Vote! 2008 and Exit Poll

On November 02 2008 03:44 jello_biafra wrote:
I expect McCain to win.

On November 02 2008 03:44 jello_biafra wrote:
I expect McCain to win.

On November 02 2008 03:47 HeavOnEarth wrote:

o.o

On November 02 2008 03:50 Savio wrote:


I expect Obama to win, but I have reserved a tiny little sliver of hope in the back of my mind.

Imagine the whining from the Left if Obama loses. They'll blame it on everything else besides Obama's lack of qualifications and extreme (although very short) liberal voting record in the senate.

On November 02 2008 09:17 DukE wrote:
Apparently a lot of people think obama will be assassinated... let me put it this way. GWB isn't fucking dead yet!

On November 02 2008 03:50 Savio wrote:


I expect Obama to win, but I have reserved a tiny little sliver of hope in the back of my mind.

Imagine the whining from the Left if Obama loses. They'll blame it on everything else besides Obama's lack of qualifications and extreme (although very short) liberal voting record in the senate.

On November 02 2008 03:29 DukE wrote:
im eligible but abstaining from voting

On November 02 2008 09:39 Ideas wrote:
Voted Obama in GA, but I doubt he can take my state :\

On November 02 2008 09:52 MYM.Testie wrote:
I'm really curious
What makes the secret service so pro? Like how do they make sure there's not some dude with a gun at these rallies with 100,000 for Obama?
Like, you think assassinating someone if you put a lot of thought into it would be pretty easy.
I'm really ignorant and newb at the process of assassination though obviously.

On November 02 2008 03:39 Savio wrote:
Voted McCain. No doubts here.

On November 02 2008 12:27 CrimsonLotus wrote:
I really hope Obama wins, although it would be better for my country if McCain wins, but i dont care... I dont like the idea of another republican getting the White House.

On November 02 2008 13:18 Ideas wrote:



I'm curious... how is McCain better for Columbia?

Actually, a question to all non-Americans, why do you want 1 candidate or the other to win?

On November 02 2008 03:29 DukE wrote:
im eligible but abstaining from voting

On November 02 2008 13:13 stk01001 wrote:


the there's no doubt here your either a raving fundementalist christian with a relgious right agenda or your an ignorant moron who thinks McCain is going to fix the huge amount of problems George Bush has caused. I'm guessing it's the second...

BTW.. have all you dumb McCain supporters realized that basically the entire rest of the world (at least 90%) is dying for us to vote in Obama to save the global economy?? We will be a laughingstock if we vote in McCain. No.. you guys are still right though... the entire rest of the world is a bunch of retards just like the left ... lol. It's sad but that's your attitude..

oh and did you know the Taliban endorsed McCain?? LOL... nice job voting for him..

On November 02 2008 13:18 Ideas wrote:



I'm curious... how is McCain better for Columbia?

Actually, a question to all non-Americans, why do you want 1 candidate or the other to win?

On November 02 2008 13:28 Frits wrote:


are they letting 10 year olds vote now

On November 02 2008 13:13 stk01001 wrote:


the there's no doubt here your either a raving fundementalist christian with a relgious right agenda or your an ignorant moron who thinks McCain is going to fix the huge amount of problems George Bush has caused. I'm guessing it's the second...

BTW.. have all you dumb McCain supporters realized that basically the entire rest of the world (at least 90%) is dying for us to vote in Obama to save the global economy?? We will be a laughingstock if we vote in McCain. No.. you guys are still right though... the entire rest of the world is a bunch of retards just like the left ... lol. It's sad but that's your attitude..

oh and did you know the Taliban endorsed McCain?? LOL... nice job voting for him..

On November 02 2008 16:21 ShadowDrgn wrote:
First TL Bob Barr vote? Not very libertarian around here...

On November 02 2008 09:27 Sadist wrote:



being liberal is a good thing

shows you are considerate of others =-) instead of a selfish pig.

On November 03 2008 07:02 shmay wrote:There is nothing considerate about taking other peoples' money to give it to others. Especially since that that act is usually performed to win votes for the taker.

On November 03 2008 07:43 HeadBangaa wrote:
I live in California. My vote doesn't count. I think Obama is an extreme leftist who markets himself to be mainstream. I think a lot of people fall for it. Still, he's better than McCain, the old fool. And his funny sidekick.

