Analysis: Obama gambles with gay marriage move

Onceler said:
Perhaps it's not my place to step in, but you don't seem to understand a distinction here:
- scenario 1: seeing a claim, going to google, trying to find some backup for that claim or related story, coming up empty, and asking for source of claim for a link
- scenario 2: seeing a claim, and asking source of claim for a link
Click to expand...

translation:

bad when yurt does it

good when dung and i do it
 
Darla said:
Then he'll have the nerve to beg people "why don't you like me"

Because you're a blabbbbbbbermouttthhhh yurt!
Click to expand...

i only asked rana because i thought we were friends once. forget it, i didn't realize it would cause you to spazz out and have a meltdown all over the forum because i asked one person why they didn't like me.

you're a psycho darla. pure and simple.
 
Yurt said:
translation:

bad when yurt does it

good when dung and i do it
Click to expand...

That ain't no kind of translation.

A better one: when you doubt a claim, do your homework. If your homework results in further doubt to the claim, just ask for a link to see if you missed something.

As opposed to seeing a claim, and saying "cite!"
 
We need to write in that convicted felon in WV. The one who smoked President Obama in what, 10 counties? How's that kickoff for re-election coming, Hussein? ;)
 
Onceler said:
That ain't no kind of translation.

A better one: when you doubt a claim, do your homework. If your homework results in further doubt to the claim, just ask for a link to see if you missed something.

As opposed to seeing a claim, and saying "cite!"
Click to expand...

nope...my translation is perfect. it is not my job to look up someone else's claim. and...you're misrepresenting what actually happened...dung did not say he looked it up:

General Buck Turgidson said:
Got a source for the claim that Rmoney is "crushing" Obama among independents and moderates? I don't think that's actually true.
Click to expand...

he simply said he didn't think it was true.

poor onceler...another bad day for him.
 
Yurt said:
nope...my translation is perfect. it is not my job to look up someone else's claim. and...you're misrepresenting what actually happened...dung did not say he looked it up:



he simply said he didn't think it was true.

poor onceler...another bad day for him.
Click to expand...

And later fleshed out that he had checked; there's that tried & true Yurtsie honesty for you.

Again - you ask for dozens of "cites" for every one that pretty much any other poster asks for.

I'm having a killer day, btw; big bucks, no whammies...
 
Yurt said:
btw...i find it truly funny how you're making a huge issue out of the fact i may vote for romney. when it comes down to it, i probably will as right now...romney is better for the country than obama. it is just another sign of your naivety that someone can't vote for a candidate just because they don't support all their positions. i mean really, in this country, there isn't really another viable choice. voting TP is pretty much a non vote unfortunately. but do go on ranting about how i will vote for romney. it really makes you look smart onceler. especially your claim i will commit voter fraud. that is pure classic hackceler...
Click to expand...


You call this a meltdown....nonsense.....not even close....

Now HERE, below, is a meltdown....with rant in the middle.....


Onceler said:
When I wrote that it was a non-issue, it was a HUGE headline on MSNBC. You think it's some sort of "gotcha" that it's a big story, but I was pretty aware that it was a big story, and had seen that headline & his change of position, and knew it would last for a cycle or 2.

So, why am I not shocked that you can't read again? My point was that it's a non-issue for Presidents, and it is - because there is nothing they can or will do about it. It is not in the realm of executive policy, which is exactly what I stated, btw. Thus, it's low-hanging fruit for rightie hacks like you, who think they're showing their "independence" by disagreeing w/ the candidate they'll vote for as many times as possible.

But you'll defend him to the hilt on any executive issues, as you've already shown.

Btw, I don't expect you to get or understand any of this.
Click to expand...


When all is said and done......THIS IS THE LAW

The Defense of Marriage Act (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law
signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Under the law, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in anoth.....etc. etc.
 
Rana said:
B

I won't argue with that, there are too many uninformed voters on both sides and in the middle, too.
Click to expand...


[h=2]Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.............R.R.[/h]
 
bravo said:
You call this a meltdown....nonsense.....not even close....

Now HERE, below, is a meltdown....with rant in the middle.....





When all is said and done......THIS IS THE LAW

The Defense of Marriage Act (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law
signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Under the law, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in anoth.....etc. etc.
Click to expand...

That is in no way a meltdown blabs. Point to a dog call it a refrigerator - new rethug tactic here huh?
 
Onceler said:
I remembered the thread - just not the title.

I guess the big difference is that yours is a cut & paste, and I actually offered my own opinion on mine...
Click to expand...

i offered no opinion?

my lord, what a hack.

i created this thread after i gave you my opinion on the matter and you said i was full of shit and a hack for believing obama gambled on the issue.
 
I heard on the radio today that a recent poll of independents shows him losing ground because of his decision......22% less likely to vote for him versus 14% more likely to vote for him.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I heard on the radio today that a recent poll of independents shows him losing ground because of his decision......22% less likely to vote for him versus 14% more likely to vote for him.....
Click to expand...

Since California is normally a Liberal State, is Obama going to lose their vote; seeing as how they overwhelmingly voted agaist gay marriage?
Or they just going to swallow their principles and vote for him, anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top