe that people who are prejudiced against gays are restrained in their actions by a book that says we should be stoned to death for our sin.

          1. Yeah, I know that Christians can be hypocritical.

            However, when they treat a sinner as though he is unworthy of Jesus’ sacrifice, when they don’t bless those that curse them, when they don’t love those who hate them, when they ask God to forgive them their trespasses without forgiving the trespasses of others, they are being hypocritical.

            On the other hand, when gay progressives are doing those things, they aren’t being hypocritical at all. They’re in perfect harmony with their ideology.

            I’d go so far as to suggest that the reason the gay rights struggle has been so successful is specifically because of the tenets of Christian faith. The idea that gays should be treated the way Christians would want to be treated if they were gay is extremely persuasive to Christians.

            The idea that fundamentalists’ rights should be respected–even if they’re diametrically opposed to progressive ideals–is not fundamental to progressive ideology. It’s abhorrent to progressive ideology.

            1. Socon blast from the past.

              I remember one time, a long time ago, I was with a friend of mine and we were driving through rural bible belt land. A place not at all unfamiliar to me. My friend could fit right in with the locals, baseball cap, crew cut. Me however, I had shoulder length hair and looked like a damn hippy.

              My friend for some reason decides we have to stop at this truck stop in the middle of bumfuck nowhere to get lunch. I was like ‘umm, I don’t think this is a good idea, just wait until we’re back on the interstate’. He paid me no attention ‘No, these type places are great and I’m starved!’.

              So we walk in and everyone in the joint is staring at us. Waitress finally comes over and takes our order. I ordered a cheeseburger and told her what I wanted on it. I get a plain hamburger, just the buns and patty, not even cheese. I sat there a while trying to hail the waitress over to get some condiments for the sandwich. Didn’t happen. 30 minutes later after we finish eating, she comes over and places our checks on the table. On the back of mine was written ‘Jesus loves you’. Yeah, Jesus loves me. And he doesn’t want me to have any pickles.

              1. Which is pretty funny cuz Jesus looks like a hippy in every rendering I’ve ever seen.

            2. I think I see what you’re saying here, Ken. To the left, what I’m saying is that if one side preaches ideals by which they do not abide, and another side does not preach those ideals, the end results of their bad behavior are not appreciably different.

              It’s akin to suggesting being killed by a Christian is preferable to being killed by an atheist, since only one of those believes the good are rewarded in the hereafter by a merciless God who protects the weak.*

              *Not trying to put words into your mouth here. More rephrasing your argument as it sounds through the filter of my ears.

              1. “To the left, what I’m saying is that if one side preaches ideals by which they do not abide, and another side does not preach those ideals, the end results of their bad behavior are not appreciably different.”

                I think there are differences.

                When either side uses the government to violate someone’s rights, having come from an ideology where doing that is hypocritical doesn’t make those rights violations any better.

                However, the ideology where violating other people’s rights is hypocritical is 1) less likely to violate people’s rights in the first place and 2) more likely to stop violating people’s rights on principle.

            3. Ah well, as long as it’s rank hypocrisy when a dominant cultural force singles a small group out for particular nastiness, it’s peachy. Thanks for sorting that out Shultz.

              1. Yeah, that’s exactly what I said . . . except I didn’t say anything like that, at all.

                And “dominant culture”? Do you think gay progressives violating other people’s individual rights is somehow okay because they’re not part of the dominant culture?

                I’ve heard civil rights activists claim that black people can’t be racist because they’re not part of the dominant culture–are you saying something like that?

                Why are you talking about dominant culture?

                When fundamentalists want to use the government to discriminate against individuals for being gay, it isn’t better or worse because they’re part of the dominant culture (or not).

                Same thing applies to gay progressives–dominant culture or otherwise.

