Newt Gingrich Campaign Ads

Newt Gingrich's 2012 campaign for president
Uploaded by IdleAmerican1 on Jun 1, 2011

Newt Gingrich's 2012 campaign for president a Hot Woman wile for every one that will be cold soon. Yes They Will. Newt Put a End to Detroit as the Moter city. Your Next

Winning Our Future | 20 to 1
Uploaded by WinningOurFuture on Dec 27, 2011



The SuperPAC Winning Our Future has launched a new television ad airing on broadcast and cable television throughout Iowa. The New York Times reported: "The group, Winning Our Future, has produced a TV ad that echoes Mr. Gingrich's version of his economic accomplishments while speaker of the House, which he is making the focus of a weeklong bus tour. They include welfare reform, tax cuts and balanced budgets." Here's the script: VO: The Republican establishment wants to pick our candidate. When a principled conservative took the lead, they outspent Newt Gingrich 20 to 1, attacking him with falsehoods. Conservatives need someone who's fought for us. Newt balanced the federal budget, reformed welfare, cut taxes and created 11 million new jobs Newt will take on radical judges and fight against abortion. Don't let the liberal Republican establishment pick our candidate. Newt Gingrich. Winning Our Future is responsible for the content of this message.



Winning Our Future: Newt Gingrich- Proven Conservative Leader
Uploaded by WinningOurFuture on Dec 18, 2011


America needs conservative leadership. Now is the time for Newt Gingrich. Paid for by Winning Our Future. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. www.winningourfuture.com

Newt GinGrich 2012
Uploaded by WeVote2012 on Jul 10, 2011


Newt GinGrich 2012

Newt Gingrich - Balanced Budget Done!
Uploaded by StandwithNewt2012 on Nov 28, 2011


We Stand with Newt. 2012

Michele Bachmann Campaign Ads

Michele Bachmann Enters 2012 GOP Field
Uploaded by PBSNewsHour on Jun 27, 2011

Read more: http://to.pbs.org/jTkzxe Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann formally kicked off her campaign for the GOP nomination in Waterloo, Iowa, on Monday.


Michele Bachmann: Television Ad: "Waterloo"
Uploaded by teambachmann on Jul 6, 2011


Republican Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann talks about her Iowa roots and her efforts to fight wasteful spending in Washington.



Michelle Bachmann Campaign Ad
Uploaded by unknownchiken1 on May 26, 2011





Michele Bachmann on Immigration: We Can't Settle
Uploaded by teambachmann on Sep 29, 2011

Michele Bachmann discusses her views on securing the border and tuition credits for illegal immigrants. For more information, visit http://michelebachmann.com.

Michele Bachmann: Believe It
Uploaded by teambachmann on Aug 2, 2011



Republican Presidential Candidate Michele Bachmann says "no" to raising the debt ceiling and the job killing policies of Barack Obama. Learn more about Michele Bachmann for President at michelebachmann.com

Michele Bachmann: A Leader with Midwestern Roots

Uploaded by teambachmann on Aug 15, 2011



Michele Bachmann discusses her path to success, which started with her childhood in Iowa. For more information, visit MicheleBachmann.com.

Rick Perry Caampaign Ads

Rick Perry's drunken speech (3 minute edit)
Uploaded by tmabomb on Oct 30, 2011



Scotch? Roofies? Muscle relaxants? Your guess is as good as mine. The Texas governor is loopy as a jaybird in this New Hampshire address. Great campaign, buddy. http://thumpandwhip.com

Rick Perry Anti-Gay Ad - "Strong"
Uploaded by lapk on Dec 7, 2011



I'm not ashamed to admit that I uploaded this video without permission, but you don't need to be a political expert to know there's something wrong with a candidate who wants to represent the American people yet disables the comments on their videos and doesn't allow discussion or free speech. Rick Perry's original upload does not allow comments -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA -- Feel free to express yourself here.

Romney's Remedy
Uploaded by RPerry2012 on Oct 9, 2011

http://www.RickPerry.org

Rick Perry: Time to Get America Working Again
Uploaded by RPerry2012 on Aug 13, 2011



We will not sit back and accept our current misery...because a great country requires a better direction...because a renewed nation requires a new president. That's why, with faith in God, the support of my family, and an unwavering belief in the goodness of America, I am a candidate for President of the United States.

Part-Time Congress
Uploaded by RPerry2012 on Dec 26, 2011



It's time for a part-time Congress. http://www.rickperry.org


Rick Perry: On the Road from Iowa 
Uploaded by RPerry2012 on Dec 23, 2011



Problem/Solution
Uploaded by RPerry2012 on Dec 14, 2011



Rick Perry and Sheriff Joe Arpaio on the Sean Hannity Radio Show
Uploaded by RPerry2012 on Nov 30, 2011

Mitt Romney Campaign Ads

NO BAMA! Mitt Romney 2012 Campaign Ad

Uploaded by Democrats4MittRomney on May 29, 2011


"Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple." -Theodor Seuss Geisel Mitt

Romney in 2012!

