Not gonna win many hearts and minds with moves like this...

[julius]

I loved how barfo quietly added to his post in a sea of Nate and Maxie posts

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I loved how barfo quietly added to his post in a sea of Nate and Maxie posts

Nothing like a good barfoism to keep a thread moving.

 

[jlprk]

I don't understand why maxie is being attacked so hard by trolls in this thread. He's been very consistent.

Anyone who self-identifies with the unpopular Tea Party will get it, and consistency isn't the reason.

When you talk about T.P. in the first person, you paint a bullseye on your chest and say, "Anyone want to take a crap? The T.P.'s right here!"

 

[Denny Crane]

As I remember, Alvin Greene got the nomination against some other relative nobodies, to contest a seat that was going to the other party no matter what.

Whereas O'Donnell beat a popular incumbent in the primary, and then lost the seat to the other party.

Big difference.

barfo

So she did win an election. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[maxiep]

So she did win an election. Thanks for pointing that out.

I was also amused to read that Ted Kaufman--who was keeping Joe Biden's seat warm for his son Beau--were all Republicans. Does Obama know?

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't understand why maxie is being attacked so hard by trolls in this thread. He's been very consistent.

You think I'm the one trolling? Really? Point me to the post where I, in any way, said any of this shit...

Don't blame me you can't keep up. You keep trying to tell me that the Tea Party stands for a bunch of things it doesn't stand for because the media says so. You then tell me that the Tea Party "leaders" say these things. I tell you over and over and over and over that there are no leaders of the Tea Party, that these are political opportunists, but it never seems to sink in. And for the cherry on top, after not getting these simple points, you claim to be smarter than the citizenry.

Remarkable.

When did I try to tell him what the tea party stands for?

When did I say that the tea party "leaders" say these "things"?

Where did I argue with him about these points? Please enlighten me. I would love to have it shown to me.

All I said was that there are people who run under the tea party banner that have some fucked up beliefs and that those people reflect poorly on the tea party. I said that the general populace will see the noise makers and think that those people represent the tea party as a whole. Maxie insulted me for my opinion of people as a whole and I went on to show many instances over history where people, as a whole, believe whatever they are told. He has never refuted that. That's not trolling. If anyone is trolling it's Maxie. It doesn't even seem like he's reading what I'm writing... he has somehow projected a liberal persona on me and had an argument with himself over the issue.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

Some Vocal Members On The Right: I'm going to make a broad generalization about Liberals, like Liberals are socialist anti-Americans.

Some Vocal Members on the Left: HEY! Don't do that! Man, Conservatives are assholes. Also Nazi Rednecks who hate the poor.

Same Vocal Members On The Right: STOP TREATING ME AS A GROUP I AM AN INDIVIDUAL. God, heathen liberals.

-BARFO JOKE-

Same Vocal Members On The Left: WE ARE INDIVIDUALS. Why do conservatives only think about themselves?

Sly: I hear we're talking about the Tea Party. I teabagged HCP's wife. HA!

Some vocal Tea Party members: Think for yourselves! Have original thoughts! We have no unified leader! We are individuals!

Some vocal People on the Left: We are individuals!

Some vocal People on the Right: We are individuals!


30 minutes later:

Topic: "Liberals are to blame for downfall of America, Raise Dysfunctional Youth."

Topic: "Conservatives Want To Deny Rights to Women and Homosexuals."



I would wager most people rarely find it fun when others use broad generalizations in regards to a group with which they identify, so it is curious then when some people are so quick to place the actions of an individual towards an entire group; only to get upset when the same is done to them in return.

 

[blazerboy30]

Some Vocal Members On The Right: I'm going to make a broad generalization about Liberals, like Liberals are socialist anti-Americans.

Some Vocal Members on the Left: HEY! Don't do that! Man, Conservatives are assholes. Also Nazi Rednecks who hate the poor.

Same Vocal Members On The Right: STOP TREATING ME AS A GROUP I AM AN INDIVIDUAL. God, heathen liberals.

-BARFO JOKE-

Same Vocal Members On The Left: WE ARE INDIVIDUALS. Why do conservatives only think about themselves?

