House Wins Offset Gubernatorial Losses for Obama, Dems

posted by John Nichols on 11/04/2009 @ 12:14am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (284)

Subscribe Now

White House aides announced Tuesday night that President Obama was not watching off-year election results on television.

Actually, the president should have been watching.

Indeed, he should have stayed up late.

Tuesday night started lousy for Obama and the Democrats.

Republicans quickly won all three statewide races in Virginia, scoring an off-year election sweep that restored GOP dominance in a state where years of Democratic advances culminated in Barack Obama's 2008 victory in the state.

Then the GOP snatched the governorship of New Jersey, a state where Obama had put his prestige on the line in an effort to secure a second term for Governor Jon Corzine.

Only late in the evening -- after a brief moment when it looked as if New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg might lose to underfunded Democrat Bill Thompson (the independent incumbent finally prevailed by a 50-46 margin) -- the news suddenly turned better for the Democrats.

Much better.

In the high-profile special election contest in upstate New York, Democrat Bill Owens won a U.S. House seat that had been held since 1872 by the Republicans. Owens maintained a steady 49-45 lead over Conservative Party nominee Bill Hoffman, who secured the support of the national GOP after Sarah Palin and other top Republicans rejected moderate Dede Scozzafava as the party's nominee. (An embittered Scozzafava endorsed Democrat Hoffman but her name remained on the ballot and she pulled about 5 percent.)

The New York special election was portrayed as a critical internal test for a Republican Party that is battling to redefine itself in advance of the 2010 congressional elections. But it turned into a critical external test, and a fratricidal GOP failed it.

Then came the news that Democrat John Garamendi, who campaigned as an unapologetic backer of sweeping health-care reform, had won a big victory in the race to fill an open U.S. House seat in northern California. Garamendi, a rabble-rousing critic of big insurance companies who beat the choices of much of the party establishment in the primary, keeps a Democratic seat Democratic. But he will serve as a decidedly more progressive representative than the member he succeeds, Ellen Tauscher, who was one of the few California Democrats to join the conservative Blue Dog Caucus.

Tauscher took the seat in 1996 from a Republican and for many years the district was portrayed as one where only a conservative Democrat could beat the GOP. Garamendi's win proves the thinking wrong and actually gives a boost to reformers in the House.

The federal wins came as a relief for Democrats who took hard hits in the gubernatorial contests.

Virginia Republican Bob McDonnell beat hapless Democrat Creigh Deeds by a 59-41 margin in a state Obama won by a comfortable margin in 2008. Republican won races for two other statewide posts, lieutenant governor and attorney general, by similar margins.

A smooth and effective candidate, he had won a statewide election four years ago (for attorney general in a race with Deeds) and ran a smart campaign that focused on the economy and job creation issues that are front-burner concerns in Virginia and most other states.

Deeds was a stumbling and ineffectual candidate who seemed at times to be doing his best to depress Democratic turnout -- with the candidate going so far as to suggest that he would opt Virginia out of the public option if it was included in a health-care reform measure.

The Virginia results were a setback not just for Obama but for outgoing Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, who chairs the Democratic National Committee.

But the Virginia finish -- which had been anticipated in the polls -- was not as frustrating for Democrats as the New Jersey result.

Republican Chris Christie beat incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine in the Garden State, where Obama swept in 2008 and to which the president returned again and again this year to campaign for Corzine.

Like Deeds in Virginia, Corzine brought liabilities to his race -- he was so unpopular at the start of the 2009 cycle that Democrats talked of trying to replace him as their gubernatorial candidate.

To what extent were these races referendums on Obama?

While 55 percent of the voters in Virginia and 60 percent of the voters in New Jersey told exit pollsters they did not cast ballots with Obama in mind, substantial numbers of electors in each state indicated they they went to the polls with an eye toward sending the president a message.

In Virginia, 24 percent of those surveyed said they cast ballots with the intent of rebuking Obama, while just 18 percent said they were wanted to send the president a positive message.

In New Jersey, the divide was far closer -- 19 percent positive on Obama, 20 percent negative.

The latter numbers may be somewhat reassuring to the White House.

But the real reassurance came in the congressional races.

While it is certainly possible to debate whether gubernatorial races are influenced by national trends and moods, there can be no such debate with regard to congressional contests -- especially at a moment of bitter division in Washington.

Winning both special elections and actually increasing the Democratic majority in the House at such a moment is no small accomplishment. That does not mean that Obama and his allies should rest easy. They had a hard Tuesday. But, at least in the short term, what the president needs most is congressional support. And he got a little more of it Tuesday.

Obama and the Democrats also got the pleasure of knowing that, despite the gubernatorial wins in Virginia and New Jersey, Republicans will continue the battle for the soul of the GOP that erupted in New York's 23rd district. The battle may well have cost the party a seat it had held since the days when Ulysses Grant occupied the Oval Office. And that defeat further eroded the minimal GOP presence in the northeast, a region where, remarkably, Democrats continue to expand their reach.

On a night when the "Tea Party" right was preparing to usher Hoffman into the House and solidify its control of the Grand Old Party, it instead helped add another Democrat to the Congress.

Comments (284)

BTW, not reported in Nichols assessment about the California race is that Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 47-28 margin in that district. If Harmer should win (though not likely), that would be a major repudiation.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 12:33pm
Less than a year in office and Obama has already used up all of his political capital. He has also angered enough of the population to insure his defeat in 2012 unless he does a quick about face in just about every area. American's understand the word trillions!

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 12:35pm
"If gay rights gets beat in Maine and Washington state, the line will be that it is not just the GOP but a deepening conservatism that is sweeping the country"

likewise a "deepening" hatred and ignorance, which would be even worse than conservativism.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 12:37pm
Today's elections are a skirmish before the big battle next year when the course of Obam's Presidency will either rise or fall, based on what he does between now and then. The odds are very good for republicans to repeat the massacre of 1994. If this happens, republicans, which for the most part are not as unpopular as their last standard bearer, can assume control of Congress and the WH in 2012. That's how radical Obama's policies are. He also is way to weak on national security.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 12:40pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 12:37pm

It has very little to do with hatred and ignorance. A vast majority of people in this country recognize marriage as between a man and a woman and ONLY between a man and a woman, especially where taxpayer's money is concerned.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 12:42pm
"A vast majority of people in this country recognize marriage as between a man and a woman and ONLY between a man and a woman, especially where taxpayer's money is concerned"

you have proven my point.

"American's understand the word trillions!"

but only when a democrat spends them. when bush spent them, it was apparently ok, judging by the lack of tea party protests during his entire 8 years.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 12:54pm
"It has very little to do with hatred and ignorance"

(quote of the day)

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 12:57pm
gunslinger,

how would taxpayers be adversely effected by gay marriage?

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 12:58pm
how would taxpayers be adversely effected by gay marriage?

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 12:58pm

Just start with the IRS.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 1:01pm
Question for you Darla. What is wrong with conservatism, especially in this time?

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 1:02pm
"Just start with the IRS"

complete and total dodge of question (see: ignorance)

"What is wrong with conservatism, especially in this time?"

a lot.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 1:08pm
so the problem for gunslinger1, with respect to gay marriage, isn't that men shouldn't marry other men, it's that the internal revenue service will.......?

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 1:10pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 1:10pm |

Grant them the same deductions as hetero couples...and they can't have that...oh no.

Never mind that homosexual couples are doing the same things that those deductions are supposedly inducing hetero couples to do...start families, stay together, care for each other, etc

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 1:22pm
gunslinger,

homosexuality is a biological fact, which exists in numerous species, one of which is homo sapiens sapiens.

whether you deny marriage rights to homosexuals will not prevent humans from becoming homosexual. there will always be homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and intersexuals. always and forever.

just like there are africans, chinese, russians and jews. they are here to stay, forever.

so, what are you *really* afraid of?

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 1:41pm
"BTW, not reported in Nichols assessment about the California race is that Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 47-28 margin in that district. If Harmer should win (though not likely), that would be a major repudiation."----Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 12:33pm

Hoffman wins NY 23rd, watch Larry to "forget" that it's been a solid Republican district for years and proclaim THAT to be a "major repudiation of marxism" or something.

Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 1:42pm
Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 1:22pm

word. and more evidence that fear and ignorance are driving today's right wing.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 1:42pm
"Question for you Darla. What is wrong with conservatism, especially in this time?" _____ Let me answer: It's 2009 AD not 9 AD.

Posted by TheAfterParty at 11/03/2009 @ 1:44pm
O'Neill, himself, never took the local line all that seriously when Democrats were doing well. Famously, he hailed the off-year election results of 1981 (Democrats won the Virginia governorship and lots of mayoralties) as a signal that his party was coming back from the battering it had taken a year earlier at the hands of Ronald Reagan's Republicans.

**********

Three years after Tip said that, President Reagan won a 49-state lanslide victory that to this day is the current record for electoral vote wins.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 1:47pm
BTW, there is "no way" the Right will not declare victory in any of the 4 scenarios...even #1.

How? Easy, they'll say "NJ was stolen by ACORN" (Darin's alread spouting that one)...Deeds win, they'll say the same thing about Virginia....Owens beats Hoffman they'll say "Hoffman was smeared by the liberal Media"....and "Garamendi was from looney lib fruitcake land, so it was never in question."

But what we'll see will be only a taste of what we'll get in 2010.

Remember, historical precedence says the Repubs will take atleast 20-25 seats. (Reagan-1982, Bush-I-1990, Clinton-1994). But it won't be "historical precedence" to the Right...it'll be "The death-knell of liberalism...GOP Congress in 2012 and Obama a one-termer like Jimmy Carter!"

and their desire for "hope" and "change" will overwhelm any memories of the past.

Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 1:50pm
Three years after Tip said that, President Reagan won a 49-state lanslide victory that to this day is the current record for electoral vote wins.---Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 1:47pm |

See? And Darin doesn't seem to realize that by HIS analogy...Obama too could win 49 states!

Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 1:52pm
It has very little to do with hatred and ignorance. A vast majority of people in this country recognize marriage as between a man and a woman and ONLY between a man and a woman, especially where taxpayer's money is concerned.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 12:42pm

So, if the majority of people in this country were for outlawing Indo-Hispanic-Asian people, and ONLY Indo-Hispanic-Asian people, especially where taxpayers money is concerned, you'd be all for it, right?

The great thing about our country is that the Constitution was designed to protect minorities (EVERY minority) from the tyranny of the majority. Even the tyranny of the Christian Bible-thumpers who only use homosexuality to raise money from old people and scare the rest of us into thinking there is some sort of homosexual "agenda." (Think Senator Craig and how many other hypocritical closeted Republicans?)

I guess the majority (i.e. straight people) don't care about any minority that is, by an accident of birth, different from the majority.

That, my friend, is the definition of tyranny. Enjoy your tyrannical power while it lasts.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/03/2009 @ 1:57pm
John is full of it. Today's results, statisticly speaking, are meaningless for divining the future polticial desires of the country.

To start off with, we are talking about a sample of less than 10% of the country.

Combine that with the lower voter turn out in special elections and today's results tell you no more about the direction of the country than a random coin flip.

I say this not because I think Republicans/Conservatives will do poorly. I say it because I believe it is true.

Journalists will tell you that these results are critical, so that you read what they have to say about what the results mean. They are meaningless.

Two years from now, NY23 will elect the winner of the Republican primary. CA10 will elect the winner of the Dem primary. Four years from now, NJ will elect a Dem Governor. And Virgina? Four years from now Virginia will have a very competitive race.

Irrespective of what happens in Maine, there will be greater public acceptance of Gay Marriage across the US.

Irrepsective of what happens today, the US is not heading toward single payer healthcare.

Irrepsective of what happens today, there will not be cap-n-crunch -- I mean cap-n-trade. And three years from now, Mask will lose a bet with me regarding the Republican Presidential candidate's views on Antroprogenic Global Warming.

Irrespective of what happens today, Republicans will pick up seats in the House and Senate in the 2010 elections.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 2:01pm
Three years after Tip said that, President Reagan won a 49-state lanslide victory that to this day is the current record for electoral vote wins.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 1:47pm

And 25 years after that landslide, look at the crap we're in now due directly to Reagan's policies:

1. Iraq 2. Iran 3. Central and South America (see Chavez, Hugo and Ortega, Daniel) 4. Financial collapse (nah, instead, make that biggest recession since the Depression)

Darin, as much as you love the guy, he wasn't a saint. The reason he won that landslide was not because of policy, it was because he was an actor who made us feel good about ourselves, while going around behind our backs and doing illegal stuff (Iran Contra).

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:03pm
Grant them the same deductions as hetero couples...and they can't have that...oh no.

--deductions for married couples? you've got it backwards.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 1:22pm

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 2:14pm
Three years after Tip said that, President Reagan won a 49-state lanslide victory that to this day is the current record for electoral vote wins.---Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 1:47pm | See? And Darin doesn't seem to realize that by HIS analogy...Obama too could win 49 states! Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 1:52pm | ignore this person |

--obama win 49 states?

haha!

wanna bet? ANY AMOUNT YOU WANT.

if obama wins a second term, it'll be just barely. if the economy is still suffering--he won't win.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 2:17pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:03pm

Okay, first of all, Iran is Jimmy Carter's fault.

Second of all, President Reagan, along with Pope JP2 and Prime Minister Thatcher defeated communism in Europe.

Three, I didn't say he was a saint: I said Tip O'Neil was mistaken when he suggested that off-year election results were an indication of resurging Dem strength.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 2:20pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 2:17pm

I didn't say he would, urmy.

I said by Darin's analogy, HE would have to grant that Obama could.

Your predictions are so true as to be irrelevant. Obama will never "win in a landslide" even of modest proportions...and naturally "It's the economy, stupid" with virtually every President.

Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 2:24pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 2:20pm

Press Darin on what Jimmy Carter did that "lost Iran" and what he should have done that would have "saved it"?

Guarenteed...nothing but pap.

Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 2:27pm
I most certainly didn't imply that conditions were ripe for a 49 state victory by anyone. The implication is that the handful of results from today are meaningless.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 2:31pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 2:20pm |

"Okay, first of all, Iran is Jimmy Carter's fault."

Try someone with the first name of a muppet and the last name of two popular presidents.

"Second of all, President Reagan, along with Pope JP2 and Prime Minister Thatcher defeated communism in Europe."

Try Lech Walesa.

"Three, I didn't say he was a saint: I said Tip O'Neil was mistaken when he suggested that off-year election results were an indication of resurging Dem strength."

True...this kind of extrapolation is inane because the "off-year" nature of the elections means that the entire apparatus of both parties becomes focused on a few pointless races...it's all below the noise floor.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:37pm
"The implication is that the handful of results from today are meaningless"

except for the people in those states in which there were elections today (obviously).

but if you're darin, and all you do all day is blog and eat cheerios, then perhaps the above statement is valid.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 2:42pm
whether you deny marriage rights to homosexuals will not prevent humans from becoming homosexual. there will always be homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and intersexuals. always and forever.

just like there are africans, chinese, russians and jews. they are here to stay, forever.

so, what are you *really* afraid of?

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 1:41pm

There will always be circus freaks too, that doesn't mean they are the norm.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 2:44pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 2:44pm |

Who ever got anywhere by being 'normal'? - The Tick

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:46pm
"There will always be circus freaks too, that doesn't mean they are the norm"

the norm doesn't exist. we are all totally unique individuals.

some have small dicks. some have small brains.

but the Law doesn't discriminate.

and being a constitutional "scholar" such as yourself, i'd think you'd understand that.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 2:54pm
Who ever got anywhere by being 'normal'? - The Tick

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:46pm

I had to look it up since I figured you weren't talking about the insect.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 2:55pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 2:17pm

Your predictions are so true as to be irrelevant.

Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 2:24pm

--I love when the lesson's finally sunk in that it's being "taught" by the one who has to learn it!

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 2:55pm
whether you deny marriage rights to homosexuals will not prevent humans from becoming homosexual. there will always be homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and intersexuals. always and forever. just like there are africans, chinese, russians and jews. they are here to stay, forever. so, what are you *really* afraid of? Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 1:41pm There will always be circus freaks too, that doesn't mean they are the norm. Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 2:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--circus freaks shouldn't be prevented from marrying in this cold cruel world. they certainly can't turn to you for love.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 2:56pm
there is no law which states that, in marriage, one person must have XX chorosomes, and the other must have XY chromosomes.

so, please tell us, oh scholar, using the constitution as your tool, on what basis can you deny equal rights to homosexuals?

please, oh reverand, enlighten us fools.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 2:56pm
we are all totally unique individuals.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--not even remotely close to true.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 2:57pm
"they certainly can't turn to you for love."

it's amazing, isn't it? a pastor who doesn't love?

i'm sure jesus said at least something about the importance of love.

all religions are just that: expressions of love for the universe.

and antisocialist's mere existence is proof that christianity, in its purest most intangible form, has been massively perverted, to the point of the grosteque, over the centuries.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 2:59pm
all religions are just that: expressions of love for the universe.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 2:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--where the hell you'd get that crazy idea?

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:01pm
"--not even remotely close to true."

it is a fact which cannot ever be disputed. everything that science and art teaches us is that every human being is different.

no person can have the exact same experiences as another. and since experiences shape who we are, then we are each totally unique.

that is the most beutiful and incredible thought one can actually have, because it actually gives your life at least some meaning.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:02pm
"--where the hell you'd get that crazy idea?"

religions, at their origin, are expressions of love for the universe. just think of sun woshipping. just think of buddha's revelations after sitting for 9 years.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:04pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 1:41pm

Get up on your soapbox with someone else Darla. I've got no problem with gays. Just stop trying to force the rest of us to accept what is clear to people with normal heterosexual genes, the deviance of homosexuality. Clearly it is against nature as homosexual people cannot reproduce with partners of the same sex.

The problem is compounded when we introduce taxpayer's money to support what a clear majority considers deviant behavior, inherent or not.

Yeah, yeah, I know all the arguments pro and con. Just like abortion, homosexuality will always outrage people who can not accept what they consider sinful or perverse behavior. I'm not outraged personally. I just object to any group trying to force it's opinion or lifestyle on anyone else. Btw, I like Ellen just fine.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:05pm
word. and more evidence that fear and ignorance are driving today's right wing.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 1:42pm

If you are referring to me, I'm not a rightwinger or any kind of winger. I'm totally independent and proud to have my own mind. you should learn to respect other people's opinions without the name calling and typecasting. People would respect you a whole lot more.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:08pm
it is a fact which cannot ever be disputed.

--I already did.

everything that science and art teaches us is that every human being is different.

--nonsense. we're all so much more similar than we are different. look at this blog. people seek out people who are similar to them--and get upset with people who are different (which is just another way of seeking out people who are similar...you're hoping people who are similar will agree with your disagreement of others)

no person can have the exact same experiences as another. and since experiences shape who we are, then we are each totally unique.

--experiences are the only things that shape us? besides, the range of human experiences are not all that different....anything any of us has experienced has already been experienced by someone else before. no one is "totally unique"

that is the most beutiful and incredible thought one can actually have, because it actually gives your life at least some meaning.

--you're defining what gives life meaning now? por favor.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:09pm
"Clearly it is against nature as homosexual people cannot reproduce with partners of the same sex"

"clearly"? then how can you explain the existence of homosexuality in other species, gunslinger? is that "against nature" or are those other species simple not "nature" in your mind?

" I just object to any group trying to force it's opinion or lifestyle on anyone else"

but straight people aren't trying to force any opinions or lifestyles on anyone else. nah. that was just a figment of my crazy imagination these last 50+ years. they aren't spending millions of dollars trying to convince homosexuals to just......become straight, so they can enjoy the right to......marry. nah. that was all a figment too.

" I like Ellen just fine"

as long as she's in a television studio 4,000 miles away.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:11pm
"--where the hell you'd get that crazy idea?" religions, at their origin, are expressions of love for the universe. just think of sun woshipping. just think of buddha's revelations after sitting for 9 years.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--or fear of the unknown.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:11pm
word. and more evidence that fear and ignorance are driving today's right wing.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 1:42pm

If you are referring to me, I'm not a rightwinger or any kind of winger. I'm totally independent and proud to have my own mind. you should learn to respect other people's opinions without the name calling and typecasting. People would respect you a whole lot more.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--not being registered as a democrat or a republican does not make one "totally independent"

"learn to respect other people's opinions"? haha! you're joking right? in the previous post you call homosexuals "deviants" (and you make an amorphous claim that homosexual marriage would cost taxpayer money)...

but you've got an open mind huh?

yeah right

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:15pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/03/2009 @ 1:57pm

I'll tell you the same thing that I said to Darla. Learn to respect other people's opinions more and you will be more respected in turn. I have no problem with the existence of gay people. The vast, vast majority of people in this country are heterosexual. Most religions consider homosexuality to be an abombination. It is against nature. And perhaps my ignorance, as the left tries to label, is miss understood. To me it is a question of natural law. I believe that if there is a God, he/she or whatever exists in nature. Homosexuality flaunts nature because people of the same sex cannot procreate with each other. They need someone of the opposite sex to help them out there. That says it all for me. I consider homosexuality to be a freak of nature.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:16pm
"experiences are the only things that shape us?"

yes. we are the sum total of our experiences.

"besides, the range of human experiences are not all that different"

but you just admitted they are somewhat different.

you did the same thing in this sentence:

"we're all so much more similar than we are different"

so we are, indeed, somewhat different, although less so than we are similar.

difference is the essence of time and space. you cannot be in two places at the same time, just as you can't be in two different times in the same place.

like baudrillard said about language, words keep everything from having the same meaning.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:16pm
" They need someone of the opposite sex to help them out there. That says it all for me."

we already knew that. and when we pointed that out to you, you became extremely defensive and evasive.

tell us, gun, how do you explain the existence of homosexuality in animals?

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:18pm
it is a fact which cannot ever be disputed. everything that science and art teaches us is that every human being is different.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:02pm

What about identical twins who dress alike?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 3:19pm
i'm sure jesus said at least something about the importance of love.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 2:59pm

Jesus, as well as several of his apostles may have indeed been homosexuals. Do we know that they weren't?

What does it say in the bible about homosexuality? I'm asking anyone who knows. I don't.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:19pm
here is air-tight logic for you, slinger:

if homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, and humans are part of the animal kingdom, therefore homosexuality exists in humans.

if homosexuality exists in humans, and humans are all equal under the law, then homosexuals are equal under the law.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:21pm
I'll tell you the same thing that I said to Darla. Learn to respect other people's opinions more and you will be more respected in turn. I have no problem with the existence of gay people. The vast, vast majority of people in this country are heterosexual. Most religions consider homosexuality to be an abombination. It is against nature. And perhaps my ignorance, as the left tries to label, is miss understood. To me it is a question of natural law. I believe that if there is a God, he/she or whatever exists in nature. Homosexuality flaunts nature because people of the same sex cannot procreate with each other. They need someone of the opposite sex to help them out there. That says it all for me. I consider homosexuality to be a freak of nature.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--your rhetoric sells you out. you're not giving "respect" when you call homosexuals "deviants" or an "abomination" or "freaks of nature." If you truly wanted respect in the discussion you'd be more tactful. if someone was attacking, let's say, your religion, with similar rhetoric, no doubt you'd think they were being disrespectful.

just because you're in the majority (I agree you are) doesn't make you right.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:21pm
that is the most beutiful and incredible thought one can actually have,

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:02pm

Don't you mean it is the most pedestrian thought that occurs to people who get high regularly?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 3:21pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:01pm

People who are always stoned, come up with those expressions. It surely can't be ignorance.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:22pm
"What about identical twins who dress alike?"

they cannot each have the same experiences, as they are two different places. not to mention, two different bodies, minds, names. one is, simply, not the other.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:23pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:15pm

Look up deviant. Learn about what social deviance costs in terms of real taxpayer's dollars and then we'll discuss it.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:24pm
If you are a homosexual, you 'deviate' from the norm, which is heterosexuality. If you are a homosexual and you think you are normal then you have to rewrite the meaning of the word normal.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:26pm
Ya Urny, gun1 doesn't want you to force any lifestyle choices or religious choices or political choices on him, but it seems to me that is exactly what he is trying to do to those on the left side of him. And where does tax payer money come into the conversation?

Posted by Denise29 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:27pm
Furthermore if all of us were homosexuals, mankind would cease to exist, or females would be relegated to simple baby factories that homosexual men would be forced to have sex with just to reproduce. Do you see how that is an abomination to nature and in turn to God?

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:29pm
Sorry, "Urmy"

Posted by Denise29 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:29pm
yes. we are the sum total of our experiences.

--i thought you respected science? biology plays a huge part in who we are. and, again, our experiences are not that different. we all have to breath, eat, drink water, etc. our bodies all work very similarly. you're the type of person, i bet, who thinks you're immune to advertising. you know why advertising works? 'cause people are predictable.

but you just admitted they are somewhat different.

--"somewhat" is a far cry from "totally unique"

you did the same thing in this sentence: "we're all so much more similar than we are different" so we are, indeed, somewhat different, although less so than we are similar.

--again, "somewhat" is a far cry from "totally unique"

difference is the essence of time and space. you cannot be in two places at the same time, just as you can't be in two different times in the same place.

--just because no two people can't share the same body and brain does not mean all people are "totally unique."

like baudrillard said about language, words keep everything from having the same meaning.

--i don't know the person you're referring to...but words do not keep everything from having the same meaning. words, indeed, prove that humans are far more similar than different. we're the only species on the planet that uses symbols to express what we're thinking...and that only works because of how similar we are: we all have an innate ability to learn language; and humans born into a certain society will learn the specific language of that society.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:31pm
"Don't you mean it is the most pedestrian thought that occurs to people who get high regularly?"

it occurs to anyone who actually takes a deep breath, takes a long look around, and thinks deeply about the meaning of life. if you want to call that "pedestrian," that's fine. i call it "love"....

btw, when you're gonna kiss a girl, darin, do you say all sorts of complex gibberish, or do you tell her the truth?

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:32pm
These are fundamental arguments. I don't disrespect homosexual people. Lord knows, they have contributed just as much to society as heterosexuals have. They have fought and died for their country and for the freedom to be gay without persecution. Legal marriage is another issue altogether. There is no law anywhere that would prohibit homosexual people to gather in their own private ceremony and marry each other. It wouldn't be legal in most areas and it would bring them no financial benefits but hell, they would be married within their own community. Anything wrong with that?

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:33pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:11pm

When you live within the norm and you don't practice deviance, there is no practical way that you are forcing your way of life on anyone else. If you'd like to change the Constitution to reflect anything that you want to then have at it. Go through the process. Make your lifestyle the norm.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:35pm
they cannot each have the same experiences, as they are two different places. not to mention, two different bodies, minds, names. one is, simply, not the other. Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--that no two people are EXACTLY the same is no argument. you said everyone is "totally unique." I contend we're not even remotely close to totally unique. like all other animals on this planet, we're very similar to all the other animals of our own species. and we're not every "totally unique" from other species (ask any scientist, since you give lip service to respecting science, how similar, at the genetic level, humans are to chimpanzees).

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:36pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:21pm

Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom? When did we discover how animals think? Don't they need to have sex to procreate?

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:37pm
no comment from me until after the results are in.

no idea what the results will be. we can hash out the numbers when they come in.

seems to be a lot of third party/independents this year which could, sans decent run-off procedures, end up electing people on pluralities rather than majorities, which is potentially problematic.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 3:37pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:15pm Look up deviant. Learn about what social deviance costs in terms of real taxpayer's dollars and then we'll discuss it. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--again you're disrespectful. to wit: expecting someone else to have to look at something the way you do without presenting your argument. if you think there are taxpayer costs to gay marriage; explain it (or at least provide a link(s)--instead you arrogantly say "look up...then we'll discuss it").

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:40pm
Here's a little joke to lighten things up.

Pierre was a great fisherman. He fished all of his life and was well reputed for his catches. However one day he sucked a c---. Forever instead of being know as Pierre the great fisherman, he became known as pierre the great c---s---er!

The moral of this story is that if you live outside of the norms of society you pay a price. Whether you are born homosexual or adopt it as a lifestyle, (yes Darla, some people do), you will incur the wrath of the norm. If there is a hereafter, that's where it will all be sorted out.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:43pm
"that no two people are EXACTLY the same is no argument"

it sure is.

"When did we discover how animals think? "

i know you're a bit slow, gun, but check this out:

"The Bonobo, which has a matriarchal society (unusual amongst apes), is a fully bisexual species--both males and females engage in heterosexual and homosexual behavior, being noted for female-female homosexuality in particular. About 60% of all sexual activity in this species is between two or more females. While the homosexual bonding system in Bonobos represent the highest frequency of homosexuality known in any species, homosexuality has been reported for all great apes (a group which includes humans), as well as a number of other primate species.[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] Dutch primatologist Frans de Waal on observing and filming bonobos noted that there were two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict."

not just homosexual, but "fully bisexual"

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:45pm
btw, when you're gonna kiss a girl, darin, do you say all sorts of complex gibberish, or do you tell her the truth?

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:32pm

I usually say, "You should be proud of yourself. $10 is the most I've ever paid for this."

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 3:45pm
Furthermore if all of us were homosexuals, mankind would cease to exist, or females would be relegated to simple baby factories that homosexual men would be forced to have sex with just to reproduce. Do you see how that is an abomination to nature and in turn to God?

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

#1--you're presuming there is a God (at all; or even just one). #1b--assuming there is only one God--you're presuming you know what God wants. For all you know, God wants homosexuality to thrive. #1c--I know you'll point to the Christian explanation of God via the Bible--well, the framers of the Constitution did not care.

#2--you're also, from a common sense standpoint, ruining your own argument. Here's why--you say the vast majority of people are heterosexual (which is true)--yet you make a slippery slope argument that presents a "dystopia" where there are no heterosexual men. Look around--legalizing gay marriage is not going to affect most men's love of pussy. You act as if legalizing gay marriage would make heterosexual men become gay. It's absurd.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:47pm
No gun1, homosexuals do not "Adopt" the "Lifestyle", yeesh!

Posted by Denise29 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:47pm
These are fundamental arguments. I don't disrespect homosexual people. Lord knows, they have contributed just as much to society as heterosexuals have. They have fought and died for their country and for the freedom to be gay without persecution. Legal marriage is another issue altogether. There is no law anywhere that would prohibit homosexual people to gather in their own private ceremony and marry each other. It wouldn't be legal in most areas and it would bring them no financial benefits but hell, they would be married within their own community. Anything wrong with that?

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--absolutely. you're trying to keep a segment of the population from having the same legal rights as the rest of society.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:50pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:40pm

Homosexuals believe that under our constitution they are entitled to marry and recieve all the benefits that married people recieve under our tax laws and under our health care system and in any other policies or entitlements that apply to married couples. That is their agenda. If you are in the gay movement, as a gay, you already know that. If you are straight and you don't know that, then you need to get an education on the subject. I'm not being arrogant about anything and I'm just having a conversation here, hopefully amongst adults.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:54pm
When you live within the norm and you don't practice deviance, there is no practical way that you are forcing your way of life on anyone else.

--words with no meaning.

If you'd like to change the Constitution to reflect anything that you want to then have at it.

--marriage is not a constitutional right. marriage is governed by state law. if we wanted to constitutionally make marriage available between any two adults, male or female, I'd vote for it.

Go through the process. Make your lifestyle the norm.

--arrogance personified. 'cause you know it's a very small minority of the population that is gay; so, by definition, they aren't the norm. but, ironically enough, they just want to be like the norm, and get married (further evidence, darla, that people are not so "totally unique" as you give them credit for).

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:54pm
Here's a little joke to lighten things up. Pierre was a great fisherman. He fished all of his life and was well reputed for his catches. However one day he sucked a c---. Forever instead of being know as Pierre the great fisherman, he became known as pierre the great c---s---er! The moral of this story is that if you live outside of the norms of society you pay a price. Whether you are born homosexual or adopt it as a lifestyle, (yes Darla, some people do), you will incur the wrath of the norm. If there is a hereafter, that's where it will all be sorted out.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--gunslinger celebrating the tyranny of the majority!

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:56pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

yes but the norm changes - everything changes with time whether we like that or not.

some change is the unexpected result of any number of factors, including technological and environmental progress and change.

a "conservative" does not necessarily resist all change and with delusions of a nostalgized past to which one longs to return. that's more of a reactionary.

the problem i have with modern american conservatism is that so much is based upon a lockstep allegiance to aynrandian objectivist thought to which its adherents stick with the dogmatic tenaciousness of any hard line marxist.

adaptions to change are slurred as "socialist" to a populace who's understanding of such a label is questionable, which i suppose is supposed to end the discussion.

in fact with increasing automation in the workplace as well as outsourcing of many jobs, some form of wealth redistribution may well be the only path to maintain a strong consumer class and avoid vast wealth disparities that COULD well lead to a resurgence of hard line socialist thought and action eventually.

otto von bismark, old style aristocratic conservative of the 19th century vintage, wrecked the social democrat party by stealing their "socialist" ideas and implementing them himself, thereby assuring the loyalty and docility of the formerly revolutionary german working classes through two devastating world wars.

not that i would wish we followed germany's path in the blind following to destruction area, but perhaps american "conservatives" could learn a lesson or two from old blood and iron in terms of politics and ideology.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 3:58pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:21pm

Not being disrespectful at all. And I don't have a religion. Organized religion, like organized political parties puts chains on you. I am a free thinker.

Words like deviant and abomination apply to characteristics outside of the norm on any subject. They are words meant to describe exactly what they do. The phrase 'freak of nature' implies exactly what it is meant to. If two people of the same sex try to procreate, the would not be able to without the help of someone of the opposite sex or by science, thus they are freaks of nature. No disrespect intended.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:59pm
"that no two people are EXACTLY the same is no argument"

it sure is.

--no, it's not. of course no two people are exactly the same. we can't be. we all inhabit different bodies. but that does not equate to us being "totally unique." that you fail to see this isn't due to your lack of intelligence--you're just being obstinate (which, funnily enough, is just like how I and pretty much everyone else here behaves when we're anonymously chatting on the interweb!...again, we ain't so unique!)

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:59pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 3:45pm

Very interesting but I think we've evolved.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 4:01pm
i consider myself a progressive conservative, by the way, and consider the satano-aynrando gibberish to be a bizarre aberration of conservatism which approaches some kind of uber-capitalist pseudo fascism.

wont' touch it with a ten foot ple, unless there's a sharp point at the end. then i poke mercilessly.

death by a thousand cuts...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 4:01pm
Most of us have anyway.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 4:02pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:40pm Homosexuals believe that under our constitution they are entitled to marry and recieve all the benefits that married people recieve under our tax laws and under our health care system and in any other policies or entitlements that apply to married couples. That is their agenda. If you are in the gay movement, as a gay, you already know that. If you are straight and you don't know that, then you need to get an education on the subject. I'm not being arrogant about anything and I'm just having a conversation here, hopefully amongst adults. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--it's a fair argument to make...some state supreme courts have already ruled this decade that rights of equal protection are violated when gay marriage is banned.

--more arrogance from you. I am an adult. I'm well aware that gay people have an "agenda" (of wanting equal rights...horror of horrors!)

--what's the downside, from a tax perspective, to society, if gay marriage was legal across the country? what's the economic harm?

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:03pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 3:58pm

Norms can change all they want. We still need a man and a woman to procreate. I can't understand why homosexuals don't understand this simple natural concept. That's what makes them deviants.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 4:04pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:03pm

Man can enact any laws which are politically expediant at any given time. It's the laws of nature, however that man can never change.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 4:05pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:56pm

It was meant to lighten the conversation. I'm fully aware the seriousness of the discussion with respect to rights, hate crimes, our differences and of nature. This is a subject that has existed since the beginning of time. As I understand it, homosexuals have always been and always will be. But there can be no argument that homosexuality does not lend itself to procreation and therefore cannot ever be given equal footing to heterosexuality in regards to procreation. That's just an indisputible fact of life.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 4:10pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 3:21pm

Not being disrespectful at all.

--your rhetoric proves otherwise.

And I don't have a religion. Organized religion, like organized political parties puts chains on you.

--not necessarily

I am a free thinker.

--EVERYONE thinks that about themselves. you are far from unique in that way.

Words like deviant and abomination apply to characteristics outside of the norm on any subject.

--words have emotional connotations. you're using inflammatory language when there are plenty of neutral words you could use. the reason you use the inflammatory language is because the thought of a man's penis in another man's mouth or ass grosses you out (although, like most heterosexual men, I'm sure the thought of two naked women getting to know each other better gives you an erection).

They are words meant to describe exactly what they do.

--no word describes anything "exactly"

The phrase 'freak of nature' implies exactly what it is meant to.

--it carries the exact emotional connotation you want it to carry

If two people of the same sex try to procreate, the would not be able to without the help of someone of the opposite sex or by science, thus they are freaks of nature.

--two heterosexuals may not be able to procreate together--so they're "freaks of nature"? what about people with down's syndrome, or autism, or who are mentally retarded---are they "freaks of nature"?(they're IQs aren't normal)

No disrespect intended.

--whenever anyone says that, they of course meant the disrespect fully but want to come off as "civilized"

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:10pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:03pm

I know you are an adult. I wasn't inferring otherwise. This is an adult conversation. That's all I meant. There are other considerations besides economic. There are religious and moral considerations to be hammered out as well.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 4:14pm
Norms can change all they want. We still need a man and a woman to procreate. I can't understand why homosexuals don't understand this simple natural concept. That's what makes them deviants.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 4:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--you're just baiting now. and it's sad and pathetic.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:14pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:10pm

Sorry, but you are geting really silly now. I have better things to do with my time.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 4:15pm
Norms can change all they want. We still need a man and a woman to procreate. I can't understand why homosexuals don't understand this simple natural concept. That's what makes them deviants.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 4:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

actually homosexuality has been around a very long time, and in many societies was accepted, some within certain frameworks, others less so.

ever seen a male dog jump another male dog? apparently some dogs just prefer other male dogs. similar results have been observed with other species as well. don't get me started on bonobos...or is it binobos? those skinny chimp-like apes...sheesh!

furthermore age old assumptions like "be fruitful and multiply", although once great advice, may not represent much wisdom at all these days - just the opposite i would say. perhaps the "big gay revolution" is some sort of natural process that attempts to control population before malthusian principles come into play?

who knows? that's what them scientists look at.

regardless i don't believe the civil gubbamint should sanction ANYTHING beyond a CIVIL UNION.

yeah, semantics, i know, but words DO have meaning. let your church "marry" you under the eyes of god, buddha, the devil, the goddess, zog of the lake, whatever - the state should limit itself to certifying CIVIL unions.

a lot of christians i've talked to have no problem with such, in fact. perhaps rather than fighting over "marriage" we should sidestep the sticky word entirely and solve a problem...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 4:16pm
Hey Daraladoon. You are a bigoted singloe minded individual. If anyone disagrees with you they are immediately "right winged, homophobes, ignorant, etc. Get a real life and start respecting other peoples opinions. No need to be so "mean."

Posted by american1st at 11/03/2009 @ 4:16pm
Hey Daraladoon. You are a bigoted singloe minded individual. If anyone disagrees with you they are immediately "right winged, homophobes, ignorant, etc. Get a real life and start respecting other peoples opinions. No need to be so "mean."

Posted by american1st at 11/03/2009 @ 4:17pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:03pm Man can enact any laws which are politically expediant at any given time. It's the laws of nature, however that man can never change. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 4:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--marriage is NOT a law of nature. the laws of nature say if I'm powerful enough to kill you, I can kill you. Society says no, that's "murder."

keep streeeeeeeeetching gunslinger.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:17pm
"--no, it's not. of course no two people are exactly the same"

you just said exactly what i said, while claiming that it's "not an argument."

if it's not an argument, then why did you claim:

"of course no two people are exactly the same"

you just said it. and it's so obviously true, that you can't even see it, which, in and of itself, is amazing.

"Get a real life and start respecting other peoples opinions. No need to be so "mean.""

anti, i've been completely reasonable here. gunsgliner, meanwhile, called me a "freak of nature" and "deviant".....which, btw, i took as a compliment, but he certainly didn't mean them to be compliments...

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:19pm
It was meant to lighten the conversation.

--fails to persuade (like most of your posts).

I'm fully aware the seriousness of the discussion with respect to rights, hate crimes, our differences and of nature.

--awareness and compassion are two separate things entirely. I don't doubt you're aware. You lack empathy toward gay people.

This is a subject that has existed since the beginning of time.

--you don't know that.

As I understand it, homosexuals have always been and always will be.

--again, you don't know that.

But there can be no argument that homosexuality does not lend itself to procreation and therefore cannot ever be given equal footing to heterosexuality in regards to procreation.

--take a ride down the slippery slope!

That's just an indisputible fact of life.

--it's indisputable that there are gay couples raising children throughout our country. And look--we're still alive! the world hasn't ended!

Take your homophobic blinders off man! No one's gonna make you suck dick if gay marriage was legalized in your state!

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:21pm
I know you are an adult. I wasn't inferring otherwise. This is an adult conversation. That's all I meant. There are other considerations besides economic. There are religious and moral considerations to be hammered out as well. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 4:14pm |

--there aren't any negative economic considerations to society if gay marriage is legalized (which you or someone else implied there are).

there are religious considerations for many (which obviously are yours)-- but, of course, those should be irrelevant if we care about the constitution.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:24pm
if you don't support a homosexual's right to marry, then you are, in fact, a bigot. it's that simple.

i don't care what your bible or religion says.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:24pm
or, more starkly, if you claim that homosexuals are "freaks of nature" and "deviants," what are you, if not a bigot?

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:24pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:10pm Sorry, but you are geting really silly now. I have better things to do with my time. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 4:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

I'm getting "silly"?

por favor.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:25pm
in the mind of our esteemed reverand, what does one have to say in order to achieve the status of a bigot?

ok, i'll say it: heterosexuals are a threat to our existence because they reproduce too much.

and catholics are deviants!

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:27pm
Take your homophobic blinders off man! No one's gonna make you suck dick if gay marriage was legalized in your state!

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

hee hee - reminds me of an old Onion headline. there's a pic of some manly looking man in a hunting cap and it says "why do all these fags keep s_cking my c__k?!?!?"

"everywhere i go, locker rooms, rest area bathrooms, hell, even on fishing trips...it always seems i look down and there's some fag down there s__king my c__k!!!"

LMAO

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 4:27pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 4:27pm

that's pretty much the apex of gunslinger's line of thinking.....

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:29pm
"--no, it's not. of course no two people are exactly the same" you just said exactly what i said, while claiming that it's "not an argument."

--darla, I tire of you now; not because you're dumb; you're not; but because you're being obstinate. You claim everyone is "totally unique"--that is a FAR, FAR cry from saying people aren't exactly the same. You can have two oak desks, but one is painted white and one is painted black. that doesn't make the desks "totally unique." they're still both oak; they're still both desks.

if it's not an argument, then why did you claim: "of course no two people are exactly the same" you just said it. and it's so obviously true, that you can't even see it, which, in and of itself, is amazing.

--actually, maybe you are kinda dumb; maybe you don't get it.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:30pm
if you don't support a homosexual's right to marry, then you are, in fact, a bigot. it's that simple. i don't care what your bible or religion says. Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--darla, you don't help the discussion. here's why: not all people against gay marriage are bigots. I'm against polygamy. does that make me a bigot? I don't think so.

I think marriage should be between two people--but not limited to just between a man and woman.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:32pm
or, more starkly, if you claim that homosexuals are "freaks of nature" and "deviants," what are you, if not a bigot? Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--he, obviously, is a bigot.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:33pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

i love "the onion"...

ever watch "southpark"? perhaps gunny should take a trip down big gay al's educational boat-ride explaining homosexuality in the most modern scientific terms...

i also like the episode where the boy scouts fired poor big gay al as a scout master because he was a homosexual - then they hire some seemingly manly man role model who takes naked pics of all the kids...

ah, art and life...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 4:37pm
hee hee - reminds me of an old Onion headline. there's a pic of some manly looking man in a hunting cap and it says "why do all these fags keep s_cking my c__k?!?!?" "everywhere i go, locker rooms, rest area bathrooms, hell, even on fishing trips...it always seems i look down and there's some fag down there s__king my c__k!!!" LMAO Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 4:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

hahaha!

also reminds me of jerry seinfeld's bit about men having a poor ability to turn down salesmen. i wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn, if a cross-sample of straight men were given truth serum, to learn a significant amount (much more than the percentage of men who admit they are homosexual) have fantasized about or even "experimented" sexually with another man (or men).

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:37pm
NOoooo! Really?

Posted by Denise29 at 11/03/2009 @ 4:40pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

of course. i think we are all born along a spectrum from "very hetero" to "very homo", then socialization works its magic and since, as gunny points out, hetero IS the norm...most self identify as "hetero".

as most gay friends of mine have pointed out - given a choice, they would choose hetero (easier, more acceptable), but...hard to change what one really really is...

and again the old canard that bisexuality does not really exist is absurd. history and observable reality prove QUITE the opposite.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 4:44pm
urmgyro,

read this and get back to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff�rance

"here's why: not all people against gay marriage are bigots. I'm against polygamy. does that make me a bigot? I don't think so"

you have just demonstrated a profound intellectual immaturity, nay, deficiency.

two are not three. that is as old as time.

you have just completely changed the terms of the debate.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:45pm
all people against gay marriage are bigots.

that is a fact.

if you wish to deny someone, who is otherwise just like you (except for the fact that they prefer the romantic, sexual, or platonic company of someone with the same set of chromosomes), the same legal protections which you enjoy, then you are, in fact, a bigot.

polygamy is a completely different arrangement, one which i believe the law doesn't currently address, even if only in a linguistical sense.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:47pm
two people do not enjoy the status of one, under the law. one person is one person.

if one person does not enjoy the same legal protections as another person, then the former suffers discrimination.

if you support laws which discriminate against one group of people, then you are, in fact, a bigot.

polygamists are a completely different category. it's not that they are "deviant", it's that they are three.

and btw, i should qualify that i do support polygamy or polyamory.

it's rare, but they do deserve full legal protection.

i know that it will take a long, long time for people to accept polyamory......but understand that it is extremely rare, and as such, will never gain acceptance in mainstream society.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:52pm
and again the old canard that bisexuality does not really exist is absurd. history and observable reality prove QUITE the opposite. Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 4:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--I have at least three female friends and guy friends (again, at least, these are the only ones who have told me) who have had sex with both men and women. A lot more people have experimented with their sexuality than society at large is willing to admit. society wants us to put us in a box (if you're a guy...sorry for the lame pun) and stick with it!

Also, sex is much more personal than people like gunslinger will admit in these type of conversations. I'm sure he'll identify himself as straight, but would he have sex with any adult woman? what if the woman is 350 pounds? what if she's really ugly? what if she just doesn't turn him on? which makes me wonder, if not every woman can turn a guy on, then is he truly "straight"?...or does he just so happen to be attracted to some women?

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:53pm
remember folks, at one time, you could hold the belief that women were property, and still not be considered a bigot. or that african-americans were slaves, and not be a bigot. or that women shouldn't have the right to vote, and not be a bigot. or that blacks and whites shouldn't marry, and not be a bigot. or that jews were filthy, and not be a bigot. or that lesbians would castrate straight white males, and not be a bigot.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:55pm
"Also, sex is much more personal than people like gunslinger will admit in these type of conversation"

proving my point so well that we are all unique.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:57pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 4:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

heehee...hell, look at the fine old english tradition of boy's school buggery. went to all boy's schools, dabbled in some "buggery", then married and had kids often...

and surely a few kept up their old habits and "buggered" on the sly...lol...

actually its amazing how much bi and homosexuality existed in the "good old days". the pre ww1 german military was ALL ATE UP with wild gayness. once at a general staff party a general dressed up all in drag and "fagged around" pretty wildly - then dropped dead of a heart attack, which led to a wild struggle to put him back in is general uniform before the coroner could arrive...

and poor old frederick the great of prussia...queer as a three dollar bill. tried to run off with his gay lover as a young man, got caught and forced to watch his lover killed in front of his very eyes...

so he resigned himself to his duties, married some arranged princess, imagined she was another guy when procreating, and managed to spurt out a couple of kids to keep the hohenzollern line from disappearing.

ironic - his greatest enemies were the empresses of russia and austria and when he died he had himself buried next to his favorite hunting dogs rather than his wife who he detested...

and they say gays don't belong in the military!!!! if gay frederick the great had been around when napoleon unleashed HIS war machine, history might have been quite different...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 5:05pm
That arguments of this type are still ongoing in 2009 is just proof of the fact that the vast majority of Americans are still Puritans at heart. It is also clear that the lot of them are getting little or no sex at all. Why is it that El Americano conflates what is different to him with what he conceives to be wrong, and therefore deserving all his efforts to be combatted? Anything he doesn't understand must be caused by the devil. Illegal aliens, homosexuals, muslim fundamentalists, universal healthcare, Hollywood elitists, hygiene, diet and exercise, rap music, etc. all have their roots in Hell.

America is a wealthy nation, but its wealth is purely material. In spirit, intellect, health, morality, virtuosity, and enlightenment it is utterly impoverished.

Posted by chimichenga at 11/03/2009 @ 5:20pm
"and they say gays don't belong in the military!!!!"

indeed, in ancient greece, homosexuality was part of one's military training.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 5:22pm
Posted by chimichenga at 11/03/2009 @ 5:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

OH MY GOD!!! IT LIVES!!!

welcome back, man. was afraid you had been kidnapped by guerillas or paramilitaries!!!!

ever hear about a place called gaviotas down there? one of my favorite realistic utopias.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 5:25pm
"Illegal aliens, homosexuals, muslim fundamentalists, universal healthcare, Hollywood elitists, hygiene, diet and exercise, rap music"

whoa, slow down there buck-o. why'd you have to throw in "muslim fundamentalists"?

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 5:28pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 5:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

oh hell yeah. they would often put lovers next to each other in the line of battle on purpose...oh no you're not gonna kill my lover!!!!

lol, but true, of course...

and i'm talking about the most psycopathically violent and manly of all the old greek city states - SPARTA...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 5:28pm
"here's why: not all people against gay marriage are bigots. I'm against polygamy. does that make me a bigot? I don't think so" you have just demonstrated a profound intellectual immaturity, nay, deficiency. two are not three. that is as old as time. you have just completely changed the terms of the debate. Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--intellectual immaturity, deficiency? por favor. darla, enough. you're not as smart as you think; and talking that way to people doesn't make you smarter (it just makes you an asshole)

i'm for gay marriage. I'm not for polygamous marriage. but how can i justify this?

because "two are not three" is not a legitimate reason to tell polygamous people they're wrong (it's arguably just as bigoted to tell polygamous people they can't have their marriage as it is to tell gay people).

Give me something more to hang my hat on.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 5:29pm
if one person does not enjoy the same legal protections as another person, then the former suffers discrimination.

--not automatically. if I'm 17 and my friend is 19, do i suffer discrimination because I can't vote? if i'm 19 and my friend is 21 do i suffer discrimination because i can't drink? your simplistic arguments are weak.

if you support laws which discriminate against one group of people, then you are, in fact, a bigot.

--so society is bigoted against 17 year olds since they can't vote? so society is bigoted against 19 year olds since they can't drink? again, your simplistic "everyone's a bigot who doesn't believe what I believe" is unconvincing...and this is coming from someone who is for gay marriage. you're not persuasive.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 5:34pm
"and i'm talking about the most psycopathically violent and manly of all the old greek city states - SPARTA..."

i live in the castro. all the boys work out so intensely that i always feel safe around them. biggest, strongest, most powerful men i've ever seen in one place. of course none of them have any interest in fighting, but like you said, if someone threatened to kill them, or their lover, they're ready to fight until death do us part.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 5:35pm
remember folks, at one time, you could hold the belief that women were property, and still not be considered a bigot. or that african-americans were slaves, and not be a bigot. or that women shouldn't have the right to vote, and not be a bigot. or that blacks and whites shouldn't marry, and not be a bigot. or that jews were filthy, and not be a bigot. or that lesbians would castrate straight white males, and not be a bigot. Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--or in the early 21st century, that most white men are backward thinking morons...and not be a bigot.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 5:36pm
"Also, sex is much more personal than people like gunslinger will admit in these type of conversation" proving my point so well that we are all unique. Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--I have to hand it to you--that was a good one!

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 5:37pm
"Also, sex is much more personal than people like gunslinger will admit in these type of conversation" proving my point so well that we are all unique. Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 4:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--although we all need sex! so we're hardly unique in that way!

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 5:37pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 5:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--let's not forgot many of the great thinkers/philosophers from Roman days and before who were pedophiles by today's standards.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 5:40pm
"it's arguably just as bigoted to tell polygamous people they can't have their marriage as it is to tell gay people"

i agree. and you have perfectly defended my defense of gay marriage.

you just claimed that it was "bigoted" to tell polyamorous individuals that they can't marry.

and i couldn't agree more.

but the debate centers around the difference between two heterosexuals and two homosexuals.

it does not center around the difference between homosexual marriage and polygamy.

and i'm not an "asshole" for pointing out that you have clearly changed the terms of the legal debate from two people to three people.

the law has no language for three people. it has language for two.

you are talking about changing the language, which is totally different than pointing out that homosexuals are individuals deserving of the same rights as heterosexuals.

nice try, though. asshole.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 5:41pm
"--I have to hand it to you--that was a good one!"

thanks, baby, right back at 'ya!

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 5:44pm
the law has no language for three people. it has language for two.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 5:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--most states outlaw polygamy...so there is language for three.

forget the law for a moment...just from an ethical perspective...how do i argue for gay marriage but hold my stance that polygamous marriage is something i'm against?

my feeling is no person should be shared...just given to one other (when it comes to marriage...three ways, totally different story!)

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 5:48pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 5:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

i'm 6'3", 240 lbs, have a good redneck buddhist buddy who's about two inches shorter and eighty pounds heavier (fat on top of neanderthal-like bone structure and musculature), both of us straight as far as i can tell...lol...

and we used to have a good friend who was an impish, elderly, outspoken, homosexual retired professor who had grown up in the "good old days" in the south...we regularly accompanied him on jaunts down to the college drinking holes and dared by our mere presence any stupid, suicidal homophobe to hurt him...

HILARIOUS AND FUN!!!!

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 5:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

yeah, but careful talking about that one in public, u know? wiki "pederastic couples" of history, though, and be amazed...lol...

well all, must return to my holy task of attempting to create 12-14 jobs in the western north carolina area in renewable energy. wish me luck!!!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 5:50pm
"...how do i argue for gay marriage but hold my stance that polygamous marriage is something i'm against?"

that's a debate worth having. i am all for polyamory or polygamy. but at this point, it's not a political reality.

even super hippies are weird about polyamory.

not me, but many are.

i personally think it's possible (see: henry miller), but extremely rare.

and frankly, i have never met a polyamorous trio (and i know a few) who was interested in getting married.

it's just too complicated for three people to have an agreement.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 5:54pm
Have you guys ever thought of simply designating some agreed-upon place to meet so that you can all physically pummel one another instead of limiting your fighting to queer words? Who knows, some of you might actually resolve your differences, some of you might actually fall in love the way MASK did the first time he laid eyes upon Mario Lopez. Is sexual orientation really one of the bigger fish you need to fry nowadays?

Posted by chimichenga at 11/03/2009 @ 5:57pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 5:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

wish me luck, DARLA!!!! i'm trying to save the world!!!!

western north carolina is perhaps one of the few places in the south you might not hate, lol, by the way...

i love it here. much better than where i was...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 5:59pm
"western north carolina is perhaps one of the few places in the south you might not hate, lol, by the way..."

i love the south. i just can't be myself while i'm there. oviously. black gay jewish. impossible.

but i love flannery o'conner, faulkner, gilchrist, sally mann, magnolias, new orleans, the florida keys, miami women (!)......

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 6:24pm
but i love...miami women (!)...... Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 6:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

who doesn't!

i love o'conner's short stories too though. we're not so unique, you and I!

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 6:30pm
.....create 12-14 jobs in the western north carolina area in renewable energy. wish me luck!!!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 5:50pm

I assume the "luck" means connecting up with some Gubber's money....huh, huh, huh?

Yes, I'm wishing you lots of that luck....get it quick while it's free and easy!

By any chance, "western" as in Ashville, Hendersonville? or as on border w/Tennessee in some `hollow' where the wind blows not-so-shallow?

Posted by Happy at 11/03/2009 @ 6:51pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 5:05pm

You realise, ofcourse, that you have single handedly destroyed my mental image of the Teutonic Warrior of German lore,...

and replaced it with a character out of the Brothers Grimm....complete with a TUTU!!!!

:)

Posted by YourJomamma at 11/03/2009 @ 7:09pm
there is no law which states that, in marriage, one person must have XX chorosomes, and the other must have XY chromosomes.

so, please tell us, oh scholar, using the constitution as your tool, on what basis can you deny equal rights to homosexuals?

please, oh reverand, enlighten us fools.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 2:56pm

Marriage is not a constitutional right. The US govt does not issue marriage licenses or civil union licenses.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 7:35pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 7:35pm |

But we do have a SCOTUS to which appeals from the courts of those who do issue those licenses are often referred, correct?

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 7:44pm
Only in this day and age in America can having the same view of marriage as basically every human civilization for thousands of years be considered a mark of hatred and ignorance.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 7:48pm
But we do have a SCOTUS to which appeals from the courts of those who do issue those licenses are often referred, correct?

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 7:44pm

SCOTUS has ruled and upheld the right of states to ban same sex marriage

<Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972), was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissed the appeal "for want of [a] substantial federal question". That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the issue of same-sex marriage.>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 7:50pm
Damn activist judges! Couldn't they see the same sex marriage clause in the Bill of Rights in there between the abortion clause and the part where the 2nd Amendment is both only for hunting and at the same time only for the National Guard?

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 7:57pm
I had to look it up since I figured you weren't talking about the insect.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 2:55pm

wow,

you're as bad at biology as god -- she thinks bats are birds.....

ticks are arachnids.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 8:31pm
Three years after Tip said that, President Reagan won a 49-state lanslide victory that to this day is the current record for electoral vote wins.---

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 1:47pm |

and america has gone downhill ever since.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 8:36pm
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson"

and it has upheld slavery, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

nice try, antisocialist.

"Only in this day and age in America can having the same view of marriage as basically every human civilization for thousands of years be considered a mark of hatred and ignorance"

ha! the same could be said of slavery.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 8:42pm
Okay, first of all, Iran is Jimmy Carter's fault.

�� wrong. it is eisenhower's fault

Second of all, President Reagan, along with Pope JP2 and Prime Minister Thatcher defeated communism in Europe.

�� hahaha. actually, it was JIMMY CARTER that got the ball rolling in afghanistan. but really, the soviets were crushed because of rubber money. JUST LIKE WHAT IS HAPPENING IN AMERICA RIGHT NOW.

Three, I didn't say he was a saint

�� heretic.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 2:20pm

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 8:42pm
btw, citizen-carrier,

spain and canada have legalized gay marriage. so, not only "in america"....

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 8:43pm
I assume the "luck" means connecting up with some Gubber's money....huh, huh, huh?

Yes, I'm wishing you lots of that luck....get it quick while it's free and easy!

Posted by Happy at 11/03/2009 @ 6:51pm

happy, you dolt.

the "free" money is the whole reason you're able to milk the last remaining fiatscos from the dying embers of wall street.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 8:47pm
Frosty, do you know why America is sliding down (Which is north since diameter at the equator is larger than diameter of north-south axis)?

Because Canada sucks!

(He he, that is an old Minnesota/Iowa joke. By the way. I've moved back to Iowa. Long story. for another time.)

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 8:47pm
I guess the biggest loser in all of this is WaPo. They engaged in a nakedly partisan hack job on McDondald, only to see him win by 20 points.

Oooh, that's going to leave a mark.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 8:52pm
On November 17, 2008, NEPAL'S Supreme Court ruled in favor of laws to guarantee full rights to LGBT people, and all gender minorities must be defined as "natural persons" under the law; this including the right to marry.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 8:54pm
I've moved back to Iowa. Long story. for another time.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 8:47pm

good thing you got out before b of a squished you.

��

but what of points one and two?

reagan was a fraud.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 8:56pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 7:50pm </i>

Wikipedia is wrong for two reasons. First of all, a dismissal is by definition NOT a ruling on the merits. The Supreme Court rules on the merits when it either upholds or reverses the lower court. Anything other than those two is NOT an explicit ruling on the merits. Second, even if was a ruling on the merits, it doesn't matter because any substantive ruling has been called into question by rulings like Zablocki and Romer v. Evans.

Here's the thing. I actually don't think the Equal Protection Clause applies here, because I think the Equal Protection Clause should be construed fairly narrowly. That doesn't mean that every argument in favor of that position is right.

Now, for the part I love, called "mocking bad arguments."

1) "If everyone were gay, the human race would cease to exist." This argument, for obvious reason, is stupid. If everyone was a Catholic priest, the human race would cease to exist. Basing policy on "if everyone did X" makes no sense.

2) "You can't reproduce...therefore you're unnatural!" Why has no one called gunslinger out on the utter and complete lack of a link here? Leaving aside the fact that sterile old people can get married...gunslinger never even warrants why this is a standard to start with, he just blatantly asserts it and hopes that if he says it enough times, it becomes true.

3) "Gays are a tiny minority...and therefore not the norm by definition" Hmm, being a minority=license for differential treatment...that's never led to moral issues...Plus it's just dumb.

Posted by Thrawn at 11/03/2009 @ 8:57pm
--circus freaks shouldn't be prevented from marrying in this cold cruel world. they certainly can't turn to you for love.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 2:56pm

nicely done, urms.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 8:59pm
Clearly it is against nature as homosexual people cannot reproduce with partners of the same sex.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:05pm

actually many species of fish require only females.

and almost all dandelions are clones produced asexually.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:03pm
I like Ellen just fine.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:05pm

now, THAT is perverse!

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:04pm
What's a funny, less painful way to spell Waterloo?

Posted by Happy at 11/03/2009 @ 9:06pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 7:50pm |

So you DO admit that your argument about the lack of national marriage licenses was the reddest of herrings and that our Constitution does provide language to address these issues?

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 9:09pm
Only in this day and age in America can having the same view of marriage as basically every human civilization for thousands of years be considered a mark of hatred and ignorance. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 7:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--i'm sure they said the same about interracial marriage; and women having the right to vote; and minorities having the right to vote; or minorities not being slaves...etc, etc, etc...

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 9:10pm
Man, talk about whistling past the graveyard!

Virginia Republicans just handed the Democrats an Agincourt level defeat and we're here talking about gay marriage?

Gay marriage is going to happen. Just a matter of time. Make America watch enough episodes of "Will and Grace" and we'll get used to just about anything.

So why dwell on it? Unless there are other events taking place that are just too painful to address?

Not really sure what's going to happen in New Jersey. Christie's up last time I checked by only about 50,000 votes. In New Jersey, that's not a lot. Plenty of dead people and illegitimate absentee ballots can be found to cover that spread.

The thing to remember is that NO Republican should even be this close to winning in New Jersey. Not with the White House, labor unions, the media, ACORN, the state political machine, and Corzine's personal millions arrayed against you. This means something.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 9:11pm
Tonight's rather serious rebuke of Democrats in both Virginia and New Jersey, and I'm fairly certain, NY-23, is made possible by, and our thanks go to:

1) Arlen Spetre for outing himself as a Dem and taking the Dems to the cusp of full Senate control

2) Al Franken for stealing an Election which gave the Dems full, absolute control of the Senate

3) Dede Scozzafava for pulling the female Spectre Special and even upped Arlen by endorsing Democrat Bill Owens

4) The passage of the Pork Bill with just 3 RINO Senate votes and zero GOP House votes

5) The CBO for consistently tabulating the growth of our Magical government

Is this fun or what?

Posted by Happy at 11/03/2009 @ 9:13pm
Now, for the part I love, called "mocking bad arguments." 1) "If everyone were gay, the human race would cease to exist." This argument, for obvious reason, is stupid. If everyone was a Catholic priest, the human race would cease to exist. Basing policy on "if everyone did X" makes no sense. 2) "You can't reproduce...therefore you're unnatural!" Why has no one called gunslinger out on the utter and complete lack of a link here? Leaving aside the fact that sterile old people can get married...gunslinger never even warrants why this is a standard to start with, he just blatantly asserts it and hopes that if he says it enough times, it becomes true. 3) "Gays are a tiny minority...and therefore not the norm by definition" Hmm, being a minority=license for differential treatment...that's never led to moral issues...Plus it's just dumb. Posted by Thrawn at 11/03/2009 @ 8:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--i know there's been a lot of posts...but i mocked each and every one of those type of arguments throughout this thread.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 9:17pm
"2) Al Franken for stealing an Election which gave the Dems full, absolute control of the Senate"

al franken stole an election?? hilarious!!

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 9:21pm
Spoke too soon. Looks like Christie is being called for New Jersey. About a 100,000 vote spread.

I imagine that would be a bit hard to make up on the margins.

It doesn't look like we'll get NY-23. Well, it was a weird little race up there. Too many last minute changes and unnecessary drama.

I can settle for a clean sweep in Virginia and a historic win in New Jersey. Kind of tough to win reelection when a lot of your fundraising network is in jail due to a statewide corruption sting.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 9:24pm
Last year I saw a smart population going to vote to get the country out of trouble, and off of the hands of those incompetente fools who ran the country for 8 years., now I see that the population is going back to be stupid once again...

Posted by Cromagnon at 11/03/2009 @ 9:28pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 9:24pm |

Can you believe ScuzzyFavaBean is actually getting votes in an election from which she "cut and run"?

I'm often baffled by the behavior of 'moderate' Pugs.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 9:31pm
In spirit, intellect, health, morality, virtuosity, and enlightenment it is utterly impoverished.

Posted by chimichenga at 11/03/2009 @ 5:20pm

uh, tell that to taj mahal or wendell berry.

every colombian is addicted to soap operas.

generalizations are stupid.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:32pm
i'm for gay marriage.

Give me something more to hang my hat on.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 5:29pm

dearly beloved.....

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:33pm
Stupid?

It sounds very much like you are saying these two state elections should be interpreted as a rebuke to the 2008 election.

Is that what you are saying?

Or were there "smart" reasons to reelect an unpopular guy like Corzine? He should've been reelected just because Obama stumped for him? Shouldn't there be a better reason than that?

And McConnell in Virginia simply ran on a platform of fiscal restraint and responsibility. This sounds bad to you?

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 9:34pm
What about identical twins who dress alike? Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 3:19pm

it is physically impossible that any two objects be identical.

the closer you look, the greater the number of variations.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:36pm
Is this fun or what?

Posted by Happy at 11/03/2009 @ 9:13pm

You have an extremely low "fun threshold".

I can think of a few things that are fun: playing euchre, bowling, watching NHL hockey, going to the "Windsor ballet"...

but THIS, as FUN?

nah. not even close.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/03/2009 @ 9:36pm
i'm for gay marriage. Give me something more to hang my hat on. Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 5:29pm dearly beloved..... Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--I don't get your critique (or addition, or whatever)...

the context of my comment is I'm for gay marriage, but against polygamy; so I was asking darla to help me articulate why I'm not merely bashing polygamists (the way I say many homophobes merely bash gay marriage)

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 9:37pm
the closer you look, the greater the number of variations. Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:36pm |

The closer you look, the less you know about the objects' momentum. - Heisenberg

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 9:39pm
Can you believe ScuzzyFavaBean is actually getting votes in an election from which she "cut and run"?

I'm often baffled by the behavior of 'moderate' Pugs.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 9:31pm

Eh, that's nothing.

In 2000, Missouri Democrats voted for Mel Carnahan, who in Monty Python parlance had "come over a bit dead".

A strong case could've been made for throwing that election result out and giving it to Ashcroft as an uncontested election. After all, the election laws state that a candidate must be a resident of the state he is running for. At that point, Carnahan wasn't a resident of any state.

So it should've went to Ashcroft. Of course, with Democrats little things like legality never get in the way. It rivaled Ted Kennedy's recent plea to overturn the law he himself inacted to prevent a Republican from being appointed in his stead, because now that saem law could keep a Democrat being appointed after his death.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 9:40pm
the closer you look, the greater the number of variations. Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:36pm |

--they don't tell you that the variations may be meaningless window dressing.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 9:40pm
western north carolina area

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/03/2009 @ 5:50pm

you've abandoned colombia?

oh, well.

are you in sparta (lol)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta,_North_Carolina

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:40pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 9:40pm |

He's was pining for the fjords!

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 9:42pm
What's a funny, less painful way to spell Waterloo?

Posted by Happy at 11/03/2009 @ 9:06pm

greenspan.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:45pm
The thing to remember is that NO Republican should even be this close to winning in New Jersey. Not with the White House, labor unions, the media, ACORN, the state political machine, and Corzine's personal millions arrayed against you. This means something.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 9:11pm

yep, that people are dumb fructosaholics.

COKE! PEPSI!

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:47pm
--I don't get your critique (or addition, or whatever)...

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 9:37pm

well, think of places one can hang a hat.....

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:50pm
So who were you pulling for tonight, frosty?

That Daggett character?

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 9:50pm
--they don't tell you that the variations may be meaningless window dressing.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 9:40pm

or maybe not.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:51pm
--I don't get your critique (or addition, or whatever)... Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 9:37pm well, think of places one can hang a hat..... Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--i don't get it. whatever.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 9:52pm
<i>Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 9:17pm </i>

Sorry for any unnecessary redundance, though I didn't really see people call gunslinger out on the basic premises rather than the implications (if that makes sense).

Posted by Thrawn at 11/03/2009 @ 9:53pm
So who were you pulling for tonight, frosty?

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 9:50pm

the american people.

but, once again, they lost.

coke and pepsi are indistinguishable.

and both are poison.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:53pm
you've abandoned colombia?

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:40pm

oops. columbia.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:54pm
hey, snowy [and the rest!]

this is cool:

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/scale/

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:56pm
--they don't tell you that the variations may be meaningless window dressing. Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 9:40pm or maybe not. Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--I'm sure you fancy yourself very different from many who post here. But the thing is--we're all just typing words on a computer. We're all engaging in the same fundamental activity: ignoring real life to spend time on the interweb with strangers.

but yeah...we're all "unique"

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 9:58pm
The real life people around me often aren't very interesting in the way of political discussion.

And this is certainly more interactive than staring at a television.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 10:03pm
but yeah...we're all "unique"

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 9:58pm

you'll see.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 10:04pm
but yeah...we're all "unique" Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 9:58pm you'll see. Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 10:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--the more people I meet (including the world of the interweb), the more I see there's very little difference from one to the next.

you're no exception

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 10:08pm
The real life people around me often aren't very interesting in the way of political discussion. And this is certainly more interactive than staring at a television. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 10:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person

-you mean you like to talk to people with similar interests? not unique at all

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 10:08pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:56pm |

Neat!

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 10:14pm
you're no exception Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 10:08pm |

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIovjHpjros

(speaking of places you can hang a hat, Frosty)

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 10:26pm
"Sorry for any unnecessary redundance, though I didn't really see people call gunslinger out on the basic premises rather than the implications (if that makes sense)."

thrawn, you can't be serious. i asked him repeatedly about the biological fact of homosexuality.

on an ontological level (which is what i presume you mean by "basic premises"), gunslinger implies that homosexuality is a choice.

we know, by virtue of homosexuality's existence within at least 1500 species, that homosexuality is not necessarily a choice, but a biological fact.

bonobos, one of our closest ancestors, are fully bisexual beings. we share over 90% of our DNA with these animals.

and why don't we go even deeper? perhaps we need to ask what the role of pleasure is in sexual discourse? and whether women even need men anymore?

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:02pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 7:50pm |

So you DO admit that your argument about the lack of national marriage licenses was the reddest of herrings and that our Constitution does provide language to address these issues?

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 9:09pm

Absolutely not. I was making 2 points

And the SCOTUS ruling showed that SCOTUS said it was a state issue, not a federal issue.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 11:04pm
thrawn,

gunslinger's concerns are petty. you are intelligent enough to think beyond them.....i mean, serious thrawn, anyone who believes (still, in 2009) that homosexuals are "deviants" or "freaks of nature" can't positively impact our society.

if you want to have a serious discussion about sexuality, then i would refer you to the work of the inimitable eve kosofsky sedgwick. may she rest in peace.

when you finish that, get back to me.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:11pm
"And the SCOTUS ruling showed that SCOTUS said it was a state issue, not a federal issue."

here's antisocialist's legal philosophy: if it's a cause for which i care, then the law should change to support it; if it's a cause to which i am opposed, then the law should be strictly interpreted to prevent it.

there is no in between in the very closed mind of our resident preacher....

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:13pm
here's antisocialist's legal philosophy: if it's a cause for which i care, then the law should change to support it; if it's a cause to which i am opposed, then the law should be strictly interpreted to prevent it.

there is no in between in the very closed mind of our resident preacher....

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:13pm

I'm consistent. I said there is no right to or of marriage in the US constitution. Not for heterosexuals or anyone else.

On the other hand, I've also said that states have the authority to define civil contracts however they determine (whether I like them or not). So states can allow a man and a woman, two men, two women, or any combination the state authorizes. Just don't call it marriage.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 11:27pm
"I said there is no right to or of marriage in the US constitution. Not for heterosexuals or anyone else"

yeah, you said this AFTER homosexuals wanted to get married. before that, you weren't interested in this matter at all. which is ALL WE NEED TO KNOW about you, anti.

"On the other hand, I've also said that states have the authority to define civil contracts however they determine (whether I like them or not). So states can allow a man and a woman, two men, two women, or any combination the state authorizes. Just don't call it marriage"

the bigot speaks low.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:32pm
"just don't call it marriage"

(quote of the day)

do opposite chromosomed human beings own the intellectual property of "marriage"?

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:34pm
antisocialist claims to abide by the constitution, the law of the land, except when it doesn't abide by the bible.

you see, the bible and the constitution are fundementally at odds, but larry can't have that.

ergo, larry is full of shit.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:35pm
--the more people I meet (including the world of the interweb), the more I see there's very little difference from one to the next.

you're no exception

Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 10:08pm

may i suggest "the shape of me and other stuff" by dr. seuss?

http://www.amazon.com/Shape-Me-Other-Stuff-Surprising/dp/0679886311

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 11:39pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:02pm

when do we start picking the fleas off of each other.

There is NO CORRELATION between animal behavior and human behavior. Our is the choice of our mind. Animal behavior is simply animalistic, there is no will to choose to do right or wrong.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 11:41pm
"just don't call it marriage"

(quote of the day)

do opposite chromosomed human beings own the intellectual property of "marriage"?

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:34pm

Yes they do. All of the major faiths and over 4 thousand years of tradition say yes.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 11:43pm
antisocialist claims to abide by the constitution, the law of the land, except when it doesn't abide by the bible.

you see, the bible and the constitution are fundementally at odds, but larry can't have that.

ergo, larry is full of shit.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:35pm

You are the one interjecting the Bible Darla.

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR MARRIAGE. NOT FOR HETEROSEXUALS OR ANYONE ELSE.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 11:44pm
antisocialist claims to abide by the constitution, the law of the land, except when it doesn't abide by the bible.

you see, the bible and the constitution are fundementally at odds, but larry can't have that.

ergo, larry is full of shit.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:35pm

You are the one interjecting the Bible Darla.

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR MARRIAGE. NOT FOR HETEROSEXUALS OR ANYONE ELSE.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 11:44pm
"There is NO CORRELATION between animal behavior and human behavior"

this belief was popular.......like 250 years ago. actually more like 500 years ago (see: thomas acquinas).

what did you say about anthropology, antisocialist? that it was a "useless field of study"? well, you're demonstrating that belief right now.

so, you should probably just.......take a nap.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:47pm
"THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR MARRIAGE. NOT FOR HETEROSEXUALS OR ANYONE ELSE"

antisocialist first uttered these words AFTER homosexuals sought the right to marry.

before that, he wasn't EVER concerned with the legal status of marriage, despite being......a minister.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:48pm
"There is NO CORRELATION between animal behavior and human behavior"

this belief was popular.......like 250 years ago. actually more like 500 years ago (see: thomas acquinas).

what did you say about anthropology, antisocialist? that it was a "useless field of study"? well, you're demonstrating that belief right now.

so, you should probably just.......take a nap.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:47pm

The consensus scientific opinion is that no conclusions can be made regarding animal behavior having any correlation to human behavior.

That's because they cannot validate since animals DON'T SPEAK.

Any suggestion that attempts to tie animal behavior to humans is SOLELY CONJECTURE, NOT SCIENCE.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 11:49pm
as soon as homosexuals want what heterosexuals want, the frantic, christian heterosexuals want to change the legal definitions of everything. but they're bigoted. oh, no. not at all. they're "strict constitutionalists."

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:51pm
There is NO CORRELATION between animal behavior and human behavior. Our is the choice of our mind. Animal behavior is simply animalistic, there is no will to choose to do right or wrong.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 11:41pm

this is just arrogant and stupid on so many levels.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 11:52pm
larry, watch this and then we'll talk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBtFTF2ii7U

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 11:54pm
Hey Nichols,

NY has been a lost cause for our constitutional republic for decades.

I'm thankful that my family moved from there 75 years ago.

As to CA, that was a heavily Democratic district. Go ahead and cheer getting another Democratic crook in Washington. Most Californians just wish Garamendi would go away and not return.

And it appears you're leaving out another victory for conservatives in Maine.

<PORTLAND, Maine - Gay marriage is losing by a slim margin in a closely watched referendum in Maine.

With 417 of 608 precincts reporting, 52 percent were opposed to same-sex marriage and 48 percent were in favor.

The voters are deciding whether to repeal or affirm a state law that would allow gay couples to wed. The law was passed by the Maine Legislature in May but never took effect because of a petition drive by conservatives.>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33609492

Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 11:55pm
That's because they cannot validate since animals DON'T SPEAK.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 11:49pm

not any language you understand.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 11:57pm
"The consensus scientific opinion is that no conclusions can be made regarding animal behavior having any correlation to human behavior"

omfg! this is the most hilarious thing i've read in weeks! almost spilled my beer.....

that any scientist would "consent" to not being able to make conclusions about humans, from research gathered on animals, would be fundementally betraying the very essence of scientific inquiry.

humans have been doing tests on animals for a long time, simply because that research can be applied to ourselves.

and that's just scraping the tip of the iceberg.

we share 97% of our DNA with chimpanzees. that's mind bogglingly extraordinary.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:59pm
larry,

unless you're a plant, fungus, or bacteria et al.

youse an animal.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 12:00am
larry, watch this and then we'll talk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBtFTF2ii7U

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 11:54pm

So? It doesn't mean anything. two animals get along. That has nothing to do with human emotion. Animals have no free will to choose, no souls to determine right from wrong.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:00am
"And it appears you're leaving out another victory for conservatives in Maine."

ah, but larry's a strict constitutionalist. he doesn't really have an opinion about gays, he just thinks that the law should be applied fairly in all cases.

oops! maybe not!

apparently, this was a "victory" for.....strict constitutionalists. and these types never, ever have an opinion.

Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:01am
"not any language you understand"

exactly. whales definitely speak. so do birds. so do dolphins. so do chimps. so do many, many species.

Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:02am
" Animals have no free will to choose, no souls to determine right from wrong"

this type of thinking is like 500 years old. i am being totally serious. thomas acquinas posited this thought.

antisocialist's thoughts on this matter are, without a doubt, medieval.

Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:05am
So? It doesn't mean anything. two animals get along. That has nothing to do with human emotion. Animals have no free will to choose, no souls to determine right from wrong.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:00am

i see.

so the other animals are on auto-pilot?

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 12:06am
animals have souls. all living things have souls.

whether they understand english, or right from wrong, or traffic signals, doesn't mean that they are soul-less.

it is possible to connect with any living thing. we can talk to plants. we can talk to animals.

there is research to support this.

Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:09am
Someday the Nation will publish an "annual" with photos of all the monickerers appearing here. Can anybody hazzard a guess as to how many from these blogs show on the cruise? Would be interesting no?

Posted by Sorelish at 11/04/2009 @ 12:16am
antisocialist, i think you need to re-think your claim that anthropology is a "useless field of study".

i mean, your claim that humans and animals are separate, because animals cannot understand right from wrong, is steeped in a rigid, 16th century mindset. i mean, we're talking a pre-'age of reason' mentality.

what are your thoughts on evolution, btw?

Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:17am
we share 97% of our DNA with chimpanzees. that's mind bogglingly extraordinary.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:59pm

Actually it's not at all extroardinary, because with the development of dna research, that 30 year old study is now debunked.

Newer research lowers that to 86%

http://tinyurl.com/yuzzgv

http://tinyurl.com/yhp7xzg

BTW our DNA shares 50% of that of a banana-are we partially descended from bananas?

But it gets better Darla. Based on other DNA research, we have more similarity to rodents and chickens than chimpanzees

<May 6, 2004-- Hundreds of stretches of DNA may be so critical to life's machinery that they have been "ultra-conserved" throughout hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Researchers have found precisely the same sequences in the genomes of humans, rats, and mice; sequences that are 95 to 99 percent identical to these can be found in the chicken and dog genomes, as well.

Most of these ultra-conserved regions do not appear to code for proteins, but may instead play a regulatory role. Evolutionary theory suggests these sequences may be so central to mammalian biology that even small changes in them would compromise the animal's fitness.>

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002095.html

That speaks to the commonality of creation because of our Creator G-d, not your god of evolution.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:17am
"And it appears you're leaving out another victory for conservatives in Maine."

ah, but larry's a strict constitutionalist. he doesn't really have an opinion about gays, he just thinks that the law should be applied fairly in all cases.

oops! maybe not!

apparently, this was a "victory" for.....strict constitutionalists. and these types never, ever have an opinion.

Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:01am

You still don't get it. Marriage is a state issue, not a Federal issue. And the citizens of Maine lined up with the citizens of most states who have voted on this issue.

That is constitutional as is called for by the 10th amendment.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:20am
"That speaks to the commonality of creation because of our Creator G-d, not your god of evolution"

antisocialist, give it up. you're out of your element here. you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:23am
"You still don't get it. Marriage is a state issue, not a Federal issue. And the citizens of Maine lined up with the citizens of most states who have voted on this issue."

of course, all those voters are very, deeply concerned about the constitution. they don't have a problem with homosexuals. not at all. what really, really concerns them is......the constitution.

just like you, larry.

you're not a bigot. you're a strict constitutionalist. who loves the founding fathers.

and the earth is only 5,000 years old.

Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:25am
and obviously larry became so deeply concerned with the constitution AFTER homosexuals wanted to get married. BEFORE that he didn't really care.

gee, i wonder why? it wouldn't be because he's.......

Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:26am
what are your thoughts on evolution, btw?

Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:17am

Evolution is the scheme of men to find a way to disavow G-d. Honest evolutionists will admit that.

<...in 1980, British physicist H.S. Lipson produced a thought-provoking piece in the May issue of Physics Bulletin (a refereed science journal). In his article, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Dr. Lipson commented first on his interest in life's origin and, second, on his non-association with creationists. He then noted: "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to �bend' their observations to fit with it." Lipson went on to ask how well evolution has withstood the years of scientific testing, and suggested that "to my mind, the theory does not stand up at all." Lipson concluded: "I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation." Like other evolutionists who have voiced similar views, Dr. Lipson hardly was ecstatic about his conclusion--a fact he made clear when he wrote: "I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it" (31:138, emp. in orig.).> http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2575

Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:29am
like i said, once larry's worldview became threatened by the communist, homosexual agenda, he became very deeply concerned with the constitution.

before that, everything was a-ok.

Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:30am
"Evolution is the scheme of men to find a way to disavow G-d. Honest evolutionists will admit that."

all we need to know about our town drunk

Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:32am
and the earth is only 5,000 years old.

Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:25am

Really Darla, you think the earth is only 5000 years old?

Personally, I think the science is fairly conclusive that the earth is somewhere around 4-6 billion years old.

About 2.5 billion years ago, it settled into pretty much the land masses we have today.

G-d started putting animals on the planet about 500 plus million years ago.

BTW 10,000 and 50,000 years ago, He creatd Mankind.

Wow, Darla, I never took you for a young earther.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:36am
and obviously larry became so deeply concerned with the constitution AFTER homosexuals wanted to get married. BEFORE that he didn't really care.

gee, i wonder why? it wouldn't be because he's.......

Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:26am

Not even close. My passion for the constitution started in 1959 when I began really reading it and the writings of the founders.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:37am
"That speaks to the commonality of creation because of our Creator G-d, not your god of evolution"

antisocialist, give it up. you're out of your element here. you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:23am

Sure Darla. I've loved science since way before you were born. And I always got A's in science in both High School and College.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:40am
"Sure Darla. I've loved science since way before you were born. And I always got A's in science in both High School and College."

yeah, you got As for saying:

"G-d started putting animals on the planet about 500 plus million years ago.

BTW 10,000 and 50,000 years ago, He creatd Mankind"

must have been a pretty tough school.

Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:44am
Back to Maine

<PORTLAND, Maine - Maine voters on Tuesday torpedoed a state law that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry, a heartbreaking defeat for the gay rights movement, particularly since it occurred in a corner of the country most supportive of gay marriage.

With 84 percent of the precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the vote Tuesday.

Gay marriage has now lost in every single state -- 31 in all -- in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine.>

http://tinyurl.com/yk2llb8

Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:44am
yeah, you got As for saying:

"G-d started putting animals on the planet about 500 plus million years ago.

BTW 10,000 and 50,000 years ago, He creatd Mankind"

must have been a pretty tough school.

Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:44am

actually yes. I was fortunate to have a college Biology professor who did not believe in evolution.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:49am
ibble

Just FYI, Frederick the Great died without issue. The crown passed to his nephew, Frederick William II.

Regarding antis nonsense of their being no correlation between animal and human behavior, I would refer him to writings going back to Desmond Morris's The Naked Ape and continuing through the field of evolutionary psychology that do, in fact, correlate aspects of human psychology to evolutionary imperatives.

"actually yes. I was fortunate to have a college Biology professor who did not believe in evolution."

So he dismissed the arrival of certain types of drug-resistant bacteria as a Satanic plot?

Finally, his reliance on Baker v Nelson would be more convincing except if it didn't overlook subsequent SCOTUS cases that call its holding into question. Lawrence v. Texas held that criminalization of homosexual activity violated the 14th Amendment. Likewise, the earlier case of Romer v Evans did strike down a Colorado anti-gay rights law. Clearly, discrimination vs. homosexuals is now a substantive federal issue.

Re marriage, the issue is not the existence of a constitutional right to marriage but whether a legal status offered by a state can violate the 14th amendment. In Loving v. Virginia, the court struck down a miscengenation statute, so clearly state laws regarding marriage are subject to 14th Amendment analysis.

Posted by brunowe at 11/04/2009 @ 04:09am
When a person votes rebublican, they are either ignorant, or a bigot!!! The rebublican party has done NOTHING to help average Americans in the last 100 years!!! NOTHING! reagan should have spent his last years dying in a prison! He broke the law and should have served jail time. FACT!!! To be a rebublican is a disease!!!

Posted by Tiger2Lover at 11/04/2009 @ 06:00am
It seems that the emperor has no clothes.

Since his election Obama has alienated our allies in England, France, Germany, and Israel, caved in to the Russians, believed the lies of the Iranians, apologized to the Moslem world for American behaviour (and no apologies were warranted because it is America that ended the famine in Moslem Somalia, freed Moslem Kuwait from Iraq's take over, ended the genocide of Moslems in Kosovo by Serbia, and freed fifty million Moslems in Iraq and Afghanistan from brutal, oppressive governments) and embraced Venezuela and Cuba, two countries that oppress their people. He's about to let the Taliban and Al Queda take over Afghanistan once again.

I guess this is what he meant by change you can believe in. I'm a Democrat who enthusiastically voted for Christie in New Jersey and will vote Republican for Senator and my liberal Democrat friends are finally beginning to see the light and plan to do so as well.

Posted by mjkoch at 11/04/2009 @ 06:50am
That, my friend, is the definition of tyranny. Enjoy your tyrannical power while it lasts.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/03/2009 @ 1:57pm

I find it amazing that these backwards bible thumpers are so against gay marriage. They think they have the right to step into a gay couples bedroom and dictate their religious dogma upon others because of their sexual orientation. Then, the next minute they are bitching about the government watching them and that the socialists are coming to get them and take their guns away and their right to harass women going into planned parenthood (they claim their free speech rights are being violated). Then, they wish to tell women, via the government, that they have no control over their own bodies and can't have abortions.

A more confused, moronic bunch of hypocrites never existed.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/04/2009 @ 07:16am
Posted by brunowe at 11/04/2009 @ 04:09am

Nice synopsis...couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/04/2009 @ 07:37am
When a person votes rebublican, they are either ignorant, or a bigot!!! The rebublican party has done NOTHING to help average Americans in the last 100 years!!! NOTHING! reagan should have spent his last years dying in a prison! He broke the law and should have served jail time. FACT!!! To be a rebublican is a disease!!! Posted by Tiger2Lover

It is amazing to see how much hate the liberals are capable of.

Posted by abell12ct at 11/04/2009 @ 07:45am
actually yes. I was fortunate to have a college Biology professor who did not believe in evolution. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:49am |

I'd read your statements in previous threads about the Earth being billions of years old and thought you had at least an inkling of a clue, but you're just as lost as ever.

Did G-d "plant" the 3.5B year old cyanobacterial fossils in Pilbara, NW Australia too?

Did you also have a Math professor who didn't believe in addition, an English professor who only spoke Swahili, and a Physics professor who didn't believe in gravity?

It's probably too late to ask for a refund of your tuition, but at least you could realize you were had.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/04/2009 @ 07:48am
It is amazing to see how much hate the liberals are capable of. Posted by abell12ct at 11/04/2009 @ 07:45am |

"The conservatives" taught us well.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/04/2009 @ 07:52am
This thread is idiotic. When did the wingnut trolls start hanging out at the Nation website so much?

Posted by jfdunn76 at 11/04/2009 @ 07:56am
Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:17am |

"There is NO CORRELATION between animal behavior and human behavior."

"That speaks to the commonality of creation because of our Creator G-d, not your god of evolution."

Which of these statements you've made is true, Larry?

If you're an "honest" devo, you'll recognize that they are diametrically opposed beliefs.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/04/2009 @ 08:06am
--the more people I meet (including the world of the interweb), the more I see there's very little difference from one to the next. you're no exception Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 10:08pm may i suggest "the shape of me and other stuff" by dr. seuss? http://www.amazon.com/Shape-Me-Other-Stuff-Surprising/dp/0679886311 Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 11:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--see...just like everyone else you're a condescending know-it-all on the internet.

VEEEEEEEEEEEERY UNIQUE!

Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 08:50am
Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:02pm when do we start picking the fleas off of each other. There is NO CORRELATION between animal behavior and human behavior. Our is the choice of our mind. Animal behavior is simply animalistic, there is no will to choose to do right or wrong. Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 11:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--you can't be serious (on either account)

Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 08:51am
John Dickerson of Slate.com pretty much summed up last night.....

"In New Jersey, Christie carried independents 58 percent to 31 percent, which helped him overcome the fact that there are 700,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in that state. Winning independents is important because Democrats are trying to paint Republicans as captive to the most extreme wing of the party. Independents, who tend to dislike extremism of any sort, wouldn't be voting for Republicans if that were the case."

When Liberals are faced with pro choice, pro gay rights, and pro environment Republicans they will have a problem. Not every Republican is an Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Fox News crazy. Independents will rule in 2010 and if the Republican Party has any smarts whatsoever they will encourage the moderates and make their party more acceptable to mainstream Americans.

Posted by mjkoch at 11/04/2009 @ 09:39am
......if the Republican Party has any smarts whatsoever they will encourage the moderates and make their party more acceptable to mainstream Americans.

Posted by mjkoch at 11/04/2009 @ 09:39am

One clear definition of "moderates" better be fiscal conservatives (ie, small Gubber-ism)!

Posted by Happy at 11/04/2009 @ 10:12am
Posted by snowball777 at 11/04/2009 @ 07:48am

No, they were indeed part of the early life on the planet before G-d started putting the animal kingdom here. I gave a very abbreviated response on that earlier post. I didn't know you wanted me to address every level of development of the planet.

The following link provides a good side-by-side of the creation cycle with the science and the Bible

http://tinyurl.com/2xhchx

Your other questions are simply juvenile.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 10:22am
Independents will rule in 2010 and if the Republican Party has any smarts whatsoever they will encourage the moderates and make their party more acceptable to mainstream Americans.

Posted by mjkoch at 11/04/2009 @ 09:39am | ignore this person | warn this person

Yep - "The Phoenix" of the Republican Party.

One clear definition of "moderates" better be fiscal conservatives (ie, small Gubber-ism)!

Posted by Happy at 11/04/2009 @ 10:12am | ignore this person | warn this person

Paleo-Moderates....yep.

Posted by OneVote at 11/04/2009 @ 10:34am
Don't fret, Darla. Where these people are going, they will be arguing and ranting to someone who doesn't give a rat's behind about their superiority complex. They'll yell and scream, just like they do on this planet, but their master will merely say, "Shut up. Not hot enough for you? I can fix that...... "

The Nation should call this blog the Christian Hypocrites Asylum page.

Posted by DejaVu at 11/04/2009 @ 11:11am
Your other questions are simply juvenile. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 10:22am |

As was your so-called education.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/04/2009 @ 11:29am
Your other questions are simply juvenile. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 10:22am |

As was your so-called education.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/04/2009 @ 11:29am

No, I was just fortunate enough that there were still some decent educators who weren't total marxists or leftist reformers.

I was fortunate also to attend college after the military so I wasn't so susceptible to the propaganda of leftist professors as younger students were. I was experienced enough, knowledgeable, and confident enough to challenge their mind games.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:14pm
I agree with Mr. Nichols that the disappointing gubernatorial victories should not mislead people into thinking that the election was a defeat for Obama and the more progressive wing on the Democratic party. Overall, it was a good night for progressives, thanks to the addition of another Democrat to the Congress and the replacement of a conservative Democrat with a progressive one. It's funny that the national "liberal" press, seems to be dwelling on the gubernatorial wins and the supposed referendum on the Obama administration and playing down the victories of two Democrats who will be going to Washington.

Posted by raaustin at 11/04/2009 @ 12:22pm
word. and more evidence that fear and ignorance are driving today's right wing.

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 1:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Right wing? THE PEOPLE are speaking in the ballot box, not the right wing. Gay marriage has failed in all 31 states where it has been put on the ballot, and some of those states (like California and Maine) are blue states.

This is being decided by the entire electorate, consistently, time and time again. So does this mean that more than 50% of the people in 31 states are full of "fear, ignorance, and hatred" ???????

Posted by jimmylove at 11/04/2009 @ 12:43pm
I just think Americans as a whole need to stop expecting their elected officials to work miracles if they, the voters are not going to stay engaged in the process. President Obama and his administration can reach out and do all they can but the people in this country are going to have to stop expecting instantaneous results. Change is not going to come quickly and it will not be easy. If we immediately vote the opposing team back into power, the change will never happen. I think more focus needs to be on the party that is rejecting the current administration and the American people. The Republican party started its "just say no" approach before Pres. Bush even left office and now they are acting as though they had nothing to do with the exploding deficit or the difficult war situation. We cannot let them get away with shifting the blame and then refusing to help the country get back on its feet.

Posted by holdingon at 11/04/2009 @ 12:48pm
The Nation should call this blog the Christian Hypocrites Asylum page.

Posted by DejaVu at 11/04/2009 @ 11:11am | last I heard our country still believed in separation of Church and State, have I missed something?

Posted by DrPiggy at 11/04/2009 @ 12:56pm
--see...just like everyone else you're a condescending know-it-all on the internet. VEEEEEEEEEEEERY UNIQUE! Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 08:50am

calm down.

if you fail to see that every leaf that falls to the ground,

that every snow ball,

that every atom is unique in its moment,

that's o.k. by me.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 1:08pm
It's funny that the national "liberal" press, seems to be dwelling on the gubernatorial wins and the supposed referendum on the Obama administration and playing down the victories of two Democrats who will be going to Washington.

Posted by raaustin at 11/04/2009 @ 12:22pm

So you think 2 out of 435 (with one merely going from a conservative to a progressive Dem) is statistically BIGGER and more earth-shaking than 2 out of 50, both of which are a switch in party control, and both of which, featured Magic himself campaigning, and national Dem funding?

Little wonder your side is losing its HAPPINESS!

Posted by Happy at 11/04/2009 @ 2:55pm
Might be time for Obama to pursue what got him elected rather than a pathetic bipartisanship that flows one way. Demand a public option, end the wars, regulate Wall Street. In New Jersey Christie didn't win anything, Corzine merely lost. The low Democratic turnout was the real repudiation, Republican numbers were normal. Time for Democrats to form a real party, not this junk.

Posted by jobbo at 11/04/2009 @ 3:41pm
Okay, first of all, Iran is Jimmy Carter's fault.

Second of all, President Reagan, along with Pope JP2 and Prime Minister Thatcher defeated communism in Europe.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 2:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Who is this? There needs to be some education level threshhold here.

Posted by jobbo at 11/04/2009 @ 3:47pm
Why has no one called gunslinger out on the utter and complete lack of a link here?

Posted by Thrawn at 11/03/2009 @ 8:57pm

Maybe because we don't read his ill-formed opinions? Maybe most people do the ignore thingy...

Posted by BlackFrancis at 11/04/2009 @ 3:59pm
This is being decided by the entire electorate, consistently, time and time again. So does this mean that more than 50% of the people in 31 states are full of "fear, ignorance, and hatred" ??????? Posted by jimmylove at 11/04/2009 @ 12:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--obviously.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:16pm
"An embittered Scozzafava endorsed Democrat Hoffman..." Scozzafava endorsed Democrat Owens. Spell-check is not a substitute for editing. People tend to know little enough without adding to the confusion.

Posted by davidleon at 11/04/2009 @ 6:17pm
whores like gunflinger are ignorant. They talk an endless stream of bullshit that has NO meaning!!! rebublicans got lucky in 1994. They did absolutely nothing but fuck everything up! newt g turned out to be 1000 times the womanizer that Bill Clinton was!!! Do you see the media talking about his complete lack of credibility as they did to Clinton? NO. The media, run by cowardly rebublicans have nothing intelligent or truthful to say. They make up much of the stories on TV. As for this meaningless story... rebublicans have no substance. They have destroyed everything that they touch. The crimes of the bush/cheney dictatorship should and must be prosecuted. If they are allowed to escape, it will happen again someday and it may be much worse. This nation is suffering from the cowards who refuse to prosecute these monsters.

Posted by Tiger2Lover at 11/05/2009 @ 04:25am
So you think 2 out of 435 (with one merely going from a conservative to a progressive Dem) is statistically BIGGER and more earth-shaking than 2 out of 50, both of which are a switch in party control, and both of which, featured Magic himself campaigning, and national Dem funding? Little wonder your side is losing its HAPPINESS! Posted by Happy at 11/04/2009 @ 2:55pm

Actually,oh miserable one, if you looked at the NJ results, the Democrats retained a solid majority in the state Assembly, where all 80 seats were up, and still control the state Senate. The little fat boy is going to have a lot of trouble pushing through any of your hooey against those odds.

Posted by kennyboy at 11/05/2009 @ 09:48am
Posted by Happy at 11/03/2009 @ 6:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

near brevard. yeah - we're racing here to get what we can. probably won't be able to offer health insurance at first (everyone tells us such is death to a small business at first), learning lots and lots. nothing is easy in this world.

Posted by YourJomamma at 11/03/2009 @ 7:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person

life has been a nearly uninterrupted sequence of delusion and assumption shattering events thus far for me and i expect no less for part two...lol

how u doing, JM?

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 9:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

see above...

Posted by brunowe at 11/04/2009 @ 04:09am | ignore this person | warn this person

thanks for the correction...nephew eh? makes more sense. thank god for gay uncles, eh?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/05/2009 @ 11:22am
The actual results of the election may not have been all that bad for the Democrats, but the underlying currents of all the elections are.

In California, a Democrat won in a district in which Democrats outnumber Republicans by 18%. Whoopty-do.

In New York, a Democrat won in a three-way race against an embittered liberal Republican and a third party conservative. Heck, if you can't win in an election with two other opponents splitting their vote with one determined to be a Perot-syle spoiler, then you'd have to be a real loser. Hardly an endorsement of liberalism in that race.

In New Jersey, a Republican won who was outspent by his opponents 5 times over in a state that has gone Democrat in state and national elections for decades, against a candidate endorsed by the President, labor unions, ACORN and god knows who else.

In Virginia, a state which went to Obama by six points and held as a "paradigram shift" by liberals in that election just a year later trounced that "shift" by 18 points, again against a candidate endorsed by the President.

No, I'd say the election night was a serious cause for concern.

"Well, young people and minority just didn't turn out, that's all."

Yeah, despite the fact Obama was pleading with them to do so. That means his power to motivate is pretty much done.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/05/2009 @ 12:14pm
The actual results of the election may not have been all that bad for the Democrats, but the underlying currents of all the elections are.

In California, a Democrat won in a district in which Democrats outnumber Republicans by 18%. Whoopty-do.

In New York, a Democrat won in a three-way race against an embittered liberal Republican and a third party conservative. Heck, if you can't win in an election with two other opponents splitting their vote with one determined to be a Perot-syle spoiler, then you'd have to be a real loser. Hardly an endorsement of liberalism in that race.

In New Jersey, a Republican won who was outspent by his opponents 5 times over in a state that has gone Democrat in state and national elections for decades, against a candidate endorsed by the President, labor unions, ACORN and god knows who else.

In Virginia, a state which went to Obama by six points and held as a "paradigram shift" by liberals in that election just a year later trounced that "shift" by 18 points, again against a candidate endorsed by the President.

No, I'd say the election night was a serious cause for concern.

"Well, young people and minority just didn't turn out, that's all."

Yeah, despite the fact Obama was pleading with them to do so. That means his power to motivate is pretty much done.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/05/2009 @ 12:14pm
i wonder how many african americans who got out and voted for obama are now returning to their traditional non-voting habits...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/05/2009 @ 1:05pm
a little research confirms that indeed african american voting turn-out dropped significantly since no black candidates were involved.

same crap i had to face years ago when involved in the dem party.

all too many african americans are unreliable "allies" at best when it comes to voting for non-black democrats.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/05/2009 @ 1:25pm

John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

House Wins Offset Gubernatorial Losses for Obama, Dems

posted by John Nichols on 11/04/2009 @ 12:14am

John Nichols

Archives

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» The Beat

» Act Now!

» Editor's Cut

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

House Wins Offset Gubernatorial Losses for Obama, Dems

posted by John Nichols on 11/04/2009 @ 12:14am

Share this article

John Nichols

Archives

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» The Beat

» Act Now!

» Editor's Cut

» And Another Thing

» Altercation