Talk Elections

Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Gubernatorial/State Elections => Topic started by: Holmes on August 12, 2009, 08:29:33 PM



Title: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on August 12, 2009, 08:29:33 PM
"Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?"

The group opposed to this referendum is No on 1/Protect Maine Equality. Their campaign manager is Maine's own Jesse Connolly.

The group fighting to pass this referendum is Stand for Marriage Maine. Their campaign manager is California's Schubert Flint.

No on 1/Protect Maine Equality Website (http://www.protectmaineequality.org/)

Yes on 1/Stand For Marriage Maine Website (http://www.standformarriagemaine.com/)

No on 1 ads:
Together (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74kiByvu8R4)
Sam Putnam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8YYJKIbSJE)
Bill Whitten (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZfEfN1ifdA)
Clearing Up Distortions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gm7HvaCW2k)
(Radio Ad) Haven (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcfeQIn68IA)
Proud (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s3FURNG2wA)
All Families (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QLirv1-vBY)
Book (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoqcpfJ-09M)
Mom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKBkVF6aexA)

Yes on 1 ads:
Consequences (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHJVG6M1CxQ)
(Radio Ad) Consequences (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fJRFXjjQH0)
Everything To Do With Schools (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FijVUbUlV3s)
Safe Schools (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izj7bCUE2Hg)
Give Me A Break (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YWDTbGBivc)

Polling

Sept. 14-16    
Research 2000/Daily Kos (LV)    
Yes: 48%     No: 46%     Undecided: 6%

Sept. 23-27    
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR) (RV)   
Yes: 41%     No: 50%     Undecided: 9%

Sept. 30 - Oct. 7
Pan Atlantic SMS Group (LV)
Yes: 42.9%     No: 51.8%     Undecided: 5.2%

Endorsements:

No on 1:
Bangor Daily News (http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/125677.html)
Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram (http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=290001&ac=)

Yes on 1:

Campaign finance reports

No on 1 (http://www.mainecampaignfinance.com/netCrystalReports/PACCombinedReport.aspx?EntityType=PAC&Params=74432;Quarterly%20-%20October;NNNNYNNNNNY;public) - $2.7million raised, $400k CoH

Yes on 1 (http://www.mainecampaignfinance.com/netCrystalReports/PACCombinedReport.aspx?EntityType=PAC&Params=73335;Quarterly%20-%20October;YNNNYYYYNYY;public) - $1.1million raised, $400k in debt, $66k CoH


() ()


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on August 12, 2009, 10:02:03 PM
Well, this isn't technically 2010, and it isn't a congressional or gubernatorial race, but I think this is the most appropriate board to post it? I'll use this thread to dump all the news stories I find on this Question. :)

The question before the voters is "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?"

Why didn't the legislature veto this referendumb from appearing on the ballot?

Once a law expands the public's rights, there is no "people's veto."

That's why this is a republic - not a pure democracy.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Dan the Roman on August 12, 2009, 11:55:28 PM
Well, this isn't technically 2010, and it isn't a congressional or gubernatorial race, but I think this is the most appropriate board to post it? I'll use this thread to dump all the news stories I find on this Question. :)

The question before the voters is "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?"

Why didn't the legislature veto this referendumb from appearing on the ballot?

Once a law expands the public's rights, there is no "people's veto."

That's why this is a republic - not a pure democracy.

That is not the Maine Constitution, or the US one for that matter. There is no "expanding rights" clause that makes certain things irreversible. People are free to do stupid things, like ban alcohol if they feel like it.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on August 13, 2009, 08:51:06 AM
Yeah. They're free to challenge any law passed by the legislature if they can gather enough signatures. There were two last year, and it seems like there's gonna be five, I think, this November. Washington and Maryland have the same deal going on.

Here's a story I like

Couples criticize church role in gay unions

Two lifelong Catholic couples who are parishioners at St. Raphael's Church in Kittery, Maine, are saying they find legal, moral and ethical problems with efforts of the Portland diocese to repeal the state's same-sex marriage law. Yet they say when they have brought their concerns to the church's hierarchy, they have been ignored.

Jack and Rose Dougherty and Armand and Ann LaSelva, all of Eliot, say they are not involved in the efforts of gay marriage proponents such as Equality Maine, but are merely Catholics who are deeply concerned about the overt political tone taken by their church in recent months.

Their issues range from what they say are essentially dictates from the pulpit, to the fact that diocesan staff are on loan to pro-repeal organization Stand for Marriage of Maine, to legally questionable contributions to Stand for Marriage by the diocese.

And, they say, these efforts are testing their resolve to remain church-going Catholics. (http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090809/NEWS/908090316/-1/NEWSMAP)

:o


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 13, 2009, 08:30:35 PM
Move to Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections. :)


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on August 20, 2009, 12:07:05 PM
If Soulty wants to move this there, I wouldn't mind.

First ad begins airing today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjXRy9PiOAQ

I would've liked it if it says to vote no on 1, but it wasn't done by the campaign, so what can you do?


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on August 28, 2009, 05:14:39 PM
Heh, I really love this post:

http://www.dirigoblue.com/diary/220/so-traditional-it-wasnt-added-to-maine-law-until-1997

Dur...


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Free Palestine on September 02, 2009, 11:57:04 PM
Because everybody knows that the democratically elected legislature doesn't represent the "will of the people."


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: SenatorShadowLands on September 03, 2009, 07:53:55 AM
If history holds true, which is likely considering 2009 is shaping up to be a good GOP year and this will fire up conservatives in Maine, then this ends gay "marriage" in Maine. Vote yes on 1.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 03, 2009, 08:41:29 AM
Somebody obviously doesn't understand what history is!


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Meeker on September 03, 2009, 09:22:14 AM
If history holds true, which is likely considering 2009 is shaping up to be a good GOP year and this will fire up conservatives in Maine, then this ends gay "marriage" in Maine. Vote yes on 1.

Level of GOP support ≠ Level of support for marriage inequality. Repeat that as many times as necessary until you understand it.

And, as Al said, you obviously don't understand what history is.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 03, 2009, 09:45:15 AM
Lots of things happening recently. It's officially on the ballot now.

No on 1 press release:

Quote
Statement from NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality on the Certification of Petitions to Block Maine’s Marriage Equality Law, Official Order for November 3rd Referendum

Portland, Maine (Wednesday, September 2, 2009)---NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality issued the following statement from campaign manager Jesse Connolly in response to the certification today by the Maine Secretary of State of petitions submitted by opponents to overturn Maine’s marriage equality law.  Governor John Baldacci also signed an order officially setting November 3rd as the date for the statewide referendum.

 “There's no surprise here.  Everyone knew marriage equality would be challenged by a referendum and that's why our allies began having conversations with Mainers three years ago.  We now have nearly 80,000 Mainers who have pledged their support for equality.

“This was a quarter-of-a-million dollar signature effort by a Michigan firm, and it highlights the stark differences in our campaigns.  Their's is a cynical, pay-for-every signature approach that doesn't reflect the homegrown values of our state.

“By contrast, we have put our trust in the common sense and fair mindedness of our friends, neighbors and co-workers.  And that's why we believe voters will reject Question 1 because here in Maine, we believe everyone should be allowed to live their lives and be treated equally under the law.”


Maine Ethics Comission's Letter to NOM (http://www.miketidmus.com/blog/mt-uploads/maine_ethics_com_letter_to_nom.pdf)

Quote
In his letter, Mr. Wayne sites section 1004-A(3), the provision of the Maine Election Law, which states;  "It is illegal for a PAC to knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person."
 
"That is exactly what we feel happened in the very first campaign report filed by SFMMP on July 15, 2009," said Fred Karger, who filed the formal complaint and request for investigation with the Commission last week.  "The four organizational donors (National Organization for Marriage ($160,000), Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland ($100,000), Knights of Columbus -- Washington, DC ($50,000) and James Dobson's Focus on the Family ($31,000), gave 99.999% of the money raised to Stand for Marriage Maine PAC.  They circumvented Maine’s campaign reporting law to avoid disclosure of the true contributors.
These four organizations = 99.999% of their first quarter donations.

Speaking of donations, I couldn't find a yes on 1 donation page, but this is no on 1's ActBlue page: http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/22505

Volunteer Vacation in Maine (http://action.protectmaineequality.org/t/4847/signUp.jsp?key=2377)

Quote
How It Works

During the month leading up to the election, the campaign will be hosting a team of highly motivated volunteers to serve as full-time, volunteer campaign staff.  In Maine voters begin casting their ballots in October, so we’re planning the Volunteer Vacation to run during the entire month of October.

Your Role

Volunteer Vacation is designed for folks who want to volunteer full-time to help identify supporters, recruit other volunteers, and run the Get-Out-the-Vote operation necessary to win the election.

First No on 1 ad. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8YYJKIbSJE) Looks like they're getting people who spoke at the public hearing. I hope they also get that 90 year old war vet and the head of Maine's NAACP. The ad I linked previously was not made by No on 1 but it's still on the air.

I think that's it. I don't think 2009 will be a GOP and Democratic year, no candidate is on the ballot. It'll all come down to GOTV and who gets more people to the polls. The No on 1 campaign has identified 80,000 supporters that they can get to the polls, and they're focusing hard on getting early votes in during October. I give them the edge.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: SenatorShadowLands on September 03, 2009, 10:12:38 AM
If history holds true, which is likely considering 2009 is shaping up to be a good GOP year and this will fire up conservatives in Maine, then this ends gay "marriage" in Maine. Vote yes on 1.

Level of GOP support ≠ Level of support for marriage inequality. Repeat that as many times as necessary until you understand it.

And, as Al said, you obviously don't understand what history is.


You're absolutely right, GOP support and support FOR marriage are inequal, support FOR marriage is almost always greater than GOP support because minority voters vote how they feel on the issue rather than falling for left wing race baiting. McCain lost in Florida and California but marriage won and marriage won BIGGER than McCain did in Arizona.

I don't understand history? When the PEOPLE get a say in marriage they have ALWAYS supported marriage, that's history and its on marriage's side. The one exception being the poorrly worded Arizona Amendment from 2006 which only failed by 4 points even with the poor wording and passed in 2008 re-worded. But hey, you keep holding out hope that middle America will one day embrace your leftist agenda.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 03, 2009, 10:33:51 AM
We're not talking about a middle America state like Iowa or Kansas, we're talking about Maine in an election that'll be all about identifying supporters and GOTV.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: SenatorShadowLands on September 03, 2009, 10:38:21 AM
We're not talking about a middle America state like Iowa or Kansas, we're talking about Maine in an election that'll be all about identifying supporters and GOTV.

ME-2 is largely rural, friendlier to Conservatives and is more like upstate New York rather than the coastal ME-1. If The ME-2 middle Americans come out in force and the big city people in ME-1 either don't care or vote in favor of marriage, then its sunk.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 03, 2009, 10:53:51 AM
The only big city in the state has a huge gay population, and they're really friendly, so they won't stay home. No on 1 won't let them. And Maine's second biggest metro is in ME-02. In 2007, they cast about 240,000 votes, so there'll probably be more this year. No on 1 has identified 80k voters with 2 months to to, and one month before canvassing for early votes.

I really can't comment on yes on 1's campaign, to be honest. They're not sharing anything. All I know is they're casting an ad on Craigslist, looking for two "real Maine women" but not saying what the ad is about, and blaming Maine's bad weather on the gays. That's all I know about them. They're not even publicly saying where their main office is, but the No on 1 campaign has opened public offices all over the state in the past month.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: SenatorShadowLands on September 03, 2009, 11:05:02 AM
The only big city in the state has a huge gay population, and they're really friendly, so they won't stay home. No on 1 won't let them. And Maine's second biggest metro is in ME-02. In 2007, they cast about 240,000 votes, so there'll probably be more this year. No on 1 has identified 80k voters with 2 months to to, and one month before canvassing for early votes.

I really can't comment on yes on 1's campaign, to be honest. They're not sharing anything. All I know is they're casting an ad on Craigslist, looking for two "real Maine women" but not saying what the ad is about, and blaming Maine's bad weather on the gays. That's all I know about them. They're not even publicly saying where their main office is, but the No on 1 campaign has opened public offices all over the state in the past month.


And Yes on 1 hasn't demonstrated the fact it can rally support by getting tens of thousands of people to sign a petition to get a vote?


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 03, 2009, 11:18:59 AM
They've surely demonstrated that they can hire a signature gathering firm from Michigan and a campaign director from California, based in DC, who pay signature gatherers $2 for every signature they get. Not every signature is a committed voter.

Look at the public hearing back in April. The no side was able to get about 3000 supporters to dress in red and attend, and the yes wasn't able to get 1000. The no side was able to send tens of thousands of letters to governor Baldacci to help him sign it, the yes side, not so much.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Meeker on September 03, 2009, 11:43:04 AM
You're absolutely right, GOP support and support FOR marriage are inequal, support FOR marriage is almost always greater than GOP support because minority voters vote how they feel on the issue rather than falling for left wing race baiting. McCain lost in Florida and California but marriage won and marriage won BIGGER than McCain did in Arizona.

No you dolt, your argument was that as GOP support increases support for marriage inequality increases as well. That's completely ridiculous and shows you have an incredibly limited understanding of the issue (not that that wasn't apparent anyways, but whatevsky).

I don't understand history? When the PEOPLE get a say in marriage they have ALWAYS supported marriage, that's history and its on marriage's side. The one exception being the poorrly worded Arizona Amendment from 2006 which only failed by 4 points even with the poor wording and passed in 2008 re-worded. But hey, you keep holding out hope that middle America will one day embrace your leftist agenda.

And, as we all know, cultural values and opinions never change. Which is why interracial marriage and school segregation are still legal and why women aren't allowed to vote.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: danny on September 03, 2009, 12:32:06 PM
If history holds true, which is likely considering 2009 is shaping up to be a good GOP year and this will fire up conservatives in Maine, then this ends gay "marriage" in Maine. Vote yes on 1.

Level of GOP support ≠ Level of support for marriage inequality. Repeat that as many times as necessary until you understand it.

And, as Al said, you obviously don't understand what history is.


You're absolutely right, GOP support and support FOR marriage are inequal, support FOR marriage is almost always greater than GOP support because minority voters vote how they feel on the issue rather than falling for left wing race baiting. McCain lost in Florida and California but marriage won and marriage won BIGGER than McCain did in Arizona.

If your counting on minorities in Maine to pass this, you will be disappointed.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 03, 2009, 12:39:48 PM
Apparently I missed this, No on 1 released two TV ads today, not just one. Here is the second one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZfEfN1ifdA

It's good ad, but I prefer the first. He doesn't say to vote no, you just see the logo. :( And when no means yes, it's important.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Badger on September 03, 2009, 06:01:20 PM
If history holds true, which is likely considering 2009 is shaping up to be a good GOP year and this will fire up conservatives in Maine, then this ends gay "marriage" in Maine. Vote yes on 1.

Level of GOP support ≠ Level of support for marriage inequality. Repeat that as many times as necessary until you understand it.

And, as Al said, you obviously don't understand what history is.


You're absolutely right, GOP support and support FOR marriage are inequal, support FOR marriage is almost always greater than GOP support because minority voters vote how they feel on the issue rather than falling for left wing race baiting. McCain lost in Florida and California but marriage won and marriage won BIGGER than McCain did in Arizona.

I don't understand history? When the PEOPLE get a say in marriage they have ALWAYS supported marriage, that's history and its on marriage's side. The one exception being the poorrly worded Arizona Amendment from 2006 which only failed by 4 points even with the poor wording and passed in 2008 re-worded. But hey, you keep holding out hope that middle America will one day embrace your leftist agenda.
Why do conservatives talk about denying the ability of more people getting marriage as being a a vote "for marriage"? Even an extremem right winger like you must realize that gays are not going to give up their long term committed relationships, they'll just be living outside the bounds a nd stability of marriage that conservatives like you supposedly are trying to protect---by allowing fewer people to marry.

Are you married? If so, how iis your marriage damaged or lessened in any way by gay marriage?


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: SenatorShadowLands on September 03, 2009, 07:14:40 PM
They've surely demonstrated that they can hire a signature gathering firm from Michigan and a campaign director from California, based in DC, who pay signature gatherers $2 for every signature they get. Not every signature is a committed voter.

Look at the public hearing back in April. The no side was able to get about 3000 supporters to dress in red and attend, and the yes wasn't able to get 1000. The no side was able to send tens of thousands of letters to governor Baldacci to help him sign it, the yes side, not so much.

lol ok so everyone who opposes gay "marriage" is obviously just a hired stooge. Yeah, you fit in well with Nancy Pelosi, just dismiss the people, it can't be true, they're just "astroturf."


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: SenatorShadowLands on September 03, 2009, 07:23:32 PM
You're absolutely right, GOP support and support FOR marriage are inequal, support FOR marriage is almost always greater than GOP support because minority voters vote how they feel on the issue rather than falling for left wing race baiting. McCain lost in Florida and California but marriage won and marriage won BIGGER than McCain did in Arizona.

No you dolt, your argument was that as GOP support increases support for marriage inequality increases as well. That's completely ridiculous and shows you have an incredibly limited understanding of the issue (not that that wasn't apparent anyways, but whatevsky).

I don't understand history? When the PEOPLE get a say in marriage they have ALWAYS supported marriage, that's history and its on marriage's side. The one exception being the poorrly worded Arizona Amendment from 2006 which only failed by 4 points even with the poor wording and passed in 2008 re-worded. But hey, you keep holding out hope that middle America will one day embrace your leftist agenda.

And, as we all know, cultural values and opinions never change. Which is why interracial marriage and school segregation are still legal and why women aren't allowed to vote.

Yeah and there's absolutely no chance that tradition can hold fast either which is why 90% of the people on the planet are still getting married, believe in a God, etc after 6000 years of civilization.

And of course, interracial marriage (still between a man and a woman, no relevance to gay marriage), women's suffrage, and segregation are all of course on the same level of fundamental importance as satisfying the indulgences of a minority.

I don't think I could have said anything so nonsenical as whatever I placed in bold that you just posted. My original argument, was that higher GOP turnout would benefit Propsition One (that's a given fact, GOP voters support marriage.) and then you tried to say that higher GOP turnout wouldn't help One, at which point I said support for marrige is often even higher than GOP support. Now you're trying to tell me I was right the first time, not the second. Which is it?


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Meeker on September 03, 2009, 07:34:50 PM
And of course, interracial marriage (still between a man and a woman, no relevance to gay marriage), women's suffrage, and segregation are all of course on the same level of fundamental importance as satisfying the indulgences of a minority.

I didn't realize love was an indulgence in your twisted, bigoted world.

I don't think I could have said anything so nonsenical as whatever I placed in bold that you just posted. My original argument, was that higher GOP turnout would benefit Propsition One (that's a given fact, GOP voters support marriage.) and then you tried to say that higher GOP turnout wouldn't help One, at which point I said support for marrige is often even higher than GOP support. Now you're trying to tell me I was right the first time, not the second. Which is it?

You clearly have no idea what you said. You stated that as GOP support increased support for marriage inequality would increase. Such a notion is ridiculous.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 03, 2009, 07:44:06 PM
They've surely demonstrated that they can hire a signature gathering firm from Michigan and a campaign director from California, based in DC, who pay signature gatherers $2 for every signature they get. Not every signature is a committed voter.

Look at the public hearing back in April. The no side was able to get about 3000 supporters to dress in red and attend, and the yes wasn't able to get 1000. The no side was able to send tens of thousands of letters to governor Baldacci to help him sign it, the yes side, not so much.

lol ok so everyone who opposes gay "marriage" is obviously just a hired stooge. Yeah, you fit in well with Nancy Pelosi, just dismiss the people, it can't be true, they're just "astroturf."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/18-7

Look up "National Petition Management Inc". I don't make sh**t up.

http://www.aboutnpm.com/

5281 River Ridge Dr
Brighton, MI 48116-4791, United States


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: SenatorShadowLands on September 04, 2009, 07:15:22 AM
And of course, interracial marriage (still between a man and a woman, no relevance to gay marriage), women's suffrage, and segregation are all of course on the same level of fundamental importance as satisfying the indulgences of a minority.

I didn't realize love was an indulgence in your twisted, bigoted world.

I don't think I could have said anything so nonsenical as whatever I placed in bold that you just posted. My original argument, was that higher GOP turnout would benefit Propsition One (that's a given fact, GOP voters support marriage.) and then you tried to say that higher GOP turnout wouldn't help One, at which point I said support for marrige is often even higher than GOP support. Now you're trying to tell me I was right the first time, not the second. Which is it?

You clearly have no idea what you said. You stated that as GOP support increased support for marriage inequality would increase. Such a notion is ridiculous.

How do you figure? GOP voters oppose gay "marriage" so if more people believe in the philosophy of the GOP then more people are going to vote in favor of marriage. GIVEN NOT ALL people who support the GOP are going to vote for marriage as well, but the fact that so many people who normally don't vote for the GOP will vote for marriage makes this fact irrelevant.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Meeker on September 04, 2009, 08:39:33 AM
And of course, interracial marriage (still between a man and a woman, no relevance to gay marriage), women's suffrage, and segregation are all of course on the same level of fundamental importance as satisfying the indulgences of a minority.

I didn't realize love was an indulgence in your twisted, bigoted world.

I don't think I could have said anything so nonsenical as whatever I placed in bold that you just posted. My original argument, was that higher GOP turnout would benefit Propsition One (that's a given fact, GOP voters support marriage.) and then you tried to say that higher GOP turnout wouldn't help One, at which point I said support for marrige is often even higher than GOP support. Now you're trying to tell me I was right the first time, not the second. Which is it?

You clearly have no idea what you said. You stated that as GOP support increased support for marriage inequality would increase. Such a notion is ridiculous.

How do you figure? GOP voters oppose gay "marriage" so if more people believe in the philosophy of the GOP then more people are going to vote in favor of marriage. GIVEN NOT ALL people who support the GOP are going to vote for marriage as well, but the fact that so many people who normally don't vote for the GOP will vote for marriage makes this fact irrelevant.

The reason people switch between parties is not because of a change in social values year to year. They switch because of either economic reasons, corruption issues, personal flavor, resentment at a President, etc. People don't go "Obama isn't doing so well... oh and now I don't favor gay marriage". Again, you appear to lack a basic understanding of many of these issues. You appear to be quite young from your writing style so I hope you change some as you mature.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on September 04, 2009, 08:59:39 AM
ME-2 is largely rural, friendlier to Conservatives and is more like upstate New York rather than the coastal ME-1. If The ME-2 middle Americans come out in force and the big city people in ME-1 either don't care or vote in favor of marriage, then its sunk.


No, the big city people in ME-1 will be voting for marriage in its current form. It's the conservatives who will be voting to redefine marriage, choosing to roll it back, presumably, to some manner of olde tyme state where blacks can't marry whites because they're worried that someday dogs will be marrying people.

()

First they marry each other, next they'll be marrying people.  It's a slippery slope.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on September 04, 2009, 09:15:16 AM

you thought I wouldn't notice you using my word??


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Meeker on September 04, 2009, 09:16:42 AM

Whatevia.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: SenatorShadowLands on September 05, 2009, 12:24:29 AM
And of course, interracial marriage (still between a man and a woman, no relevance to gay marriage), women's suffrage, and segregation are all of course on the same level of fundamental importance as satisfying the indulgences of a minority.

I didn't realize love was an indulgence in your twisted, bigoted world.

I don't think I could have said anything so nonsenical as whatever I placed in bold that you just posted. My original argument, was that higher GOP turnout would benefit Propsition One (that's a given fact, GOP voters support marriage.) and then you tried to say that higher GOP turnout wouldn't help One, at which point I said support for marrige is often even higher than GOP support. Now you're trying to tell me I was right the first time, not the second. Which is it?

You clearly have no idea what you said. You stated that as GOP support increased support for marriage inequality would increase. Such a notion is ridiculous.

How do you figure? GOP voters oppose gay "marriage" so if more people believe in the philosophy of the GOP then more people are going to vote in favor of marriage. GIVEN NOT ALL people who support the GOP are going to vote for marriage as well, but the fact that so many people who normally don't vote for the GOP will vote for marriage makes this fact irrelevant.

The reason people switch between parties is not because of a change in social values year to year. They switch because of either economic reasons, corruption issues, personal flavor, resentment at a President, etc. People don't go "Obama isn't doing so well... oh and now I don't favor gay marriage". Again, you appear to lack a basic understanding of many of these issues. You appear to be quite young from your writing style so I hope you change some as you mature.

And being open to the values of the other party doesn't mean you can form a new opinion or a first opinion altogether? That's quite an assumption to make. Like I said, so many people who don't vote GOP will vote for marriage which makes the people who will vote for the GOP but not marriage a moot point.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: SenatorShadowLands on September 05, 2009, 12:29:07 AM
ME-2 is largely rural, friendlier to Conservatives and is more like upstate New York rather than the coastal ME-1. If The ME-2 middle Americans come out in force and the big city people in ME-1 either don't care or vote in favor of marriage, then its sunk.


No, the big city people in ME-1 will be voting for marriage in its current form. It's the conservatives who will be voting to redefine marriage, choosing to roll it back, presumably, to some manner of olde tyme state where blacks can't marry whites because they're worried that someday dogs will be marrying people.

()

First they marry each other, next they'll be marrying people.  It's a slippery slope.

Redefining the new definition. WOW that is QUITE a spin.

See my earlier post on interracial marriage. Black/White Man + Black/White Woman= STILL ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. GAY (for those of us who don't seem to know the difference between race and gender) means TWO men or TWO women and therefore doesn't have Jack to do with interracial marriage. Get it?


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Dan the Roman on September 05, 2009, 12:40:27 AM
And of course, interracial marriage (still between a man and a woman, no relevance to gay marriage), women's suffrage, and segregation are all of course on the same level of fundamental importance as satisfying the indulgences of a minority.

I didn't realize love was an indulgence in your twisted, bigoted world.

I don't think I could have said anything so nonsenical as whatever I placed in bold that you just posted. My original argument, was that higher GOP turnout would benefit Propsition One (that's a given fact, GOP voters support marriage.) and then you tried to say that higher GOP turnout wouldn't help One, at which point I said support for marrige is often even higher than GOP support. Now you're trying to tell me I was right the first time, not the second. Which is it?

You clearly have no idea what you said. You stated that as GOP support increased support for marriage inequality would increase. Such a notion is ridiculous.

How do you figure? GOP voters oppose gay "marriage" so if more people believe in the philosophy of the GOP then more people are going to vote in favor of marriage. GIVEN NOT ALL people who support the GOP are going to vote for marriage as well, but the fact that so many people who normally don't vote for the GOP will vote for marriage makes this fact irrelevant.

The reason people switch between parties is not because of a change in social values year to year. They switch because of either economic reasons, corruption issues, personal flavor, resentment at a President, etc. People don't go "Obama isn't doing so well... oh and now I don't favor gay marriage". Again, you appear to lack a basic understanding of many of these issues. You appear to be quite young from your writing style so I hope you change some as you mature.

And being open to the values of the other party doesn't mean you can form a new opinion or a first opinion altogether? That's quite an assumption to make. Like I said, so many people who don't vote GOP will vote for marriage which makes the people who will vote for the GOP but not marriage a moot point.

There might be truth to that if the Maine GOP opposed Gay Marriage. Both Senators are against the repeal, and the likely GOP candidate for Governor voted for the Gay Marriage Bill.

This is par for course in large parts of the country. In New Hampshire, 11 Republicans voted for the Gay Marriage bill in the legislature and in Massachusetts a majority of the GOP senate caucus voted against putting the amendment on the ballot. In Conneticut the Republican Governor signed the bill, while in California the Republican Governor urged the legislature to overturn Prop 8.

What is happening is not voters moving to accommodate a party. Voters are too self-centered for that. If Republicans are doing better in the NE than a few years ago its because they have accommodated their voters and have dropped opposition to Gay Rights even if they don't openly support marriage.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Smash255 on September 05, 2009, 12:44:54 AM
And of course, interracial marriage (still between a man and a woman, no relevance to gay marriage), women's suffrage, and segregation are all of course on the same level of fundamental importance as satisfying the indulgences of a minority.

I didn't realize love was an indulgence in your twisted, bigoted world.

I don't think I could have said anything so nonsenical as whatever I placed in bold that you just posted. My original argument, was that higher GOP turnout would benefit Propsition One (that's a given fact, GOP voters support marriage.) and then you tried to say that higher GOP turnout wouldn't help One, at which point I said support for marrige is often even higher than GOP support. Now you're trying to tell me I was right the first time, not the second. Which is it?

You clearly have no idea what you said. You stated that as GOP support increased support for marriage inequality would increase. Such a notion is ridiculous.

How do you figure? GOP voters oppose gay "marriage" so if more people believe in the philosophy of the GOP then more people are going to vote in favor of marriage. GIVEN NOT ALL people who support the GOP are going to vote for marriage as well, but the fact that so many people who normally don't vote for the GOP will vote for marriage makes this fact irrelevant.

The reason people switch between parties is not because of a change in social values year to year. They switch because of either economic reasons, corruption issues, personal flavor, resentment at a President, etc. People don't go "Obama isn't doing so well... oh and now I don't favor gay marriage". Again, you appear to lack a basic understanding of many of these issues. You appear to be quite young from your writing style so I hope you change some as you mature.

And being open to the values of the other party doesn't mean you can form a new opinion or a first opinion altogether? That's quite an assumption to make. Like I said, so many people who don't vote GOP will vote for marriage which makes the people who will vote for the GOP but not marriage a moot point.

What are you basing that on?  This is MAINE we are talking about here.   The state very likely has more Republicans who support gay marriage than Democrats who are against Gay Marriage, and Independents in Maine aren't exactly socially conservative.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 07, 2009, 03:24:20 PM

Source? All I can find is Collins saying she'll stay neutral like she always does for statewide issues.

Speaking of Peter Mills - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K60a6kjzpfI


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Dan the Roman on September 07, 2009, 05:59:24 PM

Source? All I can find is Collins saying she'll stay neutral like she always does for statewide issues.

Speaking of Peter Mills - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K60a6kjzpfI

Collins may be presumptive, but she did eventually come out and record an ad against Question 1 back in 2005, so I assumed that she probably would here. I guess she sees no reason to act yet. But she definitely doubt she would support it, she has like an 86 from HCR, and I thought she said something positive about the law when it was passed. Oh well.

Peter Mills is awesome. If he wins the nomination he is Maine's next Governor. Granted that was true in 2006 as well.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 11, 2009, 09:52:07 AM
http://www.wgme.com/template/inews_wire/wires.regional.me/21c0eee8-www.wgme.com.shtml

Mmm, church influence.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Verily on September 11, 2009, 10:24:21 AM
I find it amusing that it's gotten to the point where you can't tell the difference between a pro-gay marriage and an anti-gay marriage group by the name. "Stand for Marriage Maine"? That could be either (though obviously by context is an anti-gay group).


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Meeker on September 11, 2009, 10:31:15 AM
I find it amusing that it's gotten to the point where you can't tell the difference between a pro-gay marriage and an anti-gay marriage group by the name. "Stand for Marriage Maine"? That could be either (though obviously by context is an anti-gay group).

I was just thinking about that the other day. Here in Washington the pro-domestic partnerships ballot measure group is called Washington Families Standing Together, a name which could be used by the anti-folks as well (their name is Protect Marriage Washington which I suppose could be used by gay rights groups in a Maine situation).

Personally I think it's a rather ingenious move on gay rights groups to neutralize any sort of naming advantage the anti-gay rights movement might have. Clearly the people running these campaigns read the chapter on framing the debate in their political science textbooks.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on September 11, 2009, 05:14:22 PM
Also, people don't normally like to fight as much for "equal rights" if they already enjoy those rights.  And, of course, a gay man in California can marry and of the same women I can haha :)

Although I think a more firebrand name for an organization than "Families Standing Together" could generate more volunteers and funds.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 12, 2009, 06:24:22 PM
Yes on 1 = ::). Holding a rally tomorrow night at the Augusta Civic Center... but not letting anyone go, banning media coverage and having mostly all out-of-state speakers.

No on 1 wins again.

The NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign today challenged its opponents to allow the media into their Augusta rally tomorrow featuring several out-of-state, headline speakers opposed to marriage equality.  At the same time, NO on 1 announced that it will hold a series of "community conversations" around the state to engage Mainers on this important question of fairness and equality.

    "The contrast could not be clearer," said NO on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly.  "While our opponents have speakers flown in from San Diego and Washington, DC to speak out against loving Maine couples and families, we're having real conversations, Mainer to Mainer, about the importance of marriage equality."

The opposition rally at the Augusta Civic Center features Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, Harry Jackson, Jr., of Hope Christian Church in Washington, D.C., Chris Clark from East Clairemont Baptist Church in San Diego, and a special message from James Dobson of Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs.  The ticketed event is closed to the press.

While the opponents' rally at the Augusta Civic Center will be closed to the media and people without tickets, NO on 1's Augusta "community conversation," the first in a statewide series, will be open to the general public and the media.  That conversation is happening tomorrow, Sunday, September 13th from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at South Parish Congregational Church, 9 Church Street, Augusta.

    "It makes no sense to hold a big rally and then deny access to the general public and ban coverage of the event by the Maine media," said Connolly.  "If the organizers really want to show people that they are not alone, why would they close the doors to the general public, to television news viewers and to Maine newspaper readers?" (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/12949/no-on-1-announces-open-to-the-public-community-conversations-as-s4mm-holds-private-rally)


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 15, 2009, 09:27:51 AM
Ad - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaRNzlwc7Sk

Focus on The Family, the Christian Civic League, NOM, or the Portland Diocese are definitely not special interest groups. At least our special interest groups were from Maine, and even had the word "Maine" in their names. :)

Also their logo looks a lot like prop 8's. Hamasecsuel marige will be teached in schools. Consequences consequences. There will be lawsuits everywhere. Mmhmm.

And I see no real Maine waitresses and teachers.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 15, 2009, 10:14:40 PM
That AP story that the ad showed? It wasn't even a story headline that AP wrote... I hope they get bitchy about it and sue for misrepresentation.

Radio ad - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fJRFXjjQH0

Sounds like Microsoft Sam, and they made the legislators look evil(liberal). It's funny.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 16, 2009, 03:59:16 PM
No on 1's counter-ad, going on air tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gm7HvaCW2k

Ah, ad war begins...

[Markos is polling Maine right now btw... aside from this I don't know what he can really be polling, but ok]


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Nhoj on September 17, 2009, 02:18:19 PM
No on 1's counter-ad, going on air tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gm7HvaCW2k

Ah, ad war begins...