Sly: I hear we're talking about the Tea Party. I teabagged HCP's wife. HA!

Some vocal Tea Party members: Think for yourselves! Have original thoughts! We have no unified leader! We are individuals!

Some vocal People on the Left: We are individuals!

Some vocal People on the Right: We are individuals!


30 minutes later:

Topic: "Liberals are to blame for downfall of America, Raise Dysfunctional Youth."

Topic: "Conservatives Want To Deny Rights to Women and Homosexuals."



I would wager most people rarely find it fun when others use broad generalizations in regards to a group with which they identify, so it is curious then when some people are so quick to place the actions of an individual towards an entire group; only to get upset when the same is done to them in return.

You forgot another consistent one:

30 minutes later:

- THE SEBASTIAN EXPRESS - : It's all about race! Race card! Race card!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Some Vocal Members On The Right: I'm going to make a broad generalization about Liberals, like Liberals are socialist anti-Americans.

Some Vocal Members on the Left: HEY! Don't do that! Man, Conservatives are assholes. Also Nazi Rednecks who hate the poor.

Same Vocal Members On The Right: STOP TREATING ME AS A GROUP I AM AN INDIVIDUAL. God, heathen liberals.

-BARFO JOKE-

Same Vocal Members On The Left: WE ARE INDIVIDUALS. Why do conservatives only think about themselves?

Sly: I hear we're talking about the Tea Party. I teabagged HCP's wife. HA!

Some vocal Tea Party members: Think for yourselves! Have original thoughts! We have no unified leader! We are individuals!

Some vocal People on the Left: We are individuals!

Some vocal People on the Right: We are individuals!


30 minutes later:

Topic: "Liberals are to blame for downfall of America, Raise Dysfunctional Youth."

Topic: "Conservatives Want To Deny Rights to Women and Homosexuals."



I would wager most people rarely find it fun when others use broad generalizations in regards to a group with which they identify, so it is curious then when some people are so quick to place the actions of an individual towards an entire group; only to get upset when the same is done to them in return.

Wait a second, I think I've just been insult.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

No, not an insult! I just figured you were more likely to do it than MM or Beerboy, so it was for authenticity you see.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

No, not an insult! I just figured you were more likely to do it than MM or Beerboy, so it was for authenticity you see.

LOL! I was just kidding. I didn't take it as an insult. I actually rep'd you for the post.

 

[Ed O]

Firstly we aren't a democracy. We are a democratic.republic so it is not "majority rules". We have elected officials to make sure that the mob mentality doesn't always rule, and for good reason.

While I appreciate you telling me the nuances of different government types, you don't need to. I think I have a pretty firm handle on it.

If someone uses the term "democratic", then it means "majority rules". That's what democracy is. Our country is a republic that has (as you allude to) checks against democracy, including courts, an electoral college, and distorted representation in the Senate.

You said "A true anti-federalist, small government, democratic republican would never support the government getting involved in who can or can't marry."

A TRUE democratic republican would do away with all checks against majority rule. Or else they wouldn't be true to democracy.

I'm not saying one is better than the other.

Further, the constitution is very clear about favoring one religion over others and that's exactly what a law about gay marriage would do. It would favor the religious beliefs of the christian right over those that believe differently.

The Constitution says that the state cannot establish a religion. England had an established church, and some of the colonies did in the early days, as well. There's nothing in the Constitution that says voters who act in concert consistent with shared beliefs cannot exercise those beliefs merely because they come from faith.

A TRUE Constitutionalist would leave it up to the states and people of the land to decide.

Finally, it is bigger government because it is more unnecessary legislation and government control, especially if it is on a federal level. There's no reason for the government to get involved with marriage. If they want to control whether people get domestic partnership benefits, that's another story.

Again: no.

Bigger than what?

Marriage has been regulated by governments in the United States (or its predecessors) for hundreds of years, for better or for worse. Restrictions on marriages between races. Restrictions on polygamy.

It's not a matter of "getting the government involved" it is "allowing courts to change popular will".

Ed O.