                1. It’s OK to hate on the fundamentalists, Ken, because they’re the enemy of progressives. Only Christians find it not OK to hate on their enemies. So, progressives hate their enemies, (thoughtful) Christians don’t. Progressives have no obligation to treat their enemies the way that their enemies would treat them. Unless, of course, there’s a convention in Geneva.

        3. When fundamentalist Christians mistreat gay people, they’re being hypocritical.

          Perhaps in your eyes, but not in theirs. They always find a way to justify the hate, and forced electroshock and imprisonment and (formerly) hangings.

          1. I’s true that Christians can and do rationalize things. But Christianity also makes them more susceptible to golden rule sorts of arguments.

            Still, I’m not sure Christianity is responsible for homosexuality being seen as a psychiatric condition that should be treated with electroshock, etc. But if we stopped treating people that way, I’d argue that it probably had something to do with Christian, ‘if you’ve done so unto the least of these, you’ve done so unto me’ kind of thinking.

            1. So the only reason for any social progress was due to Christians and not…. progressives?

    3. “I doubt gay progressives would treat fundamentalists better than fundamentalists have treated gay people.”

      You think “gay progressives” have an interest in criminalizing fundamentalists (comparable to sodomy laws), driving them out of the armed forces (comparable to DADT), stripping them of security clearances (Clinton’s executive order regarding sexual orientation being used to revoke/refuse clearance), refuse them adoptions (comparable to laws banning gay people adopting), forcibly divorce them against their will and refuse to let them marry other fundamentalists (see: marriage battles), refuse to let them see their spouse in the hospital (all over the place) and so-on?

      Fundamentalists and their allies have racked up a huge karmic debt on this topic, one I don’t think will ever be paid. And I don’t think there are any significant number of “gay progressives” that want it to be, either. For one thing, they’ve had a really friggin’ long time to think of creative ways to be [choice of invective]. I don’t think we’ll be able to match it before the whole thing blows over in a few decades.

  13. Gay issues have barely been raised at all.

    They’ve only raised somber issues. Bummer.

    on Sunday, when asked by Fox News if it was time to move on and stop fighting it, he [El Trumpo] said he would be “very strong at putting certain judges on the bench that could maybe change things[…]”

    Next thing you’ll know, he will say that more than half of gays are rapists and drug dealers, with some being “good people.”

    1. Politics had only lovely things to say about you, CJ.

    2. Not quite correct. Politics *makes* people stupid.

    3. Sadly enough, politicians could not accomplish this alone. They are actually a reflection of the voters.

  14. astronaut shilling for Clinton said this:

    “There have been a couple times that people have tried to sell smart guns that the gun store was almost put out of business,” he said. “I think the Department of Justice should pay more attention to those things and consider anti-trust actions against organizations that are trying to use unacceptable practices against businesses.”

    That’s got to be the dumbest thing he’s ever thought, let alone said out loud at a public event.

    1. Maybe the US sent an astronaut and got back a chimp in return.

    2. “”There have been a couple times that people have tried to sell smart guns that the gun store was almost put out of business,””

      How would selling smart guns put a gun store out of business if the gun store would be where smart guns are being sold?

      1. I couldn’t even make any sense out of that. Is it true that a sufficient g-force can cause brain damage?

      2. Maybe gun buyers chose to go to a different store after they saw the politically correct merchandise on the shelf?

        1. What we need are politically correct guns. When your home is broken into by a gang of thugs, the politically correct gun will stop to think for you. ‘Wait a minute, home owner, is that person in our house a victimized minority? Let’s try talking to them first. Hey intruder, we apologize that you have been forced by the privileged CIS shitlords into breaking into our home. Let’s talk. Would you like some tea? What type of tea would you not find offensive. Maybe we can just give you half of our stuff and you can go away for now’?

          We need these smart guns.

        2. So gun buyers are putting gun stores that stock smart guns out of business by refusing to buy either smart guns or their regular, dumb stock, meaning smart guns aren’t desirable to gun buyers, so there’s no market for smart guns, so why is he complaining?

          1. The people need a little nudge and some splainin. They ‘love’ smartguns, it’s just that, darnit, we’ve failed to explain it again in a way that makes the little people understand.

          2. When there is no market for something that there should be a market for, then it is the duty of the government to create the market.

            1. Well, who else is qualified to decide whether there should be a market for something? You?

        3. Or maybe he means that major gun manufacturers are using their market share to suppress smart gun technology? There are many way to interpret that comment. All of them indicate the speaking has no idea what he’s talking about.

      3. Boycott threats, death threats, arson threats, so-on. The more recent ones were excused with “well, New Jersey has a law so we have to boycott a gun store in California”.

        But there was also the Smith and Wesson boycotts in the 90s, which predate New Jersey’s law, so I don’t put much stock in that excuse.

    3. He wants to use anti-trust to punish boycotts? Has he considered how this might be — ha, of course not, prog.

    4. “why on Earth would people not be willing to pay more money for features that make something less likely to work as intended?!?! There should be a criminal investigation into this phenomena!”

  15. The fundamental problem is that social conservatives have yet to articulate an anti-same-sex-marriage position founded in reality rather than mysticism; but, that does not mean this cannot be done. Yes, marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, but it is more: It is a contract in which the rights and obligations of the parties are asymmetric and sex specific. Homosexuals cannot marry same-sex not because of “discrimination” (whatever that is) but because they cannot perform the requirements of a marriage contract.

    Obergefell attempts to vitiate this distinction by arbitrary decree and, in its reasoning, is notoriously weak. For these reasons, the decision could be reversed; but, the question now is to what end? In the absence of a rational articulation, I suspect the state legislatures would do what the Supreme Court really has no power to do, and so we arrive at the same result.

    1. “Yes, marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, but it is more: It is a contract in which the rights and obligations of the parties are asymmetric and sex specific.”

      Why? What about the marriage contract need be sex specific? In fact, why is there any state assumptions about what a marriage ‘should be’ or what the terms of the contract are? Shouldn’t I be allowed to set the terms of my relationship rather than having the state determine what the terms are?

      The real issue is that there’s no justification for government marriage.

      1. As long as all you want to do is live (or even just sleep) with someone, you’re right: There is no justification for government (involvement in) marriage.

        But, since marriage as a legal contract is much more than that (involving such things as legitimacy of children and laws of descent, not to mention public health), your post betrays your interests.

        And, yes, a State CAN write its laws in a way that defines “marriage” as NOT sex-specific (and several have, or at least made the attempt). The real issue is whether every existing heterosexual contract ought to be arbitrarily redefined after the fact to remove gender specificity and the asymmetric elements.

        This, of course, goes to the core of the debate. If I poll whether people believe in “marriage equality,” viz., allowing same-sex couples to have the “same rights” or obligations as opposite-sex couples, the poll results (today) are strongly “pro” (most Americans believe in “equality” of rights). BUT, if I ask married couples whether they are willing to have THEIR marriage contracts radically altered so that same-sex couples can pretend that they’re married, the support collapses. In a democracy, the law is supposed to reflect the will of the majority, especially when the majority is overwhelming. Obergefell, which purports to be a decision expanding civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, in fact denies rights protected by the Republican Guarantee Clause.

        That’s what makes it weak.

        1. In a democracy, the law is supposed to reflect the will of the majority, especially when the majority is overwhelming.

          Phew, good thing these United States are organized as a republic!

          1. Phew, good thing these United States are organized as a republic!

            Originally, maybe. But the 17A, combined with lots and lots of deference, has resulted in something that resembles a democracy much more so than a republic.

          2. A Union of semi-sovereign republics organized democratically and guaranteed that form of government by constitutional law.

        2. “But, since marriage as a legal contract is much more than that (involving such things as legitimacy of children and laws of descent, not to mention public health), your post betrays your interests.”

