Unless you're gay, on the dole, or a commie why would you vote Democrat ?

[HenryBHough]

Every time I read the header I ponder the likely visage of a gay communist welfare queen.

THEN I throw up a little.

 

[JQPublic1]

Deregulation worked out for the Savings and Loan sector back in the late 1980s, didn't it? Deregulation worked out for the airlines. Eastern, Pan Am, and TWA really made out great after that. Deregulation was great for the financial sector. In 2007, they had Bush's Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson go to Capital Hill hat in hand for a $780,000,000 bail out.

Can anyone show us when, where and how federal deregulation has benefitted our economy? Under deregulation, businesses failed, financial sectors asked for federal bail outs while rewarding their own managers who oversaw their failure with huge bonuses.

What a great idea! Deregulate and condense the wealth even more.

More low information nonsense.
Deregulation has benefiited the commode industry, as you know.

You ought to know, you never leave your commode because you are so full of Sh--t!
I suppose even now you have placed your laptop on a board affixed across your lap so as not to miss anything on USMB! Too bad you have to flush occasionally.!

 

[JQPublic1]

YES!!! MANY vote democrat because they can't think and are to lazy and fat!!

I demand that you retract that statement.

It takes a LOT of effort to find out which politician hands out the most benefits, then you have to go to a polling place to vote . Oh man I'm exhausted already.

.

MANY vote democrat because they can't think and are to lazy, fat AND STUPID!!! AND YOU??

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the blue states are more prosperous and have healthier citizens than those who languish in abject poverty in the red states. The poor red states are sucking up most of the welfare and food stamps in this country while vilifying blue state democrats who. BTW, are footing the bill

 

[P@triot]

Avoiding being lumped in with Screaming Eagle is excuse enough for me,

Says the "limousine liberal" who is proud to greedily hoard her wealth while feigning to care about the plight of those less fortunate...

 

[HenryBHough]

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the blue states are more prosperous and have healthier citizens than those who languish in abject poverty in the red states. The poor red states are sucking up most of the welfare and food stamps in this country while vilifying blue state democrats who. BTW, are footing the bill

Wholly fitting that they are footing the bill. They like paying taxes and feel they are insufficiently taxed yet refuse to just willingly donate. So their "leaders" take their needs to heart and tax their little asses off.

And they love it!

 

[JQPublic1]

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the blue states are more prosperous and have healthier citizens than those who languish in abject poverty in the red states. The poor red states are sucking up most of the welfare and food stamps in this country while vilifying blue state democrats who. BTW, are footing the bill

Wholly fitting that they are footing the bill. They like paying taxes and feel they are insufficiently taxed yet refuse to just willingly donate. So their "leaders" take their needs to heart and tax their little asses off.

And they love it!

Have you no feelings for the plight of the "conservative" poor folk? Their dignity and miserable lives are at stake. Without the altruism and benevolence shown by the blue states their present quality of life would take an immediate downward spiral! Yet, you mock the people who are keeping food on poor "conservative's" tables. Shame on you!

 

[rightwinger]

Straights can't marry the same sex in all those same states. You were saying?

You funny..

Don't you know the courts laugh at you when you try that one?

Even nutjob conservatives will not give that one a shot...but hey, you are on the Internet, nobody knows who you are

Sorry but your assertion has been disproven. Even gays can marry in every state in the union. No one is being denied anything.

Last time that argument was used was Loving v Virginia. The judge LAUGHED when it was brought up. Even in the over 50 legal cases on gay marriage, no rightwing nutjob has dared to raise the stupid argument that gays are not descriminated against because they can marry the opposite sex

Looks like you are

 

[bripat9643]

You funny..

Don't you know the courts laugh at you when you try that one?

Even nutjob conservatives will not give that one a shot...but hey, you are on the Internet, nobody knows who you are

Sorry but your assertion has been disproven. Even gays can marry in every state in the union. No one is being denied anything.

Last time that argument was used was Loving v Virginia. The judge LAUGHED when it was brought up. Even in the over 50 legal cases on gay marriage, no rightwing nutjob has dared to raise the stupid argument that gays are not descriminated against because they can marry the opposite sex

Looks like you are

No one brings up the argument the siblings aren't discriminated against because they can't marry each other. It's a stupid argument because marriage laws should discriminate against parings that are an offense against nature. One of the main purposes of marriage laws is to sanction those arrangement society finds acceptable and reject those it finds unacceptable.

