Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 15, 2019, 06:43:56 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  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 22434 times)
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,811
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: January 06, 2005, 02:34:34 pm »

No, that's interferance, because they'll pull you over and punish you for driving without a license.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,081


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: January 06, 2005, 03:08:25 pm »

No, that's interferance, because they'll pull you over and punish you for driving without a license.

The State's 'interference' in this matter is in favouring one group of people over another - similar to Jim Crow.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,811
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: January 06, 2005, 03:57:18 pm »

Uh, no. Every person has an equal opportunity to get married. Homosexuals just don't want to, because they're homosexuals.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,081


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: January 06, 2005, 04:01:19 pm »

Uh, no. Every person has an equal opportunity to get married. Homosexuals just don't want to, because they're homosexuals.

No, marriage has been carefully fashioned in a way to exclude them and deny them equal treatment.  There is no reason for marriage to be designed in this unfair way - the fact that it is traditional is perhaps the best argument against it, given this country's inhumane past.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,811
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: January 06, 2005, 04:10:33 pm »

Marriage has been carefully fashioned in a way to exclude them?! LMAO! You're talking about a 5 thousand year old institution!

Anyone can get married, assuming they want to.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,081


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: January 06, 2005, 04:12:12 pm »

Marriage has been carefully fashioned in a way to exclude them?! LMAO! You're talking about a 5 thousand year old institution!

Just as I said - in its current form it is quite barbaric.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 45,636


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: January 06, 2005, 04:26:04 pm »

Uh, no. Every person has an equal opportunity to get married. Homosexuals just don't want to, because they're homosexuals.

No, marriage has been carefully fashioned in a way to exclude them and deny them equal treatment.  There is no reason for marriage to be designed in this unfair way - the fact that it is traditional is perhaps the best argument against it, given this country's inhumane past.

Wrong, there are historical incidents of gay marriage.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,081


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: January 06, 2005, 04:30:14 pm »

Uh, no. Every person has an equal opportunity to get married. Homosexuals just don't want to, because they're homosexuals.

No, marriage has been carefully fashioned in a way to exclude them and deny them equal treatment.  There is no reason for marriage to be designed in this unfair way - the fact that it is traditional is perhaps the best argument against it, given this country's inhumane past.

Wrong, there are historical incidents of gay marriage.

Interesting.  Well, in many ways the US is a worse and more puritannical country than it was in the past.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,244


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: January 06, 2005, 05:18:32 pm »

Please enumerate places where gay marriage flourished.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,081


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: January 07, 2005, 05:13:44 am »

Please enumerate places where gay marriage flourished.

I doubt it was ever allowed to 'flourish' - too many of the wrong kind of people in every society I've ever heard of.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,102
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: January 07, 2005, 07:21:32 am »

Texas is usually considered Southern these days.
Only by ignorant or stupid people.
Logged
skybridge
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,919
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: January 07, 2005, 09:20:16 am »

All the former confederate states are southern.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,081


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: January 07, 2005, 02:50:45 pm »

Texas is usually considered Southern these days.
Only by ignorant or stupid people.

Hahah!  So you're saying Texans consider themselves Southern and Southerners agree?
Logged
Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,426
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: January 07, 2005, 09:01:43 pm »

Please enumerate places where gay marriage flourished.

It's alive and well in half of Canada, the Netherlands, and Denmark, if I recall correctly.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: January 20, 2005, 10:10:59 pm »

How did he get re-elected? That is a tough one.   The war's not going good.  The recession was a pretty good sized one, although we are recovering.  He seemed to isolate many groups (gays, blacks) more than most Republicans.  He will never change his mind on anything, and everything is always black and white.  He raised the national debt far more than even Reagan.  John Kerry must've been a really, really, really bad choice if was beat by Bush.   
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 86,272
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: January 22, 2005, 02:59:05 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.

so make it exactly the same way heterosexual divorce is handled. problem solved.
Logged
kwab
Rookie
*
Posts: 42


Political Matrix
E: 40.00, S: 20.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: January 24, 2005, 06:42:27 am »

Gays should have the same benefits that straight people do.... with civil unions.  Marriage should stay between a man and a woman.

Logged
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,653


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: January 26, 2005, 07:13:45 pm »

If Iraq turns out well and 25 years from now Iran, Iraq, Egypt and the like are all functiional free market democratic societies, Bush will go down in history as a truly great president, along with the likes of Jefferson, washington, Reagan and FRD, if not, then not Smiley

Bush 43 will be recorded as a very important and consequential president, the jury is just still out if they are good or bad consequences.

The election was 51/48 hoping it was consequential/good.

Let's hope the majority got it right projecting the future...
Logged
cabville
Rookie
*
Posts: 23
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: January 31, 2005, 10:53:00 am »

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.

