West Point chapel to host first same-sex marriage

Nov 30, 2012 Full story: WBIR-TV Knoxville 26

The first same-sex marriage at the U.S. Military Academy's Cadet Chapel at West Point will be celebrated Saturday as Brenda Sue Fulton and Penelope Dara Gnesin exchange vows.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#22 Dec 5, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think the Republicans are so extreme, then please explain why they retained their majoriy in the House of Repreentatives, and maintained their majority in gubernatorial seats. They also hold a majority of state legislative seats. You make it sound like they are a tiny minority with no power at all.
About the only thing they didn't win was POTUS\VEEP and a majority in the U.S. Senate. WOW. Two things out of the 1000+ contests in the U.S. this past election cycle.
They held their seats because 95% of all districts are non-competitive; just like for the Dems. Once elected you have a 95+% chance of being reelected.

Even in the giant "wave" elections like 2010, less the 15% lost reelection.

Btw, the GOP did lose seats in both the House and Senate.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#23 Dec 5, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
They held their seats because 95% of all districts are non-competitive; just like for the Dems. Once elected you have a 95+% chance of being reelected.
Even in the giant "wave" elections like 2010, less the 15% lost reelection.
Btw, the GOP did lose seats in both the House and Senate.
I read a hysterically funny story in the New York newspapers today. In these past elections, for only the third time in the past 50 years, the Democrats won a majority of the seats in the New York Senats. And in the past 3 occassions that Democrats held a majority in the New York Senate, 2 of those perios of time they held the majority for only a few months or less, for a grand total of about 4 years of control in the past 50 years, with the Republicand holding a majority, and thus control, of the Senate the remaining 46 of the past 50 years.

So the Democrats won a decisive number of Senate seats this year, winning 33 Senate seats out of a total of 63 Senate seats. So the Democrats must be ecstatic at their victory, rite ?!

NOT EXACTLY. LOL

Five Democrats in the new New York Senate, have now publicly announced that they will NOT support their Democratic leadership, and will instead caucus with the Republicans and elect the CURRENT REPUBLICAN MAJORITY LEADER AGAIN as leader of the new Senate (and they expanded the Senate by one seat in this past election too.)

So while the Democrats now outnumber the Republicans in the New York Senate by a margin of 33 - 30, they STILL will be in the minority.

Even when the Democrats WIN, they lose !

ROFL !
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#24 Dec 5, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
They held their seats because 95% of all districts are non-competitive; just like for the Dems. Once elected you have a 95+% chance of being reelected.
Even in the giant "wave" elections like 2010, less the 15% lost reelection.
Btw, the GOP did lose seats in both the House and Senate.
More than that, you have to -- well, you don't have to do anything; I am suggesting -- it's informative to see issues through a lens of logic which *RELENTLESSLY* trains the logic of the "opponent" back onto them.

If what the previous poster said is true, then think about this: WHY DID IT MATTER if Romney got elected? If what the previous poster said is true, then WHO CARES about Romney being reelected because of all the other victories?

Yet, ya know something realllllly weird? They fought like cats and dogs for it. They fought their asses off. So obviously it *did* matter and in their eyes, who was the next president *did* matter and it *does* materially, actually MATERIALLY matter that Obama is in the white house again.

That logic doesn't vanish when you examine one party vis-a-vis the other: Either that logic is true for both democrats and republicans, or it's true for no one.

So crowing about republican "victories" is an endless attempt to sidestep the REAL victory in the election -- or else *logic* shows us the republicans *wouldn't* have fought so hard for Romney, QED.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#25 Dec 5, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
More than that, you have to -- well, you don't have to do anything; I am suggesting -- it's informative to see issues through a lens of logic which *RELENTLESSLY* trains the logic of the "opponent" back onto them.
If what the previous poster said is true, then think about this: WHY DID IT MATTER if Romney got elected? If what the previous poster said is true, then WHO CARES about Romney being reelected because of all the other victories?
Yet, ya know something realllllly weird? They fought like cats and dogs for it. They fought their asses off. So obviously it *did* matter and in their eyes, who was the next president *did* matter and it *does* materially, actually MATERIALLY matter that Obama is in the white house again.
That logic doesn't vanish when you examine one party vis-a-vis the other: Either that logic is true for both democrats and republicans, or it's true for no one.
So crowing about republican "victories" is an endless attempt to sidestep the REAL victory in the election -- or else *logic* shows us the republicans *wouldn't* have fought so hard for Romney, QED.
Except that ALL legislation must recieve a majority of the vote in the House Of Representatives to become law. And ALL tax legislation MUST originate in the House Of Representatives, and NOT the Senate, to become law. Since the Republicans have the majority of seats in the House Of Represenatives, because American voters VOTED THEM INTO OFFICE, NOTHING is going to get done unless the Republican majority, representing apparently a majority of the American people, VOTE FOR IT.

