Oui.

To be fair that was specifically in response to the issue of amendments on abortion and gay marriage. There are perfectly good reasons for supporting such things (not that I agree with them) that don't rely on references to biblical authority. I'd much rather he used them instead.

Don't get me started, Alex.

I hear Toronto is nice.

I will again state that I am not a fan of Huckabee. This is only part of the reasons.

The more I hear from Romney, though, the more I like him. I'm thinking I'm starting to move more into the Romney camp rather than being undecided about which Republican I'd be voting for in the primary. It will either be him or Thompson, and it really depends on what Thompson decided to do.

I'm not sure that there are non-religious arguments to be made unless it's that for purposes of social stability, all healthy, fertile adults should be required to marry AND reproduce. In which case you, Pat Buchanan, Elizabeth Dole and Condi Rice better run from the soylent green trucks.

I want to emphasize that while there are non-religious reasons for supporting an amendment banning gay marriage and abortion, I don't agree with them.

I'm just saying that if a politician is going to support policies I disagree with that they at least provide support for their positions that aren't based on "because this ancient book tells me so."

If the economy needs an economic stimulus package that involves tax rebates, why would we not also make the tax cuts permanent that are due to expire soon? Would it not follow that a tax rebate is basically the same thing as a tax cut? The rebate, from what I've read, would go to dual incomes as high as 110K, and those people are affected by the tax cuts.

Not meant to be rhetorical, really. I really don't understand the difference and I'm wondering if someone can offer an explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbaszmcpesc

Out of context or not....truer words were never spoken:)