The Russians actually tried that mirror thingie.
They should just wait a few decades. At the rate we’re going, Siberia will thaw on its own.
To be fair I’m pretty sure that Mitt didn’t know that they were a gay couple. He just assumed veteran = god fearing Republican. He’s still a slimeball though.
He’s also an idiot:
(From the article linked above)
Ummm, at the time the Constitution was written, it made no mention of marriage. It still doesn’t, for that matter. :rolleyes:
In the interest of defending the indefensible, I’m pretty sure he meant the institution which did exist, even though it wasn’t on the books because back then marriage was mostly a Church thing.
In which Mitt accuses Newt of the unthinkable - collaborating with the Enemy!
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
God forbid we should ever work together to achieve something. Mitt stands firmly for partisan gridlock!
Fox News Uses an Obama Image to Identify Mitt Romney
For when putting the wrong party letter in the chyron isn’t enough…
That cracks me up. I love it. How the hell are they going to blame that on some fumble-fingered intern?
No one knows the name yet, but the intern is running three points ahead of Santorum in the Iowa Republican Caucus.
…and they used one of Andy Rooney to identify Newt!
The one captioned “Ron Paul”? Isn’t that the Cryptkeeper?
Yes, the institution of marriage did exist at the time the Constitution was written, but the federal government did not concern itself with it at the time. You’d think Romney would know that the legality of marriage can change. For example, bigamy was not made illegal until 1862*. Times change, Mitt, old boy. Marriage also changes.
*Illinois made it illegal in the early 1840s and the US gov’t took it nationwide in 1862.
Informative post, legalsnugs. Thanks!
That’s an excellent point. Mitt’s argument could also be used to reinstate miscegenation laws. The Supremes had no business finding those laws unconstitutional!
In other news: Newt Gingritch prepares a tax plan which is beyond horrible. Among other things, it:
-Makes taxes on the super-rich lower than on the middle class
-leads to a massive deficit, even if with massive government spending cuts well beyond the scale of what republicans are even proposing
-Fails to close a single corporate tax loophole while creating more
-Make it harder for the lower and middle class to fill out their tax returns by complicating the process
…Wow. Could you even give a more blatant “fuck you” to anyone who isn’t making millions a year?
Seems downright Un-American doesn’t it? This is one foreign correspondent’s view of America:
And then, we note this story
So…do the upper classes think this a good idea for their long term self-interest? Supposing the percentage of the struggling rises to 60%? 70%? 80%? 90%? It doesn’t take a political scientist to figure the probability of violent political instability follow.
I’m sure if you were to ask any presidential candidate this loaded question (even Obama), they’d be getting a might uncomfortable and evasive. But it needs to be asked.
This would make an excellent debate topic for our own GD, although I’d like it even more if this question were ever asked of a conservative who would actually answer it.
At least he is according to Fox News!
It’s a great question. I asked a similar one in the " Conservative Dopers convince me with your best-case plans" thread, but the only answers are along the lines of “if individuals are unhappy with their lot in life, they should do something to improve their situation.” Which of course does not even answer the question of where the “tipping point” is for the good of society, and make the massive assumption that even with a growing disparity between rich and poor, that there is still equality of opportunity.
The only answer from conservatives that I can see is to deny that growing income disparity will ever be a problem, and to simply assert that poor people are jealous.
One big problem is that hugely unequal societies can exist, indefinitely, in a fairly stable fashion.
The trick is to hire the “upper poor” to be your policemen. That makes them fanatically loyal to the regime, and thus totally willing to continue to oppress the “lower poor.”
I live right next door to Tijuana, where income disparity is glaringly visible. A tiny few live in mansions, and hundreds of thousands live in plywood-and-tire shacks.
I don’t believe that conservatives knowingly want U.S. society to come to resemble this, but I do believe that their fiscal policies lead toward it.