[edit: TODAY IS THE ELECTION GO FORTH AND EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO DEMOCRACY]
Here's an official TL.net exit poll.
IF you have not voted yet, do not answer the poll until you have actually cast your ballot. Thank you.
Poll: Who did you vote for in the US Presidential Election? (Vote): Barack Obama (Vote): John McCain (Vote): Bob Barr (Vote): Ralph Nader (Vote): Other (Vote): I'm not an american citizen/ineligible to vote.
On November 02 2008 03:44 jello_biafra wrote: I expect McCain to win.
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 03:44 jello_biafra wrote: I expect McCain to win.
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!
All the red-necks with guns love him. They will NOT like Obama.
On November 02 2008 03:44 jello_biafra wrote: I expect McCain to win.
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.
being liberal is a good thing
shows you are considerate of others =-) instead of a selfish pig.
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!
All the red-necks with guns love him. They will NOT like Obama.
They still are no match for the secret service. Period.
A lot of people have tried to assassinate presidents, (at least two have attempted to assassinate Obama so far) but very, very few have ever succeeded, or even got past the planning stage.
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 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.
Well, Secret service agents spend about half the year working and the other half training military style, so they are the cream of the crop in that respect. Idk, they just learn to read people and respond quickly with excess force if something looks like it is about to go down.
Waited 3 and a half hours to vote for Barack Obama yesterday (have to vote early as WCG flies me out on Tuesday to Germany for Asphalt 4).
My g/f and I just finally put out our Barack Obama sign about half an hour ago as well. The part of Georgia I live in has many people very pro-McCain with a very conservative moral belief, and as we just started living together (unmarried) over a month ago, I didn't want to cause us unneeded headaches with the neighbors. However........ a bunch of republicans stole or destroyed most of the few Obama signs in town today and I just can't do nothing when others are playing dirty.
On November 02 2008 09:39 Ideas wrote: Voted Obama in GA, but I doubt he can take my state :\
Obama is only about 3 percentage points down, so it is possible if enough of his supporters do show up and vote throughout the state ( http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard ).
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.
Reading a Tom clancy or similar book is probably the best response to this.
More specifically, they can do some easy things, like make sure all of the rooftops in the area are covered, make sure the podium is bulletproof, make sure obama is sitting in the second row/ in a more sheltered location, etc. They can also do some of the harder things, like make sure that everyone in a stadium who gets to see obama goes through a metal detector, and make sure that some crazy people don't try to blow up the whole stadium (bomb sniffing dogs and the like).
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.
The guys who 'attempted' to assassinate Obama so far were a mix of morons, drug addicts and loose tongues. When more clever people that that start giving it a go, the Secret Service will get truly tested.
On November 02 2008 03:39 Savio wrote: Voted McCain. No doubts here.
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 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.
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 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.
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?
90% of the rest of the world would vote for Obama...its not even close. There's a few countries where the majority support McCain but you can count them on 1 hand.
On November 02 2008 03:39 Savio wrote: Voted McCain. No doubts here.
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 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.
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?
Both the Democrats and the Republicans would be considered far right in most other countries. Since Obama is to the left of McCain his policies are closer to those of the rest of the world.
On November 02 2008 03:39 Savio wrote: Voted McCain. No doubts here.
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..
are they letting 10 year olds vote now
yeah Bush passed the law, it will help mccain get elected.
On Topic: I voted for Obama by absentee ballot in NJ
On November 02 2008 03:39 Savio wrote: Voted McCain. No doubts here.
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..
I would like to vote libertarian, but Bob Barr is such a fucking stupid choice for a libertarian candidate. I don't know what the fuck they were thinking.
On November 02 2008 03:44 jello_biafra wrote: I expect McCain to win.
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.
being liberal is a good thing
shows you are considerate of others =-) instead of a selfish pig.
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 07:02 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.
I agree fully with this! Republican policies of socialism for loses in the top 1% must stop, and I'm tired of them taking my money to support that 1% when they make bad decisions. Not to mention all that debt from the lower taxes along with drunken Republican spending that will force much higher taxes in a few years just to pay the interest....
A return to the approximate tax rate and spending in 2000 is a good thing, and stopping the socialism is why I voted for Obama. That is what you meant, right?
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 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.
If you think Obama is mis-marketing himself why would you think the Constitutional Party would do any different? Platform is only a small part of what you need to consider. Its about who can best execute leadership and bring people together to accomplish things and when you look at it that way there is no better person than Obama.
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.
Ah, the original nested quote you replied to was for McCain to win / Obama to lose, so I assumed it meant you were for McCain (no idea where you got Bush from.... McCain has proposed spending far beyond what Bush is doing, and hence I was only referring to him in my post). If you aren't replying to the whole argument you are quoting, then cut that part out in the future. :p My apologies for misunderstanding.
I've been indifferent about elections in the United States since 2000 (when I was mildly in favour of Bush.) In 2004 both candidates were terrible and between the two evils I was slightly Kerry-leaning. Now in 2008 both the candidates are so bad I am unable to lean even remotely either way.
Headbangaa: The man you want is Chuck Baldwin, who would get my endorsement, as if that mattered.
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.
You should vote for the propositions however, even if your vote doesn't really count for the president.
I'm technically an independent, but i voted for Obama.
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.
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 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 07:43 HeadBangaa wrote: I was thinking of voting for the Consitutional Party candidate, whoever the fuck that is, because I like their platform.
You want to ban porn?
IXNAY ON THE CONSITUTIONAL PARTY.
There is a powa farrrrr worse than the Republicans!
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.
I don't see anyone forcing you to vote in the poll, so uh, what's the problem?
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 +
First off, I'm voting Yes (no gay marriage). I've had exhaustive debates (one was 2 hours long) with my liberal friends on this, who view it as a civil rights issue. They believe that, all people have an inherent right to marry whomever they want. Each and every person, I was able to whittle them down to acknowledging that marriage is inherently exclusive, rather than inclusive (eg, why not polygamy, too?) and then they admit that marriage should probably be absolved anyways. It's kind of scary seeing that conservatives are correct, in that such liberals do want to undermine marriage, a construct which I see as the most essential context of socialization of children. I see the nuclear family as ideal and meriting preservation.
If George W. Bush, John McCain, or Barack Obama had any honesty and integrity, they would approach the current banking malady in much the same way that President Andrew Jackson did. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said, "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."
-- excerpt from Chuck Baldwin's website (pretty good articles actually)
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)
mindspike: Do not confuse polygamy with pedophilia/incest (why do people always do this). We are talking about, let's say, 3 consenting adults. Who are you to tell them they can't be married?
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 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 +
First off, I'm voting Yes (no gay marriage). I've had exhaustive debates (one was 2 hours long) with my liberal friends on this, who view it as a civil rights issue. They believe that, all people have an inherent right to marry whomever they want. Each and every person, I was able to whittle them down to acknowledging that marriage is inherently exclusive, rather than inclusive (eg, why not polygamy, too?) and then they admit that marriage should probably be absolved anyways. It's kind of scary seeing that conservatives are correct, in that such liberals do want to undermine marriage, a construct which I see as the most essential context of socialization of children. I see the nuclear family as ideal and meriting preservation.
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?
If both parties agree to that going in, I have no problem with it.
(I suspect you are a marriage abolitionist at heart)
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.
If I was american I'd vote for a third party. The stranglehold the democrats and the republicans have on US politics is really sad imo. Especially when you see people say that they won't vote for someone else because "it won't make a difference".
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.
Marriage is meaningless without uniform restrictions? I'm not following you here.
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.
Marriage is meaningless without uniform restrictions? I'm not following you here.
well marriage is kind of an arbitrary line. but i dont think allowing gay marriage is a problem unless we are all robots who can't think critically about certain situations. brb marrying rock.
On November 02 2008 03:44 jello_biafra wrote: I expect McCain to win.
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.
being liberal is a good thing
shows you are considerate of others =-) instead of a selfish pig.
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.
"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:
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 +
First off, I'm voting Yes (no gay marriage). I've had exhaustive debates (one was 2 hours long) with my liberal friends on this, who view it as a civil rights issue. They believe that, all people have an inherent right to marry whomever they want. Each and every person, I was able to whittle them down to acknowledging that marriage is inherently exclusive, rather than inclusive (eg, why not polygamy, too?) and then they admit that marriage should probably be absolved anyways. It's kind of scary seeing that conservatives are correct, in that such liberals do want to undermine marriage, a construct which I see as the most essential context of socialization of children. I see the nuclear family as ideal and meriting preservation.
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.
As for the children, there's plenty of ways to look at this. A lot of research has indicated that there's some kind of gay gene. I wouldn't dare flat out say that having two gay parents might influence you to a degree, but I'm inclined to believe that most humans are genetically programed to hump and pass their seed with the opposite sex. Plus, even if I'm completely wrong on that, do you completely agree with your parents on everything? Do everything that they do?
Now I'm not saying that marriage should be absolved at all. That's something that each couple should decide on their own whether it's for them or not. All I'm saying that the whole concept of it as some kind of exclusive thing for just heteros and gays will dick it up is way, wayyyyyy off base.
I don't get where the confusion is with polygamy later in this thread, but that's just having more than one spouse? While I personally wouldn't want it (who in their right mind would want to get bitched at by two women and have twice the responibilities?) why shouldn't it be allowed? If the dude can financially and emotionally afford to run two families, why the hell not? As long as all parties are consenting--no arranged marriages or any shit like that--knock yourself out. Keep marriage defined as being done by two consenting adults, you don't have anyone marrying rocks or kids or shit like that.
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.
What this guy said too.
And also, and I think this is a big one, is the legal rights that come with marriage. If one gay is a teacher or something with healthcare that covers the family, and his live-in, non-married boyfriend gets deathly ill and doesn't have coverage, then what? That's a fact of life man, plenty of people have benefits that extend to the family. If your gay partner is on his deathbed and living on a resperator, you can't decide what to do, even if you've lived with them for 20 years. No spouse, no decision. The only way is a living will. There's a whole lot of other things that fall under this area too.
And most of all, it's the government coming in and making a decision for two consenting adults on something that won't effect anyone else.
Side question: what's the public perception out there? Is it looking like it's gonna pass?
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.
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?
Personally, it's because I believe Obama is not as indoctrinated as McCain is. The current "us vs the world" stance that the U.S. has taken is, well, bullshit and unfair. Barack comes from a disadvantaged background and, most importantly, is black. This will mean that he understands prejudice and what it feels like to be prejudiced against. In that sense, I'm hoping that THIS side of him stops all the warring.
However, I don't think either will make the difference. The USA is not governed by publicly elected officials. It's governed by men with big wallets who try to push their own interests to the forefront. It's kind of gay, because democracy and capitalism are such GREAT ideas, but (like everything else) they're prone to abuse at the hands of a few (who spoil it for the many). Hence, I'm very skeptical that the election of either candidate will fix ANYTHING.
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 +
First off, I'm voting Yes (no gay marriage). I've had exhaustive debates (one was 2 hours long) with my liberal friends on this, who view it as a civil rights issue. They believe that, all people have an inherent right to marry whomever they want. Each and every person, I was able to whittle them down to acknowledging that marriage is inherently exclusive, rather than inclusive (eg, why not polygamy, too?) and then they admit that marriage should probably be absolved anyways. It's kind of scary seeing that conservatives are correct, in that such liberals do want to undermine marriage, a construct which I see as the most essential context of socialization of children. I see the nuclear family as ideal and meriting preservation.
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.
High divorce rates means that marriage and nuclear family is not ideal? Or is it that we have a culture preoccupied with immediate satiation and encouraging a short attention span? I could enumerate cultural problems, but they don't mean anything without a causal relationship. You analysis lacks causal relationship, too.
Humans are dexterous beings; we can survive most any condition. Look at African tribes, how they live.
But the nuclear family is ideal. A mother and father can bring to the socialization process what two fathers or two mothers cannot. It is in the best interest of children to have role models for both sexes, and this is a product of our biological evolution. The nuclear family has the highest potential for rearing healthy adults to perpetuate society. No amount of "semantic destruction int he name of tolerance" can change that.
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.
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 14:11 -_- 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....
I'm going to show you a source that I found on my first try in google that paints a different picture.
Click on the map at the bottom and you'll see the ranking for each state. I didn't run statistics on it but there are quite a few red states at the bottom of the ranking.
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).
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 14:11 -_- 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).
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.
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 14:11 -_- 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.
So very true. Agreed totally.
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 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).
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.
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.
Obama has had the chance to attack McCain on several things, for example the McCain campaign has attacked Obama for being associated with Rachid Kaliti (sp?), a Palestinian Liberation supporter, and giving him around $38 thousand. Obama could call him out on the fact that McCain himself has givin the man around $500 thousand. Another thing is Palin is still under scrutiny about the Troopergate situation, and Obama has taken the high road and not speculated that she might indeed be guilty. There are many more examples with things like how McCain is running a 100% negative ad campaign while Obama had only a 34% negative ad campaign ... thats what I came up with on the top of my head.
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).
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.
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.
