charles hamilton houston (thurgood marshall's mentor) spent most of his legal career campaigning to force the "separate but equal" states to come closer to being equal. While full equality and the removal of the separation was certainly his goal, i think he definitely saw his work as moving in the right direction.

likewise, federal legislation forcing civil unions to be treated with full legal equality would be a step in the right direction. it wouldn't make everyone happy, but it would be cause for optimism.

JL

No. "Gay," although women may use it, refers primarily to men who only like men. "Queer" as reclaimed by the queer community, is an all-inclusive term that basically means anyone whose orientation is something other than opposite-sex only. not all of those orientations fall neatly into LGB or T. Although i've heard the Q can mean queer, my sense is that questioning is the more common usage.

JL

Apropos to nothing else in particular, but next time you and your wife are the last ones out of a crowded theater and both badly need to use the rest room, ask HER just how well that system works.

:)

JL

It’s time for the LGBT community to start moving beyond genetic predisposition as a tool for gaining mainstream acceptance of gay rights. .??. For decades now, it’s been the most powerful argument in the LGBT arsenal: that we were “born this way.” .??.??.Still, as compelling as these arguments are, they may have outgrown their usefulness. With most Americans now in favor of gay marriage, it’s time for the argument to shift to one where genetics don’t matter. The genetic argument has boxed us into a corner.
-Gay Dancer & Writer Brandon Ambrosino

Sexuality is a characteristic to be actively constructed by the self.
-Alexander Borinsky

Still want to claim it's a choice and nothing but a choice?? :D

Michale

Further evidence that gay activists are content with equality..

In addition to Acceptance and Approval??

Gay activists also want vengeance...

Michale

Isn't 'gay' and 'queer' redundant??

Did I just commit some horrible PC affront??

But that illustrates my point perfectly regarding this whole mess..

Michale

Seems to work OK for men and women bathrooms.

Separate... But equal...

Michale

How many letters are we going to add to this "community"??

L and G... OK... B?? yea, it's a stretch...

T??? Com'on!!!

What the frak is 'Q'???

Michale

I'm not sure i agree with this. the LGBTQ community would certainly not be completely satisfied with such a law. however, if full marriage equality is not granted, i think they would still see it as progress to have a law granting full legal equality to civil unions on a national scale.

JL

It was my understanding that several weeks had transpired between the time that the custome rings were made *and* delivered and the time that the couple found out about the jeweler's feelings on the matter...

If what you state is accurate, that the rings hadn't been delivered yet, that DOES throw another wrinkle into the mix...

so he granted the refund on that basis.

The article I read related that the jeweler finally relented and agreed to the refund only after the couple and other gay activists threatened a boycott...

Michale

if you read, I think the business owner himself ultimately acknowledged that the couple were acting in good faith and not egging on abuse, so he granted the refund on that basis.

So it's not just that students refuse to countenance uncomfortable ideas — they refuse to engage them, period.

Truer words were never spoken... I see that a lot around here...

Michale

I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

Look what hyper hysterical PC Liberals have wrought...

Michale

http://family.findlaw.com/domestic-partnerships/civil-unions-v-marriage.html

Interesting article, JL..

I agree that Civil Unions DO have to be "upgraded" a little...

And I would wholly and completely support such an "upgrade"...

But I am willing to wager that the gay activists would NOT support the creation of a Civil Union that, legally, is identical to traditional marriage in every respect..

Because it doesn't give the activists what they really want..

Acceptance.. Approval..

Michale

http://family.findlaw.com/domestic-partnerships/civil-unions-v-marriage.html

next time you and your wife get out of a crowded theater and both need to go badly, ask her. :)

but that's neither here nor there when it comes to marriage vs. civil union/domestic partnership.

under federal law and between different states, they are NOT equal. If you're going to campaign for a federal law that requires all civil unions and domestic partnerships to be treated a hundred percent equally to civil marriages in all states and all divisions of the federal government, then I'm right there with you. but until and unless that happens, it is not just "acceptance" that same-gender spouses are campaigning for. Here are the legal facts:

http://family.findlaw.com/domestic-partnerships/civil-unions-v-marriage.html

regarding the jeweler and the wedding ring, i understand and respect your point of view, in terms of there being a contract between buyer and seller. let's forget for a second the public relations campaign that came later, and focus on the facts of the transaction itself:

Fact 1 is the timeline: the transaction had not yet been completed - the rings had been made but were not yet delivered.

Fact 2 is how and when the couple came to know of the jeweler's political view regarding their marriage: a large banner was placed in front of the store after payment and production but before delivery.

I'm no expert in canadian contract law, but i can tell you that at least one party believes that the conditions of the purchase were changed by the seller prior to the completion of the transaction.

imagine for a second that this was something more mundane, like the engraving didn't seem as pretty to the couple as it had looked when they ordered it. would they then not be entitled to send it back and demand a refund? and if the seller insisted this was exactly what they ordered and no refund would be given, are those people not entitled to gather friends together to post negative reviews of the shop for bad business practice?

I don't necessarily have a good answer for this, but you're the businessperson, not me. How much is it worth to do something that you know will make many potential customers unhappy?

JL

So, we are in complete agreement... :D

Common ground...

Michale

Well, don't forget those who hide behind double super secret articles...

Suffice it to say that Hillary's PARTY FAITHFUL ONLY strategy in the general election is moronic..

Lets make stuff up and argue against it! Is that your new posting strategy? But I read an article that confirms it, believe me, nudge, nudge, wink, wink...

Until you provide the article I'm going with your "NO CANDIDATE HAS TO WORRY ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT VOTE IN THE PRIMARY...". Otherwise it's all just speculation and hot air...

I am not going to waste my time digging up the article so you can bloviate over what the definition of "is" is....

Suffice it to say that Hillary's PARTY FAITHFUL ONLY strategy in the general election is moronic..

And anyone NOT enslaved by Party ideology would agree....

Michale

Are you really that afraid of me reading the article? I guess it must not say what you are trying to pawn it off as saying...

Betcha can't... :D

Ya, post the article first laughing boy...

The article you have yet to post?

OK, let's try it this way..

Would you agree that, if the Clinton Campaign *IS* planning on ignoring Independents and just concentrating on Party Faithful in the general election.....

Would you agree that THAT is a bonehead move??

