Kemple is Hillsborough's anti-gay marriage leader

The voice of conservative social issues in east Hillsborough County, Terry Kemple, has signed on for another one.

Kemple will head up Florida4Marriage.org's efforts to pass the anti-gay marriage amendment on November's ballot, according to a press release from Community Issues Council. Kemple is the council's president.

-- Joni James, State Editor

Comments

A waste of money and time.

Florida has better things to worry about.

It's all those people in small towns who become bitter and cling to things like traditional marriage and have antipathy to people who aren't like them. Like drag queens and Susan Stanton and guys with leather fetishes.

homosexuality is so gay.

[Chris W]

6:47 - So they're electing Republicans, then?

Chris, I think the "bitter" thing is already played out for what it's worth - which is not much. I think the GOP is banking too much on the swiftboaters to sink Obama - and the people have wised up considerably to their dirty tricks. After all, the last time they fell for it, they got 4 more years of the worst president ever for their misplaced trust. People are paying attention now. I don't think so many will every be fooled by so little again.

So, the merchants of hate are at it again.
Let us hope this is the season of their own self loathing.

Anti-gay? But the Times puts "so-called" before partial birth abortion? Looks like being open minded and anti-spin only goes one way.

I’m against homertesticle and lesbotarian marriage. But if they want to make a law that allows a pole smoker to take ½ his buddies sh_t when he catches him playing another freak’s meat whistle… I say, what’s the harm. Same thing goes for the two-can-chews that try another’s mandarin duck.

But lay off the marriage thing you freaks… hell, we let you vote, ain’t that enough?

Calling people who believe in marriage as being only one man and one woman hateful names is itself hate speech. Progressives should be more "tolerant."

Hillarious 8:54. Chris W. do you have a life other than sitting on this blog and bashing people who have different views than you? You are the most closed minded person I've ever heard and you call yourself progressive?

[Chris W]

10:20 - I know "el Toro poopoo" when I see it and I'm not afraid to call it out for what it is. Don't tell me you're so puling and oversensitive that you rise up in a righteous dudgeon when someone pokes a mild bit of fun at the party of hypocrisy.

Chris W., I stand corrected and apologize. You are obviously a man of advanced education and humor to use such elaborate vocabulary and pithy sloganeering. What does "puling" and "dudgeon" mean? I am a simple gun toting, pro-religion, pro-American Conservative, one of those "bitter" people your guy Obama looks down on. So explain it for me and maybe I can come up with a snappy retort like you.

Stay classy, Chris W.

Chris W. is a pompous a*ss. A small town schmuck who thinks he displays erudition.

[Thskip!]

"Chris W. is a pompous a*ss..."

... and I dig any kind of a*ss!

[Charlotte]

Somebody please tell me the difference between these "4marriage" type groups & the KKK in the 60's trying to prevent Afro-Americans from their civil rights? Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

Well... for one:;"4marriage" deosnt refer to black people as "Afro-Americans"..

... dink

[John Donson]

Son: Daddy! Why are the two men next door kissing each other?
Parent:(place your answer here)

Well son… first came the burning bras, then the catholic Priests, came the Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato Group trying to get married.

Bottom line son; two wrongs do not make a right… and two men cannot make a baby. In fact, were it not for YOUR MOMMY AND DADDY!… you would not be here to ask me that.

[John Donson]

HA! Good reply but can you leave the Catholic priests out of it? Isn't the head of some other Christian sect a flamer? That's a whole different discussion than Michael FitzPatrick and Patrick FitzMichael, wearing their Daisy Dukes while washing the car in the driveway

Good point, I've never heard of a Catholic Priest doing any such thing.

Then again, I just found out they make color TV's and fancy toilet paper.

[Chris W]

You guys are funny. You keep making assumptions about my political leanings or who I support, and you're insulting a cartoon you've drawn in your heads.

11:26 - Try www.dictionary.com and have fun. For the record, Obama kind of screwed the pooch with his answer but he's not completely wrong. You and I both know people who worship a religion instead of God and start to pay more attention to the words of the preacher-of-the-moment than the ideas in the Bible. They even venerate the Bible more than they worship the God described in the Bible, which is both a sin and mortal stupidity. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you have to believe everything said *about* God.