[Markos is polling Maine right now btw... aside from this I don't know what he can really be polling, but ok]
2010 g0verners race i suppose? more likely obama and health care approval.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 17, 2009, 08:29:34 PM
Yeah, I suppose so. Speaking of governor's race, in case anyone(Dan the Roman) cares, some Democratic candidates made their stance on Question 1 public recently(via Dirigo Blue (http://www.dirigoblue.com/diary/350/maine-gov-2010-candidates-responses-to-q1-peoples-veto)). We know Mills is voting no, and so is Rowe.

Elizabeth Libby Mitchell:
Quote
I support equality in marriage and voted for the law.  The issue is one of equality, fairness, and support for the diversity of Maine people and families.

Rosa Scarcelli:
Quote
I will vote NO on Question 1. For me, this issue is one of simple fairness and equality. It's about allowing couples to enter into a lifelong commitment with each other as an expression of their love. This proposal fully respects the rights of those who disagree. For any church or religious group that does not recognize same-sex marriage, nothing will change with the passage of this law. But for Maine's gay and lesbian couples, this law will give them the same legal rights and protections that all married couples now enjoy.

Steve Rowe from his site (http://www.roweforgovernor.com/profile.cfm?ID=162):
Quote
I believe that everyone is entitled to the protection of the law and that everyone should be treated equally under the law.  That is why I support the marriage equality law that was enacted by the Legislature and signed by the Governor during the past legislative session.  And that is why I will be voting against repeal of the law (voting No on Question 1) on my November ballot.  The new law authorizes civil marriage for same-sex couples.   I believe that same-sex couples who are committed to one another as life partners are due the same rights and privileges under Maine law as opposite sex couples who are committed to one another as life partners.

The harder I look at this issue, the simpler it gets: after all, equal means equal.  This is a question of fairness and equal protection under the law.  A civil union is not the same as a civil marriage.  Those of us who have worked publicly to expand rights and protections for gay and lesbian Mainers are pleased that our state has taken this step towards full equality.  We should not go backwards.   

I will be voting No on Question 1 and I encourage you to do the same.


Title: Q1 Poll: No 46, Yes 48
Post by: Holmes on September 18, 2009, 09:33:06 AM
()

This definitely looks winnable. I know cross tabs have high MoE, but what's sad is the low support among Democrats. But it's good to see no is apparently winning independents. :)

Landline-only, if anyone cares... no cellphone-only residents interviewed.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on September 18, 2009, 10:05:27 AM
Frankly, it's disappointing that marriage is proving to be such an uphill climb in Maine.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 18, 2009, 10:14:17 AM
It's ok. Last year, Palin was the most popular politician in the country last week. There are over 50 days until election day, the peak of the campaign hasn't even begun yet. But yes on 1 is doing a crappy job, in my opinion... compared to yes on 8. And no on 1 is doing waaay better compared to no on 8. This is a fun campaign to follow.

That rally that the media wasn't invited to the other week, WGME got in and brought a camera.
 
http://www.wgme.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wgme_vid_632.shtml

Eh... "history is on our side", "we're prosecuted for our beliefs", blah blah. Crowd looked unenthusiastic in the clips they showed. And of course, the Bishop has to make a speech.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on September 18, 2009, 10:18:39 AM

Nothing against you, of course, but I look at Question 1 as the exact opposite of fun.  Maybe it'd be more enjoyable to me if it was the other way around—an effort to right what was wrong.  Instead, it's an effort to return to an era of discrimination by public acclimation.

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but the simple fact that the vote has to happen makes me really sick to my stomach.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 22, 2009, 09:24:59 AM
Of course it sucks that it's going to a vote, but you knew it was coming up. The other side would do anything they can to stop progress. I survived prop 8 last year, and we had marriage there. I'm not gonna feel bad for myself anymore because I know it's a waste of energy. The no on 8 side was so terrible and slow, and the yes on 8 side was really deceitful, I'm just glad we're doing well this time.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 22, 2009, 09:31:54 AM
WMTW tears into Yes on 1's TV ad. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1SqI5xnPYw) They smacked down the marriage in schools myth, and so did the Yes on 1 side! No on 1 had a law professor from Maine making their rebuttals.

First No on 1 Radio Ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcfeQIn68IA). It's basically just sound clips from their TV ads. That's ridiculous!

Same-sex unions will only enhance the traditions of marriage  (http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=284374&ac=PHedi)
Same-sex couples are families, too (http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/121751.html)
Congregation stands up for same-sex marriage (http://www.maineville.com/detail/121378.html)


Title: Big names in support of No on 1
Post by: Holmes on September 22, 2009, 03:49:35 PM
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=96623

Quote
The campaign ’No on 1 - Protect Maine Equality,’ which aims to preserve marriage equality in the state, found allies in several big names in Maine politics when a memorandum was sent to the state’s media outlets denouncing rival ’Yes on 1’ television ads.

Senate President Elizabeth Mitchell, Speaker of the House Hannah Pingree, Rep. Emily Cain, former Attorney General Steven Rowe, former Attorney General James Tierney, Dean Peter Pitegoff (University of Maine School of Law), and Professor David Cluchey (University of Maine School of Law) affixed their names to the memorandum, which pulled apart the politics of the TV advertisements.

...

Physicians from the Maine Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) joined the above-mentioned politicians and academics in stating their support for marriage equality in the state, and specifically, the benefits that legal unions hold for the children of LGBT couples.

"Children who are raised by legally married parents benefit from the legal status grated to their parents. What is good for parents and families is good for children," Dr. Jonathan Fanburg, president of the Maine Chapter of the AAP, said in a Sept. 22 statement. "The Maine Chapter of AAP is opposed to the referendum vote that challenges the marriage equality law."

Here is No on 1's press release about their endorsement from the Maine Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatricians (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/13122/press-release-from-no-on-1-maine-pediatricians-support-marriage-equality)

Quote
    "As physicians who care for children and their families, we are committed to supporting what is best for children. And there is no question that when their parents can marry, children are more protected legally and socially."

    "Marriage equality is the right thing for Maine's children, and will strengthen and protect families who have lacked legal recognition for too long," said Augusta pediatrician Dan Summers.

    "As pediatricians, we see how supportive parents -- whether gay or straight -- positively impact the development of children.  That is why we oppose the referendum that would rescind the law that allows same sex couples to marry."


Title: Yes on 1 uses Prop 8 ad
Post by: Holmes on September 23, 2009, 09:00:19 AM
Mmm, recycling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FijVUbUlV3s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM

 this sh**t. Bad memories.

That teacher is a member of the SFMM group... teaches at a private Christian school.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 26, 2009, 07:43:06 AM
Two new No on 1 ads:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s3FURNG2wA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QLirv1-vBY

I wish they would get the teachers to actually say "no on 1"...


Title: Q1: No 50, Yes 41
Post by: Holmes on September 30, 2009, 09:14:09 AM
http://www.democracycorps.com/wp-content/files/mesw092709fq1me.pdf

Quote
Now let me ask something else. One of the questions on the ballot this November will read
as follows: "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows
individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?" - If the election were
held today, would you vote YES or NO on this question?

Total
Yes strongly.........................................................................37
Yes not strongly....................................................................4
No not strongly.....................................................................7
No strongly..........................................................................43
(Don't know/refused)............................................................9

Total yes.............................................................................41
Total no..............................................................................50

This is better than the kos poll, in my opinion, because kos didn't include the fact that churches aren't forced to do anything, and this one says it. So yay, 9 point lead. But that doesn't mean anything unless we can get that 50% to the polls.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on September 30, 2009, 09:16:42 AM
I have precious little doubt this will pass. The religious rubes and their yay-freedumb-except-for-you bumpkin allies have the motivation to vote; those who love liberty do not.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 30, 2009, 11:17:31 PM
Well, it's a good thing you're not leading the No on 1 campaign with that attitude...

I just read SSFM's "The threat to traditional marriage" posting on their site... they went so far as to say that the homosexual lobby repealed a Maine law that stated that children were the most important thing ever in the history of humanity or some dumb thing like that and that a yes vote will restore that law. I can't believe people will actually believe that sh**t. They wrote a lot of stupid talking points.

"We have nothing against the gays... we only bash them on our site when we think they're not reading!"

Quarterly fundraising numbers will be out soon... can't wait to see how much No on 1 made, and how much of Yes on 1's money comes from NOM+Church. Probably a lot.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on September 30, 2009, 11:23:18 PM
Yes On 1 is copying the Yes On 8 campaign from CA to the letter, except taking the attacks to the next level

the Maine campaign seems to be far less stupid than the No On 8 campaign and thankfully won't have to deal with white liberals' discomfort trying to reach out to minorities


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on September 30, 2009, 11:25:27 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QLirv1-vBY

I wish they would get the teachers to actually say "no on 1"...


that's still better messaging than ANY ad the No On 8 campaign in CA put out.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on September 30, 2009, 11:29:38 PM
Lunar didn't enjoy watching Feinstein read a scripted no on 8 message on his TV?


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on September 30, 2009, 11:37:21 PM
Lunar didn't enjoy watching Feinstein read a scripted no on 8 message on his TV?

or Samuel Jackon's [difficult to tell it's him first watch of the ad] voice over trying to connect gay marriage to the Armenian genocide so that [presumably] black people will support it?  And this was really late in the campaign too when they realized they had a problem.

or watching 50 times the CA state superintendent giving scary ass dark ads on VH1 about how the other side's ad was lying, which I had never ever seen on that network, not that those ads would be appropriate for that network anyhow

All No On 8 had to do was fine preachers & reverends of all ethnicities, and cut targeted ads of the preachers/reverends/whomever saying they support gay marriage.  We would have won.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on October 01, 2009, 04:05:10 PM
Mm, yeah. No on 8 had a lot of options it could've used that they didn't. And they could've done what they did a bit less half ass-y... oh well.

Nate Silver gives No on 1 the advantage: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/analysis-gay-marriage-ban-is-underdog.html He says that his same model predicted prop 8 would get 54% but it got 52% so.. hm. Turn out is still most important though.

Religious Leaders Support No on One (http://www.wabi.tv/news/7880/religious-leaders-support-no-on-one)

Quote
Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry Speaks Out in Opposition to Question 1

Faith Leaders Support Equality, Call for NO on 1 in November


Portland & Bangor, Maine (Thursday, October 1, 2009) --

Faith leaders from the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry in Maine gathered simultaneously today in Portland and Bangor to endorse NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality. Representing 18 faith traditions from Fort Kent to Kittery and from Farmington to Castine, the coalition of active and retired clergy believe that all Maine families should be treated equally under the law.

The coalition, according to its key spokespersons, said only marriage equality confers full dignity and respect to loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.  The religious leaders also said they are speaking out so that people of faith know that many faith leaders believe deeply in fully supporting all their congregant families.


Quote
    "I believe that faithful, lifelong, monogamous relationships are among the building blocks of a healthy and stable society, " said Rt. Rev. Steven T. Lane, IX Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Maine.

    "Last spring, the rights and obligations of civil marriage were extended to all Maine citizens.   The passage of Question 1 would deny those rights . . . create two classes of citizens and deny one group what we believe is best for them and for society."


Quote
    "Marriage creates and enhances stable, committed relationships and the sharing of economic resources and responsibility. Marriage nurtures the individual, the couple, and children," said Rabbi Darrah Lerner of Congregation Beth El in Bangor.  "Good marriages benefit our communities and express our religious values of long-term commitment and faithfulness."

Coalition members also noted that throughout Maine's history, religious liberties have been both valued and protected under the law and that nothing in the new marriage equality law threatens that tradition.

Quote
    "Religious groups will have the same freedom to act or not act with respect to same-sex unions as they have now," said Retired United Methodist Pastor and District Superintendent, Rev. Donald Rudalevige, who lives in Cape Elizabeth.

Quote
    "It is so very important that we affirm the rights of all families in the State of Maine by voting No on 1, for it is my belief that all families are loved by God," said Rev. Becky Gunn, Pastor of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Bangor. "And, all families deserve equal protection under the law."


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on October 02, 2009, 06:05:53 PM
that's exactly what I just said they should have done in CA


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on October 03, 2009, 10:21:19 PM
I love reading comments from actual presumed voters that Maine has already voted against gay marriage in the past. Why are these people allowed to vote?

I wonder when the finance reports will come out.


Title: No on 1 identifies 275k voters
Post by: Holmes on October 05, 2009, 10:11:20 AM
If this is really true, then they better get off their asses during this whole month to get them to vote early, or get them to the polls next month.

The campaign has identified 275,000 Mainers who favor the law, but they all have to actually vote, she said. In addition to television ads, the campaign is blitzing the state with people who are working to bring to people to the polls or, better yet, to get them to vote absentee. (http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091005/NEWS/910050338/-1/NEWSMAP)

People in Maine can register and vote in the same day. So No on 1 can and needs to go to campuses all over the state, bus a lot of students to polling places and get them to vote.

OUR MAN IN MAINE: Defeating Question 1 About Mobilizing Base  (http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=7417#more) - A volunteer talks about his first 2 days volunteering. October is all about volunteers making decided voters go absentee. I guess it's smart having all the out-of-state volunteers work in Portland and the locals in other areas.


Title: Yes on 1 lying
Post by: Holmes on October 05, 2009, 04:08:55 PM
Here's a door to door canvassing script from yes on 1. It's kinda cute.

Quote
Question 1 repeals and locks from ever taking effect a bill passed by the legislature and signed by the governor that allows homosexual marriage. The legislature went out of their way to avoid allowing you to vote on this important issue. The new bill, if we don’t pass Question 1, will change Maine’s law on marriage which has existed since Maine became a state. The current law defines marriage as being the union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage and an institution of very strong value to society. The new proposal for gay marriage would also eliminate the law that says Maine has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage.”

Regardless of what you think about homosexual marriage, we wonder why they would eliminate the law that says marriage is good for children.

I love how they always bring up how this bill will forever repeal a law that said marriage is good for children, or something. Which is not even true. I think they're referring to Maine 1997 DOMA, but all this bill does is include same-sex couples in marriage. sigh. But it's cute how they totally ignore the fact that children of same-sex couples exist, and go to school where they say all the time that hamasecksual marriage will be taught in class, despite everyone in Maine basically now knows that it won't.


Title: New Yes on 1 ad
Post by: Holmes on October 06, 2009, 01:04:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izj7bCUE2Hg

idk. Children must be protected from the reality that gays exist and if you're a child of a same-sex couple, then feel ashamed and unnatural. Funny thing is that the guy in this video is a school guidance counselor... but personally I don't want anything to happen to him otherwise they'll play the victim card, and play it good.

Also calling that teacher of the year in No on 1's ads a gay activist + again using exaggerated out of state anecdotes as if they'll for sure happen in Maine = <3. These people are like, I dunno. No words.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 06, 2009, 01:44:57 PM
Would it be wrong to put out a robo-call to only registered Republican voters urging them to "Vote no on gay marriage.  Vote no on Question 1."? ;D


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on October 06, 2009, 02:26:20 PM
You don't need to lie, you just need to hope that the voters are actually the events watching TV and thinking for themselves. Yes on 1's only argument is "Children become gay by reading gay schoolbooks and every school will be forced to read these books if the law isn't overturned. Do you want your children to be gay?".

Occasionally you'll find the "all gays have AIDS" and "everyone and their mom will get sued for no reason" arguments.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Badger on October 07, 2009, 05:53:32 PM
Would it be wrong to put out a robo-call to only registered Republican voters urging them to "Vote no on gay marriage.  Vote no on Question 1."? ;D
Do it.

2-1 odds there'll be robo calls of the reverse message to registered Democrats.


Title: New No on 1 counter-ad out
Post by: Holmes on October 08, 2009, 08:59:41 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuZD_1PcdQw

I heard that this news piece played all over Maine twice in the last two days... it's a good one for the No side, but of course they gotta have the Yes side too bashing diversity and the "POSSIBILITY" of a big change if this law passes, which doesn't even change curricula at all.

The video and book he's holding are ones that are in the curriculum that show diverse families, from gay ones to interracial ones to old ones. And guess what? It was in the curriculum even before the law passed. ::)

Oh wait, now their argument is that if this law is passed, there's gonna be a lot more education on teh gay lifestyle.   

edit: New No on 1 ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoqcpfJ-09M)

It discusses the book that the "teacher" was holding in their last ad, the one I said had all those diverse families. It's an alright ad, good plug for their site. And has a bunch of Maine families, which are types of people that Yes on 1 ads have been really lacking.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 08, 2009, 09:26:42 AM
Occasionally you'll find the "all gays have AIDS" and "everyone and their mom will get sued for no reason" arguments.

oh cool so they're getting their talking points from my dad


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on October 08, 2009, 11:51:56 AM
GOD it's SO refreshing to see an anti-ban campaign actually do the right messaging.  The Yes On 1 commercials seem cheesy and condescending compared to the No's.  And, of course, the No's aren't letting the Yes's own words like "marriage" and "family" and "children" -- a smart strategy for the salvageables


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on October 08, 2009, 03:52:28 PM
I like how the No side is now saying that the other side is trying to harm kids from diverse families (and it's not too hard considering Yes is attacking books and videos teaching about diverse families) ... I mean, I know this is really the first time a campaign for same-sex marriage uses the kid argument and it probably won't be that effective at first, but if it can win some votes, who knows.

Occasionally you'll find the "all gays have AIDS" and "everyone and their mom will get sued for no reason" arguments.

oh cool so they're getting their talking points from my dad

Is there something you want to share with us?


Title: New No on 1 ad
Post by: Holmes on October 12, 2009, 06:58:29 PM
Here it is - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKBkVF6aexA

I also read an editorial about how divorce rates are lower in states with marriage equality, and one of the comments was like "What a great article in support of question 1! Let's send those homosexual activists packing!" Obviously someone can't read.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on October 12, 2009, 07:17:23 PM
another fantastic ad: going after their opponent's strengths

Catholic voters voting on their faith
and they're the ones protecting the institution of marriage


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on October 13, 2009, 12:19:00 PM
http://www.wgme.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wgme_vid_869.shtml

No on 1 has the cell phone users vote? No way.....


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on October 13, 2009, 01:22:58 PM
Next they're going to say No is winning pet owners who who make their small dogs wear sweaters


Title: Q1's Q3 numbers are out
Post by: Holmes on October 14, 2009, 07:58:38 AM
$$$

Quote
NO on 1 Announces 12,000 Donors, $2.7 Million Raised

2,000 Mainers volunteer to protect Maine equality


Portland, Maine (Tuesday, October 13, 2009)---

NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality announced today that nearly 12,000 donors have contributed nearly  $2.7 million to its campaign to defeat Question 1 and allow all committed Maine couples to marry and be treated equally under the law.

NO on 1 also announced that since July 1, nearly 2,000 Mainers have actively volunteered on the campaign, engaging in activities ranging from phone banking, to leaflet drops, to door-to-door canvassing.

In addition, more than 8,000 Mainers have signed up to volunteer with the campaign.  An additional 120 people from out of state, or less than one percent of the total volunteer base, have committed to come to Maine for the final days of the campaign. 

To date, NO on 1 volunteers have made more than 270,000 phone calls and knocked on more than 13,500 doors throughout the state.  And in the last 10 days, over 1,600 Mainers signed up for more than 2,100 volunteer shifts on the campaign.

In terms of financial contributions, nearly half of the money raised came from supporters in Maine, with most donors, both in state and out of state, contributing during the Third Quarter (Q3) which began July 6th and ended September 30th.


Quote
    "This level of support is gratifying and it's from every corner of Maine and from people across the country who care deeply about treating all families equally," said Jesse Connolly, NO on 1 campaign manager. 

    "Although ours is primarily a grassroots campaign, with Mainers talking to Mainers about equality, it costs money to run a field program and it's costly to rebut the distortions in the Question 1 campaign's ads.

    "What we've seen is that as more and more people have focused on Maine, more and more people have wanted to participate, whether that's writing a check or staffing a phone bank," added Connolly.

The NO on 1 campaign, which released its campaign revenues and expenditures in accordance with Maine campaign finance laws, offered these highlights from Q3, the latest reporting period:

Quote
    -- Nearly 50 percent of the money raised in the Q3 came from Maine donors and, in fact, 80 percent of the contributions raised off line, through fundraising events and individual contributions, came directly from Mainers.

    -- 97 percent of the individual donors made their contributions in the third quarter.  (11,723 donors contributed in Q3, with 11,976 total donors since the campaign began).  In fact, 94 percent of the nearly $2.7 million YTD was raised during Q3.

    -- 29 donors gave more than $10,000 for $875,000 in Q3. Of those 29 individuals, 18 donors -- or 62 percent -- are Maine residents who collectively contributed $515,000 of that total.

    -- While the NO on 1 average online donation is $95.45, the campaign's volunteer field team has collected more than 1,200 contributions with an average donation of $17.25.

    -- The NO on 1 Finance Committee, a group of 38 Maine residents, is responsible for raising more than $470,000 of the total.

    -- There were 29 NO on 1 fundraising events in the Q3, with only three of those conducted out-of-state in Washington D.C., Los Angeles and Miami.

    -- The NO on 1 campaign only solicited funds during the last two months of the Second Quarter, raising $143,290 from 373 donors.

    -- $537,393 in both in-kind and cash donations was contributed by 13 state and national organizations which support marriage equality.


There was a press release/thing from Yes on 1, but like... it was just them complaining that No on 1 totally outraised them, homosexual activists, this is SERIOUS, hamasecsual marriage to 5, 6, 7 year old... blah blah. Here's a run down:

Quote
hey only raised $800k in the filing period for a total of $1.1M for the year AND they have $400k in debt.

NOM gave them 340k.

Focus on the Family 50k.

Somewhere between 2-300 Maine donors and about same out of state (estimate).

Big donor was the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland with 16 donations totalling 246,060.85

=====================

Cash on hand $66k.

No on 1: $2.7 million
Yes on 1: $800k ($400k in debt, only $66k CoH :o)


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on October 14, 2009, 08:13:34 AM
Also: why is Yes on 1 asking for money by saying it'll help air ads and stuff when it'll probably go to pay off their $400k debt? whatevs.


Title: Q1 poll: No 51.8%, Yes 42.9%
Post by: Holmes on October 14, 2009, 06:19:16 PM
From the Pan Atlantic SMS Group

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_omnibus_fall_2009.html

()

()

()

()


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on October 14, 2009, 08:38:32 PM
This is great news, especially the fundraising...they're doing better than Harry Reid in a tiny state.

I fully expect the prop to fail, based upon how well put together the campaign is. 


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on October 14, 2009, 08:56:55 PM
Maybe the HRC is good for something after all.  The Yes on  8 folks had a natural base of conservative money base in CA before even start looking at Utah...I'm not sure there is such a thing in the small states in the Northeast...and, since the law was passed legislatively, there is less of a procedural argument to make against the gay marriage folks.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on October 15, 2009, 08:23:39 AM
Paul Hogarth was volunteering in Maine the other week, but he's gone now(so no more blog updates :(). But he made one recently talking about how we can win in Maine. Has some good insider perspective(all his entries about Maine do... good reads).

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=7446


And early voting officially starts statewide today! :)


Title: Q1 Lewiston Debate
Post by: Holmes on October 16, 2009, 07:41:34 AM
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2357628

It's almost an hour long, if anyone is interested. Ack, I've been following this campaign too much. I was able to mouth quite a bit of both side's talking points... ha.

And this is cute, the Harry Potter Alliance is going to Maine next weekend. They're gonna have some concert thing, then have about 100 volunteers canvassing for the day. I've never heard of these people before, but I'm not complaining about 100 canvassers.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/15/harry-potter-alliance-asks-maine-muggles-to-oppose-gay-marriage-repeal/


Title: wtf is this yes ad?
Post by: Holmes on October 16, 2009, 11:35:31 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YWDTbGBivc

sigh.

If this law stays, kindergardeners will be taught what gay sex is, because some 8th grade teacher in Massachusetts thought about telling her class what's legal in the state.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on October 16, 2009, 11:46:42 AM
I like the kissing and hugging in the background.

Interesting ad strategy, they basically want to have people thinking about two gay guys plowing each other when they vote.  Probably the right bigotry-based strategy, but that particular ad seems a bit banal


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on October 16, 2009, 12:01:08 PM
Mmm, I guess so. The Massachusetts teacher was a sex-ed teacher for what it's worth, plus all the references to sex in the ad might stir up some abstinence-only program supporters to move more into the yes column. Maybe. All of Yes on 1's ads have basically been about mobilizing the base to get out, though. Not targeting swing voters/independents like the no side.

Portland has to order 2000 additional absentee ballots. (http://www.protectmaineequality.org/clip.cfm?id=442) :) 25,000+ absentees mailed statewide. They've been working hard on getting supporters to vote absentee. Early voting in person began yesterday.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on October 17, 2009, 04:37:12 AM
dawg, you're part of this campaign, but this one is done, we won :)

The No folks are just doing everything right, and the Yes folks don't have their act together.  


hard to believe the gays can win anything held to popular vote, isn't it?  I can imagine that even if the polls showed No winning by a 40 point margin, a number of stalwarts would refuse to believe it, because of how many times they've seen the public be total d-bags


Title: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Holmes on October 17, 2009, 08:53:16 PM
Oooh, Yes on 1's spokesman is the owner of the site "As Maine Goes"? Well, that's not really important.

Bangor Daily News (http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/125677.html) endorses No on 1. :) Yeah, paper endorsements aren't worth much anymore, but it's a pretty old/influential and conservative-ish paper in the 2nd CD fwiw. Plus there is a number of people up there without internet who still read the papers.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Tender Branson on October 19, 2009, 02:22:29 PM
PPP, which is showing a tight race for Q1 tomorrow, on the "Milk-Effect" (or whatever it is called when people voice support for homos in polls, but not in the voting booth):

Looking at Gay Marriage Polling

Our Maine poll tomorrow is going to show a much rosier picture for opponents of same sex marriage than two other polls released recently by Pan Atlantic SMS and Democracy Corps, which showed the referendum failing by an average of 51/42.

It is of course always possible that we're wrong. But I think it's more likely that this is one issue where automated polls might have an advantage over live interviewers. There is probably some segment of the population that knows opposing same sex marriage is wrong and not intellectually defensible but still does. Those are the kinds of folks who might tell an interviewer what they believe they should think rather than what they do think.

Perhaps someone with more time can do a more thorough look at how polling on gay marriage and affirmative action bans reflected the actual results, but on Proposition 8 in California last year three IVR polls from SurveyUSA showed it passing by an average of 47/46 while the Field Poll and Public Policy Institute of California, both using live interviewers, showed it failing by an average of 51/44. It's a limited sample size but there was an eight point difference on the margin between live interview and automated polls. And of course the ultimate result, passage by a margin of 52-48, was not something any pollster showed in the last couple weeks of the campaign.

Because the referendum is so close we're probably going to sneak in another poll of it between now and November 3rd.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/10/looking-at-gay-marriage-polling.html

BTW, why is this in "2010 elections" ?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Holmes on October 19, 2009, 03:11:09 PM
Mmm, everyone knows it's close. But I hope yes isn't ahead. NOM will probably say that they increased their support by like 10% in less than a week. Cause their ads about gay sex are working. ::)

No on 1 is out with a new ad today. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC7eoPoezL8) It's alright. I kinda don't like the beginning, it kinda goes in the opposite direction of every other ad they've released.

No on 1 press conference on Yes on 1 lies: Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c26YyfA8D-M), Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etOjis6W2zo)


(I put this in the 2010 elections board because it's not a Gubernatorial or State Legislature race, or a Congressional race. Maybe we could use a ballot initiative board. :P)


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Eraserhead on October 19, 2009, 03:40:36 PM
I won't be surprised if "yes" pulls out a close upset. Lunar's little victory dance is pretty ridiculous.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Lunar on October 19, 2009, 03:47:54 PM
Sometimes it's easiest to guess the nature of my posts by how late at night I post them.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Holmes on October 19, 2009, 09:00:23 PM
Ughh, these people are so annoying. Nothing in the law about education, over 400 state lawyers say there's nothing to do with schools, and the attorney-general and the education commissioner says that same-sex marriage won't be taught in school if no wins.

But their only argument for the last month and a half has been, "it might be taught." It must be like talking to a 3 year old child that sadly convinces a lot of voters.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 19, 2009, 09:05:40 PM
Ughh, these people are so annoying. Nothing in the law about education, over 400 state lawyers say there's nothing to do with schools, and the attorney-general and the education commissioner says that same-sex marriage won't be taught in school if no wins.

But their only argument for the last month and a half has been, "it might be taught." It must be like talking to a 3 year old child that sadly convinces a lot of voters.

unfortunately, plenty of people really do believe it.  Tolerance and acceptance is scary!  (Just like a lice and let live attitude.)


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on October 19, 2009, 09:08:32 PM
What does it even mean to teach same-sex marriage, or any kind of marriage, in school?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Holmes on October 19, 2009, 09:20:46 PM
What does it even mean to teach same-sex marriage, or any kind of marriage, in school?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8j2y9WtTPw

I don't know, probably they're talking about same-sex marriage being discussed in class or something, or maybe they're talking about teachers teaching kids how to pair up with another boy or girl, go to city hall and fill out a marriage license under Party A and B. Because that happens.

Also, lice can be scary.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Tender Branson on October 20, 2009, 11:41:30 AM
PPP:

48% YES
48% NO

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_ME_1020.pdf


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Eraserhead on October 20, 2009, 11:59:58 AM
PPP:

48% YES
48% NO

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_ME_1020.pdf

Ugh. Not good.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Vepres on October 20, 2009, 12:02:33 PM
PPP:

48% YES
48% NO

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_ME_1020.pdf

Ugh. Not good.

Undecideds will probably break towards no, just my gut feeling.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Lunar on October 20, 2009, 12:13:00 PM
PPP sux


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Dan the Roman on October 20, 2009, 12:21:19 PM
PPP:

48% YES
48% NO

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_ME_1020.pdf

Ugh. Not good.

Undecideds will probably break towards no, just my gut feeling.

Hard to say. What I will say though is that I am skeptical of their likely voter screen. I worked on the last Gay Rights Iniaitive in Maine in 2005 as well as the general elections in 2004 and 2006, and from what i recall there is simply no comparison in terms of the GOTV operations of the Democratic leaning groups, especially the Maine Gay Rights groups. Because of early voting, they spend the three weeks leading up to the election bagging large numbers of voters, and the combination of same-day registration and early voting tends to make it incredibly easy to mobilize groups with a low-chance of turning out, like college students.

While I am willing to believe many college age students may well have said they were unsure or might not vote when called, most will in fact vote, when all of their friends go down to vote on the iniative. Peer pressure in this regard is a very powerful force, especially on the campuses, and I fully expect a much higher turnout of young voters than PPP is predicting, including many who fully do not intend to right now, but will get talked into taking a fifteen minute diversion sometime in the next week.

The other thing to remember is the light residency requirements. Basically any college students, including out-of-state ones can vote if they are living in a dorm. Almost none have land-lines, and I sincerely doubt that those who would be inclined to vote yes will bother voting, while those who support NO or are indifferent will fall victim to the same peer affect.

Furthermore, I do not buy the 47-45 no lead in the 18-29 category. I think we are getting to the point where polls can't properly measure a demographic the majority of which has no land-line nor will answer one if they do. Especially this year when it makes sense to expect if not quite Obama levels of turnout on campuses, at least 2005 levels.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Holmes on October 20, 2009, 12:58:22 PM
"It is apparent that our ads about gay sex being taught to kindergardeners is resonating quite well with average Mainers, and the No on 1 campaign's messages of equality for all Maine families is being rejected by the Maine electorate. This is about the radical redefinition of marriage and not equality, screw you Janet Mills, and basically every other public office holder in Maine, nothing is preventing anything from being taught to the kids!"

There, I just predicted their response, so you guys don't have to read it if you find it.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Holmes on October 20, 2009, 07:33:29 PM
http://updates.pressherald.mainetoday.com/updates/npr-wants-same-sex-marriage-ad-pulled

Why is SFMM using a company called "hotdaddy" to serve their ads? You know what, I think we should probably not ask.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Holmes on October 21, 2009, 09:41:14 AM
There will be a debate tonight (http://www.wabi.tv/news/8126/same-sex-marriage-forum-on-tv5) between Shenna Bellows of the MCLU vs Marc Mutty of SFMM/Catholic Diocese. It's on TV, and will be from 8-9pm.

These are the rest of the debates, between Mary Bonauto of GLAD and Marc Mutty again:


Thursday, October 22nd, 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Live debate on MPBN radio
Moderated by Susan Sharon, Assistant News Director at MPBN
Listen at www.mpbn.org

Monday, October 26th, 7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Live debate on "207" on WCSH-TV and WLBZ-TV (NBC affiliate, Channel 6 in Portland, Channel 2 in Bangor)
Moderated by "207" hosts Rob Caldwell and Kathleen Shannon
Watch at www.wcsh6.com or www.wlbz2.com

Wednesday, October 28th, 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Live debate on WMTW-TV (ABC affiliate, Channel 8 in Portland)
Cosponsored by Maine Today Publications (Portland Press Herald, Maine Sunday Telegram, Kennebec Journal and Central Maine Morning Sentinel)
Moderated by WMTW-TV news anchor Tory Ryden
Watch at www.wmtw.com

Thursday, October 29th, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.

Live debate on WGAN-AM radio in Portland
Moderated by WGAN Morning News co-hosts Mike Violette and Ken Altshuler
www.wgan.com

Thursday, October 29th, 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Live debate on WGME-TV (CBS affiliate, Channel 13 in Portland)
Moderated by WGME-TV news anchor Greg Lagerquist
Watch at www.wgme.com


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1 (see first post!)
Post by: Holmes on October 23, 2009, 09:25:38 AM
2 things:

Watch this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEbJBFWIPk) It's from the hearing back in April. It just became popular all of a sudden and has gotten 400k+ views in the past two days. This (http://www.wgme.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wgme_vid_1031.shtml) is an interview with him from local Portland news.

Here is the Q1 debate from the other day (http://www.wabi.tv/news/8171/question-1-debate), it played in the Bangor area. The questions are from actual people on the phone(most are No voters, but there are 2 Yes's ["I have a gay son and aunt, but I don't want gays destroying marriage", "it's their lifestyle that they choose" blah blah]) I think we did well enough, I mean the No debater did have some ACLU-ish arguments(cause she works for them), but the Yes debater kept going in circles around the same argument, "there WILL be consequences, are we willing to risk it!?" and stupid things like that. Their new argument is that if Q1 fails, traditional marriage won't even exist anymore and it'll just be genderless marriage. Cause if Q1 fails, everyone in a marriage right now will become a neutral gender for some reason.

The Yes debater gets really hateful and entertaining near the end, but my favourite quote was when he said "it's not about drinking in two separate water fountains" in response to the equality/discrimination argument.