A simple yes or no is all that is required...

Betcha can't... :D

Michale

The article you have yet to post?

"Did IQs just drop suddenly while I was away"
-Ripley, ALIENS

I'm a bit worried, you might want to test yourself to find out...

O'Malley!???

BERNIE!!???

Shirley you jest...

Michale

Siiiggghhhhh

Because, according to the article, the Clinton Campaign was deciding their GENERAL ELECTION strategy....

"Did IQs just drop suddenly while I was away"
-Ripley, ALIENS

Michale

So instead of backing up your argument, you disprove it. Nice. If no candidate has to worry about the independent vote in the primary then why do you care if Hillary decides to "forgo trying to woo Independents like me and concentrate on exciting Democrats...".

She can always turn back to independents after the primary season is over and we turn to the general election, because "no candidate has to worry about the independent vote in the primary." You even wrote it in all caps so it must be true, heh...

Don't believe me??

Ask your gay friends who are NOT activists the following question.

"If you were to be joined to a same-sex partner and you had the option of a union that had all of the legal rights and benefits of a traditional marriage without any of the religious overtones or connotations of a traditional marriage, would such a Civil Union be acceptable to you?"

I would bet you a million quatloos that EVERYONE in the gay community (non-activists excluded) would be perfectly satisfied with that...

Anyone who would NOT accept that is simply proving beyond any doubt that equality is not the goal...

Acceptance and approval is the goal...

Michale

You want to see the numbers??

Ask and ye shall receive...

HILLARY’S SCANDALS SINK IN WITH VOTERS
It was three months ago today that news broke about Hillary Clinton’s use of a secret email server. In that time we have been told that Clinton’s email practices wouldn’t hurt her chances and wouldn’t amount to more than “a bunch of people flapping they jaws about nothing.” Of the allegations that the former secretary of state did favors in office for donors and benefactors we have been told endlessly that without a “smoking gun” voters would not fault her. As for her effort to avoid the scandals by shunning the media in favor of canned events, it was “surprisingly effective.” But two new polls out today suggest that the toll is mounting for the presumptive Democratic nominee.

The WaPo/ABC News poll has similar if less acrid findings for Clinton’s stature and this explains why: “Half of all Americans disapprove of the way she has handled questions about the Clinton Foundation, and 55 percent disapprove of how she has handled questions about her personal e-mails as secretary of state. Meanwhile, half also disapprove of the way she has dealt with questions about the attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012…”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/02/hillarys-scandals-sink-in-with-voters/?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obinsite

Read 'em and weep.... :D

Michale

Ohmigods, that was a great series!!

Fell apart in the 5th season because the "story" had been told.. Kinda like SUPERNATURAL after Season 5...

But the story was awesome!!

1.) Separate but equal has NEVER worked in this country.

Really?? So, men/women bathrooms don't work???

Who knew?? :D

Gay activists were actually quite happy to accept civil unions in the beginning.

No, the Gay COMMUNITY was happy to accept civil unions. The Gay ACTIVISTS want more..

They want acceptance..

Michale

"Civil Unions...

If the issue was about equality, then Civil Unions would suffice..."

There are two problems with that Michale, that you conveniently overlook.

1.) Separate but equal has NEVER worked in this country.

2.) Gay activists were actually quite happy to accept civil unions in the beginning. But then when the anti-gay marriage crowd started passing state constitutional bans, they included civil unions in those bans too!!!

"Make it a Gorn and a Ferengi couple...

But, I would have to wonder at the... er... "mechanics" of such a relationship.... :D"

I don't think it would be any weirder than a Centauri and a Narn couple. Ever watch Babylon 5 Michale? :-D

If this gay couple/jeweler case had gone to court, you just HAVE to know that the law is completely and unequivocally and demonstrably on the side of the jeweler...

Michale

Ridiculous, eh??

ANYONE who tries to accuse me of equating gay people with monkeys, I will surely taunt you a second time...

:D

Michale

Postulate a scenario where we have a group of people who choose to dye their pet monkeys' hair purple..

THEN these purple-haired monkey owning people mount an activist campaign to change the definition of a "person" that includes monkeys with purple hair..

Ridiculous, eh??

It's ridiculous to change the definition that has been, literally, written in stone for thousands and thousands of years...

THAT is the argument that is being made regarding gay marriage...

Gay marriage has been around as an issue for a couple decades, if that...

Marriage, defined as a man and a woma(e)n, has been around for THOUSANDS of years...

Ignore the emotionalism and look at the issue objectively..

There is only one possible choice here..

Civil Unions...

If the issue was about equality, then Civil Unions would suffice...

But the issue isn't about equality. It's about acceptance...

And if acceptance cannot be obtained on it's merits, then it must be FORCED onto people...

THAT is the thinking of the gay activists...

Michale

Yes.. Marriage *LAWS* change all the time..

But the definition??? Man Woman?? Man Women???

The DEFINITION has constant for thousands of years...

These are the facts...

Michale

But, I would have to wonder at the... er... "mechanics" of such a relationship.... :D

Michale

Step outside the box and look at exactly what you are pushing..

You want the jeweler punished..

Not for ANY actions he took, but for what he believes...

The jeweler committed a Thought Crime and ya'all want him punished for that..

Is that REALLY the side ya'all want to come down on???

Michale

I addressed this separately because I hope we can continue this particular discussion..

If I understand you correctly, you want me to address the argument thusly..

An black/white couple go into a jewelry store to have custome rings made... They are very happy with the product and heap lavish praise on the jeweler. They recommend the jeweler to their friends...

A couple weeks later, they learn from one of those friends that the jeweler is a racist and opposes interracial marriage...

They feel that their rings are tainted and they demand a refund..

That about sum things up??

My response and my argument is identical..

Any "taint" is ONLY in the minds of the couple...

The rings are EXACTLY the same.. The love the couple has is EXACTLY the same... The jeweler is EXACTLY the same...

If they were happy with the rings and happy with the service, the fact they found out something unsavory about the jeweler is completely and unequivocally irrelevant..

They may not want to wear the rings any more.

They may want to commission a new pair from a more ideologically pleasing jeweler..

But they have no right to a refund..

And, if they want to initiate a boycott against the jeweler because he is a racist??