At this point, I recCommend that the House Of Representatives recess for the next 2 years and do nothing at all. Will The Obamaniac then just assume dictatorial powers and "RULE BY DECREE" ???(How The Obamaniac is envying Egypt's new President who just assumed FULL DICTATORIAL POWERS).
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#26 Dec 6, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that ALL legislation must recieve a majority of the vote in the House Of Representatives to become law.
I want to make a point about how I see posts on this web site.

The moment I read your first sentence here, I have an OVERWHELMING feeling you WILL *NOT* address specifically what I said.

Let's see if I turn out to be right.

Because my point was extremely specific, and had to do with *your* so-called logic.

Let's see how this turns out.
Fa-Foxy wrote:
And ALL tax legislation MUST originate in the House Of Representatives, and NOT the Senate, to become law.
This still has nothing to do with what I said; it's like you're trying to "gain some point" by mentioning something else.
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Since the Republicans have the majority of seats in the House Of Represenatives, because American voters VOTED THEM INTO OFFICE,
Yep, you literally *MISSED* my point. My point was *ONE* specific thing, one thing and nnnnnnothing else:

Nothing else in the world:

*YOU* said: "If you think the Republicans are so extreme, then please explain why they retained their majoriy in the House of Repreentatives, and maintained their majority in gubernatorial seats."

This implies that you feel this "victory" is important; therefore, one could infer that you feel some "victory" in this context makes up for other losses. Yet you and yours fought *for* Romney, meaning:

Obama's reelection is vitally important.

See what's funny about your response?

YOU DON'T WANT TO ADMIT THAT; YOU REFUSE TO ADMIT IT; YOU WOULDN'T ADMIT IT BEFORE YOU DROPPED FUCKING DEAD. So ... you bring up *your point* again, which means you *missed* mine.

Follow the logic slowly, from A, to B, to C, etc. I just diagrammed it specifically for you.
Fa-Foxy wrote:
NOTHING is going to get done unless the Republican majority, representing apparently a majority of the American people, VOTE FOR IT.
So by your logic, it *WOULD NOT* have mattered if Romney became president; you just implied it again, since Obama *did* rebecome president.
Fa-Foxy wrote:
At this point, I recCommend that the House Of Representatives recess for the next 2 years and do nothing at all. Will The Obamaniac then just assume dictatorial powers and "RULE BY DECREE" ???(How The Obamaniac is envying Egypt's new President who just assumed FULL DICTATORIAL POWERS).
It's interesting and easy to *diagram*(like I did above) what you are doing: I made a single point about what matters and what doesn't based on *YOUR* logic; you are a typical "political arguer" who won't budge, and so you ignore the point I made and reiterate what you said,*PROVING* my point again.

Every time you argue for the republicans, you *implicitly argue* for the legitimacy of the democrats. You can only win by *going silent*-- which you will never do.

Your entire post reiterates and underlines that Obama's reelection *was* important; how much clearer can this be? You wouldn't even be DISCUSSING THIS WITH ME if it weren't an issue; Christ.

What you say about the house is true, though; I think it's true of most politics. In the current nation. As bitterly, viciously, hatefully divided as it is.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#27 Dec 6, 2012
"Fa-Foxy," most people who argue politically and don't want to concede a point do *exactly* what you just did, reiterating their point.

Note what I did:

If what I said was true and you reiterate, then my point is *all the truer and you're proving it for me*.

It's much wiser to find a different point or to *concede something*(although such concessions are usually false in political argument). Every time you talk about the republicans as if they gained some victory, you are underlining Obama's victory.

Don't goddamn tell me conservatives were not *furious to the point of vomiting* when he was reelected; I thought they'd start to get violent publicly, they were so upset. It was obviously a big deal. And there were *reasons* he was reelected that conservatives are doggedly, stubbornly, hilariously ignoring, which is why these people ALL OVER THESE BOARDS are predicting it'll happen again in 2016. Christ, open your eyes.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gay marriage spreads in NC 2 min Pat Robertson s F... 8
Elizabeth Taylor & Michael Jackson at Her Final... 12 min Jessie Pinkman 46
Judge Strikes Down NC Gay Marriage Ban 35 min Sick and Tired 96
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 55 min KiMare 25,362
Same-Sex Marriage Trumps Religious Liberty in N... (Aug '13) 1 hr young life 744
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr KiMare 50,656
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 3 hr Doug Wiedeman 31,305

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE