Every time I hear about the administration asking for more authority, and their republican allies supporting it, I always think back to the nineties and ask myself "What would they have said if Clinton had wanted to do this?" The answer is always the same. It's the same thing they did when we all found out about Monica, they would have called for his impeachment.

They spent most of the nineties talking about how they didn't trust the government until their guy took office and then it was okay to just cave in to anything the government (read: Bush) wanted.

If 9/11 had happened on Clinton's watch, which according to them, it was his fault anyway, would they have granted him the same kind of authority they gave Bush? I think we all know he answer to that. They are asking of us what they themselves would never give if the situation were reveresed. Something we should always point out everytime they condemn us for not supporting Bush.

BTW: Hasn't "24"'s ratings started to drop anyway? Probably because of the disconnect between the fantasy of fighting terrorists and the reality. They really are still living in 2003, aren't they? Of course it was their brightest moment, I guess I can't blame them for trying to hold onto it.

They only care about CERTAIN sins. "Hooters" is okay because it promotes STRAIGHT sex. So it's okay to throw their beliefs out the window on this one.

and so do the other christians. Think I'm exagerating? Ask yourselves one simple question: Of all the issues that affect so many more people, poverty, healthcare, homelessness, the 50% divorce rate among straight couples, why is gay marraige being given priority status among these people? The answer is simple, it's much easier and much more fun to hate a minority group then it is to fix all those other problems. How do you think Hitler got into power? Paying for healthcare just doesn't get 'em to the polls the way a good ol' fasioned gay bashing amendment does. "Yeah! I'm stopping the evil sodomites! I'll happily go along with making America a more moral place, just so long as they don't rail against the "sins" that I'm doing!"

Of course I have no doubt that they would deny hatred was involved, but what they don't want to acknowledge is in order to pass such discriminatory laws, you have to turn off the part of your brain that tells you that the people affected by these laws are just as human as you are and that such laws have very real consequences on peoples lives. But as all those constitutional amendments that were passed back in 2004 proved, they have no problem doing that.

This letter isn't going to get a red star, I know that (ironically because criticizing christians isn't politically correct!), but as someone looking at the issue from the outside who has no stake in it either way, I can tell you what it looks like from out here. One group of control freaks sticking their noses in where it doesn't belong bullying a minority group for fun and political gain without any regard for how it affects those people's actual lives.

your right, Ralph didn't cost Gore the election, YOU did. You all knew what was at stake and you still went for the "spoiler" anyway just so you could make some kind of statement. Good job, now you got someone who won't listen to ANYTHING you care about. Think Al Gore would have done that? Yes, Nader had every right to run for president, just like every other naturally born citizen over the age of 35. But no candidate can get elected without supporters. The difference between the two parties is the difference between how many Americans have died in Iraq versus how many would have died if Gore had won. I think we all know the answer to that.

And, as another poster pointed out, Nader and Bush have something in common, niether one believes in comprimise. This is the exact same crap we've been getting onto Bush for for the past seven years. How would a liberal doing it be any better then a conservative? Think the public sees a difference? None of those other factors from Florida to the Supreme Court would have mattered if you people would have opened your eyes and grown up a little and allowed yourselves to see what was at stake. I was 22 at the time of the 2000 election and if I was smart enough to see how importatnt that election was, certainly you guys could.

No candidate is perfect, but yes, virginia, there is such a thing as the lesser of two evils.

I notice you didn't address any of my other comments. Could it be because their all true?

I was not refering to all chrisitans, just the variety, like xychro, who are trying to stop gay marriage and seem to think doing so should be some major priority. I probably should have been more specific, sorry about that.

But I still stand by my belief that they do indeed hate gays and want them criminalized largely for the reasons I stated in my original post.

The big business wing of the GOP pays the bills and has no use for the culture war. Huckabee aint throwing them any bones. Bush got the nomination because he sucked both sides dicks, Huck only seems to want the one. He fell for the same trick the GOP voters did, he thinks the party leaders and fundraisers actually give a rats ass about gay marriage and abortion, they don't. It's all a scam to get the stupid hicks in the voting boths. Apparently Huck is one of them.