 

[candycorn]

Avoiding being lumped in with Screaming Eagle is excuse enough for me,

Says the "limousine liberal" who is proud to greedily hoard her wealth while feigning to care about the plight of those less fortunate...

I'm sorry you believed I cared about you...I never have (like every one else).

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry but your assertion has been disproven. Even gays can marry in every state in the union. No one is being denied anything.

Last time that argument was used was Loving v Virginia. The judge LAUGHED when it was brought up. Even in the over 50 legal cases on gay marriage, no rightwing nutjob has dared to raise the stupid argument that gays are not descriminated against because they can marry the opposite sex

Looks like you are

No one brings up the argument the siblings aren't discriminated against because they can't marry each other. It's a stupid argument because marriage laws should discriminate against parings that are an offense against nature. One of the main purposes of marriage laws is to sanction those arrangement society finds acceptable and reject those it finds unacceptable.

Your problem is that you have been unable to prove your hatred in a court of law. There is no proof that homosexuality is an offense against nature. Just because you find it "yucky" is no reason to push your hatred onto others

 

[Nosmo King]

Remind me how gays are being repressed? Seems like they have exactly the same rights as anyone else.

Except other Americans are free to enter a legal contract made unavailable by no reason aside from fear. What real damage will come to all other marriages as a result of marriage equality? What real reason is there to exclude tax payers from legal equality?

They have never been excluded. Gay men have been free to marry any woman they wanted since America was founded. Gay women have been free to marry any man they wanted since America was founded.

They been EQUAL in every way. What you want is what Dumbocrats always want - special rights and privileges for their special interests.

And there it is! "Special" rights. The same qualifier used by a previous generation of Conservatives who resisted guaranteeing rights to American citizens who happened to be of a different race than their own. Conservatives are't happy about universal rights for anyone different than themselves. And they tell us that they are not greedy.

 

[Redfish]

Sorry but your assertion has been disproven. Even gays can marry in every state in the union. No one is being denied anything.

Last time that argument was used was Loving v Virginia. The judge LAUGHED when it was brought up. Even in the over 50 legal cases on gay marriage, no rightwing nutjob has dared to raise the stupid argument that gays are not descriminated against because they can marry the opposite sex

Looks like you are

No one brings up the argument the siblings aren't discriminated against because they can't marry each other. It's a stupid argument because marriage laws should discriminate against parings that are an offense against nature. One of the main purposes of marriage laws is to sanction those arrangement society finds acceptable and reject those it finds unacceptable.

correct, and society as a whole should decide which pairings (or groupings) are acceptable and which are not---------those decisions should be based on majority beliefs, not the beliefs of a small group of pointy headed libtards who live and work behind the ivy covered walls of some college.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sorry but your assertion has been disproven. Even gays can marry in every state in the union. No one is being denied anything.

Last time that argument was used was Loving v Virginia. The judge LAUGHED when it was brought up. Even in the over 50 legal cases on gay marriage, no rightwing nutjob has dared to raise the stupid argument that gays are not descriminated against because they can marry the opposite sex

Looks like you are

No one brings up the argument the siblings aren't discriminated against because they can't marry each other. It's a stupid argument because marriage laws should discriminate against parings that are an offense against nature. One of the main purposes of marriage laws is to sanction those arrangement society finds acceptable and reject those it finds unacceptable.

When libs can't respond to an argument like this they simply fall back on "well blacks were discriminated and the Court found such and such in Loving" or some other case. It's an ipse dixit fallacy. The courts found Jim Crow laws were legal all the time. Until they didnt.

 

[Redfish]

Last time that argument was used was Loving v Virginia. The judge LAUGHED when it was brought up. Even in the over 50 legal cases on gay marriage, no rightwing nutjob has dared to raise the stupid argument that gays are not descriminated against because they can marry the opposite sex

Looks like you are

No one brings up the argument the siblings aren't discriminated against because they can't marry each other. It's a stupid argument because marriage laws should discriminate against parings that are an offense against nature. One of the main purposes of marriage laws is to sanction those arrangement society finds acceptable and reject those it finds unacceptable.

Your problem is that you have been unable to prove your hatred in a court of law. There is no proof that homosexuality is an offense against nature. Just because you find it "yucky" is no reason to push your hatred onto others

thats really funny, because all the hate we see on this board comes from lefties like you who are determined to demonize anyone who does not follow the PC line of rhetoric as dictated by some liberal blogger.

