Topic: Man up, boy

[ToddF]

Nothing more entertaining than getting a Democrat to introduce a new Republican meme.

Man up, boy!

White House Punts on Same Sex Marriage—Again

Man up, boy, Jay Carney edition

I'd like to give Republicans credit for putting the spotlight on the Pussy in Chief, but I just can't give them that much credit.  Obama ineptitude is more probable but no matter.  I can still enjoy watching the boy squirm...and cancel appearances in North Carolina...and squirm some more. 

[Pandora]

Carney's a joke making itself.  He had to know upon taking the job that he'd find himself defending the indefensible and for a while he got away with it.  The fact that the press is dying laughing now at his fumbling is a touch of Divine Comedy.

A controversial vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions is on today's ballot.

That's from the Weakly Standard link.  It kills me the way the Left frames the issue and the nominal "conservatives" just repeat the faulty premise.

What makes the vote "controversial" exactly?  Because it's opposed?  Because the premise of gay "marriage" should be acknowledged as a foregone proper conclusion and therefore just?

[IronDioPriest]

Carney's a joke making itself.  He had to know upon taking the job that he'd find himself defending the indefensible and for a while he got away with it.  The fact that the press is dying laughing now at his fumbling is a touch of Divine Comedy.

A controversial vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions is on today's ballot.

That's from the Weakly Standard link.  It kills me the way the Left frames the issue and the nominal "conservatives" just repeat the faulty premise.

What makes the vote "controversial" exactly?  Because it's opposed?  Because the premise of gay "marriage" should be acknowledged as a foregone proper conclusion and therefore just?

Also, without reading the wording of the amendment, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that it is not a ban on gay marriage, but an affirmation of the status quo: traditional marriage. Something that does not exist cannot be banned.

[Pandora]

Carney's a joke making itself.  He had to know upon taking the job that he'd find himself defending the indefensible and for a while he got away with it.  The fact that the press is dying laughing now at his fumbling is a touch of Divine Comedy.

A controversial vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions is on today's ballot.

That's from the Weakly Standard link.  It kills me the way the Left frames the issue and the nominal "conservatives" just repeat the faulty premise.

What makes the vote "controversial" exactly?  Because it's opposed?  Because the premise of gay "marriage" should be acknowledged as a foregone proper conclusion and therefore just?

Also, without reading the wording of the amendment, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that it is not a ban on gay marriage, but an affirmation of the status quo: traditional marriage. Something that does not exist cannot be banned.

Exactly right, IDP.  And I was thinking of just that as one of the points I wanted to make, but, some days if I don't get it out really fast, it evaporates.   

[Alphabet Soup]

My anger for Øbozo is evolving.

[IronDioPriest]

Biden opened up a can of worms with his fat mouth this time. God Bless 'im. He dared to make a statement that shines a light of hypocrisy on one of the Left's pet causes.

The hard-Left believes their hard-Left President ought to fully endorse homosexual marriage, and he has not. They rightfully perceive that either he supports homosexual marriage and is politically fearful to admit it, or he does not support homosexual marriage, and is politically fearful to admit it. Based on his actions, I would say that those who believe him to support it in fearful silence are correct.

Biden may as well have gone to the press and said, "So, what about gay marriage anyway, Barack?"

[Glock32]

NC's Amendment 1 is so controversial, in fact, that it presently leads 60.57 For to 39.43 Against. My, nothing says controversial like a clear, unambiguous majority.

You can follow the results here, it's at the very bottom: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/80390/en/summary.html

You can also see it by county here: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/80432/en/md.html?cid=425000010

The "Against" counties are exactly the ones expected. Mecklenburg (Charlotte), Raleigh area, and the university counties (New Hanover - UNCW, Buncombe - UNCA and the flannel shirt contingent, Watauga - App State plus the granola contingent).

[Pandora]

NC's Amendment 1 is so controversial, in fact, that it presently leads 60.57 For to 39.43 Against. My, nothing says controversial like a clear, unambiguous majority.

You can follow the results here, it's at the very bottom: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/80390/en/summary.html

Yep.  Next step:  court.  They'll have the papers there as soon as the doors open.

[EW1(SG)]

NC's Amendment 1 is so controversial, in fact, that it presently leads 60.57 For to 39.43 Against. My, nothing says controversial like a clear, unambiguous majority.

You can follow the results here, it's at the very bottom: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/80390/en/summary.html

Yep.  Next step:  court.  They'll have the papers there as soon as the doors open.

Oh yeah, there is a grand use of taxpayer dollars.

[Pandora]

NC's Amendment 1 is so controversial, in fact, that it presently leads 60.57 For to 39.43 Against. My, nothing says controversial like a clear, unambiguous majority.

You can follow the results here, it's at the very bottom: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/80390/en/summary.html

Yep.  Next step:  court.  They'll have the papers there as soon as the doors open.

Oh yeah, there is a grand use of taxpayer dollars.

Therein lies the problem; it isn't their money so they don't care what they have to spend.  The same run to court was done in another state that passed a Constitutional amendment with the plaintiffs btching the passed amendment wasn't "Constitutional".  I have to wonder at the "logic" from which that comes; an amendment to the Constitution somehow isn't Constitutional because the Left doesn't like it.

[EW1(SG)]

NC's Amendment 1 is so controversial, in fact, that it presently leads 60.57 For to 39.43 Against. My, nothing says controversial like a clear, unambiguous majority.

You can follow the results here, it's at the very bottom: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/80390/en/summary.html

Yep.  Next step:  court.  They'll have the papers there as soon as the doors open.

Oh yeah, there is a grand use of taxpayer dollars.

Therein lies the problem; it isn't their money so they don't care what they have to spend.  The same run to court was done in another state that passed a Constitutional amendment with the plaintiffs btching the passed amendment wasn't "Constitutional".  I have to wonder at the "logic" from which that comes; an amendment to the Constitution somehow isn't Constitutional because the Left doesn't like it.

Exactly, and there is unfortunately no way to recoup those funds...because if there were, we might stop seeing so many pointless lawsuits.