You are absolutely wrong as usual.  Marriage is a religious ritual and in essence a covenant between a man, a woman, and God.  It's not a bond between two people of the same gender or three or more people of different genders.  It's a bond between one man and woman.  Its religious and cultural history and tradition literally dates back eons.  And it's not the place for couple of gay activists to suddenly redefine it just because they don't like the traditional definition.  They don't have the right to do it any more than polygamists have the right to decide that more than two people can get married.  Marriage is what it is.  If you don't like it, come up with your own ritual.
Logged
cabville
Rookie
*
Posts: 23
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: January 31, 2005, 11:03:15 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.

The state is " arbitrarily in forcing a prejudicial type of marriage "? You don't get it.  Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, period! It is just as arbitrary as the girl Scouts only allowing girls in.  If boys are allowed then it's not really the girl Scouts is it? You may think it's arbitrary and that's fine, the You didn't create the ritual and it's not yours to change. 

I may decide tomorrow that I want to marry Tina and Nancy, but I can't.  Should I start crying and whining about how long been discriminated against it held the hate frenzied religious people are penalizing me? This is typical of liberals.  When they don't get their way, they start crying like two year olds.  Just because you don't like it doesn't make it discrimination.
Logged
cabville
Rookie
*
Posts: 23
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: January 31, 2005, 11:28:01 am »

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.

No, it's nothing like interracial marriage.  This is because interracial marriage occurs between. . . .  Care to take a guess. . . . .  A man and a woman.  That is the only standard marriage is held to.

Read this quote of yours very carefully. . . .

"That you think there should be any other consideration than the fact that they wish it reveals that you are a hateful bigot. "

this is fascinating.  I don't think that I should be allowed to marry Nancy and Tina, does that make me a hateful bigot against myself? What if I want to join the NAACP? I'm white .  How about the girl Scouts? I am a man, how about the National Organization for Women?

your logic is absurd.  You have decided that you and people like you have the right to redefine anything you don't like.  You don't.  You are free to come up with your own ritual just like somebody did eons ago when marriage was invented and defining it any way you want.
Logged
cabville
Rookie
*
Posts: 23
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: January 31, 2005, 11:34:57 am »

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

You left out a rather important fact.  Marriage is a religious ritual.  Enforcing the terms of that bond is hardly arbitrary.  Arbitrary is suddenly deciding they don't like the terms of the deal and trying to change it to suit your own personal desires while telling everybody who disagrees with you that they are bigots and hate frenzied.  Or perhaps you want to redefine the word arbitrary also?
Logged
USERNAME
Newbie
*
Posts: 9


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: February 24, 2005, 05:29:52 pm »

I think that “marriage” is society conferring affirmative sanction and benefits upon relationships that it sees as beneficial to itself.  A man and woman, living together, raising their children has traditionally been thought of as beneficial for society as a whole.  If the marriage dissolves some or all of those benefits are withdrawn.  A non-custodial divorcee loses all society granted benefits.  A custodial single parent loses much of them.  As benefits to society are diminished, so are benefits from society.

Denial of the status of marriage to gay couples is neither bigoted nor hate driven.  It us just that the benefits to society from such a relationship are not apparent, and so none are conferred. 

How it is possible that whether or not society decides to confer the title of “marriage” on a particular kind of relationship together with the attendant benefits of that title could not be the business of other members of that society escapes me. 
Logged
USERNAME
Newbie
*
Posts: 9


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: February 24, 2005, 06:35:24 pm »

I think, OBEPO, I see where you are confused.  You think that because your relationship with your gay friend is none of my business, and I agree, that whether or not I (herein a stand-in for society) decide to confer title and benefits upon you for that relationship is also none of my business.  Your logic is flawed. 

Whenever a society decides to grant, say, tax benefits upon individuals because of what they are doing, it is always the business of that society and of the other members of that society.  That’s why the Tax Code, Regs, and Rulings take up a couple bookshelves.  It is an entire system of discrimination, discriminating precisely who and who not, where and when, can and can’t, etc.  This is not the same as prejudice discrimination.

You scream that I am a bigot and I hate you because I won’t grant you the title and benefits you demand.  I don’t hate you anymore than I hate hobbyist farmers who fail to show a profit three out of five years.  I just won’t give either of you the tax benefits you desire.  You both think I’m unfair.

Your relationship with your goat is none of my business either.  That doesn’t mean I am going to give you a tax break because of it.  Actually, if you can file Schedule F I might. 


Logged
Cryptic
Shadowlord88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 895


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: June 24, 2013, 11:43:46 am »

Wow, people were very vocally against gay marriage on the forum eight years ago.  Interesting to compare these attitudes to today and see how much opinions have shifted.  Glad to know they've shifted far more in favor of equality. 
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