Its not hard to figure out who has run the more negative campaign. All you have to do is count. The McCain campaign has campaigned on false accusations. All you have to do is turn on the tv and when they're not calling Obama a socialist they are calling him a terrorist (palin famously said that Obama "pals around with terrorists".
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.
So very true. Agreed totally.
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.
No, there are so many reasons to hope for Obama to lose. The whining is just perk.
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.
So very true. Agreed totally.
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.
No, there are so many reasons to hope for Obama to lose. The whining is just perk.
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 +
First off, I'm voting Yes (no gay marriage). I've had exhaustive debates (one was 2 hours long) with my liberal friends on this, who view it as a civil rights issue. They believe that, all people have an inherent right to marry whomever they want. Each and every person, I was able to whittle them down to acknowledging that marriage is inherently exclusive, rather than inclusive (eg, why not polygamy, too?) and then they admit that marriage should probably be absolved anyways. It's kind of scary seeing that conservatives are correct, in that such liberals do want to undermine marriage, a construct which I see as the most essential context of socialization of children. I see the nuclear family as ideal and meriting preservation.
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.
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.
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. just imagine 2 hot lesbians having sex when you think of gay marriage, that'll make this whole issue go away.
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 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.
So very true. Agreed totally.
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.
No, there are so many reasons to hope for Obama to lose. The whining is just perk.
You can hope all you want but its not going to happen. The intrade price for a Dem presidency is at its highest levels for Obama (almost 90%). Fivethirtyeight.com has the likelihood even higher - 94%.
Its gonna be a landslide and its a testament to the well crafted campaign that Obama has run compared to the erratic one that McCain has run. McCain suspending his campaign for a day as a publicity stunt during the financial crisis and then choosing a VP that hes only met a couple of times in his entire life are two of the biggest mistakes. Obama on the flipside has built a well-oiled campaign from the ground up. There is no question as to who is the better leader.
Voted absentee in California for Nader. Obama has poor positions on foreign policy, privacy, and gov't spending.
Even for a republican, McCain is a terrible candidate. Although they are somewhat similar, i'm really hoping Obama wins.
CA Prop 8 is ridiculous. It injects religious ideas and discrimination into the state constitution. If you conservatives really care that much about "protecting marriage", feel free to create an anti-gay church or something, but leave the rest of the modern world alone. Most of the christians I know are voting no on it. The government has no role in saying which adults can marry and which can't.
The world laughs at McCain supporters in the US. Except it's not funny at all, since you're voting all of our futures away. Looks like 76 Nobel prize laureates agree with this, but hey, what do they know, right?
I'm curious what the spin will be on this endorsement. Is science a liberal conspiracy? Are the intellectual elites just not smart enough to understand your brilliant arguments for voting Republican? I'd love for McCain supporters here to read the letter and then post their rebuttal. This is your chance to show 76 Nobel prize winners wrong in one swoop.
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)
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?
On November 02 2008 03:44 jello_biafra wrote: I expect McCain to win.
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.
being liberal is a good thing
shows you are considerate of others =-) instead of a selfish pig.
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.
"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:
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....
ive already seen your post, I dont think giving to charity for tax breaks makes a person considerate to others. If you were considerate to others youd let them be on their own social issues since they dont affect you and not dictate your religious doctrine to them. Just because gay marriage is allowed doesnt mean you have to be gay and burn in hell, and just because stem cell research and abortion is allowed doesnt mean you need to go to the doctor.
Not to mention, I didnt read all of the article you posted, because I went over it in the other thread, but if you give money to your church for a tithe or handout or whatever, does that count as a gift to charity?
BTW if more restrictions are placed on stem cell research in this country, people are going to be fucking pissed in 10-15 years when they need to fly to europe or asia to get treatment on their spinal cord or other ailments, but no one fucking thinks about that do they?
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 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.
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 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)
we're gonna vote mccain just to piss you off you're really rather obnoxious and condescending in these election threads, valid points or not.
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.
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 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.
It isn't about elitism. It is about being informed.
I don't buy the informed argument.
Obama supporters are "informed" even though:
1. Obama campaigns as a moderate, but has had one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.
2. Obama campaigns on unity yet has never broken with his party's hard line on ANY major issue. He isn't exactly a Bill Clinton.
3. Obama says that he will be a leader, and yet he has consistently deffered to party leaders and done exactly what he was pressured to do. Every politician feels pressure from his party leaders. Some, who are brave, are willing/able to withstand the pressure and others buckle and do what they say.
4. Obama says he will be decisive, and yet votes present a large percentage of time rather than take a stand on something that could bite him later.
5. Obama says he will change Washington, the world, and everything. Yet he has never achieved anything in the past to suggest he is capable of changing ANYTHING. If Giuliani said he would change Washington, that would mean something because he changed NY--which isn't easy. But when Obama says it, it is just empty words.
Seems like Obama supporters, rather than being "informed" are really just "gullible".
Compare McCain against each of these points:
1. Moderate record?--For almost 30 years....YES. Cosponsors bills (on major issues BTW--not baby issues like Obama), with TED KENNEDY for goodness sake.
2. Broken with his party even under intense pressure?--that is his defining characteristic. And on MAJOR issues (Global Warming, GITMO, Immigration, etc--not just on baby issues).
3. Withstands party leaders and leads on his own?--Yes...for decades.
4. Takes stands or votes "present"?--If he is anything he is decisive. See his support for the surge.
5. Reliable source of change?--Imagine if Obama says he will cut pork spending and McCain says he will cut pork spending? Who do you believe more? Of course McCain. And THAT would be a BIG change away from Washington culture.
"I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
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 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.
Good post, and the first point about liberal meaning progressive, forward thinking, tolerant, and open-minded is one I try to get across to people all the time.
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.
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?
Well, i certainly agree with you that you should judge base on one's policies and qualifications, I did not intend to come off as a shallow voter. Before i came to my recent decision of picking McCain, i was leaning towards Obama, but overall still undecided. I agreed with McCain and Obama on many different issues. However, in the back of my mind i know many of their proclaimed policies and changes do not matter that much. Most of their policies will never see the day of light if they are elected. If you look at history, you will see that most campaigns are based upon trying to get voters, and once the candidate is elected, the policies that are proclaimed rarely ever follow through.