[John Donson]

3:11. Yes I know people of other faiths, and those people don't support mano-y-mano sex either - so what's your point? I'll admit it. I'm Catholic and my pastor is top-dead-center when it comes to being a Catholic in the modern age. I don't agree with all the doctrines of the Catholic church, but when it comes to believing everything said about God doesn't mean I have to listen to my pastor saying God D@#$ America! I also don't have to accept one person saying I don't have to believe everything said about God in the Bible. Chris, the Bible is the Book of God. If you don't believe it's teachings then maybe you should change your name to Michael FitzPatrick!

[Chris W]

3:42 - The Bible is a book *about* God, written down by men. No "signed by the author" copies exist, so you're left with faith in the authors, translators and interpreters. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it's a long way from "I believe" to "it's a fact".

As to believing its teachings, I bet you're a bit selective about them as well. Do you follow the teachings in the Old Testament, or only the New Testament? Do you follow all of them, or pick and choose the ones that fit your lifestyle?

Chris W, you is a brain for sure. I will make sure I git my thesorus out when typing next time so I can pull off a few words that might stump even you. That's right after I polish my gun and finish my bible readin' of course, 'cause I'm so bitter that I'm not an erudite effete educated enlightened ecumenical like you and the "pooch screwer" (your words) you support for President.

[Chris W]

10:28 - Keep trying to bait me with your assumptions... you seem to be a master baiter, at that.

I could support either Hillary *or* Obama for President, and all you family-values types ought to support them too. They're the only ones still running for President who are still married to their original spouses. McCain sports his trophy wife and calls her a c-u-n-t when he gets mad at her. Aside from being crude and low-class, for a politician it's really dumb to do that when people are listening.

I'm sorry you're bitter. There's no reason to be, unless you're being screwed by the economic policies of your (GOP) party. Then, you've got reason to feel betrayed.

[Chris W Translated]

Oh you poor deluded bitter people. You cling to your religion and your guns and your antipathy to people who are not like you and you are too dumb to realize your own best interests, which are best served by Democrats. Too dumb to realize that Hillary and Obama are the real family-values candidate, the real enlightened and moral people in this race. You are so dumb and pitiful I almost feel sorry for you. Well, almost.

Here's some quotes from Chris W's family-values candidate, Hillary Clinton:

http://tammybruce.com/2007/12/hillary_in_her_own.php

[Donald Lance]

After reading the above link, I think I just might vote for her. Not only will she spend like a drunken sailor, but she talks like one as well. Imagine her state-of-the-union speeches. It'll be like watching a Richard Pryor show on Comedy Central with every other word being beeped out. That really wouldn't matter though because every word I hear from her sounds like Charlie Brown's teacher, "Wa Wa Wa!"

[Chris W]

Translated - Hate to break it to you, but there are *many* religions and some are more enlightened and uplifting than others. There are religions that are less abuse-prone than others. And you can look at real wage growth under Democratic administrations and under Republican administrations and compare the two. (Someone has actually done this: http://www.coba.unr.edu/econ/wp/papers/UNRECONWP06008.pdf)

But I will give you the highlights.

"the Real GDP Growth Rate (annual average) was 1.9% for Republican administrations and 5.1% for Democratic administrations during this time. Real GDP Growth Rate Per Capita was .7% for the Republicans and 3.8% for the Democrats. However, the professor pointed out that the years comprising the Great Depression and WWII should probably be excluded from the comparison. So economic performance from 1949 (end of Truman administration) to 2005 was compared, which showed Real GDP Growth Rate (annual average) under Republican administrations now stood at 2.9% and Democratic administrations at 4.2%. Real GDP Growth Rate Per Capita was 1.7% for the Republicans and 2.9% for the Democrats. These results prompted Dr. Parker to conclude that “the economy has grown significantly faster under Democratic administrations, and more than twice as fast in per-capita terms.”

