·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama comes out in support of *** marriage...
Obama comes out in support of *** marriage...Follow
I'm beginning to think that there are a lot of things that neither the feds NOR the states really have jurisdiction over (e.g. my ovaries.) **** states rights, what about human rights?
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.
FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
gbaji wrote:
Gaining a small amount of excitement among a group that has one of the lowest voter turnout rates in return for alienating another group that has a much higher rate seems like a bad idea.
It's a hedge against the economy. It's a high interest issue that isn't particular bad for either candidate to discuss. If voter impressions of our economic state are positive closer to the elections, he'd like to steer the discussion that way. If voter impressions are negative, he'll be offering up other topics such as *** marriage as alternatives to help define the race. It's an issue conservatives could strongly latch on to and allow to dominate the news cycle.
Tweet I got wrote:
NYT: Pollster Andrew Kohut of nonpartisan Pew Research Ctr says nationwide,a plurality of swing voters favors same-*** marriage 47%-39%.
Working class Democrats aren't honestly going to care about this. They'll care about the direction the economy is headed, the unemployment rate and potentially things like who wants to cut their benefits or attack their union status. The Democratic-voting group most opposed to *** marriage is African Americans and Obama will still take them over 9:1 versus Romney. Voting wise, I expect it'll be a wash. Donation-wise, it'll appeal to progressives and the "elite" which I expect is more why it happened than an expectation for big returns in the voting booth.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
A drowning man grabs even the tip of a sword.
Shadechaos of Seraph Bismarck
~She made a difference~
~She made a difference~
RaiseIII wrote:
A drowning man grabs even the tip of a sword.
I salute your courageous use of such homoerotic imagery.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Supposedly (heard on radio), the campaign received over a million dollars in donations within 90 minutes of Obama's statement so there's something.
Gbaji also contorts himself to avoid admitting that Romney would, in Romney's own words, be "delighted" and think it "terrific" to sign a federal ban on all abortions. Gbaji's interest in state's rights begins and ends with what which issues Gbaji supports and which he doesn't.
Paskil wrote:
you almost have to support Obama at the poll due to Mittens clearly overstepping his bounds in what the right views as a states issue.
Gbaji also contorts himself to avoid admitting that Romney would, in Romney's own words, be "delighted" and think it "terrific" to sign a federal ban on all abortions. Gbaji's interest in state's rights begins and ends with what which issues Gbaji supports and which he doesn't.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Samira wrote:
RaiseIII wrote:
A drowning man grabs even the tip of a sword.
I salute your courageous use of such homoerotic imagery.
Here-in Timelordwho fails to make a joke relating the title Nixnot: "Sword-swallower" and the phrase said by Nixnot: "S-word, swallow!" referring to an unfortunate incident with a bird.
Just as Planned.
Nexa wrote:
To be perfectly clear, the president said "At a certain point, I've just concluded, that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-*** couples should be able to get married."
I'm not sure that I would call this a resolute statement of anything.
On the other hand, the presumptive Republican nominee's response, "I've had the same position I've had since, well, since I ran for office," doesn't exactly stoke warm fuzzies.
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.
[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
MoebiusLord wrote:
On the other hand, the presumptive Republican nominee's response, "I've had the same position I've had since, well, since I ran for office," doesn't exactly stoke warm fuzzies.
At least Obama now favors your right to have those warm fuzzies stoked by whomever you choose.
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.
It's a statement of what he personally thinks. He also said it should be a state issue and didn't indicate that he was going to push to legalize it or amend the Constitution or anything.
I think it'll be good for some extra checks at Clooney's house and be old news by November. The only ones who'll be "swayed" by it are those who already hold strong opinions and weren't going to cross aisles no matter what.
I think it'll be good for some extra checks at Clooney's house and be old news by November. The only ones who'll be "swayed" by it are those who already hold strong opinions and weren't going to cross aisles no matter what.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji also contorts himself to avoid admitting that Romney would, in Romney's own words, be "delighted" and think it "terrific" to sign a federal ban on all abortions. Gbaji's interest in state's rights begins and ends with what which issues Gbaji supports and which he doesn't.
