Maine's Question 1

[Mechaman]

Extremely outraged rant mode on now:

WHAT THE FUCKING HELL!? For the second time in a year's span the people of a state have taken away the rights of their fellow man to be legal equals based on their sexual orientation. Once again the people of a state have put government in the position of god to dictate what the hell constitutes a loving relationship between people. Once again I am pissed off beyond measure at the puritanical backasswards medieval mindset of people in this nation. Granted I would prefer no government recognition or authority in cohabitative relationships, but I would rather have all people be legal equals before the law instead of this ridiculous marriage segregation.
Anyone who doesn't see what the big deal about this is or just as bad as wastes of spermcells like Tom Coburn or Sally Kern.

[Mechaman]

America: Land of the free, home of the brave, unless they are part of the evil "homosexual agenda".

[Mechaman]

America: Land of the free, home of the brave, unless they are part of the evil "homosexual agenda".

Or black, Latino, female, libertarian, liberal, anti-war, pro-equality, a fan of Michael Jackson, a freedom lover, a porn star, or a good looking person.

I agree with everything except the last one. People don't have the right to be good looking.

[Mechaman]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

[Mechaman]

     If Maine rejects this proposition, I'll go L-ME for a week.

That's probably why the yes side won.

I'm doing it as a protest.

[Mechaman]

I for one am very pleased with the result making Tuesday a good day for the Conservative Movement.  We've got a Bible-believing governor in Virginia, NJ I'm not so sure about, and we have a pro-lifer in upstate New York.  Then, the biblical definition of marriage is restored in Maine.

Is everybody so damn ignorant in your bible-believing glorious hellhole Oklahoma?

(awkward silence)
Man, this state feels empty of civil libertarians!

[Mechaman]

1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry
   whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods,
   nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.

oh, I am not going to stop you from doing what you what.  go ahead and marry ten men...just don't ask me to recognize it

No one cares if YOU recognize it or not.  Or even LIKE it.

What's important is that the LAW recognizes it.  You know, the simple dignity of being able to pass on property without it being unfairly taxed by the government.  Or being able to visit someone in the hospital.

I don't understand why people are so fervently opposed to THAT, that they don't even care about pretending it's about the institution of marriage and instead fight against any sort of recognition, any sort of "favor."

That's precisely why I support civil unions by-and-large, because every person has a right to be cared for and loved and a right to care and love no matter their sexual orientation.  Just because I may not agree with their choice doesn't mean they're any less entitled to the same rights as I do.

As for same-sex marriage, what I said in a post earlier in this thread needs clarification.  I don't support it per se, but I feel I don't have a right to discriminate against it with the "Bible" excuse, because we, as Christians, haven't exactly lived up to what the Bible also says about marriage, and I'm talking about DIVORCE.  Its a matter of trying to take the plank out of your eye when i have a log in mine.  So, I don't like gay marriage, and I probably never will, but one thing I have always believed when I point a finger at my good friend, I have three fingers pointing right back at me.  If I were only to open those three fingers and extend the hand of good fellowship and aide to my brothers and sisters.  I guess what I'm trying to get at is I believe gay marriage is wrong, but divorce is equally as wrong, so until we, as Christians, get that plank called divorce out of our eye, we can't see clearly to erradicate gay marriage from the global discussion.

Some of you may rag on Okie for some of his views on this matter, but trust me folks his views on this issue are WAAAAY better than most other Oklahoma social conservatives. Trust me.

[Mechaman]

I find anyone that thinks Prop 8 passing worse than slavery to be morally repulsive stupid.

I wouldn't go as far as calling it morally repulsive, just very stupid. As repulsive as I find it for the state to deny legal equality to homosexuals it is still quite a bit better than being property to another person and having to do whatever they say.

[Mechaman]

Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant ().  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this, by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

Hamilton forgets that when it comes to politics quite a few people are total jackasses about their opinions, no matter the issue.
If you gave me 30 minutes (it's 2:12 here, give me some time to get motivated) to google I bet I could come up with a ridiculous overreaction to an insignificant issue.

[Mechaman]

Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant ().  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this, by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

Hamilton forgets that when it comes to politics quite a few people are total jackasses about their opinions, no matter the issue.
If you gave me 30 minutes (it's 2:12 here, give me some time to get motivated) to google I bet I could come up with a ridiculous overreaction to an insignificant issue.

Like this issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_burning#United_States
I mean really.

[Mechaman]

I oppose ending slavery because seriously I heard some of that side's supporters and they compared it to the Holocaust, I don't want to be associated with that.

That was not at all my argument and you know it. Fake libertarian.

Lunar claimed to be libertarian When?

[Mechaman]

Once upon a time I did.

LOLwut? When?

[Mechaman]

I don't claim to be anything anymore.

Then why do you have a red avatar?

[Mechaman]

Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant ().  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this, by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

[Mechaman]

Oh this is getting good......

[Mechaman]

Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant ().  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this, by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

You could've been just a tad bit more tactful Einzige.

[Mechaman]

Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant ().  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this, by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.

[Mechaman]

Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant ().  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this, by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.

Sure, but that had nothing to do with progressivism (or Roosevelt) and everything to do with the nationalistic Republican base.