Fine. Have at it. I might be so inclined to join them for that. Not really because I hate boycotts... But you get the idea...

But to initiate a boycott against the jeweler because he won't issue them a refund??

Blatant extortion..

You can change the arguments six ways from Sunday...

Make it a gay couple..

Make it an inter-racial couple..

Make it a Klingon and a Cardassian couple...

Make it a Gorn and a Ferengi couple...

My position and my argument is the same...

No refund AFTER the fact.. The job was done to the satisfaction of ALL partys...

That is the only relevant fact...

Michale

And if you can convince me that Hillary is an FDR, you would have a point.. :D

As for student IDs, when it's a state university, the state itself is the issuing authority. Just like for gun licenses. Both have photos on them, so what's the problem?

Nope.. They are not.. Because they serve no function outside the university, they are not official IDs...

Get ahold of a University ID and compare it to your Drivers License if ya don't believe me..

Really? That's all you got on the Duggar thing? Benghazi and the IRS? Wow, talk about scraping the conservative talking point barrel. I'm just sayin'...

Two words..

Lena Dunham, Liberal Hero...

OK, that's 4 words.. :D

Except for, you know, the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. Heh.

And, if our elections made the popular vote relevant, you would have a point.. :D

As you say, "get over it." Practice saying "Madam President," it'll come in handy soon.

I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with saying "Madam President"...

Just not to THIS madam...

She is a crook.. I mean, honestly...

What does it say about your candidate when the BEST thing that CAN be said about all her unethical activities is, "Well, there's no smoking gun!!!"

I mean, honestly....

I have to give you credit, you pushed me into writing Monday's SCOTUS article. Not just this comment, but for a few weeks now you've been asking for my predictions, so I finally went out on a limb and put my markers down. But I have to say, you did push me into writing that column.

:-)

I am grinning like the proverbial cat and canary.. :D

Yeah, I actually agree with you on this one. That was a pretty stupid article. I think it was the NY Times, too. (1) Rubio's wife is not running, so hands off (at least, for traffic tickets unless she's been running down schoolkids in crosswalks or something) and (2) Rubio himself didn't have all that many, and (3) you're right, this doesn't rise to the level of even mildly interesting in the presidential race. So this is one of those rare times when we agree. That was a hit piece, and the NYT should be ashamed of it.

Oh, it get's worse...

The NY TIMES wrote another hit piece and complained that Rubio bought a "luxury power boat" that was nothing more than a 24 FT Family Fishing Boat.. :D

And it was Democrat Opposition Groups that fed the NY TIMES the story. It wasn't even the Times own reporting..

I tell ya, Democrats must REALLY be worried about Rubio...

OK, I'll bite. What exactly would the "too big to fail" argument be? That because the system has already gone into effect, too many people would be adversely affected? Or something else?

Exactly. The Left has been arguing about TBTF since the Bush Administration..

NOW the Left is hanging their hat on the TBTF argument to save TrainWreckCare...

Ya just GOTTA appreciate the irony... :D

That's a pretty stunning record of not leaking things, in Washington.

I completely agree with you... I would LOVE to see the mechanism the Justices have in place to insure security...

Which groups were actually denied? Name one.

I gave you the chart the last time this came up. Too lazy to go back and get it..

But, since you bring it up, read comment #38

OK, I'm getting tired of your "millennia" comment.

I stick with the arguments that work. And to date, NO ONE has been able to successfully refute it..

Like now..

TYPES of marriage has changed through the centuries...

But the very basic of marriage has been unchanged for thousands of years.

A man and a woman.. Sometimes women, to be sure. But it's always been man and woman...

THAT has not changed...

Until anyone can successfully refute that argument, I will continue to use it..

Because it's the crux of the issue...

The Kennedy question was a red herring he threw out there for people like you to misinterpret.

I know you want to believe that.. :D

So what Republican is currently obsessing over the Independent vote? Please let us all know, pray tell....

You and Bashi are making the exact same mistake.. You conflate PRIMARY with GENERAL...

Let me say it slow so it can be understood..

NO CANDIDATE HAS TO WORRY ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT VOTE IN THE PRIMARY...

By and large, Independents aren't even allowed to VOTE in Dem/GOP Primaries...

Like the argument Carly Fiorina is making? "I'm the only Republican who can take on Hillary BECAUSE I'M A WOMAN!"

*Exactly* like that..

I am glad we agree...

No one -- that is NO ONE -- on the GOP side has ever polled nationally above Hillary. When they do, maybe your argument might make the tiniest iota of sense. Until that happens, however, you've got nothing to go on.

Yer right.. I should have been clearer..

Allow me to re-phrase..

In SOME polls, Hillary is BEHIND Rubio & Paul...

When they do, maybe your argument might make the tiniest iota of sense. Until that happens, however, you've got nothing to go on.

And when they do, when Hillary DOES fall behind in RCP polls??

What will be ya'all's argument then?? :D

Because you just HAVE to know that that day is coming... Hillary's numbers have been steadily sinking as scandal after scandal after scandal has come out..

And, with the judges order to release a batch of Clinton Emails a month???

Drip, drip, drip..

"What will you do?? What WILL you do??"

(apologies to SPEED)

WHEW!!! These marathons are draining!! :D

Michale

Yeah, the WaPo seems to be trying to catch up with other media outlets who have a sort of a "cool charts of the week" column. So far, they've had some very interesting ones. I don't know where else they fit, since they usually don't rise to writing a column about it (since they already did, mostly), so I stick them in here on FTP just to add to their click-bait appeal. Call me shallow, but some of these charts are pretty cool!

Here's a preview of this week's, which is freakin' hilarious ("Voldemort more popular than most Republican candidates!" -- now THAT's a headline!):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/09/voldemort-is-polling-better-than-many-republican-presidential-candidates/

You are most eminently welcome.

Heh.

Michale [34] -

You checked any of those groups supposedly still waiting recently? The IRS has all but thrown in the towel on regulating any political groups, and recognition is almost automatic by now. Don't believe me? See that link up above for the First Church of Cannabis in Indiana... they expected to wait like 180 days, and they got approved in less than 30... so double-check any groups you're complaining about, I bet they've all been approved by now....

[36] -

See, this is what I mean, That article is from 2013.

