So how did this guy get Re-elected?

[A18]

Depends on whose history you're talking about.  For his supporters, he was a strong champion of American values, life, liberty, and democracy who truly understood what it meant to be a leader and who was unjustly mocked by ridiculous, egotistical intellectuals who were so hopelessly out of touch with reality that it was laughable.  For his opponents, he was a moronic, self-serving, arrogant brat whose only support came from people even dumber than him: people whose only care in life is the Bible and bigotry.

Hopefully, no one from either of these groups will be writing the history.

Hah, that's actually a very good assessment.

[A18]

Why don't you political failures ever worry about incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage?

[A18]

Losing all three elected branches of government in ten years can be classified as a political failure.

[A18]

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. 

[A18]

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.

[A18]

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.

[A18]

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

[A18]

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.

[A18]

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?

[A18]

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

[A18]

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.

[A18]

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.

[A18]

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.

[A18]

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

[A18]

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

[A18]

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

[A18]

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.