This: "But, I guess we can be comforted by the fact that this wasn't McCain's attempt" should be "But, I guess we can be comforted by the fact that this wasn't McCain's intent."

I would love for one of these pundits expressing that view to say specifically -- exactly -- what "crazy liberal" things they think Obama would inclined to do which a majority of Americans would find objectionable.

That would be nice.

I saw a comment to an LA Times column today that indicated it's writer believed that Socialism entails not just wealth redistribution, but also that a socialist goverment must be are pro-choice and anti-2nd Amendment. How can we expect the populace to be anything other than complete idiots if the establishment media is going to feed into their frenzy?

It is to laugh. Obama a socialist? Or even a liberal? Please. But, challenge someone to explain why, and it never happens.

Anytime a "journalist" agrees with Limbaugh, any credibility that person had goes out the window. Limbaugh should not be considered a political commentator. He's a hate-spewing, uneducated, DJ. That's it. He's not even talented. How hard is it to figure out how to be "outrageous" and to feed into the public's basest instincts, saying exactly what they want to hear?

Yes, he influences millions, and it's important to recognize (and attempt to counteract) how damaging he is. But, he should never, ever be considered an authority on anything. Except maybe being a world class a-hole.

Halperin should be embarrassed.

It's not just to, once again, introduce race into the equation, including the "poor, victimized, white population that is so horribly oppressed by reverse racism" meme. (Man, I am SO sick of that nonsense.) That's merely a bonus.

But, what they're really doing is saying, "all of the many, detailed and complicated reasons (all 6 minutes of them) that Powell gave for his endorsement are all a bunch of bull pucky. They're false reasons given as cover for the fact that the only reason the Great Republican Colin Powell would vote for Obama is obviously race. Ignore all the sensible reasons he gave. Obama is still a socialist terrorist Islamist nightmare! We promise!"

At least you are an honest (if ignorant and bigoted) homosexual totalitarian...

Thanks for that.

-- Verses

Can you please explain how your imposition of your beliefs on everyone else is okay? How are you not a bigot if that person is? Seriously, in what universe are your statements not 100% hypocritical?

You and the Prop 8 people are attemping to force your beliefs both on homosexuals and those of us who support their right to equality. Take your whining about brownshirts elsewhere until you stop acting like one yourself.

esp considering the ramifications for religious charities, public schools and free speech.

What ramifications?

If you're relying on the Pro on Prop 8 ads, those ads completely deceitful and everything in them has been debunked. There is nothing in the Supreme Court case which is involved (nor in Prop 8 itself) which has anything to do with free speech, public schools or religious charities. (Have you read the case?) Those claims are intended to deceive voters who otherwise would be on board, because they don't care what other people do with their lives.

Gay marriage will have no affect on non-gays. The proponents of Prop 8 know that, and knew that they'd have to lie to voters in order to get the proposition to pass. If you want to deny other people equality and you believe "separate but equal" is acceptable, just cop to it. But, don't be dishonest about it.

As I said before, the oldest and largest Catholic adoption agency in MASS decided to close rather than be forced by the state to break it's core religious principles by placing adoptions in same sex house holds.

First, marriage has nothing to do with adoptions. Gay people can already adopt in California. You don't have to be married to adopt.

Second, you also cannot discriminate against gay people in California in hiring. Schools cannot tolerate harassment or discriminate against gay students. NEWS FLASH: Gay people have rights already! It's not causing the downfall of the Western world.

Do you think that the Catholic church should be allowed to run its adoption agency with a policy of discrimination toward African-Americans? Why not? Under your analysis, if that's their religious belief, they should be able to do it, law be damned. I, personally, don't agree.

Also, what if there were religious persons who believed that blacks and whites shouldn't marry? Or shouldn't use the same drinking fountain? Should we not have changed those laws?

Basically, your argument is that laws protecting gay rights are harmful to churches because they can no longer discriminate against gays in their non-religious activities (i.e., running an adoption agency). Sorry, buddy, but I'm all for that. That argument is not ever going to stand up to scrutiny.

The churches can trample everyone else's rights, but far be it from the law to ask that they not discriminate against others? That's what you're saying.

You have argued over and over again that churches should be able to discriminate against a group of people and, if they are not able to do so, it impinges upon their religous freedom. That's your argument. So, either defend it or shut up, but don't try to brush it under the rug by trying to suggest that I'm somehow downplaying the importance of the civil rights movement. That's disengenuous, dishonest and dirty.

Now, if you want to answer my actual questions instead of pretending that people who discriminate are somehow victims here, go ahead. Otherwise, take your uninformed propaganda elsewhere.