[38] -

No, what you're describing is what black people in the South had to go through to try to vote. Granted, at the time the Democrats were the bad (and racist) guys, but times have changed since then.

LizM [39] -

Oh, DING DING DING -- We have a WINNER!!!

Excellent comment, excellent point.

Just had to say that.

dsws [40] -

Yeah, I finally got to my predictions Monday, but only for King and Obergefell.

King v. Burwell

What's at stake is should one phrase within a law be read literally -- even if it contradicts many other parts of the same law -- or should the "overall intent" of the law supersede one badly-written clause? It's a legal thing, beyond the whole Obamacare situation.

Horne v. Department of Agriculture

I dunno, I tend to side with the raisins on this one. After all, they did such a great job of "I Heard It Through The Grapevine."

Heh.

No, seriously, trade organizations have too much power at times. Milk boards, raisin growers, fruit growers, etc. all occasionally tend to make me scratch that libertarian itch in my own political makeup. They have tremendous power (and the government boards who set the rules for them), and I'm not entirely convinced it's constitutional.

Of course, I say that without having done a deep dive into the facts in this particular case; it's just an admission of my own personal bias on this sort of thing. I promise I'll pay better attention to the facts of the case when the decision is announced, how's that?

Obergefell v. Hodges

Yeah, this one's pretty much a no-brainer, at this point, I agree.

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona

I dunno, this one immediately seemed to be discriminatory to me, but then I admit I don't know much about the actual details. Again, I promise to look into it in greated detail when the decision comes down.

Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans

This is a very tricky one, for me. The question seems to come down to what is "approved" by the state for their plates. Seems like, since their state name is on the plate and they control them and manufacture them, they should have some filter.

Take, for example, personalized plates. All states (that I'm aware of, at least) have filters in place. You can't order a plate with profanity on it, for instance. There are lots of tough decisions on these plates (there was a California case back in the early 1990s or thereabouts with a guy that wanted "HIV POS" as a license plate, which was rejected by the state).

[ASIDE: In (?) Mad magazine back in the 1970s (not sure, it may have been a photo magazine or Games magazine or even Playboy, memories of that age are fuzzy...) I saw the best personalized plate ... "sneak it by the censors" ... that I've ever seen (it was blue and gold, which places the plate on the CA plate timeline). The plate read:

FAA  Q

Hint: read it out loud. Heh.]

So the state has some say-so. They wouldn't, for instance, allow a plate from the "Overthrow the American government movement" or the "Society To Kill All Cops," now would they? These are illegal aims, therefore censorable speech.

But -- and here's the crux of the matter -- would the state refuse a "KKK" license plate?

Governments are safest (when it comes to First Amendment cases) when they allow all or allow none. The KKK is actually relevant, because there was a case (Missouri? I forget) a while back where the local KKK wanted to join the "clean up the highways" program. This was a big thing in the 1980s (or so), and each group that volunteered to pick up highway trash got a little state-paid-for sign along the highway stating: "This stretch of road is maintained by Group X." The KKK wanted their sign.

But the thing is, while I use an extreme example, this is the same basic legal concept that forces high schools to choose between (1) allowing gay support groups (PFLAG) to meet after school in their facilities, or (2) ban all after-school groups. So liberals use this legal concept as well in court battles.

Again, the Confederate flag on a state-issued license plate is very troubling for me on many levels, but the legalisms of the case aren't that easy to parse. I'll be very interested in how this one shakes out, either way.

Michale [42] -

OK, I'm getting tired of your "millennia" comment.

Marriage has changed considerably in the past few millenia.

The Bible is totally OK with polygamy. God too.

Marriage was a property arrangement (see: dowry) for centuries.

The people who argued against interracial marriage used exactly the same "Biblically-based" arguments.

Raping your wife used to not be a crime.

Wives used to not be able to own property their husbands did not control.

Seriously, marriage laws change all the time. This is one more change. It's coming. Get used to it. The Kennedy question was a red herring he threw out there for people like you to misinterpret.

One oyster does not make a stew. One oral question does not guarantee an opinion, one way or the other -- especially with a swing-vote justice.

nypoet22 [49] -

OK, I'm working backwards in time, so I will read your old thread later, but just had to say "good to see you 'round here!"

:-)

Also, had to say your comment is an interesting take I've never heard before. Mostly for coming at it from the angle of "getting a refund later". Hadn't looked at it from that angle before, so I'll have to read the previous threads before I make up my mind, but have to thank you for some food for thought.

Michale [51] -

OK, (see above) I realize I'm jumping in this thread in the middle, but...

I accept the validity of your argument. But what I would urge you to consider is taking your own arguments on gay marriage, and reconsidering them on the following terms: replace "gay marriage" with "interracial marriage."

Now, you know me well enough to understand that I am not calling you a racist by this thought experiment. This is truly a thought experiment, not a full-frontal attack, in other words.

But, like I said, I challenge you to re-read your own arguments and substitute "gay marriage" with "interracial marriage." Now, the key: which of these argument would you consider valid?

This is key to understanding how "the other side" sees the argument.

You can argue that this is not an appropriate analogy. Fine, I accept that. But what I'm trying to show you is two things: (1) this is how gay people see it -- as a matter of civil and human rights, and (2) the same religious arguments were used in the "miscegenation" political fight in the 1960s (I can cite you the Biblical chapter and verse they used, if you need convincing). The states were not allowed to vote on the Loving v. Virginia decision, it was imposed by SCOTUS.

That's all I ask. Check your own arguments, and see which ones you'd agree with if the subject were "a black man and a white woman" instead of "two men" or "two women."

It's a matter of perspective, in other words, for the way the other side sees it.

Michale [52] -

I saw that Picard (Patrick Stewart) thing, and was interested in it. The collision of free speech, freedom of religion, and commerce is indeed a pickle.

Michale [57] -

So what Republican is currently obsessing over the Independent vote? Please let us all know, pray tell....

Heh.

[58] -

I think you meant "Obama's election was a two-off," don't you?

[snerk snerk snerk]

[60] -

Like the argument Carly Fiorina is making? "I'm the only Republican who can take on Hillary BECAUSE I'M A WOMAN!"

Heh.

[62] -

Hillary's poll numbers have steadily sank. She is now BEHIND Rubio and Paul...

