Maine's Question 1

[Mechaman]

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, 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.

[Scam of God]

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, 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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, okay. What did he advocate?

[Alexander Hamilton]

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, 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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Scam of God]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Scam of God]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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?

[Scam of God]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Mechaman]

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.

[Mechaman]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Lunar]

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Mechaman]

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.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

[Mechaman]

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?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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.

[nclib]

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.

[Mechaman]

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.

[Mechaman]

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.

[Badger]

This is almost as good as last year's California: "Keep it straight...YES on 8!"

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. ;-)

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.