A lot of people I know, disenfranchised by living in California, are voting for a peripheral candidate. My family is voting the Independent. I was thinking of voting for the Consitutional Party candidate, whoever the fuck that is, because I like their platform.

On November 03 2008 07:42 shmay wrote:
Dude, what? You extrapolated a lot from those two sentences of mine.

Where did I say I supported Bush? Someone can hate both Republicans and Democrats, ya know?

And Obama has no plans to return to the spending in 2000 -- quite the opposite actually. If he did, I would support him fully.

On November 03 2008 07:43 HeadBangaa wrote:
I live in California. My vote doesn't count. I think Obama is an extreme leftist who markets himself to be mainstream. I think a lot of people fall for it. Still, he's better than McCain, the old fool. And his funny sidekick.

A lot of people I know, disenfranchised by living in California, are voting for a peripheral candidate. My family is voting the Independent. I was thinking of voting for the Consitutional Party candidate, whoever the fuck that is, because I like their platform.

On November 03 2008 07:43 HeadBangaa wrote:
I was thinking of voting for the Consitutional Party candidate, whoever the fuck that is, because I like their platform.

On November 03 2008 08:05 Mindcrime wrote:


You want to ban porn?

On November 03 2008 09:05 HeadBangaa wrote:

IXNAY ON THE CONSITUTIONAL PARTY.

On November 02 2008 03:39 Savio wrote:
Voted McCain. No doubts here.

On November 03 2008 08:57 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
Yes and with exit polls they're never going to broadcast on the news "Joe Schmoe of district 28 voted for Obama" and the end result is anonymous but I do believe in the anonymous ballot which means I never have to disclose who I voted for no matter the reason.

On November 03 2008 09:38 Mindcrime wrote:
I'm pro polygamy.

On November 03 2008 09:42 HeadBangaa wrote:

Why?

On November 03 2008 09:47 Mindcrime wrote:


Why not? It's not for me, but who am I to tell consenting adults what sort of relationships they should or should not form?

On November 03 2008 09:50 mindspike wrote:


Because most of the time from what I've seen its not consensual. Young girls are forced into it because they are raised within cult-like communities.

On November 03 2008 08:14 CultureMisfits wrote:
i was going to vote for Obama up until this point, but now i have decided to vote for McCain

On November 03 2008 09:34 HeadBangaa wrote:
Talking about Prop 8 (well, gay marriage in general ) is difficult to talk about without delving into the merits of some fundamentals of what marriage is, and why it exists at all.
+ Show Spoiler +

On November 03 2008 10:01 HeadBangaa wrote:
Mindcrime: Does your lack of concern for the stipulations of agreements between consenting adults also extend to the time commitment? In other words, I want to marry a girl for exactly 5 years. Why not?

(I suspect you are a marriage abolitionist at heart)

On November 03 2008 10:04 HeadBangaa wrote:
Mindcrime, I have to sign off for a while, so instead of going Socrates on you, I'll just point out that all tenets of marriage could be thrown out in the name of individualism, letting all people marry whoever/whatever/ for however long, rendering it a meaningless pact. You would turn marriage into nothing but a figurehead leftover from an expired culture. This is what I disdain.

I see this semantic realignment as a weakening attempt. When you broaden the definition that it can no longer be distinguished from casual dating, it's no longer significant. It is significant because it is exclusive.

On November 03 2008 10:30 Mindcrime wrote:


Marriage is meaningless without uniform restrictions? I'm not following you here.

On November 02 2008 09:27 Sadist wrote:



being liberal is a good thing

shows you are considerate of others =-) instead of a selfish pig.

On November 03 2008 09:34 HeadBangaa wrote:
Talking about Prop 8 (well, gay marriage in general ) is difficult to talk about without delving into the merits of some fundamentals of what marriage is, and why it exists at all.
+ Show Spoiler +

On November 03 2008 10:16 cava wrote:
I believe the exlusiveness of marriage is an important concept in Christian religion, but Christianity isnt the only religion and there is a seperation of church and state. I don't think that the government should support Christian specific marriage rules. I personally believe that if you want to get married in church, it should be seperate from the legal binding of two (or more if you argue for polygamy) individuals.

On November 02 2008 13:18 Ideas wrote:



I'm curious... how is McCain better for Columbia?

Actually, a question to all non-Americans, why do you want 1 candidate or the other to win?

