Maine's Question 1

[Scam of God]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Scam of God]

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.

[Mechaman]

Oh this is getting good......

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Scam of God]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Scam of God]

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?

[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.

[Scam of God]

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.

To Hell with that. This guy tries my patience.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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?

[Scam of God]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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. There is an example that has nothing to do with a war economy. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

[Scam of God]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Scam of God]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

Immigration Act? Nationalist policies were rampant throughout the '20s.

[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.

[Scam of God]

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.

[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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Scam of God]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Scam of God]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.