The University of Nevada-Reno economics professor also uncovered the following while conducting the economic comparison between Republican and Democratic presidential administrations from 1949 to 2005:
• Unemployment Rate- Republicans 6.0%, Democrats 5.2%
• Change In Unemployment Rate- Republicans +0.3%, Democrats -0.4%
• Growth of Multifactor Productivity- Republicans 0.9%, Democrats 1.7%
• Corporate Profits (share of GDP)- Republicans 8.8%, Democrats 10.2%
• Real Value of Dow Jones Index- Republicans 4.3%, Democrats 5.4%
(in logarithmic growth rates)- Republicans 2.8%, Democrats 4.4%
• Real Weekly Earnings- Republicans 0.3%, Democrats 1.0%
• CPI Inflation Rate- Republicans 3.8%, Democrats 3.8%

Regarding the question of statistical significance, Parker noted:

The differences in growth, unemployment, and the corporate profit share are all statistically significant, and support the argument that the economy may actually perform better under Democrats. The differences in weekly earnings, stock market growth, inflation, and multifactor productivity all favor the Democrats as well, but these differences are not statistically significant.

Addressing the claim heard back in my college days, Dr. Parker also tried to account for a lag effect. He said, “It is a reasonable argument that economic performance early in a new administration is likely to be the result of policies followed by the prior administration.” Therefore, he tested whether lagging the effect of the administration on growth might support the argument that the economy actually performed better under Republicans. The professor found that even with up to four years of lagged effects, there was no evidence that the economy performed better under Republicans.

Dr. Parker drew the following conclusions regarding the claim that Republican presidencies are “best” for the U.S. economy:

But we can reasonably conclude that these government statistics provide evidence that directly contradicts the argument that the economy does better on average under Republican administrations. With lagged effects and other causes considered, the difference may be insignificant, but the economy may actually perform worse under Republicans."

(taken from http://www.boom2bust.com/2007/12/12/is-a-republican-president-really-better-for-the-economy/)

You would *think* that someone who's pro-religion would want more people to have more money, because that's more money they can give to churches who can promote more religion. Of course, if their true aim is to keep everyone distracted so the people at the top of the pyramid can keep more money, then getting everyone riled up over gay marriage or guns at work would be an easy way to go. As a deeply cynical political strategy, it's almost a thing of beauty.

Same with you, Translated. If Terry Kemple (useful idiot that he is) can keep conservative voters in Hillsborough up in arms over gay marriage, maybe they'll forget what a pair of absolute doofuses Brian Blair and Buddy Johnson are and our local concrete barons and outsourcing customers can keep raking in profits without worrying about how their businesses affect the citizens who live here and *aren't* on their payrolls.

[John Donson]

Remember in the late 1990s when political leaders bragged to the general public "we ran more than $100 billion budget surplus in both calendar years 1998 and 1999?" They also said they wanted to 'save social security'. Listening to such rhetoric citizens might be misled to believe the federal government cut general spending so as to produce general government surpluses, and thereby save social security and reduce total federal debt. But, that was 'smoke & mirrors' - - as they did not tell the full truth, since they really ran an operational deficit (not a surplus) of $282 billion combined in those two years, since total federal debt increased $120 billion in calendar 1998 and increased another $162 billion in calendar year 1999. If one needs new debt to get through a year then a deficit resulted, not a surplus.

What would politicians rather say for calendar years of 1998 and 1999, for example? Did they say they were really smart because they operated several hundred billion in surplus by cutting spending, or or did they admit to running an operational deficit of $282 billion? That combines to misleading the public by about a half trillion dollars. So, how did they design their accounting gimmick? Answer: they siphoned-off from trust funds (social security an other trusts) all $189 billion of trust surpluses in 1998 with another $228 billion siphoned in 1999 to cover their general government operational deficit spending on other things - - and every single penny of two year's of former trust fund cash surpluses totaling $417 billion is gone, gone, gone. And that was just for 1998-99.
You can thank the Clinton's for starting this trend. The bottom line is statistics can be made to say what you want them to. The Clinton's broke the bank, and now you want to hire them again? Shake yourself!

[Chris W]

John Donson - I thought *Congress* was responsible for budgeting, not the President. And wasn't the Republican Party in charge of Congress for most of the 1990's?

[Translated]

Oh you mean Congress might have an effect on the economy? Then all those stats you cite above are mere correlation, not causation. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. But citing stats make a pompous twit sound knowledgeable.