This has led me to conclude that i should make my decision on one's character, experience, and overall trustworthy. I hate to be a broken record, but lets face it, Obama really does not have much experience, and he does not have the reputation as McCain does. We almost know nothing about Obama. However, McCain has a record of being a outstanding Patriot to the U.S. Now i agree that McCain might not become a great president, however, I much rather have a bad or average president, than to put the presidency in the hands of someone who does not have much of a reputation, and does not have the overall experience. It is very very dangerous what the American people are doing. People are so desperate for a different and more liberal candidate because of the reign of Bush that they will settle for anyone who is charismatic, outspoken, different, and who can sympathize with their cause. People seem to have blind faith in Obama, and that he is the last hope. When the people are in a crisis mode, and recklessly choose a candidate to "save" them, this causes a potentially dangerous president OR tyrant to come into power. All you have to is look at history, this has happen under several occasions in Latin American, the Middle East, and GERMANY. Now, I am not saying that Obama is secretly a dictator, I'm saying is people need to be more careful and they need to be more open minded about this election. They need to respect McCain and Obama voters, and support good change in America through both candidates.
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.
First off, I am at least moderately informed about this election. I have watched all 3 presidential debates in full. I have also kept informed through the newspaper and other medium.
Second, I am not a Republican, in fact I refuse to label myself to one party. I hate Bush just as much as the next guy. Hell, if i felt like it would make a difference i probably would vote Independent or Libertarian.
Third, I agree with you on some degree about Palin. She isnt the cream of the crop, and it was an unwise choice by McCain. However, I think McCain was overly influenced by his party to pick her, because they thought she would obtain the Hillary vote. And I also want to say that Palin isn't as bad as the media tries to portray. I agree she isnt the most intelligent person, but she isn't stupid. I think a lot of her problem, is that she is very hesitant of what she wants to say, partly because she is trying to appease the people and her party. Again, I am not taking up for Palin, she is a terrible choice, but she is not as bad as the media portrays.'
Fourth, where do you get this information that McCain is a corporate puppet who has been bought off. I would like to see some hard evidence. If you think McCain only helps the rich based upon his tax plan compared to Obama's, you have thought wrong. I believe McCain and Obama want to achieve the same goal but have different methods. Obama wants to impose higher tax rates to the people who make $250,000 or more. This is not so good because:
1. For a small business who earns $250,000, this tax plan is terrible. $250,000 is not much money when you think of all the yearly expenses this business has to spend in order to support itself. This could cause more small businesses to go out of business and give more power and control to major corporations, something that you obviously don't want.
2. I agree that some people abuse capitalism and make an absurd amount of money, more than they should. However, Obama's policy to tax the rich more would make the Constitution out to be a fraud. Its discriminating towards one class of people, and no matter how much we want to equalize the distribution, we should not fall to this conclusion.
3. Whether you believe me or not, It is good to have a class of insanely rich people, it is good for the economy and government. It gets people to invest money in the government and the economy. It also gets these powerful rich people to care about how the government is doing, because if the government falls they fall. This was one of Alexander Hamilton's core beliefs, and he was the founder of the 1st National Bank of the United States, and one of the major forerunners of America's economy.
And finally it is a game, if you understand the history of American culture you wouldn't disagree with me. It has been like this since Andrew Jackson, maybe even before. In the end, the policies that these two candidates convey does not matter, they will hardly live up to what they see. And in many instances, a candidate will do the complete opposite as president than what he had said in his campaign.
Also, I am not going to say Liberalism is bad, it is good in many regards. But people are very much subjected into thinking that it is greater then what it really is. Liberalism is bad in some ways because it gives many rights in the hands of the government. On paper national health insurance looks nice, but hey you sacrifice your right to have it or not. Conservatism in a way protects the rights and liberties of Americans more so than liberalism. Conservatism insures that this country is based upon everyone having a fair start, and the opportunity to rise, if one wants. Not everyone is going to be equal, but they will have a equal start. It is bad for the government to control where people stand in society and try to make them equal, it compromises liberty and freedom. I should have the freedom to be a bad person and not make it far in life, and have to be struggle to make ends meet.
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.
I thought 8 years was enough of a lesson for republicans, but it's not. So why do you think 12 years will work? Current condition is so bad that if you don't want change now - you will never want it.
1. Obama campaigns as a moderate, but has had one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.
And McCain voted against the Equal Pay Act.
What America needs now isn't a politician, but a Statesmen Not a Clinton, but a Lincoln Not a Reagan, but an FDR (brace for impact: Oh noes he prolonged the depression, because you know, there is always a plan to fix something that never happened before; obviously being voted in 4 more times means nothing)
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.
are you calling me a racist, because i do not support Obama?
AND i said this plan is terrible for small businesses who make 250,000 or MORE.
and, thank you for showing me you have an understanding of Obama's economic plan by linking me to a website that is most likely not even credible
rofl stop making Obama look like a saint, haha, he ran negative ads just as Mccain did.
conservatism isnt for peoples rights nowadays, fuck offhand i cant really think of any time it has been for peoples rights.
Conservatives were for the patriot act. Conservatives want to ban gay marriage. Conservatives want to overly regulate stem cell research Conservatives want to ban abortion. Conservatives want to..... etc
could go on for hours.
That post by culturemisfits is definitely incorrect when saying that conservatives are for increasing peoples rights.
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 05:24 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.
obviously nothing is ever 100% good.
Conservatism (nowadays at least) is anti new ideas. 60 years ago, racial equality wasnt fundamental among these people. Fundamental is what you make it, to conservatives it takes quite a while for "fundamental" to change.
Being a conservative is NOT a good thing, being a liberal person who has critical thinking and tries to see the results is because you dont have a negative stigma towards change. People are conservative because they are content, not everybody is content, things can always be better which is the liberal idea.
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 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.
this is why you need critical thinking with liberalism.
changing for changes sake isnt always a good thing. Im speaking more on social and scientific issues anyway. You wont have anarchy with things like this.
Conservatives that are knowledgeable and arent religious hicks are obviously helpful, its always good to hear differing opinions, but I dont believe they are helpful if they are the majority.
Yes so basically either side has their use, IF critical thinking is involved. This is what bothers me about the Republican party currently. They seem to flaunt this proud disdain for critical thinking (scoffing at stuff like "science" and "context") and try and paint the world in absolute Good and Evil (with them being Holy of course and everyone else totally depraved). Mccain constantly, instead of truly picking apart Obama's plans, just seems to shout some variation on "he's evil and wants to take all your money and go party with his friends the terrorists". Someone said his IQ is 133, well he sure sounds dumb in his arguments.
For the last 8 years (and periodically in the past) the Republicans have had a very simple strategy: say whatever they have to to win votes, never admit they lied and never end their bluff. So far it has worked wonderfully and they haven't stopped it yet. Some Republicans in the previous couple months took postures that indicated that they wanted to get off the train, but are clearly holding on until they see the results.
You know those commercials on TV where it seems the social situation the characters are in isn't based in an reality you would believe in? The advertisers are actually trying to have viewers relate to them, and more relate than you would think. When politicians spout pure rubbish its the same strategy, they only count on it working on those who it needs to.
