McAuliffe - Cuccinelli Face-Off? (health insurance, how much, cost)

[IndiaLimaDelta]

Originally Posted by tysonsengineer

The difference is the CIA was not the leading presence on the other compounds that is why we couldnt immediately divulge information, the real question is why a few hours after the attack was Fox News demanding to know everything. Sorry Fox News but national security DOES come before helping your ratings.

Really? Was Susan Rice working for Fox when she was on six different networks talking about a nonexistent riot? Did Fox News fake a riot just so that Rice can talk about it? Your assertion would make sense if the administration simply said "we will have more information later when the investigation is completed," but it didn't. It blamed the whole affair on a riot that it KNEW didn't exist. Repeatedly. Yes, the evidence points to the administration lying about it.

And NY Times decided there were six other news items far worthier for coverage. Even its public editor thought that wrong though she recanted later after her friends got angry. I'm pretty certain that had this whole affair occurred under GW Bush the MSM would have been all over it. Front page everyday. Which would be fine... That's what an opposition press does. I just don't want the charade of "Fox News = partisan hacks, MSM = principled, neutral journalist" nonsense.

IDL, believe what you want to believe to help you sleep at night

Calm down. I can feel the spittle flying. It's ILD -- India Lima Delta -- not IDL. Also, no, I don't sleep well at all at night because I look at an empty flag case the mother of a friend gave to me sitting on my mantle. I have a stiff drink and shed tears on some nights. And I say a prayer to St. Michael to protect those who are still out there, including my relatives and friends.

, but you know what the first 48 hours was after this incident and YOU KNOW this didnt occur during other attacks during Bush's regime. I called you out on your BS so you pivoted.

Pivot, huh? Why don't you look up: Projection.

PS on the subject of a polygraph, I know exactly what I can and can't say, that should be proof enough of my current occupation. I dont need to say anything other than that.

In my experience, people in the know don't say anything at all. They either talk about things they can and not ever mention even a hint of what they cannot. They don't say things like "I have specific knowledge about this subject matter." On the freakin' internet no less. Good grief.

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

We just have no faith in McAuliffe's ability to beat anybody so don't want to risk a Cuccinelli nomination.

So you ARE afraid Ken might beat Terry!

[IndiaLimaDelta]

Originally Posted by The Dissenter

At those times I thought like you and voted with my bible, but since becoming a Libertarian, I vote only with my desire of liberty and justice for all.

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

One of my favorite libertarian bumper stickers says something like "Against Abortion? Don't Have One". I'd offer the same advice to those opposed to marriage equality.
.

Question: do you both also support "the right" to plural marriages and incestuous marriages, provided, of course, that they involve consenting adults?

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta

Question: do you both also support "the right" to plural marriages and incestuous marriages, provided, of course, that they involve consenting adults?

Or Man and Dog to quote Rick. To be honest I couldn't care less how other folks organize their relationships. It has no impact on mine.

[IndiaLimaDelta]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

Or Man and Dog to quote Rick. To be honest I couldn't care less how other folks organize their relationships. It has no impact on mine.

Who's talking about relationships? We are talking about socio-legal recognition, not relationships. Are homosexuals prevented from loving their partners or living with each other in today's fascist America?

You are awfully coy. Are you also advocating support for plural marriages and incestuous marriages? If adult consent is all that matters, what's the difference?

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta

Who's talking about relationships? We are talking about socio-legal recognition, not relationships. Are homosexuals prevented from loving their partners or living with each other in today's fascist America?

You are awfully coy. Are you also advocating support for plural marriages and incestuous marriages? If adult consent is all that matters, what's the difference?

I didn't say there was any difference, even in the context of a legal marriage contract. I have no issue with it. Clear enough for you?

On the other hand I think marriage is an archaic institution.

[IndiaLimaDelta]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

I didn't say there was any difference, even in the context of a legal marriage contract. I have no issue with it. Clear enough for you?

Okay, so to be clear, I am having a discourse with someone who is okay with a woman being married to five different men at the same time and mothers and sons marrying each other. All consenting adults, of course.

On the other hand I think marriage is an archaic institution.

Then don't be in one. Don't try to subvert it for the rest of us.

[JD984]

Some Cooch observations for the AM:

- Whoever designed his campaign web site has spent a lot of time looking at past Obama web sites: Ken Cuccinelli for Virginia Governor 2013

- He has a newsletter called the "Cuccinelli Compass." Maybe I'm wrong, but I assume this was not simply an attempt at alliteration, but instead a reference to Cuccinelli's "moral compass." And that's where I think he'll turn off NoVa voters in future elections. I suppose the goal here is two-fold: (1) impress upon voters his moral convictions; and (2) suggest that nothing that he's done in the past was undertaken as a matter of political expediency to curry favor with the Tea Party, but instead because he was just acting in accordance with his convictions. Either way, a strategy of presenting oneself to the public as holier-than-thine-opponents is a high-risk strategy in an increasingly diverse state.

[CAVA1990]

Exit polling showed that 69% of Virginians described themselves as either moderate or liberal. Granted the voters on election day skew a bit left but that's a sizable number that conservatives will need to overcome, assuming they're runnin against a more moderate candidate.

Virginia Presidential Election Results - Presidential Race | NBC News

[The Dissenter]

Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta

Question: do you both also support "the right" to plural marriages and incestuous marriages, provided, of course, that they involve consenting adults?

First, I fail to see how either one of those arrangements can be lumped in with gay marriage.

Plural marriages. No.

Incest marriages. Incest is against the law so no.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta

Question: do you both also support "the right" to plural marriages

despite the fact that the bible allows for them, I accept the fact that the definition of marriage evolves. The old biblical plural marriage (which was still allowed by Sephardic rabbis till the 19th century, IIUC) is not compatible with our modern sense of what marriage is (and would be a pain administravely for the state to recognize - too many survivors, insurance beneficiaries, etc) Civil marriage must evolve with the needs and standards of society.

Religious marriage may follow, but need not. My synagogues view of Jewish law does not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a (unconverted) gentile (A jew leaving such a marriage does not require a jewish divorce in order to remarry, for example) However I wouldn't dream of asking the state to ban such marriages (and I oppose the policy of the Govt of Israel which does not provide a legal space to conduct them - though it does recognize them when performed abroad)