Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We create civil unions with all the benefits as marriage. We call it a "civil union." Only difference is the wording.

If the only difference is the label, why must that word be different? Why not the same word for all government-recognized marriages/unions?

If it's because words are important ... then I think you begin to understand why some aren't satisfied with a different label.

Because marriage is between one man and one woman. End of story.

Why?

If you can give me an answer that doesn;t have its roots in religion, I'll certainly entertain it. But I don't think you can.

Ooooooo, and a little thing called the Internet that tremendously increased commerce and productivity. Yes, we know, we know, Clinton "created" 20 million jobs, but a vast majority of it was the luck of a generation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We create civil unions with all the benefits as marriage. We call it a "civil union." Only difference is the wording.

If the only difference is the label, why must that word be different? Why not the same word for all government-recognized marriages/unions?

If it's because words are important ... then I think you begin to understand why some aren't satisfied with a different label.

Because marriage is between one man and one woman. End of story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this one thing so important to you? Can you explain how it's different from people who wanted to keep marriages racially segregated?

As a conservative, I don't think the government has any business preventing me from marrying who I will (assuming no harm - that is, the government does have an interest in establishing minimum ages for marriage). As a conservative, I am appalled by the idea that the federal government should be involved in preserving your semantic deities.

Federal government? Review the 10th amendment please, stop asking for exceptions.

Looks to me like the first PP is in total accord with the tenth amendment, saying that the fed should not be involved in marriage, which the Constitution definitely does not list as one of their duties. That's why I think DOMA shoul be declared unconstitutional.

You're clearly not involveed in electoral politics, bc you'd be saying, as a conservative, I really don't even care about this issue But gays prefer that this be the so-called civil rights issue of our generation. Those poor kids hoping to get an EDUCATION. An actual civil rights disgrace, re Chicago teachers...

Really, all conservatives are required to think the way you do. Because you are all so damn unified. And a seven day delay in the school year is the civil rights disgrace of a generation. Right, you mean the inconvenience of arranging for backup care was an unparalleled historical tragedy.

Nice deflection.....

Is that what you call it when someone rebuts the two points in a prior post? Deflection? Not my fault he told a conservative what to think, or that he held up the teacher's strike as a tragedy.

Never called it a tragedy homeslice, just a sa disgrace. And remember, ths convo is about the gays, which this conservative really doesn't even care about. Just not a priority

Homeslice? 1990 called. It wants its lingo back, and the Hammer Genie pants, too.

You called it a "civil rights disgrace". Close enough.

Ah the Clinton years....so great, I might vote for Obama just because of him....NOT! God bless the Clinton tax cuts, spurred years of growth.

You are turning into a rolling non sequitur. When were we talking about Clinton, and wasn't he the guy who raised taxes in 1993, and the economy took off anyway?

No sir. Clinton benefitted, yes benefitted from global oil and gas prices at historic lows, geopolitical certainty thanks to the end of the Cold War and finally a tax cut on capital gains passed by the Republican congress in 97 in believe. Economic growth from 93 to 98 was reletivily flat, not barnburning.

Ooooooo, and a little thing called the Internet that tremendously increased commerce and productivity. Yes, we know, we know, Clinton "created" 20 million jobs, but a vast majority of it was the luck of a generation.

Clinton erased our deficit by 1997. Did that not matter, and if it didn't, why does it suddenly matter now? I'm confused by all those people complaining about our spiraling debt. As far as I can tell, he reduced the debt, interest rates fell, and the economy expanded.

Your point about the growth pre- and post tax cuts intrigued me quite a bit. Unfortunately that caused me to look up the data, and shocker, it does not support you. The economy averaged 3.5% before the tax cuts and in fact the last year it grew 4.5% before the tax cuts hit. I'm afraid the conservative revisionists did not give you a good script there; the timing was just off.

I suppose you could say that Clinton did not create the low oil prices. But then again Bush had $28 oil even after invading Afghanistan. It was only after the invasion of Iraq that prices started to spiral. So while a President might not earn cheap oil, he can damn well fuck up a good thing if he applies himself.

