Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/22/2012 7:34:00 PM (view original):

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?

What he means is that you are stating that a US election was fixed. That either everyone knows and is keeping quiet, or that no one knows and you are a super genius.

Do either of those seem logical?

The idea that there is some power that can create election results seems oddly crazy. How could it happen? How could no one know about it?

So to repeat Jclark when we examine your point we just say...

WOW

A US election was fixed.  Specifically a state that was run by the brother of the Republican candidate.
The state of Florida hired a firm to "clean" up the voter rolls by knocking legitimate voters off the list, for the simple coincidence of having the same name as a convicted felon.
So, yes there is a power that can create election results that are fraudulent, doesn't take a genius to figure that out - but then you, jclark, doug, et al barely have half a brain combined.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/23/2012 2:11:00 AM (view original):
No. There are laws that say only male and female couples can get married. If a gay person wanted to marry someone of the opposite sex they are allowed.

And there it is...exactly the kind of disingenuous, immature answer we all knew swamp would provide.

Does this bullshit even merit a response?

Do you think choice of a life partner is of the same significance as deciding which color M&M to pull out of the candy jar? What the HELL is wrong with you?!

A heterosexual can marry someone he (or she) loves. A homosexual has to find someone willing to perpetrate a fraud with him. (In the name of protecting the "sanctity of marriage" no less)

And you think that treats both the same?

I understand that it doesnt impact everyone the same. I appreciate that gays should be able to be married.

Where is the line crossed between regulations and civil rights?

Gays can live as if they are married without anyone burning crosses on their lawn. Gays can do wills that treat each other like a spouse.

What level of suffering are gays actually going through?

At what level do we decide that everyone has to follow the same rule?

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/22/2012 6:32:00 PM (view original):

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.

Except straight people can marry, gay people can't. The regulation is tied to a discriminatory conception of marriage; it can't help but be discriminatory.

Your claim that gay people can't marry is patently false.

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?

Post what I said.

The US Government has no right to marry anyone.  That is a mixing of church and state.  They should be only allowed to create personal partnerships.

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/22/2012 8:57:00 PM (view original):
What he means is that you are stating that a US election was fixed. There is evidence that it was, as there was in Ukraine. That either everyone knows and is keeping quiet, or that no one knows and you are a super genius. Or the more common sense conclusion that a lot of people suspect it, but nothing was done about it. Somehow you left that out. Of course, something was done in Ukraine, eventually resulting in another round of elections. And what do you know, with a little international scrutiny, the results were very different. Go figure.

Do either of those seem logical? See above.

The idea that there is some power that can create election results seems oddly crazy. How could it happen? How could no one know about it? And yet it did happen in Ukraine. Why couldn't it happen here? Give me one logical reason.

So to repeat Jclark when we examine your point we just say...

WOW In lieu of anything of substance.

You should work at the UN.

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/22/2012 10:32:00 PM (view original):
Really, Opie? Well, I observed the elections in this country in person. The long lines in poorer precincts, the voting machines (manufactured by a major Republican donor, no less) that couldn't be audited. But you just keep telling yourself it couldn't happen here.

You are insane.

This thread is perfect.  It shows the absolute insanity of the left.  In their minds they only lose elections because Repubs cheat.  If Obama loses this time it is because of racism.  That he won last time is irrelevant re the racism argument.  What a fantastical world they live in.

Posted by jiml60 on 8/23/2012 11:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/22/2012 7:34:00 PM (view original):

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?

What he means is that you are stating that a US election was fixed. That either everyone knows and is keeping quiet, or that no one knows and you are a super genius.

Do either of those seem logical?

The idea that there is some power that can create election results seems oddly crazy. How could it happen? How could no one know about it?

So to repeat Jclark when we examine your point we just say...

WOW

A US election was fixed.  Specifically a state that was run by the brother of the Republican candidate.
The state of Florida hired a firm to "clean" up the voter rolls by knocking legitimate voters off the list, for the simple coincidence of having the same name as a convicted felon.
So, yes there is a power that can create election results that are fraudulent, doesn't take a genius to figure that out - but then you, jclark, doug, et al barely have half a brain combined.

States purge voter rolls all the time you moron.

Posted by raucous on 8/23/2012 9:46:00 PM (view original):
The US Government has no right to marry anyone.  That is a mixing of church and state.  They should be only allowed to create personal partnerships.

I actually tend to agree with this.  The govt should recognize unions that are created by churches, synagogues, etc.  Let the individual churches decide.

My main problem with all this is that the reality is that civil unions give gay couples the same equality under the law.  But they want "marriage", which is historically a religious union based on the ability to procreate.  Further, this whole push is by a party that spits on religion.

Posted by raucous on 8/23/2012 9:46:00 PM (view original):
The US Government has no right to marry anyone.  That is a mixing of church and state.  They should be only allowed to create personal partnerships.

agreed. Left and right find common ground.
Religious ceremony if the couple chooses, but a civil ceremony for all the "legal" stuff. Problem solved.

In Mass, gays get it all.  They can have a marriage if they want to... or they don't have to and just live with each other and still get to put their partner on their own health insurance.  If you are straight, you are not allowed to be put on your partner's health insurance if you are living together.

They get their cake and eat it too.