Title: New Yes on 1 ad
Post by: Holmes on October 23, 2009, 10:24:13 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfN0opPSw9k

I'm sorry you guys had to see that. God forbid we teach kids about tolerance, but hey, tolerance = gay agenda


Title: $1.1M from NOM
Post by: Holmes on October 23, 2009, 08:12:19 PM
And they still won't file as a PAC and reveal their donors. ::) Instead they're suing Maine to try to hide them.

Yes:
Quote
$1.4 Million in 20 days with $1.1 Million of that coming from NOM!

167,000 from the Diocese

15 k from Focus on the Family

That comes down to JUST OVER $127,000 from everyone else, including one individual donation worth 25k!

So about $100,000 from various churches, companies and individuals.

No:
Quote
-- $1,369,370 was raised in the reporting period, from October 1-20, giving a year-to-date (YTD) total of $4,060,053.

-- 8,930 donors pitched in during this last period, bringing the total number of donors to NO on 1 to 20,372.

-- Of that donor base, 7,840 were Mainers, with 2082 Maine residents contributing in the last 20 days.

-- Over $500,000 of the total $1.3M raised during this period came from Maine donors.

-- 16 individual donors, including one organization, gave $10,000 or more during this reporting period, fueling $617,000 of the total raised.  Of that total, $352,000 or 57% came from donors who live in Maine.

-- In the last 20 days, the average online donation was $58.  The off-line or direct donation average through fund raising events and individual donations was $150.

-- Nearly $142,000 of in-kind donations were made by 49 individuals and organizations supporting marriage equality.

No on 1: $4million raised
Yes on 1: $2.5 million raised [probably no more debt due to their nice $1.1million donation]


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on October 25, 2009, 05:29:11 PM
Yes on 1 says this on their site:

Quote
The People's Veto of Gay Marriage - Question 1 - needs your financial contribution. Your support will help us stand up to the vast network of wealthy homosexuals with seemingly unlimited resources from places like Hollywood, New York and Massachusetts. Washington, D.C.'s largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization has already pledged to spend as much as $5 million to try to defeat us.

I guess they're talking about the HRC? Which definitely isn't going to donate $5 million. Actually, the only group that's donated close to $5 million was... NOM, at $1.6 million, for their side. ::) Then the Catholic Diocese of Maine, at nearly $550k, also on their side.

Thanks for the move, Soulty.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: ○∙◄☻Ątπ[╪AV┼cVę└ on October 25, 2009, 08:15:42 PM
Have they started claiming that a no vote is for "mandatory" gay marriage like they did in California?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on October 25, 2009, 09:09:45 PM
Hmm, not yet anyway. The question is "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?", and I've seen some people say voting no means "no to rejecting the law, and no to allowing individual and religious groups refuse to perform the marriages." Which is totally untrue.


Title: Q1: No 53 Yes 42
Post by: Holmes on October 26, 2009, 11:35:13 AM
There's a new Pan Atlantic SMS poll out. I can't find the pdf yet, but here's an MPBN story:

http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNews/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3483/ItemId/9516/Default.aspx

No: 53% (+1)
Yes: 42% (+0)


Yay, every question position I would vote for is winning.


Title: Re: Q1: No 53 Yes 42
Post by: Eraserhead on October 26, 2009, 11:40:39 AM
There's a new Pan Atlantic SMS poll out. I can't find the pdf yet, but here's an MPBN story:

http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNews/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3483/ItemId/9516/Default.aspx

No: 53% (+1)
Yes: 42% (+0)


Yay, every question position I would vote for is winning.

Hmm, hopefully PPP just blew it with that last poll...


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Miss Maine on October 26, 2009, 01:18:37 PM
Yes on 1 says this on their site:

Quote
The People's Veto of Gay Marriage - Question 1 - needs your financial contribution. Your support will help us stand up to the vast network of wealthy homosexuals with seemingly unlimited resources from places like Hollywood, New York and Massachusetts. Washington, D.C.'s largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization has already pledged to spend as much as $5 million to try to defeat us.

I guess they're talking about the HRC? Which definitely isn't going to donate $5 million. Actually, the only group that's donated close to $5 million was... NOM, at $1.6 million, for their side. ::) Then the Catholic Diocese of Maine, at nearly $550k, also on their side.

Thanks for the move, Soulty.

This, coming from an organization which gets over 40% of its funding from the "National Organization for Marriage", which is currently fighting the  financial disclosure requirements of Maine's election ethics laws.  In fact, they are scheduled for a hearing today, to enjoin the Maine Ethics Commission from taking any enforcement action against them, no matter what their investigations might find. 

Their complaint? Well I'll let their lawyer tell it:

Quote

"You have to file these reports, like, every ten days and coming up to the election, if you make an expenditure of $500 or more you have to report immediately within 24 hours, and it's just so onerous, so burdensome and oppressive that to comply with these things would be ridiculous, and it just chills First Amendment speech. People who want to get involved in referendum campaigns just can't."

http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3478/ItemId/9487/Default.aspx

Oh right. People just can't get involved in referendum campaigns.

Given thast it's so onerous, so burdensome and oppressive to comply with the financial disclosure laws, one wonders how these referenda ever get launched in the first place.

Oh yeah, that's right. You don't need a big nationwide organization - with donors who want to be kept anonymous - to collect signatures and work phone trees. Not  if what you're doing really has significant grassroots support. Maybe that's why the state of Maine has  election  ethics laws in the first place?


Title: Re: Q1: No 53 Yes 42
Post by: Miss Maine on October 26, 2009, 01:29:18 PM
There's a new Pan Atlantic SMS poll out. I can't find the pdf yet, but here's an MPBN story:

http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNews/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3483/ItemId/9516/Default.aspx

No: 53% (+1)
Yes: 42% (+0)


Yay, every question position I would vote for is winning.

Yeah, I'm afraid Mary Adams will go to her grave the same frustrated, embittered woman she's been for as long as I've known about her.

Pity. She's no dummy. Just imagine what she might accomplish if she put that kind of energy and determination  toward something other than tilting at windmills.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on October 26, 2009, 03:06:55 PM
Yes on 1 wants to produce and air these 2 ads in the final week of the campaign:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/anti-gay-forces-maine-file-suit-run-outrageous-ads

All about children... one even implies legal pedophilia if Q1 fails. ::)

Also, I believe TABOR II will also be pretty close.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Swing Voter on October 26, 2009, 03:20:37 PM
I am confident that Maine will reject this horrid proposal. They do seem much more permissive than California, whose large minority population has populist tendencies, a rare phenomenon in a state like Maine.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Miss Maine on October 26, 2009, 05:57:56 PM
Yeah, Maine defies a lot of easy stereotypes about "red" and "blue" states. How close these ballot measures are depends on voter turnout. Low turnout usually favors reactionaries, especially with a combination of tax issues and social issues on the ballot.  So this being an off-off year election could mean that the angry right come out in disproportional numbers to the more characteristic Maine voters, who turned out to defeat the last question 1  - i.e., the attempt to defeat the civil rights  law for sexual minorities.

We shall see. But if this were happening during a normal election year, I doubt it would even be close.


Title: New Yes ad
Post by: Holmes on October 27, 2009, 01:04:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS9zrv_GOrs

Barf.

---

Governor Baldacci and local legislators commence GOTV effort in Bangor (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/13779/governor-baldacci-and-others-endorse-no-on-1-urge-mainers-to-protect-marriage-equality)

Rep Cheelie Pringree and local legislators start the GOTV effort in Portland (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/13750/no-on-1-get-out-the-vote-effort-announced-by-united-states-representative-cheelie-pingree-dme)

I've actually been following the tweets of some of the volunteers... a lot of them have been targeting universities and getting as much students as they can to vote early. This election might not be as disproportionally old compared to other off-off year elections.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on October 28, 2009, 11:39:52 AM
http://twitpic.com/n9rjm

"Californians! Here they come!"

That's from a press conference by Peter LeBarbera("Americans For The Truth About Homosexuality" or something), Brian Camenker("MassResistance", hate group) and Paul Madore("Maine Grassroots Coalition"). It was this morning... I don't particularly care, I'm probably not even gonna watch it. But I like the fact that the Yes on 1 side flew in the heads of hate groups to Augusta to speak for them in a press conference. A group from the No side was present too, fwiw.

Televised debate tonight at 5pm - 6pm at the University of Southern Maine in Portland. :) Watch Marc Mutty talk about how same-sex couples need respect and rights(but not marriage), 6 hours after having hate groups bash gay people to Maine's media!


Title: Live debate for Q1 now
Post by: Holmes on October 28, 2009, 04:10:25 PM
Live streaming now:

http://www.wmtw.com/video/21454281/index.html

Marc Mutty was replaced by a more classy and uptight man... I wonder why.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on October 28, 2009, 04:16:17 PM
Damn, I wish my boyfriend wasn't in class! I think I'm gonna take a shot every next time the Yes debater says "special interest groups", "radical", "redefinition", "procreation", and things like that.

The No debater is awesome!


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on October 28, 2009, 05:38:53 PM
Mary did a great job for the No side... she took the bait for the polygamy rhetoric though. But the Yes debater kinda made a lot of weird gaffes that went in circles... mmyeah.

The most awkward part was when he went on about how the law says that if you disagree with same-sex marriage, you're a bigot, and how in reality, you're not... he went on for like 2 minutes. Yeesh.

My favourite quotes...

Yes:
"There is no separation of church and state in the constitution."
"Does it make me a bigot because I want to protect traditional marriage?"
"Separation of church and state has to do with keeping the state out of religion."
"I'm not a lawyer, and not comfortable talking about legal aspects."
"This radical redefinition of marriage erodes the values and hurts children."

Among others about special interests and how marriage is all about procreation and nothing else, and if this law passes then we won't have another generation.

No:
"If No wins, then there will be an outbreak of happiness. And weddings. And joy."
"Schools need to create environment where ALL children feel comfortable, safe, and respected."
"I don't see how my marriage is going hurt Brian Souche's ability to raise a family."
"In regard to economic benefits, providing equality to everyone is priceless."

:)


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on October 29, 2009, 05:29:56 PM
Why is Yes on 1 asking university students to vote? (http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNews/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3475/ItemId/9580/Default.aspx)


New kos poll on Question 1 (http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/10/28/ME/412)

No - 48 (+2)
Yes - 47 (-1)
Undecided - 5


New ads!

No on 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID8qo20pSiU)
Yes on 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tLvzVzB66w)

How nice to see Yes on 1 going back to fear mongering after flirting with positivity in their previous ad. This one is cute... "DON'T BE FOOLED! IT WILL HAPPEN! YOUR LITTLE SON WILL BE TAUGHT ABOUT GAY GAY GAY JUST LIKE IN OTHER STATES! IT WILL HAPPEN!"


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alcon on October 29, 2009, 08:14:01 PM
Why is Yes on 1 asking university students to vote? (http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNews/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3475/ItemId/9580/Default.aspx)

Meh.  This is the same issue that came up when we were deciding whether to dispatch sign-wavers to an intersection by a megachurch/Christian academy.  If the anti-gay people are going to have visibility there, visibility is already established; the wrong people are already being reminded about the election, so at that point it becomes a resource allocation issue.  If you can get better raw numbers than, say, by dispatching volunteers to a small church, it's smart enough.  Plus it gives a sense of social viability in a voting population group inclined toward apathy.

Also, some strategists are morons who think that visibility is inherently good, as if pro-X people are reminded by a "VOTE FOR X" sign and anti-X people don't see the sign or something.  It's always possible that it's that.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: East Coast Republican on October 29, 2009, 08:34:46 PM
What's going on in Maine with the Vote Yes on 1 movement is absolutely disgusting.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 29, 2009, 08:52:23 PM
I think "Yes" will win in the end. There will be a % of people, who will tell everyone they're voting no, trying to look all gay rights. But in the end, I think there will be some people that at the end of the day, don't feel letting two people of the same sex marry. It didn't pass in California, despite the state's liberalness. If it didn't make it through there, I don't think gay marriage will make it in Maine either.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on October 29, 2009, 10:52:57 PM
^ Don't worry, Maine is very homogeneous(96% white, independent, sense of community[biggest city is 62k not counting the metro]), less catholic than California, and the no campaign is running a real campaign. :) Not to mention the No side has 8000+ volunteers to GOTV this weekend and on election day, and the Yes side... doesn't.

Maybe you're just underestimating California's liberalness, although we still could've won there last year. But anyway.

What's going on in Maine with the Vote Yes on 1 movement is absolutely disgusting.

You think so?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sbane on October 30, 2009, 12:19:45 AM
I think "Yes" will win in the end. There will be a % of people, who will tell everyone they're voting no, trying to look all gay rights. But in the end, I think there will be some people that at the end of the day, don't feel letting two people of the same sex marry. It didn't pass in California, despite the state's liberalness. If it didn't make it through there, I don't think gay marriage will make it in Maine either.

I think you are overstating California's liberalism, especially social liberalism. Southern California is much more populist than it is liberal. Just see how well Bush did there in 2004. But in a year like 2008 with the economy collapsing they swung back to the democrats. The bay area is of course very socially liberal but it only makes up about 20% of the voting population. The central valley is very socially conservative and so is a large chunk of Southern California. It wouldn't be very surprising if states in the northeast or the pacific northwest states would be more receptive to gay marriage than California. The bay area may be the most liberal metro area in the country on the gay marriage issue, but it doesn't matter as much on the larger scale of California politics.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on October 30, 2009, 09:44:05 AM
[Oops, I meant to say overestimate in the previous post, not underestimate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9Ec1m5nH3k

This story was on the news statewide news last night. The yes couple just talks about religious right talking points, and even have their children chime in. And the no couple is just some boring lesbian couple of 24 years with kids. Cute contrast.

GOTV meeting pics:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ndAyv4BjPbk/SunBG3uN_1I/AAAAAAAABAI/H0Qjl02KhkE/s1600-h/Screen+shot+2009-10-29+at+12.13.56+PM.png
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ndAyv4BjPbk/SunA5aGzKiI/AAAAAAAABAA/t1E_jiMbZHA/s1600-h/Screen+shot+2009-10-29+at+12.14.40+PM.png
http://wockner.blogspot.com/2009/10/maine-gay-marriage-battle-update-1.html


Title: Do you know what it's like campaigning against a wall?
Post by: Holmes on October 31, 2009, 09:36:28 AM
Watch these local news stories:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnjuNrA8Nf8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Y-lpvUVCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQAcB-RW3lY

Sigh. How sad and annoying. And the Yes campaign has too many signs, in all the same places. Reminds me of McAullife.

eta: In regards to the sign vandalism, this guy thinks the Yes campaign did it to themselves to fire up their base. (http://www.wgme.com/newsroom/blogs/political_edge/) And that it's a hate crime... what?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Hash on October 31, 2009, 08:13:56 PM
I think "Yes" will win in the end. There will be a % of people, who will tell everyone they're voting no, trying to look all gay rights. But in the end, I think there will be some people that at the end of the day, don't feel letting two people of the same sex marry. It didn't pass in California, despite the state's liberalness. If it didn't make it through there, I don't think gay marriage will make it in Maine either.

I think you are overstating California's liberalism, especially social liberalism. Southern California is much more populist than it is liberal. Just see how well Bush did there in 2004. But in a year like 2008 with the economy collapsing they swung back to the democrats. The bay area is of course very socially liberal but it only makes up about 20% of the voting population. The central valley is very socially conservative and so is a large chunk of Southern California. It wouldn't be very surprising if states in the northeast or the pacific northwest states would be more receptive to gay marriage than California. The bay area may be the most liberal metro area in the country on the gay marriage issue, but it doesn't matter as much on the larger scale of California politics.

Yeah, California isn't a tree-hugging pot-smoking hippie social liberal state like most people in the US think it is.

Obviously, go NO.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sbane on October 31, 2009, 08:27:21 PM
I think "Yes" will win in the end. There will be a % of people, who will tell everyone they're voting no, trying to look all gay rights. But in the end, I think there will be some people that at the end of the day, don't feel letting two people of the same sex marry. It didn't pass in California, despite the state's liberalness. If it didn't make it through there, I don't think gay marriage will make it in Maine either.

I think you are overstating California's liberalism, especially social liberalism. Southern California is much more populist than it is liberal. Just see how well Bush did there in 2004. But in a year like 2008 with the economy collapsing they swung back to the democrats. The bay area is of course very socially liberal but it only makes up about 20% of the voting population. The central valley is very socially conservative and so is a large chunk of Southern California. It wouldn't be very surprising if states in the northeast or the pacific northwest states would be more receptive to gay marriage than California. The bay area may be the most liberal metro area in the country on the gay marriage issue, but it doesn't matter as much on the larger scale of California politics.

Yeah, California isn't a tree-hugging pot-smoking hippie social liberal state like most people in the US think it is.

Obviously, go NO.

Well some parts of it most certainly are, but not the whole state is. The bay area is the most liberal area in the country and I am not denying this but it is only 20% of the state. The LA area is about as liberal as any typical northern US metro area. On the issue of gay marriage it didn't vote that much differently than the Detroit or Cleveland metro area (and I am obviously including the IE in the LA area). San Diego is similar. On the issue of pot....well in that regard California is very liberal (north and south) but that is more a testament on how conservative the rest of America is on the issue.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 01, 2009, 11:59:35 AM
LA is a typical metropolitan area, in that the cities vote Democratic and the suburbs Republican. San Diego is somewhat to the right of LA, but a good Democrat can carry it. In the Bay Area, on the other hand, the cities and suburbs both vote Democratic.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 02, 2009, 12:28:56 AM
PPP has it 51 - 47 for yes. With younger voters support No by only 3%?

What a surprise considering their track for the night.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: East Coast Republican on November 02, 2009, 01:42:56 AM
Their track hasn't been questionable in the past.

With that said, I expect Yes on 1 to pass in Maine.  Another humiliation for human rights.  The day when people realize there is nothing wrong with people of the same sex marrying cannot come fast enough.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 02, 2009, 08:01:57 AM
I dunno, every other poll has it going the other way, plus the young vote being that closely divided is questionable. And they will show up. Granted, not as much as they did for Obama, obviously.

There's only one more day left to contemplate polls anyway, and you might be happy to know that the No on 1 side has the better GOTV effort. They had 500 canvassers each day this weekend, and thousands of phone bankers, and those same people will show up again for Tuesday to get people to the polls.

When the Yes on 1 side isn't crying about a "possibility" that something will discussed in class, they're busy planting hundreds of signs in the same area and whining to the media that two or three got vandalized.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 03, 2009, 09:04:24 AM
Just anecdotal stuff right now. Weather is good, not raining and sunny in some places. Some volunteers are saying that some polling locations are having record turnout for off-off year elections, mostly in Portland.

Final No on 1 rally part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPXSHICadc0), part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPYgflWcSzs)

In Portland. Drew a good crowd for short notice.

()


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Hash on November 03, 2009, 10:44:21 AM
No, no, no, no, no all the way!


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Franzl on November 03, 2009, 10:49:45 AM


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 01:01:37 PM


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Dan the Roman on November 03, 2009, 01:41:51 PM
http://www.openleft.com/diary/15805/gametime-by-Adam-Bink

Matthew Dunlap now thinks that turnout could reach 50% rather than the 35% he predicted or the 23% of the last off-year elections. I really think PPP was out to lunch here on turnout. That said, incidental reports suggest they were right on everywhere else. It is probably just unfamiliarity with Maine, and the local dynamics.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 03, 2009, 01:44:12 PM
I'm very much worried about this one.  Terrified, even.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese on November 03, 2009, 01:56:48 PM


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Dan the Roman on November 03, 2009, 02:31:49 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1109/Turnout_high_in_Maine.html?showall

Turnout high in Maine

Maine Secretary of State Matt Dunlap told me just now that turnout there is far exceeding his projections -- news that would be good news for backers of same-sex marriage.

"We're seeing heavy and very steady turnout," he said, attributing the surprise to the contested vote on a "people's veto" of a same-sex marriage law driving Mainers to the polls.

The city of Bangor -- Maine's third largest, and likely to tilt against repeal -- is projecting turnout over 50%, he said, and local analysts have said that higher turnout would likely favor the marriage law.

"I think we could be over 50%" for the state," Dunlap said. "We originally projected 35%."

The day is "comfortable," he said, by local standards, partly cloudy with weather in the upper 40s. The polls close at 8:00 p.m.
Posted by Ben Smith 01:28 PM


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Meeker on November 03, 2009, 02:36:54 PM
Awesome. As someone stated earlier, this (and R-71) are the only things that really matter in the long-term so it's good to see it going well.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Eraserhead on November 03, 2009, 03:31:50 PM
The early word seems promising here. Good, we'll need a few bright spots tonight.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 03, 2009, 04:18:10 PM
I had a feeling that those predicting a narrow victory for the Yes side were too stuck in the old model that says a special election hurts the gays...and not giving enough credit to the large organizational advantage of the No side.

I still have that feeling.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: YankeeFan007 on November 03, 2009, 04:21:20 PM
I had a feeling that those predicting a narrow victory for the Yes side were too stuck in the old model that says a special election hurts the gays...and not giving enough credit to the large organizational advantage of the No side.

I still have that feeling.
I don't think your giving enough credit to the bigots in this country, who, just 20-30 years ago, were trying to vote away the rights of homosexuals.  Unfortunately these people are still around.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 03, 2009, 04:28:23 PM
I had a feeling that those predicting a narrow victory for the Yes side were too stuck in the old model that says a special election hurts the gays...and not giving enough credit to the large organizational advantage of the No side.

I still have that feeling.
I don't think your giving enough credit to the bigots in this country, who, just 20-30 years ago, were trying to vote away the rights of homosexuals.  Unfortunately these people are still around.

A superior campaign in terms of GOTV and messaging is extremely meaningful in a special election.  Look at Virginia, they're going to give a huge victory to McDonnell over Deeds, who are more conservative than McCain and Obama respectively.  You have to give credit where credit is due to campaigns that know what they're doing.

I always argue this, but people who were surprised about Prop 8's success in CA doesn't realize how awful that campaign was run relative to the Yes side, [I did a few hours of work for them indirectly and I knew we would fail on election day].  The ads for the no team have been phenomenal, its messaging consistent and connective emotionally, their targeting great, and more.  The opposite is true for the Yes team.


And, of course, there's less outrage in a very secular state [Maine is one of the few states where more people say religion doesn't play a significant role in their lives] where the legislature, not the courts, legislated gay marriage.

The gays are gonna get their queerburgermarriages I firmly believe, but, as I occasionally point out, I had promised to eat my own hat if McCain did something as ridiculous as choosing Palin as his VP, so I've been wrong before.  Maybe I'm just hopeful.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 03, 2009, 05:00:37 PM
To put it in perspective, when Maine voted for the non-discrimination bill in 2005, turnout was only in the mid 40's. When they narrowly voted against the same bill in the last 90's, turn out was in the mid 30's.

The after-work and after-school voting rush will begin soon. It's 5pm.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 03, 2009, 08:06:34 PM
http://www.bangordailynews.com/electionresults.html

Results can be found here, I believe. I'm watching two of the initiatives.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 08:07:21 PM
Polls have closed now.

First results:

No: 45 (88%)
Yes: 6 (12%)


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Hash on November 03, 2009, 08:12:09 PM
Polls have closed now.

First results:

No: 45 (88%)
Yes: 6 (12%)

What a great precinct that is.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 08:12:36 PM
Polls have closed now.

First results:

No: 45 (88%)
Yes: 6 (12%)

I hope that it stays that way lol.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Eraserhead on November 03, 2009, 08:13:08 PM
Polls have closed now.

First results:

No: 45 (88%)
Yes: 6 (12%)

What a great precinct that is.

Stop the count.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 08:14:13 PM


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 03, 2009, 08:24:10 PM
REJECT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW

No    1550    73.46%
Yes    560    26.54%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 03, 2009, 08:33:59 PM
I had a feeling that those predicting a narrow victory for the Yes side were too stuck in the old model that says a special election hurts the gays...and not giving enough credit to the large organizational advantage of the No side.

I still have that feeling.
I don't think your giving enough credit to the bigots in this country, who, just 20-30 years ago, were trying to vote away the rights of homosexuals.  Unfortunately these people are still around.

I like how Dem4Life is an independent.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 08:34:00 PM
No: 2,071 (62.97%)
Yes: 1,218 (37.03%)


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: xavier110 on November 03, 2009, 08:37:44 PM
Now it's basically tied.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 03, 2009, 08:39:19 PM
Yes votes are now leading.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Eraserhead on November 03, 2009, 08:39:51 PM
Uh-oh.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 08:40:09 PM
Oh noes.

Yes  5336 54.68%
No  4422 45.32%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 08:41:34 PM
Oh noes.

Yes  5336 54.68%
No  4422 45.32%


()


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 03, 2009, 08:46:54 PM
I best not have to delete my posts earlier in this thread


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 08:50:00 PM
Yes -  6,611 - 53%
No -  5,771 - 47%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Hash on November 03, 2009, 08:51:48 PM
19/608 in

   No   7,130   51%
   Yes   6,900   49%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 03, 2009, 08:55:59 PM
No is up 55-45% now.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 08:56:40 PM
No  14969 54.60%
Yes  12446 45.40%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 03, 2009, 08:56:53 PM
Please don't let me down, Maine.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: War on Want on November 03, 2009, 08:57:52 PM
If Maine votes No, I'll be pleased with today's results.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: ottermax on November 03, 2009, 08:58:08 PM
Is there a place to see the results on a map?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Hash on November 03, 2009, 08:59:33 PM
22 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 4%
   Name   Votes   Vote %
   No   9,370   56%
   Yes   7,406   44%

YEAH


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Purple State on November 03, 2009, 09:01:08 PM
22 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 4%
   Name   Votes   Vote %
   No   9,370   56%
   Yes   7,406   44%

YEAH

Now at 30 of 608 with:
No   14988   54.48%
Yes   12524   45.52%

Fingers crossed.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 03, 2009, 09:03:46 PM

()


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 09:08:24 PM
No is now only leading by 51% to 49%, with 7% reporting.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 03, 2009, 09:15:07 PM
Not gonna check in until the end probably. Have fun guys.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 03, 2009, 09:17:29 PM
You guys are getting way to into this. ;)
My quick analysis: It's going to be close. It's been jumping all over the place, so people shouldn't start getting worried until 80% of the precints are in. Personally, I expect "Yes" to prevail by a slim margin, but Maine is so...different, I could very well be wrong. ;)


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 09:19:35 PM
No  32670 52.49%
Yes  29575 47.51%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Hash on November 03, 2009, 09:20:46 PM
Do it for everybody, Maine. Please. If you do I'll honour you in every way possible. Do it Maine, mar plij.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on November 03, 2009, 09:22:41 PM
     If Maine rejects this proposition, I'll go L-ME for a week.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: War on Want on November 03, 2009, 09:25:21 PM
It would be really nice if we could get county results here.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 03, 2009, 09:27:47 PM
It would be really nice if we could get county results here.

http://www.bangordailynews.com/electionresults.html

they have county results right?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Hash on November 03, 2009, 09:29:50 PM
I know I'm biased, but I have a good feel for this. I think No will pull it out.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 03, 2009, 09:33:41 PM
We won Portland by like 70%, lost Lewiston(2nd biggest city) 60 - 40 but won Bangor(3rd biggest) 56 - 44. South Portland is 64 - 36.

... I said I wouldn't even be watching. Ack.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: War on Want on November 03, 2009, 09:35:42 PM
It would be really nice if we could get county results here.

http://www.bangordailynews.com/electionresults.html

they have county results right?
Thanks for the link!


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Purple State on November 03, 2009, 09:38:46 PM
14% in and:
No   32670   52.49%
Yes   29575   47.51%

This is coming in painfully slow.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 09:39:10 PM
No  37801 51.30%
Yes  35892 48.70%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 03, 2009, 09:43:58 PM
Btw, there are 100,000 absentees to count later on too.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 03, 2009, 09:45:21 PM
Btw, there are 100,000 absentees to count later on too.

Considering that the No folks put a huge amount of effort into early voting, this is good news too


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 03, 2009, 09:56:13 PM
We lost Augusta 53 - 47.

WMTW Reports:
No 52% 46871
Yes 48% 44093

We won Gorham 64 - 36, and Scarborough 56 - 44, and Old Town 53 - 47.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 10:00:58 PM
No  56659 50.62%
Yes  55267 49.38%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 03, 2009, 10:01:56 PM
I'm worried. :(


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Hash on November 03, 2009, 10:02:40 PM
GO NO NO NO NO NO

Please do it, Maine.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 10:18:13 PM
24% Reporting:

No - 50% - 63,033
Yes - 50% - 62,450

Wow....


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 03, 2009, 10:20:04 PM
We won Auburn 51.5 - 49.5. It's part of Lewiston metro, really catholic. It's good.

I'm hearing No is winning 57 - 43 with No's base mostly out (not reported apparently) but I'm not seeing that anywhere else so idk.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 10:21:25 PM
24% Reporting:

No - 50% - 67,404
Yes - 50% - 67,325


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 10:21:45 PM
:(

Yes  74802 50.51%
No  73292 49.49%

At least TABOR II is going down 60%-40%.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 03, 2009, 10:23:58 PM
Absentees for Portland

6,291 No to 1,762 Yes


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 03, 2009, 10:27:42 PM
Wow - it's closer than I thought it'd be.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Tender Branson on November 03, 2009, 10:28:21 PM
Yes overtakes No ...

83,468 - YES
83,265 - NO


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 10:28:51 PM
31% Reporting:

Yes - 50% - 83,468
No - 50% - 83,265


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 03, 2009, 10:29:37 PM
:)
This is getting fun.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Meeker on November 03, 2009, 10:30:22 PM
Fuck.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Tender Branson on November 03, 2009, 10:30:36 PM
Now "No" overtakes "Yes" ...

85,537 - NO
85,210 - YES


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: JerryBrown2010 on November 03, 2009, 10:31:27 PM
31% Reporting:

Yes - 50% - 83,468
No - 50% - 83,265

HOLY CRAP THAT IS CLOSE! please go no.... :(


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: The Mikado on November 03, 2009, 10:31:35 PM
Now "No" overtakes "Yes" ...

85,537 - NO
85,210 - YES

Could people please put the % of vote in when they give updates?  Thanks.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 03, 2009, 10:32:24 PM

Meeker, I hate you and all, but seriously, don't trip, everything will work out.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Tender Branson on November 03, 2009, 10:33:04 PM
Now "No" overtakes "Yes" ...

85,537 - NO
85,210 - YES

Could people please put the % of vote in when they give updates?  Thanks.

It`s called 50-50.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Purple State on November 03, 2009, 10:34:07 PM
Now "No" overtakes "Yes" ...

85,537 - NO
85,210 - YES

Could people please put the % of vote in when they give updates?  Thanks.

It`s called 50-50.

He means % precincts reporting.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 03, 2009, 10:34:50 PM
Now "No" overtakes "Yes" ...

85,537 - NO
85,210 - YES

Could people please put the % of vote in when they give updates?  Thanks.

It`s called 50-50.

I figured that'd have been pretty obvious. :P

Where are yall getting your numbers?  My site isn't nearly as updated.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Meeker on November 03, 2009, 10:36:30 PM
Maine does win the award for "Slowest Counting of the Night"


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Tender Branson on November 03, 2009, 10:37:13 PM
195/608 precincts:

NO: 92,090 - 51%
YES: 87,794 - 49%   


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on November 03, 2009, 10:37:50 PM
     This is extremely close. Hopefully No pulls through.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: JerryBrown2010 on November 03, 2009, 10:39:24 PM
195/608 precincts:

NO: 92,090 - 51%
YES: 87,794 - 49%   

YES! I just hope it stays that way!


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 03, 2009, 10:40:09 PM
Maine does win the award for "Slowest Counting of the Night"

Haha, fo sho. And take Lunar's advice, and just calm down. It might not even be done tonight depending on how fast they count the absentees.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on November 03, 2009, 10:40:23 PM
How much of Portland is in versus the state altogether? That could be key.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 10:42:22 PM
200 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 33%
No 97,182 51%
Yes 93,502 49%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 10:45:17 PM
208 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 34%
No 99,452 51%
Yes 97,203 49%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 10:47:25 PM
223 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 37%
Yes 108,799 50%
No 108,762 50%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 10:50:33 PM
228 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 38%
Yes 111,397 50%
No 110,622 50%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 03, 2009, 10:51:00 PM
Where are you getting numbers from?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 10:53:46 PM
No retakes the lead.

230 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 38%
No 112,421 50%
Yes 112,245 50%


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2009/by_state/ME_Page_1103.html?SITE=AP (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2009/by_state/ME_Page_1103.html?SITE=AP)


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: JerryBrown2010 on November 03, 2009, 10:55:36 PM
oh man this is close


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 10:56:53 PM
Recount looks like a real possibility....


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Eraserhead on November 03, 2009, 10:58:00 PM
This is going to be a long slog.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 03, 2009, 10:59:56 PM
There are a lot of votes to count still people, jeeze


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 11:00:10 PM
No widens.

248 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 41%
No 123,756 51%
Yes 120,916 49%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: ○∙◄☻Ątπ[╪AV┼cVę└ on November 03, 2009, 11:00:37 PM
That was pretty close, but No is up a little more now.

No   123,756   51%
   Yes   120,916   49%

However, only 41% is in. 59% still out 3 hours after polls close?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 03, 2009, 11:02:10 PM

I may pull an all-nighter.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 11:03:08 PM
265 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 44%
No 130,441 50%
Yes 129,779 50%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 11:04:25 PM
Yes back in front.

278 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 46%
Yes 134,757 50%
No 133,481 50%



Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Ronnie on November 03, 2009, 11:06:49 PM
LOL!


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 11:07:01 PM
Yes back in front.

278 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 46%
Yes 134,757 50%
No 133,481 50%



*facepalm*


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 11:07:25 PM
Almost half in.

296 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 49%
Yes 142,916 50%
No 140,783 50%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 11:08:30 PM
If Yes wins, and Hoffman wins in New York, it's a terrible night for the left.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Zarn on November 03, 2009, 11:09:07 PM
Come on "No" votes. Common sense, Maine. Common sense.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: The Mikado on November 03, 2009, 11:09:55 PM
If Yes wins, and Hoffman wins in New York, it's a terrible night for the left.

I don't think that Bill Owens has an awful lot to do with "the left," but whatever.  Hoffman's essentially lost by now anyway.

BTW, this Maine race is insanely close and I don't want to make a prediction.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: rbt48 on November 03, 2009, 11:10:08 PM
Given the lead at the halfway point, I'd have to guess that "yes" will win if Maine, like most states, has rural and small town votes reporting later in the count.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 11:10:26 PM
308 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 51%
Yes 154,810 50%
No 153,237 50%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 11:11:09 PM
If Yes wins, and Hoffman wins in New York, it's a terrible night for the left.

I don't think that Bill Owens has an awful lot to do with "the left," but whatever.  Hoffman's essentially lost by now anyway.

BTW, this Maine race is insanely close and I don't want to make a prediction.

Well, he's certainly to the left of Hoffman.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 11:12:43 PM
335 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 55%
Yes 166,155 51%
No 160,127 49%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 03, 2009, 11:13:40 PM
Come on "No" votes. Common sense, Maine. Common sense.

More than that: freedom. Maine must believe in freedom.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 11:14:36 PM
It looks as if R - 71 in Washington isn't doing well either....


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 03, 2009, 11:14:58 PM
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/128036.html

gonna be a long night folks, time to relax a little


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Vepres on November 03, 2009, 11:16:38 PM
I'm somewhat surprised by this, actually.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 03, 2009, 11:17:16 PM
Given the lead at the halfway point, I'd have to guess that "yes" will win if Maine, like most states, has rural and small town votes reporting later in the count.

that's not necessarily true, smaller rural precincts also can count their votes faster as there are less of them.  

also: the No campaign put a huge effort in absentees, of which there are 100k of them.  


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 11:17:48 PM
343 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 56%
Yes 169,835 51%
No 163,433 49%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 11:18:42 PM
Yes now leads by 52% to 48% and over 10,000 votes with 59% reporting....this isn't looking good.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 11:19:22 PM
359 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 59%
Yes 180,863 52%
No 170,246 48%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 11:21:53 PM
364 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 60%
Yes 182,360 52%
No 171,171 48%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 03, 2009, 11:22:19 PM
:'(


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on November 03, 2009, 11:22:47 PM
     Damn it. That isn't good. :(


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: ○∙◄☻Ątπ[╪AV┼cVę└ on November 03, 2009, 11:23:33 PM
Sadly it's currently up by the same 52-48 margin that Prop. 8 passed by.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 11:31:10 PM
The idiots who voted Yes are just making it worse for themselves. If this passes it will motivate gay people to fight harder for our rights.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 11:32:10 PM
390 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 64%
Yes 191,884 52%
No 179,171 48%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 03, 2009, 11:32:31 PM
369 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 61%

 Yes 183,829 52%
 No 172,997 48%

No made a little more gains that last time.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Ebowed on November 03, 2009, 11:33:11 PM
Do we know which precincts haven't reported yet?  Is there a lot in from Portland?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 03, 2009, 11:33:52 PM
The idiots who voted Yes are just making it worse for themselves. If this passes it will motivate gay people to fight harder for our rights.

Don't worry so much about it. The fact that it's this close is a propaganda coup for the side in favor of individualism and liberty, if nothing else. The rednecks have had their day in the sun for thirty years.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 11:34:27 PM
393 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 65%
Yes 194,087 51%
No 183,011 49%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 11:35:21 PM
Yes now leads by 51% to 49%, 65% reporting.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 03, 2009, 11:36:34 PM
Not this god damn 48% again.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 03, 2009, 11:36:52 PM
And now it's back to 52% to 48% for Yes....


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 03, 2009, 11:37:30 PM
Apparently 35% of Portland still has to report, plus absentees. Yarmouth, Brunswick and Cape Elizabeth yet to report too, some of out strong support.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 11:39:13 PM
Yes  200399 51.75%
No  186852 48.25%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on November 03, 2009, 11:39:57 PM
Apparently 35% of Portland still has to report, plus absentees.

      Promising, though I don't think No on 1 can count on absentees to pull it through. Aren't absentee voters largely elderly after all?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 03, 2009, 11:40:56 PM
Apparently 35% of Portland still has to report, plus absentees.

      Promising, though I don't think No on 1 can count on absentees to pull it through. Aren't absentee voters largely elderly after all?

The No on 1 campaign made a heavy effort to getting all their supporters vote absentee.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 03, 2009, 11:46:08 PM
402 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 66%
 Yes 201,616 52%
 No 187,699 48%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 03, 2009, 11:51:21 PM
417 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 69%
 Yes 210,353 52%
 No 195,799 48%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on November 03, 2009, 11:52:55 PM
Apparently 35% of Portland still has to report, plus absentees.

      Promising, though I don't think No on 1 can count on absentees to pull it through. Aren't absentee voters largely elderly after all?

The No on 1 campaign made a heavy effort to getting all their supporters vote absentee.

     Though I wonder how much they'll win absentees by given the leanings of people who usually vote absentee.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 03, 2009, 11:53:17 PM
419 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 69%
 Yes 210,558 52%
 No 196,158 48%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 03, 2009, 11:57:30 PM
Apparently 35% of Portland still has to report, plus absentees.

      Promising, though I don't think No on 1 can count on absentees to pull it through. Aren't absentee voters largely elderly after all?

The No on 1 campaign made a heavy effort to getting all their supporters vote absentee.

     Though I wonder how much they'll win absentees by given the leanings of people who usually vote absentee.

To put it in perspective, in 2007, Portland received 127 absentee ballots, and this year they received over 7000k. Same all over the state. I'd say those who usually vote absentee are outnumbered this year.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 03, 2009, 11:57:30 PM
431 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 71%
Yes 216,040 52%
No 200,863 48%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 03, 2009, 11:58:51 PM
I feel like unless something changes, they may be getting close to calling this, right?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: 7,052,770 on November 03, 2009, 11:58:58 PM
Fuck.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on November 04, 2009, 12:02:02 AM
Apparently 35% of Portland still has to report, plus absentees.

      Promising, though I don't think No on 1 can count on absentees to pull it through. Aren't absentee voters largely elderly after all?

The No on 1 campaign made a heavy effort to getting all their supporters vote absentee.

     Though I wonder how much they'll win absentees by given the leanings of people who usually vote absentee.

To put it in perspective, in 2007, Portland received 127 absentee ballots, and this year they received over 7000k. Same all over the state. I'd say those who usually vote absentee are outnumbered this year.

     Wow, I had no idea absentee voting was normally so rare in Maine.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 12:02:24 AM
lol - FOX for some reason just went to a rerun of election coverage - what the heck!


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 04, 2009, 12:04:13 AM
Why isn't Portland counting the rest of its precincts?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 12:09:28 AM
457 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 75%
 Yes 227,360 52%
 No 208,743 48%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Kevinstat on November 04, 2009, 12:11:05 AM
Why isn't Portland counting the rest of its precincts?

Portland is all in.  Those precincts (a couple of which I think are island precincts) may not have been used in this election, or reported results together with other precincts as if they were one precinct).  Only in Maine, perhaps, but Portland is all in.

It seems pretty clear that Question 1 has prevailed. :(


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 12:11:31 AM
461 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 76%
 Yes 228,329 52%
 No 209,870 48%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Psychic Octopus on November 04, 2009, 12:13:36 AM
:'(

No on 1!


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on November 04, 2009, 12:17:59 AM
     Portland's all in? That ain't good. :(


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 12:19:23 AM
476 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 78%
 Yes 237,749 52%
 No 216,667 48%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 04, 2009, 12:19:55 AM
South Portland still has a lot to count, by hand. Because they were photocopied ballots. And absentees.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 04, 2009, 12:26:31 AM
this is going to be closer than I expected, but it's hardly over folks


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 12:27:53 AM
this is going to be closer than I expected, but it's hardly over folks

I figured it'd be 51-49, with yes winning, so a 4% margin is more than I figured.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 12:28:32 AM
488 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 80%
 Yes 242,921 52%
 No 220,336 48%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 04, 2009, 12:30:07 AM
I got classes early in the morning, so I'm gonna go to bed now... I wonder what I'll wake up to in the morning. Night y'all.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 12:35:07 AM
498 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 82%
 Yes 248,965 52.39%
 No 226,239 47.61%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 12:36:12 AM
502 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 83%
 Yes 250,524 52.38%
 No 227,726 47.62%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 12:45:31 AM
507 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 83%
 Name Votes Vote %
 Yes 253,933 52.51%
 No 229,700 47.49%

It's now moved from 52-48 to 53-47.  They've gotta be getting close to calling it I'd imagine.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Meeker on November 04, 2009, 12:48:43 AM
Ughhhh... :(


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 04, 2009, 12:53:55 AM
We have lost the battle, but the war is inevitably ours. Don't be discouraged, we must pick ourselves up and fight again.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 12:57:30 AM
520 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 86%
 Yes 261,267 52.72%
 No 234,297 47.28%

It's over folks.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 12:58:53 AM
Clearly rigged.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 01:03:05 AM

How so?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 01:04:04 AM
525 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 86%
 Yes 265,189 52.74%
 No 237,638 47.26%

AP has just called it.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Ronnie on November 04, 2009, 01:04:49 AM
Oh wow.

Gays will be PISSED.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 01:06:03 AM

The Illuminati hates gay people....


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 01:06:32 AM

And rightfully so, as we've just democratized the right of personal freedom in this nation. And if you were remotely committed to the concept of small government as you pretend to be, you would be, too.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: ○∙◄☻Ątπ[╪AV┼cVę└ on November 04, 2009, 01:06:59 AM
It appears that this did better than the 52.24% that Prop. 8 got. I guess California is the most enlightened of the states that have voted on gay marriage.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 04, 2009, 01:07:18 AM

they should be depressed, as this was a vote on their dignity as human beings


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Meeker on November 04, 2009, 01:07:24 AM
Fuck

And fuck Maine


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: ○∙◄☻Ątπ[╪AV┼cVę└ on November 04, 2009, 01:08:42 AM

And rightfully so, as we've just democratized the right of personal freedom in this nation. And if you were remotely committed to the concept of small government as you pretend to be, you would be, too.

True, when interracial marriage was legalized, it was far less popular than gay marriage is today.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 01:10:19 AM
I've said it before and i'll say it again....

Democracy simply does not work.



Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Ronnie on November 04, 2009, 01:11:43 AM

And rightfully so, as we've just democratized the right of personal freedom in this nation. And if you were remotely committed to the concept of small government as you pretend to be, you would be, too.

It is one issue in which I really don't care about.  If it was legalized across the country, I wouldn't care one bit.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sam Spade on November 04, 2009, 01:12:21 AM
PPP pretty much nailed it.  More props to IVR polling (Chuck Todd, the idiot, be damned).

I may have more substantive commentary on this later.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 01:12:50 AM
Fucck America.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 04, 2009, 01:14:00 AM

I'm not angry. Just sad. Sad that apparently yet another state has voted to say I don't deserve equal rights that you take for granted.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 04, 2009, 01:15:06 AM

And rightfully so, as we've just democratized the right of personal freedom in this nation. And if you were remotely committed to the concept of small government as you pretend to be, you would be, too.

It is one issue in which I really don't care about.  If it was legalized across the country, I wouldn't care one bit.

What if I said they could ban slavery and I wouldn't care one bit :P  [huge extrapolation]

it means a lot to those involved


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 01:15:36 AM
Ban Religion.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Boris on November 04, 2009, 01:16:39 AM
wow, people must not like fags very much to actually take time out of their day to vote for something as silly as this.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: ○∙◄☻Ątπ[╪AV┼cVę└ on November 04, 2009, 01:16:43 AM

Just tax them.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 01:17:17 AM

And rightfully so, as we've just democratized the right of personal freedom in this nation. And if you were remotely committed to the concept of small government as you pretend to be, you would be, too.

It's a state's right to define marriage.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sam Spade on November 04, 2009, 01:18:23 AM
wow, people must not like fags very much to actually take time out of their day to vote for something as silly as this.

Reading posts around here and this type of logic starts to make a bit of sense.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 01:18:34 AM
MSNBC has called it as well.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 04, 2009, 01:19:00 AM

And rightfully so, as we've just democratized the right of personal freedom in this nation. And if you were remotely committed to the concept of small government as you pretend to be, you would be, too.

It's a state's right to define marriage.

You missed the point.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 01:19:03 AM

And rightfully so, as we've just democratized the right of personal freedom in this nation. And if you were remotely committed to the concept of small government as you pretend to be, you would be, too.

It's a state's right to define marriage.

No, it isn't. That's the point you dumbass New Rightists have never understood. It is the right of the institution which performs marriage to define it. If some sect wanted to perform a gay wedding, the State has no authority whatsoever to countermand that, because it is a private institution.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: MasterJedi on November 04, 2009, 01:19:09 AM
Good job Maine!

And it's funny to see the left wanting to do to the right what they think the right is doing to them. Idiotic hypocrites like JFraud and Kucinishisdabest. ::)


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 04, 2009, 01:20:46 AM
btw I fully expect to be ragged for my optimistic prediction of a large No win.  I think the Yes campaign was better run than I saw on the surface and really got the Catholic and rural voters to turn out better than the No's thought they were doing with younger voters.

At least Washington barely didn't take away more rights from the gays.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 01:21:37 AM
Good job Maine!

And it's funny to see the left wanting to do to the right what they think the right is doing to them. Idiotic hypocrites like JFraud and Kucinishisdabest. ::)

So you approve of the government denying the will of private institutions in this area?

The same logic applies to business regulations.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 01:23:16 AM

And rightfully so, as we've just democratized the right of personal freedom in this nation. And if you were remotely committed to the concept of small government as you pretend to be, you would be, too.

It's a state's right to define marriage.

No, it isn't. That's the point you dumbass New Rightists have never understood. It is the right of the institution which performs marriage to define it. If some sect wanted to perform a gay wedding, the State has no authority whatsoever to countermand that, because it is a private institution.

There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 01:23:49 AM
Good job Maine!

And it's funny to see the left wanting to do to the right what they think the right is doing to them. Idiotic hypocrites like JFraud and Kucinishisdabest. ::)

Eye for an eye, idiot.

You're fighting the wrong battle. Call them out directly, using their principles. Shove it under their nose like you would a dog that took a big s**t right where he sleeps.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 04, 2009, 01:25:27 AM
So, just out of pure curiosity, you would defend the right of the state to define marriage as an institution excluding mixed race couples, yes?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: MasterJedi on November 04, 2009, 01:26:05 AM
Good job Maine!

And it's funny to see the left wanting to do to the right what they think the right is doing to them. Idiotic hypocrites like JFraud and Kucinishisdabest. ::)

Eye for an eye, idiot.

Someone's up past their bedtime and mad they didn't get their way tonight!


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 01:26:20 AM
Quote
There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sam Spade on November 04, 2009, 01:26:28 AM
btw I fully expect to be ragged for my optimistic prediction of a large No win.  I think the Yes campaign was better run than I saw on the surface and really got the Catholic and rural voters to turn out better than the No's thought they were doing with younger voters.

At least Washington barely didn't take away more rights from the gays.

Eh, I wouldn't worry.  We all f-up here and again.  I had one major f-up tonight too.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: MasterJedi on November 04, 2009, 01:26:51 AM
So, just out of pure curiosity, you would defend the right of the state to define marriage as an institution excluding mixed race couples, yes?

Me or Inks?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 04, 2009, 01:28:29 AM
So, just out of pure curiosity, you would defend the right of the state to define marriage as an institution excluding mixed race couples, yes?

Me or Inks?

Inks.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 01:28:40 AM
In other words: I like big government - when it does what I want.

The entire conservative movement in this country ought to be bulldozed over and salted.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on November 04, 2009, 01:28:58 AM
And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

"Gay Marriage" led by radical activists who probably want to sue God because two men can't naturally bear a child = Fail.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 01:29:15 AM
Good job Maine!

And it's funny to see the left wanting to do to the right what they think the right is doing to them. Idiotic hypocrites like JFraud and Kucinishisdabest. ::)

Eye for an eye, idiot.

You're fighting the wrong battle. Call them out directly, using their principles. Shove it under their nose like you would a dog that took a big s**t right where he sleeps.

He's the one who believes in a book which says that anyone working on the sabbath should be killed, and yet he picks and chooses which part of the book he wants to follow, like all Christians really.

Peace is the absence of a threat.... this is why religion has to be completely eradicated....


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 01:29:28 AM
So, just out of pure curiosity, you would defend the right of the state to define marriage as an institution excluding mixed race couples, yes?

No - Loving v. Virginia has shown why that's unconstitutional.  Now you're going to bring up that Loving v. VA should be used in gay marriage, and I would respond with Hernandez v. Robles, as well as the fact that the law being looked at in Loving was much different than laws prohibiting gay marriage.  In Loving, the ceremony of marriage as well was being outlawed, and the law assumed that if you were living together and were an inter-racial couple, you were married (if you had gone out of state for the ceremony).  You also have to look at Loving's statement that marriage is a civil right, sourced from Skinner v. Oklahoma, which links marriage with procreation.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on November 04, 2009, 01:29:36 AM
I'm actually surprised by this result. If California and Maine both voted down gay marriage, then is there a state that actually would pass it without a judge taking matters into his own hands? While this result does not affect me, I still don't understand why people are so against the idea of allowing gays to marry.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 01:33:29 AM
And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

"Gay Marriage" led by radical activists who probably want to sue God because two men can't naturally bear a child = Fail.

I like waffles, but I'm absolutely terrified you'll drown if you keep pouring syrup over yourself.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 01:33:52 AM
Quote
There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 04, 2009, 01:37:32 AM
So, just out of pure curiosity, you would defend the right of the state to define marriage as an institution excluding mixed race couples, yes?

No - Loving v. Virginia has shown why that's unconstitutional.  Now you're going to bring up that Loving v. VA should be used in gay marriage, and I would respond with Hernandez v. Robles, as well as the fact that the law being looked at in Loving was much different than laws prohibiting gay marriage.  In Loving, the ceremony of marriage as well was being outlawed, and the law assumed that if you were living together and were an inter-racial couple, you were married (if you had gone out of state for the ceremony).  You also have to look at Loving's statement that marriage is a civil right, sourced from Skinner v. Oklahoma, which links marriage with procreation.

Skinner v. Oklahoma is a case from the early 40's and deals with compulsory sterilization. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation anyway. You can point to Loving v. Virginia as to why you think such a thing would be unconstitutional but I could just as easily point to numerous court cases in the United States (not to mention the ones all over the world that come to similar conclusions) that say preventing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional on similar if not identical grounds.

You can't just pick what you think is unconstitutional and what you don't think is unconstitutional when both are viewed unconstitutional in the eyes of many courts for the same reason. Your entire objection to the hypothetical action of preventing interracial marriage is incoherent since you would support the exact same type of action for another group.

If you believe the state has the right to alter the contract of marriage how it sees fit, then you believe the state has the right to alter it to prevent interracial marriages. Your inconsistent reasoning is just a thin veil for the fact that you don't support it for gay people. Simple as that.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Meeker on November 04, 2009, 01:38:41 AM
The most discouraging part of this whole thing is the impact it's going to have on the national movement. This'll probably stop marriage equality in New York and Rhode Island dead in it's tracks, and would've also in New Jersey (it's dead there now for another big, fat reason).

God I'm pissed.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 01:38:41 AM
Quote
There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

Quote
I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 04, 2009, 01:39:17 AM
And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

That wasn't what the Yes campaign was based on, it was based on incoherent fear tactics arguing that gay marriage is somehow going to be a class taught in school or that parents are going to have to explain to their kids the details of anal sex.

The No campaign seemed to do everything right from what I saw on the surface, I wonder where things broke down.  It could just be that despite not being that religious, Maine is still rural and Catholic and it was a special election and all that jazz was just literally impossible to overcome.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 01:40:11 AM
And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

"Gay Marriage" led by radical activists who probably want to sue God because two men can't naturally bear a child = Fail.

So i guess you are in favor of banning infertile staight people from getting married?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on November 04, 2009, 01:42:15 AM
     I'm surprised the anti-gay marriage side actually did better here than in California, given that I had thought Maine was far more socially liberal.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 01:42:35 AM
And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

"Gay Marriage" led by radical activists who probably want to sue God because two men can't naturally bear a child = Fail.

So i guess you are in favor of banning infertile staight people from getting married?

He's in favor of anything that doesn't upset the delicate status-quo within the Republican Party, even if it means selling out again and again and again on the vital issues.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 01:43:22 AM
So, just out of pure curiosity, you would defend the right of the state to define marriage as an institution excluding mixed race couples, yes?

No - Loving v. Virginia has shown why that's unconstitutional.  Now you're going to bring up that Loving v. VA should be used in gay marriage, and I would respond with Hernandez v. Robles, as well as the fact that the law being looked at in Loving was much different than laws prohibiting gay marriage.  In Loving, the ceremony of marriage as well was being outlawed, and the law assumed that if you were living together and were an inter-racial couple, you were married (if you had gone out of state for the ceremony).  You also have to look at Loving's statement that marriage is a civil right, sourced from Skinner v. Oklahoma, which links marriage with procreation.

Skinner v. Oklahoma is a case from the early 40's and deals with compulsory sterilization. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation anyway. You can point to Loving v. Virginia as to why you think such a thing would be unconstitutional but I could just as easily point to numerous court cases in the United States (not to mention the ones all over the world that come to similar conclusions) that say preventing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional on similar if not identical grounds.

You can't just pick what you think is unconstitutional and what you don't think is unconstitutional when both are viewed unconstitutional in the eyes of many courts for the same reason. Your entire objection to the hypothetical action of preventing interracial marriage is incoherent since you would support the exact same type of action for another group.

If you believe the state has the right to alter the contract of marriage how it sees fit, then you believe the state has the right to alter it to prevent interracial marriages. Your inconsistent reasoning is just a thin veil for the fact that you don't support it for gay people. Simple as that.

Skinner v. OK was the precedent behind Loving v. VA when the Court said that marriage is a civil right.

I'm merely saying that Loving doesn't apply to gay marriage becaue it doesn't - Hernandez v. Robles backs me up on that.  So if you don't use the Loving case (a.k.a. the 14th amendment equal protection clause), what do you use to say that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 01:44:25 AM
In other words: I like big government - when it does what I want.

The entire conservative movement in this country ought to be bulldozed over and salted.

Way to show the tollerance that you argue I should be showing.

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

"Gay Marriage" led by radical activists who probably want to sue God because two men can't naturally bear a child = Fail.

Civil unions or marriage - it doesn't matter what you call it.  The only reason people are more ok with civil unions is because they connect the religious/social construct of marriage with the the civil contract of marriage.

Like I was saying before - there are 2 definitions of marriage, and that's why there's a problem.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 01:46:09 AM
Why has this debate descended into puerile legalism? What matters is the preservation of the national spirit of individualism! I care less what one document says; what matters are the principles behind it - the absolutely freewheeling individualism, the benign freedom-loving of our forefathers. The conservatives have completely abandoned it.

Quote
Way to show the tollerance that you argue I should be showing.

I'm not arguing that you should be showing "tollerance". F**k your "tollerance", and f**k your faith with it - I'm not a liberal. I'm arguing you should be honest about the values you pretend to hold - do you really believe in a smaller government?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sam Spade on November 04, 2009, 01:47:00 AM
This thread went off a deep end.  Guess the substantive commentary will wait for tomorrow.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 01:47:10 AM
Quote
There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

Quote
I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

And how am I a theocrat?  I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana.  I have never said that I want gay marriage to be illegal - I have simply said that states have the rightto do so.  A theocrat would be pushing for the federal government to step in and illegalize it, which I do think is overstepping its bounds, because the gov't has never stepped into the realm of marriage (other than DoMA, which really has no legal impact whatsoever, since states still make their own marriage laws).


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 01:48:11 AM
In my opinion, libertarians shouldn't support state's rights. What's the logic in taking away the right of the federal government to dictate your life, and giving that right to the states?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RI on November 04, 2009, 01:48:19 AM
Here is the county map:

()


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 01:48:26 AM
This thread went off a deep end.  Guess the substantive commentary will wait for tomorrow.

I'm trying to have a discussion on the legality behind gay marriage, but as usually happens with the gay marriage debate, people let their emotions get in the way and they stop looking at the issue from the standpoint of what the law says.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 01:50:50 AM
Quote
There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

Quote
I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

Quote
And how am I a theocrat?  I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana.  I have never said that I want gay marriage to be illegal - I have simply said that states have the rightto do so.  A theocrat would be pushing for the federal government to step in and illegalize it, which I do think is overstepping its bounds, because the gov't has never stepped into the realm of marriage (other than DoMA, which really has no legal impact whatsoever, since states still make their own marriage laws).

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 01:51:43 AM
In my opinion, libertarians shouldn't support state's rights. What's the logic in taking away the right of the federal government to dictate your life, and giving that right to the states?

Precisely. Personal freedom first, states' rights a distant second.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 01:54:05 AM
The Republican Party has been hijacked by morons like Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin, who are three of the least conservative people in America. Barry Goldwater was an honest man who believed in the seperation of church and state, and the Republican Party should base itself around his ideals again (although, ditch the war-mongering).


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sam Spade on November 04, 2009, 01:55:32 AM

I want to see if Al would agree, but what are the odds that a Hillary-Obama primary would have had a very similar map?  :P

Lookie, lookie at working-class, former textile mill Maine.  My oh my!


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 01:55:56 AM
The Republican Party has been hijacked by morons like Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin, who are three of the least conservative people in America. Barry Goldwater was an honest man who believed in the seperation of church and state, and the Republican Party should base itself around his ideals again (although, ditch the war-mongering).

You need to run for office.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 01:56:11 AM
Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 01:56:31 AM
Quote
There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

Quote
I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

Quote
And how am I a theocrat?  I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana.  I have never said that I want gay marriage to be illegal - I have simply said that states have the rightto do so.  A theocrat would be pushing for the federal government to step in and illegalize it, which I do think is overstepping its bounds, because the gov't has never stepped into the realm of marriage (other than DoMA, which really has no legal impact whatsoever, since states still make their own marriage laws).

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

And you're lookin at i from 2 extremes - either I'm a libertarian and I want smaller government...or I'm a theocrat - which is just a logical fallacy.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: ○∙◄☻Ątπ[╪AV┼cVę└ on November 04, 2009, 01:56:55 AM

Wow, why'd it do so well in Aroostock county? Obama won that county by 10 points, while Question 1 did worse in Piscataquis, McCain's sole county in all of New England. And Canada has gay marriage.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 04, 2009, 01:57:22 AM
And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

That wasn't what the Yes campaign was based on, it was based on incoherent fear tactics arguing that gay marriage is somehow going to be a class taught in school or that parents are going to have to explain to their kids the details of anal sex.

The No campaign seemed to do everything right from what I saw on the surface, I wonder where things broke down.  It could just be that despite not being that religious, Maine is still rural and Catholic and it was a special election and all that jazz was just literally impossible to overcome.

Liberals need to be less timid about calling the Right "liars" when they are.  Not Joe Wilson style.  But calmly and methodically point out reality:  the Right's real case is too weak so they lie.

I do not believe that's the right strategy.  That was part of the No On 8 campaign's mistake.

Remember, only some of the electorate was "persuaded" by the campaign messaging, No On 8 clearly had better ads that were unafraid to aggressively tackle the Yes side's strengths head-on.  Mostly it was about getting your saints to turn out better than the other side's saints.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 01:58:35 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 01:58:59 AM
Quote
There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

Quote
I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

Quote
And how am I a theocrat?  I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana.  I have never said that I want gay marriage to be illegal - I have simply said that states have the rightto do so.  A theocrat would be pushing for the federal government to step in and illegalize it, which I do think is overstepping its bounds, because the gov't has never stepped into the realm of marriage (other than DoMA, which really has no legal impact whatsoever, since states still make their own marriage laws).

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

Quote
And you're lookin at i from 2 extremes - either I'm a libertarian and I want smaller government...or I'm a theocrat - which is just a logical fallacy.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 01:59:23 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 01:59:57 AM
And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

That wasn't what the Yes campaign was based on, it was based on incoherent fear tactics arguing that gay marriage is somehow going to be a class taught in school or that parents are going to have to explain to their kids the details of anal sex.

The No campaign seemed to do everything right from what I saw on the surface, I wonder where things broke down.  It could just be that despite not being that religious, Maine is still rural and Catholic and it was a special election and all that jazz was just literally impossible to overcome.

Liberals need to be less timid about calling the Right "liars" when they are.  Not Joe Wilson style.  But calmly and methodically point out reality:  the Right's real case is too weak so they lie.

I do not believe that's the right strategy.  That was part of the No On 8 campaign's mistake.

Remember, only some of the electorate was "persuaded" by the campaign messaging, No On 8 clearly had better ads that were unafraid to aggressively tackle the Yes side's strengths head-on.  Mostly it was about getting your saints to turn out better than the other side's saints.

Although i personally liked it, it was the Mormon ad that probably lost "No on 8" the election.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Ronnie on November 04, 2009, 02:00:18 AM

Wow, why'd it do so well in Aroostock county? Obama won that county by 10 points, while Question 1 did worse in Piscataquis, McCain's sole county in all of New England.

Those counties are pretty erratic when it comes to voting trends.  Susan Collins got 72% in Aroostook and 66% in Piscataquis.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 02:00:31 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:01:05 AM
Quote
There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

Quote
I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

Quote
And how am I a theocrat?  I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana.  I have never said that I want gay marriage to be illegal - I have simply said that states have the rightto do so.  A theocrat would be pushing for the federal government to step in and illegalize it, which I do think is overstepping its bounds, because the gov't has never stepped into the realm of marriage (other than DoMA, which really has no legal impact whatsoever, since states still make their own marriage laws).

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

Quote
And you're lookin at i from 2 extremes - either I'm a libertarian and I want smaller government...or I'm a theocrat - which is just a logical fallacy.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:01:21 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:01:43 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

It's a major political issue - how is it not meaningful?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:02:02 AM
Quote
There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

Quote
I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

Quote
And how am I a theocrat?  I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana.  I have never said that I want gay marriage to be illegal - I have simply said that states have the rightto do so.  A theocrat would be pushing for the federal government to step in and illegalize it, which I do think is overstepping its bounds, because the gov't has never stepped into the realm of marriage (other than DoMA, which really has no legal impact whatsoever, since states still make their own marriage laws).

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

Quote
And you're lookin at i from 2 extremes - either I'm a libertarian and I want smaller government...or I'm a theocrat - which is just a logical fallacy.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:03:04 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

It's a major political issue - how is it not meaningful?

Because there is absolutely no reason for it to be a political issue. But feel free to strawman one out.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:03:29 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:03:57 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.

What does this vote have to do at all with personal liberty?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alcon on November 04, 2009, 02:04:24 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

Explain how gay marriage affects anyone?  Seriously?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:04:58 AM
Quote
There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

Quote
I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

Quote
And how am I a theocrat?  I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana.  I have never said that I want gay marriage to be illegal - I have simply said that states have the rightto do so.  A theocrat would be pushing for the federal government to step in and illegalize it, which I do think is overstepping its bounds, because the gov't has never stepped into the realm of marriage (other than DoMA, which really has no legal impact whatsoever, since states still make their own marriage laws).

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

Quote
And you're lookin at i from 2 extremes - either I'm a libertarian and I want smaller government...or I'm a theocrat - which is just a logical fallacy.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

This isn't regulating marriage - it's legally defining a legal term and legal contract established by the government.  If there was a 3rd party marriage regulation board, it'd be different, but government is creating the legal contract here.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:05:16 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

Explain how gay marriage affects anyone?  Seriously?

Go.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:05:23 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.

What does this vote have to do at all with personal liberty?

The liberty to define one's own lifestyle goes hand-in-hand with the liberty to live as one chooses: one cannot exist without the other. A self-declared "redneck" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to hunt; this means he has the right to own a gun. A self-professed "homosexual" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to fall in love; this means he has the right to marry.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 02:05:43 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sam Spade on November 04, 2009, 02:06:17 AM

Wow, why'd it do so well in Aroostock county? Obama won that county by 10 points, while Question 1 did worse in Piscataquis, McCain's sole county in all of New England.

Those counties are pretty erratic when it comes to voting trends.  Susan Collins got 72% in Aroostook and 66% in Piscataquis.

()

.....hmmmmm.....


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:06:26 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

It's a major political issue - how is it not meaningful?

Because there is absolutely no reason for it to be a political issue. But feel free to strawman one out.

Ther may be no reason for it to be a political issue, but the majority of Americans and the media are interested in it, making it a political issue that people follow.  Why is any issue a major political issue?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:06:41 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.

What does this vote have to do at all with personal liberty?

The liberty to define one's own lifestyle goes hand-in-hand with the liberty to live as one chooses: one cannot exist without the other. A self-declared "redneck" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to hunt; this means he has the right to own a gun. A self-professed "homosexual" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to fall in love; this means he has the right to marry.

This measure has nothing to do with defining a lifestyle. Nor does marriage have anything do do with falling in love.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:07:16 AM
Quote
There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

Quote
I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

Quote
And how am I a theocrat?  I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana.  I have never said that I want gay marriage to be illegal - I have simply said that states have the rightto do so.  A theocrat would be pushing for the federal government to step in and illegalize it, which I do think is overstepping its bounds, because the gov't has never stepped into the realm of marriage (other than DoMA, which really has no legal impact whatsoever, since states still make their own marriage laws).

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

Quote
And you're lookin at i from 2 extremes - either I'm a libertarian and I want smaller government...or I'm a theocrat - which is just a logical fallacy.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

This isn't regulating marriage - it's legally defining a legal term and legal contract established by the government.  If there was a 3rd party marriage regulation board, it'd be different, but government is creating the legal contract here.

Ludicrous. No other contract between two private individuals requires the involvement of the State to construct it. Not one. And a person is not a business. As long as this holds true of every other aspect of American contract law, then it is de facto true for marriage as well.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:07:38 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

Because if you can't marry someone of the same sex, you're worthless - that makes perfect sense.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 04, 2009, 02:07:51 AM
And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

That wasn't what the Yes campaign was based on, it was based on incoherent fear tactics arguing that gay marriage is somehow going to be a class taught in school or that parents are going to have to explain to their kids the details of anal sex.

The No campaign seemed to do everything right from what I saw on the surface, I wonder where things broke down.  It could just be that despite not being that religious, Maine is still rural and Catholic and it was a special election and all that jazz was just literally impossible to overcome.

Liberals need to be less timid about calling the Right "liars" when they are.  Not Joe Wilson style.  But calmly and methodically point out reality:  the Right's real case is too weak so they lie.

I do not believe that's the right strategy.  That was part of the No On 8 campaign's mistake.

Remember, only some of the electorate was "persuaded" by the campaign messaging, No On 8 clearly had better ads that were unafraid to aggressively tackle the Yes side's strengths head-on.  Mostly it was about getting your saints to turn out better than the other side's saints.