 

[Nosmo King]

Last time that argument was used was Loving v Virginia. The judge LAUGHED when it was brought up. Even in the over 50 legal cases on gay marriage, no rightwing nutjob has dared to raise the stupid argument that gays are not descriminated against because they can marry the opposite sex

Looks like you are

No one brings up the argument the siblings aren't discriminated against because they can't marry each other. It's a stupid argument because marriage laws should discriminate against parings that are an offense against nature. One of the main purposes of marriage laws is to sanction those arrangement society finds acceptable and reject those it finds unacceptable.

correct, and society as a whole should decide which pairings (or groupings) are acceptable and which are not---------those decisions should be based on majority beliefs, not the beliefs of a small group of pointy headed libtards who live and work behind the ivy covered walls of some college.

And Conservatives show their suspicion and hatred of intelligence and education. Smart doesn't count for much with Conservatives.

 

[Redfish]

Except other Americans are free to enter a legal contract made unavailable by no reason aside from fear. What real damage will come to all other marriages as a result of marriage equality? What real reason is there to exclude tax payers from legal equality?

They have never been excluded. Gay men have been free to marry any woman they wanted since America was founded. Gay women have been free to marry any man they wanted since America was founded.

They been EQUAL in every way. What you want is what Dumbocrats always want - special rights and privileges for their special interests.

And there it is! "Special" rights. The same qualifier used by a previous generation of Conservatives who resisted guaranteeing rights to American citizens who happened to be of a different race than their own. Conservatives are't happy about universal rights for anyone different than themselves. And they tell us that they are not greedy.

are sex and race the same thing? your analogy sucks, and as usual, so do you

 

[The Rabbi]

No one brings up the argument the siblings aren't discriminated against because they can't marry each other. It's a stupid argument because marriage laws should discriminate against parings that are an offense against nature. One of the main purposes of marriage laws is to sanction those arrangement society finds acceptable and reject those it finds unacceptable.

correct, and society as a whole should decide which pairings (or groupings) are acceptable and which are not---------those decisions should be based on majority beliefs, not the beliefs of a small group of pointy headed libtards who live and work behind the ivy covered walls of some college.

And Conservatives show their suspicion and hatred of intelligence and education. Smart doesn't count for much with Conservatives.

What do you know about intelligence and education? You've proven you have neither. The only thing you have proven is Rabbi Rules!

 

[bripat9643]

Last time that argument was used was Loving v Virginia. The judge LAUGHED when it was brought up. Even in the over 50 legal cases on gay marriage, no rightwing nutjob has dared to raise the stupid argument that gays are not descriminated against because they can marry the opposite sex

Looks like you are

No one brings up the argument the siblings aren't discriminated against because they can't marry each other. It's a stupid argument because marriage laws should discriminate against parings that are an offense against nature. One of the main purposes of marriage laws is to sanction those arrangement society finds acceptable and reject those it finds unacceptable.

Your problem is that you have been unable to prove your hatred in a court of law. There is no proof that homosexuality is an offense against nature. Just because you find it "yucky" is no reason to push your hatred onto others

Oh puhleeze. The courts in this country are infested with liberal judges. Nothing that comes out of them has any bearing on reality.

There is all the proof in the world that homosexuality is an offense against nature. The fact that they fail to reproduce is irrefutable evidence. Normal people find it "yucky" because that's the way nature created them. If they didn't find it "yucky" then it wouldn't be long before the human race came to an end.

 

[Iceweasel]

Citizens yes. Relationships, no. Not all relationships are equal. It's stupid to pretend that relationships are people and need government approval.

What about corporations? Uh at is a business relationship established under law.

Absolutely. Corporations can marry one another. It's called a merger.

 

[rightwinger]

They have never been excluded. Gay men have been free to marry any woman they wanted since America was founded. Gay women have been free to marry any man they wanted since America was founded.

They been EQUAL in every way. What you want is what Dumbocrats always want - special rights and privileges for their special interests.

And there it is! "Special" rights. The same qualifier used by a previous generation of Conservatives who resisted guaranteeing rights to American citizens who happened to be of a different race than their own. Conservatives are't happy about universal rights for anyone different than themselves. And they tell us that they are not greedy.

are sex and race the same thing? your analogy sucks, and as usual, so do you

No, but marriage is the same thing and equal protection under the laws is the same thing