Clinton "erased" the deficit thanks to six years of a Republican house. From 93 - 97, per tax cut, GDP was 3.3, wages fell by .6%. After congress cut the tax on investment, GDP was over 4%, a 30% increase, and real wages grew a well.

Source, buearu of labor statistics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this one thing so important to you? Can you explain how it's different from people who wanted to keep marriages racially segregated?

As a conservative, I don't think the government has any business preventing me from marrying who I will (assuming no harm - that is, the government does have an interest in establishing minimum ages for marriage). As a conservative, I am appalled by the idea that the federal government should be involved in preserving your semantic deities.

Federal government? Review the 10th amendment please, stop asking for exceptions.

Looks to me like the first PP is in total accord with the tenth amendment, saying that the fed should not be involved in marriage, which the Constitution definitely does not list as one of their duties. That's why I think DOMA shoul be declared unconstitutional.

You're clearly not involveed in electoral politics, bc you'd be saying, as a conservative, I really don't even care about this issue But gays prefer that this be the so-called civil rights issue of our generation. Those poor kids hoping to get an EDUCATION. An actual civil rights disgrace, re Chicago teachers...

Really, all conservatives are required to think the way you do. Because you are all so damn unified. And a seven day delay in the school year is the civil rights disgrace of a generation. Right, you mean the inconvenience of arranging for backup care was an unparalleled historical tragedy.

Nice deflection.....

Is that what you call it when someone rebuts the two points in a prior post? Deflection? Not my fault he told a conservative what to think, or that he held up the teacher's strike as a tragedy.

Never called it a tragedy homeslice, just a sa disgrace. And remember, ths convo is about the gays, which this conservative really doesn't even care about. Just not a priority

Homeslice? 1990 called. It wants its lingo back, and the Hammer Genie pants, too.

You called it a "civil rights disgrace". Close enough.

Ah the Clinton years....so great, I might vote for Obama just because of him....NOT! God bless the Clinton tax cuts, spurred years of growth.

You are turning into a rolling non sequitur. When were we talking about Clinton, and wasn't he the guy who raised taxes in 1993, and the economy took off anyway?

No sir. Clinton benefitted, yes benefitted from global oil and gas prices at historic lows, geopolitical certainty thanks to the end of the Cold War and finally a tax cut on capital gains passed by the Republican congress in 97 in believe. Economic growth from 93 to 98 was reletivily flat, not barnburning.

Ooooooo, and a little thing called the Internet that tremendously increased commerce and productivity. Yes, we know, we know, Clinton "created" 20 million jobs, but a vast majority of it was the luck of a generation.

Clinton erased our deficit by 1997. Did that not matter, and if it didn't, why does it suddenly matter now? I'm confused by all those people complaining about our spiraling debt. As far as I can tell, he reduced the debt, interest rates fell, and the economy expanded.

Your point about the growth pre- and post tax cuts intrigued me quite a bit. Unfortunately that caused me to look up the data, and shocker, it does not support you. The economy averaged 3.5% before the tax cuts and in fact the last year it grew 4.5% before the tax cuts hit. I'm afraid the conservative revisionists did not give you a good script there; the timing was just off.

I suppose you could say that Clinton did not create the low oil prices. But then again Bush had $28 oil even after invading Afghanistan. It was only after the invasion of Iraq that prices started to spiral. So while a President might not earn cheap oil, he can damn well fuck up a good thing if he applies himself.

Clinton "erased" the deficit thanks to six years of a Republican house. From 93 - 97, per tax cut, GDP was 3.3, wages fell by .6%. After congress cut the tax on investment, GDP was over 4%, a 30% increase, and real wages grew a well.

Source, buearu of labor statistics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this one thing so important to you? Can you explain how it's different from people who wanted to keep marriages racially segregated?

As a conservative, I don't think the government has any business preventing me from marrying who I will (assuming no harm - that is, the government does have an interest in establishing minimum ages for marriage). As a conservative, I am appalled by the idea that the federal government should be involved in preserving your semantic deities.

Federal government? Review the 10th amendment please, stop asking for exceptions.

Looks to me like the first PP is in total accord with the tenth amendment, saying that the fed should not be involved in marriage, which the Constitution definitely does not list as one of their duties. That's why I think DOMA shoul be declared unconstitutional.

You're clearly not involveed in electoral politics, bc you'd be saying, as a conservative, I really don't even care about this issue But gays prefer that this be the so-called civil rights issue of our generation. Those poor kids hoping to get an EDUCATION. An actual civil rights disgrace, re Chicago teachers...

Really, all conservatives are required to think the way you do. Because you are all so damn unified. And a seven day delay in the school year is the civil rights disgrace of a generation. Right, you mean the inconvenience of arranging for backup care was an unparalleled historical tragedy.

Nice deflection.....

Is that what you call it when someone rebuts the two points in a prior post? Deflection? Not my fault he told a conservative what to think, or that he held up the teacher's strike as a tragedy.

Never called it a tragedy homeslice, just a sa disgrace. And remember, ths convo is about the gays, which this conservative really doesn't even care about. Just not a priority

Homeslice? 1990 called. It wants its lingo back, and the Hammer Genie pants, too.

You called it a "civil rights disgrace". Close enough.

Ah the Clinton years....so great, I might vote for Obama just because of him....NOT! God bless the Clinton tax cuts, spurred years of growth.

You are turning into a rolling non sequitur. When were we talking about Clinton, and wasn't he the guy who raised taxes in 1993, and the economy took off anyway?

No sir. Clinton benefitted, yes benefitted from global oil and gas prices at historic lows, geopolitical certainty thanks to the end of the Cold War and finally a tax cut on capital gains passed by the Republican congress in 97 in believe. Economic growth from 93 to 98 was reletivily flat, not barnburning.

Ooooooo, and a little thing called the Internet that tremendously increased commerce and productivity. Yes, we know, we know, Clinton "created" 20 million jobs, but a vast majority of it was the luck of a generation.

Clinton erased our deficit by 1997. Did that not matter, and if it didn't, why does it suddenly matter now? I'm confused by all those people complaining about our spiraling debt. As far as I can tell, he reduced the debt, interest rates fell, and the economy expanded.

Your point about the growth pre- and post tax cuts intrigued me quite a bit. Unfortunately that caused me to look up the data, and shocker, it does not support you. The economy averaged 3.5% before the tax cuts and in fact the last year it grew 4.5% before the tax cuts hit. I'm afraid the conservative revisionists did not give you a good script there; the timing was just off.

I suppose you could say that Clinton did not create the low oil prices. But then again Bush had $28 oil even after invading Afghanistan. It was only after the invasion of Iraq that prices started to spiral. So while a President might not earn cheap oil, he can damn well fuck up a good thing if he applies himself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this one thing so important to you? Can you explain how it's different from people who wanted to keep marriages racially segregated?

As a conservative, I don't think the government has any business preventing me from marrying who I will (assuming no harm - that is, the government does have an interest in establishing minimum ages for marriage). As a conservative, I am appalled by the idea that the federal government should be involved in preserving your semantic deities.

Federal government? Review the 10th amendment please, stop asking for exceptions.

Looks to me like the first PP is in total accord with the tenth amendment, saying that the fed should not be involved in marriage, which the Constitution definitely does not list as one of their duties. That's why I think DOMA shoul be declared unconstitutional.

You're clearly not involveed in electoral politics, bc you'd be saying, as a conservative, I really don't even care about this issue But gays prefer that this be the so-called civil rights issue of our generation. Those poor kids hoping to get an EDUCATION. An actual civil rights disgrace, re Chicago teachers...

Really, all conservatives are required to think the way you do. Because you are all so damn unified. And a seven day delay in the school year is the civil rights disgrace of a generation. Right, you mean the inconvenience of arranging for backup care was an unparalleled historical tragedy.

