2010 Census: Obama likely to lose Presidency in 2012.- Page 2

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:05am

What good is same sex marriage if you don't have money to afford a wedding?

The same good as an opposite sex wedding. There are tons of benefits that are automatically bestowed on married couples. Not being able to afford a wedding hasn't stopped straight couples from getting married...why should it stop gay couples?

And speaking of same sex weddings. You still haven't answered the question about DOMA.

Updated On: 12/20/10 at 11:05 AM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:11am

The thought is that many of these new people will minorities, so an analysis that presumes that this is all good news for the GOP I think it a bit simplistic.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:14am

What good is same sex marriage if you don't have money to afford a wedding?

What the hell does affording a wedding have to do with a marriage? You know what? F*CK you.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:21am

My sentiments exactly. Thank you, JG2.

[Q]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:24am

Not that I don't understand the gut reaction - because I do - I think Goth's point is that the economic issues trump everything. I think his phrasing was an attempt to register on a point that would resonate. I guess.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:36am

I already knew what Goth's point was. He just didn't make it with that comment, which is irrelevant to his point.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:40am

I think Goth is on to something. But he's not taking it far enough.

If we were to strip away some rights that people ALREADY have, think what we could accomplish.

To take one example, if women and blacks gave up the right to vote, I bet we'd create a bunch of new jobs.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:44am

And think about the how much money this country could save if we went back to slavery! Straight people would be able to afford weddings.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:48am

I think his phrasing was an attempt to register on a point that would resonate. I guess.

Bull****...his phrasing was nothing more than baiting. Which he does constantly and with full awareness of what he's doing. Don't make excuses for his homophobia.

[Q]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:54am

Not making excuses at all. Believe it or not, it was an attempt to NOT have the conversation derailed by the obvious baiting - which didn't work. Obviously. So, carry on.

And I NEVER excuse homophobia - but I also don't waste my time nor energy where it demonstrably does no good.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 12:49pm

"Not being able to afford a wedding hasn't stopped straight couples from getting married...why should it stop gay couples?"

You do understand that in order to get married, a license has to be purchased? Maybe in whatever state you live in, unemployment meets all your needs. In NY, the maximum is $400 per week, which doesn't get you very far.

And yes, not being able to afford the wedding has stopped straight couples from getting married. Many have started living together without the formality.

Posted: 12/20/10 at 1:02pm

As this link proves, Obama's economy has stopped 85% of weddings and caused people to eat pet food.

Lookee me, I'm arguing like Goth! Updated On: 12/20/10 at 01:02 PM

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 1:19pm

A marriage license in NY is $40. If the poorest couple wanted to get married, with a few friends willing to pitch in, they could make it work.

The economy will go up and down. It will be better than it is now and I am sure at some point, it will be worse. Ignoring equal human rights because of a poor economy is ludicrous. I got the point of the statement, as well, but it was intended to piss people off. Mission accomplished.

Posted: 12/20/10 at 1:38pm

Jersey it's the same mindset that says there is no point dealing with trivial matters like DADT while there are more pressing issues to deal with (economy, taxes, whatever).

I'd say it was typical passive aggressive Republican obstructionism but it really is how they think- remember how Grampy McCain had to suspend his campaign to think about the financial meltdown. They cannot legislate and chew gum at the same time.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 1:50pm

"You do understand that in order to get married, a license has to be purchased? Maybe in whatever state you live in, unemployment meets all your needs. In NY, the maximum is $400 per week, which doesn't get you very far."

Which still doesn't answer the question as to why it hasn't stopped straight couples from marrying, but would stop gay couples. Your double talk is ridiculous.

Goth...I live in NYC...so...I know exactly how much unemployment is and I know how much a marriage license costs..,.it's simply irrelevant to what you said.

My question to you is why specifically say "gay marriage" instead of simply "marriage"?

Answer that question then maybe we'll get somewhere.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 2:05pm

"I'd say it was typical passive aggressive Republican obstructionism but it really is how they think"

You want to talk about Republican obstructionism? Which POTUS signed DADT into law? Which POTUS signed DOMA into law? Let's talk which party encoded that into law.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 2:08pm

So you're saying the the Republican party is a pro-gay party?

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 2:24pm

You want to talk about Republican obstructionism?

No Goth, I want to talk about your baiting. You're nothing but a coward who throws his little bombs and runs away. Then comes back again and changes the subject. You're what was known in my youth as a "chicken****". You have no balls, you can't even defend what you say...you simply change the subject. PATHETIC!

Updated On: 12/20/10 at 02:24 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 2:28pm

Goth reminds of me that awful-voiced Susan Collins on tv the other day, who made a point when patting herself on the back to vote against DADT commented on how it was a Democratic president that presided over DADT. Well, yes, that is true, but comments like that and Goth's seem to want you to believe that that means the Republicans are having being doing something/anything in the interest of gay people since then, which is simply not true. Yes, DADT and DOMA were enacted under Democratic presidents. And it takes Democrats to undo them as well. All that means is that Democrats can actually evolve in their positions on gay people. For the Republican "evolution," see John McCain.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 2:32pm

Since Goth, brought up DOMA once again. I wonder if he'll give us his views on why it should or shouldn't be repealed.

Goth...We're waiting.

Updated On: 12/20/10 at 02:32 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 2:40pm

I don't know why anyone wants to hear Goth's position on DOMA or anything else. For every positive, there is a negative. Goth is one of those negatives. Just take your opinion, turn it inside out and you'll have the approximate, albeit more intelligible, response.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 2:56pm

That place where Goth thinks sinners will go when they die, will freeze over, before he ever offers his honest opinion on DOMA. He doesn't have the balls to do it, anyway. I just think it would be sort of fun to watch him twist and spin to try and justify his bigotry.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 3:00pm

"As this link proves, Obama's economy has stopped 85% of weddings and caused people to eat pet food."

I don't know, Joe, the only thing I learned from that link is that Mormon girls get shafted in the pretty wedding dress department.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 3:15pm

PRS, the problem here is that you want the GOP to be something that they never said they were. Gay rights were never part of their platform. Meanwhile, the Democrats, who actively court the gay vote, have signed the DOMA and DADT legislation.

Updated On: 12/20/10 at 03:15 PM

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 3:28pm

"PRS, the problem here is that you want the GOP to be something that they never said they were.

You mean humans who actually care about someone other than themselves, right?

"Gay rights were never part of their platform."

That's certainly something to be proud of.

"Meanwhile, the Democrats, who actively court the gay vote, have signed the DOMA and DADT legislation.

And the Democrats were the ones who actively worked to have DADT repealed and will hopefully do the same for DOMA.

Now...what was your point again? Oh right...you don't have one.

Updated On: 12/20/10 at 03:28 PM