Rubio currently polling at: 10.3% among GOP voters
Paul currently polling at: 8.8% among GOP voters
Clinton currently polling at: 59.0% among Dem voters

Rubio v. Clinton:
Rubio 43.3; Clinton 47.5

Paul v. Clinton:
Paul 44.0; Clinton 46.8

Links:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

If you're smelling desperation, it's coming from the other direction, pal. Sorry about that, but them's the facts, Jack.

No one -- that is NO ONE -- on the GOP side has ever polled nationally above Hillary. When they do, maybe your argument might make the tiniest iota of sense. Until that happens, however, you've got nothing to go on.

"Show me the numbers"
(apologies to Jerry Maguire)

OK, I have actually REACHED THE END of the comments. Whew -- Friday columns are tought when I write them, and they're tough afterwards too...

:-)

-CW

Wow, ALITO voted in favor? That's pretty stunning.

We'll have to see what the final vote is, but thanks for laying out your reasoning. I hadn't heard the bit about the 7-2 votes for upholding all the lower appellate court decisions, so that is certainly food for thought. As I said, thanks for pointing it out.

-CW

"Wow, 7-2 in Obergefell? Which of the 3 ultra-conservatives you think will vote with the majority?

But who will be the 7th pro-marriage-euqality vote? Inquiring minds want to know."

In upholding all of the to date Lower Court rulings in favor of gay marriage, the Supreme Court vote has been 7 to 2, like the appeal from the Circuit Court of which Alabama is a part. The only Justices, on the record, to vote against gay marriage thus far regarding the Lower Circuit Court rulings, have been Scalia and Thomas. The Supreme Court only decided to take the case after the 6th Circuit ruled against gay marriage in Ohio et al. To me, that clearly telegraphs that the Supreme Court is going to rule in FAVOR of gay marriage, otherwise why let the previous lower court rulings in favor of gay marriage stand?

FDR was a .01%-er too, and he was the strongest voice the poor have ever had in the White House. Not a coincidence Hillary's holding her first campaign rally on Roosevelt Island in NYC.

As for student IDs, when it's a state university, the state itself is the issuing authority. Just like for gun licenses. Both have photos on them, so what's the problem?

Michale [3] -

Really? That's all you got on the Duggar thing? Benghazi and the IRS? Wow, talk about scraping the conservative talking point barrel. I'm just sayin'...

Pastafarian Dan [5] -

1 - Warren as Majority Leader... wow, now THERE's a thought!

:-)

2 - getting more liberal all the time. You see that report that self-identification of liberals is up and conservatives is down? They've reached parity, in fact.

Michale [8] -

Democrats lost because their idea of governing sucks....

Except for, you know, the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. Heh.

As you say, "get over it." Practice saying "Madam President," it'll come in handy soon.

John From Censornati [9] -

I can't wait for Rubio to truly assume frontrunner position, when the media try to make sense of his positions on just about anything. He is the flip-floppiest presidential candidate I think I've ever seen -- he always wants to have it all ways, even if he said differently like 30 seconds before.

Michale [11] -

I have to give you credit, you pushed me into writing Monday's SCOTUS article. Not just this comment, but for a few weeks now you've been asking for my predictions, so I finally went out on a limb and put my markers down. But I have to say, you did push me into writing that column.

Happy now?

:-)

Paula [12] -

So far, the media's been mostly yawning, but all of Hillary's solid issues-based comments and speeches have been pretty impressive. Her first campaign rally speech should be very interesting, that's for sure. But I agree, run Burnie run!

Michale [13] -

Yeah, I actually agree with you on this one. That was a pretty stupid article. I think it was the NY Times, too. (1) Rubio's wife is not running, so hands off (at least, for traffic tickets unless she's been running down schoolkids in crosswalks or something) and (2) Rubio himself didn't have all that many, and (3) you're right, this doesn't rise to the level of even mildly interesting in the presidential race. So this is one of those rare times when we agree. That was a hit piece, and the NYT should be ashamed of it.

John M [15] -

Wow, 7-2 in Obergefell? Which of the 3 ultra-conservatives you think will vote with the majority?

I could see 6-3 on the King case. Shh! Don't tell Michale!

Heh.

John M [16] -

But who will be the 7th pro-marriage-euqality vote? Inquiring minds want to know.

Michale [19] -

OK, I'll bite. What exactly would the "too big to fail" argument be? That because the system has already gone into effect, too many people would be adversely affected? Or something else?

Michale [20] -

One question in oral arguments doesn't always indicate which way a justice is going to vote. Especially Kennedy, or anyone known as the "swing vote." They're usally quite coy in the questions they ask, so that nobody can accurately "read the tea leaves" before the decision is announced.

Oh, tangent here, something I forgot when writing Monday's column -- I find it extraordinary how tightly held the SCOTUS decisions are. Think about it: they vote like the Friday after oral arguments (they sit in a room and hold a preliminary vote, and then Roberts assigns who is going to write minority and majority opinions). This is like months and months before the public hears. But I cannot for the life of me ever remember when one of these decisions has been leaked beforehand. That's a pretty stunning record of not leaking things, in Washington.

Like I said, a tangent. Just thought of it while writing the Monday column, but didn't include it for some reason.

Michale [21] -

Yeah, yeah, hint, hint, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Hey, I wrote it all out Monday! You win!

:-)

Michale [28] -

Which groups were actually denied? Name one.

John M [30] -

Yeah, Michale, what he said!

:-)

OK, I gotta take a break. More comment responses later, promise...

-CW

What exactly do you doubt??

You've been BS'ing way too much lately to take your word for it. Post it and I will read it. That is all I can promise...

Tell me it would matter and I'll give you a list...

What exactly do you doubt??

Michale

If we were talking about Bill Clinton, you would have a point.

But we're not, so you don't..

It's not *ME* who is saying that Hillary doesn't know how to campaign...

It's DEMOCRATS who are saying Hillary doesn't know how to campaign..

And, considering all we have seen from Hillary is scripted events and paid actors who were given their lines to say....

Well, I have to agree with the DEMOCRATS' assessments..

You also have yet to back up that she intends to ignore independents as a whole.

Would it matter if I did??

Would it change your mind about the issues we are discussion??

Of course not...

So, why should I bother???

It's not surprising she would not woo Independents like you as you have pretty much stated you will not vote for her regardless...

