If . . . . .

[Shira]

I wonder what would have been the election outcome if only one single judge in the Massachusetts supreme court had voted differently: not recognizing gay marriages instead of recognizing.

[Shira]

I wonder if the Massachusetts legislature will allow the people of that state to vote on overturning the legislation from the bench?

It’s irrelevant now. The disaster has already happened.

[Shira]

IF..........they could all get over it....Kerry is a loser.  He lost.  He didn't win.  He came out behind Bush.  He was a non-winner.  Lost and forgotten.

My question was very simple: How the election would have been looked like without this gay marriage stupidity.

In 1992 it was “It’s the economy, stupid”
In 2004 it was “It’s the gays, stupid”

What a shame. Most people in the civilized world are unable to understand it. People of Moslem countries such as Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, do  understand it very well.

[Shira]

The more interesting question is how the elecction would have looked without the Iraq war.

The difference is that Bush initiated the Iraq war and this was his policy. You vote for or against a president based on his records.

Kerry did not initiate the court decision on gay marriages and had nothing to do with it.  He would have been more than happy if he could prevent this ruling. I am confident that without this ruling Kerry would have been the president of the US.

[Shira]

My question was very simple: How the election would have been looked like without this gay marriage stupidity.

In 1992 it was “It’s the economy, stupid”
In 2004 it was “It’s the gays, stupid”

What a shame. Most people in the civilized world are unable to understand it. People of Moslem countries such as Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, do  understand it very well.

Shira, you are right to place a lot of blame on Kerry's loss on the ruling, but ultimately Kerry himself doomed his candidacy.

Kerry was not a pefect candidate. But without the gay marriage issue, he had won the election.

[Shira]

My question was very simple: How the election would have been looked like without this gay marriage stupidity.

In 1992 it was “It’s the economy, stupid”
In 2004 it was “It’s the gays, stupid”

What a shame. Most people in the civilized world are unable to understand it. People of Moslem countries such as Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, do  understand it very well.

Shira, you are right to place a lot of blame on Kerry's loss on the ruling, but ultimately Kerry himself doomed his candidacy.

Kerry was not a pefect candidate. But without the gay marriage issue, he had won the election.

That seems to very hard to claim, since Bush's position is to leave the matter up to the states.

Bush’s position is irrelevant. What is important is the fear that was successfully inserted in the minds of the “Religious Right” people that if Kerry is elected, gay marriage will be recognized.

It is not too difficult to indoctrinate these people, many of whom believe even today that Sadam is responsible for 9/11.

[Shira]

Bush’s position is irrelevant. What is important is the fear that was successfully inserted in the minds of the “Religious Right” people that if Kerry is elected, gay marriage will be recognized.

It is not too difficult to indoctrinate these people, many of whom believe even today that Sadam is responsible for 9/11.

The interesting thing here is that Kerry voted against DOMA, which is some indication that Kerry was not opposed to same sex marriages.  It's far from "indoctrination," but another example of Kerry hiding from his record.  While he said he opposed it, he didn't support statutory action to prevent one state from being forced to recognize another state's same sex marraige.

Bush's and Kerry's positions are immaterial. What so ridiculous and frightening about it is, that this stupid non-issue decided who would be the president of the strongest nation in the world.

[Shira]

This is once again an example of both your bigotry and your lack of sanity, bopeepo. 

We also had president who signed a Federal law, DOMA stating that one state did not have to recognize another state's civil unions.  His name was Bill Clinton.

There was a president who said, of DOMA, "It basically protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman. "  His name was George W. Bush. 

We had a presidential candidate that says, "Now, with respect to DOMA and the marriage laws, the states have always been able to manage those laws. And they're proving today, every state, that they can manage them adequately."  While he doesn't address the squarely, he is saying that the states can manage those laws.

The argument that I'm seeing is if Article 4 Secion 1 of the US Constitution Applies.

I am not talking about the position itself, but rather about the fact that "Gay Marriage" became a crucial issue by naive ignorants who are confident that WMD was found in Iraq and that Sadam is responsible for 9/11
_________________________

That's what Bob Herbert writes in today's NYT:

I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.

This is scary. How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold? No wonder Bush won.

The survey, and an accompanying report, showed that there's a fair amount of cluelessness in the ranks of the values crowd. The report said, "It is clear that supporters of the president are more likely to have misperceptions than those who oppose him."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/opinion/08herbert.html?oref=login&hp

[Shira]

Opebo...bopeep  whatever.....you are the epitome of bigotry trying to attribute all the ills of whatever your warped sense of the world is to religion and the majority right.  Your secular view of the world is not the majority view in this country.  Pack it up and head to Europe where you can bask in all the social secularism you want to.  Breathe deep the failings of secularism.  The dead-end.  The death.  The doom of that very way.  It is seductive and you have been seduced.  GO NOW!!!!

"It's sick out there and getting sicker"

[Shira]

Still waiting for you to back up your claim that European quality of life is better.

"Quality of life" by itself is an abstract term, but there are some measurable parameters that are good indicators to "quality of life".
The most significant of these parameters is the one that I have mentioned several times - Life Expectancy.
Life expectancy in European countries (but not the former Communist countries) is between one to four years longer than in the US.
This is a very sever finding.

[Shira]

It depends who you are. Obviously labor is going to be better off in socialist Europe.

FYI: In France, Italy, Denmark, Greece the Socialist parties are in the opposition

[Shira]

Life expectancy is utterly meaningless.

Why?
Because the US numbers are not good?

It the key number to evaluate how advanced and modern a country is.

[Shira]

The key to how advanced and modern a country is is how advanced and modern a country is.

Try to be less childish.

[Shira]

Again and again. Enough with the excuses.
The US is the only country among the developed ones where 15% of its population is without health insurance.
The Health Care system in our country is strongly controlled by the HMOs and the powerful drug companies.

[Shira]

There's nothing wrong with 15% of the population not having health insurance.

You respond very quickly with yes/no simplistic declarations.
You have to explain why it is not wrong. This what "Passionate Conservatism" is really about?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is there a real competition? Do people have the choice not to buy? Even when they try to buy the drugs from Canada, the drug companies (via our government) prevent them from doing so.