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

[ICantSpellDawg]

Your first reaction on seeing this clip will be, "Oh, look, a new Onion video." But it ain't so, sorry to say. Behold the level of our national discourse.

I couldn't make this Gah! up if I tried. BY all means, let us elect our leaders by the size of their flag pins.

God forbid they joke about flagpins. She wins the flagpin part of the debate because hers is huge and jewel encrusted.

"what has america become when a morningshow trivializes flagpins?". Thanks for pointing this out. They should be taken off air. When will their mockery of everything we stand for end?

[ICantSpellDawg]

From a legal perspective, Tuff, and it doesn't sound like you disagree from what I can tell--- marriage in the legal sense is nothing but a contract. That's all it is. The fact that marraige has a cultural and religious connotation subjective to people's unique backgrounds and upbringings is pretty much beside the point that in the eyes of the law, what marriage does is bestow certain tax implications, civil/domestic rights, medical rights and inheritance/property rights on a couple who are living together as a couple.

On a state-by-state level, the reason I think something like "state level civil contracts" are bad is because it's just begging to go to the Supreme Court anyway, when a backwards state that doesn't recognize civil unions or whatever chooses to deny one partner (recognized in a civil union in another state) hospital vistation, or goes against thier medical directives, or seizes their property and gives it to blood family instead of the civil union partner. But it doesn't sound like you disagreed much there either that it must be a state-by-state issue. I mention it because a state-based civil unions thing is a "Safe" political path that most people who I suspect really support gay marriage adopt to stay middle of the road and not alienate prejudiced voters. But it will never work if it's not Federal over all states, and if it is, then we are back to square one. Why have a separate contract that bestows exactly the same legal rights as marriage but just insist on calling it something different and giving it a totally different legal classification and title when it is presumably exactly the same thing, legally.

I don't think this is a legal problem in fact. I consider the legal aspect of gay marriage a slam dunk. No government state or Federal has the right to withhold legal benefits to life partners/couples on the basis that some religions and some moral value systems don't "like" the kind of couple in question. The problem is I believe social, the fact that people consider marriage irrevocably religious even though it ISN'T, and anyone can go get married by a Justice of the Peace. Some people view it as forcing "leftist values" into religion, which again is just ridiculous. Any church which does not wish to perform a certain kind of ceremony would never have to. But I agree with this one editorial I read a long time ago, that really, when it's all said and done, few people oppose it out of true religious fervor. It's the "ick factor." And it's zero-sum thinking. I'm not gay, I don't need it, I don't want to ever use it, it won't help me on a personal, direct level, so I'm against it, plus I think gay is gross. I think that's the strongest underlined explanation as to why we're still snagged on this issue, IMHO.

Wow off topic. Sorry. ;)

Marriage is a social acceptance that the relationship between 1 man and 1 woman is a special kind of rudimentary relationship. It is a traditional creation/support relationship that has been viewed by society as worthy of note. Society has not chosen to recognize my relationship with one or more friends that way, irrespective of my emotional connections to them.

Think of it as a purple heart. Why does the government give medals only to people who have been shot, killed or wounded when others have sacrificed parts of their lives as well? The medal only really represents sacrifice, so why shouldn't all soldiers who have made a sacrifice get it? Because that is not the purpose of the medal. If you want the medal, you are within your rights to push for the qualifications to be re-defined just as I am within my rights to oppose you because I believe the medal currently represents what it should represent - physical injury or death.

Marriage isn't guaranteed by the constitution but it is open to all. You may say that it isn't fair because it isn't personally your ideal type of relationship (as i'm sure it isn't for many polyamorists, homosexuals, etc), but it serves as a traditional medium for an inherent relationship between the sexes. Again, you can try to change it by convincing people that love should be the new qualifier for the title, but I believe that love is only a small part of the unique nature of the male-female union.

If you can ask "why does it have to be male/female relationship", why can't you ask "why does it have to be 2 people?".