I know it galls you to admit it, but I am pretty much the Joe Six-Pack Quintessential Independent that Hillary NEEDS to win this election..

The fact is when it comes to campaigning, Hillary is no Bill...

Hillary is no Obama...

Hillary is more like a Romney...

Insincere as hell, pretentious as hell... Add to that that the majority of Americans simply don't TRUST her...

Add that all up and you HONESTLY believe that adds up to a winning candidate???

Washington or Colorado?? :D

Michale

We live in a free market society...

If a business does not want to serve a particular customer for any reason, they should have that right..

At least, that's how it worked when a gay hairdresser did not want to provide service to a Hispanic Governor and was hailed a conquering hero by DiK and HuffPoop...

But I guess that the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason is solely the right of Left wing business owners, eh?? :D

Michale

That is why your response is illogical..

Lets put it in football terms. You are basically saying the loser of the Conference championships suck and don't know how to play football because they lost and did not make it to the Super Bowl. Hillery Clinton fought a tough campaign for the primary, had a very devoted following, remember the PUMA? I get you don't like her but saying she does not know how to campaign is a bunch politically biased non-sense and basically ignores the entire campaign season of 2008, not to mention the entirety of Bill Clinton's political life.

Trying to pigeon hole me in to a singular view (sexism) because I point out that there was a certain about of fervor around the idea of the first black president and that could easily be repeated with the possibility of the first woman president is silly. Not the least of which, how many times on this site have I ever had such a simplistic view of anything? I can make my own arguments, thank you very much and trying to tell me what my argument is because it's convenient to your on going narrative is annoying, disingenuous and completely devoid of logic or critical thinking.

Independents are not a political block that votes in unison. By definition. She is going to get quite a bit no matter what she does and only has to be close for them not to matter if a large section of the democratic base comes out to vote for her. You also have yet to back up that she intends to ignore independents as a whole. It's not surprising she would not woo Independents like you as you have pretty much stated you will not vote for her regardless...

Which part??? :D

Michale

I am not sure the exact time frame, but I submit it's not relevant for the previous reasons stated..

As I said, I DO understand your point. And it IS a logical point..

But, since we're talking about CUSTOME rings that the jeweler will not be able to sell to anyone else and will have to eat the costs...

I think that takes precedence over any hurt feelings of the gay couple..

yes, but not the illegal kind. political views don't constitute a protected class.

I don't think the Left makes any distinction between "legal" discrimination and "illegal" discrimination...

Michale

We were discussing Independents..

Independents do NOT factor in, in a primary....

That is why your response is illogical..

Michale

.... IN a primary..

And, if we were discussing a Primary campaign, you would be right..

But we're not.. We're discussing how Hillary is going to fare against REAL candidates, not pretend primary candidates...

So, yer response is illogical and irrelevant..

But, hay.. I'll take it.. :D

Michale

Or your reading ability needs work. One of the two...

46% of delegates in a hotly contested primary proves the ability to campaign...

You're right that this is partly a question of before and after. However, in this case the business owner didn't make his anti-gay views public in his place of business until shortly after the purchase was completed.

Suppose 10 years had elapsed between the time of the rings creation and the time that the couple found out about the jeweler's religious view of marriage??

agreed, there ought to be a statute of limitations, a year tops.

Wouldn't that be considered... "Discrimination"???

yes, but not the illegal kind. political views don't constitute a protected class.

JL

In many states, Independents aren't even allowed to VOTE in Primaries..

So, your response is illogical and irrelevant..

Michale

Whose talking about PRIMARY???

Any Party fanatic can spout off what Party ideologues want to hear... I would be willing to wager that Hillary will likely get 80% of primary delegates..

Which won't mean diddley squat in the General Election...

I am talking about CAMPAIGNING...

Not scripting events and choosing actors to ask softball and bullshit questions...

Michale

Yea, that worked out so well for her.. :D

Is that desperation I smell?

Hillary's poll numbers have steadily sank. She is now BEHIND Rubio and Paul...

There is desperation, but it's emanating from the Hillary camp.. :D

Are you purposely misrepresenting or just being dense?

You said if Hillary can create "LET'S MAKE A WOMAN PRESIDENT!!" fervor, then she might win the independent vote...

Basically hoping that people will vote for her simply because she is a woman...

Sounds pretty sexist to me...

Yawn.

Nappy time?? :D

Michale

What part of HILLARY CAN'T CAMPAIGN do you not understand??

The part that got her 46% of the primary delegates in 2008?

But your argument is interesting..

Hillary will win SOLELY because she is a woman..

Are you purposely misrepresenting or just being dense?

Sounds kinda sexist to me.. :D

Yawn.

And then you wake up and find it was all a dream..

What part of HILLARY CAN'T CAMPAIGN do you not understand??

But your argument is interesting..

Hillary will win SOLELY because she is a woman..

Hmmmmmmm

Sounds kinda sexist to me.. :D

Michale

12% of the population is black. Over 50% of the population are women. If Hillery can get a first woman president fervor going, she will pick up more than enough independents and probably a few republicans...

Certainly not by someone who is such a cold uncaring campaigner as Hillary Clinton...

Hillary ain't Bill....

Michale

By only 5%....

A candidate can't ignore Independents, as Hillary is proposing and win...

It's that simple...

Michale

Mitt Romney won the independent vote in 2012...

She is going to forgo trying to woo Independents like me and concentrate on exciting Democrats...

"Big mistake. BIG.. HUGE..."
-Julia Roberts, PRETTY WOMAN

If these reports are true, she will lose and lose big..

No candidate has ever one the Presidency w/o Independents...

Ignoring Independents will ensure a GOP POTUS in 2017....

Michale

Which is why I like discussing things like this with you..

You can step outside the ideology box and look at things objectively..

You don't do it as much as I would like, but you DO do it.. :D

Michale

Although....

Wouldn't that be considered... "Discrimination"???

Slippery Slopes Entrance Here ===> <=== :D

Michale

Listen to Captain Jean Luc Picard.. :D

Patrick Stewart Defends Northern Irish Bakery That Rejected 'Support Gay Marriage' Cake
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/05/patrick-stewart-anti-gay-bakery_n_7521450.html

Michale

I agree... If the customer wants to change their minds based on the political views of the business owner BEFORE any business is conducted, they have that right..