On November 03 2008 11:24 Hawk wrote:


But what's the rate for divorces now in this country? It's somewhere like 50% or something ridiculous, correct (didn't fact check, but I know it's up there)? The nuclear family isn't as common as it was in the 40's, and I'm sure pretty much everyone who has posted in this thread knows several people who has family members that are divorced. It's not the sacred thing that it was back then, but most families still manage to get by ok, just with more work. And there's plenty of nuclear families that are fucked too.

On November 03 2008 14:11 -_- wrote:
So... even though I don't know if McCain would be better than Obama, I do hope he wins. Just to see the internet Obamatards go crazy. That would give me quite a bit of joy.

On November 03 2008 10:59 Savio wrote:
So, I'm wondering how you are going to back up your assertion that religion and conservatism are impediments to altruism....

On November 03 2008 14:11 -_- wrote:
I'm not going to vote. I think I'll skip my two classes and play video games for like twelve hours straight.

I just don't know who should win. Really, what both candidates are promising is basically the same. And when they disagree, I have no idea which plan is better. I took two courses in economics; who knows whether Obama's spending plan will save the economy.

I do find it funny how the 18-22 crowd somehow knows everything Obama says > what McCain says. You have no fucking clue, and I know that because I have no fucking clue. Oh yeah, If you're the one guy with the 3 PHDs in the prestigious academic area of Obama > McCain, ignore the above statement.

So... even though I don't know if McCain would be better than Obama, I do hope he wins. Just to see the internet Obamatards go crazy. That would give me quite a bit of joy. Schadenfreude at its finest, baby. Of course, that's not a good reason for voting for McCain. And McCain will get my state anyway (despite it being called a swing state by the media, seriously LOL at that).

On November 03 2008 14:44 cava wrote:


Even if your not an economic genious you can look at their moral character. Obama has run an intelligent, clean, and inspired campaign that focuses on supporting the vast majority of Americans. McCain on the other hand has picked a bimbo from Alaska as his running mate, and is also running a smear campaign against Obama that labels him as a terrorist. To me the choice is clear ... and Im not an economic mastermind either.

On November 03 2008 14:14 Savio wrote:


So very true. Agreed totally.

On November 03 2008 14:56 -_- wrote:


I'm not an arguing man, friend (as McCain would say!). And I hope you're reasonable person. I would ask you how you know Obama has run a clean campaign? Is that just how you feel? Is it his positive, issue focused ads? Is it the nice things he says about McCain's positions? I'm not trying to ask leading questions which will make you say Obama is a terrorist, I'm just wondering if you've really thought about it. Maybe you have.

I'm not going to tell you McCain is running a cleaner campaign than Obama. But I am going to ask you again do you really think Obama is running an intelligent, clean campaign (it is certainly an inspired one!)? If yes, congrats, you're more sure about this thing than I am. I'm sad to say I just don't see it as clearly as you.

As many people here will tell you, though, I'm dumb.

On November 03 2008 14:56 -_- wrote:


I'm not an arguing man, friend (as McCain would say!). And I hope you're reasonable person. I would ask you how you know Obama has run a clean campaign? Is that just how you feel? Is it his positive, issue focused ads? Is it the nice things he says about McCain's positions? I'm not trying to ask leading questions which will make you say Obama is a terrorist, I'm just wondering if you've really thought about it. Maybe you have.

I'm not going to tell you McCain is running a cleaner campaign than Obama. But I am going to ask you again do you really think Obama is running an intelligent, clean campaign (it is certainly an inspired one!)? If yes, congrats, you're more sure about this thing than I am. I'm sad to say I just don't see it as clearly as you.

As many people here will tell you, though, I'm dumb.

On November 03 2008 14:57 cava wrote:


The fact that you want someone to win just to get a reaction out of people is rediculous, I hope your not old enough to vote.

On November 03 2008 15:25 Savio wrote:


No, there are so many reasons to hope for Obama to lose. The whining is just perk.

On November 03 2008 12:45 HeadBangaa wrote:

The rest of your post is a great example of what I was saying: people conceptualize what marriage is in different ways. You see it as a religious construct, only, rather than an important vital societal insitution. This is why if we take your logic to its natural progression, you would have marriage absolved. Society rewards marriage because marriage rewards society. Marriage rewards society because kids raised by heterosexual parents have a higher potential for success. Kids raised in single-parent homes tend to be more fucked up, do more drugs, etc. Did you know the single most accurate predictor of a drug addiction among young males is the lack of a father? Psychological science is on my side here.

