[i] Once the societal acceptance of a certain type of behavior is changed, who draws the new line? Who has the right to? And where is it drawn. If you accept a marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman would you accept a marriage of three men and twelve girls and women aged 14 - 23 based on mutal consent? Why aren´t any of you getting to the core of the issue?

-- pwlohse[/i]

You claim to be a adherent of the business proposition known as the LDS "church", yet you're completely ignorant of their history of polygamy? Let alone the racism, sexism, and general charlatanism?

And just whose f'in' business is it who marries whom? There are ALREADY age of consent laws. There are already bigamy laws. Both of long standing. Ask some of your "fundamentalist" brethren about those. Any of the ridiculous - no, absurd - scenarios you raise to defend your bigotry and homophobia are merely smokescreens; and not very effective smokescreens at that, in that they're easy to see right through.

It's no business of yours if gays enter into civil marriages with a state issued marriage license. NONE.... you have NO standing. It's in the interests of society to treat EVERYONE fairly when it comes to handing out rights and responsibilities. It doesn't threaten ANYONE else's "marriage" for gays to have those rights. This isn't a zero sum game, wherein if gays get married you lose something.... NOTHING happens to your marriage.

There's a significant number of people who will vote for her BECAUSE of her glaring limitations.

Does a pig learn about bacon by pushing to be first at the trough every day?

What do we expect him to do? Serve little smokies and buffalo wings with a can of Pabst on the the side?

It doesn't look excessive to this old revolutionary. It would be more embarrassing (and true to Bush's usual ham handedness) if he DIDN'T put up at least a half way decent spread.

Sure... be incredibly angry at what he's done to this country during the course of his disastrous, illegitimate regime's power grabbing eight years; but eating what is probably farm raised quail is way down that list for me.

Is on a media blitz in a frantic effort to rescue himself from the ashcan of history. Of course, this venal slimeball wants to downplay the ambitions other venal slimeballs in his party; after all, he thinks HE should be Maximum Leader. Just ask him.

I was sick of this screaming idiot before he got run off in humiliation the last time. Do we REALLY have to sit through any more mention of him, let alone the endless interviews he's now preening for?

Be gone Newt.... good bye and good luck to you...

Newton Leroy Gingrich will be 69 years old in 4 years. PRESIDENT Obama will be 51 and the incumbent.

Go ahead GOP. Run him. Run Palin. Hell, run ANYBODY sitting on your paper thin "bench".

The Ds obviously don't have any idea of just how few chances they have to prove themselves worthy of the trust placed in them by the majority of the electorate. We can put this in the sack of rocks they're already lugging, along with Obama's FISA vote: stains that no amount of obfuscation and claims of pragmatism or alleged "bipartisanship" will rub away. A political party can only string along its base for so long. Ask the Republicans. And while they're at it, some of these "bipartisan" Democrats should also ask themselves what their new best friends demonstrably did to THEM when they were in power. "What would a Republican do?" indeed!

He's not even President yet. Let him pick his own damn cabinet without running off the cliff of disgruntled assumption. The tone of some of the sniping makes me wonder just who would satisfy some of the posters here on Salon.

I'm pretty far left. Sure, I don't like Lieberman being appeased, but there's room for rational disagreement on that. (the Glen Greenwald debate was particularly good on the subject).

I'd like to see Obama have a chance to settle in, with the cabinet he wants to pick and the new Congress for a few months before we all start kicking him.

As a long time holder of the anointed title of "union thug", I welcome you to the list of honor. Achieving the status of "thug" in the eyes of the regressive movement is a badge to be proudly displayed.

I have Ayn Rand to thank for a lifetime of being an altruistic hippy union activist. After being both repulsed and bored by her interminable "books", it was easy to reject the whole supposed philosophy she was blathering about. The only purpose she serves in my life is as a marker to distance myself from anyone expressing admiration for her particular form of extreme mental illness.

Judging by the results of the election, I think it's in the left's interests to keep Rush blathering to the dwindling pool of the faithful as long and loudly as possible. After all, he's the self proclaimed "conservative leader" of the hysterical right wing. He's putting his still considerable weight behind "cleansing" the Republican Party of "RINOs", while consoling his tattered dittoheads with reassurances that the only thing they need to do in order to become the "winners" they're all so frantic to see themselves as is to get MORE right wing. If anything, we should aid him in those efforts.

I mean... It worked so well in the last two elections.

How do I get a job like Daniel Henninger? I can fart a more reasonable argument than this!

Hardly. Perhaps what the lion leaves to mark its territory, but not anything with teeth.