But AFTER the fact???

The jeweler, no doubt, went to considerable time and expense to custome create the rings... He provided the agreed upon service and, by all accounts, the customers were very happy with the service to the point of recommending the jeweler to others..

But, due to having commisioned the jeweler for the creation of custome rings, is the customer entitled to the jeweler's soul??

Forever???

Is there a "statute of limitations" for souls?? :D

Suppose 10 years had elapsed between the time of the rings creation and the time that the couple found out about the jeweler's religious view of marriage??

Would a demand for a refund be valid??

I understand your argument JL and it IS a logical and rational argument..

But I think the rights of the business owner take precedent.. He did the job as requested with respect and tolerance..

That is ALL anyone can ask of any business owner..

Demanding a refund and then threatening the business owner when one was not forthcoming is contemptible and shows everything that's intolerant about the gay activist agenda...

No pound of flesh should be required..

Michale

My social views being what they are, I don't see the two scenarios as a hundred percent equal, because one view is trying to expand a right and the other is trying to restrict it - I would judge the conservative side in both cases to be more narrow-minded. However, I would also say that in both cases the consumer is entitled to their money back, because they bought something that was supposed to mean something to them, and that meaning changed through the public actions of the business.

The "meaning" is totally within the consciousness of the customers... The business owner should have absolutely no bearing on how the customer feels about it.

To think otherwise is to give a total stranger way too much control over a couple's lives...

Put it in another way..

A couple married for 50 years finds out that the priest that married them was a pedophile who had been abusing small boys....

Is the couple any less married for this knowledge??

Is the couple's love for each other somehow tainted by the dirty deeds of some scumbag??

Of course not. What that priest did or how that jeweler feels should have absolutely NO bearing on anything...

I am also constrained to point out that the standard argument from the Left (as espoused by our own John M) is that it's a business transaction, pure and simple... No personal considerations should be part of the equation..

NOW that we have a case where it WAS truly a business transaction with no personal considerations, NOW the Left wants to make the "it's personal" argument...

Moreover, you stated before that when it comes to the issue and wedding rings and the personal connections that they have with couples in general, that such personal considerations are relevant and important..

Then I submit to you that a person's personal connections with their religion is ALSO a personal consideration that is JUST as relevant and JUST as important...

I am sure you would agree with me that this entire issue is one of tolerance and respect...

The problem is that those pushing the gay activist agenda is demanding tolerance and respect but not willing to be tolerant and respectful..

How much better would it be for ALL if a gay couple were to make sure that the people they deal with in their wedding plans are comfortable with the plans. And, if they find a caterer or a baker that ISN'T then, rather than go all media blitz and sue-happy, the couple simply says, "We respect your position and won't bother you further. Perhaps you could recommend someone who is as quality as you but would not have any moral issues??"

THAT is respect..

THAT is tolerance...

Apparently, that is too much to ask from the Left's side of this issue..

Michale

My point is that the jeweler has already shown tolerance by providing service to a couple that he morally disagrees with..

Why is it that those who so vocally and bully'ingly demand tolerance from others are utterly incapable of showing ANY tolerance themselves??

My bias is pro-consumer. I would say in general that making one's private political views public in one's place of business entitles the customer to change their mind about such a personally meaningful purchase, even if it goes against what I think is right.

For example, the same principle would apply to a deeply evangelical couple who bought their wedding rings at a jeweler's store. If after the fact, the store posted a big rainbow flag and a "Marriage Equality For All" banner in their front window, that entitles the evangelical couple to feel like their wedding rings don't carry the meaning they intended. It isn't what they paid for, and they are within their rights to demand their money back.

My social views being what they are, I don't see the two scenarios as a hundred percent equal, because one view is trying to expand a right and the other is trying to restrict it - I would judge the conservative side in both cases to be more narrow-minded. However, I would also say that in both cases the consumer is entitled to their money back, because they bought something that was supposed to mean something to them, and that meaning changed through the public actions of the business.

JL

A Democrat walks into the Quickie Mart and buys a 1 Million Dollar Drawing lottery ticket from Apu... The Dem's numbers are 12, 16, 22, 27, 37 and 42

The drawing is held and the winning numbers are 08, 14, 28, 33, 35 and 40.

After the drawing, the Democrat walks into the Quick Mart and tells Apu, "My intent was to play numbers 08, 14, 28, 33, 35 and 40. I would like my million dollars please."

THAT is the Obama Administration's argument...

For her candor about the overreach of Title IX, Ms. Kipnis was hit with . . . a Title IX investigation. In an argument that would have made Joseph Stalin blush, two Northwestern students charged that Ms. Kipnis’s criticism of Title IX violated Title IX. The university launched an investigation and subjected Ms. Kipnis to what she has called an “inquisition.”

To which many coaches and male athletes who have seen their sport’s program unfairly penalized or canceled under Title IX might reply, like John McClane greeting the LAPD in “Die Hard”: “Welcome to the party, pal.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-title-ix-became-a-political-weapon-1433715320

Not really a topic for discussion, although the discussion is right up my alley as far as "Political Correctness Run Amok!" issues go..

Naw, I just mention it because my "WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!" was mentioned so prominently.. :D

Michale

There is one thing you should always remember when it comes to predicting what the Roberts court will do ... he doesn't wish himself or his court to be judged as a complete idiot bunch of idiots.

That is why the Obamacare and marriage equality decisions will not be the ones you are looking for.

The problem with that thinking is that you automatically assume that the positions you are against are the idiotic positions..

I could easily make a logical and rational argument that changing a definition that has been part of civilized society for thousands of years based on the whims of a very very VERY small minority is "idiotic"...

Roberts might feel the same way.. We know for a fact that Justice Kennedy feels that way..

As for the TrainWreckCare issue, you want to talk idiotic??

How about ramming thru a garbage piece of legislation that affects ONE SIXTH of this country's economy by lying, backroom deals and bribery, using parliamentary tricks because if people knew the facts about Obamacare, they would NEVER accept it.

THAT is idiotic....

As I have said, the only argument that ya'all can make that is logical and rational is the TOO-BIG-TO-FAIL argument.

And ya'all just GOTS to appreciate the irony of the fact that THAT is the Left's best argument.. :D

I know I love it.. heh :D

Michale

That should read:

It's SILLY to pretend otherwise...

