And it is a good point. But one I don’t think would be so much of a problem if the world was talking about the Republicans doing something positive.

But I do understand how you feel Smitty — it was out of feelings not unlike yours that the Daily Kos came into being. And the biggest reason why they became successful wasn’t about the technology or the New New thing — it was because a group of fairly like-minded (and like marginalized) people could get together precisely to get themselves heard.

my point stands, tho.

Aside, carte-blanche labelling is also a problem.

There have been alot. But there hasn’t been much from the sane Republican side (if you can identify those who are) to report on who are pushing back on this stuff. And — to be fair — the fear and loathing stuff has been a fairly singular message from the leadership (whether the entertainment side OR the elected side) since September. At least. And it shouldn’t be too far of a stretch to empathize with one of the reasons we spend time looking at that fear and loathing — not only is it not true (and that fact not exactly pointed out by our liberal media) but it pointed at us. Liberals. We should be concerned about people who are living in false narratives that are provided to them that help them see others as threats to be eliminated.

Certainly not all Republicans buy into this stupidity, and we all know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do not. But even you would agree that you are no longer representative of those in your party with the megaphones any more. And those who do have megaphones and who are more sane certainly aren’t stepping up to ask their colleagues to put away their GI Joe dolls.

If one tries, he/she gets blasted from the further right for being too liberal and then blasted from the left for being lost and too stupid for being a Republican. Ain’t it a fun game?

and ……people have their $%@’s in a knot over who’s sackin’ with who ??????

Damn it. I knew I shouldn’t have stopped my Lexpro scripts.

Seriously, I’m looking at a classification of a mass group of people. You all know me, so I know it’s not on me, personally, but what if another person like me, that a loyal reader of DL randomly meets finds out said-Progressive-minded-Republican is a registered “R,” but suddenly fears for his/her life because Republicans=violence? Is group classification OK?

I’m just tired of the hate rhetoric.

Anyway, a great tidbit from the Iowa court decision, which totally blows away one of David Anderson’s defenses: what about the children!

The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents. If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many lassifications of people would be excluded, not merely gay and lesbian people. The statute is also under-inclusive because it does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children in Iowa. The statute is over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. The court further noted that the County failed to show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban, or how the ban benefits the interests of children of heterosexual parents. Thus, the court concluded a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal environment to raise children.

I also just read that Washington D.C. voted to recognize same-sex marriages from out of state.