Nice deflection.....

Is that what you call it when someone rebuts the two points in a prior post? Deflection? Not my fault he told a conservative what to think, or that he held up the teacher's strike as a tragedy.

Never called it a tragedy homeslice, just a sa disgrace. And remember, ths convo is about the gays, which this conservative really doesn't even care about. Just not a priority

Homeslice? 1990 called. It wants its lingo back, and the Hammer Genie pants, too.

You called it a "civil rights disgrace". Close enough.

Ah the Clinton years....so great, I might vote for Obama just because of him....NOT! God bless the Clinton tax cuts, spurred years of growth.

You are turning into a rolling non sequitur. When were we talking about Clinton, and wasn't he the guy who raised taxes in 1993, and the economy took off anyway?

No sir. Clinton benefitted, yes benefitted from global oil and gas prices at historic lows, geopolitical certainty thanks to the end of the Cold War and finally a tax cut on capital gains passed by the Republican congress in 97 in believe. Economic growth from 93 to 98 was reletivily flat, not barnburning.

Ooooooo, and a little thing called the Internet that tremendously increased commerce and productivity. Yes, we know, we know, Clinton "created" 20 million jobs, but a vast majority of it was the luck of a generation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this one thing so important to you? Can you explain how it's different from people who wanted to keep marriages racially segregated?

As a conservative, I don't think the government has any business preventing me from marrying who I will (assuming no harm - that is, the government does have an interest in establishing minimum ages for marriage). As a conservative, I am appalled by the idea that the federal government should be involved in preserving your semantic deities.

Federal government? Review the 10th amendment please, stop asking for exceptions.

Looks to me like the first PP is in total accord with the tenth amendment, saying that the fed should not be involved in marriage, which the Constitution definitely does not list as one of their duties. That's why I think DOMA shoul be declared unconstitutional.

You're clearly not involveed in electoral politics, bc you'd be saying, as a conservative, I really don't even care about this issue But gays prefer that this be the so-called civil rights issue of our generation. Those poor kids hoping to get an EDUCATION. An actual civil rights disgrace, re Chicago teachers...

Really, all conservatives are required to think the way you do. Because you are all so damn unified. And a seven day delay in the school year is the civil rights disgrace of a generation. Right, you mean the inconvenience of arranging for backup care was an unparalleled historical tragedy.

Nice deflection.....

Is that what you call it when someone rebuts the two points in a prior post? Deflection? Not my fault he told a conservative what to think, or that he held up the teacher's strike as a tragedy.

Never called it a tragedy homeslice, just a sa disgrace. And remember, ths convo is about the gays, which this conservative really doesn't even care about. Just not a priority

Homeslice? 1990 called. It wants its lingo back, and the Hammer Genie pants, too.

You called it a "civil rights disgrace". Close enough.

Ah the Clinton years....so great, I might vote for Obama just because of him....NOT! God bless the Clinton tax cuts, spurred years of growth.

You are turning into a rolling non sequitur. When were we talking about Clinton, and wasn't he the guy who raised taxes in 1993, and the economy took off anyway?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this one thing so important to you? Can you explain how it's different from people who wanted to keep marriages racially segregated?

As a conservative, I don't think the government has any business preventing me from marrying who I will (assuming no harm - that is, the government does have an interest in establishing minimum ages for marriage). As a conservative, I am appalled by the idea that the federal government should be involved in preserving your semantic deities.

Federal government? Review the 10th amendment please, stop asking for exceptions.

Looks to me like the first PP is in total accord with the tenth amendment, saying that the fed should not be involved in marriage, which the Constitution definitely does not list as one of their duties. That's why I think DOMA shoul be declared unconstitutional.

You're clearly not involveed in electoral politics, bc you'd be saying, as a conservative, I really don't even care about this issue But gays prefer that this be the so-called civil rights issue of our generation. Those poor kids hoping to get an EDUCATION. An actual civil rights disgrace, re Chicago teachers...