He's right
Uploaded by mittromney on Jun 22, 2011



When President Obama took office in 2009, he told us that he "will be held accountable." He also told us that, within his first term, he would turn around a struggling American economy and put the country back on the right track. He said, "if I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."

Mitt on the Road: New Hampshire State House
Uploaded by mittromney on Oct 25, 2011



"This team of people around me, this is the volunteer team that will turn out voters on Primary Day, which by the way, will be the first primary in the nation as it ought to be." -- Mitt Romney

Mitt on the Road: Allentown, PA
Uploaded by mittromney on Jun 30, 2011



"I could assure voters, that if I were President of the United States, I would spend every waking moment doing what I could to get Americans back to work. I would focus my energy and passion on the economy and getting Americans good jobs."

The Facts Behind Mitt Romney's Allentown Campaign Ad
Uploaded by NieuwsuurNewYork on Jul 29, 2011



Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently shot a campaign ad in Allentown, PA. In the video he is pictured in front of Allentown Metal Works, a metal factory that President Obama visited in 2009 and that was forced to close its doors earlier this year. Romney argues that the closing of the factory shows that President Obama's economic policies have failed. Dutch correspondent Tom Kleijn of TV show "Nieuwsuur" travels to Allentown, to check the facts behind Mitt Romney's campaign ad. Kleijn talks with the mayor of Allentown, Ed Pawlowski, union leader Jerry Green and a former employee of the plant, John Harold. DP: Remco Bikkers

Jon Huntsman Campaign Ads

Jon Huntsman Official 2012 Presidential Campaign Ad
Uploaded by verykooldude1997 on Jun 22, 2011


 Campaign ad launching his 2012 presidential bid

Uploaded by morgenr on May 24, 2011

Not endorsed by or affiliated with Jon Huntsman or anyone from his campaign. Produced by www.verumserum.com. Music by Diego Massanti, Argentina - Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.


Jon's Business Experience

Uploaded by Jon2012HQ on Jun 22, 2011




Unelectable
Uploaded by Jon2012HQ on Dec 28, 2011



"Unelectable" highlights Congressman Ron Paul's racist and homophobic newsletters and asks the question, "Can New Hampshire voters really trust Ron Paul?"


Restoring Trust
Uploaded by Jon2012HQ on Dec 7, 2011



"Restoring Trust" highlights America's deficit of trust in Washington, the current path to economic recovery and in it's leadership in general.

Ron Paul Campaign Ads

Ron Paul Conviction Ad
Uploaded by ronpaul on Jul 13, 2011



http://www.ronpaul2012.com Ron Paul's first television ad of the 2012 campaign "Conviction" highlights his role as the national leader of the strong opposition movement against raising the country's debt ceiling. Ron Paul is the only national leader with the experience, record, and credibility to stand up to the debt limit scheme, cut the spending now, and save our dollar. Find out more about Ron Paul at http://www.RonPaul2012.com and learn how you can help him win the Republican nomination for President and Restore America Now. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to be the first to see future ads.

BEST Ron Paul TV ad. The campaign needs to use this!
Uploaded by guyinrichmond007 on Nov 6, 2007




THE ONLY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS! No amnesty for illegals, lower taxes for everyone, no Iraq war, foreign policy the way our founding fathers wanted, and a 20 YEAR CONGRESSIONAL TRACK RECORD to PROVE that he actually votes the way he believes! A doctor, a former service member in the military, and married for over 50 years. This man is the real deal!

RON PAUL's new ad, Must Watch!!! (Ron Paul for President)
Uploaded by KRSchannel on Aug 15, 2011



CLICK HERE http://www.krsnovels.com RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT, Give him a chance, will yaa!

Ron Paul vs Michael Moore on Larry King CNN
Uploaded by SuperB3NJ4M1N on Aug 22, 2011



Wow, this video has gotten a ridiculous amount of traffic compared to everything else, and really to me is one of the least informative videos I have on my channel. I would really encourage all of you to check out my channel and look at some much more serious issues that are addressed in the videos. "Only an educated and informed public can stop them in their tracks" - Jim Tucker


Ron Paul - Campaign AD Collection 2012
Uploaded by Amathyst80 on Dec 4, 2011



If you would like to donate to Ron Paul's campaign, please visit this website. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

Obama runs first TV ads of 2012 season

By Sarah Muller

  -  

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:32 PM EST

President Barack Obama's re-election team released the first round of TV ads of the 2012 political season.