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.
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.
are you calling me a racist, because i do not support Obama?
AND i said this plan is terrible for small businesses who make 250,000 or MORE.
and, thank you for showing me you have an understanding of Obama's economic plan by linking me to a website that is most likely not even credible
rofl stop making Obama look like a saint, haha, he ran negative ads just as Mccain did.
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.
And finally it is a game, if you understand the history of American culture you wouldn't disagree with me. It has been like this since Andrew Jackson, maybe even before. In the end, the policies that these two candidates convey does not matter, they will hardly live up to what they see. And in many instances, a candidate will do the complete opposite as president than what he had said in his campaign.
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?
where do i say im voting based on history and past tradition. What i said about history had nothing to do with how im voting. I was describing how political campaigns are run and that they are fundamentally the same as they were since the age of Jackson.
well i suggest you reread or i did not convey myself properly. What i meant was that the way political campaigns are run today, were run the same way beginning with the time of Jackson. Where politicians would run charismatic campaigns, negative ads, and would pander the citizens to get the vote. Prior to Jackson this was rare in a presidential election.
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.
Yes.
did you read the rest of my post that.. you know.. explains how you're wrong? allowing gays to get married does not mean they have to be allowed to raise children.
and since they dont have a whole lot of choice besides adoption, which involves a bunch of screening and stuff, im pretty sure the average gay couple would make far better parents than alot of the random heterosexual couples who are allowed to have kids. so basically either way you're wrong, and a bit of a closed minded prude.
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 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.
Do you realize how bad it would be for the world if the American economy were to be destroyed?
Wow... I could've almost have seen myself vote for McCain 2000. Jesus man, what has happened to him in the last 8 years?
McCain knows that his policies giving huge tax cuts to the rich are morally bankrupt and economically incompetent. The Republican party said to him you do what we say if you want to be our candidate, and he immediately back flipped on his heart felt commitments of old. If McCain actually supported the policies he believes in he would be a pretty decent president. The fact is that it is the people behind the Republican party who direct policy and these people are ideological zelots who have un-swerving commitment to the destruction of Government, the destruction of any remnants of a welfare state taking away all support for the lower and middle class in the process then giving that money to the super rich. The fact is that the bulk of demand in the economy comes from the lower and middle class, take money away from them and the entire system becomes unsustainable making serious recession the best case scenario.
The Bush administration gave ~$450,000,000,000 (450 billion) in tax cuts to corporations. Did it create more jobs. No, infact taking this money out of demand circulation reduced employment and contributed to the economic downturn currently in process. If McCain wins this election may god save the United States because no one else can.
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.
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?
Well, because McCain is no doubt closer to Colombia than Obama (he came here during the campaing) he supports the free trade agreement, and is more critical of Hugo Chavez (who is like our sworn enemy).
And i want Obama to win, just because he is most likely to be able to fix the world economy, end the human rights abuse by the US goverment (Guantanamo Bay) and in general have better relations with the rest of the world.
Plus, im really tired of many retarded Latin Americans who just blame George Bush for everything wrong with their lives and the world, and it would be nice that the next US president to be actually a decent and smart human being, so that all of this retards no longer have somebody to blame for everything.
1) It upsets me that there are people in this country who cannot see what a Barack Obama presidency offers us. The president is first and foremost the leader of the country. He is a beacon to the world of the character of the people who elect him. He is the position of power established by a populace pleading for something different, something new. Barack Obama has the ability to literally change the way the world sees the United States of America. Someone once told me that to be an effective leader is to know the motivations of the people who follow you, and have the fortitude to make decisions to that end. The world will take a long time overcoming the deficiency of the last president. It won't be easy for Barack to succeed.... BUT - WE MUST TRY. This country has always been about action, about rising to the occasion. At the worst times in the history of our country, leaders have risen out to lead us to a new age of prosperity and success. Does ANYONE here believe John McCain can make the same impact on the world as Barack Obama could?
2) Democrat v Republican - Take a look at what this country has become. Take a look at where we are going. Do not act as a teenager driving his brand new car on graduation night after having a few too many drinks. Do not disengage from the immediacy of the need for change. No matter what you believe, policy decisions are only a part of the story. This country is divided. We are at war with ourselves. No one here can show you a picture of the world ten years from now. It is your DUTY to act now in a way that establishes a new age of inclusiveness. We are no longer a nation of the success of white puritans who fled from European oppression. We are an amalgamation of cultures who need to work together to solve dozens of extremely important issues over the next 50 years. The fact that you might need to pay another 5% in taxes should not be your reason to vote against a candidate. You should not vote because you are against gay marriage. You should not vote because he will be the first black president. You should vote because Barack Obama is willing to fight for the future of the country. You should vote because there are dozens of crises around the corner, and every four years we should be actively working to avoid them. You should vote because you care.
Vote - The planet will not give you a second chance.
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.
Do you realize how bad it would be for the world if the American economy were to be destroyed?
This is an interesting topic to discuss. Now it will be bad absolutely, it will lead to a global recession, however in my opinion the United States kick started and fueled growth in China, India etc but this growth has now come to a point where it has such internal momentum that they will be able to grow and achieve prosperity without the United States. China for example has 2 trillion in the bank they will unleash to spur continued growth. Every non western country (with very limited exceptions like the Congo for example) has strong growth, which is primarily internally driven (for example South America is doing very well simply trading with eachother). I expect if the United States collapsed it would cause a fairly short recession (still fairly long and painful in a relative sence) then the global economy will forget about America trade amongst themselves and be better for the effort. This is something which is already happening, this will simply accelerate the process.
That said I am still hoping for an Obama victory. The best reason to vote McCain is if you are an anarchist you wants to create extensive chaos, McCain saying on numerous occasions "there will be other wars" is also quite ominous.
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.
Yes.
did you read the rest of my post that.. you know.. explains how you're wrong?
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. =]
so basically either way you're wrong, and a bit of a closed minded prude.
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 +
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 +
First off, I'm voting Yes (no gay marriage). I've had exhaustive debates (one was 2 hours long) with my liberal friends on this, who view it as a civil rights issue. They believe that, all people have an inherent right to marry whomever they want. Each and every person, I was able to whittle them down to acknowledging that marriage is inherently exclusive, rather than inclusive (eg, why not polygamy, too?) and then they admit that marriage should probably be absolved anyways. It's kind of scary seeing that conservatives are correct, in that such liberals do want to undermine marriage, a construct which I see as the most essential context of socialization of children. I see the nuclear family as ideal and meriting preservation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Yes.
did you read the rest of my post that.. you know.. explains how you're wrong?
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. =]
so basically either way you're wrong, and a bit of a closed minded prude.