My dyslexia is especially bad in the mornings. :D

Michale

But let's take ya'all's argument and run with it..

It was all a colossal typo...

THAT indicates the problem of pushing thru legislation by parliamentary tricks and back-room dealings and underhanded bribes, etc etc..

Live by the sword, die by the sword..

The Democrat Party DESERVES to lose..

Maybe it will teach the Party a lesson...

Kinda doubt it, though...

Michale

Taking your position a logical step further, it would be discrimination to prevent a man from marrying his rutabaga or a woman from marrying her porsche. It's still to pretend otherwise...

Basically your argument is the "EVERYTHING IS AWESOME" argument...

That societal norms are irrelevant..

Whatever feels good, do it..

That's not a society I would like to live in..

Michale

There really isn't any interpretation to make.

The law clearly states that subsidies are only available to exchanges that were set up by states.. No ambiguity whatsoever.

The INTENT of that has also made clear by Jonathan Gruber.. It was intentional as a way of coercing the states to set up exchanges. No exchange, no subsidies.

What's to interpret??

The significance of a law is often not entirely straightforward.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't..

In this case, it IS entirely straightforward..

But if there were nothing more than that at stake, wouldn't it have been handled by a lower court?

Exactly. There was no conflict with the lower courts rulings. The simple fact that the SCOTUS took the case is a clear indication of how they intend to rule..

Denying same-sex couples the right to legally marry is discrimination, rooted solely in irrational animus. It's silly to pretend otherwise; although many people do so pretend, no one with two live neurons to rub together actually believes otherwise in 2015. What else is there to say?

"The word that keeps coming back to me is 'millennia'. This definition of marriage between two people of the opposite sex has been with us for millennia."
-Justice Kennedy

Now we're supposed to change that definition in the blink of an eye to appease a very VERY small minority of people who choose a certain lifestyle??

There is also Justice Ginsberg quote about how she regretted her Roe V Wade decision because it ended the public debate and forced a social issue that proved to be a detriment on the very issue down the road.

To me, that indicates the RBG will likely vote against changing the definition of marriage... To let the public debate continue until it's not such an inflaming issue..

Michale

And the courts slap down the Obama Administration!!

What part of "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" does Obama not understand??

Michale

1. King v. Burwell

It's not clear to me what's at stake in this case. People implementing a law always have to interpret it. The significance of a law is often not entirely straightforward. Hopefully, it's just that if the IRS screwed up in its interpretation of the statute, the Court will fix it. That's part of what courts do. But if there were nothing more than that at stake, wouldn't it have been handled by a lower court? As I say, not clear to me.

2. Horne v. Department of Agriculture

The "takings movement" is generally a crock. The idea is that whenever any regulation of commerce has any adverse effect on anyone, that's a "taking"; and it's impossible to regulate commerce without having some adverse effect on someone; therefore the fifth amendment entirely repeals the commerce clause.

Breyer has an interesting angle on this one in the oral arguments (near the bottom on this page, at 13:04.) He says that the program benefits raisin growers, so if it's considered a taking for which compensation is due, the relevant compensation would be the difference between what the grower would get with and without the program.

But I don't think the fifth amendment is supposed to repeal the commerce clause to begin with. Any regulation is inevitably going to affect lots of people, with some being better off and some worse off -- and crucially, it will be impossible to perfectly model every transaction in the hypothetical course of economy without the regulation, so there will always be some people uncompensated.

It's an exception to a prohibition: the regulation says you can't sell raisins, unless you do various things. One option is to hand over some raisins to the government. Growers could reasonably be expected to know this when they decided to grow the raisins. As long as the program as a whole is a reasonable regulation of commerce, and the requirement to hand over some raisins has a rational connection to the goals of the program, I say it's not a taking in the sense of the fifth amendment.

3. Obergefell v. Hodges

Denying same-sex couples the right to legally marry is discrimination, rooted solely in irrational animus. It's silly to pretend otherwise; although many people do so pretend, no one with two live neurons to rub together actually believes otherwise in 2015. What else is there to say?

4. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona

A distinction between signs providing directions to an event, and political campaign signs, seems ok to me at first glance. The first amendment allows reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions for spoken speech. I don't see why it wouldn't do so for signs as well.

5. Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans

As far as I'm concerned, it depends on the nature of the government's involvement. If it has a slogan or design on the license plate, it can choose the slogan or design. If it has two that the vehicle owner can choose between, it can still choose: it doesn't suddenly gain an obligation to manufacture license plates with whatever slogan or design someone wants. However, if it offers license plates with whatever slogan or design someone wants, it cannot discriminate against unpopular messages.

It sounds to me as though Texas is basically doing the latter, and must allow the Confederate advocacy group to have its message on license plates (if it meets the content-neutral criteria).

There is one thing you should always remember when it comes to predicting what the Roberts court will do ... he doesn't wish himself or his court to be judged as a complete idiot bunch of idiots.

That is why the Obamacare and marriage equality decisions will not be the ones you are looking for.

Actually, that's a great idea..

In the voting station, there is on kiosk for Democrat voters and 50 kiosks for GOP voters, thereby generating a humongously long line for Democrats...

While in the line, Democrats will have to answer dozens of questions regarding their voting and the reasons behind the vote.. They will have to fill out numerous forms before they are allowed to vote...

Republican voters will have a very short line, a very short wait time and no questions to answer or forms to fill out...

No one here has a problem with that, right??? I mean, that's an exact analogy of what conservative groups faced with the IRS....

So, no one here could POSSIBLY have a problem with that..

Right?? :D

The Sword Of Damocles *can* cut both ways.... :D

Michale

I couldn't find any info on IRS denial at that link...

Michale

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_rev

Salon is as reliable a cite as FoxNews...

If I can't cite Fox, you can't cite Salon. :D

Michale

Tell ya what...

Let's make Democrat voters wait and wait and wait and wait and jump thru tons more hoops than Republican voters...

Ya'all would be perfectly OK with that, right?? :D

Michale

Not really...

Consider if you are looking for approval for a project.. If your boss keeps putting you off and putting you off and putting you off, it's obvious he is not interested in the project..

Excessive wait time is a de facto denial..

Michale