Amping up recruiting efforts, Obama called on volunteers to help with his campaign in the two 30-second spots. His widespread grassroots effort helped carry him to the White House in 2008, so he's looking to recapture the feel-good magic.

In the first ad Obama goes the empowerment route, telling voters "It's up to you to fight for the values we all share. Don't sit this one out." In the second spot, Obama encourage supporters to get involved in the "movement." Obama says, "It all starts with you, making a decision to get involved — because we've got so much more to do."

The ads run on national satellite – more of a "tiny" advertising effort, according to his campaign.

Will Obama be able to revive the enthusiasm of his base? Tweet me your thoughts or drop me a line in the comment section below.

Romney's first TV ad hits Obama (and is out of context)

22

Nov

2011

11:30am, EST

By NBC's Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro

As it typically does when President Obama goes on the road, the Romney campaign is bracketing the president's visit to New Hampshire today. But this time, it's doing it with its first TV advertisement of the race -- and it’s negative.

The ad begins -- featuring grainy video and ominous music -- with Obama campaigning in New Hampshire back in October 2008. "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose," Obama is captured saying in the spot.

But, as the New York Times points out, “[T]he line, which is perhaps the spot’s most devastating moment, is also the one that seems to be the most taken out of context. In fact, at the time, Mr. Obama was referring to something that an aide to his then opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona, had said in reference to the McCain campaign — not Mr. Obama, then or now.”

In fact, the Romney campaign pretty much admits this with its documentation of the ad's assertions.

OBAMA: “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

Obama: “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks, Londonderry, NH, 10/16/08)

The Obama campaign pounced on Romney's advertisement, calling it "deceitful" and "dishonest." And the Democratic National Committee has accused Romney of being a "serial deceiver."

"Mitt Romney is a serial deceiver -- and his deceptions know no bounds," the DNC said in a release. "Romney will deceive about his own record, the record of his opponents and his positions on the issues. And when Mitt Romney is caught deceiving – he doubles down and deceives even more." 

The Romney campaign defended its use, saying the “tables have turned” on the president. “President Obama and his campaign are doing exactly what candidate Obama criticized,” Romney Communications Director Gail Gitcho said. “President Obama and his team don’t want to talk about the economy and have tried to distract voters from President Obama’s abysmal economic record.”

After hitting Obama, the Romney ad pivots -- with soaring string music -- to what he wants to do. He hits on Tea Party talking points: “getting rid of programs, turning programs back to states”; “get rid of ‘ObamaCare’; “moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in”; “high time to bring those principles of fiscal responsibility to Washington, D.C.” And, with a shot of a manufacturing worker, he says, he’ll “make America a job-creating machine like it has been in the past.”

The Future of the Obama Coalition

Better late then never!   NOVEMBER 27, 2011, 11:34 PM

By THOMAS B. EDSALL

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

It is instructive to trace the evolution of a political strategy based on securing this coalition in the writings and comments, over time, of such Democratic analysts as Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. Both men were initially determined to win back the white working-class majority, but both currently advocate a revised Democratic alliance in which whites without college degrees are effectively replaced by well-educated socially liberal whites in alliance with the growing ranks of less affluent minority voters, especially Hispanics.

The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.

“It’s certainly true that if you compare how things were in the early ’90s to the way they are now, there has been a significant shift in the role of the working class. You see it across all advanced industrial countries,” Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said in an interview.

In the United States, Teixeira noted, “the Republican Party has become the party of the white working class,” while in Europe, many working-class voters who had been the core of Social Democratic parties have moved over to far right parties, especially those with anti-immigration platforms.

Teixeira, writing with John Halpin, argues in “The Path to 270: Demographics versus Economics in the 2012 Presidential Election,” that in order to be re-elected, President Obama must keep his losses among white college graduates to the 4-point margin of 2008 (47-51). Why? Otherwise he will not be able to survive a repetition of 2010, when white working-class voters supported Republican House candidates by a record-setting margin of 63-33.

Obama’s alternative path to victory, according to Teixeira and Halpin, would be to keep his losses among all white voters at the same level John Kerry did in 2004, when he lost them by 17 points, 58-41. This would be a step backwards for Obama, who lost among all whites in 2008 by only 12 points (55-43). Obama can afford to drop to Kerry’s white margins because, between 2008 and 2012, the pro-Democratic minority share of the electorate is expected to grow by two percentage points and the white share to decline by the same amount, reflecting the changing composition of the national electorate.

The following passage from “The Path to 270” illustrates the degree to which whites without college degrees are currently cast as irrevocably lost to the Republican Party. “Heading into 2012,” Teixeira and Halpin write, one of the primary strategic questions will be:

Will the president hold sufficient support among communities of color, educated whites, Millennials, single women, and seculars and avoid a catastrophic meltdown among white working-class voters?

For his part, Greenberg, a Democratic pollster and strategist and a key adviser to Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, wrote a memorandum earlier this month, together with James Carville, that makes no mention of the white working class. “Seizing the New Progressive Common Ground” describes instead a “new progressive coalition” made up of “young people, Hispanics, unmarried women, and affluent suburbanites.”

In an interview, Greenberg, speaking of white working class voters, said that in the period from the mid-1960s to the early 1990s, “we battled to get them back. They were sizable in number and central to the base of the Democratic Party.” At the time, he added, “we didn’t know that we would never get them back, that they were alienated and dislodged.”

In his work exploring how to build a viable progressive coalition, Greenberg noted, he has become “much more interested in the affluent suburban voters than the former Reagan Democrats.” At the same time, however, he argues that Republican winning margins among white working-class voters are highly volatile and that Democrats have to push hard to minimize losses, which will not be easy. “Right now,” he cautioned, “I don’t see any signs they are moveable.”

Teixeira’s current analysis stands in sharp contrast to an article that he wrote with Joel Rogers, which appeared in the American Prospect in 1995. In “Who Deserted the Democrats in 1994?,” Teixeira and Rogers warned that between 1992 and 1994 support for Democratic House candidates had fallen by 20 points, from 57 to 37 percent among high-school-educated white men; by 15 points among white men with some college; and by 10 points among white women in both categories. A failure to reverse those numbers, Teixeira warned, would “doom Clinton’s re-election bid” in 1996.

Teixeira was by no means alone in his 1995 assessment; he was in agreement with orthodox Democratic thinking of the time. In a 1995 memo to President Clinton, Greenberg wrote that whites without college degrees were “the principal obstacle” to Clinton’s re-election and that they needed to be brought back into the fold.

In practice, or perhaps out of necessity, the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008 chose the upscale white-downscale minority approach that proved highly successful twice, but failed miserably in 2010, and appears to have a 50-50 chance in 2012.

The outline of this strategy for 2012 was captured by Times reporters Jackie Calmes and Mark Landler a few months ago in an article tellingly titled, “Obama Charts a New Route to Re-election.” Calmes and Landler describe how Obama’s re-election campaign plans to deal with the decline in white working class support in Rust Belt states by concentrating on states with high percentages of college educated voters, including Colorado, Virginia and New Hampshire.

There are plenty of critics of the tactical idea of dispensing with low-income whites, both among elected officials and party strategists. But Cliff Zukin, a professor of political science at Rutgers, puts the situation plainly. “My sense is that if the Democrats stopped fishing there, it is because there are no fish.”

“My sense is that if the Democrats stopped fishing there, it is because there are no fish.”

— Cliff Zukin

As a practical matter, the Obama campaign and, for the present, the Democratic Party, have laid to rest all consideration of reviving the coalition nurtured and cultivated by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The New Deal Coalition — which included unions, city machines, blue-collar workers, farmers, blacks, people on relief, and generally non-affluent progressive intellectuals — had the advantage of economic coherence. It received support across the board from voters of all races and religions in the bottom half of the income distribution, the very coherence the current Democratic coalition lacks.

A top priority of the less affluent wing of today’s left alliance is the strengthening of the safety net, including health care, food stamps, infant nutrition and unemployment compensation. These voters generally take the brunt of recessions and are most in need of government assistance to survive. According to recent data from the Department of Agriculture, 45.8 million people, nearly 15 percent of the population, depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to meet their needs for food.

The better-off wing, in contrast, puts at the top of its political agenda a cluster of rights related to self-expression, the environment, demilitarization, and, importantly, freedom from repressive norms — governing both sexual behavior and women’s role in society — that are promoted by the conservative movement.

While demographic trends suggest the continued growth of pro-Democratic constituencies and the continued decline of core Republican voters, particularly married white Christians, there is no guarantee that demography is destiny.

The political repercussions of gathering minority strength remain unknown. Calculations based on exit poll and Census data suggest that the Democratic Party will become “majority minority” shortly after 2020.

One outcome could be a stronger party of the left in national and local elections. An alternate outcome could be exacerbated intra-party conflict between whites, blacks and Hispanics — populations frequently marked by diverging material interests. Black versus brown struggles are already emerging in contests over the distribution of political power, especially during the current redistricting of city council, state legislative and congressional seats in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago.

Republican Party operatives are acutely sensitive to such tensions, hoping for opportunities to fracture the Democratic coalition, virtually assuring that neither party can safely rely on a secure path to victory over time.

In early book, Rep. Ron Paul criticized AIDS patients, minority rights and sexual harassment victims

December 30th, 2011

10:07 AM ET

2 days ago

Posted by

CNN Political Reporter Peter Hamby

Des Moines, Iowa (CNN) - Texas Rep. Ron Paul has distanced himself from a series of controversial newsletters from the 1980s and 1990s that bore his name and included inflammatory and racially charged language.