          And somehow those things can’t easily apply to gays?

          Legitimacy of children – whew, thankfully they don’t have any biological kids! So the only issue is adoptions/in vitro fertilization, both of which are already governed by other laws.

          “laws of descent”

          Same as above. Laws of descent are not specific to heterosexual couples.

          “not to mention public health”

          You have yet to give me a single aspect of marriage that doesn’t apply equally to heteros and homos. So how on Earth have you justified your initial claim about marriage contracts being sex specific? None of the differences between gay and straight couples in any way impact the things you’re talking about.

          1. Since I know not where you live, this can’t be authoritative; however, in Florida, in a same-sex “marriage,” who gets dower, who curtesy? Who has the obligation of domicile, who the obligation of support? If both partners commit an offense, who enjoys the defense of coercion?

            What does “paternity” mean in gender-neutral regimes? How does this impact education in schools?

            Law is what we make it; obviously nothing above is written in stone or cannot be altered. But, do the overwhelming majority of people want this?

            Beyond lies the biological foundation of marriage — biologically, women are worth more (they alone carry the haploid eggs). For this reason, usual concepts of “equality” don’t apply. I’d be the first to say that, in an advanced society, women pretty much can hold their own in any occupation, at least generally — because of mechanical advantage. Women entering the construction industry don’t sign up as hod carriers; they learn to operate cranes (which can lift more than ALL the men on the job site combined). But, there ARE jobs inherently dangerous ( I’ve had my share). It’s not improper for societies to discourage women from engaging in such activities. Even baboons understand the need to preserve and protect the troop’s reproductive core. Human societies which forget that well may be facing demise.

            There IS a reason why women got all the seats in the life boats on the Titanic. Marriage as a legal institution ought to recognize the reason.

            1. Why do you hate gay people? I mean, you must hate them. It’s the only possible reason why anyone would deny them marriage. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you can talk mumbo-jumbo about eggs and construction and lifeboats, but the simple fact is that you hate homosexuals. Just as anyone who disagrees with Obama’s policies is racist. And while you’re at it, you may as well tell us when you stopped beating your wife.

              1. You come to me and demand a pilot’s license; I ask: “What evidence can you produce that you safely can operate an airplane?” You answer: “None whatsoever — I propose to don a funny suit, strap a red cape around my neck, climb atop the Empire State Building, flap my arms, and jump off.”

                Will a pilot’s license change the result?

                I realize you are being sarcastic with your tongue in your cheek. The fact remains that emotion has nothing to do with this. The issue is the form of the contract. And also whether millions of existing contracts can be changed arbitrarily by one Supreme Court justice supposedly constrained not only by the Republican Guarantee Clause but by the Contract Clause as well.

                1. If I had my way government wouldn’t be in the marriage business, and as long as it is I support a traditional definition of the word. That doesn’t mean I oppose same sex couples having equivalent legal protections as opposite sex couples, I just want them to find another word. Because of that most people here insist that I hate homosexuals.

            2. Hate to break it to you, but because of straight people, and the things they do, all those questions were answered long before same-sex couples started receiving marriage licenses.

              Dower and curtesy have been replaced with sex-neutral laws (the government isn’t concerned over the fiddly bits of the surviving spouse)

              And while I can’t be 100% certain, I’m pretty sure that “obligation of support” and “obligation of domicile” are moot concepts in which most households are dual-earners.

              “Defense of coercion” is already on it’s way out, I’m not sure what states it even applies still.

              As for “paternity”, that’s been more about who the *legal* parent is and less who the *biological* parent is for a long time. When they go back and change the birth certificate for adoptions, it’s pretty hard to argue that biology is a barrier, ya know?

              Face it, straight people have already done away with all your concerns.

            3. But, do the overwhelming majority of people want this?

              My marriage used to be outlawed by the will of the “overwhelming majority of people” so fuck that.