My basic point is that people shouldn't just eliminate the judicial system when it inconveniences your ideology.

[Big_John]

Your first reaction on seeing this clip will be, "Oh, look, a new Onion video." But it ain't so, sorry to say. Behold the level of our national discourse.

I couldn't make this Gah! up if I tried. BY all means, let us elect our leaders by the size of their flag pins.

dude.. it's a joke..


edit: beaten to it.

[Gregoshi]

dude.. it's a joke..

But Fox News didn't use smilies...

unless it was cut out of the edited video

[Lemur]

God forbid they joke about flagpins.

Well, considering it was Fox News Channel that largely invented the flagpin as issue, I guess they've moved into some fourth-dimensional n-space of total irony. Gotta say that sounds kinda ... elite ...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We Report with a smug little pro-GOP attitude; You decide we're your network of choice because we echo the attitude you had even before clicking over to Fox News.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This will probably be dismissed out of hand because it is from Newsmax, but does anyone know how Obama got into Harvard or who paid for his expensive preperatory and college education?
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/oba...23/133199.html

I'm just wondering if he got into Harvard Law because of his grades or because of connections. I couldn't find any grades for him from Columbia (IL). I would also like to know whose money financed his time at the prep school.

[Koga No Goshi]

This will probably be dismissed out of hand because it is from Newsmax, but does anyone know how Obama got into Harvard or who paid for his expensive preperatory and college education?
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/oba...23/133199.html

I'm just wondering if he got into Harvard Law because of his grades or because of connections. I couldn't find any grades for him from Columbia (IL). I would also like to know whose money financed his time at the prep school.

This argument is insincere. The GOP and Republican voters were completely uninterested in details of how people got into prestigious universities when Bush was the candidate. I don't think anyone who voted Dem in '00 and '04 will feel particularly obligated to go out on a limb and defend details of Obama's academic record when the best opposition/comparison is George Bush, Sarah Palin and John McCain, none of whom were exactly academic superstars. Given that it's not even in QUESTION for Bush and McCain that they are where they are because of wealth and family connections in their past or to kick off their careers, let's not pretend it's suddenly a legitimate concern for Obama from Republicans, when he earned his way up from obscurity more than Bush and McCain combined ever did.

[Tribesman]

This will probably be dismissed out of hand because it is from Newsmax

No it will probably be dismissed because it has been doing the rounds for over a month already and is getting nowhere

[Koga No Goshi]

Marriage is a social acceptance that the relationship between 1 man and 1 woman is a special kind of rudimentary relationship. It is a traditional creation/support relationship that has been viewed by society as worthy of note. Society has not chosen to recognize my relationship with one or more friends that way, irrespective of my emotional connections to them.

Think of it as a purple heart. Why does the government give medals only to people who have been shot, killed or wounded when others have sacrificed parts of their lives as well? The medal only really represents sacrifice, so why shouldn't all soldiers who have made a sacrifice get it? Because that is not the purpose of the medal. If you want the medal, you are within your rights to push for the qualifications to be re-defined just as I am within my rights to oppose you because I believe the medal currently represents what it should represent - physical injury or death.

Marriage isn't guaranteed by the constitution but it is open to all. You may say that it isn't fair because it isn't personally your ideal type of relationship (as i'm sure it isn't for many polyamorists, homosexuals, etc), but it serves as a traditional medium for an inherent relationship between the sexes. Again, you can try to change it by convincing people that love should be the new qualifier for the title, but I believe that love is only a small part of the unique nature of the male-female union.

If you can ask "why does it have to be male/female relationship", why can't you ask "why does it have to be 2 people?".

My basic point is that people shouldn't just eliminate the judicial system when it inconveniences your ideology.

Well here I thought we were having a nice discussion and you went right back into ideology land. ;) I don't know how "gay marriage" can be an "ideology", nor do I see why you think it's my ideology. I simply feel that denying couples who are indistinguishable in their family life or living situation from a heterosexual married couple completely equal legal rights to marriage is unsupportable under the Constitution, since you were making that argument about not wanting courts to deal with the topic. If you think that I earned a pip on my liberal collar or got my eagle scout for supporting gay marriage and being a good little ideologue, I don't know where you get these ideas. :) It is my opinion, simple as that. You can check preconceptions about ideology at the door.

I don't see how any of the arguments floating around out there deny or try to redefine that a rudimentary human relationship is man + woman. And I don't know why anyone in thier right mind would be afraid that that is going to change or somehow be rewritten, ever, until we're breeding our babies in test tubes and we're all asexual or something. As for your Purple Heart analogy, let me give you one. Suppose they invent another medal for people who served under extraordinary circumstances, but were not injured. And all the Purple Heart people said no, no, no, wartime awards should only be for combat injuries, stop trying to redefine good combat service. Well, a lot of people do a lot of good service besides getting injured, right? The analogy is getting weak, I know. But the point is that I do not see what you think the legal or Constitutional or benefit motive is for making an exclusive definition that doesn't include an increasing amount of unrecognized marriages (and that is what they are) formed by gay people across the country.

And, I think the argument that "gay people can get married. But they have to be married to someone of the opposite gender" is really ridiculous, Tuff. You can do better than that. I'd just offer a friendly suggestion that you not use it, it's almost comical. How does marrying someone of the opposite gender help a gay American with a lifelong same-sex partner not have their property taken away if the partner dies and his family makes a claim on the house, or stop a doctor from not letting a samesex partner be part of medical decisions or even visit in the hospital because they aren't family? It doesn't.

And, the "if gay marriage, why not polygamy" argument is just one step away from "if gay marriage, why not humans and dogs?" It's being intentionally obtuse and taking an ideological hardline on simply not wanting to recognize any legitimacy at all of gay couples. I think it's fairly common sense that gay people aren't part of some cult raising kids on compounds and marrying them off to old men at 13 when old man already has 8 wives. And if any small fringe groups are out there doing that, that has no bearing on the argument for gay marriage as between two people of the same gender. It's irrelevant.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well here I thought we were having a nice discussion and you went right back into ideology land. ;) I don't know how "gay marriage" can be an "ideology", nor do I see why you think it's my ideology. I simply feel that denying couples who are indistinguishable in their family life or living situation from a heterosexual married couple completely equal legal rights to marriage is unsupportable under the Constitution, since you were making that argument about not wanting courts to deal with the topic. If you think that I earned a pip on my liberal collar or got my eagle scout for supporting gay marriage and being a good little ideologue, I don't know where you get these ideas. :) It is my opinion, simple as that. You can check preconceptions about ideology at the door.

I don't see how any of the arguments floating around out there deny or try to redefine that a rudimentary human relationship is man + woman. And I don't know why anyone in thier right mind would be afraid that that is going to change or somehow be rewritten, ever, until we're breeding our babies in test tubes and we're all asexual or something. As for your Purple Heart analogy, let me give you one. Suppose they invent another medal for people who served under extraordinary circumstances, but were not injured. And all the Purple Heart people said no, no, no, wartime awards should only be for combat injuries, stop trying to redefine good combat service. Well, a lot of people do a lot of good service besides getting injured, right? The analogy is getting weak, I know. But the point is that I do not see what you think the legal or Constitutional or benefit motive is for making an exclusive definition that doesn't include an increasing amount of unrecognized marriages (and that is what they are) formed by gay people across the country.

And, I think the argument that "gay people can get married. But they have to be married to someone of the opposite gender" is really ridiculous, Tuff. You can do better than that. I'd just offer a friendly suggestion that you not use it, it's almost comical. How does marrying someone of the opposite gender help a gay American with a lifelong same-sex partner not have their property taken away if the partner dies and his family makes a claim on the house, or stop a doctor from not letting a samesex partner be part of medical decisions or even visit in the hospital because they aren't family? It doesn't.

And, the "if gay marriage, why not polygamy" argument is just one step away from "if gay marriage, why not humans and dogs?" It's being intentionally obtuse and taking an ideological hardline on simply not wanting to recognize any legitimacy at all of gay couples. I think it's fairly common sense that gay people aren't part of some cult raising kids on compounds and marrying them off to old men at 13 when old man already has 8 wives. And if any small fringe groups are out there doing that, that has no bearing on the argument for gay marriage as between two people of the same gender. It's irrelevant.

The "alternative medal for everybody" is a good hypothetical regarding people who reject civil unions, but not people who reject gay marriage.

Also, I fail to see why marrying more than one person is so far beyond the pale. Why can't we marry more than one person again? Why is is so crazy that we bring the two topics up in connection with one another? The reality is that only tradition and consensus is behind the exclusion of more than one spouse. In fact, I'd sooner see polygamous marriage be legallized than gay marriage personally.

Push for legislation and convince people why they should support it is all i'm saying. Do it in your state, do it on a federal level, but don't cheat and please don't support others who cheat just because they share the same ideological bend on the issue.

Also - read the definition of ideology before you get insulted. Unless you are defending your thought process as asystemic while I try to give it the benefit of the doubt that it is has a system of standards...

[ICantSpellDawg]

This argument is insincere. The GOP and Republican voters were completely uninterested in details of how people got into prestigious universities when Bush was the candidate. I don't think anyone who voted Dem in '00 and '04 will feel particularly obligated to go out on a limb and defend details of Obama's academic record when the best opposition/comparison is George Bush, Sarah Palin and John McCain, none of whom were exactly academic superstars. Given that it's not even in QUESTION for Bush and McCain that they are where they are because of wealth and family connections in their past or to kick off their careers, let's not pretend it's suddenly a legitimate concern for Obama from Republicans, when he earned his way up from obscurity more than Bush and McCain combined ever did.

I was under the impression that he came from modest means and attained any fancy things because of merit or hard work. I was just wondering who bankrolled him and wanted some background. I posted the article, but wanted to better understand the reality.

Or you could get defensive, blame everybody else and not answer the question. That was always an option.

No it will probably be dismissed because it has been doing the rounds for over a month already and is getting nowhere

We are getting close to the end of the election ands this is something I hadn't thought about for one reason or another. Do you have an answer for the question I've posited? I've left it pretty open and not come to a conclusion about it just yet.

[Koga No Goshi]

The "alternative medal for everybody" is a good hypothetical regarding people who reject civil unions, but not people who reject gay marriage.

Also, I fail to see why marrying more than one person is so far beyond the pale. Why can't we marry more than one person again? Why is is so crazy that we bring the two topics up in connection with one another? The reality is that only tradition and consensus is behind the exclusion of more than one spouse. In fact, I'd sooner see polygamous marriage be legallized than gay marriage personally.

Well if you want to get into the history of it, it has to do with basically the same reason gay marriage is so contentious; religious intolerance. It was aimed at breaking up the strength of Mormonism in the west and uphold Christianity and all that good stuff during Manifest Destiny. Today, it has a lot to do with the fact that there is a lot of abuse surrounding underground polygamy. But if three people want to have a social contract recognized by the government that all property is equally shared, they share equal custodial rights of children, and all have a say in medical decisions, personally I would not go out with a sign and protest it. But I still think it's beside the point in the case of gay marriage, because gay people are not choosing to engage in a union outside of the rubric of two people committing their lives together in finances, life decisions and such. They simply don't want to have that with someone of the opposite gender and would be faking a marriage if they entered such a relationship. So we're not talking about redefining marriage as recognizing polygamy or sex with animals or sex with children. We're talking about marriage, being a legal contract in the eyes of the law and completely irrespective of religion, not being extended to couples who don't fit a religious view of what marriage must always be. That's the bottom line and it's Constitutionally unsupportable.

Push for legislation and convince people why they should support it is all i'm saying. Do it in your state, do it on a federal level, but don't cheat and please don't support others who cheat just because they share the same ideological bend on the issue.

Also - read the definition of ideology before you get insulted. Unless you are defending your thought process as asystemic while I try to give it the benefit of the doubt that it is has a system of standards...

My state already recognizes it, but those people better all be careful when they leave the state. If they wind up in a hospital or one of them dies, there could be a lot of legal problems. And something like that will almost undoubtedly wind up before the Supreme Court sooner or later.

[Koga No Goshi]

No one else noticed the same thing as me about Palin's little disconnect about global warming during the VP debate? I'm surprised no one is talking about it, I haven't seen any bloggers mentioning it either.

[ICantSpellDawg]

We're talking about marriage, being a legal contract in the eyes of the law and completely irrespective of religion, not being extended to couples who don't fit a religious view of what marriage must always be. That's the bottom line and it's Constitutionally unsupportable.

The state's view of marriage is not dependent on religion. It is dependent on the constituency. You are saying that it shouldn't be, but rather because it is somehow unconstitutional (even though it isn't mentioned and they arn't barred from the institution) that it should be mandated as an option for all states. I disagree, but according to you my opinion does not and should not matter in the law on this issue.

It comes down on this issue and so many others that certain types of "perpetual expansion of natural rights" activists seek to eliminate debate and avoid dialogue in order to get their opinions encoded in law. It sounds as though you are the larval stage of becoming one of these activists.

BTW - Your state recognizes gay marriage because your Supreme court strongarmed the legislature into adopting it despite existing laws rejecting it. The exceptionally few overturning the decision of the many. What happened in your state is exactly what I hope does not happen here.

Massachussets did it the right way and, while I disagree - that is what the defense of marriage act is for.

[Koga No Goshi]

The state's view of marriage is not dependent on religion. It is dependent on the constituency. You are saying that it shouldn't be, but rather because it is somehow unconstitutional (even though it isn't mentioned and they arn't barred from the institution) that it should be mandated as an option for all states. I disagree, but according to you my opinion does not and should not matter in the law on this issue.

It comes down on this issue and so many others that certain types of "perpetual expansion of natural rights" activists seek to eliminate debate and avoid dialogue in order to get their opinions encoded in law. It sounds as though you are the larval stage of becoming one of these activists.

At one time the constituency believed the mass incarceration of all civilians of Japanese ancestry was acceptable and wise. The courts thought otherwise.

I do not share your apparently optimistic view that if we just leave most everything regarding civil rights and equality up to majority opinion of the constituency that everything will be great. And if we should keep everything at the legislative branch even when it comes to Constitutional questions of equality, then you're talking about redefining the branches of government. Why have a judiciary at all?

[ICantSpellDawg]

At one time the constituency believed the mass incarceration of all civilians of Japanese ancestry was acceptable and wise. The courts thought otherwise.

I do not share your apparently optimistic view that if we just leave most everything regarding civil rights and equality up to majority opinion of the constituency that everything will be great. And if we should keep everything at the legislative branch even when it comes to Constitutional questions of equality, then you're talking about redefining the branches of government. Why have a judiciary at all?

The internment of Japanese citizens was unconstitutional. Slavery was not unconstitutional until it was made unconstitutional. Now it is unconstitutional.

The supreme court should interpret constitutional law. They should strike down previous ruling that don't make sense according to the hard copy. Their job is to protect the text and ammendments. This is their job.

Their job is not to decide what is right or wrong from any another standard. We should all fear a tyranny from the arbitrary and uncodified morality of 5 people. The constitution is the best safeguard that we have from any tyrany of the majority - I wouldn't replace it with the whimsical minds of 5 rotting codgers.