As the newsletters burst into view, first during his 2008 presidential bid and again in recent weeks after he climbed to the front of the Republican race in Iowa, Paul has blamed the writings on ghostwriters. He said he was not aware of the "bad stuff," as he described it.

- Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

But one of Paul's own books, published solely under his name, contains several passages that could be problematic as he attempts to push his libertarian message into the political mainstream.

In his 1987 manifesto "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years," Paul wrote that AIDS patients were victims of their own lifestyle, questioned the rights of minorities and argued that people who are sexually harassed at work should quit their jobs.

The slim, 157-page volume was published ahead of Paul's 1988 Libertarian Party presidential bid and touches on many of the themes he continues to hammer on the stump.

Returning again and again to the of concept of "liberty," he hails the virtues of the gold standard, attacks the Federal Reserve and defends the rights of gun-owners.

But the book, re-issued in 2007 during Paul's last presidential bid with a cover photograph of an ominous SWAT Team, has so far escaped scrutiny amid the latest furor over his newsletters.

In one section of the book, Paul criticized people suffering from AIDS or other contagious diseases for demanding health insurance coverage.

"The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim - frequently a victim of his own lifestyle - but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care," Paul wrote.

In another chapter on the rights of individuals outside of government – the central theme of Paul's libertarian philosophy - he sharply criticized the "absurdity" of politicians who try to bestow differing rights on various social and ethnic groups.

It's dangerous to craft a separate set of rights for groups like Hispanics, African-Americans, children, employees and the homeless, Paul wrote.

"Until all these terms are dropped and we recognize that only an individual has rights the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found," Paul explained.

"Every year new groups organize to demand their 'rights,'" he continued. "White people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for everyone."

Paul also defended the rights of an individual to "control property and run his or her business as he or she chooses," without interference from "the social do-gooder."

In a passage first flagged by the Houston Chronicle in 2007, Paul then claimed that sexual harassment should not be a violation of one's employment rights.

"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity," Paul wrote. "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."

Paul's campaign manager Jesse Benton defended the book and said the candidate "has been speaking out for decades that rights do not come from belonging to a group."

"Rights come because we are all individuals, endowed by our creator, and Americans must look beyond race or creed and recognize that we all deserving of the same Liberty," Benton told CNN in an email. "This truth is a tenant of natural law and the only way we will achieve a color blind and truly free society."

First LGBT Kiss at Navy homecoming

By anthonyreyes

  -  

Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:12 PM EST

It is tradition at Navy homecomings for one lucky sailor to be the first to walk off the ship and kiss their significant other. Today was first time in history that couple was homosexual. With thehistoric repeal of the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, a lesbian couple who was worlds apart were able to their express long-lost affection in front of their family and friends. This embrace would not have been possible a year ago. This is what change looks like.

Discuss this post

Cindy-3358832

You know America has really gone down the toilet when you see images like this.

• 
• !

#15 - Wed Dec 21, 2011 10:12 PM EST

McMadre

You know America has a long way to go toward liberty and justice for all when you see comments like this.

• 2
  
• !

#15.1 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:17 AM EST

SquidEatingDough

Yes, we must not allow gays the same rights as philandering Religious Right heterosexuals with multiple sacred marriages!

• 1
  
• !

#15.2 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:21 AM EST

Ryan Ashlight

Any credible reason for why that is, other than you just not seeming to like it?

An era where people must fear persecution for being themselves and showing their affection for their chosen partner, gay or not, must be brought to a close. If you don't like it, that's fine; but if you despise it so much, then just don't get yourself involved with it.

• 
• !

#15.3 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:33 AM EST

Satur9

You know America has gone down the toilet when zombies like this, whose minds are devoured by the maggots of bigotry, think they can lay down the law for the rest of us based not on constitutional principle, but on what makes them personally uncomfortable.

• 
• !

#15.4 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:41 AM EST

suzette-3194003

cindy,

i love how you all use the flag as a "prop" while you cast judgement on those with whom you disagree. all human beings deserve these rights, but those who serve our country in the most honorable way possible, who risk their lives and disability, deserve the civil rights that the rest of us take for granted.

• 1
  
• !

#15.5 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:01 AM EST

Ryan Ashlight

More like America is finally heading in a respectable direction as we take fewer and less discriminating stands on the private lives of our citizens, and especially those who risk their lives to fight for and defend this country.

Is it so much to ask that we show them the proper respect in their decision to be with whomever they want and not have to fear displaying their affection, within reasonable bounds of course, in public? Me thinks not.

• 5
  
• !

#16 - Wed Dec 21, 2011 10:40 PM EST

Crackhead Awards

It's about time.