Although i personally liked it, it was the Mormon ad that probably lost "No on 8" the election.

lol, no way if we're thinking about the one where the mormons steal those lesbian wedding rings.  It barely made a news buzz, wasn't run by the No On 8 campaign, and probably had something like less than $100k behind it, even if it was $1 million that still means no voters saw the ad.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:07:57 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 02:08:06 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

Explain how gay marriage affects anyone?  Seriously?

I am going to get you and your wife divorced, whether you like it or not. And you are not allowed to visit her in hospital when she's sick, etc


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:08:43 AM
Quote
There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

Quote
I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

Quote
And how am I a theocrat?  I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana.  I have never said that I want gay marriage to be illegal - I have simply said that states have the rightto do so.  A theocrat would be pushing for the federal government to step in and illegalize it, which I do think is overstepping its bounds, because the gov't has never stepped into the realm of marriage (other than DoMA, which really has no legal impact whatsoever, since states still make their own marriage laws).

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

Quote
And you're lookin at i from 2 extremes - either I'm a libertarian and I want smaller government...or I'm a theocrat - which is just a logical fallacy.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

This isn't regulating marriage - it's legally defining a legal term and legal contract established by the government.  If there was a 3rd party marriage regulation board, it'd be different, but government is creating the legal contract here.

Ludicrous. No other contract between two private individuals requires the involvement of the State to construct it. Not one. And a person is not a business. As long as this holds true of every other aspect of American contract law, then it is de facto true for marriage as well.

But it is not the government issuing any of those other contracts.  I don't think the government should be issuing the contract of marriage, but while it issuing it, it has the right to set parameters.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:09:13 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.

What does this vote have to do at all with personal liberty?

The liberty to define one's own lifestyle goes hand-in-hand with the liberty to live as one chooses: one cannot exist without the other. A self-declared "redneck" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to hunt; this means he has the right to own a gun. A self-professed "homosexual" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to fall in love; this means he has the right to marry.

This measure has nothing to do with defining a lifestyle. Nor does marriage have anything do do with falling in love.

Don't be facile. Everything today is identity politics - the Right practices identity politics more often today than the Left. "Joe the Plumber, ho ho ho!"


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 02:09:30 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:09:51 AM
Quote
There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

Quote
I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

Quote
And how am I a theocrat?  I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana.  I have never said that I want gay marriage to be illegal - I have simply said that states have the rightto do so.  A theocrat would be pushing for the federal government to step in and illegalize it, which I do think is overstepping its bounds, because the gov't has never stepped into the realm of marriage (other than DoMA, which really has no legal impact whatsoever, since states still make their own marriage laws).

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

Quote
And you're lookin at i from 2 extremes - either I'm a libertarian and I want smaller government...or I'm a theocrat - which is just a logical fallacy.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

This isn't regulating marriage - it's legally defining a legal term and legal contract established by the government.  If there was a 3rd party marriage regulation board, it'd be different, but government is creating the legal contract here.

Ludicrous. No other contract between two private individuals requires the involvement of the State to construct it. Not one. And a person is not a business. As long as this holds true of every other aspect of American contract law, then it is de facto true for marriage as well.

But it is not the government issuing any of those other contracts.  I don't think the government should be issuing the contract of marriage, but while it issuing it, it has the right to set parameters.

No, it doesn't. It might do it anyway, but that doesn't give it the metaphysical right to do it. Merely because something exists does not make it ethically right.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:10:01 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

Explain how gay marriage affects anyone?  Seriously?

I am going to get you and your wife divorced, whether you like it or not. And you are not allowed to visit her in hospital when she's sick, etc

Visiting in a hospital has nothing to do with marriage - there are easy ways to remedy that situation.  It's an overplayed issue by the gay marriage side.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alcon on November 04, 2009, 02:10:18 AM
This measure has nothing to do with defining a lifestyle. Nor does marriage have anything do do with falling in love.

This affects federal tax benefits, which obviously affect people.  Recognition of gay marriage would remove an implied cultural inferiority that has emotional value.

Essentially everything affects something.  You may personally consider those things unimportant, but why is your opinion -- especially on an issue that does not affect you -- paramount?

Visiting in a hospital has nothing to do with marriage - there are easy ways to remedy that situation.  It's an overplayed issue by the gay marriage side.

Have you seen what's involved?  It's not especially easy, and hospitals can freely choose to ignore it (and sometimes do to avoid liability.)


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:10:43 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:11:10 AM
Quote
There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

Quote
I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

Quote
And how am I a theocrat?  I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana.  I have never said that I want gay marriage to be illegal - I have simply said that states have the rightto do so.  A theocrat would be pushing for the federal government to step in and illegalize it, which I do think is overstepping its bounds, because the gov't has never stepped into the realm of marriage (other than DoMA, which really has no legal impact whatsoever, since states still make their own marriage laws).

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

Quote
And you're lookin at i from 2 extremes - either I'm a libertarian and I want smaller government...or I'm a theocrat - which is just a logical fallacy.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

This isn't regulating marriage - it's legally defining a legal term and legal contract established by the government.  If there was a 3rd party marriage regulation board, it'd be different, but government is creating the legal contract here.

Ludicrous. No other contract between two private individuals requires the involvement of the State to construct it. Not one. And a person is not a business. As long as this holds true of every other aspect of American contract law, then it is de facto true for marriage as well.

But it is not the government issuing any of those other contracts.  I don't think the government should be issuing the contract of marriage, but while it issuing it, it has the right to set parameters.

No, it doesn't. It might do it anyway, but that doesn't give it the metaphysical right to do it. Merely because something exists does not make it ethically right.

So does the government have any right to set parameters on marriage?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:11:39 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

This argument is almost as stupid as reverse racism. Please, change your social score.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:11:59 AM
This measure has nothing to do with defining a lifestyle. Nor does marriage have anything do do with falling in love.

This affects federal tax benefits, which obviously affect people.  Recognition of gay marriage would remove an implied cultural inferiority that has emotional value.

Essentially everything affects something.  You may personally consider those things unimportant, but why is your opinion -- especially on an issue that does not affect you -- paramount?

So why not focus instead on removing those unnecessary benefits from married people? Why not equality for single people? Seriously? Who cares if it's two people or three people or one person? How should a relationship status play a role in government benefits?



Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 02:12:35 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

But they don't have the right to marry the person they love.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:12:42 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

This argument is almost as stupid as reverse racism. Please, change your social score.

My social score is actually lower, I just forgot to update and lost the results.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:12:47 AM
Quote
There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

Quote
I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

Quote
And how am I a theocrat?  I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana.  I have never said that I want gay marriage to be illegal - I have simply said that states have the rightto do so.  A theocrat would be pushing for the federal government to step in and illegalize it, which I do think is overstepping its bounds, because the gov't has never stepped into the realm of marriage (other than DoMA, which really has no legal impact whatsoever, since states still make their own marriage laws).

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

Quote
And you're lookin at i from 2 extremes - either I'm a libertarian and I want smaller government...or I'm a theocrat - which is just a logical fallacy.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

This isn't regulating marriage - it's legally defining a legal term and legal contract established by the government.  If there was a 3rd party marriage regulation board, it'd be different, but government is creating the legal contract here.

Ludicrous. No other contract between two private individuals requires the involvement of the State to construct it. Not one. And a person is not a business. As long as this holds true of every other aspect of American contract law, then it is de facto true for marriage as well.

But it is not the government issuing any of those other contracts.  I don't think the government should be issuing the contract of marriage, but while it issuing it, it has the right to set parameters.

No, it doesn't. It might do it anyway, but that doesn't give it the metaphysical right to do it. Merely because something exists does not make it ethically right.

So does the government have any right to set parameters on marriage?

No, it does not. And that it chooses to do so today - just as it opts to regulate business - is a massive overstepping of its boundaries. If we had genuinely impartial Supreme Court justices, they've have struck down Question 1 yesterday.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:12:58 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

This argument is almost as stupid as reverse racism. Please, change your social score.

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:13:08 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

But they don't have the right to marry the person they love.

Neither do I, depending on who I love.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:14:02 AM
Quote
There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

Quote
I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

Quote
And how am I a theocrat?  I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana.  I have never said that I want gay marriage to be illegal - I have simply said that states have the rightto do so.  A theocrat would be pushing for the federal government to step in and illegalize it, which I do think is overstepping its bounds, because the gov't has never stepped into the realm of marriage (other than DoMA, which really has no legal impact whatsoever, since states still make their own marriage laws).

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

Quote
And you're lookin at i from 2 extremes - either I'm a libertarian and I want smaller government...or I'm a theocrat - which is just a logical fallacy.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

This isn't regulating marriage - it's legally defining a legal term and legal contract established by the government.  If there was a 3rd party marriage regulation board, it'd be different, but government is creating the legal contract here.

Ludicrous. No other contract between two private individuals requires the involvement of the State to construct it. Not one. And a person is not a business. As long as this holds true of every other aspect of American contract law, then it is de facto true for marriage as well.

But it is not the government issuing any of those other contracts.  I don't think the government should be issuing the contract of marriage, but while it issuing it, it has the right to set parameters.

No, it doesn't. It might do it anyway, but that doesn't give it the metaphysical right to do it. Merely because something exists does not make it ethically right.

So does the government have any right to set parameters on marriage?

No, it does not. And that it chooses to do so today - just as it opts to regulate business - is a massive overstepping of its boundaries. If we had genuinely impartial Supreme Court justices, they've have struck down Question 1 yesterday.

And should we be giving benefits to married people, like tax cuts?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:14:13 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

This argument is almost as stupid as reverse racism. Please, change your social score.

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.

Which, in turn, begs the question: why does the government have any right to set the parameters of any contract between individuals? It doesn't.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 02:14:55 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

But they don't have the right to marry the person they love.

Neither do I, depending on who I love.

Strawman.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alcon on November 04, 2009, 02:15:11 AM
So why not focus instead on removing those unnecessary benefits from married people?

I would be happy to, but that political position is dead in the water.

Why not equality for single people? Seriously? Who cares if it's two people or three people or one person? How should a relationship status play a role in government benefits?

There are some rational arguments for the financial situation of partnered persons being different from that of non-partnered persons.  But none of the rational arguments apply to separating any such recognition by sexual orientation.  I would love if government got out of the "marriage" business.  But if they won't, and they certainly won't if we keep voting for "marriage = man + woman" resolutions.  Gay marriage not be the ideal situation, but it is more equitable and is less likely to complete eliminate the consideration of alternative arrangements than "marriage = man + woman + state."


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:15:21 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

This argument is almost as stupid as reverse racism. Please, change your social score.

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.

Oh, that's not authoritarian at all. You're essentially using what Michel Foucault called negative power - coercion, rather than brute force, to get your way. And it's intellectually dishonest.

Didn't you know Jesus hates liars?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:15:34 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

This argument is almost as stupid as reverse racism. Please, change your social score.

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.

Which, in turn, begs the question: why does the government have any right to set the parameters of any contract between individuals? It doesn't.

Because the government created the contract.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:18:01 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

But they don't have the right to marry the person they love.

Neither do I, depending on who I love.

Strawman.

Cute, coming from you.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:18:49 AM
Einzige, you haven't answered my question: And should we be giving benefits to married people, like tax cuts?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:19:13 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

This argument is almost as stupid as reverse racism. Please, change your social score.

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.

Which, in turn, begs the question: why does the government have any right to set the parameters of any contract between individuals? It doesn't.

Because the government created the contract.

Individuals create contracts.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:20:00 AM
So why not focus instead on removing those unnecessary benefits from married people?

I would be happy to, but that political position is dead in the water.

Why not equality for single people? Seriously? Who cares if it's two people or three people or one person? How should a relationship status play a role in government benefits?

There are some rational arguments for the financial situation of partnered persons being different from that of non-partnered persons.  But none of the rational arguments apply to separating any such recognition by sexual orientation.  I would love if government got out of the "marriage" business.  But if they won't, and they certainly won't if we keep voting for "marriage = man + woman" resolutions.  Gay marriage not be the ideal situation, but it is more equitable and is less likely to complete eliminate the consideration of alternative arrangements than "marriage = man + woman + state."

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:20:36 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

This argument is almost as stupid as reverse racism. Please, change your social score.

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.

Which, in turn, begs the question: why does the government have any right to set the parameters of any contract between individuals? It doesn't.

Because the government created the contract.

Individuals create contracts.

Individuals enter into the contract.  The state governments established the civil contract of marriage.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:20:53 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

This argument is almost as stupid as reverse racism. Please, change your social score.

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.

Which, in turn, begs the question: why does the government have any right to set the parameters of any contract between individuals? It doesn't.

Because the government created the contract.

The government most certainly did not create the contract - unless you want to say that, under a hypothetical American Soviet regime, it would be a-okay to ban Christians from marrying. The Church or other institution of worship created it.

Quote
Einzige, you haven't answered my question: And should we be giving benefits to married people, like tax cuts?

Certainly, and you knew I'd agree with it. My position on gay marriage is actually only moderately libertarian: as long as the State is involved, then it must treat its citizens equally by permitting gay marriage. And when it becomes politically viable, then we'd get the State out of the marriage business.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 02:21:27 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

But they don't have the right to marry the person they love.

Neither do I, depending on who I love.

Strawman.

Cute, coming from you.

Thanks.

You can argue that all individuals have equal rights, but all groups certainly don't.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alcon on November 04, 2009, 02:23:21 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 04, 2009, 02:24:32 AM
Extremely outraged rant mode on now:

WHAT THE FUCKING HELL!? For the second time in a year's span the people of a state have taken away the rights of their fellow man to be legal equals based on their sexual orientation. Once again the people of a state have put government in the position of god to dictate what the hell constitutes a loving relationship between people. Once again I am pissed off beyond measure at the puritanical backasswards medieval mindset of people in this nation. Granted I would prefer no government recognition or authority in cohabitative relationships, but I would rather have all people be legal equals before the law instead of this ridiculous marriage segregation.
Anyone who doesn't see what the big deal about this is or just as bad as wastes of spermcells like Tom Coburn or Sally Kern.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:25:07 AM

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

This argument is almost as stupid as reverse racism. Please, change your social score.

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.

Which, in turn, begs the question: why does the government have any right to set the parameters of any contract between individuals? It doesn't.

Because the government created the contract.

The government most certainly did not create the contract - unless you want to say that, under a hypothetical American Soviet regime, it would be a-okay to ban Christians from marrying. The Church or other institution of worship created it.

Quote
Einzige, you haven't answered my question: And should we be giving benefits to married people, like tax cuts?

Certainly, and you knew I'd agree with it. My position on gay marriage is actually only moderately libertarian: as long as the State is involved, then it must treat its citizens equally by permitting gay marriage. And when it becomes politically viable, then we'd get the State out of the marriage business.

Create was the wrong word - but the governmet has established the civilcontract of marriae.

And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:26:13 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Why does polling matter? We should focus on doing what is right and just, not what is "politically viable." Politically viable gave us unions, the Federal Reserve, and the Iraq War.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:26:34 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 04, 2009, 02:26:52 AM
America: Land of the free, home of the brave, unless they are part of the evil "homosexual agenda".


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:28:54 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:28:59 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

The only marriage I support is no marriage. If Question 1 were about heterosexual marriage I would certainly vote yes, even if it kept gay marriages.

Quote
Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

Ironically, those same Mormons are now working hard to prevent others from marrying.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:29:46 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alcon on November 04, 2009, 02:30:30 AM
Why does polling matter? We should focus on doing what is right and just, not what is "politically viable." Politically viable gave us unions, the Federal Reserve, and the Iraq War.

The thing that has the best results is what is just.  What value is principle when it is completely ineffective, and there are benevolent actions that will actually have results?  None; the only result of seeking "higher ideals" is greater suffering and every negative, and just pursuing ideals with no context has no positive means.  You're speaking in mantras.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 02:31:03 AM
America: Land of the free, home of the brave, unless they are part of the evil "homosexual agenda".

Or black, Latino, female, libertarian, liberal, anti-war, pro-equality, a fan of Michael Jackson, a freedom lover, a porn star, or a good looking person.



Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:32:30 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 04, 2009, 02:33:14 AM
America: Land of the free, home of the brave, unless they are part of the evil "homosexual agenda".

Or black, Latino, female, libertarian, liberal, anti-war, pro-equality, a fan of Michael Jackson, a freedom lover, a porn star, or a good looking person.



I agree with everything except the last one. People don't have the right to be good looking.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:33:57 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:34:18 AM
Why does polling matter? We should focus on doing what is right and just, not what is "politically viable." Politically viable gave us unions, the Federal Reserve, and the Iraq War.

The thing that has the best results is what is just.  What value is principle when it is completely ineffective, and there are benevolent actions that will actually have results?  None; the only result of seeking "higher ideals" is greater suffering and every negative, and just pursuing ideals with no context has no positive means.  You're speaking in mantras.

No. That is wrong. Seeing as the government IS deciding what is a marriage, and our government is by the people, and the people ultimately side against gay marriage even in California and Maine, I don't see gay marriage as politically viable. Even so, no marriage is more viable and less intrusive. It comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 02:34:31 AM
I'd also like to say that i wish the guy in my screen name was the President. Obama is proving himself to be a puppet of the Christian Establishment.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:35:06 AM
America: Land of the free, home of the brave, unless they are part of the evil "homosexual agenda".

Or black, Latino, female, libertarian, liberal, anti-war, pro-equality, a fan of Michael Jackson, a freedom lover, a porn star, or a good looking person.



I agree with everything except the last one. People don't have the right to be good looking.

If they did, Helen Thomas woul win one heck of a big lawsuit.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:35:43 AM
I'd also like to say that i wish the guy in my screen name was the President. Obama is proving himself to be a puppet of the Christian Establishment.

And you are surprised? Obama was the corporatist candidate. Corporatism and authoritarianism go hand in hand.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:37:43 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

The fact that you actually believe that you are either an anarchist or a theocrat is just so astounding I really don't know how to respond - I can't think of anybody on this forum who would agree with you.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alcon on November 04, 2009, 02:37:50 AM
No. That is wrong. Seeing as the government IS deciding what is a marriage, and our government is by the people, and the people ultimately side against gay marriage even in California and Maine, I don't see gay marriage as politically viable. Even so, no marriage is more viable and less intrusive. It comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do.

What is wrong?  That gay marriage is "more viable"?  An issue that polls in the low twenties (no marriage) in the only poll I've seen is more viable because...gay marriage isn't viable (ignoring all trending) and therefore everything else is automatically more viable than it?  Again, what.

I also don't understand what you mean by "it comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do."  It's like you're regurgitating arbitrary parts of high school essays on the Federalist Papers.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:37:59 AM
Why does polling matter? We should focus on doing what is right and just, not what is "politically viable." Politically viable gave us unions, the Federal Reserve, and the Iraq War.

The thing that has the best results is what is just.  What value is principle when it is completely ineffective, and there are benevolent actions that will actually have results?  None; the only result of seeking "higher ideals" is greater suffering and every negative, and just pursuing ideals with no context has no positive means.  You're speaking in mantras.

No. That is wrong. Seeing as the government IS deciding what is a marriage, and our government is by the people, and the people ultimately side against gay marriage even in California and Maine, I don't see gay marriage as politically viable. Even so, no marriage is more viable and less intrusive. It comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do.

When it comes to the modern Right, what's the difference? The days have long passed when American conservatives were genuinely opposed to mob rule. Today they encourage it.

Quote
And you are surprised? Obama was the corporatist candidate.

So was McCain.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 04, 2009, 02:38:23 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:39:07 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

The fact that you actually believe that you are either an anarchist or a theocrat is just so astounding I really don't know how to respond - I can't think of anybody on this forum who would agree with you.

Go ask Mint or Mechaman, two other anarcho-cappies.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:39:39 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:39:53 AM
No. That is wrong. Seeing as the government IS deciding what is a marriage, and our government is by the people, and the people ultimately side against gay marriage even in California and Maine, I don't see gay marriage as politically viable. Even so, no marriage is more viable and less intrusive. It comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do.

What is wrong?  That gay marriage is "more viable"?  An issue that polls in the low twenties (no marriage) in the only poll I've seen is more viable because...gay marriage isn't viable (ignoring all trending) and therefore everything else is automatically more viable than it?  Again, what.

I also don't understand what you mean by "it comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do."  It's like you're regurgitating arbitrary parts of high school essays on the Federalist Papers.

Individuals have the right to dictate their own communal partners and define the terms of their own contracts. When you get the government involved, you are now working in the context of a democratic process. You net results such as this and Prop 8.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:40:39 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:41:01 AM
Why does polling matter? We should focus on doing what is right and just, not what is "politically viable." Politically viable gave us unions, the Federal Reserve, and the Iraq War.

The thing that has the best results is what is just.  What value is principle when it is completely ineffective, and there are benevolent actions that will actually have results?  None; the only result of seeking "higher ideals" is greater suffering and every negative, and just pursuing ideals with no context has no positive means.  You're speaking in mantras.

No. That is wrong. Seeing as the government IS deciding what is a marriage, and our government is by the people, and the people ultimately side against gay marriage even in California and Maine, I don't see gay marriage as politically viable. Even so, no marriage is more viable and less intrusive. It comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do.

When it comes to the modern Right, what's the difference? The days have long passed when American conservatives were genuinely opposed to mob rule. Today they encourage it.


There are no more American conservatives. Only populists and liberals.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:41:46 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:42:30 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:44:04 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alcon on November 04, 2009, 02:44:18 AM
Individuals have the right to dictate their own communal partners and define the terms of their own contracts. When you get the government involved, you are now working in the context of a democratic process. You net results such as this and Prop 8.

Yes...which is why I wish the government would butt out.  But that does not mean I find the arbitrary institutional disclusions of gays a moral non-issue.  To me, it's like being OK with banning blacks from buses because you don't like the government being involved in public transit.

That doesn't answer anything about your ridiculous comments about non-marriage being more "viable," or why we should completely ignore the ends and just pursue our utopian visions even if we know that it will result in more evil.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:45:52 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

Where's the extreme nationalism?  Where was the imperialsism?  Nixon did nothing more than STAY in Vietnam  it's not like he was attempting to spread an American empire.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:46:41 AM
Individuals have the right to dictate their own communal partners and define the terms of their own contracts. When you get the government involved, you are now working in the context of a democratic process. You net results such as this and Prop 8.

Yes...which is why I wish the government would butt out.  But that does not mean I find the arbitrary institutional disclusions of gays a moral non-issue.  To me, it's like being OK with banning blacks from buses because you don't like the government being involved in public transit.

That doesn't answer anything about your ridiculous comments about non-marriage being more "viable," or why we should completely ignore the ends and just pursue our utopian visions even if we know that it will result in more evil.

How can no marriage result in "evil"? You're being ridiculous. Also, your argument about blacks on buses is not analogous to my argument, it would be clearly unconstitutional and violation of equal rights for all citizens.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:47:16 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

Where's the extreme nationalism?  Where was the imperialsism?  Nixon did nothing more than STAY in Vietnam  it's not like he was attempting to spread an American empire.

The man wiretapped his political enemies. He subverted the isolationist movement by using infiltrators to strangle dissent. For that matter, he jailed dissenters on trumped-up charges. He expanded the war in an illegal air campaign into Cambodia, a neutral nation. He pushed the War on Drugs at the taxpayer's dole. The man was a fascist.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:47:51 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

Where's the extreme nationalism?  Where was the imperialsism?  Nixon did nothing more than STAY in Vietnam  it's not like he was attempting to spread an American empire.

Actually, Nixon did a lot more to get out of Vietnam without allowing Vietnam to fall to fascism, to be honest. I wouldn't expect a liberal to recognize that accomplishment, however.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:48:37 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:49:10 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

Where's the extreme nationalism?  Where was the imperialsism?  Nixon did nothing more than STAY in Vietnam  it's not like he was attempting to spread an American empire.

Actually, Nixon did a lot more to get out of Vietnam without allowing Vietnam to fall to fascism, to be honest. I wouldn't expect a liberal to recognize that accomplishment, however.

A "liberal"? If you were really a conservative, you'd agree with me. Real conservatives are isolationists. We fear the power a military-industrial complex might give to the State to exert its control over a blind and docile populace.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:49:37 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

Where's the extreme nationalism?  Where was the imperialsism?  Nixon did nothing more than STAY in Vietnam  it's not like he was attempting to spread an American empire.

Actually, Nixon did a lot more to get out of Vietnam without allowing Vietnam to fall to fascism, to be honest. I wouldn't expect a liberal to recognize that accomplishment, however.

So he was a fascist President who tried to protect other nations from falling into fascism.?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:50:04 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?

Ethnic nationalism != fascism. Mussolini was a corporatist, but he adopted Hitler's anti-Jewish programs only when he needed to rely on Germany to halt the Allied advance. Corporatism and militarism are better hallmarks of fascism than racism.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:53:34 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?

Ethnic nationalism != fascism. Mussolini was a corporatist, but he adopted Hitler's anti-Jewish programs only when he needed to rely on Germany to halt the Allied advance. Corporatism and militarism are better hallmarks of fascism than racism.

No - the race aspect is a major tenet of fascism.  Without it, you don't have fascism!


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alcon on November 04, 2009, 02:55:21 AM
How can no marriage result in "evil"? You're being ridiculous. Also, your argument about blacks on buses is not analogous to my argument, it would be clearly unconstitutional and violation of equal rights for all citizens.

It might help if you put more energy into understanding what I'm posting than replying to it hyper-fast.  Pursuing no marriage instead of gay marriage results in more evil because it is a completely doomed political proposition, or close to it.  There is no trending, and as long as >50% of the electorate is unwilling to view marriage in a non-traditionalist way, it will continue to be doomed.

(I) Results of pursuing gay marriage: The trends are with us.  It starts off as a more popular issue.  It's supported by a cohesive subset of the political landscape, which makes advocating for it vastly easier.  Elimination of a bigoted distinction in an institution I think is treated imperfectly (marriage) and unneededly.

(II) Results of pursuing no marriage: No real trends.  Less popular.  No cohesive political subset to activate and advocate.  The result is no political change, and the continuing win of traditionalist , while we wax frustrated on Internet message boards about how rational the position is but nobody will support it.  Yet.  Because you're letting carte blanche traditionalism win.

The ends of (II) being successful would be better than (I) being successful.  But (I) is much more plausible than (II), and thus chances are the outcome of pursuing (I) would be better than pursuing (II).  So, (I) is better than (II) because we cannot magically cause utopia to happen.

The fact that that separation would be Constitutionally addressed does not mean they're not analagous in my moral view.  "Analagous" does not mean identical; you can't demand a tautology.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 02:55:43 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

Where's the extreme nationalism?  Where was the imperialsism?  Nixon did nothing more than STAY in Vietnam  it's not like he was attempting to spread an American empire.

Actually, Nixon did a lot more to get out of Vietnam without allowing Vietnam to fall to fascism, to be honest. I wouldn't expect a liberal to recognize that accomplishment, however.

A "liberal"? If you were really a conservative, you'd agree with me. Real conservatives are isolationists. We fear the power a military-industrial complex might give to the State to exert its control over a blind and docile populace.

I am an isolationist. That doesn't mean I support immediately withdrawing from a war Nixon did not start. Nixon's policies, for the most part, wound down the war Johnson started. If you were really a libertarian, you'd agree with me. Libertarians support freedom.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 02:55:59 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?

Ethnic nationalism != fascism. Mussolini was a corporatist, but he adopted Hitler's anti-Jewish programs only when he needed to rely on Germany to halt the Allied advance. Corporatism and militarism are better hallmarks of fascism than racism.

No - the race aspect is a major tenet of fascism.  Without it, you don't have fascism!

Not at all. Fascism began as a strange blend of nationalism and anarcho-syndicalism during the run-up to World War I: Mussolini was the first pioneer of fascism, and he advocated nothing more than a strong centralized State (including expanding the wellfare rolls) and militarism. While there were many racialists who were fascists, fascism began as essentially race-neutral, being only extremely nationalistic.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 02:59:16 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?

Ethnic nationalism != fascism. Mussolini was a corporatist, but he adopted Hitler's anti-Jewish programs only when he needed to rely on Germany to halt the Allied advance. Corporatism and militarism are better hallmarks of fascism than racism.

No - the race aspect is a major tenet of fascism.  Without it, you don't have fascism!

Not at all. Fascism began as a strange blend of nationalism and anarcho-syndicalism during the run-up to World War I: Mussolini was the first pioneer of fascism, and he advocated nothing more than a strong centralized State (including expanding the wellfare rolls) and militarism. While there were many racialists who were fascists, fascism began as essentially race-neutral, being only extremely nationalistic.

That still doesn't show how Nixon was an imperialist - and moving the war into Cambodia can hardly be considered imperialism.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 04, 2009, 03:02:31 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?

Ethnic nationalism != fascism. Mussolini was a corporatist, but he adopted Hitler's anti-Jewish programs only when he needed to rely on Germany to halt the Allied advance. Corporatism and militarism are better hallmarks of fascism than racism.

No - the race aspect is a major tenet of fascism.  Without it, you don't have fascism!

Not at all. Fascism began as a strange blend of nationalism and anarcho-syndicalism during the run-up to World War I: Mussolini was the first pioneer of fascism, and he advocated nothing more than a strong centralized State (including expanding the wellfare rolls) and militarism. While there were many racialists who were fascists, fascism began as essentially race-neutral, being only extremely nationalistic.

That still doesn't show how Nixon was an imperialist - and moving the war into Cambodia can hardly be considered imperialism.

Imperialism isn't a prerequisite of fascism, either - only militarism, and a glorification of the valors of military combat, is. Antonio de Oliviera Salazar, fascist dictator of Portugal, was an isolationist who refused to support Nazi Germany, but nobody mistakes him for being something other than what he was.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 03:06:00 AM
So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

Quote
And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?

Ethnic nationalism != fascism. Mussolini was a corporatist, but he adopted Hitler's anti-Jewish programs only when he needed to rely on Germany to halt the Allied advance. Corporatism and militarism are better hallmarks of fascism than racism.

No - the race aspect is a major tenet of fascism.  Without it, you don't have fascism!

Not at all. Fascism began as a strange blend of nationalism and anarcho-syndicalism during the run-up to World War I: Mussolini was the first pioneer of fascism, and he advocated nothing more than a strong centralized State (including expanding the wellfare rolls) and militarism. While there were many racialists who were fascists, fascism began as essentially race-neutral, being only extremely nationalistic.

That still doesn't show how Nixon was an imperialist - and moving the war into Cambodia can hardly be considered imperialism.

Imperialism isn't a prerequisite of fascism, either - only militarism, and a glorification of the valors of military combat, is. Antonio de Oliviera Salazar, fascist dictator of Portugal, was an isolationist who refused to support Nazi Germany, but nobody mistakes him for being something other than what he was.

Of course imperialism is.

And the back and forth has been fun, but I hve class in a few hours, so I'm off to bed - I'll be on tomorrow (as always - lol).


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 04, 2009, 03:24:14 AM
btw it's not always horrible to delete old quotations out of the code


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Eraserhead on November 04, 2009, 04:22:11 AM
Score one for us cynics, unfortunately.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sbane on November 04, 2009, 05:01:03 AM
     I'm surprised the anti-gay marriage side actually did better here than in California, given that I had thought Maine was far more socially liberal.

There is a large rural-urban divide as well on the gay marriage issue. This is why gay marriage does better in an urbanized state like California while failing miserably in a place like Montana even though the importance of religion in the people's lives is about the same. Maine actually places less importance on religion than California and yet voted about the same on gay marriage.

Also were there any exit polls done on this race?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: President Mitt on November 04, 2009, 06:18:56 AM
Well that was an unpleasant surprise.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Rowan on November 04, 2009, 06:29:57 AM
What was the result? It ended up getting lost in pages worth of bullsh**t.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Franzl on November 04, 2009, 07:10:14 AM
What was the result? It ended up getting lost in pages worth of bullsh**t.

YES 53-47.


Oh, and f**k.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 04, 2009, 07:32:45 AM
I don't know. In California, I know why we lost. This time we did it right and we still lost. And now ing NOM and the catholic church are having a field day and I don't even wanna think about it. Will of the people to butt in on the lives of the minority!!1


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Hash on November 04, 2009, 07:37:13 AM
Maine, go fuck yourself you regressive bigoted piece of sh**t state. What a worthless dump.

I'm majorly pissed off.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 04, 2009, 07:43:34 AM
I want to see if Al would agree, but what are the odds that a Hillary-Obama primary would have had a very similar map?  :P

The "yes" electoral coalition looks very like the New England Clinton primary coalition, yeah... which is interesting. Deep down these social divisions are obviously important ones.

Quote
Lookie, lookie at working-class, former textile mill Maine.  My oh my!

I knew it was over when I saw the Lewiston results someone posted early on.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 04, 2009, 08:04:10 AM
Wow, why'd it do so well in Aroostock county? Obama won that county by 10 points, while Question 1 did worse in Piscataquis, McCain's sole county in all of New England. And Canada has gay marriage.

Aroostock is overwhelmingly Catholic, which presumably explains things. The parts of Canada Aroostock borders aren't especially (small "l") liberal, fwiw.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 04, 2009, 08:09:26 AM
Maine, go fuck yourself you regressive bigoted piece of sh**t state. What a worthless dump.

I'm majorly pissed off.

It's alright man. Maybe in 3 more years. It's back to talking to voters for them.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Reaganfan on November 04, 2009, 08:11:36 AM
This is almost as good as last year's California: "Keep it straight...YES on 8!"

:D


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 04, 2009, 08:38:44 AM
so, 47% of Maine is morally retrobate...sad news


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: minionofmidas on November 04, 2009, 08:44:47 AM
53-47 is good and close.

Not sludging through this whole thread - someone care to repost a link to results?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on November 04, 2009, 09:29:57 AM
I for one am very pleased with the result making Tuesday a good day for the Conservative Movement.  We've got a Bible-believing governor in Virginia, NJ I'm not so sure about, and we have a pro-lifer in upstate New York.  Then, the biblical definition of marriage is restored in Maine.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sewer on November 04, 2009, 09:38:35 AM
I for one am very pleased with the result making Tuesday a good day for the Conservative Movement.  We've got a Bible-believing governor in Virginia, NJ I'm not so sure about, and we have a pro-lifer in upstate New York.  Then, the biblical definition of marriage is restored in Maine.

()


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Eraserhead on November 04, 2009, 09:40:39 AM
I for one am very pleased with the result making Tuesday a good day for the Conservative Movement.  We've got a Bible-believing governor in Virginia, NJ I'm not so sure about, and we have a pro-lifer in upstate New York.  Then, the biblical definition of marriage is restored in Maine.

Owens is pro-life?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: ChrisJG777 on November 04, 2009, 09:45:53 AM
This is almost as good as last year's California: "Keep it straight...YES on 8!"