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 +
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 +
First off, I'm voting Yes (no gay marriage). I've had exhaustive debates (one was 2 hours long) with my liberal friends on this, who view it as a civil rights issue. They believe that, all people have an inherent right to marry whomever they want. Each and every person, I was able to whittle them down to acknowledging that marriage is inherently exclusive, rather than inclusive (eg, why not polygamy, too?) and then they admit that marriage should probably be absolved anyways. It's kind of scary seeing that conservatives are correct, in that such liberals do want to undermine marriage, a construct which I see as the most essential context of socialization of children. I see the nuclear family as ideal and meriting preservation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!)
Headbangaa,
The "ideal" quality that you seek was the same argument people used to prevent minorities from being treated the same as white people.
It was also the same argument men used to prevent women from holding the same jobs and voting etc etc.
I imagine that you will say that the issue of gay marriage is different......but THINK about it. It is NOT different.
All MEN/WOMEN are born equal. Until we, as a society, show that we believe in this principal, we will never achieve our potential and neither will our children. Children of racists grow up to be racists. What do you think children are learning when we discriminate against gay/lesbians?
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?
They shouldn't consider it a democracy. As per its constitution, the United States of America is a republic.
Equal? In what way? Why are fatherless children more likely to take drugs and fail in school, than say, motherless children?
Until we can coerce our biology and psychology to play along with this cultural-invention of "equality", you'll have a hard time convincing people that it's actually true.
"Equal but different" is a better term. Equal in rights, I agree. Yet, this is an issue not concerned with rights. "Hey! I want to play basketball! I am created equal to you! You play basketball, I want to play basketball! On the Celtics! OK! It's my rights!" Fairness not applicable. Consequence of nature. get it?
Also, I'm getting tired of repeating myself, as it seems to fall on deaf ears.
For those who still want to cling to National Journal's rankings showing that Obama is "the most liberal senator", I think you should really take a look at how NJ calculated this. They cherry-picked votes for each year, and there's honestly almost no difference between most Democrats by their criteria (I think Clinton vs. Obama is something like 4 different votes out of 100). Also, no one ever notes that in 2007, McCain wasn't even able to be ranked in this same survey because he missed too many votes. Not exactly a resounding endorsement.
But the real purpose of this post is to link some really interesting (and much more scientifically rigorous) hard statistical work on this problem here (and at linked pages):
This stuff seems to jive more with the general impression of the voting records of certain Senators (most people knowledgeable about this subject would agree that Russ Feingold, for instance, is indeed more liberal than Obama/Clinton, as is Bernie Sanders... and this survey seems to bear out those opinions). The graphs are really cool because they show the increasing polarization over time and they show movement of various figures over time. They do show Obama as relatively liberal, something like 10th out of the 50 Senators. Fun stuff though.
Anyway, in brief, take the "most liberal" tag with a grain of salt when it's a conservative group assigning the rankings. If the Huffington Post called McCain the most right-wind Senator, I daresay there would be many who would question their methodology.
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.
Yes.
did you read the rest of my post that.. you know.. explains how you're wrong?
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 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) and since the fact(in your opinion) that a gay couple would make worse parents they should not be allowed to marry. since marriage does not necessarily entail raising children all your points are out the window and dont need to be directly responded to.
so basically either way you're wrong, and a bit of a closed minded prude.
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 +
I'm bisexual, babe.
seems rather closed minded to me to automatically assume that a gay couple would make worse parents than the average heterosexual couple, given alot of them dont really do a bang up job at it. although i have to admit i was being a bit bigoted myself in that assumption. as far as i know you're a christian conservative, which makes it a pretty safe bet that you're a closed minded prude in some way or another.
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 +
First off, I'm voting Yes (no gay marriage). I've had exhaustive debates (one was 2 hours long) with my liberal friends on this, who view it as a civil rights issue. They believe that, all people have an inherent right to marry whomever they want. Each and every person, I was able to whittle them down to acknowledging that marriage is inherently exclusive, rather than inclusive (eg, why not polygamy, too?) and then they admit that marriage should probably be absolved anyways. It's kind of scary seeing that conservatives are correct, in that such liberals do want to undermine marriage, a construct which I see as the most essential context of socialization of children. I see the nuclear family as ideal and meriting preservation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'it' is a pronoun and in the context ive used it it refers to gay parenting, not gay parents. as my post makes quite clear. i didnt say we need to watch the dangerous queers every second in case they try to molest little timmy, we need to observe the effects being raised by a gay couple has had on children and see if it has any kind of impact on them relative to being raised by a heterosexual couple.
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.
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.
i did read your post, and i responded to it. you are the one who obviously didnt read. i pointed out that a married couple does not HAVE to raise children and can, in fact, be disallowed from raising children. after pointing out that gay marriage and gay parenting are seperate entitites that do not have to go hand in hand, i then asked why gay MARRIAGE, not parenting, should be disallowed. and said that it was indeed a civil rights issue, since in your post you stated that it was not a civil or ethical issue. but it (gay MARRIAGE, not parenting) is.
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?
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.
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.
and theres a reason i dont follow their agenda, rationality works far better. if (IF) being raised by a gay couple has a negative affect on the children then it violates the rights of others (the childrens) and that forfeits the gay couples rights 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.
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!)
thats fine, i wasnt really arguing in favor of gay parenting, just that it shouldnt be ruled out outright. i dont buy your 'ideal family unit' argument, i see no reason a gay couple couldnt teach a child everything it needs to know and love it as much, if not more, as an average heterosexual couple. either way, i dont care. leave that up to sociological studies and whatnot.
the main point, that you have totally ignored, is that GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS GAY PARENTING. you might have a point about gay parenting. but that is, in no way, an argument against allowing gay couples to get married.
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)
You infer me incorrectly. Marriage's serves society in a practical way, that is, providing an ideal socialization context for children. I didn't say it grants them rights to adopt. As far as I know, gay couples are allowed to adopt. I'm talking about preserving the semantics of marriage, because marriage is intrinsically linked to the nuclear family.
The rest of your post is rather insulting. Yeah I did used to be Christian, regardless, using it to dismiss my argument is blatant ad hominem. You should be addressing my premises at face-value instead of trying to psychoanalyze me. You simply don't fucking know me, bud.
Though I won't hold my breath because you keep assuming this is a civil rights issue, and then making a fairness argument. I've already given a great explanation as to why this is not a rights/fairness issue and you should address that before making your case. Does this make sense to you?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 18:24 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
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 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.
Marriage is definitely a rights issue. Being married gives you new rights under the law. Marriage is the signing of a contract between 2 individuals, as filed to the government.
The respective ceremonies depend on your relgion or preference.
In that regard, why should a homosexual couple not be allowed the legal contract? I understand a church not wanting to performa a ceremony for them, but the government contract is about rights for people living together for life, not what any church has to say about anything. If a homosexual couple wants the legal rights for things like hospital visitation, how does it hurt anyone to give them that right? Call it Civil Union if you must, but these rights should be available to homosexual couples.
As for homosexual parenting, I have no idea how that might affect a child, but I am pretty sure that it's better than being in an orphanage with 30 other kids that feel abandonned and are going to end up in trouble.
On November 04 2008 04:53 Jumperer wrote: The rich can afford to pay more. It's like playing low eco as a zerg, 1 base Z can't afford to lose a single drone. But if you have 5 bases running, losing 7 drones isn't going to matters much overall.
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.
One problem with that index is that it gets its results by taking the "Having Rank" and subtracting the "Giving Rank" to come up with a generosity rank. For the richest state, which is Connecticut, they can give all of their money to charity and spend all their time doing community service and they would receive a rating of "0." The #1 richest state and the #1 richest giver which is 1 - 1 = 0. The 50th rank state, which is mississippi can be ranked 49th in giving, which is 2nd from the bottom, and they will be given a rank of "+1." 50 - 49 = +1. So regardless of the results, we have one state which is incapable of getting a positive generosity rating and another state that is incapable of getting a negative generosity rating.
I think politcal extremes are bad for everyone, and dangerous, because people get so militant. I'm a moderate, and I've always liked moderate politicians who do not pander to the extremes. That is why I like the old McCain, before he got in bed with the Christian Evangelical attack dogs that have basically taken over the Republican party. Evangelicals should not be running the country, and I also think big government is a bad thing. The question is, will 1 term of Obama lead to the Republicans getting a sensible moderate candidate to take back the White House, or will it just lead to even more insane and extreme candidates? That would be terrible, because then it would be about far left vs far right, instead of meeting in the middle.
I obviously voted for NonY, but the stupid machine jumped straight to "IdrA" when I pressed the button on the screen. Needless to say, I was furious... so I demanded one of the voting monitors to help me correct the issue. The machine wasn't calibrated or something, but the kind lady got it to work after a few tries. She said that the voting machines had been doing that all day, like it was some kind of conspiracy.
Wow... I could've almost have seen myself vote for McCain 2000. Jesus man, what has happened to him in the last 8 years?
that girl looked like such a bitch
What a spoiled brat :D She lives in America where doctors earn a shitload more than in most countries and shes complaining about how her father has to pay more taxes than joe the plummer ^^? Its not even her own money ! :D "It's his money not the goverments!" Yuh ._. You live in a society. The money you earn is as much a construct of that society as the taxes you pay.
Nobody likes paying taxes, but 30% of a $80,000 family income is more painful than 45% of a $350,000 family income. As McCain stated, the richer people tend to have Accountants that find loop holes and tax exemptions for them to pay less, while the more modest income family is less likely to take advantage of the same thing.
That said, I would prefer a situation where income tax is 0%, but there is a flat tax on consumption, say 25%, with no loop holes or exemptions. This would encourage people to save, and only tax people proporitionally more if they spend proportionally more. Economists generally agree a system like this is the ideal, but getting there is no easy task, since it involves significant reform, and people will have trouble adjusting to the higher prices of everything, even though they'll have more money to spend.
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
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.
what is wrong with you being a fundamentalist includes illiteracy now?
you have not responded to this:
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.
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.
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.
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.
i dont live in california, all ive been talking about is the prop 8 thing
but yes i did, for obama. or rather against palin. i dont really know enough about either candidate to make an informed decision but obama sure as hell seems better and im absolutely sure she should not be one old mans heartbeat from the oval office.
and from what ive seen its pretty obvious mccain whored himself out to the neo cons
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually I completely agree with this guy (from some blog):
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".)
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 04 2008 21:42 IdrA wrote: what is wrong with you being a fundamentalist includes illiteracy now?
you have not responded to this:
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
There have been a number of studies on this in Canada and if I remember correctly the 'nucleus' is hardly affected.
well.... i did admit she is pretty stupid, and i must admit its hard to defend her haha....
I don't see what was so bad about that. We don't know what question was asked, and she's just saying that our US based oil should be sold to US markets (it won't.)
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".)
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.
Come on dude, you're really gonna vote yes over semantics?!?! =[
THINK OF THIS MAN
I agree that a nuclear family is ideal, but we gotta deal with reality. Gay parents can make just as capable parents, and, in most situations, adoption agencies would give a kid to a good family, not some fucked up one.
I really don't understand this whole "experience" shit. Obama's campaign has been one of the better run campaigns in a loooong time. He started off as almost totally unknown and has built momentum slowly but surely, was able to win one of the toughest Democratic primaries, and is on the verge of becoming the next president.
Obama has surrounded himself with really skilled politicians and advisers on almost every issue, including his VP pick - Biden who is an expert on foreign policy (one of Obama's admitted weaknesses).
Based on his campaign alone - we can see that he has a lot of experience, if he didn't, there is no way he could have been able to run the campaign the way he did.
One reason I think Obama is MUCH better than Mccain is his ability to inspire people. Let's face is, Obama is an orator, McCain is lightyears behind Obama in his ability to give speeches. and that is a huge part of what the Presidency is about - giving speeches, convincing people that what he is doing is correct and will help the country, and making people believe enough in him and his plans to actually work towards achieving them. Obama has the skill, McCain does not. Anyone who would argue that McCain is a better speaker than Obama I would say has been living under a rock. Have you even listened to McCain recently "THE MACK IS BACK!" - seriously, he sounds amateur next to Obama.
Next, Obama is 34590834908x better received overseas. He will be a better statesman and be better able to represent the United States when it comes time to rebuild our image globally than McCain ever will be.
You can say whatever you want on each candidates policies, but the Presidency is not as much about policies (seriously, life won't be THAT much different no matter who is in office) but is about their ability to LEAD and inspire people and represent our country throughout the world. In this aspect, Obama is far more qualified than McCain ever could dream to be.
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 03:20 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.
My mom voted early on friday, and i talked to her this weekend and she told me she voted mccain (even though shes consitantly voted democrat over the last 20 years and is very pro-choice, against the war in iraq, ect). I asked her why and she said she though obama was muslim.
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
Just a note on prop. 8 in Cali. My uncle, who is a homesexual, got married today I honestly can't fathom why people would want to make their communion illegal. They've known each other for 24 years before taking this final step, and seeing the two together just makes it obvious that their made for each other.
Also I don't buy the crap about gay-marriage destroying the family. Just because there's two men married, the entire family breaks apart? Come on.. The bonds of any decent family are way stronger than that, and my family has NOT suffered from having a gay couple in the house.
it's funny hearing ppl for prop 8 say they care about gay rights but don't want them to have the right to get married?? some ppl will never agree or be persuaded on certain issues and this is one of them
I voted for Obama. I also broke the legs of 4 people who were going to go vote for McCain. So it's like I voted FIVE! times for Obama. I also live in a battleground state. GO ME!
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
On November 05 2008 03:25 Hans-Titan wrote: Just a note on prop. 8 in Cali. My uncle, who is a homesexual, got married today I honestly can't fathom why people would want to make their communion illegal. They've known each other for 24 years before taking this final step, and seeing the two together just makes it obvious that their made for each other.
Also I don't buy the crap about gay-marriage destroying the family. Just because there's two men married, the entire family breaks apart? Come on.. The bonds of any decent family are way stronger than that, and my family has NOT suffered from having a gay couple in the house.
NO on PROP 8 YES to Obama
EDIT: Found this image was fitting...
It's arguable that the abolitionist and empancipation movements are an outgrowth of Christian ethics, the notion of either being an absurdity in the Greco-Roman world in which Christian ethics first originated. Although Paul and the early Patristic Fathers did not insist on an outright abolition of slavery, they regarded the insitituion as a regrettable reality showing the fallen state of man. Paul in his epistles admonished his followers against treating slaves cruely and advised that they be treated as part of the family. This was a shift, if not outright reversal of the notion of natural slavery prevalent in the ancient world. Slavery was a universal institution in the ancient world, it was Christianity which, if it did not quite abolish it, at least provided the intellectual basis for it through its insistence on the inherent dignity of all human life.
Christian ethics contributed to the empancipation of women too, in the ancient world, by viewing marriage as a mutually binding commitment, encompassing the same obligations for man and women. It's known that women played a prominent role in the leadership of the early church, and were important patronesses of the movement in its infancy. The Pauline comments about the relationships between man and women must be contrasted with Roman Patria Potestas- the Roman patriarchal order. Most of our modern sentiments about enfranchisement of the poor and wretched would probably not exist had the Roman Empire not become aligned with the Christian religion in the 4th century. This alignment of course changed Christian doctrine in fundamental ways too, of course, which became partially romanized, but it's wrong for secularized thinkers to accuse Christianity of being the source modern moral problems, when all people, especially those on the left (with the exception of certain disciples of Nietzsche or Social Darwinists,) are indebted to its influence.
P.S. The comic above cites mosaic law, and it would be lying to say that mosaic law has not been adopted, in some historic instances by Christianity, but the prevailing view since Aquinas has been that the judiciary function of mosaic law were temporary, as opposed to its moral function, and ceased to be binding since the new covenant with Christ. That is, mosaic law was applicable only for the pre-Christian era.
I voted for Obama. I wanted to vote for Barr, but he wasn't even on the ballot in my state. I don't think they read write-in votes, so I bit the bullet and did what I had to do.
Does anyone besides me not completely trust those voting machines? You don't even have to put the paper in a certain way, I just feel like there's no accountabiity
On November 05 2008 04:46 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: I voted for Obama. I wanted to vote for Barr, but he wasn't even on the ballot in my state. I don't think they read write-in votes, so I bit the bullet and did what I had to do.
Does anyone besides me not completely trust those voting machines? You don't even have to put the paper in a certain way, I just feel like there's no accountabiity
In reality, you cant trust any of them. Whether they are lying or simply cannot implement what they wanted to do in policy (whether congress votes against it etc)
On November 05 2008 03:25 Hans-Titan wrote: Just a note on prop. 8 in Cali. My uncle, who is a homesexual, got married today I honestly can't fathom why people would want to make their communion illegal. They've known each other for 24 years before taking this final step, and seeing the two together just makes it obvious that their made for each other.
Also I don't buy the crap about gay-marriage destroying the family. Just because there's two men married, the entire family breaks apart? Come on.. The bonds of any decent family are way stronger than that, and my family has NOT suffered from having a gay couple in the house.
NO on PROP 8 YES to Obama
EDIT: Found this image was fitting...
It's arguable that the abolitionist and empancipation movements are an outgrowth of Christian ethics, the notion of either being an absurdity in the Greco-Roman world in which Christian ethics first originated. Although Paul and the early Patristic Fathers did not insist on an outright abolition of slavery, they regarded the insitituion as a regrettable reality showing the fallen state of man. Paul in his epistles admonished his followers against treating slaves cruely and advised that they be treated as part of the family. This was a shift, if not outright reversal of the notion of natural slavery prevalent in the ancient world. Slavery was a universal institution in the ancient world, it was Christianity which, if it did not quite abolish it, at least provided the intellectual basis for it through its insistence on the inherent dignity of all human life.
Christian ethics contributed to the empancipation of women too, in the ancient world, by viewing marriage as a mutually binding commitment, encompassing the same obligations for man and women. It's known that women played a prominent role in the leadership of the early church, and were important patronesses of the movement in its infancy. The Pauline comments about the relationships between man and women must be contrasted with Roman Patria Potestas- the Roman patriarchal order. Most of our modern sentiments about enfranchisement of the poor and wretched would probably not exist had the Roman Empire not become aligned with the Christian religion in the 4th century. This alignment of course changed Christian doctrine in fundamental ways too, of course, which became partially romanized, but it's wrong for secularized thinkers to accuse Christianity of being the source modern moral problems, when all people, especially those on the left (with the exception of certain disciples of Nietzsche or Social Darwinists,) are indebted to its influence.
P.S. The comic above cites mosaic law, and it would be lying to say that mosaic law has not been adopted, in some historic instances by Christianity, but the prevailing view since Aquinas has been that the judiciary function of mosaic law were temporary, as opposed to its moral function, and ceased to be binding since the new covenant with Christ. That is, mosaic law was applicable only for the pre-Christian era.
Jesus, christ. o.O I'm not even going to debate that. The comic was meant to make you laugh, not spark a huge debate :D
On November 04 2008 22:18 HeadBangaa wrote: I'm being facetious, relax.
Actually I completely agree with this guy (from some blog):
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".)
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.
Come on dude, you're really gonna vote yes over semantics?!?! =[
THINK OF THIS MAN
I agree that a nuclear family is ideal, but we gotta deal with reality. Gay parents can make just as capable parents, and, in most situations, adoption agencies would give a kid to a good family, not some fucked up one.
Do the right thing dude!!!
I WANT TO PLAY ON THE CELTICS, NOT FAIR!
Voted: Chuck Baldwin, Constitutional Party Yes on Prop 8. No on Prop 2.