This is not a topic that should be argued from an ethical or civil rights perspective. It has nothing to do with ethics, no more than the color of grass being green, or the sky being blue.

On November 03 2008 15:25 Savio wrote:


No, there are so many reasons to hope for Obama to lose. The whining is just perk.

On November 03 2008 16:10 NastyMarine wrote:
If I see the Mccain vote go over 25 on tl.net I'll kill every single one of them ^^

On November 03 2008 10:59 Savio wrote:


So, in the election thread, someone once tried to say the same thing. Basically he said that "capitalism and conservatism are the opposite of altruism, they just promote greed and unacceptance respectively.."

This was my response to him and my response to you since you didn't back up your statement with anything:



Do a google search on whether Republicans or Democrats give more to charity. You will find that it is Republicans. Democrats are pretty generous with tax money taken by coercion, while Republicans tend to be more generous with their own money.

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

Excerpt:

"In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others."

"If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion," Mr. Brooks writes, "the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity."



And a map of the most generous state in the Union with red being "more generous":




Here is the outcome of the 2004 Presidential race:


Source: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/11/generosity_inde.html

According to this, 28 of the 29 "most generous" states are Red States that voted for President Bush (including all 25 of the "most generous" states)

While 17 of the 21 "least generous" states are Blue States that voted for Senator Kerry (including all 7 of the "least generous" states)

So, I'm wondering how you are going to back up your assertion that religion and conservatism are impediments to altruism....

On November 03 2008 22:56 CultureMisfits wrote:
One of the main reasons, i am voting for mccain is because most obama supporters scare me. Its like a blind cult following. In richmond, random vcu students come up to me, telling me i have to vote for obama. Then i tell them im still undecided, and they scoff me like i am dumb. then i see TL, and i see the same attitude, the same obama elitism. Obama is a politican like all the others, he is not a fucking martyr. This blind elitism toward one candidate is how tyrants come to power.

On November 03 2008 20:50 D10 wrote:
Doctorasul, they will say the same thing they say when we bring up the "all the world wants barack obama" subject.

Dont mess with my country, its mine, mineeeeeeeee and ill vote against baby killing gay lovin weed smoking liberal tax n spend liberals any day of the weak becaue all of you are socialist sissys who let your "intelligence" corrupt our sacred traditional values, like gun ownership!! (thinks about the kid who got shot while trick or treating with an assault rifle)

On November 04 2008 02:28 Savio wrote:
Yes, young college age Obama supporters are very scary.

On November 03 2008 22:56 CultureMisfits wrote:
One of the main reasons, i am voting for mccain is because most obama supporters scare me. Its like a blind cult following. In richmond, random vcu students come up to me, telling me i have to vote for obama. Then i tell them im still undecided, and they scoff me like i am dumb. then i see TL, and i see the same attitude, the same obama elitism. Obama is a politican like all the others, he is not a fucking martyr. This blind elitism toward one candidate is how tyrants come to power.

On November 04 2008 03:12 MYM.Testie wrote:


It isn't about elitism. It is about being informed.

On November 04 2008 03:42 MYM.Testie wrote:
1. Who cares? What are you fox news? Liberal in America is moderate in Europe. Get your head out of your ass and become a progressive European nation in some respects. Liberal isn't a bad word. Words that are often used to define liberal - progressive, forward thinking, tolerant, open-minded, does this sound like such a bad thing?

2. ANY major issue? Most people voted for the Iraq war... who didn't? That's a pretty major issue. And surely provides deeper insight than those who voted for it because it was the political safe thing to do at the time.

3. Obama has grown a lot in this campaign. He is his own man running the show, and has learned from his past and is eager about implementing his ideas about the future. Before this campaign he was already a better candidate, as it nears it end, he shows impeccable character with impeccable judgment. See the article of him talking to General Patraeus. He puts his foot down now.

4. What?

5. In this election, it's about philosophies and the correct mindset. Obama has it. McCain has been bought off by corporate interests. He does not. His slogan isn't, "country first" it will be "my rich endorsements & friends first".

How do you justify a VP pick like that. I recall you thinking she did fine during the debates. Maybe you think she did fine during the questions in the interviews too. Seriously... you cannot have a country first slogan when if something happens to you, you leave the country with a moron.

McCain supporters are both misinformed, nor do they vote rationally. That fact is the scariest thing about politics. That someone can cut off the logical - rational - common sense part of their brains and go to the polls to vote.

If Obama wins, I wouldn't want to see you whine like you want to see the democrats whine. It isn't about teams, as I said before. I would prefer to see you change your mind and listen to the voice of logic and rationale.

On November 03 2008 23:05 a-game wrote:

a valid point, but if i may be frank, a rather silly way of choosing your candidate.

shouldn't you be focusing on what the candidate will do in office? their policies and qualifications etc?

On November 03 2008 23:05 MYM.Tesite wrote:

It isn't about elitism. It is about being informed. Given all the information we could have on both candidates, the VP pick alone should scream out to you, 'WOAH SHIT.' Let alone that Obama seems better on every single issue you can name, and has handled every single thing in a far more professional, presidential manner.

The thing is, even if it boils down to Obama being completely full of shit, there's a chance he's not. A chance he will do this country far better than the other candidate, who has basically been bought off and will not serve the country first.

Your post did not deserve a serious reply in all honesty. It deserved, "How uninformed are you to honestly be undecided?" They aren't scoffing necessarily at stupidity, but from their mind it seems you are unaware of the differences of the candidates and cannot fathom how you can be undecided in so important an election.

One candidate - McCain - has been completely bought off. A corporate puppet that will help his rich friends before he helps other people. See G.W. Bush for details.
Even if the same is true for Obama, even if he were a puppet or corporate shill, he would be the best thing for your country given your two choices. The difference is, there is truly a big chance he isn't.

Even in the most cynical of situations as described above, the rest of the world is honestly amazed that the Republicans can get people to vote against their own interests.

Seriously, the VP pick alone seals it. Obama's pick, Biden, is nearly a perfect complement to him as Biden is the man on foreign affairs. It covers Obama's weaknesses and in the event something happens to him, Biden can run the country far better than the last president I would imagine. In McCains case, you have Palin. This know-nothing character, who is being taught about what the VP does (and getting it wrong), who is so uninformed about everything that she doesn't make gaffs, she makes genuine errors on any issue she is asked about... which is being generous. Because she doesn't know any issues. She literally knows nothing and is in far over her head.

Most people voting for Obama aren't on the 'blue team'.
People voting for McCain are most definitely on the 'red team'.
And it's not a game, and I hate it when Republicans think it is.

On November 04 2008 04:41 Jumperer wrote:
based on my experience of surfing over forums all over the internet. I can safely say that all mccain supporters are logically retarded in some way or another. It is nearly impossible to defeat them in an argument because they are disconnected from the reality. Another thing I notice is that they all tend to use color or bold their text and/or underline or make their font bigger than normal in their forum posting. A little bit odd and weird, but i guess that's what they do to make a point.

So in conclusion, mccain supporters are about as smart as people who believe that fastest require more skill than normal SC.

So how do we fight off these idiots? it's simple, give them exactly what they want, VOTE FOR MCCAIN. Let him run this country into the ground and ruin the US's world standing for four more year.

By 2012, the republicans party should be dead, and with it, the politics of fear and hatred.

DO YOU WANT TO KILL OFF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY? VOTE FOR MCCAIN.

1. Obama campaigns as a moderate, but has had one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.

On November 04 2008 04:53 Jumperer wrote:


Mccain ran a 100% negative campaign and obama ran based on bringing the country together, hope, and change. NO WAIT, nothing really matters, lets just vote for the white guy because history of the american culture says so.

On November 04 2008 05:24 CultureMisfits wrote:
Sadist, i didn't say increase, i said preserve fundamental liberties.

Gay marriage , stem cell, abortion are obviously not fundamental, they are new concepts. And in progressing these ideas, i think liberalism is good, but to say liberalism is good in all aspects of freedom and liberty is just plain wrong.

On November 04 2008 05:34 CultureMisfits wrote:
I am not for liberalism nor for conservatism. I think they are both good in certain areas and that we need both. Conservatism is not as bad as you say, it keeps liberalism in check. We need to have conservatism to preserve the republic and keep this country from turning into a socialist or communist state.

And you think constant change and improving is always good? heh. Too much change at a rapid state is a catalyst for a revolution and anarchy.

On November 03 2008 15:55 IdrA wrote:
ya having read your first post the entire problem is you seem to think raising children and marriage has to go hand in hand.

On November 04 2008 04:53 Jumperer wrote:
2. john mccain of 2000 disagree.

On November 02 2008 05:00 Senx wrote:
It will suck that the racists will probably murder him within the first year...

On November 04 2008 06:45 Jumperer wrote:


if non nonpartisan facts-based website arn't credible, then what is? But yea, the plan is terrible for "small businesses who make 250,000 or MORE", but better as a whole for the country. Plus, there are not enough small businesses making over 250k to affect the jobs pool.

Let's face it, nobody like new taxes, but the country is 4564654654 trillion dollars in debt and something has to be done to help balance the budget deficit and support the middle class.

Mccain tax cut = make everyone happy = more vote but bad for the country.

Plus Mccain admitted it himself in the prelim that he doesn't know anything about the economy.





nope, i was just applying your flawed logic, what they say doesnt matters, their policies don't matter. Let's just vote based on flawed view of history and tradition.

WHY GO 1RAXCC WHEN BOXER WAS DOING IT ONE BASE DROPSHIP STYLE. WAIT, NOTHING MATTERS SO WHY SHOULD IT MATTER?

On November 04 2008 06:39 HeadBangaa wrote:

Yes.

On November 04 2008 11:20 Choros wrote:
A part of me wants McCain to win because that will inevitably lead to the catastrophic implosion of the American economy and the death of the American empire. Perhaps then these crazy people with there destructive economic policies will shut up once and for all. If Obama wins they will continue to put pressure on people to do the ridiculously inept.

On November 04 2008 06:45 Hans-Titan wrote:


Wow... I could've almost have seen myself vote for McCain 2000. Jesus man, what has happened to him in the last 8 years?

On November 02 2008 13:18 Ideas wrote:



I'm curious... how is McCain better for Columbia?

Actually, a question to all non-Americans, why do you want 1 candidate or the other to win?

On November 04 2008 11:22 Empyrean wrote:


Do you realize how bad it would be for the world if the American economy were to be destroyed?

On November 04 2008 11:12 IdrA wrote:

did you read the rest of my post that.. you know.. explains how you're wrong?

so basically either way you're wrong, and a bit of a closed minded prude.

On November 03 2008 15:55 IdrA wrote:

gay parenting and gay marriage are different things, you may have a point about gay parenting and it definitely needs to held under close scrutiny, in case it does have an adverse impact on the kids.

but what rationale is there for denying gay marriage? it IS a civil rights issue. theyre being denied equal treatment because the idea of 2 men having sex makes you and a bunch of stuffy old politicians feel icky inside.

ya having read your first post the entire problem is you seem to think raising children and marriage has to go hand in hand. there is nothing that says a married couple (or group) has to be allowed to raise children. we could allow anyone who wants to get married and only allow male/female couples to raise children.

although given that we allowed single parenting and underaged girls to have/keep children, plus just generally unqualified parents, i think its kinda retarded to prevent a stable gay couple from raising children.

On November 04 2008 12:02 HeadBangaa wrote:

You never engaged me on my points at all, you simply offered your own opinion. I'll debunk it for you at the end of this post. =]


I never said anything prudish, I've been very fact-oriented here. You are taking a wild stab at my feelings about homosexuality. Didn't your mother tell you about making assumptions?
+ Show Spoiler +

As promised:


What are you saying? Why do gay people need to be under close scrutiny around children? Are you a bigot, Idra? Defend this notion, and don't use my post as a premise, because you said I'm wrong.

You show here that you didn't read my post at all, because this was the EXACT topic of my post.

If someone is born gay, presumably they will only court people of the same sex. The consequence is that they will never be able to embody, as a single spousal unit, the complete expression of mankind, that is, our sexes, both man and woman. And consequently, they won't be able to provide the ideal context for raising children. And the ideal merits distinction, even if it's not a necessity.

Gay parents are obviously better than no parents. But it's not ideal.

It's just a natural, non-imposed consequence of being gay. Just like the consequence of me being 5'9" means I'll never get to be a basketball player. If the teams are desperate for players (just as babies are desperate for parents) then yeah, having me on the team is better than nobody, but that's it.
Just like grass is green, and the sky is blue. Do you see why the concept of fairness isn't applicable, at least from my viewpoint?

You are still drawing a line on "gay rights". You're just drawing it somewhere else, ie, you are still saying that gay couples aren't equal to straight couples. The rainbow coalition agenda is agnosticism towards sexuality. You are still a bigot in their eyes.

Ok. I agree that single parents and underaged girls are under-qualified. That doesn't make gay couples more qualified. The comparison is garbage anyways: 'single-parents', and underrage mothers' are inherently negative categories; nobody aspires to be in those situations. Gay partnership is actively sought out.

And if a single parent gets married, or the girl grows up and finds a father figure, the situation could be improved.

Man, every single-parent female I know is desperately trying to find papa bear. I can't not believe that that's not built in genetically. (triple negative grammar!)

On November 03 2008 21:09 kemoryan wrote:
Are Obama and McCain the only candidates? All I see is everyone discuss about these two... USA is a country of 300 million inhabitants, how can 2 single guys represent the ideology of so much freaking people.

I'll never understand how can people consider this a democracy. Where is the 'demo' part of it?

All MEN/WOMEN are born equal.

On November 04 2008 06:45 Hans-Titan wrote:


Wow... I could've almost have seen myself vote for McCain 2000. Jesus man, what has happened to him in the last 8 years?

On November 04 2008 12:02 HeadBangaa wrote:

You never engaged me on my points at all, you simply offered your own opinion. I'll debunk it for you at the end of this post. =]

I never said anything prudish, I've been very fact-oriented here. You are taking a wild stab at my feelings about homosexuality. Didn't your mother tell you about making assumptions?
+ Show Spoiler +

As promised:


What are you saying? Why do gay people need to be under close scrutiny around children? Are you a bigot, Idra? Defend this notion, and don't use my post as a premise, because you said I'm wrong.

You show here that you didn't read my post at all, because this was the EXACT topic of my post.

If someone is born gay, presumably they will only court people of the same sex. The consequence is that they will never be able to embody, as a single spousal unit, the complete expression of mankind, that is, our sexes, both man and woman. And consequently, they won't be able to provide the ideal context for raising children. And the ideal merits distinction, even if it's not a necessity.

It's just a natural, non-imposed consequence of being gay. Just like the consequence of me being 5'9" means I'll never get to be a basketball player. If the teams are desperate for players (just as babies are desperate for parents) then yeah, having me on the team is better than nobody, but that's it.
Just like grass is green, and the sky is blue. Do you see why the concept of fairness isn't applicable, at least from my viewpoint?

You are still drawing a line on "gay rights". You're just drawing it somewhere else, ie, you are still saying that gay couples aren't equal to straight couples. The rainbow coalition agenda is agnosticism towards sexuality. You are still a bigot in their eyes.

Ok. I agree that single parents and underaged girls are under-qualified. That doesn't make gay couples more qualified. The comparison is garbage anyways: 'single-parents', and underrage mothers' are inherently negative categories; nobody aspires to be in those situations. Gay partnership is actively sought out.

And if a single parent gets married, or the girl grows up and finds a father figure, the situation could be improved.

Man, every single-parent female I know is desperately trying to find papa bear. I can't not believe that that's not built in genetically. (triple negative grammar!)

i engaged your points by pointing out that they were founded on an illogical assumption (that allowing gays to marry automatically grants them the right to raise children)

On November 04 2008 16:55 IdrA wrote:
i dont buy your 'ideal family unit' argument...i dont care. leave that up to sociological studies and whatnot.

Ahh, at least your posts make sense now.

On November 04 2008 18:24 D10 wrote:
Being from a family with a history of divorces and etc... Id say, marrige is a bunch of traditional bullocks.

Yes, you can count me as one of the liberals who wants to end marriage, i have nothing against it, but when i see people using "tradition" as the reason to keep gays from having equal civil rights, to me its absurd.

Okay, maybe they should not get married in a church with flowers and dresses and etc... but to me that should be up to the institution, not something federal, they have all the right to make a civil union anyway they like.

On November 04 2008 18:12 Wysp wrote:
what is the deciding factor in the decision to disallow gay people to adopt children? This is the question you wish to clash on

On November 03 2008 10:59 Savio wrote:
Do a google search on whether Republicans or Democrats give more to charity. You will find that it is Republicans. Democrats are pretty generous with tax money taken by coercion, while Republicans tend to be more generous with their own money.

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

And a map of the most generous state in the Union with red being "more generous":



Here is the outcome of the 2004 Presidential race:


Source: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/11/generosity_inde.html

On November 04 2008 16:21 OhThatDang wrote:



that girl looked like such a bitch

On November 04 2008 18:45 IdrA wrote:

no it isnt. the question we clash on is gay marriage. he believes gay couples make less than ideal parents which is a mark against gay marriage(but only because it perverts the concept of heterosexual marriage, not for any meaningful reason). i do not know or care if they make good parents because i believe it is irrelevant to whether or not they should be allowed to marry.