LBGT is one of the first groups targeted by hate groups in Nazi germany, and it is always depressing to listen to people trying to do the same thing in the US.

I remember when LBGT had to be locked up in the brig when people found out so that someone wouldn't throw them over the side in the middle of the night. DADT fixed that problem, but not in a constructive way. Cost $billions$ in lost manpower.

The country is finally becoming civilized.

• 4
  
• !

#17 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:21 AM EST

Hoot2038

@ cindy you must have never served....stop watching faux liars...

• 2
  
• !

#18 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:30 AM EST

Cindy-3358832

I love the military but this has got to STOP !!!

• 
• !

#18.1 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:55 AM EST

Satur9

No, Cindy, you have got to stop, and get over it. Even BARRY GOLDWATER said you don't have to be straight, you just have to shoot straight. Barry Goldwater, for all love! Are you really so dedicated to right-wing purity that you have to out-reactionary him? (Or are you so poorly informed that you don't know who I'm talking about?)

• 2
  
• !

#18.2 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:44 AM EST

Cindy-3358832

So what's next, SEX IN PUBLIC, to a lot of people that's also a constitutional right.

• 
• !

#18.3 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:54 PM EST

SquidEatingDough

Ah, the Slippery Slope Fallacy. I was wondering when that one would rear its head.

• 
• !

#18.4 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:27 PM EST

chemdmd

Look at The Netherlands if you want to see where Liberals are trying to take America. I lived in Amsterdam for 2 years, and yes I did see Public sex, in the parks on the beach and in down town Amsterdam. I found all three occasions to be disgusting and degrading. I shore don't want my kid to find out about sex by watching a crack whore making money in the back of the train station, or a man doing doggy style to his boyfriend on a bridge. This is what I have seen while living in Amsterdam. I found it to be the most degrading thing I have ever seen. How could you ever teach respect to others in such a degrading environment?

• 
• !

#18.5 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:02 PM EST

suzette-3194003

yes, you are right. i wouldn't enjoy seeing the things that you described above.

we should all be more like the repubs in congress who solicit sex from undercover cops in airport bathrooms, and solicit sex from pages on capitol hill.

just because "liberals" see gays as deserving of civil rights, this does not mean we want to see doggy-style sex on a bridge, or anything else comparble.

how we act in public and treat others is an individual choice. the repubs are very fond of treating gays as "less than", and not deserving of civil rights. you all love to wrap yourself in the flag and suggest to those of us who support gay rights that we are sinful, and unpatriotic. yet the hypocritical repubs we have seen in washington have fought to TAKE rights from those from whom they derive their sexual pleasure.

i don't know of anyone, gay or straight, who wants to see public sex.

you tell me how giving gays civil rights, how treating them as Jesus would have treated them, is going to lead to more public sex.

get a clue.

• 1
  
• !

#18.6 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:38 PM EST

larry74

Ever heard of "public indecentcy" laws. The Netherlands don't have them. The US does.

• 
• !

#18.7 - Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:04 AM EST

maveet

A wonderful moment, documenting real change. On the same day as Newt assured a gay man he would continue to support 2nd Class status for LGBT.

• 2
  
• !

#19 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:21 AM EST

Robert-2525896

2 Peter 2:19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity--"for people are slaves to whatever has mastered them."

Romans 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).

1 Corinthians 6:11 - "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (NIV)

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV)

• 
• !

#20 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:46 AM EST

SquidEatingDough

Cool story bro

• 
• !

#20.1 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:17 AM EST

Ryan Ashlight

I always find it terrible interesting how in spite of all the teachings of Jesus, he never speaks up against homosexuality even once. You would think if it were an issue of such great importance, then he would've given it some attention, wouldn't you?

Now there is one thing I'm curious about - and being the obviously religious person you are, perhaps you can help me out with this.

You believe that God is the creator of the world and all the people in it, correct? Now if we assume God to be all-knowing and all-mighty, then does it not fall into logic that he would know that there would eventually be homosexual people? If he was so against it, then why did he have the possibility for it to happen in the first place?

Seems quite a bit counterproductive, if you ask me; unless God, being the all-loving God that people claim he is, actually doesn't hate his own creations.

• 1
  
• !

#20.2 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:01 AM EST

SJ OMalley

Something very tragic has indeed happened on this day. This nation has already experienced economic decline with our economy in the toilet having a 10+% unemployment rate. We also made some bad decisions to use the taxpayer’s money to fix the problem by rewarding the companies that mismanaged their finances and some that even created some of the money losing investment bubbles, by propping them up with these funds, resulting in a national debt that is a generational problem. Then, we find out about government gun running with the weapons to Mexican drug lords program ala Eric Holder, while he is trying to disarm licensed law abiding US citizens. Now, we have the public lesbian kiss. So, add it all up. We have economic debacle, the rewarding of incompetence and crooks, dishonest government officials causing American deaths, and now moral decay. This nation needs a doctor!!! We are very sick!!! For all you people wearing the rose colored glasses: Take the stupid glasses off!!! This nation is in a downward spiral and moral decay is the last stage before a complete collapse.

