U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

It is interesting that you see absolutely no contradiction in saying that the Supreme Court should act on anti-miscegenation laws, but not on the issue of gay marriage. The only message I can take away from that is that you accept that other races are entitled to equal rights under the law, but that gay people are not.

---

All races are equal under the law in the United States. Being gay is not a racial issue. So I dont see your point here at all. Are you attempting to equate racial equality with sexual orientation?

I find that a false arguement.

Quote:

---

And, drop the smug accusations of what you misperceive to be my "hidden agenda." I have stated exactly what I think, that it IS a Constitutional issue, that it IS an equal rights issue, and every bit as applicable as anti-miscegenation or any law that says "people are allowed to do x and gain access to x rights in the eyes of the government, as long as they're not x race or x religion or x sexual orientation." There is no hidden agenda there. I'm clearly not going to persuade you so drop the grandiose dramatics that I'm somehow out to brainwash people into something that is "clearly unconstitutional" in your opinion. The only basis you provided for your argument was an arbitrary line that race is a basis for discrimination when it comes to equal access to legal rights but being gay isn't, and then insisting over and over that it is so and that any alternative viewpoint recognized by the courts would be somehow "fighting a coward's fight" and overturning our democracy or somesuch. You are entitled to your opinion, but I think it is merely a matter of time before the people who spend all day on issues of Constitutionality and equality disagree with you. At which point apparently they will have to deal with "your stockpile of firearms" and whatever that comment was supposed to mean exactly.

---

Exactly what right is being denied? I hear this a lot, but have yet to figure out exactly what right are being denied by the state to anyone who is homosexual. I personally find the arguement that being gay is a racial issue and comparing it to the struggle for equal rights for blacks in the United States to be the biggest farce ever protrayed concerning that arguement.

So if the issue is homosexual marriage let it be address by the each state in its marriage laws. That is the purview of the states. Or is your arguement an attempt to further erode what limited abilities the states do have?

Quote:

---

And, I never said you were homophobic. I said that taking an angle of argument that "what we want to praise in society" should even be a CONSIDERATION, at all, when it comes to deciding issues of Constitutionality or equal rights, comes from a homophobic attitude which should never be given weight in a court of law or a Supreme Court case. Whether you personally endorse that or were merely repeating other arguments you've heard floated around I have no idea. I think it's a very uncivic attitude that laws should be used to "penalize/discourage behaviors we simply don't approve of", even if they're victimless or have absolutely no bearing on your life. If any of the major arguments supporting banning gay marriage in a Constitutional Amendment--- that it would "ruin the sanctity of marriage" or "hurt marriage in America", had any rational basis whatsoever then there might be some point here. But there isn't. As many comedians have noted, straight people seem to do a fine job of dragging the "sanctity of marriage" through the mud themselves.

---

Kind of hard to follow your arguement here, it seems more direct at the individual then the actual subject. Now here is one for you - what is the state's primary purpose in having a recoginzed marriage? Answer this question and one will see why the state's have yet to recongize gay marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Is this sarcasm or?

---

No it is not, but I don't want to take the thread totally off topic. We were talking about the gay marriage stances of all 4 candidates and why we agree or disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Now here is one for you - what is the state's primary purpose in having a recoginzed marriage? Answer this question and one will see why the state's have yet to recongize gay marriage.

---

Good question. We can't celebrate the unique and inherent male/female relationship though a special social recognition, instead we should recognize sexual love between any two people?

Next question: why two people?
After that: why just sexual love?

(Again, it's is like saying you can't have the purple heart if it is just for sacrifice through casualty - you can only have it if it is for any type of sacrifice at all. Does anyone else think that is a good analogy, because I do.)

[QUOTE=TuffStuffMcGruff;2029736]Good question. We can't celebrate the unique and inherent male/female relationship though a special social recognition, instead we should recognize sexual love between any two people? {/quote]

The purpose of state sanction marriage has nothing to do with emotion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSM

Next question: why two people?
After that: why just sexual love?

---

The state has a legal framework to deal with paternships of more then two people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Good question. We can't celebrate the unique and inherent male/female relationship though a special social recognition, instead we should recognize sexual love between any two people?

---

The purpose of state sanction marriage has nothing to do with emotion.



The state has a legal framework to deal with paternships of more then two people.

---

I agree with the first part.
I don't get the second part. What if I want the government to celebrate my more than friendly relationship with a group of people?

Very well, fellas. Two pages of the rightness, wrongness, legality, morality, or otherwise-ity of gay marriage is enough, thank you. If pursuit of the issue is desired, please invent a new thread.

