| » More Buzz |  | | |
View Poll Results: Who do you support? | |
Martha Coakley
|     | 2 | 13.33% | |
Scott Brown
|    | 10 | 66.67% | |
Joseph Kennedy
|    | 3 | 20.00% |
 | | 
01-15-2010, 10:55 AM
|
#21 (permalink)
| | EXPLETIVE DELETED
Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: In my skin
Gender: 
Posts: 20,237
Country:  Points: 55,462, Level: 100 | Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed | Thanks: 1,901
Thanked 1,682 Times in 1,459 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables  Polls are not facts. Election results are. There are other polls that place Coakley ahead, 49% to 41%. You are no strict adherent to the facts, might I add? And your observations only serve to prop up your own bruised ego, when someone shoots down your argument. In other threads. | What argument did you shoot down? I've always said if you are gonna rely on the same "legal" that allows a pregnant man, then SSM is a no brainer. But that same reality applies to SSM as well, since a "pregnant man" is as illogical and unnatural and driven by a defect at birth as SSM.
So exactly which argument did you shoot down?
__________________
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha | 
|   | |
01-15-2010, 10:58 AM
|
#22 (permalink)
| | mouth almighty
Join Date: May 2010 Location: New Jersey
Gender: 
Posts: 10,177
Country: Points: 26,281, Level: 96 | Level up: 94%, 69 Points needed | Thanks: 686
Thanked 720 Times in 395 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun What argument did you shoot down? I've always said if you are gonna rely on the same "legal" that allows a pregnant man, then SSM is a no brainer. But that same reality applies to SSM as well, since a "pregnant man" is as illogical and unnatural and driven by a defect at birth as SSM.
So exactly which argument did you shoot down? | The one that would consider it constitutoinal to deny same sex marriage equality. | |
| | |
01-15-2010, 11:02 AM
|
#23 (permalink)
| | EXPLETIVE DELETED
Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: In my skin
Gender:
Posts: 20,237
Country: Points: 55,462, Level: 100 | Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed | Thanks: 1,901
Thanked 1,682 Times in 1,459 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables The one that would consider it constitutoinal to deny same sex marriage equality. | Just as it seems unconstitutional do deny a woman the "right" to be called a man if she can show she was "born in the wrong body".
No difference.
__________________
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha | |
| | |
01-15-2010, 11:05 AM
|
#24 (permalink)
| | mouth almighty
Join Date: May 2010 Location: New Jersey
Gender:
Posts: 10,177
Country: Points: 26,281, Level: 96 | Level up: 94%, 69 Points needed | Thanks: 686
Thanked 720 Times in 395 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun Just as it seems unconstitutional do deny a woman the "right" to be called a man if she can show she was "born in the wrong body".
No difference. |
Um yes, there is a difference. You just aren't able to comprehend it. | |
| | |
01-15-2010, 11:10 AM
|
#25 (permalink)
| | Partisan
Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles
Gender:
Posts: 15,527
Country:  Points: 52,285, Level: 100 | Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed | Thanks: 388
Thanked 989 Times in 831 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack | Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey’s margin of error........!
I thought you said it was undeniable ??!
__________________
| 
| | |
01-15-2010, 11:10 AM
|
#26 (permalink)
| | EXPLETIVE DELETED
Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: In my skin
Gender:
Posts: 20,237
Country: Points: 55,462, Level: 100 | Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed | Thanks: 1,901
Thanked 1,682 Times in 1,459 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables Um yes, there is a difference. You just aren't able to comprehend it. | Not "legally". We are taking about using the constitution to force the legal definition of something to include an unnatural and illogical situation.
What's the difference?
Preferably in THAT thread though.
__________________
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Last edited by fxashun; 01-15-2010 at 11:13 AM.
| |
| | |
01-15-2010, 11:12 AM
|
#27 (permalink)
| | Partisan
Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles
Gender:
Posts: 15,527
Country: Points: 52,285, Level: 100 | Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed | Thanks: 388
Thanked 989 Times in 831 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun Not "legally". |
Some people just can't stop going on about homosexual marriage in every thread! 
__________________
| |
| | |
01-15-2010, 11:34 AM
|
#28 (permalink)
| | Congressional Representative
Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Flint, MI
Gender:
Posts: 3,272
Country: Points: 14,934, Level: 79 | Level up: 17%, 416 Points needed | Thanks: 866
Thanked 1,600 Times in 1,058 Posts
| Within the last week, I've seen a couple of polls that show Coakley ahead, and a couple that see Brown winning. In fact here's a list of the surveys going back to September of last year, personally I'm not trusting anything but the election results. RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - Massachusetts Senate - Special Election
How about we just wait until Tuesday before we declare a winner, enough with the poll wanking lol.
__________________
The Internet, where the men are men, the women are also men, and the children are FBI agents. -Anonymous | |
| | |
01-15-2010, 11:37 AM
|
#29 (permalink)
| | Senator
Join Date: May 2008 Location: Near the beach
Gender:
Posts: 5,309
Country:  Points: 20,289, Level: 89 | Level up: 88%, 61 Points needed | Thanks: 790
Thanked 604 Times in 498 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey’s margin of error........!
I thought you said it was undeniable ??! | It seems only a person in denial would consider a person with an R behind their name running for a senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy D, in Massatuches doesn't have the momentum to have a landslide victory. I would be talking shit if he were only behind by ten points, but damn, he's ahead by four so I'd say that's rather undeniable, wouldn't you or do you have to wait for the results and the State attorney general to find some excuses of why it went south? | |
| | |
01-15-2010, 11:39 AM
|
#30 (permalink)
| | Partisan
Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles
Gender:
Posts: 15,527
Country: Points: 52,285, Level: 100 | Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed | Thanks: 388
Thanked 989 Times in 831 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack It seems only a person in denial would consider a person with an R behind their name running for a senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy D, in Massatuches doesn't have the momentum to have a landslide victory. I would be talking shit if he were only behind by ten points, but damn, he's ahead by four so I'd say that's rather undeniable, wouldn't you or do you have to wait for the results and the State attorney general to find some excuses of why it went south? |
Even the polling organisation is denying it!
__________________
| |
| | | The Following User Says Thank You to garysher For This Useful Post: | | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.defendingthetruth.com/elections-candidates/30578-massachusetts-senate-election-poll.html | | Posted By | For | Type | Date | | Defending the Truth | Facebook | This thread | Refback | 03-13-2010 02:23 PM |
|