Really, all conservatives are required to think the way you do. Because you are all so damn unified. And a seven day delay in the school year is the civil rights disgrace of a generation. Right, you mean the inconvenience of arranging for backup care was an unparalleled historical tragedy.

Nice deflection.....

Is that what you call it when someone rebuts the two points in a prior post? Deflection? Not my fault he told a conservative what to think, or that he held up the teacher's strike as a tragedy.

Never called it a tragedy homeslice, just a sa disgrace. And remember, ths convo is about the gays, which this conservative really doesn't even care about. Just not a priority

Homeslice? 1990 called. It wants its lingo back, and the Hammer Genie pants, too.

You called it a "civil rights disgrace". Close enough.

Ah the Clinton years....so great, I might vote for Obama just because of him....NOT! God bless the Clinton tax cuts, spurred years of growth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, because centuries and centuries of one semantic convention should not have to be changed.

But things do change. Our language changes to reflect that (unless you're French, I suppose).

For most of us, when we "roll up" the window in our cars, it involves a button, not a handle we actually turn. When I was a kid, "looking up [a piece of information]" involved printed books. For my daughter, that phrase is more likely to involve the computer. Heck "cut and paste" used to actually mean cutting and pasting, not simply a series of keystrokes. The meaning of words and phrases changes constantly in an evolving culture.

You are correct. Could we just keep this one thing, just ONE thing? Man and woman, period, end of sentence. Just like Obama/Dumbass believed four years ago.

Time waits for no man, even ones who call our President childish names.

Anonymous wrote:So your complaint has to do with Obama's evolution on the gay marriage issue? What do you say to Romney who has evolved on pretty much every issue?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, because centuries and centuries of one semantic convention should not have to be changed.

But things do change. Our language changes to reflect that (unless you're French, I suppose).

For most of us, when we "roll up" the window in our cars, it involves a button, not a handle we actually turn. When I was a kid, "looking up [a piece of information]" involved printed books. For my daughter, that phrase is more likely to involve the computer. Heck "cut and paste" used to actually mean cutting and pasting, not simply a series of keystrokes. The meaning of words and phrases changes constantly in an evolving culture.

You are correct. Could we just keep this one thing, just ONE thing? Man and woman, period, end of sentence. Just like Obama/Dumbass believed four years ago.

Anonymous wrote:I chime in periodically to shut down liberal LOON nonsense. I'm loved on here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this one thing so important to you? Can you explain how it's different from people who wanted to keep marriages racially segregated?

As a conservative, I don't think the government has any business preventing me from marrying who I will (assuming no harm - that is, the government does have an interest in establishing minimum ages for marriage). As a conservative, I am appalled by the idea that the federal government should be involved in preserving your semantic deities.

Federal government? Review the 10th amendment please, stop asking for exceptions.

Looks to me like the first PP is in total accord with the tenth amendment, saying that the fed should not be involved in marriage, which the Constitution definitely does not list as one of their duties. That's why I think DOMA shoul be declared unconstitutional.

You're clearly not involveed in electoral politics, bc you'd be saying, as a conservative, I really don't even care about this issue But gays prefer that this be the so-called civil rights issue of our generation. Those poor kids hoping to get an EDUCATION. An actual civil rights disgrace, re Chicago teachers...

Really, all conservatives are required to think the way you do. Because you are all so damn unified. And a seven day delay in the school year is the civil rights disgrace of a generation. Right, you mean the inconvenience of arranging for backup care was an unparalleled historical tragedy.

Nice deflection.....

Is that what you call it when someone rebuts the two points in a prior post? Deflection? Not my fault he told a conservative what to think, or that he held up the teacher's strike as a tragedy.

Never called it a tragedy homeslice, just a sa disgrace. And remember, ths convo is about the gays, which this conservative really doesn't even care about. Just not a priority

Homeslice? 1990 called. It wants its lingo back, and the Hammer Genie pants, too.

You called it a "civil rights disgrace". Close enough.