For this one (thread): kindly return to topic.

Thanks :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I'm actually suprised at how many Long Islanders won't even entertain the notion of voting Obama. Out here I have been the one countering the "he's a Muslim who hates America" claim. Kind of Ironic, actually that I've been telling people that their reasons for not voting Obama are wrong and mine are right.

---

That is a very honourable thing to do, and I mean that sincerely :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

That is a very honourable thing to do, and I mean that sincerely :bow:

---

Yeah I had to tell a few people "no I don't think Trig is Bristol's kid, or at least, that's just an unproven rumor" several times. As far as I am concerned there are plenty of real reasons to have a problem with Palin without having to make stuff up or conjecture.

i had a vietnam vet ask me today if i knew that obama was a muslim for the first 10 years of his life. we previously had had a long discussion about his life and the 2 months he spent tied to a tree stump on the cambodian border, and how he has killed 3 men in hand-to-hand combat. i decided to let the obama thing slide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

i had a vietnam vet ask me today if i knew that obama was a muslim for the first 10 years of his life. we previously had had a long discussion about his life and the 2 months he spent tied to a tree stump on the cambodian border, and how he has killed 3 men in hand-to-hand combat. i decided to let the obama thing slide.

---

For the most part I don't even give the normal gasp of shock and "NO! He's not!" answer to people who say Obama is Muslim. As far as I'm concerned it shouldn't make any difference even if he was. I'm not Christian and I vote for plenty of people who get up and flap their lips about God this and God that. As long as they can do the job well it doesn't and shouldn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

For the most part I don't even give the normal gasp of shock and "NO! He's not!" answer to people who say Obama is Muslim. As far as I'm concerned it shouldn't make any difference even if he was. I'm not Christian and I vote for plenty of people who get up and flap their lips about God this and God that. As long as they can do the job well it doesn't and shouldn't matter.

---

Even if Obama was muslim he would still be getting my vote.

Now from Real Clear Politics, which may be slanted to McCains side or not, has Obama with a 6% lead in the National Polls.

Obama leads 264 to 163 in Electoral Count.

With, no toss up states Obama wins by 168 votes.

There's still a month left until the Election. A lot can happen in a month, so I think it's too early to call the election. There are still two debates, the Market could rebound, easing concerns about the Economy, and we could start having more Security Alerts from Homeland Security, switching focus to an area of McCain's strength. (It seemed we had one every couple days in Fall 2004, whatever happened to them?)

What I'm trying to say is that the situation is fluid and McCain can rebound.

I too wish the candidates were talking more about defecit reduction. Neither seems focused on it, which in some ways is understandable, financial prudence isn't very sexy when campaigning. I remember the halcyon days back before Bush when we were running a yearly surplus and paying it down. Now neither party seems inclined to adopt financial restraint.

Apparently the only politicos who are willing to talk about the national debt are Ron Paul and some dude in Nebraska.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Apparently the only politicos who are willing to talk about the national debt are Ron Paul and some dude in Nebraska.

---

Your own Republican congressman is obsessed with National debt and entitlement programs. He's leading the charge in the House.

please watch the whole thing and read the roadmap if you have a chance

You should work for him. I would if I lived out there.

Yup, never say never about thinking an election is in the bag. No matter how obvious it seems that any rational person should want a change, 2004 should have taught us that you simply can't precount your eggs. All it takes is one person opening a suitcase nuke in Chicago and I think the election would swing faster than you can say conspiracy theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Yup, never say never about thinking an election is in the bag. No matter how obvious it seems that any rational person should want a change, 2004 should have taught us that you simply can't precount your eggs. All it takes is one person opening a suitcase nuke in Chicago and I think the election would swing faster than you can say conspiracy theory.

---

It would be hilarious if McCain won the popular and Obama won the Electoral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

It would be hilarious if McCain won the popular and Obama won the Electoral.

---

I don't see why that would be funny. I already hate the electoral college system. The election is always effectively decided by what.... 3-4 states, with a backup 6 or so that are "sometimes maybe swing states."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I don't see why that would be funny. I already hate the electoral college system. The election is always effectively decided by what.... 3-4 states, with a backup 6 or so that are "sometimes maybe swing states."

---

I like the electoral system. It forces candidates to campaign all over the country targeting various issues instead. Even if McCain lost the electoral and won the pop, I'd be ok with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I like the electoral system. It forces candidates to campaign all over the country targeting various issues instead. Even if McCain lost the electoral and won the pop, I'd be ok with it.

