Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/22/2012 12:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/22/2012 12:13:00 AM (view original):
You can lie again if you want, but it most definitely treats a minority differently. In fact, that's the only reason for it's existence.

Except for Federal employees it doesnt have any impact.

It doesnt ban gay marriage, it just allows the people of each state the right to decide.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/21/2012 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jiml60 on 8/21/2012 4:46:00 PM (view original):
If that's what you have to believe to make yourself feel better about being a racist, so be it.

I feel good knowing that I never treat people different based on race.

You cannot say that. You need a whole list of policies that treat all people different based on what their PC status is.

Freedom vs Social engineering.

Romney vs Obama!

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/21/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seamar_116 on 8/21/2012 4:38:00 AM (view original):
jim  <<The first smoking gun is that all the major networks exit polls were showing Gore as the clear winner, exit polls are even more dependable than your Rasmussen polls - yet the Bushies were whining and crying foul, of course they knew the fix was in.>>

jclarkbaker  <<Too perfect.  Claiming exit polls are somehow superior to the actual vote.  No one could even make this up.  The absurdity of that argument is amazing.>>

jclark-jim said no such thing. He said exit polls are more accurate than other polls...(primarily because they target actual voters instead of likely voters). Why do conservatives feel the need to misrepresent the positions of others? Reading comprehension does not appear to be one of your strengths.

Swamp-And if there is no indication of voter fraud why are the Republicans so hell-bent on claiming that it is rampant and resorting to all sorts of measures to take away the voting rights of those likely to vote for Democrats?

Grabbing the popcorn to watch you two explain your "thought" processes...

He was most definitely not saying that.  But good try.

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/22/2012 12:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/22/2012 12:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/22/2012 12:13:00 AM (view original):
You can lie again if you want, but it most definitely treats a minority differently. In fact, that's the only reason for it's existence.

Except for Federal employees it doesnt have any impact.

It doesnt ban gay marriage, it just allows the people of each state the right to decide.

It treats them differently. Thanks for proving my point.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/22/2012 2:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/22/2012 12:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/22/2012 12:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/22/2012 12:13:00 AM (view original):
You can lie again if you want, but it most definitely treats a minority differently. In fact, that's the only reason for it's existence.

Except for Federal employees it doesnt have any impact.

It doesnt ban gay marriage, it just allows the people of each state the right to decide.

It treats them differently. Thanks for proving my point.

So now a law that supports federal policy dealing with benefits, that applies the same standard to everyone, is now anti-minority.

Thank you for proving my point.

I dont think Seamar is going to understand my point.

Please make a rational case that they apply the same standards to everyone. I can anticipate what your answer will be, and I'm sure it will back up what I said about you being disingenuous and immature, but I want to hear you make the case yourself.

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/21/2012 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/21/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/21/2012 3:11:00 AM (view original):
Viktor Yanukovych could have been President of Ukraine 5 years earlier if everyone was as naive as jclark.

Fantastic that you are comparing voting in Ukraine to voting here.

You're not good at this.  You should stop.

Yeah, because that could NEVER happen here. Not with corporations like Diebold looking after the integrity of the system. You've really doubled down on the naiveté, clarky.

Of course, the ironic part is that the evidence that election was a sham in Ukraine was the same as it was here: the results were way off what the exit polls projected, far outside the margin of error. But jclark would like to believe that the statistical science on which pollinig is founded applies in one country, but not another. I guess that makes sense, if your head happens to be stuck up your ***.

You're not good at this.  You should stop.

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/21/2012 5:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/21/2012 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jiml60 on 8/21/2012 4:46:00 PM (view original):
If that's what you have to believe to make yourself feel better about being a racist, so be it.

I feel good knowing that I never treat people different based on race.

You cannot say that. You need a whole list of policies that treat all people different based on what their PC status is.

Freedom vs Social engineering.

Romney vs Obama!

Until Republicans get their noses out of the bedroom, they will NEVER be pro-freedom.

Posted by seamar_116 on 8/22/2012 9:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/21/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seamar_116 on 8/21/2012 4:38:00 AM (view original):
jim  <<The first smoking gun is that all the major networks exit polls were showing Gore as the clear winner, exit polls are even more dependable than your Rasmussen polls - yet the Bushies were whining and crying foul, of course they knew the fix was in.>>

jclarkbaker  <<Too perfect.  Claiming exit polls are somehow superior to the actual vote.  No one could even make this up.  The absurdity of that argument is amazing.>>

jclark-jim said no such thing. He said exit polls are more accurate than other polls...(primarily because they target actual voters instead of likely voters). Why do conservatives feel the need to misrepresent the positions of others? Reading comprehension does not appear to be one of your strengths.

Swamp-And if there is no indication of voter fraud why are the Republicans so hell-bent on claiming that it is rampant and resorting to all sorts of measures to take away the voting rights of those likely to vote for Democrats?

Grabbing the popcorn to watch you two explain your "thought" processes...

He was most definitely not saying that.  But good try.

jim  <<exit polls are even more dependable than your Rasmussen polls>>

jclark <<Claiming exit polls are somehow superior to the actual vote>> and  <<He was most definitely not saying that.  But good try.>>

wow....just wow...

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/22/2012 3:42:00 PM (view original):
The law allows for a specific regulation to be applied to marriage for everyone.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/22/2012 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/21/2012 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/21/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/21/2012 3:11:00 AM (view original):
Viktor Yanukovych could have been President of Ukraine 5 years earlier if everyone was as naive as jclark.

Fantastic that you are comparing voting in Ukraine to voting here.

You're not good at this.  You should stop.

Yeah, because that could NEVER happen here. Not with corporations like Diebold looking after the integrity of the system. You've really doubled down on the naiveté, clarky.

Of course, the ironic part is that the evidence that election was a sham in Ukraine was the same as it was here: the results were way off what the exit polls projected, far outside the margin of error. But jclark would like to believe that the statistical science on which pollinig is founded applies in one country, but not another. I guess that makes sense, if your head happens to be stuck up your ***.

You're not good at this.  You should stop.

This is fantastic.  You are serious with this argument.  Wow.

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/22/2012 6:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/22/2012 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/21/2012 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/21/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/21/2012 3:11:00 AM (view original):
Viktor Yanukovych could have been President of Ukraine 5 years earlier if everyone was as naive as jclark.

Fantastic that you are comparing voting in Ukraine to voting here.

You're not good at this.  You should stop.

Yeah, because that could NEVER happen here. Not with corporations like Diebold looking after the integrity of the system. You've really doubled down on the naiveté, clarky.

Of course, the ironic part is that the evidence that election was a sham in Ukraine was the same as it was here: the results were way off what the exit polls projected, far outside the margin of error. But jclark would like to believe that the statistical science on which pollinig is founded applies in one country, but not another. I guess that makes sense, if your head happens to be stuck up your ***.

You're not good at this.  You should stop.

This is fantastic.  You are serious with this argument.  Wow.

Nice lack of subtance, buddy. So have we reached the point where you're going to stop posting for a few months, then come back and claim you never said what you said?