On November 04 2008 17:51 IdrA wrote:
the problem with that is that the sole purpose of marriage is not its role in the nuclear family and child rearing. marriage also has personal, social, and legal significance. those trump the connection marriage has to the nuclear family because it will have absolutely no practical affect on that given that, as you said, gay couples can already adopt. how on earth is the idea of marriage extending to include gay couples going to affect the functioning of the nuclear family in society? its not like all the straight guys are gonna be like 'fuck this we can go marry other guys now!' and abandon their wives and children.

the closed minded and christian conservative comments were off hand remarks that nothing to do with my arguments, i addressed everything you said, i dismissed things because they were wrong, not because of my perception of your general beliefs.

i did address it, i misinterpreted how you were using the argument,i thought you were worried that gay marriage would lead to more gay couples raising children, which may or may not be a bad thing. the fact that you're just worried about the idea of marriage being perverted is significantly more ridiculous and meaningless. but either way it is meaningless. it does come down to a civil rights issue. gay peoples right to equal treatment outweighs your right to think of marriage as a union between a man and a women, given that that whether or not the concept of marriage includes gays or not does not affect the real world in the slightest.

ironically that means you dont understand what i was saying at all. my whole point was that the ideal family unit is entirely irrelevant because this is a wholly seperate issue.

On November 04 2008 21:42 IdrA wrote:
what is wrong with you
being a fundamentalist includes illiteracy now?

you have not responded to this:

you are the one "dodging"

and no it is not a dodge to refuse to debate the quality of gay parenting, neither of us have any factual support for our stances, i refuse to base judgement off of whether or not 2 men having sex makes me feel uncomfortable. that is not a point in your favor. blither on about the nuclear family all you want, its entirely irrelevant to gay marriage. which is what we're discussing.

On November 04 2008 17:15 Not_Computer wrote:
Ah, this is such a touchy topic I don't know how to go about it without being offending to someone out there. But here's my opinion:

Garriage.

It's not "marriage" but it's just as special. In fact, its so special that it's not the same word as marriage! The couple are still entitled to all the nuts and bolts of marriage but adjusted appropriately so that its for the same sex.

There's still that special union, still that special pact, still the same expectations of domestic abuse and divorce (though actually Garriage would probably have statistically lower of these). Now you won't have to worry about uncivilized and uneducated co-workers asking you who your "wife" is if you're married to your husband and vice versa. You won't have to hear all the religious cries about how it's crossing over into the holy matrimony of the pencil being put into the pencil sharpener and how putting the pencil tip on the eraser end is a sin.

Sure it isn't what most homosexuals are after, but why do we have to change the definition for something that's existed for so many centuries and millenia.

(note: not to be confused with "garage".)

On November 04 2008 22:08 HeadBangaa wrote:

bigot.

On November 04 2008 18:12 Wysp wrote:
what is the deciding factor in the decision to disallow gay people to adopt children? This is the question you wish to clash on, but you haven't even clashed on it yet. I want to see some blood spilled by your guys' clashing of generalizations and psychological theories on why this is appropriate or inappropriate.

I'll look for scientific studies though, peer verified, of course.

On November 04 2008 15:30 mindspike wrote:
For CultureMisfits - Yes Palin is that stupid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FbJv8gnFsk

On November 04 2008 23:12 CultureMisfits wrote:


well.... i did admit she is pretty stupid, and i must admit its hard to defend her haha....

On November 04 2008 22:18 HeadBangaa wrote:
I'm being facetious, relax.

Actually I completely agree with this guy (from some blog):



I thought about it, and my main problem is with the semantic change. I think it's culturally coercive. Give that type of union its own name, and voila, I'm a happy camper.

On November 05 2008 03:20 XoXiDe wrote:
i voted early, convinced my brother to go vote early, and my sister just called me and she voted today, she was still undecided till today but decided in favor of obama to give him a chance. unfortunately we live in texas and 20% of texas think obama is a muslim still including some of my relatives lol.

On November 05 2008 03:25 XoXiDe wrote:
HAHA, well still haven't convinced my mom (hillary supporter) to vote obama, she probably will not go vote today, at least i know she won't vote for mccain