:D
so, 47% of Maine is morally retrobate...sad news

Need I say that the pair of you are utter disgraces, a fact that cannot be overemphasised.

I for one am very pleased with the result making Tuesday a good day for the Conservative Movement.  We've got a Bible-believing governor in Virginia, NJ I'm not so sure about, and we have a pro-lifer in upstate New York.  Then, the biblical definition of marriage is restored in Maine.

()

My sentiments exactly.

To all the moralfags, religious wingnuts and other bigots, you may have won this round, but in the long run your attempts to impose you "morals" (which themselves are severely questionable) on everyone else is doomed to failure.  The sane people just won't have it.


Title: Re: (2009) Maine's Question 1
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on November 04, 2009, 09:48:55 AM
Mmm, I guess so. The Massachusetts teacher was a sex-ed teacher for what it's worth, plus all the references to sex in the ad might stir up some abstinence-only program supporters to move more into the yes column. Maybe. All of Yes on 1's ads have basically been about mobilizing the base to get out, though. Not targeting swing voters/independents like the no side.

It would appear that the Yes on 1 side chose the correct strategy.  For a single issue campaign such as this, it is almost always more about GOTV than conversion, at least in the short term.  For the long term, the No on 1 side's approach will pay benefits eventually unless the momentum on this issue shifts, which I don't see happening.  The No on 1 side also would likely have done better had this been a general election instead of a special election.  Given how predictable a petition effort to reverse the legislature on this issue was, same-sex marriage proponents would have been tactically wiser to have waited until the upcoming session to pass the law.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on November 04, 2009, 10:10:52 AM
So what are the results here?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on November 04, 2009, 10:11:40 AM
     If Maine rejects this proposition, I'll go L-ME for a week.
That's probably why the yes side won. ;)


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: minionofmidas on November 04, 2009, 10:21:53 AM
53-47 overall. My plea to bump the link to a result breakdown appears to go unanswered.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Vepres on November 04, 2009, 10:22:54 AM
Just be patient, history is on our side. It's no big deal in the big picture.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on November 04, 2009, 10:24:36 AM
53-47 overall. My plea to bump the link to a result breakdown appears to go unanswered.

And that is in favor of what side?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Aizen on November 04, 2009, 10:35:27 AM
Maine is a joke state now


I'm surprised, if this can't pass in Maine... is there any hope for America?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Beet on November 04, 2009, 10:39:46 AM
Well, in one of the whitest states in the union, voters rejected gay marriage (minorities are far less favorable to these sorts of things).  But don't worry, gay-lovers, while the battle is ours, the war is inevitably yours.  Young people are the wave of the future, and studies confirm that traditional families are in decline while homosexuals are having the most children.

And BTW, Owens is actually pro-choice.  But he's against gay marriage and against the public option.  Congrats on your victory!

Owens endorsed the House version of the public option [a limited, closed exchange version] in the only televised debate.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Eraserhead on November 04, 2009, 10:40:12 AM
Maine is a joke state now


I'm surprised, if this can't pass in Maine... is there any hope for America?

For the gay, not in the short term, that's for sure.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 04, 2009, 10:48:49 AM
Maine is a joke state now


I'm surprised, if this can't pass in Maine... is there any hope for America?

You're acting as if Maine is a carbon copy of Massachussets, Vermont or Rhode Island. FWIW, Maine was really liberal in every other Question on the ballot as well.


Suck it Reaganfan, TABOR II went down in flames by 20%, and a tax repeal initiative by 50%. Where's your Hoffman now?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Brittain33 on November 04, 2009, 10:49:44 AM
Maine is a joke state now


I'm surprised, if this can't pass in Maine... is there any hope for America?

For the gay, not in the short term, that's for sure.

We can't win in referenda, for certain. The next moves are New York, legislatively post-2010, and possibly NJ in the lame duck session although I don't know what happens there. Then in the middle range, legislatively in Illinois and a repeal in CA on the ballot in 2012 or 2016.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Brittain33 on November 04, 2009, 10:51:40 AM

I'm not getting the Maine bashing. I'm sure Mass. would have voted against gay marriage in 2006 if it had gone to the ballot as Romney and Finneran wanted. We don't win popularity contests. Minority rights rarely do. Meanwhile, No on 1 did an amazing job, and Maine's legislature and governor really led on this issue unlike any other state. I'm disappointed but not demoralized or surprised.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on November 04, 2009, 10:53:01 AM
If Jari Askins, the Democratic candidate for Governor in Oklahoma, is saying that, I'd hate to think what the Republican is saying.

Also, she's a big old closet-case. I mean, look at her:

()


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 04, 2009, 10:58:05 AM

I'm not getting the Maine bashing. I'm sure Mass. would have voted against gay marriage in 2006 if it had gone to the ballot as Romney and Finneran wanted. We don't win popularity contests. Minority rights rarely do. Meanwhile, No on 1 did an amazing job, and Maine's legislature and governor really led on this issue unlike any other state. I'm disappointed but not demoralized or surprised.

Mmhmm. It's now in people's minds in Maine. I bet it's basically become a given after last night for Democratic officials in Maine to support same-sex marriage now, even if it narrowly lost. Just like what happened in California.

Compared to California, it won't be easy to plot the next step in Maine because Maine actually led a good GOTV operation. I'm guessing 2012 will be the next shot. Fortunately with what I said about the Democrats supporting it now, and Peter Mills probably being the Republican nominee, I'm willing to bet that Maine's next governor would sign the same bill.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 04, 2009, 11:02:54 AM
We can't win in referenda, for certain. The next moves are New York, legislatively post-2010, and possibly NJ in the lame duck session although I don't know what happens there. Then in the middle range, legislatively in Illinois and a repeal in CA on the ballot in 2012 or 2016.

Now that Corzine lost, I think you can look for a push for gay marriage as a real certainty.  They have the numbers in the Assembly, but the Senate may be tougher with only a 23-17 split, with two of those Democrats representing lean-Republican districts.

Anyway, I hope this means Obama starts feeling REAL pressure to do something about gay rights.  We're moving backwards, not forwards.  And I hope the Maine legislature has the cajones to pass gay marriage again.  Otherwise, I'm taking my torch and pitchfork and taking out 53% of the state.

I'm not getting the Maine bashing. I'm sure Mass. would have voted against gay marriage in 2006 if it had gone to the ballot as Romney and Finneran wanted. We don't win popularity contests. Minority rights rarely do. Meanwhile, No on 1 did an amazing job, and Maine's legislature and governor really led on this issue unlike any other state. I'm disappointed but not demoralized or surprised.

Honestly, I think Massachusetts would have narrowly supported gay marriage.  It's more than a few percentage points more liberal than Maine, after all.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Brittain33 on November 04, 2009, 11:04:55 AM
Honestly, I think Massachusetts would have narrowly supported gay marriage.  It's more than a few percentage points more liberal than Maine, after all.

Massachusetts would have an active anti-gay campaign in the race with at least some strong legislative support and local mayors. The organization wouldn't have been as lopsided. Romney would have stayed around to take a stand on it and we all saw how much integrity Kerry Healey had about bringing her campaign into the sewers.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: minionofmidas on November 04, 2009, 11:22:15 AM
53-47 overall. My plea to bump the link to a result breakdown appears to go unanswered.

And that is in favor of what side?
Yes to the referendum, ie no to gay marriage


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 04, 2009, 11:28:50 AM
     If Maine rejects this proposition, I'll go L-ME for a week.
That's probably why the yes side won. ;)

I'm doing it as a protest.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 11:32:11 AM
And to think that Maine voted for the libertarian Republican Arnold Vinick in The West Wing.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Brittain33 on November 04, 2009, 11:32:38 AM
Then, the biblical definition of marriage is restored in Maine.

A moral values voter defends the sanctity of traditional marriage:

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?p=6032

(nsfw)


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sam Spade on November 04, 2009, 11:38:32 AM
I knew it was over when I saw the Lewiston results someone posted early on.

I should have paid more attention to this thread earlier in the evening cause your right.  The 60-40 Yes result there meant it was doomed.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 04, 2009, 11:43:04 AM
This is almost as good as last year's California: "Keep it straight...YES on 8!"

:D
so, 47% of Maine is morally retrobate...sad news

Need I say that the pair of you are utter disgraces, a fact that cannot be overemphasised.

Rom 1:21-32
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


Psa 1:1-3
 1 Blessed is the man
       who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
       or stand in the way of sinners
       or sit in the seat of mockers.

 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
       and on his law he meditates day and night.

 3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water,
       which yields its fruit in season
       and whose leaf does not wither.
       Whatever he does prospers.



Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 04, 2009, 11:52:46 AM
Alright, I have to admit jmfcst, that was pretty damn darn convincing.  I think I'm gonna have to try this Christianity thing I keep hearing so much about, give it the 'ole whirl. 


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 04, 2009, 12:01:29 PM
53-47 is good and close.

Not sludging through this whole thread - someone care to repost a link to results?

I don't know where it be either. But someone posted a map:



Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 04, 2009, 12:02:18 PM
This is almost as good as last year's California: "Keep it straight...YES on 8!"

:D
so, 47% of Maine is morally retrobate...sad news

Need I say that the pair of you are utter disgraces, a fact that cannot be overemphasised.

Rom 1:21-32
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


Psa 1:1-3
 1 Blessed is the man
       who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
       or stand in the way of sinners
       or sit in the seat of mockers.

 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
       and on his law he meditates day and night.

 3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water,
       which yields its fruit in season
       and whose leaf does not wither.
       Whatever he does prospers.



1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry
   whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods,
   nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 04, 2009, 12:03:53 PM
53-47 is good and close.

Not sludging through this whole thread - someone care to repost a link to results?

I don't know where it be either. But someone posted a map:



http://www.bangordailynews.com/electionresults.html


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Devilman88 on November 04, 2009, 12:09:37 PM

And rightfully so, as we've just democratized the right of personal freedom in this nation. And if you were remotely committed to the concept of small government as you pretend to be, you would be, too.

It's a state's right to define marriage.

No, it isn't. That's the point you dumbass New Rightists have never understood. It is the right of the institution which performs marriage to define it. If some sect wanted to perform a gay wedding, the State has no authority whatsoever to countermand that, because it is a private institution.

Wow, we agree on something!


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Franzl on November 04, 2009, 12:23:13 PM
I for one am very pleased with the result making Tuesday a good day for the Conservative Movement.  We've got a Bible-believing governor in Virginia, NJ I'm not so sure about, and we have a pro-lifer in upstate New York.  Then, the biblical definition of marriage is restored in Maine.

Is everybody so damn ignorant in your bible-believing glorious hellhole Oklahoma?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 04, 2009, 12:32:09 PM
1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry
   whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods,
   nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.

oh, I am not going to stop you from doing what you what.  go ahead and marry ten men...just don't ask me to recognize it


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 04, 2009, 12:33:43 PM
No one's asking you to recognize it, in fact no one cares that you recognize anything cause you're irrelevant. This is about the state recognizing the marriages. And now I'm awaiting that you reply to me by quoting at least 10 Bible verses.

And I'm not gonna lie, I read Franzl's post, and saw the avatar, and thought it was our other favourite D-IL poster.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 04, 2009, 12:41:16 PM
No one's asking you to recognize it, in fact no one cares that you recognize anything cause you're irrelevant. This is about the state recognizing the marriages. And now I'm awaiting that you reply to me by quoting at least 10 Bible verses.

the state is an extension of the people, the people are an extension of the individual.  Sodom and Gomorrah is not just historical, it is also prophetical, which is why Jesus used it to describe the end times.  Your side will get their way, but only for a season, until Christ returns.  As for me, I will choose to hold to God's word.  I will not join with those who believe the lie and are condemned.  So, let the chips fall where they may.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Franzl on November 04, 2009, 12:52:30 PM
And I'm not gonna lie, I read Franzl's post, and saw the avatar, and thought it was our other favourite D-IL poster.

Understandable...;) I get upset with that kind of garbage though.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on November 04, 2009, 01:19:14 PM
And I'm not gonna lie, I read Franzl's post, and saw the avatar, and thought it was our other favourite D-IL poster.

Understandable...;) I get upset with that kind of garbage though.

What part of Bushie's post was "ignorant"?   I don't agree with him particularly but I'm confused what you what was ignorant in his posting.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Reaganfan on November 04, 2009, 01:27:50 PM
The problem with you liberals is I hear someone say: I am for same sex marriage.

My response is: Okay, I'm not.

I say: I am against same sex marriage.

Your response is: OMG BIGOT OMG CAVEMAN HOW DARE YOU SO HEARTLESS BOO FRICKIN HOO@@@!


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Dan the Roman on November 04, 2009, 01:28:56 PM
Everyone talking about the results is missing one thing. This was not a turnout issue. Turnout was substantially greater than in the 2006 general election and was well over 60% of registered voters, and  I doubt Young voters or Democrats stayed home much at all. There are no similarities between Maine and what happened in New Jersey and Virginia.

 In fact, I would argue that had you told the NO campaign two days ago they would get 270,000+ votes they would have been overjoyed and expected a ten to twelve point win.  The real problem here had nothing to do with enthuisasm or base turnout. It had to do with the utter failure of the NO campaign to make headway in the traditionally Democratic but socially conservative places like Lewiston. A democrat can not lose Lewiston by 20 points and win an election in Maine. They ran a campaign focused on running up the margin in Cumberland county and hoped for regular off-year turnout everywhere else. They succeeded in the first and failed in the latter.

This realy does reinforce however how different Cumberland county is from the rest of Maine. Without Cumberland, Maine is the poorest state in the Union, and it has more in common with suburban Massachusetts than with the rest of Maine. Look at the results in Portland, Cape Elizabeth, Brunswick, 71%, 68% and 65% NO. The big divide was not age or partisan politics but class. The elite have a consensus in favor of Gay Marriage, but it was not spead outside that elite, even to Democrats or Young Voters who might otherwise be attracted to it.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 04, 2009, 01:30:39 PM
Everyone talking about the results is missing one thing. This was not a turnout issue. Turnout was substantially greater than in the 2006 general election and was well over 60% of registered voters, and  I doubt Young voters or Democrats stayed home much at all. There are no similarities between Maine and what happened in New Jersey and Virginia.

 In fact, I would argue that had you told the NO campaign two days ago they would get 270,000+ votes they would have been overjoyed and expected a ten to twelve point win.  The real problem here had nothing to do with enthuisasm or base turnout. It had to do with the utter failure of the NO campaign to make headway in the traditionally Democratic but socially conservative places like Lewiston. A democrat can not lose Lewiston by 20 points and win an election in Maine. They ran a campaign focused on running up the margin in Cumberland county and hoped for regular off-year turnout everywhere else. They succeeded in the first and failed in the latter.

This realy does reinforce however how different Cumberland county is from the rest of Maine. Without Cumberland, Maine is the poorest state in the Union, and it has more in common with suburban Massachusetts than with the rest of Maine. Look at the results in Portland, Cape Elizabeth, Brunswick, 71%, 68% and 65% NO. The big divide was not age or partisan politics but class. The elite have a consensus in favor of Gay Marriage, but it was not spead outside that elite, even to Democrats or Young Voters who might otherwise be attracted to it.


Old people tend to vote in large numbers for things like this, as they are more religious than any other age group.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Brittain33 on November 04, 2009, 01:41:42 PM
The problem with you liberals is I hear someone say: I am for same sex marriage.

My response is: Okay, I'm not.

I say: I am against same sex marriage.

Your response is: OMG BIGOT OMG CAVEMAN HOW DARE YOU SO HEARTLESS BOO FRICKIN HOO@@@!

From what I've seen, you aren't getting any responses at all to your opinions. Except when you phrase them in a way a little different from "I am against same sex marriage."


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Dan the Roman on November 04, 2009, 01:44:55 PM
Everyone talking about the results is missing one thing. This was not a turnout issue. Turnout was substantially greater than in the 2006 general election and was well over 60% of registered voters, and  I doubt Young voters or Democrats stayed home much at all. There are no similarities between Maine and what happened in New Jersey and Virginia.

 In fact, I would argue that had you told the NO campaign two days ago they would get 270,000+ votes they would have been overjoyed and expected a ten to twelve point win.  The real problem here had nothing to do with enthuisasm or base turnout. It had to do with the utter failure of the NO campaign to make headway in the traditionally Democratic but socially conservative places like Lewiston. A democrat can not lose Lewiston by 20 points and win an election in Maine. They ran a campaign focused on running up the margin in Cumberland county and hoped for regular off-year turnout everywhere else. They succeeded in the first and failed in the latter.

This realy does reinforce however how different Cumberland county is from the rest of Maine. Without Cumberland, Maine is the poorest state in the Union, and it has more in common with suburban Massachusetts than with the rest of Maine. Look at the results in Portland, Cape Elizabeth, Brunswick, 71%, 68% and 65% NO. The big divide was not age or partisan politics but class. The elite have a consensus in favor of Gay Marriage, but it was not spead outside that elite, even to Democrats or Young Voters who might otherwise be attracted to it.


Old people tend to vote in large numbers for things like this, as they are more religious than any other age group.

True and they probably were overpresented versus 2008. But this was a higher turnout than 2006 or 2002 and is approaching the 2000 Presidential eleection. The problem was that this was an off-year. The problem was deeper. Young voters did turnout. NO got the votes they thought they needed. The Yes people just got more.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Franzl on November 04, 2009, 01:56:46 PM
Your response is: OMG BIGOT OMG CAVEMAN HOW DARE YOU SO HEARTLESS BOO FRICKIN HOO@@@!

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to tell you how illogical and freedom hating it is.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 04, 2009, 01:59:43 PM
Yes, the class angle seems to have been an important one. More so than in most other votes on this issue - I suppose that cultural differences between the Portland area and the rest of the state account for that.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Franzl on November 04, 2009, 02:03:52 PM
And I'm not gonna lie, I read Franzl's post, and saw the avatar, and thought it was our other favourite D-IL poster.

Understandable...;) I get upset with that kind of garbage though.

What part of Bushie's post was "ignorant"?   I don't agree with him particularly but I'm confused what you what was ignorant in his posting.

I find it ignorant that he doesn't believe in the seperation of church and state. Go ahead and oppose gay marriage, but it's a disgrace to oppose it because of the "bibical" definition of marriage. (Although I admit, there is no reasonable secular argument against it) I consider it ignorant to believe that the bible should have any relevance in public debate about any issue, let alone one that denies people rights.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: ChrisJG777 on November 04, 2009, 02:05:09 PM
This is almost as good as last year's California: "Keep it straight...YES on 8!"

:D
so, 47% of Maine is morally retrobate...sad news

Need I say that the pair of you are utter disgraces, a fact that cannot be overemphasised.

Rom 1:21-32
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


Psa 1:1-3
 1 Blessed is the man
       who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
       or stand in the way of sinners
       or sit in the seat of mockers.

 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
       and on his law he meditates day and night.

 3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water,
       which yields its fruit in season
       and whose leaf does not wither.
       Whatever he does prospers.



And your point being?  None whatsoever.  You know I won't fall for any of that rubbish so I don't know why you even try.  The more I see people pulling that idiotic stunt you're performing the more turned off I am by organised religion.

1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.

Indeed.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 04, 2009, 02:16:34 PM
No one's asking you to recognize it, in fact no one cares that you recognize anything cause you're irrelevant. This is about the state recognizing the marriages. And now I'm awaiting that you reply to me by quoting at least 10 Bible verses.

the state is an extension of the people, the people are an extension of the individual.  Sodom and Gomorrah is not just historical, it is also prophetical, which is why Jesus used it to describe the end times.  Your side will get their way, but only for a season, until Christ returns.  As for me, I will choose to hold to God's word.  I will not join with those who believe the lie and are condemned.  So, let the chips fall where they may.

Yeah, I wouldn't have minded getting into a debate about state vs people, but you had to go into a whole speech about some fairy tale.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Badger on November 04, 2009, 03:38:04 PM
This is almost as good as last year's California: "Keep it straight...YES on 8!"

:D
so, 47% of Maine is morally retrobate...sad news

Need I say that the pair of you are utter disgraces, a fact that cannot be overemphasised.

Rom 1:21-32
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


Psa 1:1-3
 1 Blessed is the man
       who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
       or stand in the way of sinners
       or sit in the seat of mockers.

 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
       and on his law he meditates day and night.

 3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water,
       which yields its fruit in season
       and whose leaf does not wither.
       Whatever he does prospers.



And your point being?  None whatsoever.  You know I won't fall for any of that rubbish so I don't know why you even try.  The more I see people pulling that idiotic stunt you're performing the more turned off I am by organised religion.

1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.

Indeed.

May I simply note that Jmfcst and his ilk do not speak for all of us Christians. Such selective reliance on handpicked portions of scripture---particularly the Levitican priestly codes---to justify his personal social mores, while ignoring Christ's unambiguous message throughout the Gospels of unqualified unreserved love for all his children, well, shall we nicely say "misses the point entirely"?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 04, 2009, 03:48:31 PM
In case anyone wanted the (almost) full results:

596 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 98%
 Yes 298,787 52.79%
 No 267,188 47.21%


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on November 04, 2009, 03:52:12 PM
     Chrstians opposing gay marriage is one thing, but the results in Washington make me wonder how many of them are cool with gay civil unions. Surely any individual actor has the fundamental right to be as morally reprobate as s/he wishes, provided that s/he does not harm anyone else.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 04, 2009, 03:57:48 PM
I for one am very pleased with the result making Tuesday a good day for the Conservative Movement.  We've got a Bible-believing governor in Virginia, NJ I'm not so sure about, and we have a pro-lifer in upstate New York.  Then, the biblical definition of marriage is restored in Maine.

Is everybody so damn ignorant in your bible-believing glorious hellhole Oklahoma?

(awkward silence)
Man, this state feels empty of civil libertarians!


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: President Mitt on November 04, 2009, 04:15:01 PM
Since I am obviously not going to pitch a tent in Portland to object to this portrayal of bigotry, putting an L-ME in my avatar shall suffice for now.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: JSojourner on November 04, 2009, 04:31:29 PM
This is almost as good as last year's California: "Keep it straight...YES on 8!"

:D
so, 47% of Maine is morally retrobate...sad news

Need I say that the pair of you are utter disgraces, a fact that cannot be overemphasised.

Rom 1:21-32
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


Psa 1:1-3
 1 Blessed is the man
       who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
       or stand in the way of sinners
       or sit in the seat of mockers.

 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
       and on his law he meditates day and night.

 3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water,
       which yields its fruit in season
       and whose leaf does not wither.
       Whatever he does prospers.



And your point being?  None whatsoever.  You know I won't fall for any of that rubbish so I don't know why you even try.  The more I see people pulling that idiotic stunt you're performing the more turned off I am by organised religion.

1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.

Indeed.

May I simply note that Jmfcst and his ilk do not speak for all of us Christians. Such selective reliance on handpicked portions of scripture---particularly the Levitican priestly codes---to justify his personal social mores, while ignoring Christ's unambiguous message throughout the Gospels of unqualified unreserved love for all his children, well, shall we nicely say "misses the point entirely"?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 04, 2009, 04:37:14 PM
1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry
   whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods,
   nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.

oh, I am not going to stop you from doing what you what.  go ahead and marry ten men...just don't ask me to recognize it

No one cares if YOU recognize it or not.  Or even LIKE it.

What's important is that the LAW recognizes it.  You know, the simple dignity of being able to pass on property without it being unfairly taxed by the government.  Or being able to visit someone in the hospital.

I don't understand why people are so fervently opposed to THAT, that they don't even care about pretending it's about the institution of marriage and instead fight against any sort of recognition, any sort of "favor."


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 04, 2009, 04:47:58 PM
May I simply note that Jmfcst and his ilk do not speak for all of us Christians. Such selective reliance on handpicked portions of scripture---particularly the Levitican priestly codes---to justify his personal social mores, while ignoring Christ's unambiguous message throughout the Gospels of unqualified unreserved love for all his children, well, shall we nicely say "misses the point entirely"?

JSojourner/Badger

That is an extremely BLIND argument that makes a TOTAL MOCKERY out of the bible.  God’s love brings freedom, but does God’s love give us a license to do whatever we please?  I think NOT!

Gal 5:13 “But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature.”

God’s love gives us freedom FROM sin, not freedom TO sin!  Therefore, sin is NOT defined by God’s love, rather it is defined by God requirements.  And in the case of sexual immorality, the question becomes “What is the context God established for human sexual activity?”


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: ChrisJG777 on November 04, 2009, 04:59:06 PM
This is almost as good as last year's California: "Keep it straight...YES on 8!"

:D
so, 47% of Maine is morally retrobate...sad news

Need I say that the pair of you are utter disgraces, a fact that cannot be overemphasised.

Rom 1:21-32
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


Psa 1:1-3
 1 Blessed is the man
       who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
       or stand in the way of sinners
       or sit in the seat of mockers.

 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
       and on his law he meditates day and night.

 3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water,
       which yields its fruit in season
       and whose leaf does not wither.
       Whatever he does prospers.



And your point being?  None whatsoever.  You know I won't fall for any of that rubbish so I don't know why you even try.  The more I see people pulling that idiotic stunt you're performing the more turned off I am by organised religion.

1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.

Indeed.

May I simply note that Jmfcst and his ilk do not speak for all of us Christians. Such selective reliance on handpicked portions of scripture---particularly the Levitican priestly codes---to justify his personal social mores, while ignoring Christ's unambiguous message throughout the Gospels of unqualified unreserved love for all his children, well, shall we nicely say "misses the point entirely"?

What I was saying there was really just me having a rant at jmfcst there, not attempting to make any generalisations or the likes.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on November 04, 2009, 04:59:28 PM
Can you all take the religion pissing contest to general discussion? I for one have no interest in reading this crap here.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Brittain33 on November 04, 2009, 05:12:37 PM
Can you all take the religion pissing contest to general discussion? I for one have no interest in reading this crap here.

Amen.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 04, 2009, 05:17:53 PM
Can you all take the religion pissing contest to general discussion? I for one have no interest in reading this crap here.

then maybe this thread should stop attempting to crucify those that oppose gay marriage and it wouldn't turn into such


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 04, 2009, 05:21:18 PM
then maybe this thread should stop attempting to crucify those that oppose gay marriage and it wouldn't turn into such

where do you find the courage?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on November 04, 2009, 06:08:24 PM
1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry
   whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods,
   nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.

oh, I am not going to stop you from doing what you what.  go ahead and marry ten men...just don't ask me to recognize it

No one cares if YOU recognize it or not.  Or even LIKE it.

What's important is that the LAW recognizes it.  You know, the simple dignity of being able to pass on property without it being unfairly taxed by the government.  Or being able to visit someone in the hospital.

I don't understand why people are so fervently opposed to THAT, that they don't even care about pretending it's about the institution of marriage and instead fight against any sort of recognition, any sort of "favor."

That's precisely why I support civil unions by-and-large, because every person has a right to be cared for and loved and a right to care and love no matter their sexual orientation.  Just because I may not agree with their choice doesn't mean they're any less entitled to the same rights as I do.

As for same-sex marriage, what I said in a post earlier in this thread needs clarification.  I don't support it per se, but I feel I don't have a right to discriminate against it with the "Bible" excuse, because we, as Christians, haven't exactly lived up to what the Bible also says about marriage, and I'm talking about DIVORCE.  Its a matter of trying to take the plank out of your eye when i have a log in mine.  So, I don't like gay marriage, and I probably never will, but one thing I have always believed when I point a finger at my good friend, I have three fingers pointing right back at me.  If I were only to open those three fingers and extend the hand of good fellowship and aide to my brothers and sisters.  I guess what I'm trying to get at is I believe gay marriage is wrong, but divorce is equally as wrong, so until we, as Christians, get that plank called divorce out of our eye, we can't see clearly to erradicate gay marriage from the global discussion.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 04, 2009, 06:10:59 PM
1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry
   whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods,
   nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.

oh, I am not going to stop you from doing what you what.  go ahead and marry ten men...just don't ask me to recognize it

No one cares if YOU recognize it or not.  Or even LIKE it.

What's important is that the LAW recognizes it.  You know, the simple dignity of being able to pass on property without it being unfairly taxed by the government.  Or being able to visit someone in the hospital.

I don't understand why people are so fervently opposed to THAT, that they don't even care about pretending it's about the institution of marriage and instead fight against any sort of recognition, any sort of "favor."

That's precisely why I support civil unions by-and-large, because every person has a right to be cared for and loved and a right to care and love no matter their sexual orientation.  Just because I may not agree with their choice doesn't mean they're any less entitled to the same rights as I do.

As for same-sex marriage, what I said in a post earlier in this thread needs clarification.  I don't support it per se, but I feel I don't have a right to discriminate against it with the "Bible" excuse, because we, as Christians, haven't exactly lived up to what the Bible also says about marriage, and I'm talking about DIVORCE.  Its a matter of trying to take the plank out of your eye when i have a log in mine.  So, I don't like gay marriage, and I probably never will, but one thing I have always believed when I point a finger at my good friend, I have three fingers pointing right back at me.  If I were only to open those three fingers and extend the hand of good fellowship and aide to my brothers and sisters.  I guess what I'm trying to get at is I believe gay marriage is wrong, but divorce is equally as wrong, so until we, as Christians, get that plank called divorce out of our eye, we can't see clearly to erradicate gay marriage from the global discussion.

Some of you may rag on Okie for some of his views on this matter, but trust me folks his views on this issue are WAAAAY better than most other Oklahoma social conservatives. Trust me.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Franzl on November 04, 2009, 06:13:55 PM
1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry
   whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods,
   nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.

oh, I am not going to stop you from doing what you what.  go ahead and marry ten men...just don't ask me to recognize it

No one cares if YOU recognize it or not.  Or even LIKE it.

What's important is that the LAW recognizes it.  You know, the simple dignity of being able to pass on property without it being unfairly taxed by the government.  Or being able to visit someone in the hospital.

I don't understand why people are so fervently opposed to THAT, that they don't even care about pretending it's about the institution of marriage and instead fight against any sort of recognition, any sort of "favor."

That's precisely why I support civil unions by-and-large, because every person has a right to be cared for and loved and a right to care and love no matter their sexual orientation.  Just because I may not agree with their choice doesn't mean they're any less entitled to the same rights as I do.

As for same-sex marriage, what I said in a post earlier in this thread needs clarification.  I don't support it per se, but I feel I don't have a right to discriminate against it with the "Bible" excuse, because we, as Christians, haven't exactly lived up to what the Bible also says about marriage, and I'm talking about DIVORCE.  Its a matter of trying to take the plank out of your eye when i have a log in mine.  So, I don't like gay marriage, and I probably never will, but one thing I have always believed when I point a finger at my good friend, I have three fingers pointing right back at me.  If I were only to open those three fingers and extend the hand of good fellowship and aide to my brothers and sisters.  I guess what I'm trying to get at is I believe gay marriage is wrong, but divorce is equally as wrong, so until we, as Christians, get that plank called divorce out of our eye, we can't see clearly to erradicate gay marriage from the global discussion.

That's a very thoughtful post.

One question I still have though: If you can accept the arguments in favor of civil unions, and you clearly explained your reasoning for that, how can you not support marriage?

Basically, do you believe in the seperation of church and state? If yes, I challenge you to find one argument against full state recognition of marriage. The state cannot recognize religious arguments, and if it does, it is clearly discriminating against people who hold different religious beliefs or none at all.

Any church should be able to marry whoever they want, based on whatever crazy rules they want. That's their business, and they're free to do it.

But the state has no business in playing that game, the state is there to provide worldy representation in a fair and objective manner. Discrminating against two consenting adults that happen to be of the same sex simply isn't acceptable.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on November 04, 2009, 06:21:14 PM
1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry
   whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods,
   nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.

oh, I am not going to stop you from doing what you what.  go ahead and marry ten men...just don't ask me to recognize it

No one cares if YOU recognize it or not.  Or even LIKE it.

What's important is that the LAW recognizes it.  You know, the simple dignity of being able to pass on property without it being unfairly taxed by the government.  Or being able to visit someone in the hospital.

I don't understand why people are so fervently opposed to THAT, that they don't even care about pretending it's about the institution of marriage and instead fight against any sort of recognition, any sort of "favor."

That's precisely why I support civil unions by-and-large, because every person has a right to be cared for and loved and a right to care and love no matter their sexual orientation.  Just because I may not agree with their choice doesn't mean they're any less entitled to the same rights as I do.

As for same-sex marriage, what I said in a post earlier in this thread needs clarification.  I don't support it per se, but I feel I don't have a right to discriminate against it with the "Bible" excuse, because we, as Christians, haven't exactly lived up to what the Bible also says about marriage, and I'm talking about DIVORCE.  Its a matter of trying to take the plank out of your eye when i have a log in mine.  So, I don't like gay marriage, and I probably never will, but one thing I have always believed when I point a finger at my good friend, I have three fingers pointing right back at me.  If I were only to open those three fingers and extend the hand of good fellowship and aide to my brothers and sisters.  I guess what I'm trying to get at is I believe gay marriage is wrong, but divorce is equally as wrong, so until we, as Christians, get that plank called divorce out of our eye, we can't see clearly to erradicate gay marriage from the global discussion.

That's a very thoughtful post.

One question I still have though: If you can accept the arguments in favor of civil unions, and you clearly explained your reasoning for that, how can you not support marriage?

Basically, do you believe in the seperation of church and state? If yes, I challenge you to find one argument against full state recognition of marriage. The state cannot recognize religious arguments, and if it does, it is clearly discriminating against people who hold different religious beliefs or none at all.

Any church should be able to marry whoever they want, based on whatever crazy rules they want. That's their business, and they're free to do it.

But the state has no business in playing that game, the state is there to provide worldy representation in a fair and objective manner. Discrminating against two consenting adults that happen to be of the same sex simply isn't acceptable.

Well, remember what I said a long time ago, I'm warming to it, it may take some time for me to get "used" to it.  I do believe in SC&S, and I'm warming to it.  Those are just my Oklahoma roots talking.  I do have my own mind on a lot of things and this is becoming one of them.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 06:26:34 PM
Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Franzl on November 04, 2009, 06:30:41 PM
Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

Oh even better, I'd love for the state to abandon the concept of marriage, and perhaps issue civil unions to any adult couple, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

But even as it is, the state is not interfering with religion's right to define marriage in any way. Churches have the freedom to recognize whichever marriages they want to. For all I care, they can even deny interracial marriages. That's none of my business.

This is very clearly an issue of seperation of church and state, as the church shouldn't have any say about state policy in regards to unions between two consenting adults.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 06:37:07 PM
Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

Oh even better, I'd love for the state to abandon the concept of marriage, and perhaps issue civil unions to any adult couple, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

But even as it is, the state is not interfering with religion's right to define marriage in any way. Churches have the freedom to recognize whichever marriages they want to. For all I care, they can even deny interracial marriages. That's none of my business.