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho
gbaji wrote:
Do you have any clue how old and tired the whole "You should support someone whose policies you disagree with nearly 100% because the guy in your own party kinda sorta did something this one time that you might not agree with 100%"? It's really pretty moronic.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Now, I don't know anything about government, but this whole states rights thing confuses me. How can states have laws that contradict each other, and even at the federal level? That seems to weaken the whole national identity and continuity. Like marijuana. How can it be legal in one state, then the Feds come in and bust legal operations? How does it make sense to make SSM legal in some states, but not recognized in others, or even nationally?
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
I genuinely do not understand why *** marriage is even being debated. Didn't we go through this second-class citizen ******** with black people already? What's to debate? *** citizens are still citizens and shouldn't be treated any differently, yet here we are hashing out issues I thought our country had already resolved decades ago.
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage
I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage
IcookPizza wrote:
I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
cidbahamut wrote:
I genuinely do not understand why *** marriage is even being debated. Didn't we go through this second-class citizen bullsh*t with black people already? What's to debate? *** citizens are still citizens and shouldn't be treated any differently, yet here we are hashing out issues I thought our country had already resolved decades ago.
My best understanding of the opposition to "*** marriage" is the use of the term "marriage", which has religious meaning in addition to the legal definition. I'll bet that if you asked people if they supported "civil unions" for *** couples, the response would be much more favorable than asking if they supported "*** marriage."
But then we've already had 50-page threads debating this.
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
Debalic wrote:
Now, I don't know anything about government, but this whole states rights thing confuses me. How can states have laws that contradict each other, and even at the federal level? That seems to weaken the whole national identity and continuity. Like marijuana. How can it be legal in one state, then the Feds come in and bust legal operations? How does it make sense to make SSM legal in some states, but not recognized in others, or even nationally?
Federal law trumps state law which is why the feds can do drug busts even if the state doesn't actively arrest/prosecute for it. There is no overarching federal marriage law that defines it for the states (DOMA only applies to federal benefits and definitions) and states have been broadly left to define definitions, legal age, etc for themselves.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
An NBC poll from March asked if people would be more/less likely to vote for a candidate who supported SSM. 25% More so, 20% Less so, remainder no difference.
I suspect most of that 25/20 comes from people who are already strongly for/against the issue and saying you'd be 10% more likely to vote for someone you were 99% likely to vote for anyway isn't especially earth-shattering.
Edited, May 10th 2012 10:08am by Jophiel
I suspect most of that 25/20 comes from people who are already strongly for/against the issue and saying you'd be 10% more likely to vote for someone you were 99% likely to vote for anyway isn't especially earth-shattering.
Edited, May 10th 2012 10:08am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.
[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
MoebiusLord wrote:
Nexa wrote:
To be perfectly clear, the president said "
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
[:bidentrollface.jpg:]
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho
Romney says the definition of marriage hasn't changed for over 3,000 years.
Andrew Sullivan points out that, a century ago, Romney's great-grandparents were fleeing to Mexico to escape an oppressive US government which disagreed with the (then) Romney definition of marriage: that it's between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a...
Edited, May 10th 2012 11:42am by Jophiel
Andrew Sullivan points out that, a century ago, Romney's great-grandparents were fleeing to Mexico to escape an oppressive US government which disagreed with the (then) Romney definition of marriage: that it's between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a...
Edited, May 10th 2012 11:42am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Romney says the definition of marriage hasn't changed for over 3,000 years.
Andrew Sullivan points out that, a century ago, Romney's great-grandparents were fleeing to Mexico to escape an oppressive US government which disagreed with the (then) Romney definition of marriage: that it's between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a...
Edited, May 10th 2012 11:42am by Jophiel
Andrew Sullivan points out that, a century ago, Romney's great-grandparents were fleeing to Mexico to escape an oppressive US government which disagreed with the (then) Romney definition of marriage: that it's between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a...
Edited, May 10th 2012 11:42am by Jophiel
Not to be the pedant, but all of those marriages were between 1 man and 1 woman. The 1 man simply had several instances saved.
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.
[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
MoebiusLord wrote:
Not to be the pedant, but all of those marriages were between 1 man and 1 woman. The 1 man simply had several instances saved.
If that's what makes you feel better
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 59
All times are in CDT
Jophiel, Anonymous Guests (58)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama comes out in support of *** marriage...
© 2017 ZAM Network LLC