People should appeal to the legislature for any changes to bad laws that are not unconstituional.

[Koga No Goshi]

The internment of Japanese citizens was unconstitutional. Slavery was not unconstitutional until it was made unconstitutional. Now it is unconstitutional.

The supreme court should interpret constitutional law. They should strike down previous ruling that don't make sense according to the hard copy. Their job is to protect the text and ammendments. This is their job.

Their job is not to decide what is right or wrong from any another standard. We should all fear a tyranny from the arbitrary and uncodified morality of 5 people.

People should appeal to the legislature for any changes to bad laws that are not unconstituional.

I have already stated that the Constitutional case can be made that upholding restrictions on a government recognized contract of marriage based on popular opinion, religion or certain strata of personal morality is unsupportable. So, again, you are stubbornly trying to say I think that the Supreme Court should make laws up on the spot. I'm not. I'm saying that you can't make a law saying people who are straight can have a driver's license (a government issued and recognized qualification of rights) and no one else can. And it would be perfectly within the Supreme Court's appropriate use of power to strike down such a law.

Also, let's keep a little perspective Tuff. It is not Amendments to the Constitution being proposed to add gay marriage. It's Amendments to ban it. And if any such law passes even if it has 80% support from Congress and the constituents, it SHOULD be overturned by the Supreme Court. Writing bans on rights for specific groups is about as unconstitutional as you get.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I have already stated that the Constitutional case can be made that upholding restrictions on a government recognized contract of marriage based on popular opinion, religion or certain strata of personal morality is unsupportable. So, again, you are stubbornly trying to say I think that the Supreme Court should make laws up on the spot. I'm not. I'm saying that you can't make a law saying people who are straight can have a driver's license (a government issued and recognized qualification of rights) and no one else can. And it would be perfectly within the Supreme Court's appropriate use of power to strike down such a law.

But no-one has made that case. Nowhere is it written that homosexuals can't marry and reproduce except in their own minds - even their junks say that they can. We have an institution celebrating and re-inforcing natural reproduction. All males and females are invited to participate in it, all they have to do is find a the opposite partner. Some people love their partner, some people are attracted to their partner, others are neither and do it for convenience or money. The reason that they are together from the governments perspective is irrelevant, the symbolism is what is important. What I am saying is that if you do not beleive that male-female relationships should be celebrated in particular because they are special - you are a citizen, make your voice heard but don't use weak technicalities to crap on everyones parade.

[Koga No Goshi]

But no-one has made that case. Nowhere is it written that homosexuals can't marry and reproduce except in their own minds - even their junks say that they can. We have an institution celebrating and re-inforcing natural reproduction. All males and females are invited to participate in it, all they have to do is find a the opposite partner. Some people love their partner, some people are attracted to their partner, others are neither and do it for convenience or money. The reason that they are together from the governments perspective is irrelevant, the symbolism is what is important. What I am saying is that if you do not beleive that male-female relationships should be celebrated in particular because they are special - you are a citizen, make your voice heard but don't use weak technicalities to crap on everyones parade.

They can only marry opposite gender! How would you feel if you could get "married", but it had to be to a man? Would you call that a fair law? I mean, you can get all those tax benefits and rights too. Just marry your best friend and pretend he's your husband. That's a ridiculous defense of exclusive government-recognized union rights, Tuff.

It is your side of this argument, not mine, saying that a specific type of relationship should be held up and celebrated, and given exclusive rights. I don't care who celebrates what. Go celebrate adopting a siamese twin. That's not what this is about, I think that is coming from a homophobic mindset that we can't be "approving" these sorts of relationships. That is not an acceptable exercise of law and Constitutionality. And it's not an argument in court.

[Koga No Goshi]

http://news.aol.com/article/politici...-attire/200356

Can anyone make a wild guess which party wants a dress code for voting booths?