• 
• !

#21 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:38 AM EST

Ryan Ashlight

As one who views this as a sign of positive change, I guess you can throw me into that rose-colored glasses group.

Regardless, as a heterosexual male, and quite proud of it I might add, I'll keep those glasses on, thank you very much. Regardless of one's personal beliefs or values, I've always believed that humankind is united in their respective desire of wishing to love and being loved in return.

Now whether or not I agree with homosexuality, I whole heartily respect such a wish and see no reason whatsoever to stand in the way of a person's happiness and wishing to express said happiness as so many people do every day. To say that this is wrong or that it's leading into a downwards spiral of moral decay is, in my humble opinion, to deny one of the very fundamental aspects of what makes us human beings in the first place.

In the same manner as one should only shoot a gun if he/she is ready to be shot back, if you're not ready to put your right to openly display your affection for your loved one on the chopping block, please stop acting like a petulant child and condemning others simply because you don't like it.

• 1
  
• !

#21.1 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:09 PM EST

SquidEatingDough

Conservative males who have an issue with two attractive women kissing each other... please return your hetero card.

• 
• !

#22 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:26 AM EST

Dug Fmjamul

The real story is how did 4% of Americans force the other 96% to accept this abomination?

Once America no longer has God's Grace and Protection its doomed, and you can thank the seditious progressive democrats for its destruction.

• 
• !

#23 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:23 AM EST

Ryan Ashlight

...So you're saying that allowing military homosexual couples to openly express themselves is going to deprive America of God's divine protection?

Alright, let's be frank. Let's assume that were true for the moment... out of all the unspeakable atrocities that have occurred within our national borders (rape, murder, mass suicides, bombings, racism, book burnings, discrimination, etc) do you reallythink this is going to be the issue that deprives America of aforementioned protection? Please take a moment and seriously consider how you respond.

Well, regardless of how utterly ridiculous and nonsensical I think such a notion is; humankind has long since held the keys to its own destruction if it so chose. We certainly don't need God's help in that.

• 1
  
• !

#23.1 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:58 PM EST

SquidEatingDough

4%? Of what? Of whom? Cite your sources. In the meantime, look up: "argumentum ad populum," "tyranny of the majority" and "US civil liberties." Finally, religious beliefs do not belong in a logical debate. Got any more fallacious canards?

• 
• !

#23.2 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:39 PM EST

Dug Fmjamul

@Ryan Ashlight

1. Yes, to your first question. Society has social mores; openly displaying homosexual love has never been one of them….until now!
2. No, but it doesn’t help. The Bible teaches us that God will reject the wicked when the wicked continually affront God’s Commandments.
3. Civilizations throughout history have sown the seeds of their own destruction, but do we have to be the plow?

@SquidEatingDough

1. Seditious progressive democrats support the tyranny of democracy. How else could they advance socialism without going thru the Article V. Amendment Process?
2. Religious beliefs have long been welcomed into the public debate since the founding of this nation. A ‘fallacious canard’ would be the concept that the separation of church and state has some constitutional merit, it does not.
3. If you are offended by Christians expressing their religion in the public square it is because of your own personal wickedness offends you.

To err is human, to forgive is divine but to be intolerant of religion is not very benign.

• 
• !

#23.3 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:23 PM EST

Ryan Ashlight

@Dug Fmjamul: What you're saying must be based on the premise that you believe America to be an inherently Christian nation, correct? It's not.

That is precisely the reason why we have Separation of Church and State, so that anyone and everyone who comes to America would have religious freedom without fear of persecution. The Founding Fathers themselves had varying views on the state of Christianity and its impact on both the common man and its relevance with respect to the law.

Thomas Jefferson said: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law"

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man".

Benjamin Franklin said: "Lighthouses are more useful that churches"

And that's not even touching the tip of this proverbial iceberg in that these men, the ones who fought like hell to draft and create the Constitution that this nation wasfounded on, knew very well that there was a difference between being a Christian and being an American.

• 1
  
• !

#23.4 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:08 PM EST

Dug Fmjamul

@Ryan Ashlight

"That is precisely the reason why we have Separation of Church and State", if such a separation exists, it exists by the tyranny of democracy and not by anything found in the Constitution...

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT!

• 
• !

#23.5 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:26 PM EST

SquidEatingDough



Yes, to your first question. Society has social mores; openly displaying homosexual love has never been one of them….until now!