    2. The fundamental problem is that social conservatives have yet to articulate an anti-same-sex-marriage position founded in reality rather than mysticism; but, that does not mean this cannot be done.

      DIE FUCKING STRAWMAN, DIE!

      Just because something is proposed or even enacted into law does not mean it’s automatically right or just. Opposing it does not explicitly require a counter plan and, rather intrinsically, *shouldn’t* include one. If an idea is so bad or unpopular as to facilitate it’s own demise, WTF is the point of requesting something like it unless you really like to make unpopular rules? Wait, I know the answer to this; FYTW.

    3. the requirements of a marriage contract

      Ev’ry sperm is sacred…

    4. Mawwaage…..

  16. Subhead:

    Cruz, Trump vie for anti-marriage vote in Iowa.

    Who is against marriage? Is this a Kinsley gaffe?

    1. Because marriage now means same-sex marriage, if you support traditional marriage then you are against marriage.

      1. If you can’t support my parents marriage without attacking mine, you’re doing “support” wrong.

        1. The only attacks I see are pointed at anyone who disagrees about the meaning of a word. I’ve seen it a million times. Self-righteous people who consider opposing thoughts to be intolerant, and their response is to attack in the name of what they call “tolerance.” I find it to be rather humorous in a sad way. The more a person calls themselves “tolerant,” the more intolerant they actually are. Words used to mean things.

  17. I haven’t been around much, lately, for a variety of reasons.

    Has that goofy fuck Coates’ reparations nonsense been getting much attention?

    1. Not here – which means I have no idea who’s paying attention to it in the real world.

      I like to remind people that the last time “reparations” was big in the media was the week before 9/11.

      1. Universities are paying attention. They love him.

      2. Universities are paying attention. They love him.

        1. And I double dog mean that. He gets invited to Universities to spout his non-sense all of the time.

          1. Universities? Guess that means the rest of us can continue to safely ignore him.

            1. Until King Obama forces you to make some reparations by executive order, you can ignore him. But that’s what him and his sycophants want.

              1. It would be interesting seeing them try. And by “interesting” I mean something akin to “nation destroying”.

                1. So would gun grabbing by executive order, but that doesn’t mean they won’t try it.

  18. Give the people what they want, and in Iowa, they want penises going into vaginas.

    1. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

      1. good n hard

    2. I’ve spent a lot of time in Iowa. Please trust me on this, vaginas are not the exclusive orifices there. What’s unusual and remarkable in that state is having two humans going at it (with the exception of spit-roasting a hog, which has a different connotation in Iowa than Hawaii). The gay stuff is hardly noticeable in comparison.

      1. But corn fed women.

        1. But corn fed “women.”

          FIFY

  19. That “Duck Dynasty” guy’s shadow on the screen kinda looks like a penis.

  20. For the life of me, I can’t see why anyone would be inclined to make this a voting issue one way or another. An issue that was not on anyone’s radar less than 30 years ago, that affects a vanishingly small portion of the population, and which is based on the dubious premise of government having a controlling interest in the particulars of marriage — even outside of the question of non-discrimination ordinance, isn’t this really a non-issue, especially after the SC weighed in on the issue?

    What, in other words, is the practical importance such that a straight person or a gay person who doesn’t want to marry should care in the slightest?

    1. It’s a litmus test to see if you are Good or Evil. Nothing more.

        1. Well right now, instead of creating order out of chaos, our government is doing a better job of creating chaos out of order.

    2. It’s a wedge issue and a damn good one. In fact, it may be the best one ever since abortion. No way politicians are letting this one go to waste. I can just see the democrats and republicans in a secret meeting heehawing it up over how dumb the voters really are.

    3. ” I can’t see why anyone would be inclined to make this a voting issue one way or another”

      Culture-War bullshit motivates the base in ways that the minutiae of tax-policy or foreign policy-theory do not.

    4. It’s prime culture war stuff, but Obergefell is still very new. It makes sense they would still use the issue less than a year after the SC’s decision. Hopefully it will be largely forgotten by 2020.