[ICantSpellDawg]

They can only marry opposite gender! How would you feel if you could get "married", but it had to be to a man? Would you call that a fair law? I mean, you can get all those tax benefits and rights too. Just marry your best friend and pretend he's your husband. That's a ridiculous defense of exclusive government-recognized union rights, Tuff.

It is your side of this argument, not mine, saying that a specific type of relationship should be held up and celebrated, and given exclusive rights. I don't care who celebrates what. Go celebrate adopting a siamese twin. That's not what this is about, I think that is coming from a homophobic mindset that we can't be "approving" these sorts of relationships. That is not an acceptable exercise of law and Constitutionality. And it's not an argument in court.

It isn't just my opinion. It tends to be the law of the land and I agree with it. You can argue the homophobic angle and I'll oppose it, but I'm not afraid of that. I'm afraid of the fact that people with your mindset get tired of debating and just go to daddy and have them overturn laws with a few people's verdict.

If any of the laws have some religious exlusions in them they should be overturned as unconstitutional. If they suggest that blacks can't marry whites they should be overturned as unconstitutional. Do you see the pattern? If they are unconstitutional they should be overturned, but if they are not, you shouldn't just brandish the word around hoping it will stick.

Fight the tough and noble fight, not the fight of cheating cowards. Call a marriage law unaceptable or out of tune with your personal beliefs, but that doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Fortunately we have a codified standard for what is an what is not.

As an aside - we have existing law, tradition, most state constitutions, public opinion, most religious moral codes, and firearm stockpiles on our side - and still it isn't enough to counter the influence that a small number of lobbyists have over self-aggrandizing pockets of Federal power. Something is totally insane. Where does the opposing legitimacy come from? scientific facts... no... ethical superlatives agreed to by most... no. It is a mystery.

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://news.aol.com/article/politici...-attire/200356

Can anyone make a wild guess which party wants a dress code for voting booths?

Your discription of the article is disingenuous. It isn't a dress code, you just can't come into the voting area with political signs all over your body. There are laws about that.

If you could wear a giant picture of Obama with the words "vote Obama", why couldn't you come in holding a political sign? You could just say that it is the new fashion to brandish 40 by 40 signs.

a better question would be:

"Can anyone guess which party wants their cult of personality to ignore election day laws and bring youthful propaganda into the voting area?"

[Koga No Goshi]

Your discription of the article is disingenuous. It isn't a dress code, you just can't come into the voting area with political signs all over your body. There are laws about that.

If you could wear a giant picture of Obama with the words "vote Obama", why couldn't you come in holding a political sign? You could just say that it is the new fashion to brandish 40 by 40 signs.

a better question would be:

"Can anyone guess which party wants their cult of personality to ignore election day laws and bring youthful propaganda into the voting area?"

Sheesh, we just looking for things to get panty-twisted about? I used the exact phrasing used in the headline of the article. And it's from AOL News so I don't want to hear any junk about how this came from some left-wing Obama conspiracy site.

It isn't just my opinion. It tends to be the law of the land and I agree with it. You can argue the homophobic angle and I'll oppose it, but I'm not afraid of that. I'm afraid of the fact that people with your mindset get tired of debating and just go to daddy and have them overturn laws with a few people's verdict.

If any of the laws have some religious exlusions in them they should be overturned as unconstitutional. If they suggest that blacks can't marry whites they should be overturned as unconstitutional. Do you see the pattern? If they are unconstitutional they should be overturned, but if they are not, you shouldn't just brandish the word around hoping it will stick.

Fight the tough and noble fight, not the fight of cheating cowards. Call a marriage law unaceptable or out of tune with your personal beliefs, but that doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Fortunately we have a codified standard for what is an what is not.

As an aside - we have existing law, tradition, most state constitutions, public opinion, most religious moral codes, and firearm stockpiles on our side - and still it isn't enough to counter the influence that a small number of lobbyists have over self-aggrandizing pockets of Federal power. Something is totally insane. Where does the opposing legitimacy come from? scientific facts... no... ethical superlatives agreed to by most... no. It is a mystery.