You're aware that human beings have and have had more than one single, homogenous society on Earth, correct? If you're referring to Western Society in the US, I assume you're also aware that our social mores once dictated that race mixing and interracial marriage were once highly taboo? And that women weren't viewed as equal to men in worth? "Until now!" Appealing to Tradition is illogical.

No, but it doesn’t help. The Bible teaches us that God will reject the wicked when the wicked continually affront God’s Commandments.

Good for you. But you have no right to influence the law in a free country with your particular religion as the basis.

Civilizations throughout history have sown the seeds of their own destruction, but do we have to be the plow?

Yes, civilizations have, for a myriad of complex reasons, though so far none of those reasons have had anything to do with homosexual relations or homosexual marriage. Most civlizations do not become utterly extinct, however; most of the time they scatter, evolve or transform, or are absorbed by "bigger" civilizations. And somehow, the planet still manages to turn on its axis.

Seditious progressive democrats support the tyranny of democracy. How else could they advance socialism without going thru the Article V. Amendment Process?

Talk about Begging the Question. This rhetoric makes no sense to anyone who isn't tuned in to whatever niche, extremist newsletter you subscribe to.

Religious beliefs have long been welcomed into the public debate since the founding of this nation.

Arguments supported only by reason and verifiable evidence are the backbone of meaningful public discourse, due process, science, free thought, the philosphy of the Founding Fathers, and most relevantly, the US Constitution. If you can bring in your god as "evidence" then I can bring in my god, and we end up having a war of unsubstantiated superstition, dogma, myths, and whatever the hell else pops into our heads, instead of actually engaging in the process of uncovering Truth.

A ‘fallacious canard’ would be the concept that the separation of church and state has some constitutional merit, it does not.

If you are offended by Christians expressing their religion in the public square it is because of your own personal wickedness offends you.

If you are offended by anyone using logic and facts in the public square it is because your own personal narrow-mindedness offends you.

No one is taking away your right to believe in fairy tales. No one is taking away your churches. You don't need to hide yo wife, hide yo kids. Stop making up straw-filled bogeymen.

To err is human, to forgive is divine but to be intolerant of religion is not very benign.

Desmond has his barrow in the market place, Molly is the singer in a band, Desmond says to Molly "Girl, I like your face" and Molly says this as she takes him by the hand, "Ob-la-di, ob-la-da, life goes on, la la how the life goes on."

By the way, Still waiting on what that "4%" statistic you posted means. In the meantime, chew on these:

"For the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages"

"According to the poll, 68 percent of Americans said they support gay and lesbians' rights to serve openly. Fifty percent said they "strongly" favored the idea.

Moreover, although many national Republicans leaders were against the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," more Republicans surveyed favor the idea of allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the armed forces openly than oppose it."

"The latest Gallup findings, Reuters reports, are in line with two earlier national polls this spring that show support for legally recognized gay marriage has gained a newfound majority among Americans."

• 
• !

#23.6 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:05 PM EST

SquidEatingDough

Seems links aren't allowed here. I linked to those poll quotes. I also linked you to www(dot) usconstitution(dot) net /consttop_reli(dot) html in resonse to this nonsense:

A ‘fallacious canard’ would be the concept that the separation of has some constitutional merit, it does not.

• 
• !

#23.7 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:13 PM EST

suzette-3194003

dug,

we are not intolerant of religion. what we are intolerant of is people like you wrapping yourself in christianity, quoting the bible, and using it as grounds to be judgementall of others.

do you think gays expressing their love in the public square the same way that a heterosexual couple might is "wicked"?

if you are offended by gays expressing their feelings openly in the public square in the same way that a man and a woman would, it is because your own personal intolerance (wickedness) offends you.

• 
• !

#23.8 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:01 PM EST

corey d

I like how it gets widely reported and aired all over the news when two pretty hot gay chicks hug and kiss. This is the media pushing their gay rights and gays in the military agenda. Why dont they show two big hairy sweaty grizzly bears hugging and kissing? Ill tell you why, because probably over 90% if the population would find it repulsive and it wouldnt promote their agenda. Its no accident that the two gays were good looking young women.

• 
• !

#24 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:54 PM EST

SquidEatingDough

IT WAS NO ACCIDENT!!!1

She was chosen by a lottery. There's no conspiracy here, magical thinker.

• 
• !

#24.1 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:07 PM EST

msgtopom

I am gladd to see the military did not step in and put a stop to this. As my father (God rest his sole) a career Army man told me the best thing ever to happen in the military was when Truman desegregated the armed serices. Just think everyone back then said it was the worst thing in the world it would not work. Well we all know what the militaries lead on this accomplished. I am not here to argue LBGT issues as my views are mine. The most important thing that should be argued is civil rights for everybody even if they don"t apply to your personal views. Thank you Navy for being civil hopefully this is the start of justice for all.

• 1
  
• !

#25 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:46 PM EST