No it isn’t “funny”; it is sad. Sad and scary.

“A recent poll in Out Magazine reported that about 20% of gay men belonged to the Catholic Church or called themselves Catholic. I believe that the Catholic Church also discriminates against gays and would like to see them disappear. Last time I checked, affiliation does not dictate your platforms and viewpoints.”

Then you must have last checked when John F. Kennedy was running. He had to swear that his religious affiliation (Catholic) would absolutely NOT influence his platforms. Today, candidates seem to have to promise that they WILL influence their platforms, under the guise of “fammiy values”. Remember CNN asking the candidates “Do you believe every word in the Bible is true?”, as if that has anything to do with governing. Remember Hucklebee promising to make the Constitution more in line with God’s teachings? (Well, his church’s interpretaation of them, anyway.)

“As for Palin’s record, I couldn’t really care less if she doesn’t like the LGBT community.

Obviously. In fact, you seem to rather relish it.

“The important part in that little example, which you ignored, was that she put aside her personal prejudices and listened to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.”

More delusion. 1. I didn’t “ignore” it; I cited it (and continue to). 2. She didn’t “listen” to the Constitution; she ‘listened’ to the Court that reminded her the anti-gay legislation (which she, in FACT, supported) was UN-Constitutional. IOW, she was forced to treat us equally before the law, not that she wanted to, and DESPITE her “personal preferences” that you referenced. At least you admit she actually prefers to treat us like shit.

Trace,

If you have been treated “poorly” by both parties, maybe it’s because of the attitudes of those who would BLOCK progessive legislation and not those who propose it.

(from anoher discussion thread): “A bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in New York passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly last year, but Republicans who control the Senate have refused to consider the legislation.”

Democrats at least try. Rethugs put up barriers to your equality, something that is supposed to be ‘guaranteed’ to you. And yet you continue to ignore, dismiss, diminish and demean Democrats’ efforts. No surprise there, either. You and John Galt sure do make a pair. ‘I got mine’ attitude, all down the line.

“Give me a clause in the Constitution that explicitly states that the government is entitled to give the people free health care, and I’ll gladly join the socialist bandwagon.”

The people are the country, all of them, including their heads, teeth, eyes, brains, hearts, livers, feet and all the rest. You cannot take care of people unless you take care of the individual parts; however, we are more than the sum of are parts. As far as the U.S. Constitution, the preamble specifically states: “promote the general welfare”, and I dare say taking care of the people is “general welfare”, and of course, there are many “general welfare” laws passed by Congress and approved by the President. I even go so far as to say that the Supreme Court has had the ability to rule on such laws and determine their appropriateness, and they have stood these tests. The Constitution explicitly gives these bodies their authority. You need to review your middle school civics lessons.

“Not being born into wealth or privilege is a terrible excuse for not succeeding in life. Look at the richest men in US history, such as John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. They were nothings, and then after decades of hard work, multi-billionaires. Did they complain how society was bringing them down? No.”

First, are you just as successful as these people to whom you refer. While the possibility may exist to be so successful, the opportunities for such are few and far in between. It takes big money to make big money. And just how many people have succeeded thusly. Have you ever worked for a large company to see it in operation, and how they slice and cut their way through their employees to make a buck? I have. These people you mention were evil Simon Legrees who broke the back of their employees to get filthy rich, and begged for corporate welfare. Why should they complain when they are so rich? And they do monopolistic evils to throw the competition into bankruptcy to make a buck; little do they care about the working man. And today, they are sending the jobs overseas, and laying off their good and faithful workers. You definitely need to watch the movie “Roger and Me” to see what many evils General Motors has done.

I once worked for and reported to the chairman, president and CEO of a billion dollar a year corporation. I left after 4 years because the actions I saw in that company and the ones (several tens of companies) with which they did business were liars and cheats and thieves. Those executives literally made me sick when I finally saw just how rotten they were. One guys eyes got bigger than saucers when he talked about how much money he could make and how big his company could become and what power he would have. I never in my life saw such greed and avarice. And they bitched loud and long about giving a deserving minimum-wage employee a $10.00 a week raise ($520.00 per year, BEFORE taxes mind you.) If this is how public and private business has to be, perhaps we are better off in a 100% socialist government. BYW, those company’s benefits were rotten and expensive.

And I am tired of being gypped by these dentists, doctors, pharmacies and hospitals. Some greater organization needs to negotiate lower prices and to ration the services so everyone gets a fair share, else only the rich will get decent health care.

You seem to have a silver spoon in your mouth.

I have often wondered if Obama knows any gay folk. Being from Illinois Government I would imagine he knows where Boystown is. I’m wondering if he has ever participated in any of Chicago’s Gay events. After all, Chicago has a sizeable population. You would think someone from the Chicago Political Machine would at least address a large portion of it’s population.

Ha, that’s funny that Palin belongs to a Church that dislikes gays. A recent poll in Out Magazine reported that about 20% of gay men belonged to the Catholic Church or called themselves Catholic. I believe that the Catholic Church also discriminates against gays and would like to see them disappear. Does that mean those gay men hate themselves too? Last time I checked, affiliation does not dictate your platforms and viewpoints.

As for Palin’s record, I couldn’t really care less if she doesn’t like the LGBT community. The important part in that little example, which you ignored, was that she put aside her personal prejudices and listened to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. The same thing applies to John McCain and his personal viewpoints. That’s equally important as a pro-gay candidate in office.

Those Supreme Court candidates would then have to be approved by the Senate, a house with a majority of Democrats, who, thanks to the lovely partisanship, would all vote against a conservative and right-wing justice.

Apparently people forget that the President has a relatively small amount of influence in laws compared to other countries. George Bush has been our president for eight years, and since he is more vehemently anti-gay than McCain and Palin, everyone expected gay civil rights to take a nosedive. Except, that’s not what happened. No anti-gay laws were passed and many states have begun to grant more gay rights.

Iraq has just reported a surplus of $79 BILLION. Maybe they could take some of that and re-build the roads and schools and hospitals that American bombs destroyed.

Or maybe they could send some of it as aid to the war-torn country that is the U. S. of A.