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.

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.

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.

[Don Corleone]

Didn't you say you were undecided? :) It's hard to operate from a position of neutrality or centrality with credibility when all you ever defend is McCain/GOP/Fox, Don. I mean that constructively.

I wasn't defending McCain. I was taking Lemur to task for kicking a down man, in this case NRO editor Rich Lowry who had the audacity to look for some small silver lining.

My point was that by pretty much all accounts, the election is in the bag. Getting on people that are still holding onto hope for McCain is counter-productive for Obama supporters. In truth, the appropriate and most effective responses would be magnamity, pity or lack of acknowledgement, in that order.

I never said I was neutral. I said I'd lost what little faith I had in McCain and was planning on submitting a ballot with every box but president checked. If Obama said tomorrow he'd work to pay down the debt, he'd have my vote. If you're aware of where he has, show me the links and call your local party boss. But that's the price of my vote.... a public pledge to pay down the debt.

[Hooahguy]

to tell you the truth, im sick of this election. obama is going to win. the reaserchers say that even with all the swing states, obama wins with 330 or so votes.
i personally refuse to talk about politics anymore. its so dull, all the same thing.....

[Koga No Goshi]

I wasn't defending McCain. I was taking Lemur to task for kicking a down man, in this case NRO editor Rich Lowry who had the audacity to look for some small silver lining.

My point was that by pretty much all accounts, the election is in the bag. Getting on people that are still holding onto hope for McCain is counter-productive for Obama supporters. In truth, the appropriate and most effective responses would be magnamity, pity or lack of acknowledgement, in that order.

I never said I was neutral. I said I'd lost what little faith I had in McCain and was planning on submitting a ballot with every box but president checked. If Obama said tomorrow he'd work to pay down the debt, he'd have my vote. If you're aware of where he has, show me the links and call your local party boss. But that's the price of my vote.... a public pledge to pay down the debt.

I'm hopeful, but I'd step VERY shy of saying it was in the bag. You might be right, but a lot of us thought that about 2004 as well. I know none of you "believe" in the electoral problems previously discussed but it doesn't take massive widespread cheating. It takes surgical cheating in 1-2 important swing states to swing this election, and that's all. (And since there's no paper trial with electronic voting, there is never any possible way to go back and prove or disprove an accurate vote, which is another problem when questions arise.)

Even if the Dems lose Ohio they can still win if Obama takes any of the medium sized states that Clinton took twice but then went for Bush twice, such as Virginia, Missouri and Kentucky. But, I don't exactly feel super-confident when the election is going to come down to a swing state that had funny business in 2004, and hoping for one of 3 states that haven't voted blue since Clinton. Anything can happen.

And, I think that the other side is giving as good as it gets. If you would like to see the bitterness of tone calm down then maybe you should issue a similar appeal to the people who preface almost every political post with references to God-complex Obama, or Obama worshipping, or left-wing conspiracy theorists, or how mean and unfair and slanted MSNBC makes the previously unchallenged Fox news bias status quo in journalism and coverage.

[Lemur]

I was taking Lemur to task for kicking a down man, in this case NRO editor Rich Lowry who had the audacity to look for some small silver lining.

My point was that by pretty much all accounts, the election is in the bag.

ORLY? Early voting has started, it's true, but I think it's more than a little premature to decide that the election is over and decided for B.H.O., so I'm not going to base my rhetoric, posts or style on that premise.

Sorry, friend.

-edit-

Oh, and it sounds as though nobody told the Michigan Republican Party that McCain was pulling out. Man, Johnny Mac really does just lurch from crisis to crisis, doesn't he? How many crazy hail-mary plays does he get to make in a single election?

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

You hit the nail right on the head.

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.

[Koga No Goshi]

You hit the nail right on the head.

Is this sarcasm or?