This is very clearly an issue of seperation of church and state, as the church shouldn't have any say about state policy in regards to unions between two consenting adults.

The state has no right to regulate what contracts individuals can and cannot enter. I don't care if they are straight or gay. I don't care if they are just two or three friends, hermaphrodites, that just want to have a financial bonding. The state has no right to dictate the terms of said contract, and furthermore, no right to define it. Especially in this circumstance, when it is a clearly religious subject.

It's not just a church issue. Trust me. This is an act of the state intruding on religious grounds. Marriage derives from religion and has integrated into our culture. That doesn't mean our government can define it one way or the other.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 04, 2009, 07:51:02 PM
The problem with you liberals is I hear someone say: I am for same sex marriage.

My response is: Okay, I'm not.

I say: I am against same sex marriage.

Your response is: OMG BIGOT OMG CAVEMAN HOW DARE YOU SO HEARTLESS BOO FRICKIN HOO@@@!

Naso, the problem with you is that you are incapable of serious thought.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 04, 2009, 08:12:16 PM
I am one of the most vocal supporters of gay rights on the forum, and that's certainly not how I view opponents of gay marriage whatsoever.  

Naso is actually right though Xahar,even if it's  just a coincidence.   That is part of our problem....it was not a problem in Maine as far as I am aware, which ran a very sympathetic, logical, and straight-forward campaign messaging-wise, but the white [and you're not white, I know] liberal activists in CA especially hurt the campaign by focusing too much on themselves instead of reaching out to people who have doubts....  and the "white" part is very important to note since the entire campaign  in 2008 was focused on themselves when there really wasn't much of a danger of poor turnout among the No On Prop 8 faithful due to the presidential election

If Maine has proven anything to me, it's proven that the campaigns have to acknowledge the legitimacy of doubts over institutional homosexuality touching children, but shift the burden of proof of the negative.  I mean, how can gay marriage BANS argue that the existing law is going to do something which isn't already happening under the existing law time after time?

Far too many gay rights activists don't understand the viewpoints of people who disagree, and thus are unable to persuade.  Step one would be not calling it gay marriage or calling themselves gay activists, but whatchagonnado?  As Nate Silver has  pointed out, activists should be addressing everything in terms of "same-sex marriage ban" in cases where the populace is potentially rejecting an existing law, in order to frame the rights perspective properly




if any of that makes sense


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sbane on November 04, 2009, 08:41:23 PM
Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

Oh even better, I'd love for the state to abandon the concept of marriage, and perhaps issue civil unions to any adult couple, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

But even as it is, the state is not interfering with religion's right to define marriage in any way. Churches have the freedom to recognize whichever marriages they want to. For all I care, they can even deny interracial marriages. That's none of my business.

This is very clearly an issue of seperation of church and state, as the church shouldn't have any say about state policy in regards to unions between two consenting adults.

The state has no right to regulate what contracts individuals can and cannot enter. I don't care if they are straight or gay. I don't care if they are just two or three friends, hermaphrodites, that just want to have a financial bonding. The state has no right to dictate the terms of said contract, and furthermore, no right to define it. Especially in this circumstance, when it is a clearly religious subject.

But didn't the state dictate who can or cannot enter into contracts with these marriage bans? They have effectively told gays they cannot join into civil contracts on the same terms as heterosexuals. I am all for getting government out of the marriage business and changing the government's definition of "marriage" into civil unions for ALL. Then religious organizations can define marriage on their own terms. But until that day comes when the state doesn't issue marriage licenses, they must extend that right EQUALLY to all of it's residents (and please don't start up the bullsh**t about how gays can get married as long its of the opposite sex and blah blah blah, unless you really believe homosexuality is a choice in which case you are deluded).


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: ottermax on November 04, 2009, 08:50:27 PM
Hey, does anyone know what the composition of the electorate for this election was in Maine? I'm trying to figure out if this would have failed last year or if gay marriage could come back next year.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sbane on November 04, 2009, 08:55:35 PM
Hey, does anyone know what the composition of the electorate for this election was in Maine? I'm trying to figure out if this would have failed last year or if gay marriage could come back next year.

I am wondering the same thing. Any sort of exit poll out there?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on November 04, 2009, 09:03:34 PM
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/marriage-still-close-in-maine.html

These aren't exit polls, but they are polls taken on Monday, the eve of the elections and it shows that Senior Citizens supported in 59-40 and those under 30 opposed it only 51-48 which is a big advantage for the supporters.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 04, 2009, 09:06:12 PM
When the biggest university campus in Maine voted 81% No and with other campuses with similar margins, I can put my hand in fire that the young vote wasn't 51-48.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on November 04, 2009, 09:08:09 PM
When the biggest university campus in Maine voted 81% No and with other campuses with similar margins, I can put my hand in fire that the young vote wasn't 51-48.

I can agree with that, and like i said these were basically "entrance" polls rather than exit polls.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: ottermax on November 04, 2009, 09:10:13 PM
But what percentage of voters were young vs. old? Especially in comparison to 2008.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on November 04, 2009, 09:28:14 PM
But what percentage of voters were young vs. old? Especially in comparison to 2008.

I guess any demographics will be tough to find, since it seems the only time questions are examined closer are when there are actual candidate races above them in the same state/district.  At least that's what I gather.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Vepres on November 04, 2009, 09:31:28 PM
When the biggest university campus in Maine voted 81% No and with other campuses with similar margins, I can put my hand in fire that the young vote wasn't 51-48.

Well don't forget people from more rural areas who may not attend college. But yeah, the margin wouldn't have been that close.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 04, 2009, 09:36:12 PM
I don't know if there's any exit polling, actually. We might never really know the age demographics of last night.

When the biggest university campus in Maine voted 81% No and with other campuses with similar margins, I can put my hand in fire that the young vote wasn't 51-48.

Well don't forget people from more rural areas who may not attend college. But yeah, the margin wouldn't have been that close.

I've lived in a relatively rural city for a good part of my life, so I can attest to this. After graduating, young people in rural areas usually take flight into bigger cities, and/or university campuses. The young people who stay with the family and get a job after graduation are probably in the 35% 18-29 demographic that are against same-sex marriage.

Well, from what I've seen, anyway.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alcon on November 04, 2009, 09:38:38 PM
It won't be that hard to find out age demographics.  I can't imagine that Maine's voter database doesn't contain DOB and voter credit information.

It's worth mentioning that kids who attend college tend to be more liberal, and even beyond that, college students who register to vote at their university's address tend to be even moreso.  Don't ask me why.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: nclib on November 04, 2009, 09:46:58 PM
Unfortunate, though not terribly surprising. Gay marriage is definitely significantly to the left of most (if not all) state Democratic parties. The only states that could potentially legalize gay marriage with a referendum at this point, are: VT and MA with an outside shot at CT, RI, NY, and NJ.

IIRC, 29 states have now banned gay marriage by a statewide referendum, all in the past six years. To my knowledge, I don't think there are any other issues that have been on ballots in so many states, at least not in this time frame. Interesting how this is such a big issue when the general public is not affected by two consenting adults marrying.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: nclib on November 04, 2009, 09:55:53 PM
53-47 is good and close.

Not sludging through this whole thread - someone care to repost a link to results?

I don't know where it be either. But someone posted a map:



http://www.bangordailynews.com/electionresults.html

That site doesn't appear to match up with the county map (not sure which is accurate), but anyway Obama margin minus yes margin:

aroostook   55.7
franklin   38.2
somerset   36.7
androscoggin   35.5
oxford   34.5
washington   30.3
piscataquis   29.9
kennebec   28
penobscot   22.7
york   19.8
knox   19.6
waldo   19.6
sagadahoc   16.6
lincoln   15.7
hancock   13.5
cumberland   9.6


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 04, 2009, 10:14:24 PM
Hallieulah!

Well, good for Maine voters.

They did the right thing.

They deserve the thanks of a greatful nation for acting responsibly.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 01:54:57 AM
Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

It most certainly is. If the Quakers or the Unitarians want to permit gay marriages, what State has the right to disallow them that ability?

Oh, wait, I forgot - you're only arguing against gay marriage because it's required of you as a Republican.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 01:58:21 AM
Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

It most certainly is. If the Quakers or the Unitarians want to permit gay marriages, what State has the right to disallow them that ability?

Oh, wait, I forgot - you're only arguing against gay marriage because it's required of you as a Republican.

Where did I argue against gay marriage?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 02:23:58 AM
Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

It most certainly is. If the Quakers or the Unitarians want to permit gay marriages, what State has the right to disallow them that ability?

Oh, wait, I forgot - you're only arguing against gay marriage because it's required of you as a Republican.

Where did I argue against gay marriage?

You've been beating around it this entire thread. Don't be facile.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sbane on November 05, 2009, 02:25:55 AM
Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

It most certainly is. If the Quakers or the Unitarians want to permit gay marriages, what State has the right to disallow them that ability?

Oh, wait, I forgot - you're only arguing against gay marriage because it's required of you as a Republican.

Where did I argue against gay marriage?

This thread?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 02:39:31 AM
Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

It most certainly is. If the Quakers or the Unitarians want to permit gay marriages, what State has the right to disallow them that ability?

Oh, wait, I forgot - you're only arguing against gay marriage because it's required of you as a Republican.

Where did I argue against gay marriage?

You've been beating around it this entire thread. Don't be facile.

I haven't taken a position on this actual ballot measure.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 02:39:53 AM
Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

It most certainly is. If the Quakers or the Unitarians want to permit gay marriages, what State has the right to disallow them that ability?

Oh, wait, I forgot - you're only arguing against gay marriage because it's required of you as a Republican.

Where did I argue against gay marriage?

This thread?

No. I merely argued against the importance of the "issue."


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alcon on November 05, 2009, 02:42:26 AM
Arguing on the Internet that something is too unimportant to fight for seems a mite hypocritical


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 02:43:22 AM
Arguing on the Internet that something is too unimportant to fight for seems a mite hypocritical

Not when people say it's worse than slavery, when it actually isn't anything.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 05, 2009, 02:46:09 AM
no one said that.

Arguing on the Internet that something is too unimportant to fight for seems a mite hypocritical

Deeds was an awful candidate. Look no further than his most passionate supporters to see jsut how much he sucks.

Is that a shot at me?  And to answer the question, no.

If you have to ask, then probably.

Don't you have better things to do than waste your time attacking people on an internet forum?

At 4:52 on a Wednesday? Sadly, no.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 02:47:03 AM

People at my high school did last year when the Prop 8 battle was going on. From then on, I refused to group with such people.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 05, 2009, 02:49:48 AM

People at my high school did last year when the Prop 8 battle was going on. From then on, I refused to group with such people.

What does that even mean, logically?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 02:50:34 AM

People at my high school did last year when the Prop 8 battle was going on. From then on, I refused to group with such people.

What does that even mean, logically?

It means that I do not go to their rallies or attend their meetings in favor or in opposition to gay marriage.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 05, 2009, 02:51:55 AM

People at my high school did last year when the Prop 8 battle was going on. From then on, I refused to group with such people.

What does that even mean, logically?

It means that I do not go to their rallies or attend their meetings in favor or in opposition to gay marriage.

because you, at one point, met someone that said something stupid?  Under that logic I should not post on this forum because you just posted that.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 02:52:04 AM
I find anyone that thinks Prop 8 passing worse than slavery to be morally repulsive.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 02:52:50 AM

People at my high school did last year when the Prop 8 battle was going on. From then on, I refused to group with such people.

What does that even mean, logically?

It means that I do not go to their rallies or attend their meetings in favor or in opposition to gay marriage.

because you, at one point, met someone that said something stupid?  Under that logic I should not post on this forum because you just posted that.

No. Not just one person. It was an organization on campus. Even then, the Prop 8 opposition and supporters in my city were both very violent and despicable.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alcon on November 05, 2009, 02:54:58 AM
No. Not just one person. It was an organization on campus. Even then, the Prop 8 opposition and supporters in my city were both very violent and despicable.

What, a majority of the anti-Prop. 8 voters in your city were violent?  And this was a trait not possessed by a meaningful number of their pro-Prop. 8 counterparts?  And now you must harness the power of an Internet forum to get the word out about how the Bakersfield Prop. 8 opposition's argument was wrong darn it, and by the way they're bad people, and that has something to do with gay marriage somehow, and getting this info out there is important while this whole gay marriage issue is "objectively nothing"?

Do you realize how hilarious your posts become cumulatively when you don't think before you post?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 02:55:41 AM
I find anyone that thinks Prop 8 passing worse than slavery to be morally repulsive stupid.


I wouldn't go as far as calling it morally repulsive, just very stupid. As repulsive as I find it for the state to deny legal equality to homosexuals it is still quite a bit better than being property to another person and having to do whatever they say.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 02:56:31 AM
No. Not just one person. It was an organization on campus. Even then, the Prop 8 opposition and supporters in my city were both very violent and despicable.

What, a majority of the anti-Prop. 8 voters in your city were violent?  And this was a trait not possessed by a meaningful number of their opponents?  And now you must harness the power of an Internet forum to get the word out about how the Bakersfield Prop. 8 opposition's argument was wrong darn it, because that's important while this whole gay marriage issue is "objectively nothing"?

Do you realize how hilarious your posts become cumulatively when you don't think before you post?

Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alcon on November 05, 2009, 03:09:00 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 03:11:52 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

Hamilton forgets that when it comes to politics quite a few people are total jackasses about their opinions, no matter the issue.
If you gave me 30 minutes (it's 2:12 here, give me some time to get motivated) to google I bet I could come up with a ridiculous overreaction to an insignificant issue.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 03:15:21 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

Hamilton forgets that when it comes to politics quite a few people are total jackasses about their opinions, no matter the issue.
If you gave me 30 minutes (it's 2:12 here, give me some time to get motivated) to google I bet I could come up with a ridiculous overreaction to an insignificant issue.

Like this issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_burning#United_States
I mean really.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 03:15:33 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 03:18:06 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

Hamilton forgets that when it comes to politics quite a few people are total jackasses about their opinions, no matter the issue.

I'm a jackass about my opinions. I won the "Most Opinionated" award in high school. By landslide, at that. But I don't carry that over in to my campaigning and I certainly don't degrade anyone who disagrees with me reasonably on an issue. It's not just the behavior, it's the attitude, the portrayal of gay marriage as the most prominent issue facing the nation/state/county/city/whatever.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 05, 2009, 03:18:18 AM
I oppose ending slavery because seriously I heard some of that side's supporters and they compared it to the Holocaust, I don't want to be associated with that.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 03:19:45 AM
I oppose ending slavery because seriously I heard some of that side's supporters and they compared it to the Holocaust, I don't want to be associated with that.

That was not at all my argument and you know it. Fake libertarian.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 03:21:48 AM
I oppose ending slavery because seriously I heard some of that side's supporters and they compared it to the Holocaust, I don't want to be associated with that.

That was not at all my argument and you know it. Fake libertarian.

Lunar claimed to be libertarian ??? When?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 05, 2009, 03:22:32 AM
Once upon a time I did.  I don't claim to be anything anymore.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 03:23:01 AM

LOLwut? When?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 03:23:49 AM
I don't claim to be anything anymore.

Then why do you have a red avatar?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sbane on November 05, 2009, 03:24:10 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 03:25:55 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 03:26:29 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

He's just doing it so he can be a Moderate Hero. Then, he can say the Republicans are actually attracting moderates.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 03:27:08 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

He's just doing it so he can be a Moderate Hero. Then, he can say the Republicans are actually attracting moderates.

No, I'm not. And yes, they are.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 03:28:25 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 03:29:19 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 05, 2009, 03:29:34 AM
I don't claim to be anything anymore.

Then why do you have a red avatar?

I intern at a Democratic consulting company and as thus, am forced to be biased in favor of the candidates whose facebook pages and email accounts and webpages I work with.  I can't root for Dick Durbin to lose if I'm investing some hours helping his online campaign.  I'm secretly still a registered Libertarian but don't consider myself a liberal/moderate/libertarian/anything. :)


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 03:30:13 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

A strong central government that was not interfering in individual sovereignty. There is a difference. Hamilton was no authoritarian on social issues by any measure. Just look at how he lived his life. A great man.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 03:31:48 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

I have a strong and stable belief system that is outside the mainstream of current partisan politics.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 03:32:49 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 03:33:19 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 03:34:02 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 03:35:32 AM
Oh this is getting good......() (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 03:36:01 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 03:37:55 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 03:39:41 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 03:40:36 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 03:41:38 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?
You could've been just a tad bit more tactful Einzige.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 03:42:46 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?
You could've been just a tad bit more tactful Einzige.

To Hell with that. This guy tries my patience.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 03:43:20 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 03:44:54 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 03:46:58 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. There is an example that has nothing to do with a war economy. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 03:48:17 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 03:51:08 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 03:52:34 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 03:54:38 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Immigration Act? Nationalist policies were rampant throughout the '20s.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 03:55:13 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 03:56:53 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.

Sure, but that had nothing to do with progressivism (or Roosevelt) and everything to do with the nationalistic Republican base.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 03:58:48 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.

Sure, but that had nothing to do with progressivism (or Roosevelt) and everything to do with the nationalistic Republican base.
I agree, but it was a nationalistic policy that would've made Alexander Hamilton's dead corpse have a premature ejaculation.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 03:58:57 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.

Sure, but that had nothing to do with progressivism (or Roosevelt) and everything to do with the nationalistic Republican base.

Coolidge was always aligned with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. He never left the party because the Progressives were not going to challenge him (as he was, obviously, an ally). The "nationalistic Republican base", however, has everything to do with policies supported by prominent figures such as Roosevelt and Coolidge himself.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 04:00:31 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.

Sure, but that had nothing to do with progressivism (or Roosevelt) and everything to do with the nationalistic Republican base.

Coolidge was always aligned with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. He never left the party because the Progressives were not going to challenge him (as he was, obviously, an ally). The "nationalistic Republican base", however, has everything to do with policies supported by prominent figures such as Roosevelt and Coolidge himself.

Wrong. Harding was the progressive candidate of choice; and Harding selected Coolidge as a running mate precisely because he appealed to the isolationist and nationalistic base.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 04:02:55 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.

Sure, but that had nothing to do with progressivism (or Roosevelt) and everything to do with the nationalistic Republican base.

Coolidge was always aligned with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. He never left the party because the Progressives were not going to challenge him (as he was, obviously, an ally). The "nationalistic Republican base", however, has everything to do with policies supported by prominent figures such as Roosevelt and Coolidge himself.

Wrong. Harding was the progressive candidate of choice; and Harding selected Coolidge as a running mate precisely because he appealed to the isolationist and nationalistic base.

Are you kidding me? Both candidates appealed to the isolationists and nationalists. It's what they campaigned on. Coolidge continued the same policies even after winning his own term. As for Harding, the man who gave the nominating speech for Taft-- far less progressive.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 04:04:34 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.

Sure, but that had nothing to do with progressivism (or Roosevelt) and everything to do with the nationalistic Republican base.

Coolidge was always aligned with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. He never left the party because the Progressives were not going to challenge him (as he was, obviously, an ally). The "nationalistic Republican base", however, has everything to do with policies supported by prominent figures such as Roosevelt and Coolidge himself.

Wrong. Harding was the progressive candidate of choice; and Harding selected Coolidge as a running mate precisely because he appealed to the isolationist and nationalistic base.

Are you kidding me? Both candidates appealed to the isolationists and nationalists. It's what they campaigned on. Coolidge continued the same policies even after winning his own term. As for Harding, the man who gave the nominating speech for Taft-- far less progressive.

Nope. Harding, despite his pledge for a "return to normalcy", had been a huge supporter of the progressive income tax while a newspaper editor and pushed for government regulation of the mail industry. He chose Coolidge as a bone to the conservatives.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 04:07:35 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.

Sure, but that had nothing to do with progressivism (or Roosevelt) and everything to do with the nationalistic Republican base.

Coolidge was always aligned with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. He never left the party because the Progressives were not going to challenge him (as he was, obviously, an ally). The "nationalistic Republican base", however, has everything to do with policies supported by prominent figures such as Roosevelt and Coolidge himself.

Wrong. Harding was the progressive candidate of choice; and Harding selected Coolidge as a running mate precisely because he appealed to the isolationist and nationalistic base.

Are you kidding me? Both candidates appealed to the isolationists and nationalists. It's what they campaigned on. Coolidge continued the same policies even after winning his own term. As for Harding, the man who gave the nominating speech for Taft-- far less progressive.

Nope. Harding, despite his pledge for a "return to normalcy", had been a huge supporter of the progressive income tax while a newspaper editor and pushed for government regulation of the mail industry. He chose Coolidge as a bone to the conservatives.

HE didn't choose anything. Harding and Coolidge were nominated by convention delegates.

But fine, take an example of something Harding advocated as a 22 year old and make that out to be his entire political career and ideology. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you are being?

Warren G. Harding was the conservative counterpart to the more Progressive Calvin Coolidge. You clearly have no understanding of the prominent and dominant factions within the Republican Party in the Fourth Party System.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 04:11:10 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.

Sure, but that had nothing to do with progressivism (or Roosevelt) and everything to do with the nationalistic Republican base.

Coolidge was always aligned with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. He never left the party because the Progressives were not going to challenge him (as he was, obviously, an ally). The "nationalistic Republican base", however, has everything to do with policies supported by prominent figures such as Roosevelt and Coolidge himself.

Wrong. Harding was the progressive candidate of choice; and Harding selected Coolidge as a running mate precisely because he appealed to the isolationist and nationalistic base.

Are you kidding me? Both candidates appealed to the isolationists and nationalists. It's what they campaigned on. Coolidge continued the same policies even after winning his own term. As for Harding, the man who gave the nominating speech for Taft-- far less progressive.

Nope. Harding, despite his pledge for a "return to normalcy", had been a huge supporter of the progressive income tax while a newspaper editor and pushed for government regulation of the mail industry. He chose Coolidge as a bone to the conservatives.

HE didn't choose anything. Harding and Coolidge were nominated by convention delegates.

But fine, take an example of something Harding advocated as a 22 year old and make that out to be his entire political career and ideology. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you are being?

Warren G. Harding was the conservative counterpart to the more Progressive Calvin Coolidge. You clearly have no understanding of the prominent and dominant factions within the Republican Party in the Fourth Party System.

Harding did support the high protective tariff or at least did nothing to stop fellow Republicans from pushing for it. Not sure about Coolidge though.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 04:11:37 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.

Sure, but that had nothing to do with progressivism (or Roosevelt) and everything to do with the nationalistic Republican base.

Coolidge was always aligned with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. He never left the party because the Progressives were not going to challenge him (as he was, obviously, an ally). The "nationalistic Republican base", however, has everything to do with policies supported by prominent figures such as Roosevelt and Coolidge himself.

Wrong. Harding was the progressive candidate of choice; and Harding selected Coolidge as a running mate precisely because he appealed to the isolationist and nationalistic base.

Are you kidding me? Both candidates appealed to the isolationists and nationalists. It's what they campaigned on. Coolidge continued the same policies even after winning his own term. As for Harding, the man who gave the nominating speech for Taft-- far less progressive.

Nope. Harding, despite his pledge for a "return to normalcy", had been a huge supporter of the progressive income tax while a newspaper editor and pushed for government regulation of the mail industry. He chose Coolidge as a bone to the conservatives.

HE didn't choose anything. Harding and Coolidge were nominated by convention delegates.

By 1920, the delegates acted at the behest of the nominee.

Quote
But fine, take an example of something Harding advocated as a 22 year old and make that out to be his entire political career and ideology. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you are being?

Uh, okay. What did he advocate?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 04:13:25 AM
Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant (???).  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100766.msg2215642#msg2215642), by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.

Sure, but that had nothing to do with progressivism (or Roosevelt) and everything to do with the nationalistic Republican base.

Coolidge was always aligned with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. He never left the party because the Progressives were not going to challenge him (as he was, obviously, an ally). The "nationalistic Republican base", however, has everything to do with policies supported by prominent figures such as Roosevelt and Coolidge himself.

Wrong. Harding was the progressive candidate of choice; and Harding selected Coolidge as a running mate precisely because he appealed to the isolationist and nationalistic base.

Are you kidding me? Both candidates appealed to the isolationists and nationalists. It's what they campaigned on. Coolidge continued the same policies even after winning his own term. As for Harding, the man who gave the nominating speech for Taft-- far less progressive.


HE didn't choose anything. Harding and Coolidge were nominated by convention delegates.

But fine, take an example of something Harding advocated as a 22 year old and make that out to be his entire political career and ideology. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you are being?

Warren G. Harding was the conservative counterpart to the more Progressive Calvin Coolidge. You clearly have no understanding of the prominent and dominant factions within the Republican Party in the Fourth Party System.

Harding did support the high protective tariff or at least did nothing to stop fellow Republicans from pushing for it. Not sure about Coolidge though.

Coolidge kicked all those who wanted to lower tariffs off of the Trade Board.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 04:15:17 AM
Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 04:20:06 AM
Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 04:20:53 AM
Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 04:23:09 AM
Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 04:23:47 AM
Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Scam of God on November 05, 2009, 04:25:29 AM
Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

Of the three, immigration restrictions were the only one he supported. Harding signed off on the tariff, and he was neutral on labor issues.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 04:27:15 AM
Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

Of the three, immigration restrictions were the only one he supported. Harding signed off on the tariff, and he was neutral on labor issues.

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, WRONG. Coolidge raised tariffs many times, he booted the anti-tariff members off the Trade Commission, he advocated tariffs to protect agriculture as an alternative to defeat Congress' farm support bills, and certainly wasn't neutral on labor laws he championed.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 04:29:45 AM
Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

Of the three, immigration restrictions were the only one he supported. Harding signed off on the tariff, and he was neutral on labor issues.

In defense of Einzige it could be argued that Harding and Coolidge were deficit hawks and that in order to make up for reductions in the income tax tariffs would have to be raised to generate federal revenue. Afterall, who would you rather take money from? Your citizens or your competitors?

I don't consider Coolidge to be a libertarian, but I don't think there is enough evidence to imply he was a champion of government interventionism. Though I have to say I can kind of see how you could see similarities between him, Hamilton, and Roosevelt.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 04:32:30 AM
Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

Of the three, immigration restrictions were the only one he supported. Harding signed off on the tariff, and he was neutral on labor issues.

In defense of Einzige it could be argued that Harding and Coolidge were deficit hawks and that in order to make up for reductions in the income tax tariffs would have to be raised to generate federal revenue. Afterall, who would you rather take money from? Your citizens or your competitors?

I don't consider Coolidge to be a libertarian, but I don't think there is enough evidence to imply he was a champion of government interventionism. Though I have to say I can kind of see how you could see similarities between him, Hamilton, and Roosevelt.

And in my defense, I'm not anywhere as well versed in 1920's GOP politics as I am in politics circa 1932 onward.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 04:32:54 AM
Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

Of the three, immigration restrictions were the only one he supported. Harding signed off on the tariff, and he was neutral on labor issues.

In defense of Einzige it could be argued that Harding and Coolidge were deficit hawks and that in order to make up for reductions in the income tax tariffs would have to be raised to generate federal revenue. Afterall, who would you rather take money from? Your citizens or your competitors?

I don't consider Coolidge to be a libertarian, but I don't think there is enough evidence to imply he was a champion of government interventionism. Though I have to say I can kind of see how you could see similarities between him, Hamilton, and Roosevelt.

Interventionism to a degree, obviously. Coolidge, like me, would oppose this barbaric stimulus or the atrocious bailouts. Pro-business policies, however, often demand a bit of intervention. Obviously he fought against increased taxes and deficit spending, as I do. Coolidge's economic policies were strikingly similar to Hamilton's, Clay's, McKinley's, Roosevelt's, etc. Einzige just refuses to acknowledge historical fact because it undermines his entire political philosophy.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 04:33:39 AM
And in my defense, I'm not anywhere as well versed in 1920's GOP politics as I am in politics circa 1932 onward.

It's one of my favorite decades.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lunar on November 05, 2009, 05:48:59 AM
not only is the actual referendum an injustice, but this whole loss is a political injustice as the No team ran a pitch-perfect campaign, well financed, organized, good understanding of the area, great message targeting, etc. against an awkward, clumsy, poorly financed campaign by the Yes folks...all in one of the more favorable electorates possible for gay rights demographically and against a bill that was legislatively passed





Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 05, 2009, 07:32:27 AM
Coolidge a Progressive? lol For once I agree with Einzige. Neither Harding nor Coolidge were progressive.

Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

The last two were actually considered Conservative positions at the time. Roosevelt was for Free Trade and many of his progressive supported his position on that issue. So Hamilton, you yourself just actually made the case the Coolidge was not of the same mold as TR. As for Hamilton, that is true, but Keep in mind Hamilton wanted a commercial economy based of trade and industry rather then agriculutre. And he supported Tariffs, and a National Bank to get it done. But I doubt he would have supported the state enough to come close to a Progressive. Faulty characterization on your part.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 10:11:29 AM
Coolidge a Progressive? lol For once I agree with Einzige. Neither Harding nor Coolidge were progressive.

Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

The last two were actually considered Conservative positions at the time. Roosevelt was for Free Trade and many of his progressive supported his position on that issue. So Hamilton, you yourself just actually made the case the Coolidge was not of the same mold as TR. As for Hamilton, that is true, but Keep in mind Hamilton wanted a commercial economy based of trade and industry rather then agriculutre. And he supported Tariffs, and a National Bank to get it done. But I doubt he would have supported the state enough to come close to a Progressive. Faulty characterization on your part.
^^^^^^
This.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on November 05, 2009, 12:12:09 PM
Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 12:26:46 PM
Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 18 pages of replies.)

Not at all actually. I saw this coming from a mile away. People give Maine waaaayyyy too much f***ing credit when it comes to this sort of thing. I mean really, if California passed Prop 8 in an presidential election year with more turnout than usual why should we expect Maine to vote "No" on Question 1?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on November 05, 2009, 12:28:32 PM
Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

Not at all actually. I saw this coming from a mile away. People give Maine waaaayyyy too much f***ing credit when it comes to this sort of thing. I mean really, if California passed Prop 8 in an presidential election year with more turnout than usual why should we expect Maine to vote "No" on Question 1?

Exactly.....we've been discussing the issue for 44 pages, which is fine, but as far as a Maine vote, it's no surprise at all.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: nclib on November 05, 2009, 12:34:08 PM
I'd be interested in hearing a response to this post below, or the one below it, if we can get this thread back on topic.

Unfortunate, though not terribly surprising. Gay marriage is definitely significantly to the left of most (if not all) state Democratic parties. The only states that could potentially legalize gay marriage with a referendum at this point, are: VT and MA with an outside shot at CT, RI, NY, and NJ.

IIRC, 29 states have now banned gay marriage by a statewide referendum, all in the past six years. To my knowledge, I don't think there are any other issues that have been on ballots in so many states, at least not in this time frame. Interesting how this is such a big issue when the general public is not affected by two consenting adults marrying.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 12:34:45 PM
Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

Not at all actually. I saw this coming from a mile away. People give Maine waaaayyyy too much f***ing credit when it comes to this sort of thing. I mean really, if California passed Prop 8 in an presidential election year with more turnout than usual why should we expect Maine to vote "No" on Question 1?

Exactly.....we've been discussing the issue for 44 pages, which is fine, but as far as a Maine vote, it's no surprise at all.

And two pages of that were probably me, Hamilton, and Einzige debating over Calvin Coolidge.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Mechaman on November 05, 2009, 12:39:26 PM
I'd be interested in hearing a response to this post below, or the one below it, if we can get this thread back on topic.

Unfortunate, though not terribly surprising. Gay marriage is definitely significantly to the left of most (if not all) state Democratic parties. The only states that could potentially legalize gay marriage with a referendum at this point, are: VT and MA with an outside shot at CT, RI, NY, and NJ.

IIRC, 29 states have now banned gay marriage by a statewide referendum, all in the past six years. To my knowledge, I don't think there are any other issues that have been on ballots in so many states, at least not in this time frame. Interesting how this is such a big issue when the general public is not affected by two consenting adults marrying.

My apologies.
You can thank the far right spin doctors for that one friend. Here in Oklahoma we hear all the time about how the government wants to grant "special rights and privileges" to the gays and that if they win their right to legal equality they will force a "homosexual agenda" preventing homophobic preachers from preaching about the evil of homosexuality.
Also, as much as people hate to admit it this is still a pretty religious nation. Once the numbers drop a bit expect to see a surge in support of marriage equality.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Badger on November 05, 2009, 12:40:41 PM
This is almost as good as last year's California: "Keep it straight...YES on 8!"

:D
so, 47% of Maine is morally retrobate...sad news

Need I say that the pair of you are utter disgraces, a fact that cannot be overemphasised.

Rom 1:21-32
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


Psa 1:1-3
 1 Blessed is the man
       who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
       or stand in the way of sinners
       or sit in the seat of mockers.

 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
       and on his law he meditates day and night.

 3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water,
       which yields its fruit in season
       and whose leaf does not wither.
       Whatever he does prospers.



And your point being?  None whatsoever.  You know I won't fall for any of that rubbish so I don't know why you even try.  The more I see people pulling that idiotic stunt you're performing the more turned off I am by organised religion.

1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.

Indeed.

May I simply note that Jmfcst and his ilk do not speak for all of us Christians. Such selective reliance on handpicked portions of scripture---particularly the Levitican priestly codes---to justify his personal social mores, while ignoring Christ's unambiguous message throughout the Gospels of unqualified unreserved love for all his children, well, shall we nicely say "misses the point entirely"?

I was hoping you'd chime in on this JSojourner ol' pal. ;-)


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 12:54:22 PM
Coolidge a Progressive? lol For once I agree with Einzige. Neither Harding nor Coolidge were progressive.

Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

The last two were actually considered Conservative positions at the time. Roosevelt was for Free Trade and many of his progressive supported his position on that issue. So Hamilton, you yourself just actually made the case the Coolidge was not of the same mold as TR. As for Hamilton, that is true, but Keep in mind Hamilton wanted a commercial economy based of trade and industry rather then agriculutre. And he supported Tariffs, and a National Bank to get it done. But I doubt he would have supported the state enough to come close to a Progressive. Faulty characterization on your part.

No, Yankee. Unsurprisingly, you are wrong. You must not have even read Einzige's post. It doesn't matter what they were considered, the fact is, Coolidge supported them, which Einzige still denies. I did no frame those particular issues as Progressive (though labor regulations certainly were). Coolidge allied himself with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. Roosevelt, also, supported the same immigration restrictions, labor regulations, and other economic measures of intervention such as tariffs. In fact, the tariffs supported b roosevelt, Coolidge, harding, McKinley, etc. were one of the most pivotal reasons in the Republican Party's 1912 split-- Taft had lowered tariffs.

