Maine's Question 1

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

[Phony Moderate]

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.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You'd be lucky if you were half the man JS is, jmfcst.

[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.

[Joe Biden 2020]

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.

[Phony Moderate]

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.

[Joe Biden 2020]

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.

[Alcon]

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

[Franzl]

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

[Joe Biden 2020]

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.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

[Dan the Roman]

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.

[Meeker]

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?

[Sam Spade]

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.

[Joe Biden 2020]

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.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

[Dan the Roman]

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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

[Brittain33]

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How did the gay rights referendum do in Lewiston in 1998 and 2000?

[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.

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.

[Dan the Roman]

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[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.

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.

[Badger]

You'd be lucky if you were half the man JS is, jmfcst.

[Sam Spade]

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.