      But, then, it’s prime culture war stuff.

      1. 2020? By that time we will all be huffing dong while singing showtunes in our daisey dukes.

        1. We can only dream – if these dastardly cisthuglicans get their way, we’ll all being wearing chastity belts and laboring in the fracking-mines

        2. Look, if they try to put Glee back on the air, I will personally travel back in time and nuke the earth before Obergefell takes effect.

          Does that make you feel better, CJ?

          1. You are already too late. There were no live musicals on national television before Obergefell, I know that much.

            Do you know what I caught myself doing this morning in the shower? Singing songs from Grease.
            Do you know what I caught myself doing this morning? Crotch-watching.

            We are doomed.

            1. Glee ran until March 20, 2015 and the Supreme Court took up Obergefell on April 28, 2015. Clearly Glee knew that its work was done and threw itself into the void.

              1. “Glee! It’s a feeling you get when your brain finally lets your heart get in its pants.”

      2. Hopefully it will be largely forgotten by 2020.

        Yeah. Like RvW.

        1. i think its notable that the political traction of abortion as a culture-war fight really hit its stride in the mid-1990s – nearly 20 years after the actual decision.

          but i think that happened because the number of people who remained vehemently opposed to abortion was significant enough to actually control a lot of local policy at the time. i think if you added the hardcore anti-abortion types to the ‘ambivalent middle’, they were a significant majority.

          by contrast, i don’t think the “Anti-gay” vote currently being pandered to are actually significant enough to affect policy in any but a few rural counties/bible-belt states. Your “kim davis” examples may be popular flashpoints, and attract a lot of vocal support from the hardcore minority… but i don’t think they really pull any major weight.

          Cruz et al may be playing that card in Iowa because it differentiates them from their generally less-socially-conservative peers. I doubt they’ll make this a centerpiece of any national campaigns.

          Of course, that’s assuming they’re not complete idiots… which is never at all certain.

      3. People are still upset over Roe 30 years later.

    5. What, in other words, is the practical importance such that a straight person or a gay person who doesn’t want to marry should care in the slightest?

      You actually state it’s a non-issue and that the government shouldn’t have gotten involved. You then, acknowledge that the government got involved and that their involvement seals the deal on the non-issue that they shouldn’t have gotten involved with?

      Kelo v. New London was a shitty deal. Guess it’s time to fold up shop on the whole eminent domain and libertarian/property rights non-issue. You know what they say, “If it’s broke, don’t fix it.”

    6. “What, in other words, is the practical importance such that a straight person or a gay person who doesn’t want to marry should care in the slightest?”
      Well, for one thing, some people actually care about more then just themselves.

      Second, there are definitely those that sincerely believe that gay marriage, gays in the military, hell, just gays legally fucking, is a sign of the end times and that if they can just roll back the clock on sodomy laws, DADT, or Obergefell, that the world will be saved.

      On the other side, you’re asking people to ignore everything that the politicians are saying about a group with the caveat “well, it’s not like they can *do* anything about it”. Sure, you may be that coldly analytitical when it comes to how you vote, but it’s no secret that a lot more elections are won based on who you’d want to have a beer with then based on who’s economic policy is best situated to reinvigorate the coal in Appalachia (hint: none of ’em can do a thing about it, that train done left the station).

      Further, things go a wee bit further then marriage, and there are things the next president *will* be able to do. So openly admitting you have a chip on your shoulder for a certain group? It’s a fair thing to consider.

  21. ??My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser??….
    ???????? http://www.Jobstribune.com ?

  22. just before I saw the bank draft 4 $9950 , I didn’t believe that…my… brothers friend had been actualey bringing home money in their spare time on their apple labtop. . there friend brother has been doing this 4 only about and recently cleared the dept on there place and bourt a new Jaguar XJ . linked here

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??….

    ????????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.