Now if Mechaman still wants to agree with you, he has a right to ignore history. But I'm sure most people who don't care to see the truth about the great man Calvin Coolidge will recognize his actual political positions on the issues of the '20s.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 05, 2009, 01:18:35 PM
I was hoping you'd chime in on this JSojourner ol' pal. ;-)

well, when it come to JSJ, when the going gets tough, JSJ deserts the bible so that he can retain the favor of the world, using the sole excuse of, "I can not accept..."...and even though the bible goes to great lengths to define the proper context for sex, to JSJ, there is no biblical defined context for sex, instead it's anything goes and the love of Jesus will cover it all.  In which case, might as well take a Magic Marker and black out all the references to sex in the bible, for, apparently, the bible doesn't teach the proper setting for sex.

It is obvious to anyone that the bible gives the proper context for sex, but homosexuality proponents will NEVER use that argument because they know they would lose that argument hands down.  So, instead they've made a conscience choice to ignore that context and appeal to the love of God....but, that is pure idolatry because God's love is NEVER an excuse for condoning wrong doing.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 05, 2009, 01:27:07 PM
I was hoping you'd chime in on this JSojourner ol' pal. ;-)

well, when it come to JSJ, when the going gets tough, JSJ deserts the bible so that he can retain the favor of the world, using the sole excuse of, "I can not accept..."...and even though the bible goes to great lengths to define the proper context for sex, to JSJ, there is no biblical defined context for sex, instead it's anything goes and the love of Jesus will cover it all.  In which case, might as well take a Magic Marker and black out all the references to sex in the bible, for, apparently, the bible doesn't teach the proper setting for sex.

It is obvious to anyone that the bible gives the proper context for sex, but homosexuality proponents will NEVER use that argument because they know they would lose that argument hands down.  So, instead they've made a conscience choice to ignore that context and appeal to the love of God....but, that is pure idolatry because God's love is NEVER an excuse for condoning wrong doing.

The Bible is my favorite fictional book and God is my favorite fictional character.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on November 05, 2009, 01:45:06 PM
You'd be lucky if you were half the man JS is, jmfcst.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 01:45:37 PM
Coolidge a Progressive? lol For once I agree with Einzige. Neither Harding nor Coolidge were progressive.

Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

The last two were actually considered Conservative positions at the time. Roosevelt was for Free Trade and many of his progressive supported his position on that issue. So Hamilton, you yourself just actually made the case the Coolidge was not of the same mold as TR. As for Hamilton, that is true, but Keep in mind Hamilton wanted a commercial economy based of trade and industry rather then agriculutre. And he supported Tariffs, and a National Bank to get it done. But I doubt he would have supported the state enough to come close to a Progressive. Faulty characterization on your part.

No, Yankee. Unsurprisingly, you are wrong. You must not have even read Einzige's post. It doesn't matter what they were considered, the fact is, Coolidge supported them, which Einzige still denies. I did no frame those particular issues as Progressive (though labor regulations certainly were). Coolidge allied himself with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. Roosevelt, also, supported the same immigration restrictions, labor regulations, and other economic measures of intervention such as tariffs. In fact, the tariffs supported b roosevelt, Coolidge, harding, McKinley, etc. were one of the most pivotal reasons in the Republican Party's 1912 split-- Taft had lowered tariffs.

Now if Mechaman still wants to agree with you, he has a right to ignore history. But I'm sure most people who don't care to see the truth about the great man Calvin Coolidge will recognize his actual political positions on the issues of the '20s.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on November 05, 2009, 01:51:58 PM
You'd be lucky if you were half the man JS is, jmfcst.

Please don't mock jmfcst for standing up for the truth that is the Bible that is God's Word.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 05, 2009, 01:56:43 PM
You'd be lucky if you were half the man JS is, jmfcst.

Please don't mock jmfcst for standing up for the truth that is the Bible that is God's Word.


Bible Basher.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on November 05, 2009, 01:58:40 PM
You'd be lucky if you were half the man JS is, jmfcst.

Please don't mock jmfcst for standing up for the truth that is the Bible that is God's Word.


Bible Basher.

No, we're just Bible believers, pure and simple.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alcon on November 05, 2009, 02:04:36 PM
I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

You just reiterated your argument without responding to anything I said about it


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Franzl on November 05, 2009, 02:06:17 PM
You'd be lucky if you were half the man JS is, jmfcst.

Please don't mock jmfcst for standing up for the truth that is the Bible that is God's Word.

1.) matter of opinion
2.) irrelevant to the discussion about gay marriage


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on November 05, 2009, 02:12:36 PM
You'd be lucky if you were half the man JS is, jmfcst.

Please don't mock jmfcst for standing up for the truth that is the Bible that is God's Word.

1.) matter of opinion
2.) irrelevant to the discussion about gay marriage

Fair enough, let me rephrase the response, don't mock him for standing up for what he believes in or for what he believes in.

He's definitely more conservative than I am, but I can see where he's coming from because I was there in the middle of this decade, but what I said earlier in this thread is what I believe.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on November 05, 2009, 02:18:09 PM
You'd be lucky if you were half the man JS is, jmfcst.

Please don't mock jmfcst for standing up for the truth that is the Bible that is God's Word.

I'm not mocking him, Bushie, I'm saying his criticism of JS is a crock of sh**t.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 05, 2009, 02:32:30 PM
Unfortunate, though not terribly surprising. Gay marriage is definitely significantly to the left of most (if not all) state Democratic parties. The only states that could potentially legalize gay marriage with a referendum at this point, are: VT and MA with an outside shot at CT, RI, NY, and NJ.

Thankfully, NJ is a state without I&R, and a constitutional amendment can't make the ballot without the consent of the legislature.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Dan the Roman on November 05, 2009, 02:49:51 PM
You know I keep coming here hoping for a conversation about the results, turnout, what we can learn from this about Maine, what we can extrapolulate from that about New Hampshire and Massachusetts or even Iowa, and then I keep seeing the argument about gods will.

Frankly I think this is a problem on both sides, namely the venom with which they both approached this issue in California and Maine versus Massachusetts where the Gay groups sat back calm and moderate as the out-of-state anti-gay marriage people destroyed themselves. And then I wonder if there was something to that strategy.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Meeker on November 05, 2009, 02:52:46 PM
Unfortunate, though not terribly surprising. Gay marriage is definitely significantly to the left of most (if not all) state Democratic parties. The only states that could potentially legalize gay marriage with a referendum at this point, are: VT and MA with an outside shot at CT, RI, NY, and NJ.

Thankfully, NJ is a state without I&R, and a constitutional amendment can't make the ballot without the consent of the legislature.

So Corzine and the Dems in the Legislature could just shove it through during the next two months and there's nothing anyone could do until perhaps the Republicans somehow retook the Legislature?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sam Spade on November 05, 2009, 02:56:59 PM
You know I keep coming here hoping for a conversation about the results, turnout, what we can learn from this about Maine, what we can extrapolulate from that about New Hampshire and Massachusetts or even Iowa, and then I keep seeing the argument about gods will.

Frankly I think this is a problem on both sides, namely the venom with which they both approached this issue in California and Maine versus Massachusetts where the Gay groups sat back calm and moderate as the out-of-state anti-gay marriage people destroyed themselves. And then I wonder if there was something to that strategy.

I gave some observations about 10 (maybe 20) pages back, but they got lost.

All I can do is echo what Al said, which is class, class, class and point out that a Hillary-Obama primary would have looked eerily similar (even the caucus looks pretty damn similar).

I'll give a substantive commentary later.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on November 05, 2009, 03:00:38 PM
You'd be lucky if you were half the man JS is, jmfcst.

Please don't mock jmfcst for standing up for the truth that is the Bible that is God's Word.

I'm not mocking him, Bushie, I'm saying his criticism of JS is a crock of sh**t.

And, i agree with you that his criticism of JS is not what I know JS to be.  I just didn't like you saying he wasn't even "half the man" JS is.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 05, 2009, 03:02:00 PM
Unfortunate, though not terribly surprising. Gay marriage is definitely significantly to the left of most (if not all) state Democratic parties. The only states that could potentially legalize gay marriage with a referendum at this point, are: VT and MA with an outside shot at CT, RI, NY, and NJ.

Thankfully, NJ is a state without I&R, and a constitutional amendment can't make the ballot without the consent of the legislature.

So Corzine and the Dems in the Legislature could just shove it through during the next two months and there's nothing anyone could do until perhaps the Republicans somehow retook the Legislature?

That's precisely the plan.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Dan the Roman on November 05, 2009, 03:46:46 PM
You know I keep coming here hoping for a conversation about the results, turnout, what we can learn from this about Maine, what we can extrapolate from that about New Hampshire and Massachusetts or even Iowa, and then I keep seeing the argument about gods will.

Frankly I think this is a problem on both sides, namely the venom with which they both approached this issue in California and Maine versus Massachusetts where the Gay groups sat back calm and moderate as the out-of-state anti-gay marriage people destroyed themselves. And then I wonder if there was something to that strategy.

I gave some observations about 10 (maybe 20) pages back, but they got lost.

All I can do is echo what Al said, which is class, class, class and point out that a Hillary-Obama primary would have looked eerily similar (even the caucus looks pretty damn similar).

I'll give a substantive commentary later.

Ah, thats it. To do an addendum, I think this was far more important than California because it should blow up the inevitability argument someone like Nate Silver peddles. Some young voters definitely voted heavily no, and the majority of young voters probably did narrowly, but the big divide was not age, but class.

More than that it was culture. The race this really looked like is not Clinton-Obama, which was caucus based, but Collins-Allen. There you had a Portland-based candidate with a campaign run by Portland-based advisers, including in the number two position Jesse Connelly, who ran No on One this year. They ran a campaign based around knowing absolutely nothing about Maine outside of York and Cumberland, which systematically ignored local democratic bosses like Mayor Larry Gilbert of Lewiston and treated traditional democratic groups like labor with contempt. It was a campaign by yuppies for yuppies, and was dependent on Obama bringing out enough yuppies to win. Unfortunately for the strategy, there were not enough coastal yuppies to win, no matter what percent turned out.

No on One featured Allen's field director running a campaign predicated on turning out as many voters in the high-income areas and college towns as possible, and then hoping for normal referendum turnout in the rest of Maine. Towards this end they set up and ran one of the best referendum campaigns I have ever seen, on its own terms. And they succeeded, turning out 270,000 voters(perhaps even more when absentees are counted). That was more than the Democratic candidates for governor won in 2006 or 2002 and was 16,000 less than George Bush got in 2000 while winning 44% of the vote. Their problem was not that young voters turned out. Their problem was not that high income voters did not turn out. Both did, and both voted for them overwhelmingly. They carried Portland 71-29, Cape Elizabeth 69-31, Brunswick 66-34(on a turnout on par with the 2008 election). The problem was no amount of turnout among those groups could have won against what they faced. They needed the Democratic machine in the second district which is labor dominated to support them and it didn't.

A good example though of what they faced is in Lewiston.
In Lewiston they got 5100 votes in 2005 on the Gay Rights referendum to 4400 for the Yes side. This year they got 5300, but Yes got over 8000. They benefited not at all from the increased turnout, not even proportionately to their loss. Its the same story throughout the second district. The same vote totals for No from 2005, but 30% or even 40% or 50% increases for Yes.

Anyway, Sam, sorry for interrupting the general gay rights discussion. I look forward to hearing your observations.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 05, 2009, 05:13:45 PM
You'd be lucky if you were half the man JS is, jmfcst.

Please don't mock jmfcst for standing up for the truth that is the Bible that is God's Word.

I'm not mocking him, Bushie, I'm saying his criticism of JS is a crock of sh**t.

Well, don’t take it as if I was singling him out by any means.  All I am saying is that we been through this long enough that it simply comes down to: a) whether or not the bible sets boundaries on sexual behavior, and b) whether it provides a context within which those boundaries are not violated, so that a) and b) are in agreement.  It’s an extremely logic and simple premise, one that is totally ignored by JSJ and the like.

Sure, JSJ is a nice guy, as are many who share his viewpoint, but I'm not giving him a hard time about being nice.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Brittain33 on November 05, 2009, 05:32:08 PM
Ah, thats it. To do an addendum, I think this was far more important than California because it should blow up the inevitability argument someone like Nate Silver peddles. Some young voters definitely voted heavily no, and the majority of young voters probably did narrowly, but the big divide was not age, but class.

I agree that class is a divide, but on what basis do you argue that it is more important than age? If young people are voting a majority in favor of same-sex marriage, it won't matter in the long run if 40% don't because they're view gays unfavorably as part of their world view. Class is one cleavage, but how does it make age not at least as important? Did old people vote differently?

40% in Lewiston is not enough to win, but were those 40% all Yuppies, and were they evenly distributed on the age spectrum?

Quote
A good example though of what they faced is in Lewiston.
In Lewiston they got 5100 votes in 2005 on the Gay Rights referendum to 4400 for the Yes side. This year they got 5300, but Yes got over 8000. They benefited not at all from the increased turnout, not even proportionately to their loss. Its the same story throughout the second district. The same vote totals for No from 2005, but 30% or even 40% or 50% increases for Yes.

How did the gay rights referendum do in Lewiston in 1998 and 2000?



Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 05, 2009, 06:13:55 PM
Coolidge a Progressive? lol For once I agree with Einzige. Neither Harding nor Coolidge were progressive.

Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

The last two were actually considered Conservative positions at the time. Roosevelt was for Free Trade and many of his progressive supported his position on that issue. So Hamilton, you yourself just actually made the case the Coolidge was not of the same mold as TR. As for Hamilton, that is true, but Keep in mind Hamilton wanted a commercial economy based of trade and industry rather then agriculutre. And he supported Tariffs, and a National Bank to get it done. But I doubt he would have supported the state enough to come close to a Progressive. Faulty characterization on your part.

No, Yankee. Unsurprisingly, you are wrong. You must not have even read Einzige's post. It doesn't matter what they were considered, the fact is, Coolidge supported them, which Einzige still denies. I did no frame those particular issues as Progressive (though labor regulations certainly were). Coolidge allied himself with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. Roosevelt, also, supported the same immigration restrictions, labor regulations, and other economic measures of intervention such as tariffs. In fact, the tariffs supported b roosevelt, Coolidge, harding, McKinley, etc. were one of the most pivotal reasons in the Republican Party's 1912 split-- Taft had lowered tariffs.

Now if Mechaman still wants to agree with you, he has a right to ignore history. But I'm sure most people who don't care to see the truth about the great man Calvin Coolidge will recognize his actual political positions on the issues of the '20s.


lol. TR was a free trader. I have sources that can back that up. He may not have lowered them as President but he did support that as an eventuall goal. Even William McKinely had jumped on the Free Trade bandwagon at that point as evidenced by his remarks at the Exibition in Buffalo just before he was shot.

You are right in that Coolidge aligned with the Progressives in his early years but its clear he had strict limits to just how progressive he was. For instance he beleived most social reforms and spending initaitives should take place at the state level. This amount of Federalism would be abhorrent to Progressives. Also keep in mind that Progressivism had changed from 1912 to 1924. That was largely due to Personality. In 1912, they were led by TR and thus reflected his beleifs. But in 1924, they were led by Bob LaFollete and thus several positions had become more reflective of him espcially the movement towards a pacifist foriegn policy. There was yet a second split btw Conservatives and Progressives, this time in 1922 and it led to severre losses for the GOP in Congress. I highly doubt Coolidge was anything close to a Progressive at this point, especially after he refused to follow the Progressives out of the GOP in 1912.  Finally you keep pointing to a few issues as proof that he was a Progressive. You also must keep in mind that he was a deficit hawk, he cut taxes, reduced debt, and promoted private enterprise as opposed to Gov't intervention. He may not have been a Libertarian but he definately wasn't a Progressive.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Dan the Roman on November 05, 2009, 06:23:33 PM
Ah, thats it. To do an addendum, I think this was far more important than California because it should blow up the inevitability argument someone like Nate Silver peddles. Some young voters definitely voted heavily no, and the majority of young voters probably did narrowly, but the big divide was not age, but class.

I agree that class is a divide, but on what basis do you argue that it is more important than age? If young people are voting a majority in favor of same-sex marriage, it won't matter in the long run if 40% don't because they're view gays unfavorably as part of their world view. Class is one cleavage, but how does it make age not at least as important? Did old people vote differently?

40% in Lewiston is not enough to win, but were those 40% all Yuppies, and were they evenly distributed on the age spectrum?

Quote

I was referring somewhat to the PPP which had it narrowly winning that age group. The margin by which it was going down a lot of places did not give me the impression that it was doing well with young high school graduates though that hard to say. Anecdotal data though tells me that pro-gay rights groups seem to be being much less persuasive, even with the high school, with current this is a "right because it is, and anyone who disagrees is a bigot line" than they were with the 2006-2007 one. This is something that is run on respect. Young voters supported it because it was disrespectful to gay friends and peers not to. The NO campaign came very close to losing the benifit of some that respect in the last week by trying to go after the job of the guidence councilor who appeared in the Yes ad. On a more general level, I have felt this has been a downhill trajectory since the stupid David Parker thing in Lexington in 2006. In that one moment of condencending pique, the principal transformed the whole national debate about same-sex marriage from adults to the rights of parents, and that is a debate the Gay Rights groups still don't recognize. They ran ads in California saying "this has nothing to do with schools" and did the same thing in Maine.

The only problem? Its a lie, at least by the standards most people measure it, and most voters knew it. The line used by the Principal in Lexington was an arrogant "its the law now" and the fact is can anyone seriously argue that had Prop 8 or Question 1 failed that would not be the response any parents inquiring on the same issue would get in Maine or California in a few years? They have to deal with this head on, and instead they have been launching personal attacks on their opponents. Their opponents are despicable, I agree with that, but they can't go into this frustrating battered Gay syndrome and whine about how unfair life is. The argument I made above was therefore that Question 1 was not lost in the turnout or the mechanics of the campaign, though those were problematic, but with the message. Ditto for Prop 8.

As for Lewiston, a large part of that is probably Bates and USM. I don't have precinct results, but the turnout in the two Bates precincts accounted for 25% of the vote cast in 2005. It looks to me like they got swamped this time.
A good example though of what they faced is in Lewiston.
In Lewiston they got 5100 votes in 2005 on the Gay Rights referendum to 4400 for the Yes side. This year they got 5300, but Yes got over 8000. They benefited not at all from the increased turnout, not even proportionately to their loss. Its the same story throughout the second district. The same vote totals for No from 2005, but 30% or even 40% or 50% increases for Yes.

How did the gay rights referendum do in Lewiston in 1998 and 2000?



2009
Yes   7300
No    5121

2000
Yes(pro-gay rights)  7329
No                            8271

1998
Yes(anti-gay rights) 4514
No                            2685


I do want to see the student precincts, but I doubt that was the only cause for the fall.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 06:27:42 PM
Coolidge a Progressive? lol For once I agree with Einzige. Neither Harding nor Coolidge were progressive.

Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

The last two were actually considered Conservative positions at the time. Roosevelt was for Free Trade and many of his progressive supported his position on that issue. So Hamilton, you yourself just actually made the case the Coolidge was not of the same mold as TR. As for Hamilton, that is true, but Keep in mind Hamilton wanted a commercial economy based of trade and industry rather then agriculutre. And he supported Tariffs, and a National Bank to get it done. But I doubt he would have supported the state enough to come close to a Progressive. Faulty characterization on your part.

No, Yankee. Unsurprisingly, you are wrong. You must not have even read Einzige's post. It doesn't matter what they were considered, the fact is, Coolidge supported them, which Einzige still denies. I did no frame those particular issues as Progressive (though labor regulations certainly were). Coolidge allied himself with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. Roosevelt, also, supported the same immigration restrictions, labor regulations, and other economic measures of intervention such as tariffs. In fact, the tariffs supported b roosevelt, Coolidge, harding, McKinley, etc. were one of the most pivotal reasons in the Republican Party's 1912 split-- Taft had lowered tariffs.

Now if Mechaman still wants to agree with you, he has a right to ignore history. But I'm sure most people who don't care to see the truth about the great man Calvin Coolidge will recognize his actual political positions on the issues of the '20s.


lol. TR was a free trader. I have sources that can back that up. He may not have lowered them as President but he did support that as an eventuall goal. Even William McKinely had jumped on the Free Trade bandwagon at that point as evidenced by his remarks at the Exibition in Buffalo just before he was shot.

You are right in that Coolidge aligned with the Progressives in his early years but its clear he had strict limits to just how progressive he was. For instance he beleived most social reforms and spending initaitives should take place at the state level. This amount of Federalism would be abhorrent to Progressives. Also keep in mind that Progressivism had changed from 1912 to 1924. That was largely due to Personality. In 1912, they were led by TR and thus reflected his beleifs. But in 1924, they were led by Bob LaFollete and thus several positions had become more reflective of him espcially the movement towards a pacifist foriegn policy. There was yet a second split btw Conservatives and Progressives, this time in 1922 and it led to severre losses for the GOP in Congress. I highly doubt Coolidge was anything close to a Progressive at this point, especially after he refused to follow the Progressives out of the GOP in 1912.  Finally you keep pointing to a few issues as proof that he was a Progressive. You also must keep in mind that he was a deficit hawk, he cut taxes, reduced debt, and promoted private enterprise as opposed to Gov't intervention. He may not have been a Libertarian but he definately wasn't a Progressive.

And you are completely missing my point. You have gotten involved in a debate that never involved you and began spewing information irrelevant to the debate. This debate was about my policies and those of Hamilton, Roosevelt, and Coolidge, and their distinct economic similarities that formed the underlying basis of their ideology, which Einzige continually disputed despite enormous historical evidence to the contrary.

Between 1912 and 1924, Progressive Republicans did not change. What happened was the splinter between the Progressive Republicans and the LaFollette Progressives. This was a movement away from nationalism and towards socialism.

Roosevelt and McKinley were not free traders in the slightest. That is misinformation on your part. Again, in order to take part in this debate you must remember that we are not comparing Coolidge to Roosevelt, but both to myself and Hamilton as well. I am a deficit hawk and believe in lower taxes. Yes, that places me very close to the pro-business positions of the Coolidge administration. Coolidge was an ardent nationalist on economic issues and a federalist/libertarian on social ones, just like Alexander Hamilton (and myself). Also, when you mention the split between the Progressives and the Republicans you forget to mention that Coolidge was able to keep those Progressives mostly within his electoral coalition (and for good reason) and also highlight the "pacifist" policies of LaFollette and but forget to mention that the "return to normalcy" marked a complete 180 from Wilson's interventionism and worked to bring about an isolationist period. Coolidge even signed the anti-war pact along with Germany, Britain, and others, though it was purely symbolic, he still took part.

Yankee, I do not claim that Coolidge was a 100% Progressive but the point is that he was aligned with them and supported some of their policies and that if you do read this whole discussion, you hear Einzige claim that Coolidge was the conservative to Harding as the progressive, which is false. The Republican Party's dominant faction post-1912 was, for obvious reasons, the conservatives. The Progressives were forced to take somewhat of a backseat, although due to their sheer size they held immense power. For that reason, Roosevelt was initially going to be the Republican nominee in 1920 as a reward for his strong campaigning for Republicans during the Wilson era, which helped Progressives and conservatives alike. As a former President, he was the only one with this capability.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Badger on November 05, 2009, 07:37:02 PM
You'd be lucky if you were half the man JS is, jmfcst.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sam Spade on November 07, 2009, 12:21:59 PM
SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTARY

I really don't know what all you homos are so saddened about here. 

First off, looking at your goals, your interests, and the fact you post pictures of yourself on this site looking for other attention whores to "admire" you, most of you should probably take what you can get, whether it's male, female, animal or confused and forget about marriage.

Second, for those of you who do get some tail, the dates you pick up at a bar rarely, if ever, make good marriage material.  I can assure you it works exactly the same for us normals too.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 07, 2009, 12:59:14 PM
lol Spade. Thanks for your wise insight.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 10, 2009, 11:17:01 PM
Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

I must say I was surprised, pleasantly surprised.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Umengus on November 11, 2009, 08:30:09 AM
Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

I must say I was surprised, pleasantly surprised.

not surprised. Gay marriage is not popular, even in liberal territory. I'm curious to see if the liberal theory: "it's a question of time because young voters are more gay-friendly" will work. It's based on the fact that young people will not change their mind in future.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Holmes on November 11, 2009, 09:41:32 AM
Nah, it's pretty popular in liberal territory. Have you seen the town results map? Down in Cumberland, some parts of York and on the midcoast, No won by large margins, but up in the rural and catholic part of the state, they got blown out of the water.

Well, if you consider cities like Lewiston and Augusta to be liberal, then yeah, maybe it's not popular in liberal territory, but...

And don't make it sound like it was a large margin. :) A few years ago, this sort of referendum might not even have broken 40% in the state, especially on an off-off year.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Hash on November 11, 2009, 09:52:20 AM
Nah, it's pretty popular in liberal territory. Have you seen the town results map? Down in Cumberland, some parts of York and on the midcoast, No won by large margins, but up in the rural and catholic part of the state, they got blown out of the water.

Well, if you consider cities like Lewiston and Augusta to be liberal, then yeah, maybe it's not popular in liberal territory, but...

And don't make it sound like it was a large margin. :) A few years ago, this sort of referendum might not even have broken 40% in the state, especially on an off-off year.

U r stupid librul biash. Maine is a hippie librul tree-huggin state all around.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sbane on November 11, 2009, 02:04:58 PM
Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

I must say I was surprised, pleasantly surprised.

not surprised. Gay marriage is not popular, even in liberal territory. I'm curious to see if the liberal theory: "it's a question of time because young voters are more gay-friendly" will work. It's based on the fact that young people will not change their mind in future.

Have you ever heard of prop 22? It was a gay marriage ban passed in California in 2000. Guess how much it passed by? It passed by slightly more than a 22 point margin in hippie, tree huggin, librul California. In 2008 it passed by only a 5 point margin. Why will that trend not continue?

Here is a nice little comparison between the two votes. Have fun. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-prop8prop22,0,333635.htmlstory


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 11, 2009, 02:08:10 PM
Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

I must say I was surprised, pleasantly surprised.

not surprised. Gay marriage is not popular, even in liberal territory. I'm curious to see if the liberal theory: "it's a question of time because young voters are more gay-friendly" will work. It's based on the fact that young people will not change their mind in future.

Have you ever heard of prop 22? It was a gay marriage ban passed in California in 2000. Guess how much it passed by? It passed by slightly more than a 22 point margin in hippie, tree huggin, librul California. In 2008 it passed by only a 5 point margin. Why will that trend not continue?

Here is a nice little comparison between the two votes. Have fun. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-prop8prop22,0,333635.htmlstory

I hate to say this, but the comparison is meaningless.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sbane on November 11, 2009, 04:13:39 PM
Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

I must say I was surprised, pleasantly surprised.

not surprised. Gay marriage is not popular, even in liberal territory. I'm curious to see if the liberal theory: "it's a question of time because young voters are more gay-friendly" will work. It's based on the fact that young people will not change their mind in future.

Have you ever heard of prop 22? It was a gay marriage ban passed in California in 2000. Guess how much it passed by? It passed by slightly more than a 22 point margin in hippie, tree huggin, librul California. In 2008 it passed by only a 5 point margin. Why will that trend not continue?

Here is a nice little comparison between the two votes. Have fun. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-prop8prop22,0,333635.htmlstory

I hate to say this, but the comparison is meaningless.

And why would that be?


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Dan the Roman on November 11, 2009, 08:25:28 PM
Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

I must say I was surprised, pleasantly surprised.

not surprised. Gay marriage is not popular, even in liberal territory. I'm curious to see if the liberal theory: "it's a question of time because young voters are more gay-friendly" will work. It's based on the fact that young people will not change their mind in future.

Have you ever heard of prop 22? It was a gay marriage ban passed in California in 2000. Guess how much it passed by? It passed by slightly more than a 22 point margin in hippie, tree huggin, librul California. In 2008 it passed by only a 5 point margin. Why will that trend not continue?

Here is a nice little comparison between the two votes. Have fun. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-prop8prop22,0,333635.htmlstory

I hate to say this, but the comparison is meaningless.

And why would that be?

Probably because one was a law and one an amendment. And I would agree with that argument if it wasn't for the CA Supreme Court transforming the situation. Nevertheless, one was a vote on a hypothetical, the other on a concrete concept.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alcon on November 11, 2009, 08:36:01 PM
Why would it being a vote on a hypothetical make it a poor comparison?  If anything, that would make the comparison stronger because the differences would only serve to make the shift even greater.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Dan the Roman on November 11, 2009, 08:51:14 PM
Why would it being a vote on a hypothetical make it a poor comparison?  If anything, that would make the comparison stronger because the differences would only serve to make the shift even greater.
Because voting to ban Gay Marriage in 2000 was a free vote for people. It was something that was never going to happen, and no one was hurt by it in the view of those voting yes. Even the Gay community struggled to come up with a reason why it was bad.

Prop 8 was entirely different. You had people who were already getting married whose status would be thrown into doubt. You had people who could be married who you would be telling that they should not be able to if you voted Yes. Voting Yes was an entirely different matter.

That said, I have my own view on Prop 8, and they mainly relate to the fact that the Gay community has to separate social equality from legal equality. One is guaranteed, the other earned, and even in the best of cases never total. Gay rights groups have to realize that if they are going to use these laws as fronts to force their views on others, then people will vote on that basis, rather than on the basis of legal rights. They did not learn that lesson in California, nor evidently are they learning the correct lesson from Maine.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sbane on November 11, 2009, 09:36:31 PM
Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

I must say I was surprised, pleasantly surprised.

not surprised. Gay marriage is not popular, even in liberal territory. I'm curious to see if the liberal theory: "it's a question of time because young voters are more gay-friendly" will work. It's based on the fact that young people will not change their mind in future.

Have you ever heard of prop 22? It was a gay marriage ban passed in California in 2000. Guess how much it passed by? It passed by slightly more than a 22 point margin in hippie, tree huggin, librul California. In 2008 it passed by only a 5 point margin. Why will that trend not continue?

Here is a nice little comparison between the two votes. Have fun. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-prop8prop22,0,333635.htmlstory

I hate to say this, but the comparison is meaningless.

And why would that be?

Probably because one was a law and one an amendment. And I would agree with that argument if it wasn't for the CA Supreme Court transforming the situation. Nevertheless, one was a vote on a hypothetical, the other on a concrete concept.

And you think people saw a difference? LOL


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Dan the Roman on November 12, 2009, 07:01:44 AM
Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

I must say I was surprised, pleasantly surprised.

not surprised. Gay marriage is not popular, even in liberal territory. I'm curious to see if the liberal theory: "it's a question of time because young voters are more gay-friendly" will work. It's based on the fact that young people will not change their mind in future.

Have you ever heard of prop 22? It was a gay marriage ban passed in California in 2000. Guess how much it passed by? It passed by slightly more than a 22 point margin in hippie, tree huggin, librul California. In 2008 it passed by only a 5 point margin. Why will that trend not continue?

Here is a nice little comparison between the two votes. Have fun. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-prop8prop22,0,333635.htmlstory

I hate to say this, but the comparison is meaningless.

And why would that be?

Probably because one was a law and one an amendment. And I would agree with that argument if it wasn't for the CA Supreme Court transforming the situation. Nevertheless, one was a vote on a hypothetical, the other on a concrete concept.

And you think people saw a difference? LOL

Probably not if the CA Supreme Court had not bothered to point it out to them fairly clearly.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 12, 2009, 11:43:29 AM
Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

I must say I was surprised, pleasantly surprised.

not surprised. Gay marriage is not popular, even in liberal territory. I'm curious to see if the liberal theory: "it's a question of time because young voters are more gay-friendly" will work. It's based on the fact that young people will not change their mind in future.

Have you ever heard of prop 22? It was a gay marriage ban passed in California in 2000. Guess how much it passed by? It passed by slightly more than a 22 point margin in hippie, tree huggin, librul California. In 2008 it passed by only a 5 point margin. Why will that trend not continue?

Here is a nice little comparison between the two votes. Have fun. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-prop8prop22,0,333635.htmlstory

I hate to say this, but the comparison is meaningless.

And why would that be?

Probably because one was a law and one an amendment. And I would agree with that argument if it wasn't for the CA Supreme Court transforming the situation. Nevertheless, one was a vote on a hypothetical, the other on a concrete concept.

And you think people saw a difference? LOL

Probably not if the CA Supreme Court had not bothered to point it out to them fairly clearly.

Or if it wasn't titled on the ballot "eliminate the right"...

For some reason, I think people much a much harder time "eliminating rights" than simply banning gay marriage outright.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Alcon on November 12, 2009, 01:29:24 PM
And you think that completely eliminates a 20-point gap? :P


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Sbane on November 12, 2009, 02:13:09 PM
And you think that completely eliminates a 20-point gap? :P

Exactly. Even if it did have some impact at the margins, it was not much. Worst case scenario would have been a 8-10 point margin yes vote if the supreme court had not interfered. Which would still mean that in 8 years, the pro-gay marriage side had gained a 12-14 point margin advantage.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Badger on November 12, 2009, 08:42:42 PM
Why would it being a vote on a hypothetical make it a poor comparison?  If anything, that would make the comparison stronger because the differences would only serve to make the shift even greater.
Because voting to ban Gay Marriage in 2000 was a free vote for people. It was something that was never going to happen, and no one was hurt by it in the view of those voting yes. Even the Gay community struggled to come up with a reason why it was bad.

Prop 8 was entirely different. You had people who were already getting married whose status would be thrown into doubt. You had people who could be married who you would be telling that they should not be able to if you voted Yes. Voting Yes was an entirely different matter.

That said, I have my own view on Prop 8, and they mainly relate to the fact that the Gay community has to separate social equality from legal equality.
One is guaranteed, the other earned, and even in the best of cases never total. Gay rights groups have to realize that if they are going to use these laws as fronts to force their views on others, then people will vote on that basis, rather than on the basis of legal rights. They did not learn that lesson in California, nor evidently are they learning the correct lesson from Maine.

But legal equality strongly affects social equality. The same way immeidiately after desegregation was instituted by "federal overreaching" southern support for segregation plummeted in opinion polls. The legalization of interracial marriage didn't make it universally accepted of course, but went a long way towards removing the taboo and allowing people to rely on "well, it's the law" as a reflexive shelter.


Title: Re: Maine's Question 1
Post by: Marston on November 10, 2011, 01:57:07 AM
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/c6bfec2a92b2424e945ad2c5f5892484/ME--Gay-Marriage-Maine/

Looks like we may be going to round-two on this next year if the marriage equality activists choose to do so. The article says they'll make they're decision in January.