I agree, but it was a nationalistic policy that would've made Alexander Hamilton's dead corpse have a premature ejaculation.

[Mechaman]

Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant ().  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this, by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.

Sure, but that had nothing to do with progressivism (or Roosevelt) and everything to do with the nationalistic Republican base.

Coolidge was always aligned with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. He never left the party because the Progressives were not going to challenge him (as he was, obviously, an ally). The "nationalistic Republican base", however, has everything to do with policies supported by prominent figures such as Roosevelt and Coolidge himself.

Wrong. Harding was the progressive candidate of choice; and Harding selected Coolidge as a running mate precisely because he appealed to the isolationist and nationalistic base.

Are you kidding me? Both candidates appealed to the isolationists and nationalists. It's what they campaigned on. Coolidge continued the same policies even after winning his own term. As for Harding, the man who gave the nominating speech for Taft-- far less progressive.

Nope. Harding, despite his pledge for a "return to normalcy", had been a huge supporter of the progressive income tax while a newspaper editor and pushed for government regulation of the mail industry. He chose Coolidge as a bone to the conservatives.

HE didn't choose anything. Harding and Coolidge were nominated by convention delegates.

But fine, take an example of something Harding advocated as a 22 year old and make that out to be his entire political career and ideology. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you are being?

Warren G. Harding was the conservative counterpart to the more Progressive Calvin Coolidge. You clearly have no understanding of the prominent and dominant factions within the Republican Party in the Fourth Party System.

Harding did support the high protective tariff or at least did nothing to stop fellow Republicans from pushing for it. Not sure about Coolidge though.

[Mechaman]

Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

Of the three, immigration restrictions were the only one he supported. Harding signed off on the tariff, and he was neutral on labor issues.

In defense of Einzige it could be argued that Harding and Coolidge were deficit hawks and that in order to make up for reductions in the income tax tariffs would have to be raised to generate federal revenue. Afterall, who would you rather take money from? Your citizens or your competitors?

I don't consider Coolidge to be a libertarian, but I don't think there is enough evidence to imply he was a champion of government interventionism. Though I have to say I can kind of see how you could see similarities between him, Hamilton, and Roosevelt.

[Mechaman]

Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

Of the three, immigration restrictions were the only one he supported. Harding signed off on the tariff, and he was neutral on labor issues.

In defense of Einzige it could be argued that Harding and Coolidge were deficit hawks and that in order to make up for reductions in the income tax tariffs would have to be raised to generate federal revenue. Afterall, who would you rather take money from? Your citizens or your competitors?

I don't consider Coolidge to be a libertarian, but I don't think there is enough evidence to imply he was a champion of government interventionism. Though I have to say I can kind of see how you could see similarities between him, Hamilton, and Roosevelt.

And in my defense, I'm not anywhere as well versed in 1920's GOP politics as I am in politics circa 1932 onward.

[Mechaman]

Coolidge a Progressive? lol For once I agree with Einzige. Neither Harding nor Coolidge were progressive.

Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

The last two were actually considered Conservative positions at the time. Roosevelt was for Free Trade and many of his progressive supported his position on that issue. So Hamilton, you yourself just actually made the case the Coolidge was not of the same mold as TR. As for Hamilton, that is true, but Keep in mind Hamilton wanted a commercial economy based of trade and industry rather then agriculutre. And he supported Tariffs, and a National Bank to get it done. But I doubt he would have supported the state enough to come close to a Progressive. Faulty characterization on your part.

^^^^^^
This.

[Mechaman]

Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 18 pages of replies.)

Not at all actually. I saw this coming from a mile away. People give Maine waaaayyyy too much f***ing credit when it comes to this sort of thing. I mean really, if California passed Prop 8 in an presidential election year with more turnout than usual why should we expect Maine to vote "No" on Question 1?

[Mechaman]

Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

Not at all actually. I saw this coming from a mile away. People give Maine waaaayyyy too much f***ing credit when it comes to this sort of thing. I mean really, if California passed Prop 8 in an presidential election year with more turnout than usual why should we expect Maine to vote "No" on Question 1?

Exactly.....we've been discussing the issue for 44 pages, which is fine, but as far as a Maine vote, it's no surprise at all.

And two pages of that were probably me, Hamilton, and Einzige debating over Calvin Coolidge.

[Mechaman]

I'd be interested in hearing a response to this post below, or the one below it, if we can get this thread back on topic.

Unfortunate, though not terribly surprising. Gay marriage is definitely significantly to the left of most (if not all) state Democratic parties. The only states that could potentially legalize gay marriage with a referendum at this point, are: VT and MA with an outside shot at CT, RI, NY, and NJ.

IIRC, 29 states have now banned gay marriage by a statewide referendum, all in the past six years. To my knowledge, I don't think there are any other issues that have been on ballots in so many states, at least not in this time frame. Interesting how this is such a big issue when the general public is not affected by two consenting adults marrying.

My apologies.
You can thank the far right spin doctors for that one friend. Here in Oklahoma we hear all the time about how the government wants to grant "special rights and privileges" to the gays and that if they win their right to legal equality they will force a "homosexual agenda" preventing homophobic preachers from preaching about the evil of homosexuality.
Also, as much as people hate to admit it this is still a pretty religious nation. Once the numbers drop a bit expect to see a surge in support of marriage equality.