---

In a popular vote wouldn't they have to do that anyway? At any rate, I still don't really see why it would be funny. Spending 4 or 8 years with people bitter that "the loser won the election" is not a good thing for democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

In a popular vote wouldn't they have to do that anyway? At any rate, I still don't really see why it would be funny. Spending 4 or 8 years with people bitter that "the loser won the election" is not a good thing for democracy.

---

We don't even get to vote for our President. :book:

EDIT: Which is one reason why I prefer a German monarchy. We don't get to vote for it anyways, so why not bring back some tradition and a non-partisan head of state? I think that a monarchy might also be cheaper in Germany than the President, but I'd have to wring out some numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

We don't even get to vote for our President. :book:

---

Same here (Our equivalent position at the least).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

We don't even get to vote for our President. :book:

EDIT: Which is one reason why I prefer a German monarchy. We don't get to vote for it anyways, so why not bring back some tradition and a non-partisan head of state? I think that a monarchy might also be cheaper in Germany than the President, but I'd have to wring out some numbers.

---

That sucks. But, dictatorships being out there doesn't mean it follows the electoral college is good. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

That sucks. But, dictatorships being out there doesn't mean it follows the electoral college is good. ;)

---

Well, we vote for the chancellor, just not the President. The President is pretty much ceremonial, but he can have some useful powers. Now is a good example - he won't sign the Lisbon Treaty until the Constitutional Court delivers the verdict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

In a popular vote wouldn't they have to do that anyway? At any rate, I still don't really see why it would be funny. Spending 4 or 8 years with people bitter that "the loser won the election" is not a good thing for democracy.

---

No. With that you can ignore people outside of big cities, as the democrats in washington state do.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

No. With that you can ignore people outside of big cities, as the democrats in washington state do.

CR

---

I promise you that Fairfield, California sees way less Presidential candidate visits than Los Angeles does anyway. Even with the electoral system in place.

Mindless black youth pledge their allegiance to The One. Demagogues always get the young one's first...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Mindless black youth pledge their allegiance to The One. Demagogues always get the young one's first...

---

Yup, just like all those churches telling people not voting for Bush meant going to hell. :)

I think the IRS should take a more aggressive stance in yanking tax exempt status for any church that sways the congregation politically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Yup, just like all those churches telling people not voting for Bush meant going to hell. :)

---

Didn't hear about anyone being condemned to hell for not voting for Bush. :inquisitive:

Still, this doesn't strike you as slightly unnerving? I don't want to draw any "inappropriate comparisons", but I'm sure they aren't hard to come up with.

PS. Just to clarify, my demagogue comment was hyperbole. I don't think Obama has anything to do with these spontaneous demonstrations of devotion. It only serves to illustrate the mindset of his supporters.

PPS. Have posts been deleted from this thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Didn't hear about anyone being condemned to hell for not voting for Bush. :inquisitive:

Still, this doesn't strike you as slightly unnerving? I don't want to draw any "inappropriate comparisons", but I'm sure they aren't hard to come up with.

PS. Just to clarify, my demagogue comment was hyperbole. I don't think Obama has anything to do with these spontaneous demonstrations of devotion. It only serves to illustrate the mindset of his supporters.

PPS. Have posts been deleted from this thread?

---

I remember reading something about this back in the day.....let´s see if my Google Kung Foo is up to par...

ohhh here go....

not condemned to hell...but close enough??

You voted for Kerry? then get the hell out

Certain Catholic authorities seem to be taking an inappropriate interest in U.S. politics as well. Law Professor denied communion for openly supporting Obama.

Word spread like wildfire in Catholic circles: Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied Communion.

His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president. For at least one priest, Kmiec's support for a pro-choice politician made him a willing participant in a grave moral evil.

-edit-

Appears that another prominent pro-life Catholic has come out for Obama. I wonder if he'll be denied confession or the last rites?

I believe that abortion is an unspeakable evil, yet I support Sen. Barack Obama, who is pro-choice. I do not support him because he is pro-choice, but in spite of it. Is that a proper moral choice for a committed Catholic?

As one of the inaugural members of the U.S. bishops' National Review Board on clergy sexual abuse, and as a canon lawyer, I answer with a resounding yes. [...]

Obama's support for abortion rights has led some to the conclusion that no Catholic can vote for him. That's a mistake. While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle -- permanently. A vote for Sen. John McCain does not guarantee the end of abortion in America. Not even close. [...]

But what about an unjust war? In 2003, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said flatly that "reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist." McCain voted for it; Obama opposed it.

What about torture? "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," according to Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated abuses in Iraq. Obama opposes the use of torture in all cases; McCain, himself a victim of torture, voted to allow the CIA to use so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- a euphemism for torture.