Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 25, 2019, 01:46:26 am
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  So how did this guy get Re-elected?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print
Author Topic: So how did this guy get Re-elected?  (Read 22805 times)
Make Politics Boring Again
exnaderite
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,942


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2005, 04:41:58 am »

He's in a much stronger position than any two term president since FDR.  It would take a series of catastrophies or scandals to weaken him. 
His approval rate is only 49%, a record low for someone who got reelected.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2005, 02:27:04 pm »

The "anti gay" stuff is a pile of it.

Just because you don't want gay marriage crammed down your throat doesn't mean your anti gay.  Something you lefties can't seem to understand.  Too bad.  Continue to lose elections then.  Fine with me.

Religion?  Oh brother.  More of the Opedo paranoid obsession with Christianity. Being opposed to gay marriage is "anti-gay bigotry".  Contantly taking shots at Christians is what, Opedo?  Enlightened thinking?  You're the bigot.

How can one be 'bigoted' against an ideology? Particularly one that is blatantly against what I consider to be a decent life?  Hating religion is like hating communism or fascism - why wouldn't I hate the religious?  They're out to get me.

As for ramming things down your throat (hilarious image, that) - obviously you are an anti-gay bigot, because gay marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with you.  Other individual's marriage isn't your business, and the fact that you wish to make it so shows you're a freedom-hating religious. 
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2005, 02:39:44 pm »

It's one thing to regulate someone else's behavior, and another to regulate your own behavior. Not recognizing gay marriage is the second.

From the old opebo file:

A full list is just way too much work.

A few favorites:

George Washington, Ronald Reagan, Calvin Coolidge, John Adams (the elder), William McKinley, Grover Cleveland, G.W. Bush. 

Least favorites:

FDR, by far the worst.  Woodrow Wilson and LBJ close seconds. 
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2005, 03:01:52 pm »

It's one thing to regulate someone else's behavior, and another to regulate your own behavior. Not recognizing gay marriage is the second
No, specifically barring same sex couples from marrying is to regulate the behaviour of others.  It has nothing whatever to do with your behaviour.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2005, 03:08:23 pm »

Same sex couples are not specifically barred from getting married. If there are two gay guys, and one decides to get married to a woman, he can do that. Anyone is allowed to marry anyone of the opposite sex.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2005, 03:17:55 pm »

Same sex couples are not specifically barred from getting married. If there are two gay guys, and one decides to get married to a woman, he can do that. Anyone is allowed to marry anyone of the opposite sex.

They are specifically barred from marrying one another.  That's none of your business.. or mine, or anyone elses.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2005, 03:55:15 pm »

Um, yes, it is the state's business what they sanction.

They are not specifically barred from marrying one another. A homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2005, 04:00:27 pm »

Um, yes, it is the state's business what they sanction.

They are not specifically barred from marrying one another. A homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman.

The State - on your nosy behalf - is interfering in the marryin' of the homosexuals.  None of your business.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2005, 04:20:58 pm »

Um, no, it's not. It's not interfering with anything; all that's being regulated is the states own behavior.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2005, 04:23:36 pm »

Um, no, it's not. It's not interfering with anything; all that's being regulated is the states own behavior.

No, the behaviour of individuals is being regulated, obviously.  One might just as well say that laws against murder are regulating the states behaviour against murderors, rather than the behaviour of murderers themselves.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2005, 04:27:10 pm »

The behavior of the state can be regulating the behavior of individuals, but it's not in this case.

Homosexuals are not getting arrested or punished for "getting married." The state is just not sanctioning gay marriage.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2005, 04:37:19 pm »

The behavior of the state can be regulating the behavior of individuals, but it's not in this case.

Homosexuals are not getting arrested or punished for "getting married." The state is just not sanctioning gay marriage.

So it is penalizing them in a way that is different from imprisoning them - by costing them money, preventing them from having financial and medical benefits, as well as barring them from legal access to their deceased spouse.  Yes, the State is penalizing the behaviour of individuals, a behaviour that is no one else's business.  Unequal treatment before the law violates individual rights.  All to satisfy the sick interfering desires of you christian bigots.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2005, 04:42:35 pm »

Uh, no. They are not losing money or being denied medical benefits, and they don't have a spouse, so I don't know what they want access to.

The sick interfering desires of not interfering?
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2005, 04:51:37 pm »

Uh, no. They are not losing money or being denied medical benefits, and they don't have a spouse, so I don't know what they want access to.

The sick interfering desires of not interfering?

Partner then.

And obviously you are interfering - they want to get married, reasonable people think it is fine, and you religious want to prevent it.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: January 05, 2005, 04:55:02 pm »

So they want the state to do something, and not doing it is not interfering.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: January 05, 2005, 05:07:53 pm »

So they want the state to do something, and not doing it is not interfering.

No, they want the state to stop doing something - which is interfereing with them by descrimination.  It is similar to the laws against people of different races marrying.

Anyway, perhaps a better question - to get past your pointless semantic nonsense, would be to ask - why do you think they should not get married?  That you think there should be any other consideration than the fact that they wish it reveals that you are a hateful bigot.  Its none of your business Philip. 
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: January 05, 2005, 05:21:31 pm »
« Edited: January 05, 2005, 07:51:29 pm by Dave Leip »

We just went through the difference between the state doing something and not doing something, moron. That's a pretty important distinction, and since you quit debating that point I'll assume you're either unable to grasp it or just BSing.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,445


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2005, 07:47:19 pm »
« Edited: January 05, 2005, 07:51:43 pm by Dave Leip »

Saying that a gay person is allowed to marry someone from the opposite sex is the wrose argument I've ver heard. It's like saying the Soviet Union was a democracy b/c everyone had the same right to vote for the Communists. Crawl back into your hole and fetch better arguments.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: January 05, 2005, 08:43:41 pm »

No, it's like saying everyone in the Soviet Union had equal rights, because everyone in the Soviet union had the same right to vote for the communists.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: January 05, 2005, 10:07:14 pm »

Saying that a gay person is allowed to marry someone from the opposite sex is the wrose argument I've ver heard. It's like saying the Soviet Union was a democracy b/c everyone had the same right to vote for the Communists. Crawl back into your hole and fetch better arguments.

Same sex divorce is on the questions that must be ask about when discussing same sex marriage.  Marriage creates a contractual relationship and there is every reason to believe that these, lke different sex relationships, will end.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: January 06, 2005, 07:37:51 am »

We just went through the difference between the state doing something and not doing something, moron. That's a pretty important distinction, and since you quit debating that point I'll assume you're either unable to grasp it or just BSing.

I went to bed.  But apparently just missed you falling to the level of ad hominem attack.  Darn.

Your distinction is completely unimportant.  In fact it is false.  The State is 'doing something' by arbitrarily enforcing a prejudicial type of 'marriage', in order to please the majority - hate-frenzied religious like yourself - and penalize the minority - nice gay people.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: January 06, 2005, 12:56:47 pm »

Your distinction is completely unimportant.  In fact it is false.  The State is 'doing something' by arbitrarily enforcing a prejudicial type of 'marriage', in order to please the majority - hate-frenzied religious like yourself - and penalize the minority - nice gay people.

No, it is not doing something. That is a fact.

As for ad hominem attacks, either quit accusing people of being 'sick bigots,' or shut up.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: January 06, 2005, 02:06:30 pm »
« Edited: January 06, 2005, 02:08:06 pm by opebo »

Your distinction is completely unimportant.  In fact it is false.  The State is 'doing something' by arbitrarily enforcing a prejudicial type of 'marriage', in order to please the majority - hate-frenzied religious like yourself - and penalize the minority - nice gay people.

No, it is not doing something. That is a fact.

As for ad hominem attacks, either quit accusing people of being 'sick bigots,' or shut up.

Yes, the government is defining marriage as something that fits a specific exclusionary religious population.  The government is discriminating, just as it did when it allowed people of the same race to marry, but not people of different races.

I don't consider 'sick bigot', when applied to your whole ilk - kith, kin, regional and religious identity - to be ad hominem.  Nothing personal against you Philip, all you Southern redneck religious nuts are sick bigots. Smiley
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: January 06, 2005, 02:17:17 pm »

That's just the State's own definition of marriage. They aren't going around throwing people in jail who define it differently.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: January 06, 2005, 02:32:37 pm »

That's just the State's own definition of marriage. They aren't going around throwing people in jail who define it differently.

They're forcibly excluding them from a State service provided for others - it would be as if you were denied a driver's license because they disapprove of your destination.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC